Sitting of 10 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

      UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drug-related Crime
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to reduce drug-related crime.
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce drug-related crime.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government are committed to tackling every aspect of the problem of drug misuse, including that of drug-related crime. Key elements in the overall strategy include increasing the effectiveness of enforcement, developing prevention publicity and education, and improving the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister concerned about the easy availability of drugs in prison, as evidenced by Judge Stephen Tummy's report on the privatised Wolds prison? Has the Minister seen the extraordinary report in The Times today which shows that prisoners are receiving dole payments and other benefits in prison which could conceivably be used to finance their drug habits? Is not it a national scandal that Ministers have known about it for six years but have done precisely nothing? Is it not another example of the Minister being all mouth and no action?
    Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman paid attention to what was happening in the House, he would know that we have tabled a amendment, dealing with drug testing of prisoners, to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is currently in Committee. It is the Government's policy that prisoners shall not have access to drugs. I hope that the Opposition will support the measure as fully as the hon. Gentleman says that he will.
    Mr. Byers: Following the drug-related shooting of two police officers in Brixton last night and the murder in Gates head of North Umbria police officer Bill Forth, does the Minister agree that the greatest social menace facing our country is the expanding drug misuse among young people? Will the Government now adopt a comprehensive strategy to tackle the escalating problem and, in particular, stop the reduction in the number of drug education officers, and employ more customs officers?
    Mr. Maclean: Of course we agree that it is one of the greatest social evils facing us. That is why we have such a comprehensive strategy; that is why we have the Home Office drugs prevention initiative; that is why we have the safer cities programme; that is why we have the toughest penalties in Europe for dealing with drug traffickers and why we have the powers to take their ill-gotten gains from them; that is why we have effective customs action and why drug education is included in the national curriculum. It is all there; it is about time that the Labour party stopped telling us that we should have a strategy and supported the strategy that the Government have.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend join me in extending to the Metropolitan police the congratulations of the whole House on the way in which they are tackling drug-related crime in the metropolis? Will he ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to extend the deepest sympathies of all hon. Members to the two officers who were seriously injured in the shooting last night? What equipment was available to those officers and others on the streets of Brixton and elsewhere to protect them from the shootings and stabbings which they encounter daily while doing their duty on our behalf?
    Mr. Maclean: The whole House will wish to pay tribute to PCs Simon Carroll and James Seymour, the two officers shot last night while on duty. They are two officers in a long line of thousands of police officers across the country who, every day of the week, make themselves vulnerable in carrying out their duty, for which we are all grateful. I understand that their injuries are not life threatening—one will undergo an operation this afternoon. I shall gladly pass on the comments of the whole House to those officers.
    The protective equipment available to officers is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I shall of course draw his attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to give way to the calls for the decriminalisation of cannabis, the only effect would be to get more children into the habit of taking that level of drug and that it would not be long before traffickers suggested that they get more of a kick by taking heroin or cocaine? Would not the result be an increased demand for hard drugs, which could lead only to more crimes being committed? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to say no yet again to all calls to decriminalise drugs?
    Mr. Maclean: Absolutely. As I said, the Government have the most draconian penalties in Europe to deal with those who traffic in the more serious drugs—crack, heroin and cocaine. We should be sending out a cloudy message if we were to suggest that not only cannabis but category B and C drugs—we have recently uprated the penalties for

    383
    them; they had not been uprated since 1977—did not matter or that taking drugs did not count. Taking any drug is harmful, those included.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the biggest link between drug taking and the use of another drug is the use of alcohol? Is he saying that he is going to ban alcohol?
    Mr. Maclean: I shall treat that remark with the contempt that it deserves.

    Basil don
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his visit to Basil don last year.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I visited Basil don on Saturday 20 November last year, when I visited Basil don police station and also attended a large and extremely enthusiastic meeting of my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Amess: Following the highly successful visit of my right hon. and learned Friend to Basildon, will he tell the House what progress has been made on the 27 points contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill? Will he join me in congratulating Basildon police, whom he has met, on their increased detection rate and on their efforts to unite the community in the fight against crime? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, following the launch of my road show and meet the people campaign, the six yobs whom I accosted on Saturday after complaints from local residents, would be taken to a centre of detention—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are not in the middle of debate. I want a question for the Minister so that he can give a direct answer.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that such adolescents who are out of control should be taken to secure centres if their parents are not prepared to accept the responsibility for their behaviour?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Secure training units are essential if we are to bring persistent young offenders under control. I congratulate Basildon police on the substantial increase in their detection rate. Progress on the implementation of my 27-point programme is excellent.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What measures does the Home Secretary intend to take to lift the low morale of police officers in Basildon and throughout the county of Essex which has been conveyed to him by their Police Federation?
    Mr. Howard: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the basis of my encounter with the police in Basildon, to which I referred in answer to my hon. Friend. When I met the police in Basildon, morale was excellent and they were looking forward to continuing the excellent progress that they have made in increasing their detection rate.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that in Basildon, as elsewhere, the battle against crime simply cannot be won unless we fight drugs and drug abuse? Will
    384
    he undertake now, as a matter of urgency, to wake up to the seriousness of that situation and combine measures—[Interruption.]Drugs and drug-related crime is a serious issue. Will he wake up to the seriousness of that issue and combine measures that drive the drug dealers off our streets with measures that educate and teach our young people of the dangers of drug abuse?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, of course I shall do that. Of course, drug misuse is a very serious matter. Of course, it plays an important part in crime. Of course, we must take it seriously. However, when we consider what the hon. Gentleman says, we find, as so often, that his words are long, but his action is extremely short. He made a long speech on drugs recently in which, at the end, we found a piffling three paragraphs on Labour strategy, most of which relates to things that we are already doing.

    Life Sentences
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received that for particular categories of murder a life sentence should mean life.
    Mr. Maclean: I have received a number of representations to that effect. Under the present arrangements, those convicted of the worst sorts of murder will normally serve a minimum of 20 years in prison. Some will serve longer and some may never be released. A life sentence is a sentence for life, because those released are released on licence and can be recalled to prison at any time.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the public overwhelmingly want the restoration of capital punishment, it is now abundantly clear that Parliament will always deny them that? If Parliament is not to be brought into disrepute, must not we come up with something that matches the gravity of those aspirations? Will my right hon. and hon. Friends at least consider the proposition that, for those who commit the most serious forms of murder, that of police officers and prison officers, life sentences should really mean life until death?
    Mr. Maclean: We have those powers already, and for some people that is exactly what life will mean. The option is not limited to those who kill police and prison officers. No one who receives a mandatory life sentence should expect that to mean eight, 10 or 12 years. The sentence served could be very long indeed. For the most heinous killers, it will be a minimum of 20 years and some will probably never be released.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister referred to his policy that the murderers of policemen and prison officers should serve at least 20 years in prison. Why does not that policy apply throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Maclean: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would object if Home Office Ministers sought to impose policies on Northern Ireland without the consideration of the members of the Government responsible for policy there.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend accept that the fact that people serving life sentences for murder emerge from

    385
    custody after 12 years, and that people serving sentences for offences such as burglary also come out long before they have served the nominal sentence imposed, brings the law into disrepute and makes people more likely to offend?
    Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. Of course, there are systems of parole whereby some people may be released before they have served their full sentence, but it is wrong for my hon. Friend to suggest that in all cases of murder the offender will serve about 12 years. The advantage of the mandatory life sentence for murder, with discretionary release at the end, is that it can cover a great many gradations of murder. Some people will serve shorter sentences, but I repeat that some people who are sentenced for murder may never be released.

    Police And Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]
    Mr. Ainger:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on his proposals set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords].
    Mr. Howard: I have received about 250 representations from organisations, members of the public and hon. Members since the Bill was published on 17 December.
    Mr. Ainger: As the Home Secretary is aware that Dyfed-Powys police and Gwent police are the most successful forces in terms of clear-up rate, will he do another U-turn, or another climbdown, on the provisions in the Bill for ending or amalgamating police forces, especially as such action would be against the wishes of local people and of the local police authority?
    Mr. Howard: I do not need to change the Bill to agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal. The Bill merely changes the procedures for amalgamations and I have made it clear that I have no hidden agenda of compulsory amalgamations. I congratulate the police of Dyfed-Powys on their excellent results, including most impressive crime clear-up rates and the award of a chartermark.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if he had the power to appoint an accountant to the South Wales police authority, the authority might have been able to discover somewhat earlier that it had made a £3 million mistake in its adding up?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's point is extremely persuasive and it is a matter for great regret that the South Wales police authority has been responsible for such large mistakes. Of course, there is a place, and there will be a place on the new police authorities, for local and independent members who do not happen to be councillors or magistrates. I hope that they will make an effective contribution to the working of those authorities.
    Mr. Michael: If the Home Secretary has no hidden agenda for merging police forces—unlike his predecessor, who offered a threat to 39 of our 43 police forces—will he withdraw the power that he seeks in the Bill to merge police forces without being restrained by the wishes of local people?
    Mr. Howard: The procedures, for which provision is made in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, make proper provision for giving full weight to the views and
    386
    wishes of local people. What they change are the extremely cumbersome procedures that have been in place until now, which are long, expensive and unnecessary.

    Police Bail
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to give the police a new power of arrest for breach of police bail.
    Mr. Howard: A provision to create such a power is contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill as part of our package of measures to cut down the abuse of bail. It has been widely welcomed by the police.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Clwyd, North-West there is wide support for the fight against crime? Has he received any support for his proposals to crack down on bail bandits from the Labour party, especially the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    Mr. Howard: No, I am sorry to say that a number of amendments were tabled in Standing Committee that would make it much more difficult for the courts to refuse bail. Each year, some 50,000 offences are committed by people while on bail. The proposals that we have included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill are designed to deal with that mischief.
    Mr. Bennett: If the Home Secretary is so keen to increase the number of people in prison as a result of such actions, where will he find the space for them? Is he aware that, following the Strangeways incident, during the whole of Operation Container in Greater Manchester, the police were reluctant to arrest people for breaches of bail because they did not have anywhere to put them? If the Home Secretary is to carry out the proposals—the police cells in Manchester are overcrowded now—what steps will he take to find somewhere to put people when they are arrested?
    Mr. Howard: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are progressively increasing prison capacity in the north-west. The new Manchester prison is already open and taking an increasing number of prisoners all the time. We have plans to ensure that further increases are made to the prison estate in the north-west.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with a lady in my county whose daughter was murdered by a suspect who was out on bail for a string of serious sexual offences? She wrote to me saying that she wanted the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to be implemented as soon as possible. If they had been implemented, her daughter would be alive today. Are not the amendments tabled by Labour Members to weaken the provisions—which are wanted by the public and would be effective on those criminals—further evidence that they are soft on law and order?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reminds the House that behind the charges and countercharges that are exchanged across the Chamber lie real human tragedies with which we are trying to deal as effectively as we can in the proposals that we put before Parliament. It is a matter of deep regret that we do not get the support of the Labour party for those proposals.

    Crime, London
    Mr. Austin-Walker:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce crime in London.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Metropolitan police strength has increased by 22 per cent. since the Government took office and successful local partnerships have been formed throughout the capital in a co-ordinated effort to tackle crime.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Has the Minister seen the recent studies carried out by the Association of London Authorities which show that more than 50 per cent. of Londoners indicated fear of crime as their major concern and more than two thirds of Londoners expect the situation to get worse? Does he agree that his tough words have not been matched by action? What will he do to restore the morale and confidence of the Metropolitan police, who are unable to respond to the needs of their communities?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that in the Plumstead division, which covers his constituency, burglary was down 11 per cent. last year. He will know that in the year to June 1993, recorded crime was down fractionally for the Metropolitan police district. He will know that 15,000 fewer houses were burgled last year. He will be aware of the wide variety of crime prevention measures throughout the Metropolitan police district. For example, in Southall, Ealing, Wandsworth, Westminster, Hounslow, Croydon, Brent and Sutton crime prevention is at work, and most effectively.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many crimes in London are committed by boys and girls under the age of 16 who commit a multitude of crimes and historically have not been put in secure units? Does he agree that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will address that problem?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why persistent juvenile offenders will be given secure training orders by means of the Bill's provisions.
    Ms Ruddock: The Minister will be aware that 40 per cent. of racial incidents recorded by the police occur in the Metropolitan police area and that few of those responsible for those crimes can be arrested, and even fewer convicted, under the present law. Will the hon. Gentleman join the Opposition in recognising that the law needs to be strengthened in relation to racial incidents? Will he give a clear commitment this afternoon that he and the Home Secretary will support the Bill on racial hatred and violence which is being brought to the House tomorrow by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth)?
    Mr. Wardle: The House will know that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the Select Committee proposals, for which he is waiting. The House will also be aware that the Government support police efforts to tackle racial crime. We are encouraging reporting and the increase in the number of reported incidents may well be a result of that encouragement. There has been fresh training and multi-agency guidance on that most important problem.

    Police Accountability
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the police more accountable to the local community.
    Mr. Howard: The Police and Magistrates' Court Bill will establish strong independent local police authorities and a clear framework for setting priorities and measuring performance. Local people will be better informed about what their local force is trying to achieve and how well it is doing.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have enjoyed immense benefit from our tradition of policing by consent? That consent has been in important measure established and expressed through locally controlled watch committees, historically and by police authorities in more recent times. Will he therefore continue to seek the fullest measure of local accountability for police forces, consistent with efficiency and with appropriate operational independence?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. One of the new responsibilities of local police authorities will be that of preparing a strategy for a local partnership between the police and the public. Unless we can strengthen such partnerships, we shall never make real progress in the fight against crime. I agree with my hon. Friend that policing by consent is an essential element in that partnership.
    Mr. Maginnis: Has the Secretary of State received any reports on the effect that the anti-terrorist cordons in London have had on the level of ordinary crime in the area? What lessons are to be learnt from that and has the community been informed of the benefits?
    Mr. Howard: I understand that crime has been reduced in the area in which the measures are in force and the City of London Corporation is assiduous in bringing the results to the attention of those who live and work in the City. The future of the scheme is under review and certain procedures must be satisfied. I think that that is the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Would not it be a good idea to make local authorities more accountable to the police? In Cambridgeshire, for example, the Lib-Lab coalition regime has flatly refused to apply to the police the £1.2 million that has been made available to it for that purpose.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. As usual, there is a complete contrast between the words from those on the Opposition Front Bench and the deeds of Labour local authorities which, up and down the country, refuse to give the police money that the Government have made available for policing purposes.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary accept my congratulations on scrapping, in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill currently in the House of Lords, almost all the proposals made in the White Paper that would have eroded the local accountability of police? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to look so objectively at Home Office matters in future, he will command more support than he has done up to date.
    Mr. Howard: I do not wish to sound in the slightest churlish in reply to the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, but they seem to have been offered under a misapprehension. The changes that have been made to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill are changes of detail. The principles are intact and they will deliver us the objectives that we have always sought to achieve.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take account of the concern of many police forces that they are unable to deal with noisy neighbours who cause great anxiety to people by disturbing them with parties all night, noisy radios and televisions, and the rest of it? Will he seek powers to enable the police to deal with that disturbing and annoying problem?
    Mr. Howard: A range of powers are available at present. They are mostly local authority and civil law powers. They are not used as effectively as they should be. I should be happy to have a word with my hon. Friend about the matter.
    Mr. Allen: Now that the Home Secretary has been forced to back down on some of the more ridiculous and wasteful proposals on police accountability, does he accept that, rather than pressing ahead with the rest of his package, it would be far better to put the money available into boosting the pathetic 76p per family per year that the Conservatives spend on crime prevention? The police and local communities do not want well-established relation-ships tampered with. They want to know when the Conservatives will get serious about crime prevention.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's figures are absurd. Apart from the £200 million a year that we spend across Whitehall on crime prevention, the police spend a substantial part of their £6 billion-a-year budget on crime prevention. We take crime prevention extremely seriously. Contrary to the point made by the hon. Gentleman, the Bill that is at present in the other place will make a substantial contribution to crime prevention.

    Crime, London
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from the London SW1 postal district about the relationship between law enforcement and rising crime.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Records of representations are not kept by postal district.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree with the gracious Queen of Belize, who is normally resident in SW1, who recently said that increasing levels of crime—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Lady that we do not invoke the name of the Queen in debate. Can she rephrase her—[Interruption.] The Queen of Belize is also a member of a royal family.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by a well-known resident of SW1 that increased crime prevention will not solve rising crime levels unless it is accompanied by a look at the root causes of the disease?
    Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that recorded crime in London SW1 has dropped by 8 per cent. in the past two years. As for the
    390
    reasons for crime, the hon. Lady will also be pleased to hear that sub-groups of the National Board for Crime Prevention are examining precisely those matters. One in particular that will command increasing attention is the problem of repeat victimisation.
    Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crime issues in SW1 is terrorism? Would he care to pay tribute to the police who have protected us in SW1 in recent years? Has he received any message from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to the effect that he is now prepared to fight for the measures that the police want to fight terrorism—the emergency powers legislation that we passed last night, particularly in the light of the Heathrow bombing incident?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pattern of voting in the House yesterday will undoubtedly command wide attention. As for the terrorist action, the terrorists achieved nothing yesterday and they will achieve nothing other than futile suffering.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister tell the people of SW1 whether tomorrow the Government will support or oppose the Bill being sponsored by his hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth)?
    Mr. Wardle: As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government will consider the response of the Select Committee in due course.

    Offenders (Bail)
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to deal with those people who offend while on bail.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deal with those people who commit crimes while on bail.
    Mr. Howard: We are introducing in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a series of measures designed to tackle the problem of offending on bail and to improve the bail system more generally.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that most people in the country are fed up with reading about people who offend and commit other crime while out on bail, and they want the Government to take tough action, so they will be grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend proposes? However, what would be the consequences if the courts were required to consider the defendant's health before recommending putting the defendant in custody? The Labour party believes that that would be a good thing. Many Conservative Members are fearful that fewer people in custody means more trouble for people on the streets of our country.
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The amendment to which he refers is but one of a number tabled by the Labour party which would restrict the powers of the court to refuse bail. It is a remarkable fact that, of those people arrested in the course of the remarkably successful Operation Bumblebee, which has done so much to reduce burglary in London, no fewer than 40 per cent.

    391
    were on bail. That simply cannot be allowed to continue. That is why we are taking new powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most important steps that we have taken is in the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which made offending on bail an aggravating factor when passing sentence? Does he further agree with the cab driver who brought me back to the House this afternoon, who said that, as a result of the Labour party's inability to support the Government on law and order measures, the least convincing Member of the House, in his view, was the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    Mr. Howard: Out of the mouths of cab drivers comes wisdom of a very high order and I would be the last person to disagree with it.

    Crime
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with local authorities in the north-west regarding measures to reduce crime.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Home Office officials frequently discuss such measures with representatives of a number of key agencies in the north-west, including local authorities.
    Ms Lynne: Has the Secretary of State any plans to speak to members of Rochdale council to explain to them the cut in the safer cities grant? Does he intend to take the opportunity of congratulating Rochdale council on finding the money to keep the scheme going, and also to provide extra funding for special constables to patrol areas on Rochdale estates?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Lady knows that the safer cities project in Rochdale was for a four-year term, and that it was intended that a local partnership should take the project on after that four-year term. That has been the pattern with the first 20 projects in phase 1 of our safer cities programme. It is working effectively in Rochdale, and the metropolitan borough council will have a close involvement in the continued partnership. Two safer cities project staff will be seconded from the Home Office to guide it.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend understand that many people in the north-west would like prisoners who are sentenced to five years actually to serve five years—cutting out all the remission, rehabilitation, and parole—and, if they misbehave, to be given extra years? Then we shall get to grips with law and order.
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend, as usual, makes his point most effectively. He will also be mindful of the fact that since the Criminal Justice Act 1991, prisoners will be serving more of the sentences given to them by the courts.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister inquire into the case this week in which a firearm that was used in a heinous crime in Greater Manchester was returned to its rightful owner? I have mentioned the subject in the House on a number of occasions since eight legally held firearms were stolen about two years ago, three of which have now been responsible for three murders and two serious woundings.
    392
    There seems to me to be a case for a fresh examination of what happens to those firearms when they have been recovered.
    Mr. Wardle: The firearm was stolen. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it was stolen two or three years ago. Obviously, the House will share the regret at the tragic deaths and serious injuries that stolen firearms have caused. However, the chief constable of Greater Manchester satisfied himself that their owner had the proper certificate and had kept them in a proper and secure place and that they should be returned to him.

    Squatting
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has in respect of squatting; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains provisions that will reinforce a new civil procedure for removing squatters from premises. In addition, I have tabled amendments to the Bill which will increase the protection given by the Criminal Law Act 1977 to displaced residential occupiers and protect intending occupiers of property that is unlawfully occupied.
    Mr. Dunn: What opposition has the Minister encountered to changes in the law on squatting and how does he intend to overcome it?
    Mr. Maclean: The welcome from the Opposition was less than enthusiastic and wholehearted, as we might have expected.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Just a word of caution, which I have uttered before. Committees of the House are autonomous. They do their work upstairs, and only when the results of their deliberations are reported to the House are these matters discussed on the Floor. I remind Back Benchers of that, but it seems that Ministers, too, need occasional reminding.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister really believe that his proposal to allow landlords to use violence for the purpose of evicting people will aid law and order? Will he accept responsibility when someone, whether a bailiff, a squatter or a tenant being illegally evicted, is seriously injured or killed as a direct result of his legislation?
    Mr. Maclean: The House will find it quite unacceptable that, at present, a person whose house has been stolen by squatters cannot even break the window of the back door to get into his own premises, as such action is considered to be violence. That is nonsense, which we are removing.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in tackling squatting, prevention is better than cure? Is not it the case that inept, inefficient and incompetent Labour authorities up and down the country are sitting on tens of thousands of empty council houses and that if those houses were made available to tenants they would not be available for squatting?
    Mr. Maclean: That is certainly the case, but it is not acceptable that, just because of some incompetent Labour

    393
    authorities that have thousands of empty properties, other people whose houses are taken over should not have a right to get them back.

    Drug-related Crime
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department is taking to tackle drug-related crime.
    Mr. Maclean: I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given earlier today to the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Wallsend (Mr. Byers).
    Mr. Milburn: How can the Government possibly justify cutting funding for drugs education when, currently, just four in 10 school children have access to that vital advice? Why does not the Minister realise that being tough on law and order means taking action to prevent crime as well as imposing stiffer sentences?
    Mr. Maclean: In the replies to questions Nos. 1 and 4 I laid out the elements of the Government's prevention strategy, a great deal of which is concerned with crime prevention. Last week, the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made a speech entitled "Drugs: the need for action"ߞ four pages of waffle against the Government, with three miserable paragraphs at the end. How much money will the hon. Gentleman spend? The last of the big spenders would provide £4 million to deal with the drugs problem. We spend £4 million every three days. But the hon. Gentleman will not be allowed even to keep his £4 million promise, as his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will say that he did not make the promise of the Floor of the House.
    Sir Peter Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the estimated level of drug-related crime is now so high that it makes nonsense of the complaint from Labour Members that crime is a result of unemployment or social deprivation? Does he agree that drugs constitute the main factor driving the crime figures up?
    Mr. Maclean: Of course there is drug-related crime. No one seeks to deny or exaggerate that. The important point is that we have the strategy for dealing with it at all levels through the drugs prevention initiative; massive spending on the safer cities programme; the toughest penalties in Europe; tough action by the police and customs; drugs education in the national curriculum; and all the other action that the Government are taking. Those add up to more than £500 million a year worth of action on all aspects of the fight against drugs.

    Bail Hostels
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the provision of bail hostels in the west midlands.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government continue to support the provision of approved bail and probation hostels in the west midlands, as elsewhere, where those meet the needs of sentencers in a cost-effective way and within the requirements of national standards.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Does the Minister agree that people outside this place will find it absolutely incredible that
    394
    Conservative Members have been complaining about people being released on bail when, in the west midlands, it is proposed to close two much-needed bail hostels and save £200,000, thus depriving the courts of the ability to choose appropriate accommodation for people who need it?
    Mr. Maclean: What people will find extraordinary is that the west midlands has nine bail hostels. If the hon. Gentleman had told me that those were at 100 per cent. capacity I should be more concerned about his point. If we remove the two smallest hostels, we would remove only 15 per cent. of capacity. Given that there is at least 20 per cent. surplus capacity, the hon. Gentleman has not a leg to stand on.

    PRIME MINISTER

      Engagements
      Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
      Mr. McFall: Now that the Minister for open government has given an entirely new meaning to the phrase, "lying in state", does the Prime Minister agree that the democratic process is undermined if Ministers imply that concealing the truth from the House is acceptable? Does he accept that it is a lie that the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, ever lied to this House? If so, will he apologise to the former distinguished Prime Minister for that slur?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may regret, on reflection, the way in which he phrased his question—[Interruption] If hon. Members do not regret it, I believe that they should. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is not the case now, nor has it been in the past, that Ministers willingly mislead this House, and no one has suggested that that is the case.
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that, last night, the IRA launched yet another vicious terrorist attack endangering the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, were not the Opposition, at exactly same time, voting against the very measure which our security forces need to combat this evil? Are not the Opposition soft on terrorism and soft on crime?
      The Prime Minister: I believe that the attack that was launched yesterday on Heathrow airport by the IRA will receive and deserve universal condemnation. It was an unjustifiable attack and will make no difference whatever to the search for peace in Northern Ireland. But I believe that it should lead to every part of this House uniting on firm action against terrorism.
      Mr. John Smith: With the issue of Ministers telling the truth now a matter of public debate, does the Prime Minister appreciate that what most undermines the credibility of his Administration is the blatant deception practised at the last election when the Conservative party promised to cut taxes? Since then, they have imposed the largest tax increase in Britain's peacetime history.
      The Prime Minister: I shall turn directly to that point, but I must say that I am extremely surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should pursue that matter on the day after a mortar attack at Heathrow and on the very day on which the Cabinet has been considering sending more troops to Bosnia to deal with an international problem. [interruption.] have made the point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that these things do not matter. I think that people throughout the country will take a different view. [Interruption.]
      Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
      The Prime Minister: On the specific point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, taxation rose precisely because we kept our promises to protect the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick through the long recession. The recession lasted longer than we or other forecasters had imagined, and in order to sustain policy and bring down interest rates it was necessary to close borrowing. That was a responsible attitude. It was the right attitude. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood the first thing about economics, he would support it, not attack it.
      Mr. John Smith: To come very directly to the point, does the Prime Minister deny that before the election he promised to cut taxes and he is now putting them up?
      The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why it was necessary to raise taxation, although we had hoped not to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to consider taxes, he might look at the more recent figures of council taxes which show clearly how much more expensive Labour authorities and Liberal authorities are than Conservative authorities. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would comment on that.
      Mr. John Smith: Having regard to the Prime Minister's feeble excuse for breaking his promise at the election, does he not remember telling the Los Angeles Times in his celebrated interview last year:
      "I said [to colleagues] the day after we won the election … 'Within the next 12 months the government will be the most unpopular we have seen for a long time.'"
      He went on to say, "I was staggeringly prescient." Will the Prime Minister explain how he could know about the state of the economy the day after the election but not know before polling day?
      The Prime Minister: I shall go back further than that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I made it absolutely clear on the day that I became Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would take whatever action was necessary to restrain inflation and put the economy on secure and steady growth. We have done that, including maintaining monetary policy with interest rates at a high level right through the election, because it was in the
      396
      interests of the British economy to do so. That is responsible government. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that.
      Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
      Lady Olga Maitland: With the council elections approaching, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that what council tax payers want are efficient services at the lowest possible cost? Does he agree that it is the Conservative councils who deliver this, not the Labour councils and not the Liberal councils, such as the one that I have in Surrey?
      The Prime Minister: I not only agree with my hon. Friend; it is what the statistics now becoming available on council tax charges show. At present, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced yesterday, Conservative councils that have now declared their council taxes come out, on average, at £129 less than Labour councils and £73 less than Liberal councils. It is clear who costs one more in the shires— it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in the mets— it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in London— it is Labour. No matter where one looks, Labour councils and— so as not to disappoint the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)— Liberal councils, cost one more.
      Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
      Mr.Marshall: Is the Prime Minister aware that his recent morale-boosting visit to Scotland has resulted in his party achieving a record low in the polls of 13 per cent? Does he appreciate why the Scots are once more uttering the refrain:
      "Will ye no' come back again"—
      and again, and again?
      The Prime Minister: As it happens, the hon. Gentleman is typically inaccurate. The data were before I visited Scotland.

      Ministerial Visits
      Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Imperial War museum at Duxford.
      The Prime Minister: I know from private visits what a magnificent place the Duxford museum is. I can well understand the pride of my right hon. Friend in having it in his constituency. I hope that I may be able to pay an official visit at some time in the future.
      Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend note that the United States air force flew from Duxford during the last war with much loss of life and, in particular, flew on the D-day operation? Will he give his support to the American air museum being created there, either by

      397
      visiting Duxford or by inviting the Americans concerned to visit him? It would be extremely good for Anglo-American relations.
      The Prime Minister: I should like to visit Duxford again. I shall take an opportunity to do so and to look at the museum's plans. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the significant contribution of the US air force to the D-day landings. We have a continual debt of gratitude to them. It is right that we should celebrate the 50th anniversary and remember the heroism of the troops and the sacrifices that they made so that we can enjoy the liberties that we exercise in the House.

      Health Issues
      Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of his time he devotes to health issues.
      The Prime Minister: A lot.
      Mr. Hughes: In that case, given that one of the most obvious implications of the Government's policies for health services in London is that they plan to run down the hospital that the Prime Minister described as the flagship, and that the main building— a state of the art building costing £140 million— will never come into use, in all seriousness will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State take a little extra time to listen to a proposal that keeps both Guy's and St. Thomas's as hospitals, saves the taxpayer money, reduces embarrassment and, above all, saves patients' lives?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes to the health service in London are long overdue; they have been long sought by many people. We have won support inside and outside the health service for tackling that particular problem, not least from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. As for the problems of Guy's and St. Thomas's, the hon. Gentleman will know that the clinicians at both hospitals believe that patient care will be improved by concentrating services on one site, not two. It is not just the Government's view, but that of the doctors involved. Thanks to the determination to embrace change, the Guy's and St Thomas's trust will have a secure future and its buildings, old and new, will be used fully, effectively and appropriately in the best interests of patients, medical teaching and research.

      Engagements
      Mr.Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in my constituency and throughout the country about the activities of television cable-laying
      398
      companies? Pavements are uprooted, roads closed and businesses disrupted all with the objective of getting doubtful television programmes into our homes. Is it not time that we found a better way of organising these matters?
      The Prime Minister: I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend. Of course it is important that all those with the right to undertake street works should keep disruption to a minimum. He will know that there are duties to do so written into the terms of the licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend will also know that in those areas where cables are laid, about one quarter of all homes subsequently decide to participate in cable television. That has led to investment across the United Kingdom of well over £1 billion.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister find time today to check on a transcript of the "Today" programme earlier this week, when his right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that he would not be Prime Minister after November, or after the autumn? If that is the case, will he make sure that his right hon. and learned Friend is incorrect, as he is such a good asset to us in the Labour party?
      The Prime Minister: I seem to recall cheap questions like that before the previous election. I am still here and the Opposition are still there.
      Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Bellingham: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), does my right hon. Friend agree that the IRA-Sinn Fein must now be treated with complete contempt? Does he further agree that unless it signs the declaration tomorrow, it should forfeit its opportunity to be part of it?
      The Prime Minister: I think that every hon. Member of the House will have nothing but contempt for the IRA's behaviour. With the attacks that it has made, both in Northern Ireland and at Heathrow yesterday, it has demonstrated again its disregard for human life and for opinion on both sides of the community. I believe that my hon. Friend misunderstands the long-term purpose and import of the declaration that I signed with the Taoiseach in December. It sets out a series of principles on which we hope and intend to try to build a permanent peace for Northern Ireland.

British Forces (Bosnia)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the British contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping effort in Bosnia.
Since the first deployment of UNPROFOR troops to the former Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom has contributed to the growing international military effort to contain the conflict and alleviate suffering. In the spring of 1992, we sent an Army field ambulance to Croatia. In the autumn of that year, we sent an armoured infantry battalion group to Bosnia to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict. That deployment has undoubtedly helped to save thousands of lives. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are also making a very important contribution.
There are now some 2,450 British soldiers serving in UNPROFOR's Bosnia-Herzegovina command— a contribution second only to that of the French. Since the beginning of the year, we have also provided the commander for the UN forces in Bosnia, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, who is carrying out his responsibilities in a most impressive manner. Our military effort in the former Yugoslavia is outstanding in scale, range and quality, and we need fear no comparison with the contribution of any other nation in the world.
Until recently, the diplomatic and military efforts of the international community achieved limited success. Spillover of the conflict was prevented and relief was successfully brought to its victims, but the warring factions in Bosnia seemed determined to carry on fighting. The prospect, however, has been transformed by the NATO ultimatum that followed the mortar attack on the Sarajevo marketplace on 5 February, the ceasefire agreement in Sarajevo, which was negotiated by General Rose on 9 February, and the removal or corralling of the heavy weapons attacking the city.
Those dramatic events not only brought a fragile calm to Sarajevo itself, but have acted as a catalyst elsewhere in Bosnia. On 23 February, a ceasefire was signed between the Bosnian Government and Bosnian Croat commanders which provided for withdrawal of troops from a buffer zone, withdrawal or UN control of heavy weapons and the opening of routes.
On Tuesday this week, United Nations troops took control of Tuzla airport. There have, of course, been many disappointments in Bosnia before, and there may be others to come; but if the ceasefires in Sarajevo and central Bosnia hold, they could be the first steps towards the ending of the conflict. I pay tribute to those in UNPROFOR who negotiated the ceasefires, and in particular to General Rose, General Cot and Mr. Akashi.
The ceasefires have brought not only new opportunities for UNPROFOR, but new responsibilities. To police a buffer zone and monitor heavy weapons, large numbers of men are needed on the ground. In central Bosnia, the front line between Muslims and Croats is 125 miles long. Quite suddenly, UNPROFOR has found its task greatly expanded and its resources greatly overstretched, both in Sarajevo and central Bosnia. The United Nations has therefore appealed for additional troops.
The Coldstream Guards, whose mission hitherto had been to support humanitarian aid convoys, have found
400
themselves with a major peacekeeping task on their doorstep. Their enthusiasm is great; they are determined to do their utmost to make the ceasefire a success. But it has become clear that the effort involved, while tolerable for a time, is unsustainable beyond the short term with their current manpower.
The question of reinforcement has thus become an immediate issue, not just for the British contingent, but for UNPROFOR as a whole. The United Kingdom has a national interest in securing a peaceful outcome to the Bosnian conflict, but that interest is equally shared by other European nations, some of which have closer links with the Balkans, and is also shared by the world community at large.
Although the UK contribution to the region is already a large one, a further UK contribution at this stage as part of a co-ordinated international effort would help to make the difference between success and failure for the ceasefires. That in turn should contribute to shortening the conflict, and reduce the burden on British troops currently in Bosnia.
It was for those reasons that we took the initiative in convening a meeting of troop contributors, actual and potential, in New York— under the chairmanship of Sir David Hannay, our ambassador to the UN— to see whether the international community was prepared to provide more troops for UNPROFOR to take advantage of the window of opportunity that has suddenly opened there. The results of the meeting were very encouraging. Leaving aside any offer by the United Kingdom, there have been offers amounting to some 3,850 new troops, plus further offers to redeploy some 2,450 troops from elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. That gives a total of 6,300 extra troops for Bosnia, in addition to any UK contribution. Finally, up to a further 4,000 troops are expected to be deployed by the summer.
As part of this response, Her Majesty's Government have decided to reinforce the British UNPROFOR contingent by sending a second battalion group, some 900 strong, to central Bosnia, initially for four months. Its nucleus will be the 1st Duke of Wellington regiment, which is equipped with the Saxon wheeled armoured personnel carrier. Advance elements of the battalion will be in Split by tonight. The battalion group will include engineers, signallers and support troops, and a medium reconnaissance squadron of the Light Dragoons.
We will always be cautious when sending British troops to serve in a foreign country. We have had to strike a balance among a number of factor: the manpower demands of UNPROFOR's expanding role, the prospects of peace taking hold, our own national interest, the willingness of the rest of the world to recognise theirs and, above all, the need to ensure that British troops are not asked to do the impossible. Our judgment is that reinforcement is the right course at the present time. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the battalion group godspeed.
Dr. David Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Labour has been calling for the dispatch of additional troops for peacekeeping in Bosnia for some time now, and welcomes the fact that, at long last, Her Majesty's Government have responded positively. We join the Government in hoping that the peace that has come about,

401
in a rather unexpected way, is maintained and, indeed, extended throughout Bosnia. We see the dispatch of British troops as part of that process.
Indeed, it is a tribute to the professionalism and impartiality of British troops that they are in so much demand by the United Nations throughout the world. We wish all the service personnel well in their undertaking of this dangerous and hazardous task in Bosnia, and their attempt to end the carnage and murder there; we trust and pray that they all return home safely.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the extra troops will have the specific objective of maintaining the fragile peace—which is a somewhat different role from the original purely humanitarian one? Have the rules of engagement been altered to take account of that change of role?
In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned that other countries had joined us. Can he give the House any idea of which countries have decided to help us to bring about and extend the peace, and has any progress been made in persuading the United States that the peace process actually is a process? Is the United States prepared to fulfil its promise to put in troops once a peace process has been agreed by the three sides?
Will the Secretary of State advise the House whether he feels that there is any danger in other parts of the former Yugoslavia, from where troops have been transferred? I presume that the transfer has been from Croatia and possibly Macedonia. Is there any news on whether the Americans will increase their contribution in Macedonia and thereby perhaps relieve other troops there?
The main question remains: why have we had to wait three weeks for the Secretary of State's announcement? Did not General Rose—having brought about a peace by his bold initiative—plead for extra troops from the Government three weeks ago? Why have the Government dithered so long when the troops have been ready and waiting to go since 17 February? Does not the Secretary of State realise that his vacillation and delay have put at risk not only the tenuous peace, but the lives of our overstretched troops in Bosnia?
The Secretary of State made great play of his efforts in the UN, and rightly so, but does he not realise that Britain, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has a responsibility to be a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to helping in United Nations operations?
Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but not surprised, that the hon. Gentleman should have spoiled his earlier remarks by his rather foolish and silly comments at the end. He must be as aware as the rest of the House that, far from dithering, the United Kingdom has taken the lead in coordinating the response at the UN. That has been widely recognised both by the UN and by the rest of the international community. The hon. Gentleman either displays total ignorance of what has been happening in the past week or a desire to be partisan, even at a time when our armed forces would expect the House to speak with a single voice on such a matter. He cheapens his role as the official spokesman of the Opposition in that way.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, for obvious reasons, we do not normally comment on the details of rules of engagement, but I assure him that the new forces that go to Bosnia will have the same opportunities to ensure their protection as all other British forces in Bosnia.
402
In the past year, we have seen how British forces have not been slow to defend themselves with the military assets at their disposal, whenever that has been necessary.
Of course, it is for individual Governments to announce their national contribution—I cannot do that on their behalf—but the French, the Russians and the Czechs have already said publicly that they propose to make significant additional contributions and a number of other countries are at an advanced stage of considering doing so. The assurances that have been given at the UN add up to the 6,300 additional troops, to which I referred.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the implications, for example, in Macedonia if troops were redeployed from there to Bosnia. We understand that the United States is giving those matters some consideration and may make an early announcement. It is important that any troop movement from Macedonia or Croatia should be made only if it is operationally sensible to do so, and that might mean, in certain circumstances, replacing existing troops with those from other countries.
As I said, the main role of the Duke of Wellington regiment when it arrives in Bosnia will be to relieve the burden on the Coldstream Guards and to share the responsibility of monitoring the position in central Bosnia, given the improved position that now exists.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Obviously, a large number of hon. Members want to be called, so I ask for brisk exchanges from both Back-Bench Members and the Government Front Bench.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, some members of the Select Committee on Defence have been fortunate enough to visit General Rose and the forces of all three services at Split—we returned yesterday. My right hon. and learned Friend will be reassured to know that the morale of our troops out there is extremely high and there is no doubt that they are carrying out their job superbly.
There is, however, great overstretch in our troops central Bosnia, principally as a result of the agreement on a ceasefire reached between the Croat and Muslim commanders. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to send a battalion to support us in the difficult task, and I hope that he will be guaranteed the support of the House.
I have two brief questions. First, is it correct that the troops will be attached to the BRITFOR forces under the command of Brigadier Reith and be responsible principally to him? Secondly, on a more general note, is it still Government policy to refrain from any involvement in peacemaking but to reiterate the importance of peacekeeping?
Mr. Rifkind: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we do not perceive the basic role of British forces as having changed. They are there as part of a United Nations mission, not to enforce a peace but to contribute towards the peace that we hope is emerging in Bosnia. In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, the forces will come under the command of Brigadier Reith, but they will, of course, be under the overall command of General Rose, who will determine their detailed deployment, which we expect will be to help the British troops already in central Bosnia.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome without qualification the Secretary of State's announcement? May I also congratulate the Government on the diplomatic achievement that they initiated at the United Nations? Will the Secretary of State say whether, during the Government's initiative, efforts were made to persuade the United States of not only the military value of their involvement but the psychological advantage that it would give to the whole UN effort in the former Yugoslavia?
Does the Secretary of State agree that any welcome that the House may give to his announcement will be more than outweighed by the favourable reception that it will receive from British forces in Bosnia who will see it as a welcome reinforcement of the considerable success that they have achieved in the past two weeks or so?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for congratulating the Government on their diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, which have borne significant fruit—indeed, they have perhaps borne fruit to an even greater extent than many had anticipated. I know that the United States is giving serious thought to being able to make a useful contribution to the new initiative. Clearly, it sees certain constraints on it at the moment, but I think that it is likely that it will be able to assist the new efforts in a positive and helpful way.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that not every member of the Security Council sends troops anywhere in the world that the United Nations requires them and that, if the circumstances were to change dramatically, we still have provision for the safe evacuation of our forces?
Mr. Rifkind: We have always had contingency plans in case the withdrawal of British forces or other UN forces might be required. As for my hon. Friend's earlier comment, of the five permanent members of the Security Council, China does not, of course, at present participate in UN missions. The United States plays a significant part in the work of the United Nations, including that in the former Yugoslavia, as it has forces in Croatia and Macedonia, although only a small handful in Bosnia at present.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State will have seen that his visit to Bulford camp yesterday featured on television. He appeared there with my son, who is currently accompanying the Saxons on their sea trip to Split. I am sure that we all have confidence in the ability of the units that are already deployed there and those that are joining them, and that we wish them well. However, I understand that the heavier assets that were there have been withdrawn. Can the Secretary of State assure us that, in the event of things turning sour, as they could well do, those assets will be replaced? Will he also say whether the four-month duration to which he referred is to be rotational and that units will be moved around?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's son is one of the many fine young men and women who are serving in Bosnia, doing splendid work in enhancing the reputation of United Kingdom armed forces. There have been times in the past year when certain equipment has been temporarily withdrawn if it was deemed to be operationally unnecessary, but it can always be returned if the situation changes—the hon. Gentleman may be assured of that.
404
On rotational matters, I have indicated today that the new battalion group is going out for an initial period of four months. Of course, we shall come to a judgment at the appropriate time about whether that should be continued, depending on the circumstances that exist in Bosnia at that time.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Now that it is clear that British troops have moved from a humanitarian role to a peacekeeping role, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House for how many months he anticipates that some 3,500 British troops will be in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: I cannot make that prediction; nor would I try to do so. Until three or four weeks ago, it looked as though little progress was being made towards the ending of this ghastly war. Then, perhaps suddenly, the situation began to improve in a fairly dramatic way. In the past month alone, there has been real hope and real prospects for improvement of a kind that had not been seen for some time. It is not possible to make the kind of prediction for which my hon. Friends asks.
I believe that the reinforcements which we and other UN countries are proposing at the present time create a better prospect for the success of the current, fragile moves towards peace. That would not only bring an end to the war, but enable the return home of all the UN forces at an earlier date than would otherwise have proved possible.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome the fact that the announcement has been made at last, but will the Secretary of State give some indication of the effect that the further deployment will have on the emergency tour interval for our forces? In view of the increasing evidence of overstretch in the British armed forces, will he heed the specific recommendation made by the Defence Select Committee, that the Government should halt the rundown of the British Army?
Mr. Rifkind: The Government have the target of an emergency tour interval of 24 months, which should be reached by the time the draw-down has been completed in 1995. We still have every expectation that, notwithstanding today's announcement, that target will be met. I have checked that point in particular.
On the hon. Gentleman's general point, he should compare the 3,500 troops in Bosnia—our main new commitment in recent years—with the reduction of about 40,000 in the British Army in Germany. That huge reduction of the requirement to have forces permanently in Germany has enabled us to make the changes to the Army to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his welcome announcement, may I ask whether he will confirm that, during the past three, critical weeks, the UN and all the Governments concerned have had nothing but positive co-operation from the legitimate and recognised Government of Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: One of the changes that are to be welcomed over the past few weeks has been the increased co-operation from the Bosnian Government and from certain of the representatives of the other warring groups. It is precisely for that reason that the Croat-Muslim ceasefire, for example, in central Bosnia, has proved to

405
have far more substance than we have seen in the past. Without that co-operation from Croat as well as Bosnian-Muslim authorities, we would not be seeing the progress on the ground that we are now able to report.
Mr. Tony Benn: Apart from the uneasiness felt by many people of different opinions at Britain getting deeper and deeper into what the Foreign Secretary described on 10 February as a civil war, is the Secretary of State aware that to send Turkish troops would be historically illiterate and intensely dangerous, not only because Turkey ruled that part of the world for six centuries, but because Turkish troops occupy northern Cyprus against United Nations instructions, and are themselves violators of international law? Will he make it absolutely clear that there would be no British Government support of Turkish troops being sent into the former Yugoslavia?
Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, the offer by the Turkish Government to send forces to Bosnia is a matter for the Secretary-General, on which he will come to a view. He will be the person who takes that decision on behalf of the UN. Although those are delicate and sensitive issues, there are already forces from Russia, for example, in Bosnia. Russia is well known to have close links in the historical relationship with the Serbian community. I do not believe that, automatically,. it must follow that the historical background of various countries in the Balkans should preclude their being able to make a current contribution.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that those of us who warned from the beginning against the dangers of committing British ground forces in the former Yugoslavia, even for the protection of humanitarian convoys, now view with a sickening sense of the inevitable the slowly unfolding fact that, as we all predicted, we are moving on from protecting the convoys to maintaining peace? In those circumstances, why are we sending only one battalion, when five divisions will eventually prove insufficient?
Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has always opposed sending any British forces to Bosnia. However, he should reflect on the fact that about 30 members of the United Nations now are making some contribution of troops in the former Yugoslavia. Against that background, it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom could have declined to be part of the international effort to help when there is a huge amount of suffering in a fellow European country. The size of the reinforcements that we are now sending corresponds closely with what General Sir Michael Rose believes would be the kind of contribution from the United Kingdom that would help to meet his needs. That is an important factor to bear in mind.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State knows that there are dangers of civil war in other countries in eastern Europe. Is his decision today a sign that British troops may go into other countries in eastern Europe?
Mr. Rifkind: Any request from the United Nations is considered on its merits. British forces have been and still are in a number of other countries. One thinks of Cambodia and Cyprus, as well as other parts of the world. But it does not automatically follow that the United Kingdom sends
406
troops to any international crisis. In Somalia, for example, we had no forces on the ground because we believed that the contribution that we were making elsewhere was quite sufficient in terms of our overall international responsibilities. Each crisis and each United Nations contribution will be considered on its merits at the time.
Sir Peter Hordern: As the armed forces in Bosnia are there under the auspices of the United Nations in a peacekeeping role, is it not vital that every major country in the United Nations, especially the United States, be represented? Would it not make a material difference to the commitment shown in Bosnia and to the prospects for peace if the United States had forces on the ground?
Mr. Rifkind: The United States already makes a major contribution to the affairs of Bosnia, as we saw with the imposition of the no-fly zone and the shooting down of Bosnian Serb aircraft by United States aircraft. The United States navy is also making an important contribution, and its forces are present on the ground in both Macedonia and Croatia.
I hear what my right hon. Friend says about ground forces in Bosnia. The United States has suggested that if there were an overall ceasefire in Bosnia and a consequent need for a larger UN force, it would be prepared to make a significant contribution to the ground forces that might be required. Whether the United States will respond to the present gradual implementation of a ceasefire is for that country to determine.
We are all conscious of the fact that the situation is different from what was expected in Washington and in other capitals a few weeks ago. We have what could properly be described as a creeping ceasefire in various parts of Bosnia, and that may influence the debate in Washington, as it has done in other capitals.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on having managed to borrow a bit of backbone from somewhere. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share the general relief that America has taken over the construction of peace in the old Yugoslavia from the devious, damaging and dangerous policies of David Owen?
Mr. Rifkind: I would not want to enter into the personal estrangement between the hon. Gentleman and Lord Owen. All I can say is that, if I ever needed the advice of one or other of them to help solve a serious international problem, I might prefer that of Lord Owen.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In the light of the long experience of Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland, where they have had to contain inter-communal strife in extremely difficult circumstances, and given that we have an all-regular system of engagement, are not British forces in Bosnia likely to make a contribution whose effectiveness will be out of all proportion to their numbers?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the "Options for Change" exercise, because the conditions that it presupposed, of a safer and more secure Europe, do not seem to apply any longer?
Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the vast experience of British forces,

407
partly through their experience of Northern Ireland, and partly through the many other operations that they have carried out on behalf of the United Nations and elsewhere.
The "Options for Change" exercise postulated the circumstances that would exist with the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I do not think that there is any illusion in this country about the fact that Europe remains a very unstable place, where there are new threats and tensions. That is why we have every intention of ensuring that the British Army and the armed forces as a whole remain highly capable, well equipped, well trained and able to carry out tasks on behalf of the United Kingdom in years to come. It will be a smaller Army than it was during the cold war, but that is true of every NATO country, of Russia and, indeed, of virtually every other European country.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Minister and the Foreign Secretary to reflect on whether they should approach the United Nations—incidentally, we have a veto there—to plead with it to think very carefully before introducing any Turkish Ottoman troops to that area? Given history, and given their ruthlessness, it is really setting a keg in a very delicate situation.
Mr. Rifkind: These are matters to which the Secretary-General of the United Nations will wish to give appropriate weight. At a time when we have a strong need to ensure the level of UN forces in Bosnia to carry out the mandate, and when all UN forces in Bosnia will come not under national command but under Sir Michael Rose and General Cot, as UN commanders, most countries in the region have an important contribution to make and, therefore, can provide helpful assistance.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is precious little point in our having the best peacekeeping troops in the world if they are not deployed, especially at the request of a British general who has been conspicuous in his ability to get things done in that tragic region? In view of the uncomfortable, long-term implications of such deployments, will he continue to urge other nations to make appropriate contributions, using as their yardstick the brilliant expertise and ability of British troops?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, over the past week, we decided to take the initiative in the United Nations in order to ensure proper co-ordination of the international response. Without that British initiative at the UN, it is possible that each country would have been waiting for every other country to make an announcement, rather than coming forward with their own proposals. We ensured that, in each of the capitals, concentration and effort were given to deciding what contribution could be made. That is why it has been possible today to announce a total of at least 6,000 additional troops. Indeed, that figure may increase in the weeks to come.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State accept that we not only applaud the fine work of our soldiers and military people in Bosnia but recognise that they are well respected as a highly disciplined and even-handed force by all the warring factions?
408
Has the participation of Russia been the most significant factor leading to the opening of Tuzla airport? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether that means that the Russian troops who are presently situated in eastern Slavonia will have to be withdrawn? If so, where will replacements come from? May we have some information about the deployment or redeployment of the Russian troops?
Mr. Rifkind: The question of the deployment or redeployment of Russian troops is essentially a matter for the UN commanders in the former Yugoslavia. That is their responsibility, and they will report their views to the Secretary-General.
We welcome the Russian contribution, as we welcome the contributions from other countries. Clearly, Russia—with the particular relationship it has with the Serbian population—can sometimes influence events in a hopeful and constructive way. One of the great benefits during the past two years has been the way in which Russia and the other permanent members of the Security Council have worked closely in putting through various resolutions. We saw a clear example of that in the support that Russia gave to the action taken by NATO in shooting down the Bosnian Serb aircraft which had violated the no-fly zone. Such agreement would have been unthinkable a few years ago, and illustrates the change in the situation.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Having had occasion a week ago to express my concern to the Prime Minister at the apparent delay in responding to General Rose's urgent appeal for more troops, may I now say to my right hon. and learned Friend—and, through him, to the Prime Minister—how warmly I welcome today's announcement of the dispatch of a battalion group to reinforce our forces in Bosnia?
May I also, through my right hon. and learned Friend, congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the excellent job that he and Sir David Hannay have done in drumming up support from other allied nations and the UN? Is it not clear that General Rose—by demonstrating that the Serbs are not 12 ft tall and that a bit of courage goes a long way—has done a superb job? We owe him, and the superb men under his command, a great debt.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which I am sure are entirely justified. I would add one note of caution, however. The UN has been successful in the past few weeks and I pay tribute, as does the House, to the remarkable achievements of General Rose. However, the war cannot be brought to an end solely by the UN, although the UN can be a magic ingredient—if I can put it that way—which enables the factions to end the conflict and come to some long-term peace agreement.
There are many hundreds of thousands of people fighting in Bosnia. The UN can make a crucial contribution when the time is right to bring peace. That time may now be near, and perhaps the UN can carry out that role. However, we must not expect either General Rose or the UN to deliver more than can be realistically expected of them.
Mr. Bruce George: The Defence Select Committee was privileged to meet General Rose and Brigadier Reith—two superb officers among many superb officers. I doubt whether any hon. Member who had been exposed to their arguments for additional troops, as

409
the Defence Select Committee was, could have argued against the use of additional forces. There has been a gross overstretch of forces, and there are historic opportunities awaiting us. The argument is overwhelming, and I welcome the initiative.
If the detachments are to go out early, when will the rest arrive? When will their equipment arrive and was not there a better way of sending it than by a protracted sea journey? Could not a heavy airlift have been considered? Most important, when will the troops be ready to operate? The time for intervention is now, and I welcome the Government's response, albeit slightly late.
Mr. Rifkind: The first company is flying out tonight and the remainder of the battalion group will join them in several days. The heavier equipment probably will have to go by sea. Some consideration has been given to whether some of it could be carried by an airlift; it would be preferable if that could be done.
The first task of the troops when they arrive, subject to their commanders, probably will be to take up static duties until their vehicles arrive. That will release the existing British troops to take on more mobile responsibilities, so there will be no waste of time. From the moment they arrive, they will be doing valuable and important work, and the overall pressure on the Coldstream Guards and the other existing forces will be substantially reduced.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that elements of the efficient NATO command structure, which played such a notable part in the success that we had in Sarajevo, will continue to be in place while we are maintaining and securing the recent peace agreements which were so successfully negotiated?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes. One of General Sir Michael Rose's priorities has been to reform the command structure to make it more cohesive and effective. Brigadier Reith, the commander of the British forces, has an overall responsibility as a one-star officer not only for the British forces but for the Malaysian, Canadian and other forces in that part of Bosnia.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: My party is reassured that the Secretary of State has resisted pressure to take precipitate action to increase United Kingdom troop levels before obtaining the co-operation of allied nations. May I suggest that we shall be undertaking an open-ended task in Bosnia, because of the bitterness between the factions, unless we can obtain some means to ensure that those factions surrender their heavy field artillery and other weaponry, rather than simply withdraw them from particular areas at particular times?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was important to ensure that the British contribution was made not in isolation, but as part of an international response to the request that the United Nations made to the international community as a whole. With regard to the duration of our commitment, from the first moment that we sent British forces, we could not be certain of the precise length of tour that would be required. We must seek so to assist the United Nations effort that a ceasefire becomes effective and leads to a political settlement. Only when there is a political settlement will the need for UN forces in Bosnia gradually disappear. We are actively working towards that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.11 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 14 MARCH—Estimates Day (2nd allotted day) (1st part).
Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on housing, in so far as it relates to the Department of Environment's grants in aid to the Housing Corporation. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding excess votes, supplementary estimates and defence votes A.
The Chairman of the Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 15 MARCH—Second Reading of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 16 MARCH—Until seven o'clock: Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order.
Motions on orders relating to rateable values.
Motion on the Nuclear Installations (Increase of Operators' Limits of Liability) Order.
Motions on regulations relating to legal aid and advice (Scotland), followed by motion relating to the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 17 MARCH—Motion for the Easter Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
FRIDAY 18 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 21 MARCH—Opposition Day (8th Allotted Day)
There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion, the subject of which will be announced in due course.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 16 March to consider European Community documents as follows:—Committee A, document No. 7909/92 relating to the Court of Auditors' Special Report on the Environment.—Committee B, document No. 4911/92 and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 4 February relating to the common rules for the internal market in electricity and gas.
[The Second Report from the Environment Committee of Session 1992–93 on the Housing Corporation (House of Commons Paper No. 466-I and II) and the Government's response thereto (Cm2363) are relevant]
[Wednesday 16 March:
European Community Document 7909/92 Environment (Court of Auditors Reprots)—Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC79-ix (1992–93)
European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: a) 4911/92, b) unnumbered—Liberalisation of Community Markets for Gas and Electricity—Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: a) HC 79-i (1992–93) and HC 79-xx (1992–93)b) HC 48-vii (1993–94).?
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. May we press him for a further statement soon on the vexed issue of the Child Support Agency? He may know that there was a lobby earlier this week which highlighted the continuing serious problems. I realise that it is not long since we had a debate on the matter, but the Leader of the House will recognise that serious debts and concerns are piling up. It would be helpful to have something further soon.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from either the President of the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office, whichever is appropriate? Is he aware that the Chemical Industries Association has sought an assurance for the past year that Britain will ratify the chemical weapons convention before it comes into force in January? The association has expressed the real anxiety that, unless we do so, the interests not only of Britain but of the association of the industry will be seriously damaged. We should like an early statement on that.
Finally, may I press the Leader of the House yet again to try to get his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement about the registration of electors, especially as there are only about three weeks left during which people from other European Community countries can register to vote in the European elections? We understand that in every other member state a publicity campaign about that is being mounted and only in Britain is there no such campaign. May we have a statement about that soon, please?
Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, I can be as brief as your injunction to us asks.
I am not in a position to promise a statement on any of those matters, but I will bring the requests to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Paul Marland: May I ask please for a debate on Lloyd's? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My interest in the subject is well known. In 1981, during the passage of the Lloyd's Bill, Lloyd's gave specific undertakings to the House and those undertakings involved the full disclosure and clear accounting of what happened at Lloyd's which would be revealed to the names and the investors at Lloyd's. That has not been done. Further, Lloyd's council—
Madam Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, I frequently have to caution the House about statements that are made. We are questioning the business statement for next week. I like it to be done briskly so that other Members can be called.
Mr. Marland: Lord Mackay confirmed in another place that those undertakings had been given by Lloyd's. May I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should have a debate on that matter because allegations are being made outside the House that there is a cover-up, and that the Government and Lloyd's are hand in glove in denying justice to the Lloyd's investors. May I ask my right hon. Friend to try to find time for a debate on that subject?
Mr. Newton: I know that my hon. Friend would not himself endorse the allegations to which he refers, but equally, I think, everyone on both sides of the House understands his concern about the matter as a whole, and the difficulties for many families, so of course I will consider his suggestion.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the leader of the House aware that it is now nearly 18 months since we had a debate in the House on substantial issues of importance to the agriculture industry? In recent weeks we have had important changes of policy on milk marketing, on the condition of the pig sector, on hill farming and on the implications of GATT for British agriculture. In the past few days we have even had an acknowledgment from Europe that there is a new report on the future, the economic viability, of the common agricultural policy. The Minister acknowledges the existence of that report but is not prepared to come to the House and explain its significance. May we have a debate as soon as possible on the state of British agriculture?
Mr. Newton: I harbour some hopes of satisfying the hon. Gentleman before the recess.
Mr. John Biffen: On Monday or Tuesday of next week, may we have a debate and a vote to sustain the position that has been adopted hitherto by the Foreign Secretary on the size of the blocking veto in the context of an enlarged Community; or does my right hon. Friend think that such a gesture is wholly unnecessary?
Mr. Newton: I cannot hold out the prospect of a debate, but my right hon. Friend has referred to the objectives that have been set out in that negotiation in relation to enlargement and to the protection of significant minorities in the Community. I can assure him that the Government will continue to pursue those objectives with vigour.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Four reports have been produced by the Home Office on electoral matters following investigations into the previous general election, when the names of millions of people were missing from electoral registers. Now that the reports have been published, may we have a debate on that important matter? Some notice could be taken of my ten-minute rule Bill, which deals with those matters and could be taken on board by the Home Office if it is seeking an avenue to introduce a rolling electoral register.
Mr. Newton: I will make the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill my bedtime reading.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 752?
[That this House joins with all other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the observance of Commonwealth Day on Monday, 14th March; notes that in 1994 the Commonwealth will once again be in the eyes of the world as the Commonwealth Games are played out in Victoria, British Columbia; recognises the value of playing in a team and also notes that the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contributes to the team of parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth by holding conferences, seminars and meetings in London and by arranging parliamentary visits to Commonwealth countries.]
The motion stands in my name and that of many hon. and right hon. colleagues on both sides of the House. It draws attention to Commonwealth day on 14 March—next Monday—and asks whether it is about time that we had a debate on the role of the Commonwealth in the world and this country's role in the Commonwealth. A debate is a long time due and I would very much welcome one.
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that the entire Government share fully the sentiments that are expressed in the motion to which my hon. Friend has referred. I wish that I could offer a debate next Monday on a subject that sounds rather more interesting than the one that I have announced. However, I am afraid that I cannot change the business immediately.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have next week a debate on official gifts given and received by the Prime Minister? If it is necessary for the President of the United States to declare all gifts of more than a nominal value, why should not the same rule apply in the United Kingdom? When public money is being spent, the public are entitled to know what it is being spent on.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to gifts received or to gifts given, but I shall draw his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend again consider a request from me that he find time to debate the issue of seat belts in coaches? This is a matter of great concern to the parents in my constituency. The House should be given an opportunity to look at the research into whether such seat belts are good or bad for the safety of children. In this case, I am joined by Mr. James Elles, the Member of the European Parliament for the area in which my constituency is located. Mr. Elles too is pressing for an examination of these matters.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that anyone would want to consider with great care any evidence in this field. I shall bring my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend; and the Select Committee too may want to take note of it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday 3,000 disabled people—wheelchairs and all—were crammed into Westminster hall to demand support tomorrow for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? We believe that the Opposition can provide the necessary troops to take the Bill through its Second Reading. What disabled people want is a statement that the Government will provide the necessary parliamentary time to get it through its remaining stages. Will the Leader of the House oblige?
Mr. Newton: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, when he indicated that he hoped that the Bill would go to Committee for detailed examination of its provisions. It seems to me that that is the right course for tomorrow.
Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the continuing terrorist campaign, will the Leader of the House inform hon. Members when time will be found for a debate on the London-Dublin deal, which the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, as United Kingdom citizens, believe furthers the agenda of republicanism and is detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be well aware of the fact that within the past week there have been three substantial opportunities on the Floor of the House to refer to Northern Ireland matters. My right hon.

415
and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be here to answer questions next Thursday, but at the moment I cannot promise anything beyond that.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Leader of the House may be aware that constructive receiverships, such as that which took place at Leyland, are threatened by a Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Paramount Airways. Has the President of the Board of Trade given this matter any thought, and will he consider making a Commons statement on the changes in insolvency legislation that are necessary if many thousands of jobs are not to be lost as a result of this court decision?
Mr. Newton: I have noticed the decision, as, no doubt, has my right hon. Friend, to whose attention I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. William Cash: With regard to the question of the blocking minority, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) received from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House an answer suggesting that the Foreign Secretary would act with vigour. Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members, and perhaps many Opposition Members, regard vigour as including the need to say no on this occasion?
Mr. Newton: The vigour and determination with which the British Government's negotiating objectives have been pursued are very clear. As I have said, we shall continue to pursue those objectives with vigour.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to give us, in a statement next week, his latest thinking on the doctrine of collective responsibility—in particular, in respect of the position of the Minister for open government? Although statements made by the latter right hon. Gentleman have not yet been repudiated by the rest of the Government, one must assume that they are at variance with the views of the Prime Minister. In addition, there should be a look at the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General, one of whom apparently has no confidence in the legal competence of the other. Surely the Prime Minister needs to clear up this matter and get a grip on his Government.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on the first half of that matter in Question Time just now, and I shall not add to what he said. In the past few weeks I have commented, in both capacities, on the second half of the question—and I shall not add to that.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)? Many people have criticised the lack of publicity that our debates seem to receive these days in quality newspapers. Some people say that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons.
There is a vital point here. Qualified majority voting is of huge national concern. Some 20,000 directives have been passed into law in the past two or three years. Many of them have been vitally affected by qualified majority
416
voting. On Monday and Tuesday, the House is to discuss estimates and local government in Wales. Those may be important subjects, but—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question come my way.
Mr. Leigh: If there is a matter of such vital concern—we are presently arguing about it in Brussels and a final decision is to be made on Tuesday—should we not react to that and give the House an opportunity to debate the matter so that we can back up the vigorous defence which the Government are putting up in Brussels at the moment?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has already done that with his question.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to provide an opportunity for either a statement or a debate on the Government's submission on structural plans for the multi-annual guidance programme of the European Union, given its importance to the fishing and boat-building industries in many parts of the United Kingdom and the deadline that has been set for 31 March? Surely we should have an opportunity to know what is being said in our names.
Mr. Newton: I shall consider the hon. Lady's point, but I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Even if the expansion of the Community is delayed, it could still go ahead. If we concede on the blocking minority, that will be it and the powers of this House will be significantly reduced. Will my right hon. Friend go a stage further and commit the Government to not making such a change without first allowing a significant, long and serious debate in the House?
Mr. Newton: Like a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends, my hon. Friend has made clear his support for the Government's position. I have now responded four times, and I cannot add to what I said on the previous three occasions.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland that he will abandon proposals for a new law on criminal trespass to restrict people's right of access to the countryside, especially now that strong objections to the proposals have been lodged by Scottish National Heritage, the Law Society of Scotland, the Ramblers Association and the Mountaineering Council for Scotland? Is it too much to expect the Leader of the House to stand up for the rights of the common people against those of the lairds and landed gentry?
Mr. Newton: No, it is not; but it is too much to expect the Leader of the House to speak from this Dispatch Box as though he were the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consider all and any representations made to him.
Mr. James Paice: May we have an early debate on unemployment? Is it not strange that we have not had one on an Opposition day for more than a year? Does my right hon. Friend think that that is because unemployment has fallen over the past year by 200,000?
Mr. Newton: Yes, of course it is because unemployment has been falling over the past year, and the Opposition never like to touch on anything that might be regarded as good news. They have not yet announced the subject for their Opposition day on Monday 21 March. I look forward to their picking up my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Tom Cox: When might the Leader of the House be in a position to make a further statement on the additional voluntary contributions scheme, which he knows is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who has followed the subject closely, will know of the efforts that I have made. I have recently been inquiring when the final details will be in place because I, too, should like to see that
Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that this may seem like an echo, but why is there not to be a debate in the coming week on the implementation of the Jopling report? Will my right hon. Friend perhaps have a word with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about perhaps debating it on one of the Opposition days, seeing that so many Labour Members want reform as well?
Mr. Newton: There is another suggestion for the right hon. Lady, who, I see, is sitting patiently and listening carefully on the Opposition Front Bench. As for the objectives of the Jopling report, I would say that we have not done too badly in the past couple of weeks.
Mr. Derek Enright: Did the Leader of the House notice yesterday that the Financial Secretary launched, outside the House, a consultative document on venture capital as a successor to the business expansion scheme? Will he arrange for the Financial Secretary to come here next week and explain why the business expansion scheme was such a failure, particularly since his PPS was the boss of a venture which went down to the tune of millions of pounds, costing the Earl of Bradford £1.2 million and the country £200,000 of taxpayers' money?
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a rather provocative question to me. I do not think that I want to provide time for further provocation next week.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, during next week's debate on local government, there will be time for us to raise the subject of the increasing council tax that we see emerging from both Labour and Liberal shire counties, particularly in East Sussex, where the Liberal Democrats have increased council tax by 11 per cent.?
Mr. Newton: It seems very much in line with what is happening elsewhere, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time. The figures so far for the billing authorities, taken together, in England are, for band C and two adults, £430, Conservative; £559, Labour; and £503, Liberals. From what my hon. Friend has said, the Liberals are running hard to catch up with Labour.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I endorse the demand by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) for a debate on Lloyd's? We could then see how, in 1981, all the Conservative Members voted to give massive legal immunities to the council of Lloyd's, and we could compare it with their views on trade unions. At the
418
same time we could list the nine hon. Members who are defying the wish of the House in failing to provide information on the number of syndicates, on which the House passed a resolution requiring them so to do. I hope that we are given an opportunity to debate the subject, because this defiance is serious.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has good cause to know what the Select Committee has said in its report on the matter, and I know that it is being carefully considered by all the hon. Members to whom he refers.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the guidelines set by the Department of the Environment for allowing travellers' sites on green belt land? In the village of Failand in my constituency, this is causing a great deal of disappointment and anger, and although it is primarily the work of Labour and the Liberals on Avon county council, I am sure that many hon. Members have the same problem and would like a debate on the subject as quickly as possible.
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate soon on the claim made in today's New Scientist that 10,000 British people a year are dying from a previously unidentified cause—minute particles emitted by car exhausts? Are we not all concerned about car pollution which has caused a great increase in the number of children suffering from asthma? Is it not crucial that we address the problem rather than increasingly giving in to the car lobby and trying to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the car for our urban space?
Mr. Newton: Given the efforts of the Government to encourage the use of lead-free petrol and some of the announcements made about policy on the tax of road fuel, that is an unjustified question. I am sure that the scientific report, which I have not myself seen, will be carefully studied in the Departments of both Health and Transport.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) in asking for a debate on council tax because, in the course of it, we can highlight the fact that the Lib-Lab-controlled county council of Kent is hard on the heels of Liberal-controlled East Sussex with an increase of 7 per cent.? Gravesham council—now Labour—not to be outdone, has gone from having the lowest council tax in Kent to fifth from the bottom.
Mr. Newton: That is a useful supporting question to the one which was asked earlier. It is further evidence of the strenuous efforts that the Liberals are making to have as bad a record as Labour.
Dr. Tony Wright: Now that the Public Accounts Committee has said that the standards of conduct in Government are at their lowest point for 140 years, the Cabinet Secretary has said that it is possible to tell Parliament half-truths and a Cabinet Minister has said that it is possible not to tell the truth at all, is there not a crisis of confidence in the conduct of Government? Is it not urgent that the Government should allow time for the House to discuss it?
Mr. Newton: I say with as much moderation as I can muster that there is something wrong when an hon. Member can give further credence to three straightforward distortions.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind that on 1 January 1996 the United Kingdom will lose its veto over the European Union's visa list, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate to have a debate as soon as possible, not only on Britain's right to exercise its veto, but also on the extension of the European Union and the implications of that for other members who wish to exercise a veto?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier on what I take to be part of my hon. Friend's question. Were agreement to be reached on enlargement, that would in due course require debate.
Mr. John Denham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the effect of gagging clauses and employer pressure on the ability of people at work to participate properly in the democratic process? I have been made aware by my constituents of the fact that some of those who work for British Rail Maintenance Ltd. in Eastleigh and for British Gas at the Botley depot in Eastleigh, who are facing redundancy, are unable to speak freely about their fears for their jobs and their futures because of those gagging clauses and that pressure. Should not the House send a clear message that anybody in Britain should be able to speak freely about the problems they face at work without fear of undue pressure from their employers?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State concerned with those industries will have noted the hon. Gentleman's words. I shall ask for them to be drawn to the attention of the chairmen of the bodies concerned.
Mr. Oliver Heald: In the light of the Employment Select Committee report today, which concludes that labour market flexibility is vital to maintaining high employment levels, and as the Opposition will not use a Supply day to discuss the subject, would it be possible to have a debate on unemployment and flexibility in the labour market, particularly as the G7 jobs summit is to take place in Detroit next week? It would give the Government and Conservative Members the opportunity to say, first, that labour market flexibility is vital, and, secondly, that deregulation, not protectionism, is the way forward.
Mr. Newton: It occurs to me that one reason, in addition to that already suggested by one of my hon. Friends, for Labour's reluctance to initiate a debate on unemployment is that precisely that point might be made and the weakness of their position would be exposed. I have sitting next to me my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who will shortly be departing for the G7 summit and will pay careful attention to what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on reform of the regulatory system for the privatised utilities? Will he bear in mind my early-day motion 764?
[That this House notes Calor Gas has appointed the former Director-General of OFGAS, Sir James McKinnon
420
to act as its adviser for an undisclosed sum as part of its push to enter the United Kingdom domestic and natural gas market which he in his former role aggressively deregulated to promote new market entrants (such as Calor); further notes that Dutch-owned Calor Gas is in partnership with Norwegian-dominated Alliance and considers Mr. McKinnon's decision to sell his unique knowledge to these companies not only a grossly unpatriotic act but a shameless example of a Tory government appointee serving his time before shoving his own nose into the free market trough; recognises this disgraceful episode as symptomatic of the need to regulate the regulators by instructing them not to pursue competition as blind dogma but to act in the national interest; and calls on the President of the Board of Trade to overhaul the regulatory regime of the privatised utilities ensuring, inter alia, that as a condition of their appointment directors general are prevented from taking up subsequent appointments with private companies in the same industry sector.]
It condemns the fact that Sir James McKinnon, director-general of Ofgas, has now taken a job as a paid adviser to Calor Gas, a new entrant to the natural gas market, which he sought to break up and deregulate to encourage extra competition from companies such as Calor Gas. Now he is benefiting from that. Surely the employment contracts of directors-general of the regulatory agencies should prohibit such appointments.
Mr. Newton: I understand that Sir James McKinnon retired from Ofgas some two months before the decision was taken on the MMC inquiry. He is, of course, bound by the Gas Act 1985 not to take advantage of commercial knowledge gained during his period of appointment.
Mr. James Clappison: Is my right Friend aware that this month marks the centenary of Gladstone's resignation? Will he find time before the end of the month to debate the great ideals of Gladstonian liberalism—individual liberty, free trade, sound finance and parliamentary sovereignty—and at the same time debate why the modern Liberal Democrats have abandoned every one of those ideals, not least Gladstone's wish always to take a penny off income tax rather than, as they would do, put a penny on it all the time?
Mr. Newton: I think that that is one of the best business questions that I have heard for a long time. It shows that Gladstone would be turning in his grave if he could see what that lot gets up to.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will remember his response to me last week when I asked for a statement on thalidomide victims. Is there a possibility of a statement being made within the next week following the meeting of representatives of those victims with the Under-Secretary of State yesterday?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise a debate next week, but I can record my pleasure—I imagine that it will be shared by the hon. Gentleman—that, in the light of the meeting, the members of the group who were on hunger strike have decided to end their protest. I am sure that careful consideration will continue to be given to the points that they made.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern expressed about the new proposals for compensating innocent victims of

421
violent crime. Will he provide an early opportunity to debate the subject as, prima facie, the tariff system would seem to be wholly inadequate to replace common law and statutory principles?
Mr. Newton: We have, of course, had Home Office questions today. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had an opportunity to make that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but if he did not, I will ensure that he is made aware that it has been raised now.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on early-day motion 634, which calls attention to the actions of 53 Opposition Members in voting against the increases in pensions?
[That this House notes that 53 honourable and Right honourable Labour Members voted against the Orders to uprate pensions and social security benefits and to introduce the package of extra help with VAT on fuel; and recognises that if they had been successful, millions of pensioners and less well-off people would have been deprived of the support voted through by Conservative honourable Members.]
A debate would give Conservative Members the opportunity of pointing out to our pensioner constituents the effect on their incomes if their action had been successful.
Mr. Newton: I should be pleased to arrange time for a debate, but my hon. Friend's question is a further useful opportunity to draw attention to that astonishing occasion when the Labour party voted against the pensioner.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing time for a debate on the new working practices in the House? Is he aware that many hon. Members feel that, since the usual channels have broken down, and despite the fact that pairing arrangements have broken down—I wish to declare that I do not have a pair, and so do not speak from interest—we are enjoying hours of business that are more predictable and business is transacted, in my belief, more efficiently?
Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure whether that will help or hinder the continuation of such arrangements, but in respect of part of my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that he has the sympathy of the whole House.
Mr. Michael Bates: Can my right hon. Friend think of a way of providing an early opportunity for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the House and explain why, within minutes of the IRA mortar attack on the northern runway at Heathrow, he and 240 of his hon. Friends were in the Lobbies voting against a measure that would help the police to find the culprits?
Mr. Newton: If I thought that there was the slightest chance of the hon. Member for Sedgefield either being willing to explain or, indeed, being able to explain such a vote, I would very happily arrange an occasion for him to do so.

Consolidated Fund Bill
4.43 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Thursday 17 March.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Tuesday 15 March. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Usually the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates might not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn in debate.

Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  OPPOSITION DAY

    Sex Discrimination
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.44 pm
    Ms Clare Short: I beg to move,
    That this House, in the week of International Women's Day, notes that women in Britain face discrimination in all aspects of their lives; deplores the Government's failure fully to implement European equality legislation or the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission; and calls on the Government to introduce legislation to simplify, strengthen and extend the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts.
    When the Leader of the House announced at Business Questions last Thursday that the Opposition had chosen this subject for debate, there were jeers and catcalls from hon. Members on the Tory Benches—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No, there were not.
    Ms Short: There were. If the hon. Lady was not here or did not hear them, she is simply not reflecting the truth.
    It is still the case that many—not all—Conservative Members think that the issues of women's rights, views and demands for equality are a joke, at the margin of politics, not real politics, not serious politics. That attitude is deeply insulting to half the population and shows how out of tune they are with the reality in our society and across the world. There is no doubt that women's demands for equality in the workplace, the family and public life is a major force for social change, which will continue to force the pace of social progress and reform in this country and across the world. When Tory Members jeer at any mention of a debate on women in politics, they show how out of touch they are with the main stream of life in Britain and across the world.
    I am sure that the Secretary of State would want to distance himself from such behaviour, but one of the pleasures of this debate is that we have at last "outed" him and forced him to admit that he is also the Minister for women. "Outing", if I understand it correctly, is forcing someone to admit publicly something that they have been trying to keep secret. Today, he is forced to admit that he is not just the Secretary of State for Employment, but is also the Minister for women.
    It is noticeable that, over the past few months, the Secretary of State has appeared to have a personality change. He used to present himself as fairly mild-mannered and posed as a reasonable man. Over the past few months he has started to hector and sneer and jeer as though he is in competition with the Home Secretary. The general view of the Opposition is that he must be yet another Member of the Cabinet looking for an invitation to go on the radio and assure those listening that he has no intention of standing against the Prime Minister for the leadership of the Tory party. I also suspect that he likes to
    424
    keep it quiet that he is the Minister for women because he fears that that might not impress the jeering Tories, whose votes in the future he might wish to try to get.
    As the Secretary of State might tell us later, his role as Minister for women, with a unit in his Department responsible for policy on women, a Cabinet sub-committee to co-ordinate policy and lead responsibility for the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which was transferred to his Department from the Home Office, is all the accomplishment of my predecessor and great friend Jo Richardson who, sadly, died on 1
    February. Jo was, as everyone in the House knows, an enormous champion of the rights of women. For many years she was shadow Minister for women. She was determined to put into Whitehall, among many other things, a Minister for women to correct the bias in the upper levels of Whitehall and in politics, where a woman's perspective is still not fully taken into account.
    Jo studied examples from around the world and made preparations for the establishment of a Ministry for women when—as she hoped—we would win the election and she would take office. Thus, in the period just before the election when, as is customary, shadow Cabinet Ministers meet civil servants to make preparations for the implementation of our policy she met Sir Robin Butler. He outlined his plans to establish Jo's Ministry for women, and they are the arrangements that we now have in the Department of Employment. Sadly, we did not win the election. Even more sadly, Jo did not become the Minister for women. But her work bore fruit and the present machinery in Whitehall to co-ordinate policy for women is a result of her work.
    We intend to monitor closely the work of the Minister for women and his Department. This debate is part of that effort.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Lady aware that 40 per cent. of appointments made by the Public Appointments Unit are of women? Four years ago, the figure was only 30 per cent. That is a substantial increase, over quite a short time.
    Ms Short: I agree that that is something of an improvement. However, I am describing something far more important—the new machinery in Whitehall to co-ordinate policy for the benefit of women. As I have explained, that is largely a product of the work of Jo Richardson, who was deeply admired and loved in the House. I assume that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) does not wish to take anything away from Jo Richardson's accomplishment in achieving the arrangements that now exist.
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), I do not wish to take anything away from the work of a grand lady. Is she aware, however, that there has long been a ministerial group on women's issues in Whitehall? It used to be chaired by the Minister of State, Home Office: I recall that, because I was a member. The role of chairman has been upgraded by being moved to Cabinet level.
    Ms Short: I am indeed aware of that—and the machinery that existed when the hon. Lady was a Minister has been massively strengthened because of the work of Jo Richardson. I do not want to keep repeating that point, but Conservative Members do not seem capable of taking it on board.

    425
    As I was saying, we intend to monitor the Minister's work carefully and this debate is part of that effort. On behalf of all the major women's organisations in Britain, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for an annual debate on the work of his Ministry and the Government's strategy in advancing the position of women.
    I have received letters and messages from a wide range of women's organisations: the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the townswomen's guilds and the National Alliance of Women's Organisations, for instance. They are delighted that the debate is taking place; they point out that it is the first debate on the Sex Discrimination Act since it was passed 20 years ago—by a Labour Government, of course. They are also irritated that they were given such short notice of the debate and they ask for an annual debate of the sort that I have mentioned.
    I shall be happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to respond immediately. If he does not—he is shaking his head—I hope that in his speech he will make a commitment that the Government will arrange an annual debate, in Government time, to monitor the progress of women's equality in Britain.
    As I have said, women's demand for equality is a major force for social change. If we stand back for a moment, we can see how powerful it has been historically. We have just celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's getting the vote. What a struggle that was; what an insult it was that, as the franchise was widened, women were left out. But they fought and struggled and ensured that they were given the vote. That was one part of our great progress.
    On and on it went. Women had to struggle for the right to be educated and the right to own property after they were married. They continue to struggle against the ugly problem of domestic violence, which still represents a quarter of all reported violent crime in Britain: it is a massive and often hidden problem, which reflects the inequality of power between men and women and demeans a civilised society.
    It was announced today that the Secretary of State for Health is to take responsibility for co-ordinating policy on the family. I strongly suggest that she and the Minister for women agree to prepare a national strategy to deal with the problem of domestic violence. I congratulate the National Society of Local Government Women's Committees on its current "zero tolerance" campaign and on the startling and powerful posters and postcards that it has produced to challenge the widespread acceptance that violence against women in their homes is a normal part of our culture and society.
    When we examine the historical record—women's struggle for the vote and for the rights to be educated and to own property—we see that women have advanced considerably over the years; but we also see that they still face major discrimination and disadvantage in society. It was the Prime Minister himself who said, at the launch of Opportunity 2000:
    "Why should half our population go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase?"
    That is the question before us today.
    More than 20 years after the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970—by a Labour Government, of course—women still earn only 79 per cent. of men's full-time hourly earnings. They cluster in jobs that are seen as women's
    426
    jobs, often undervalued and underpaid. Women also form the bulk of part-time workers, with low pay and few opportunities for overtime or bonus earnings.
    This reality—that the overwhelming majority of women are stuck in low-paid jobs, with little opportunity for training, promotion or access to pension entitlements, so that the overwhelming majority of those who are poor in old age are women—is currently the major barrier to women's advance. This is the issue that must be tackled if they are to cease to be what the Prime Minister called "a hobbled horse".
    Despite what the Prime Minister said, the position of women in Britain has deteriorated since the Government came to power 15 years ago. In 1991—the latest year for which figures are available—the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the league in terms of pay differentials between male and female manual workers in Europe. In terms of women's earnings as a percentage of men's, the top country is Denmark, with 84.7 per cent; the bottom country is the United Kingdom, with 67.1 per cent. In 1980, just after Labour lost power, we were fourth from the bottom. The position has deteriorated.
    We are also bottom of the European nursery education table, with just 35 to 40 per cent. of three to five-year-olds in nursery education, compared with over 95 per cent. in Belgium and France and over 85 per cent. in Denmark and Italy. Yet research undertaken by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Government's own agency, and published in December 1992 shows that the cost to the Government of a phased expansion of subsidised child care—including out-of-school care, as well as nursery places—would be more than outweighed by savings in social security payments and increased tax revenue.
    The strategy is available; the savings are clear. Such action would lead to a big improvement in the lives of women and children: the research makes it plain that nursery education causes children to do better when they go to school. Yet the Government have failed to implement the strategy.
    We are also at the bottom of the European maternity pay tables, even after the Government's reluctant improvement this week—which was forced on them by the European Union. They resisted an improvement in maternity provision for all the women of Europe, but they have now grudgingly been forced to make an improvement. We welcome any improvement, but we know that we are still the worst off in Europe and that 20 per cent. of the poorest and lowest-income women in Britain will receive absolutely no maternity entitlement from the scheme announced by the Government.
    Moreover, we are among just four European countries that fail to offer any parental leave provision, entitling parents to take time off work when their children are sick. It is, of course, Britain—of all the countries in Europe—that is blocking a proposed European directive that would give the father or mother the right to take time off to care for children.
    The truth is that the British Government refuse to make the changes that are needed in our sex discrimination and equal pay laws so that women can cease to be "a hobbled horse" and try to resist the improvements coming from the European Union. When forced by the European Union to make changes, they do so grudgingly and with bad grace. An example that is central to this debate is the law on equal pay for work of equal value, which the Government were forced to introduce as a result of a European directive.

    427
    I well remember that night. The speech was the first to be made by Alan Clark, the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment. He was horrified to learn that his first action as a Minister would be to introduce a measure intended to advance the equality of women, a cause for which he did not stand. What he did that night—as he has since admitted—was have quite a few drinks and then read his script for jokes. He introduced the measure in a way that showed the House that he did not believe in it—that he derided it. Since leaving this place, he has had the grace to admit in his memoirs that that is exactly what he did and that perhaps he should not have behaved in that way.
    The law provides a right, but it had to be passed to meet the requirements of the European Union. Mr. Clark made it clear to the House that he intended the law to be unenforceable in practice. Lord Denning described it as
    "tortuosity and complexity beyond compare".
    It needs to be changed, simplified and made enforceable. That is one of the changes for which we are calling today and which the Government refuse to make.
    The Equal Opportunities Commission is required by law—passed, of course, by a Labour Government—to keep the Equal Pay Act 1970 under review. The former Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, made it clear when he introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that we saw it as only a beginning on which we would have to build to produce real equality for women. In 1988 and 1989, the Equal Opportunities Commission proposed to bring together, simplify and strengthen the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts.
    On Tuesday—International Women's Day—I visited the Equal Opportunities Commission. In discussions, we agreed that if the Government wanted the rights that exist in theory and in law to be enforceable in practice, they would implement the changes for which the Equal Opportunities Commission has called. The Government will not do so, however. In public, they appear to be in favour of women's equality and women's employment, but in practice they are not.
    The Government's behaviour in response to the proposals of the Equal Opportunities Commission shows their attitude. It took them five years to bother to reply; even then, their reply was almost completely negative. The Equal Opportunities Commission has made it clear that it deeply regrets that. It has asked the Government to think again. I also understand that the Government have not yet had the decency to respond to the changes proposed by the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. As we examine the record, it becomes clearer why the hobbled horse continues to hobble.
    The position now is that the Equal Opportunities Commission has made a submission to the European Commission to argue that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under the treaty of Rome and the equal pay directive. The Trades Union Congress has also made an official complaint arguing that the abolition of the wages councils is a breach of European law. If the Commission finds in favour of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the TUC—it is difficult to see how it could do anything else—it is likely to take Britain to the European Court for breaching its obligations on equality for women.
    428
    The picture is clear. The Government's policy on women's equality is out of line with those of all the other Governments in Europe, and with European parties that share their political tradition. The other European Conservative parties understand that the agenda has to be taken forward and that women are entitled to equality. Only the British Conservative party cannot tolerate the agenda and tries to hold it back for women in Britain and the European Community. We have made progress only when the European Union has dragged a few concessions out of the Government, which they have always made grudgingly and half-heartedly.
    The Opposition were absolutely delighted by the House of Lords' decision last Thursday—in response to a judicial review brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission—that it was illegal because of our obligations under our treaty of accession to the European Community for the Government to provide fewer employment protection rights for part-time workers than for full-time workers. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us when he will introduce legislation and how he will implement that decision. We do not want any more dragging of feet, but urgent action.
    The position of women and their rights in the labour market are at the core of the Government's economic policy. Since 1979, the strategy of the Government has been to deregulate the labour market, to remove all protection from low-paid workers, to reduce social protection in general and to compete by making British labour cheap. Women have borne the brunt of that policy and are the battering ram of that strategy.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: As the hon. Lady knows, the Conservative argument is that deregulation means more jobs. [Interruption.] Let me finish my argument. Between 1984 and 1991, there was a massive increase of 19 per cent. in the number of women in the work force. Should not she pay tribute to the achievement of those women, who now have new opportunities? Does not it show that what the Government say is right?
    Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. The first great recession created by the Thatcher Government destroyed 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry and much of our manufacturing capacity. The jobs that were lost were overwhelmingly male.
    The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) chooses his dates selectively. In the boom that was created to get the Government through one of their election contests, part-time, low-paid jobs in the service sector were generated and taken up by women. Labour market projections suggest that that trend will continue. More and more full-time jobs for men are being destroyed, low-paid jobs for women are being created, and the labour market is being dragged down.
    The fact that women are cheap labour is bad for them and is being used to push men out of the labour market. That is not an economic strategy for our country. It drags down standards for everyone. It is not in the interests of women and men, or of the long-term health of the British economy.
    Mr. Richard Spring: The Labour party has said that it is in favour of minimum wage legislation. Will the hon. Lady speculate on the disastrous effects that that policy would have on employment

    429
    generally and female employment in particular, as is shown in Spain, Portugal and France? The Labour party's policy would enormously increase unemployment, and that would affect women directly.
    Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman shows the funny, strange and isolated world in which the Tory party lives. Every Government in the European Union has minimum wage protection. The United States has minimum wage protection. Every other developed country understands that the way to compete in the modern world is to have a highly skilled work force and a high-investment, high-technology economy.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan rose—
    Ms Short: I have not finished dealing with the intervention by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring). Only the British Government believe that the way forward is to compete with poorer countries by cutting wages. That strategy is a disaster for our economy. We need a minimum wage, which will pay for itself through the tax take and savings in family credit, to create a healthy economy of high skills and high investment. The Tory party is on its own. It is hobbling women and the British economy through its dedication to using women as low-paid workers and to cutting wages and conditions. It is damaging our future and the interests of everyone.
    Mrs. Gillan rose—
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—
    Ms Short: I want to make some progress, if I may.
    Mrs. Gillan rose—
    Ms Short: Will the hon. Lady please sit down? I shall give way after I have made some progress in my speech [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The House must settle down. I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. Lady.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady gave way to a man and not to a woman. That is sexist.
    Ms Short: It is clear that some of my comments are stinging Conservative Members. They are making so much noise that they are not allowing the debate to continue.
    Mrs. Gillan rose—
    Ms Short: I said that I shall give way in a minute. 'The hon. Lady should sit down and then I shall give way.
    This week, Britain is again isolated in Europe. It has blocked the accession of the European Free Trade Association countries because it is terrified of losing the right to veto any proposals that the other Governments of Europe might agree on social protection for workers. Britain alone is isolated and increasingly in conflict with all her other European partners, including those led by Conservative Governments.
    Similarly, the British Government have today made it clear that they alone of all the Governments in Europe will seek to block protection for children at work. It is suggested that there should be a limit to the number of hours that school children can work, but the British
    430
    Government cannot bear it. We will be the only country in Europe that does not believe that children should have some protection.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, although it took her long enough to do so. If the minimum wage is such a terrific idea, can she explain why France has now passed a law allowing workers aged under 25 to be paid only 60 per cent. of the minimum wage?
    Ms Short: The hon. Lady was so anxious to intervene to make that devastating point. If she really believes that the fact that there has been an adjustment to, but not a sweeping away of, the minimum wage by a Conservative Government in France is a devastating point, she will really have to try harder.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Ms Short: I have already given way once to the hon. Lady. May I please continue with my speech?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it quite clear that she is not giving way.
    Ms Short: The Tories do not like to hear the truth about their isolation from the main stream of economic development, so they are trying to barrack and make a lot of noise.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Ms Short: I have already given way to the hon. Lady. She knows that she should not stand and shout like that.
    Britain is the only country in the European Union incapable of signing the social chapter. That is part and parcel of the problem. Britain's backwardness—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Ms Short: I have made it absolutely clear that I am not giving way.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.
    Ms Short: The Government are isolated, trying to compete by social devaluation. They cannot succeed. They are causing ever more conflict with our partners, who are angry that Britain tries to attract investment by advertising the fact that British workers are cheaper than other European workers. What a prospect to offer to the country— "We'll make you the cheapest workers in Europe, give you the poorest protection and the worst conditions." What kind of quality of life is that to offer the people of Britain?
    The European Commission's Green Paper on social policy stated:
    "It is important to underline that high standards of social protection have been a contributory factor in Europe's economic success in the past."
    Tory Members should read this paper—they might learn something. The report continues:
    "Many would argue that high social standards should not be seen as an optional extra, or a luxury that can be done without once times get hard, but rather as an integral part of a competitive economic model. The debate between this view and those who argue that Europe's present level of social standards are becoming unaffordable goes to the heart of the issue"
    and it does.

    431
    The Tory party thinks that it can compete with the Pacific rim tigers who have massively lower wage levels, or with China, whose economic performance is rising, by bringing down British wages. How low does the Tory party think that the workers of Britain are willing to go? There is only one way forward for this country: high investment and high levels of training and skills. It is the opposite of the trajectory that the Government have given to the country.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Whatever the merits of the hon. Lady's comments, she must at least admit that they are arguable. Does not she think that it would be more democratic for her and her colleagues to get elected before her policies are inflicted on the country? Does she think that it would be democratic if her policies were imposed on us by court rulings and arbitrary judgments of the European Court?
    Ms Short: It is my intention that I and my colleagues shall be elected to implement these policies and, to judge from the Government's performance, it will happen fairly soon. We are bound to test the Government in the local and European elections and there will then be a general election. The Government have lost the support of the British people who agree with us, not with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—
    Ms Short: I must make some progress because time is short.
    The issue before the House and the British people and which goes to the heart of the British economy is that the Government claim to be concerned about the needs of women in Britain, but, in practice, they will not strengthen the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation, as advocated by the Labour party, the Equal Opportunities Commission and all the major women's organisations in Britain. The reason is that the Government's economic strategy depends on using women as cheap labour. The Government therefore need women in this role and cannot implement the legislation that women need to enable them to cross the barrier in the labour market. The consequences for the future of this country are very serious.
    As I said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), 2 million male jobs have been destroyed since 1979. The new jobs that came in the late 1980s were low-paid jobs in the service sector taken by women. The projection for the next 10 years is that the pattern will continue—more and more full-time jobs for men will be destroyed and the only new jobs will be low-paid, part-time jobs, the overwhelming majority of which will be taken by women.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Short: I shall give way in a moment when I have finished this point.
    That pattern is imposing great strains on family life in Britain. I shall tell the House a story of a man in his fifties who came to my advice bureau a little while ago. He handed me a brown envelope and asked me to open it and read its contents. I took out a reference which said that he
    432
    was a fine worker—he was a draughtsman. I told him that it was a lovely reference and that he was clearly extremely good at his job.
    He started to cry and said that he wanted someone to know that he used to be some good. He told me that he had been made unemployed in his fifties, had not obtained another job and had exhausted his entitlement to unemployment benefit. His wife had a relatively low-paid job, but did not want to give it up and his marriage of 25 years was about to break up. This will be the picture if the Government continue their strategy of using women as low-paid labour against men and destroying full-time jobs.
    A group of academics has today produced a report which concludes:
    "The 'flexible' labour market championed by the Government is creating a new tier of insecure labour—of which unemployment is the most acute form—which is damaging health, sinking people into depression, increasing the chances of marriage break-ups and leading to social isolation…the stress generated by job insecurity was also sufficiently intense to destabilise relations in the family and to precipitate marriage break-up".
    The Conservatives claim to be the party of the family, yet they run an economy that is ripping the heart out of many families by using women against men to drag us all down in the labour market.
    The issues that we are debating lie at the centre of the major political and economic choices facing the country. Since 1979—
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—
    Ms Short: I promised to give way, so I shall.
    Lady Olga Maitland: If the market in Europe is so marvellous for women, why is it that this country is second only to Denmark in respect of having the most women in work? Does the hon. Lady accept that women who take part-time work do so from choice to fit in with their family commitments?
    Ms Short: I have heard that point made before and I have already told the hon. Lady that women in Denmark are the best off in terms of earnings as a proportion of male earnings in any European country. Many Tory Members make that point. I shall say only that virtually every woman in Bangladesh from the age of six onwards works. Very high participation rate in the labour market is not a measure of economic development. If there is a high-skill economy, people train and are educated and enter the labour market later. To boast about high participation shows how ignorant the hon. Lady is, as are all her colleagues, about how one achieves a high-quality, high-tech economy.
    Since 1979, the Government have adopted an economic strategy of competing through driving down the costs of employment in Britain. Unemployment has grown massively. When the present Government came to power, unemployment was 1.2 million; using the method of counting which was then in force, there are now 4 million unemployed people. All protection for low-paid workers has been stripped away and the European Commission may soon say that that is illegal.
    Inequality is much greater in our country, and the gap between rich and poor has grown greatly. Crime has grown, inevitably, in those conditions. Conservative Members should worry about the fate of young, working-class men who cannot gain employment. One in four are unemployed and, on current projections, an even higher proportion will be unemployed in the future.

    433
    The strain on families—
    Mr. Rod Richards rose—
    Ms Short: I am coming to an end.
    The strain on families throughout the country is great. Women have borne the burden of much of that deregulation and wage cutting. The strategy has been a failure. Our economy is a mess. The quality of life is low. We have been less successful than our partners in Europe in generating jobs. Simply, what women want is the chance—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about Spain?
    Ms Short: We have the worst record on such matters of all the countries in Europe. The hon. Lady should examine the true historical record, instead of the propaganda that Conservative Members consume.
    Women simply want the chance to be equal at work, in public life and in the family. To achieve that, we need a Government who are committed to equality. Instead, we have a Government who claim to support women's equality, but, in practice, oppose all proposals from British organisations or from Europe which would help to deliver equality. It is in the interests of men and women in Britain that we change that situation. The Government's failure is hobbling the British economy and women in the work force.
    We need a U-turn from the Government; an admission that their economic strategy has been a terrible tragedy for our country. If they are not big enough to deliver it, women in Britain will vote to get rid of them and will start to put things right.
    5.22 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    'notes, in the week of International Women's Day, that women in Britain now enjoy exceptionaly wide and increasing opportunities underpinned by comprehensive and effective legislation; and calls on the Government to continue to pursue the policies which have made this possible.'.
    It is sad that today we should hold a debate on this subject without Jo Richardson, who died recently, because she spoke for the Opposition on women's rights for 11 years, from 1982 to 1993. She campaigned indefatigably for the needs of women and I believe that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that she was much loved and much respected. Her especial interest was in women in lower-paid jobs who were trying to combine work and family responsibilities; and she served as a member of my Department's advisory committee on women's issues. I know that her presence always ensured a lively and stimulating debate. She was a doughty champion of the cause that we are debating today, and she will be sorely missed by everyone in this place.
    There have been co-ordinating arrangements for women's issues at ministerial level for some considerable time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) pointed out. However, in April 1992, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), became the first Cabinet Minister with responsibility for women's issues. I am proud to follow her in that capacity.
    If the country is to be truly competitive and to achieve the highest possible standards, we must recognise the
    434
    ability of all our people. Equality of opportunity is a vital principle. Discrimination against women is not only inefficient, but clearly wrong. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will agree with those simple statements.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: What my right hon. Friend has just said is absolutely right. Does he agree that it must be as wrong to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality as on the grounds of their sex? Will he develop initiatives from his Department to encourage employers to eliminate discrimination and harassment against gay men and lesbians? Is it his view that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 should be amended to make clear beyond doubt that its provisions cover sexuality discrimination?
    Mr. Hunt: On 21 February, we had a lengthy, detailed and in-depth debate on the age of consent, when many issues relating to sexuality were raised. I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many Members on both sides of the House. I wish to show that I believe that, in its present form, the Sex Discrimination Act is right and is working. I shall explain why to my hon. Friend and the House.
    In 1975, when the Bill was introduced, it was welcomed on both sides. It was recognised that it was an Act much built on the achievements of a Conservative Government and that its principles were wholly in line with Conservative philosophy. I wish that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) would recognise that there are strong views on the subject on both sides of the House. There is great scope—
    Mrs. Barbara Roche rose—
    Mr. Hunt: Just one second.
    There is great scope for a bipartisan policy. I felt that many of the hon. Lady's comments, which were founded on incorrect statements, sought to trivialise the debate to a considerable degree.
    Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
    Mr. Hunt: I am about to give way to the hon. Lady.
    I believe that the Sex Discrimination Act is about creating equality of opportunity for individuals and about giving everyone a fair and equal chance to be judged on their merits and to rise as high as their abilities will allow them in the job that they choose to pursue. It is also about challenging preconceptions which say that a woman cannot do this or that a man cannot do that simply because of their sex. Those are out-of-date attitudes and the Act makes that absolutely clear.
    Mrs. Roche: The Secretary of State says that the Conservative party has given rise to much of that legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Will he acknowledge the contribution of my predecessor, Joyce Butler, who was the Member of Parliament for Wood Green until 1979? She was an early pioneer of that legislation and made strenuous attempts to get it into the parliamentary framework.
    Mr. Hunt: In the course of the debate, tributes will be paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to all hon. Members who have worked for the cause. I am seeking to point out that, in the past 15 years, there have been considerable achievements for women. The hon.

    435
    Member for Ladywood was not doing justice to the debate by denying those achievements. I shall give a few simple facts to illustrate that.
    Mr. Cryer rose—
    Mr. Hunt: Let me give a few simple facts and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    First, more and more women want to work. The economic activity rate for women of working age has increased over the past 10 years from 66 per cent. to 71 per cent. Secondly, more and more women are working. The number of women in employment has risen by 16 per cent., or more than 1 million, over that same period. The number of women in full-time jobs has risen virtually identically with the number of women in part-time jobs—a fact that the hon. Lady did not acknowledge.
    Thirdly, more and more women are expected to work in the future. Our projections show that about 80 per cent. of the labour force growth between now and 2006 is likely to come from women. More and more women will be able to contribute their talents in the workplace.
    If we compare our record with that of our European partners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, the United Kingdom at present has the second highest proportion of the female population in work in the European Union—65 per cent.—behind Denmark.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment.
    Between 1983 and 1991, female employment in the Community as a whole—now the Union—grew by 8 million, and a quarter of that was accounted for by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has nearly 11.5 million women in paid employment—more than any other member state except Germany; and it is the only member state in the Union where women's unemployment is lower than men's.
    That is an impressive record, and it is one of which the Government are proud. But it has not been achieved by chance. Job opportunities are greater here because the Government have steadfastly pursued the right policies.
    Mr. Cryer: The Secretary of State said earlier that he wanted to promote some sort of bipartisan policy. Despite his continual sneering and sniping at the minimum wage legislation proposed by the Labour party, which is repeated by his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, does he know that such a measure would immediately benefit more than 2 million women who are paid rock-bottom rotten wages which no Conservative Member would even look at, and that the Government can embark on a bipartisan policy only by recognising the importance of a minimum wage for women?
    Mr. Hunt: How can the hon. Gentleman expect me, as Secretary of State for Employment, to endorse a policy that would destroy 2 million jobs? That is what a statutory minimum wage would do.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: Just a moment.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) talked about wages. Let us look at the facts, because they
    436
    were noticeably absent from the speech by the hon. Member for Ladywood. What is the average wage for women in the United Kingdom? The average weekly gross wage for women is £252.60. What was it in 1979? It was £63. There has been a cash increase of 301 per cent., and an increase in real terms of 54.9 per cent. Women's real wages have grown faster than men's since 1979, and it is about time that Opposition Members recognised that fact.
    We have worked to create a labour market in which employers have minimum constraints on the jobs they can offer. We want minimal structural constraints on pay levels, which is why we have abolished wages councils. We want minimal structural constraints on hours of work which is why we are challenging the working time directive before the European Court of Justice. We want minimal extra costs, which is why we oppose the parental leave directive and other extensions of burdens on business.
    Unlike some others, we do not have preconceptions about the sort of jobs that should be created, based on the stultified stereotypes of 20 or 30 years ago. We do not assume that a "proper" job lasts 48 or 35 hours a week, or that everybody wants to work full time, or that the service industry is a poor relation to manufacturing industry. We do not assume that women, simply because they are women, cannot work at night.
    Those are the old assumptions of an out-of-date, out-of-touch male-dominated society. They are above all to be found in countries that have old-fashioned, highly regulated labour markets.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: Just a moment; let me put this point to the hon. Member for Ladywood. She referred to Europe.
    I see that the European Commission has recently threatened Belgium, France, Italy, Greece and Portugal with legal action because those countries still ban women from night work. The United Kingdom swept away such outdated restrictions years ago.
    Under the Conservative Government, the United Kingdom labour market has been able to offer a wide range of opportunities, and that has benefited women especially. I recognise that women often want to combine work with family commitments, and need an employer who can offer the necessary flexibility.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way, on that point?
    Mr. Hunt: No.
    In the United Kingdom, there is no such thing as a standard working week. There is a wide spread of jobs available, with a whole range of different hours. We have far greater diversity than have other European countries with more highly regulated labour markets. Employers and employees therefore have a better chance of finding the working patterns that suit them both.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: No, I want to make progress.
    For example, for most women part-time workers, especially if they have children, part-time work is their preferred option. More than 92 per cent. of part-time working mothers say that they do not want a full-time job.

    437
    That is why I am so pleased that Conservatives have created more than 2 million part-time jobs in the past 10 years—
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: No, I want to make a little progress.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear—
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is he frightened of?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.
    Mr. Hunt: I am very pleased that the Conservatives have created more than 2 million part-time jobs in the: past 10 years, and that so many part-timers are women. That is because it suits them. Overall, only 13 per cent. of those working part time would prefer to work full time.
    Ms Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: Let me finish my comment first.
    We believe that individuals, not Government, should decide their patterns of work.
    Ms Short: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that many women with young children want to work part time. What they do not want is rotten wages, no training, no promotion and no access to pensions, or to be sidelined in the labour market for the rest of their lives. That is why full-time rights for part-time workers are crucial to the equality of women in the labour market.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady does not acknowledge the statistics that I have given the House, based on the independent figures produced by my Department, which demonstrate how much women's wages and overall earnings have risen in the past 15 years.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: I am not giving way at the moment.
    Of course women need a fair chance to fulfil their potential. Prejudice must be countered. The Government want fair play for women—I cite the English translation of the programme "Chwarae Teg", which I introduced when I was Secretary of State for Wales, in combination with Opportunity 2000 and the Equal Opportunities Commission. We also fund a nationwide campaign, New Horizons for Women, to promote opportunities for women at all levels in the work force and in public appointments—as one of my hon. Friends pointed out.
    We fully support the employer-led Opportunity 2000 campaign. The civil service as a whole and many Departments, including my own, are active members. We are spending £45 million on increasing out-of-school child care facilities. We are glad to fund the work of the EOC.
    I turn now to the role of the law in underpinning and guaranteeing equality of opportunity. We are fortunate in having the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is wide-ranging and covers discrimination not only in employment and training but in education and in the provision of goods and services. That goes well beyond any obligations that we have under any EC directive—
    Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Secretary of State give way on that very point?
    Mr. Hunt: No.
    Those provisions go well beyond the practice in most member states.
    The Act also established the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which the hon. Member for Ladywood referred. As we all know, the EOC's powers include taking up cases against the Government themselves. It would be hard to find a more visible example of independence in action. I do not complain about the EOC's pursuing the statutory role that Parliament gave it, but I believe that its powers and independence make a mockery of suggestions that the United Kingdom is somehow soft in its legislative arrangements for guaranteeing equal opportunities.
    The hon. Lady suggested that our equal pay legislation is ineffective and lacks teeth, especially in delivering equal pay for work of equal value. I do not accept that. Equal value claims are recognised throughout Europe as very difficult to tackle, and the United Kingdom does much better than most. Those are not my words. I have a report produced by the European Commission's equal opportunities unit which discussed the difficulties of equal value claims. The report said that there was no case law at all on this subject in France, Luxembourg, Italy and Greece.
    Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that the reason why the Secretary of State is not giving way to interventions from women Members is that he has a plane to catch to Detroit.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether he gives way.
    Mr. Hunt: It also said—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true?
    Mr. Hunt: I am returning to the real subject of this debate.
    The report said that the concept of "equal work, equal pay" was not properly defined in Belgium, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Luxembourg. I commend the report to the hon. Member for Ladywood. It also said that the United Kingdom was one of the few states where the basic concepts were understood and where case law was extensive.
    Our law lays down in detail how equal value claims are to be decided. It gives particular weight to a tribunal receiving a job evaluation report from an independent expert. The hon. Lady will know that the idea of using job evaluation is still very new. The whole idea of one job being equal in value to another is full of difficulty and ambiguity. Different experts take different views. There is room for argument and appeals, and all of that takes time. But the United Kingdom has genuinely tried to make the concept work. I shall explain why.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment—I am dealing with an important principle.
    We have seen more than 100 cases presented to independent experts since 1984. Some of them have been resolved by the tribunals; many more have been settled out of court by the parties concerned. Those cases will have a

    439
    knock-on effect on the pay of other workers. I simply say to the hon. Lady, if she would pay attention for a moment, that thousands of women have benefited from employers voluntarily restructuring their pay scales so as to value more highly work which tends to be done by women. We have seen that particularly in the retail sector.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: The Secretary of State said that the Government funds the Equal Opportunities Commission. Therefore, why do they not take on board the commission's recommendations with regard to equality? The commission, in its very helpful briefing document, said that the existing law on equality is very complex, the legal procedures take so long and it is virtually impossible for people to obtain legal aid.
    Mr. Hunt: I shall deal directly with what I have been discussing with the Equal Opportunities Commission. I acknowledge the work that Kamlesh Bahl and her colleagues in the Equal Opportunities Commission have done in examining the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, and the formal recommendations that they put to the Government.
    When I replied to Kamlesh Bahl last July, soon after I became the Secretary of State for Employment, I said that I would be pleased to discuss many of the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals. We have already had discussions on the Equal Pay Act and I have agreed some changes to speed up equal value cases as far as possible.
    I shall consult on further possible changes. I am happy to give the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that assurance. I look forward to more discussions with the Equal Opportunities Commission on some of its proposals on the Sex Discrimination Act. In July, I said that most of the proposals can be either accepted fully or discussed further. I am happy to confirm that.
    I do not believe that we should substantially reshape the legislation that we have. As I wrote to the Equal Opportunities Commission in July, I do not believe that that would help those who have to use the legislation. By and large, it has served us well. Important questions of interpretation have been settled by the courts over the past 15 years. More questions are still at issue, either here or before the European Court of Justice. Starting again from scratch would be a massive task, and I suspect that it would be of little use to most people. That is the extent of my commitment. I am happy that I will be discussing this further with the Equal Opportunities Commission.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As the Secretary of State said that he thoroughly approves of women taking their cases to industrial tribunals, will he congratulate the two Scottish women who won their equal value case against Scottish Power last week? Will he also deplore the fact that it took them four years to do so? Will he commit himself to improving the legislation so that such cases can be dealt with much more speedily?
    Mr. Hunt: I am very happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance, because I want to see such delays removed and the whole procedure speeded up. I also commend the many cases and awards that are reported in our newspapers. This morning, I saw that a girl won £24,000 in a discrimination
    440
    case. The United Kingdom has a strong and comprehensive framework of anti-discrimination legislation and I believe that the decisions of tribunals confirm that.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Before my right hon. Friend leaves his discussion of the law of this country, will he say that the Government have no place whatever for a consideration of quotas in this matter of equal opportunities? Of course, it works both ways—equal opportunities for men and equal opportunities for women. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) made no mention of the Opposition's position on quotas, although at their last party conference they put in place a quota system for the selection of their parliamentary candidates.
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the general theme of this debate will be a clear message that if the United Kingdom wants to be truly competitive in a fairly tough competitive world, it must recognise the abilities of all of its people, men and women. That is why we need equal opportunities and that is why I moved the amendment.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call any hon. Members in this debate, I must tell the House that no fewer than 22 Members wish to catch the Chair's eye, of which 15 are hon. Ladies. Although there is no time limit on speeches, a little self-discipline would be of some assistance.
    5.48 pm
    Ms Mildred Gordon: When my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised a point of order about the Secretary of State not giving way because he was in a hurry to catch a plane to the United States, the Secretary of State had nothing to say. He was kind and polite enough to write a letter to me apologising because he may not be able to stay and listen to my speech because he has to get to the United States and must therefore leave the Chamber soon after his speech.
    When we are debating such an important issue, which affects more than half the population of this country—it affects not only women but their partners and children—it seems to be the wrong occasion for the Minister to race off. I do not want to take advantage of his courtesy in writing to me but the point must be made that it is the wrong time for him to leave. He should listen to what is said today because it is very important to all women.
    Although the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was a huge advance, it never worked as well as we hoped. It takes nearly three years for the average case to come to a hearing, and one case in particular took more than eight years. The Act that runs in tandem, the Equal Pay Act 1970, was followed by a huge regrading of jobs so that men who were doing the same work were given a new title and paid more than women. A tightening and an alteration is needed to make these two laws more effective.
    The Secretary of State twisted the figures. He said that the average wage for women when compared with that for men had increased, and that is true. However, the average wage for women is still 30 per cent. lower than the average wage for men. For part-time workers—most women now are in part-time employment—the hourly pay for women is half the hourly pay for men in full-time employment. That is a huge gap and a huge difference.
    Mr. Hunt: First, I thank the hon. Lady for her graciousness in accepting that I have to talk to the American Administration at the jobs summit in Detroit. I apologise to the House for having to leave.
    Does the hon. Lady accept that the real growth in the hourly rate for the female working population has been 55.9 per cent. since 1979, against 40.4 per cent. for the male population? Does she acknowledge that the rate has risen considerably faster?
    Ms Gordon: I do not know how the Secretary of State arrived at those figures, but we must take into account the lowering of the value of money.
    The fact is that the average wage for women is still half that for men. The gap is still enormous. If there has been some increase, that is all to the good. That does not mean that the situation is satisfactory—it means that there has been some improvement, but there is still a long way to go.
    The vast numbers of women who have young children and who cannot leave their children have not been taken into account. They can neither find nor afford child care and they must do work at home, such as threading beads and painting toys for a pittance. It is disgusting pay, and there is no regulation of it and no help for such women. What is happening to them is largely hidden from sight.
    There are 6 million women in this country who are on poverty wages. Most of the poor people in this country are women—women on low pay, single mothers, women who have been divorced and women pensioners. We must do something about that because we are not content to go on being at the bottom of the pile, regardless of the work we do, the hours we put in and our efforts and abilities.
    The Government want women to be low-waged. They see their value as a pool of low-waged workers and they think that that will make the country more competitive. That is false reasoning, and other countries do not feel that way. When the Government passed the iniquitous Child Support Act, they said that they would give a £15 disregard of maintenance to women on low wages and family credit. This would encourage women to accept work at lower wages than they otherwise would take. What kind of distorted thinking is that?
    The Government do not want to improve the status, lifestyle and income of women. They want to force women to accept lower wages than they otherwise would do—in other words, a little bit above starvation starvation level.
    Women are discriminated against not only in wages but in pensions. It was announced in the Budget that the pensionable age for women would be raised to 65 by 2020. The Government want to equalise pensions, but instead of allowing men to retire early if they wish or perhaps having a flexible retirement age, which both men and women might want, women are again penalised.
    It is true that women had an advantage, but if we look at pensions in total we find that only 15 per cent. of women earn the full state pension in their own right. The average occupational pension earned by women is £30 a week, whereas for men it is £61. Again, we see that it is almost half—women get half the hourly wage and half the occupational pension. It seems that women often receive only half of what men get. That does not mean that men should get less—it means that women should get more.
    What happens when a woman is divorced by her husband, as often happens? It may be that her husband had a low-paid job when they got married. The woman stayed at home, brought up the children, put meals on the table,
    442
    washed his clothes and ensured that her husband was well-dressed. She helped him to work well and to improve his position at work. By the time they get divorced—he may be after a younger woman—the husband may be earning a great deal, and he would be entitled to a good occupational pension.
    If they get divorced, the wife gets nothing at all for the work that she did in their partnership. That needs to be addressed. In cases of divorce, women should be entitled to half the value of the occupational pension until the time of the divorce. I have had many bitter letters from women about that, and the law must address it.
    The carers of severely disabled people get some pension credits, but women get no pension credits for the years that they spend at home rearing children. Those years, apparently, are considered to be of no value to society. If we want older women to have proper pensions and not be the poorest in society, they should be given pension credits for the years of unpaid work in the home. Those years are just as important to society as the years spent in paid work.
    That brings me to the whole matter of women's unpaid work, which is unrecognised, unvalued and considered to be almost invisible. However, it is the basis of the economy of the country. If one considers the economy of any country as a pyramid, it is based on the great pedestal of unpaid work which is done by women in the home and voluntary work.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Gordon: I am not going to give way. The Secretary of State did not give way, and Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked that we make our speeches short because 22 women—or, at least, 22 people—have asked to speak. I hope that the hon. Lady will have a chance to speak.
    The economy of the country is based on the pedestal of the unpaid work that women do. I have introduced a Bill on the matter, and I shall continue to press that women's unpaid work be counted in the economic statistics and the GNP of this country. The value of all the work that women do in the home and in the voluntary sector would then become evident to everybody.
    Mrs. Gillan rose—
    Ms Gordon: I said that I was not going to give way.
    Until women's unpaid work is properly valued, their work outside the home will not be valued and employers will continue to offer them low wages.
    That brings me to the matter of increments. When I was a teacher, the National Union of Teachers negotiated for women the right to one increment for every three years spent raising a family when she returned to work. I always felt that it should have been one increment for every year. I believe that some banking organisations have a similar scheme.
    The years that women spend at home bringing up families, the organisational skills which they learn and the value of rearing the new generation should be recognised. Women should not be considered to have wasted those years when they return to work, but to have enriched their value to any future employer. They should get incremental increases and not go back to work on lower pay than when they left to raise their families.
    In other words, women should be enabled to take a full part in the life of this country, to live decently and to have decent pay. We feel our inequality in every way. A woman

    443
    has only to want to go to the toilet in a public building; she will see men whizzing by while she is queuing. The women's toilet is always the most inaccessible. Then we know that we are second-class citizens.
    We have only to consider agism in Britain, which is always directed first and foremost at women, to know that we are second-class citizens. Studies have proved that, when children go to school, teachers give more minutes of attention per day to boys than to girls. In training, we get a worse deal. All down the line, women are treated as second-class citizens.
    It is time that the debt that this country owes to women was recognised. It is time that the Government were forced to recognise it. Women demand a better deal. History has shown us that we do not get any improvement unless we fight for it—and fight for it we will. We want a better life, we want better recognition, we want equality and we want better pay.
    6 pm
    Mr. Sebastian Coe: I hope that the House will not mind if I indulge myself by falling back on my previous occupation for a few moments at the opening of my remarks. I hope to do so briefly, and for the only time in my speech.
    In 1948, the incomparable Fanny Blankers Koen, who won four Olympic gold medals at the 1948 Olympic games, confronted a newspaper headline in a Dutch newspaper after winning her second medal. It simply read "Fastest women in the world is an expert cook". The report said:
    "This amazing Dutch athlete who holds the world record for the high jump, the long jump and the hundred metres has gained an Olympic double—the first women ever to achieve that feat. But at home she is just an ordinary housewife. She is an expert cook and darns socks with artistry. Her greatest love next to racing is housework."
    We have travelled far, thank goodness, in the past 46 years, although it is still not uncommon to switch on the television and listen to a sporting event in which the commentators witter on about the hairstyles of the women competing rather than about the ability of the women competitors.
    The history of female involvement in a raft of sports such as track and field has been one of attrition and determination, and of women forcing their way to the table. When they have got there, their contribution to those sports has been enormous. It has often transcended sport, set the trends in other socio-economic activities and done much to flatten misconceptions and prejudices about female work, status and physical ability.
    Mr. John Maxton: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is moving towards suggesting that women in sport are more equal now. Can he explain to the House why Sally Gunnell is paid considerably less than Linford Christie for taking part in exactly the same athletic meetings?
    Mr. Coe: I have been away from the sport since 1989. I could not tell the hon. Gentleman what the pay structure of British sport and British athletics is. If what he says is the case, I certainly do not condone it.
    My wife is an equestrienne. She is a three-day eventer—a discipline which was originally designed as a test of
    444
    the gentleman soldier, but which is now firmly in female hands. Men and women compete on equal terms even though women were barred until 1968 from any British equestrian Olympic team. It was believed that the event was simply too taxing for female riders.
    In 1990, my wife won the sport's most prestigious event—the Badminton horse trials—fending off the world's best male riders. She took her place in the record book alongside the likes of Lucinda Green, who has a record six victories, Virginia Leng, arguably our greatest rider, Mark Phillips and Mark Todd. It is important not to fall into the trap of over-legislation or over-regulation in the pursuit of equal access. It is important for women to continue to make progress in sport, if they want to, free from ignorance about physical status. However, that is a cultural process.
    Physiologists and practitioners of other disciplines in sport science recognise that women are better suited than men to many sports and have built-in physiological advantages, certainly in ultra-distance events. The modern sport of triathlon—the amalgam of swimming, cycling and running—is an event at which women compete on equal terms with men, and even surpass them. It is also known that under conditions of severe cold or heat women will outlast men. That is probably best summed up by saying that, if Captain Scott had been a woman, he would probably have made it.
    Ms Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue in women's equality. I certainly agree with him that women have had a terrible time attempting to break into sport. Does he agree that the current practice of sex testing for female athletes—which gives the impression that, if a female athlete has competed and won, she might be a man so she must be tested to check that she is not—is extremely demeaning to women and ought to be abolished forthwith?
    Mr. Coe: The hon. Lady has raised an important point. I should declare an interest here. I am a member of the medical commission of the International Olympic Committee. The issue she raises has exercised better medical brains than mine for many years. The hon. Lady is right. It is a major problem. We are considering ways of determining sex. Sex is important in competition, not simply in terms of making sure that a female who wins an event is a female, but the reverse. It is important to make sure that men are not competing in female events, which would discriminate against the final result simply on arguments of ability.
    That is quite enough sporting parallel. I am having far too much fun. Suffice it to say that sport provides, and will continue to provide, an interesting sociological model of female achievement, often against the odds and almost always against the historical tide of perception.
    However, let us be wary of the way in which, in recent years, the equal opportunities agenda has often been so grotesquely—and, in terms of women, so damagingly—hijacked. For many years, I was a member of a weightlifting club in the London borough of Hackney. It was an excellent club, funded by a very good adult education programme.
    One night, a group of women from the local authority came into the gymnasium. They simply wanted to close it. The women did not want to close the club because we prevented women from joining. We could not have done that. They did not want to close it because we would have

    445
    been unpleasant or antagonistic to women if they had wanted to join the club. They tried to close it simply because women chose not to use the club.
    I also use the example of a constituent who applied for a job in an adjoining London borough. She was told that she had not got the job. That did not come as a major shock, but she found out later that the person who had got the job not only did not have the right qualifications but did not have qualifications at all. On appeal, my constituent was told in no uncertain terms that, if the woman in question had had the same opportunities as my constituent and had obtained the qualifications in the first place, she would almost certainly have got the job.
    I also fall back to my time as vice-chairman of the Sports Council. I was visited by a group of distressed parents from a south London school. They came to me to raise their concerns that the school in question had decided to put all competing school teams together as mixed events. The first time that the mixed football team played the local school, it lost 26-nil. The team that subsequently won had no significant sporting or educational gratification from that. The team that lost felt significantly dismayed. When that matter was raised—in the darker, sadder days of the old Greater London council and ILEA—an inquiry took place, and the headmaster and the PE staff were all congratulated on upholding ILEA's equal opportunities policy.
    In identifying those excesses, however, we should not pretend that all in the garden of equal opportunity is rosy. Although it is fair to point out that, in the professions, remuneration is normally related to the job irrespective of gender, it is certainly more difficult for women to reach board level, for instance, in the average company.
    Ms Short: Never!
    Mr. Coe: Recent studies show that only 1 per cent. of women reach positions of top management, only 4 per cent. reach positions of senior management, and only 27 per cent. of women work in any management capacity. Whether that is due to institutional prejudice, to the discontinuity in women's careers or to the reluctance of many women to assume positions of responsibility because their families come first in their order of priorities, is not a question that I choose to explore any further in the confines of the debate.
    Much has been done by the Government to promote equality of opportunity in the workplace. Women should be able to pursue their chosen path without obstacle to achievement and to success. There are effective ways in which women can pursue grievances. The complaints system is accessible, and generally more comprehensive than those in most parts of the European Community, through industrial tribunals. There is, as recent cases have shown, a remedy in law for those people who have suffered sexual harrassment, and a protection against subsequent victimisation.
    There are more training opportunities for women—more special schemes to help women back into the workplace or to take up jobs that have not normally been associated with women. There are now more than 100,000 more women in higher education than there were in 1979. They now account for a higher proportion of all people attending universities—46 per cent. today, compared with 42 per cent. 15 years ago. Cornwall college, an excellent
    446
    college of higher education in my constituency, has even better statistics: nearly 51 per cent. of students in the college are women.
    The Government have strengthened the United Kingdom's traditional legal framework, which combats discrimination. In employment, it provides equal rights for men and women in recruitment, training and promotion. The law also ensures equality in pay and contracts of employment. Since the mid-1980s, the law in relation to the latter has been significantly strengthened to allow equal pay for work of equal value.
    Women now make up nearly 50 per cent. of the UK labour force. More than 2 million more women have entered jobs since 1983, and the number of women who work full time in the work force has increased by nearly a fifth—all much to do with the supply-side changes to the labour market.
    There are aspects in which the Government can do more. I should like some of the Department of Employment's excellent work in promoting conditions for women to return to work to be widened to embrace the advantages for providing flexible conditions and practices, and the greater provision of child care facilities. In that respect, the civil service should be singled out and commended for its range of options, including flexible work patterns and child care help, and for cutting the distinction between part-time and full-time work.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As to child care, does my hon. Friend agree that flexibility is the key? It is no good having workplace nurseries if that involves taking a child a long way on a tube train at a busy time. It is much better to give the woman the choice of what she may have by some method such as coupons, but not to insist on workplace nurseries.
    Mr. Coe: My hon. Friend is right, and I doubt whether any reasonable person would argue with that. That is why, when the scheme Opportunity 2000 was launched by the Prime Minister in 1991, from its very inception flexible patterns of work, which increase the quality and quantity of employment opportunities for women, were at the centre of its aims. When the campaign was launched in 1991, 61 organisations pledged increased opportunities to women. Employers covering 25 per cent. of the work force now belong to the scheme—a remarkable transformation in only three years.
    Opportunities in employment are dependent on opportunities in education, but enhancing education is not simply about equipping or reskilling a work force to underpin our manufacturing base. Enhancing the role of education is inextricably linked to a more embracing issue—the position of women in society. Overwhelming evidence shows that when education is widely available to women, average family size drops sharply and many women marry later, start families later and have better career structures. The evidence linking the lowly status of women to population explosion and acute poverty and under-developed economies is overwhelming.
    The United Nations Population Fund statistics show clearly that there is a strong reverse correlation between the literacy rates of adult women and total fertility rates. I recognise that that is straying into an international perspective that is not within the scope of the debate or the framework of the motion, but there have been few

    447
    empirical studies of the effect of legislation on discrimination, and those that have been conducted are less than conclusive.
    Mrs. Gillan: It may help my hon. Friend to feel more comfortable with the areas into which he is straying to know that it is International Women's Day.
    Hon. Members: It was on Tuesday.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is in the motion.
    Mrs. Gillan: It was on Tuesday.
    Mr. Coe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
    In the present climate of opinion, it seems reasonable to assume that, as the number of women acquitting themselves with distinction in high office and in other fields of activity continues to increase as it has in recent years, the prospects will improve for all women with ability. I do not believe that women either want or need positive discrimination. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They are quite capable of succeeding on their own merits.
    6.17 pm
    Mrs. Ray Michie: When the then Home Secretary, now Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, moved the Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill in the House of Commons on 26 March 1975, one year short of 20 years ago, he said—
    Mrs. Currie: Nineteen years ago.
    Mrs. Michie: One year short of 20 years ago.
    Lord Jenkins said:
    "The unequal status of women in our society is a social evil of great antiquity. Its causes are complex and rooted deeply in tradition, custom and prejudice. Its effects create individual injustice and waste the potential talents of half our population at a time when more than ever before we need to mobilise the skills and abilities of all our citizens."—[Official Report, 26 March 1975; Vol. 889, c. 511.]
    Much of that still pertains today.
    The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, together with the Equal Opportunities Commission, sought to secure equality of opportunity, equal pay and equal status for men and women. In the 19 years since it was set up, the Equal Opportunities Commission can claim a number of achievements, including independent taxation for married women, recognition at law that sexual harrassment and pregnancy are sex discrimination, and so on.
    One of the EOC's priorities—I agree with it—is a fair deal and equal treatment at work for part-timers. According to evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Employment by the Equal Opportunities Commission—I refer to the Committee's report of 7 July 1993—
    "Research shows that at a number of points in the life-cycle, many women would prefer to work part-time in order to cope with caring responsibilities, and many women and some men continue to prefer part-time work for part of their working lives. Their dilemma is that, in order to do so, many will have to accept work which disadvantages them in comparison with full-time employees."
    That is the point that we want to stress. Despite the House of Lords' ruling on redundancy and unfair dismissal rights, there is still a great deal to be done.
    Ms Short: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is astonishing that the Secretary of State's speech included no
    448
    reference to the Law Lords' ruling, and that the right hon. Gentleman said nothing at all about what he intends to do to embody that ruling in legislation?
    Mrs. Michie: It is indeed astonishing. It was as though the right hon. Gentleman did not know about the ruling, or wanted to run away from it. Perhaps we shall get an answer from the Under-Secretary of State.
    Mr. John Austin-Walker: Does the hon. Lady think it astonishing also that the Secretary of State made no mention of the contribution to the economy that women make by way of their unpaid employment?
    Mrs. Michie: We were all astonished by the Secretary of State's failure to mention a number of matters.
    I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two facts. Why, for example, in United Kingdom primary schools, 81 per cent. of whose teachers are women, are only 49 per cent. of heads female? In the case of my own country, Scotland—
    Mrs. Fyfe rose—
    Mrs. Michie: I give way to my compatriot.
    Mrs. Fyfe: As the representative of another Scottish constituency, I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. The hon. Lady's figures are slightly wrong. In fact, 46 per cent. of secondary school teachers in Scotland are women, but only 3 per cent. are head teachers.
    Mrs. Michie: I am grateful for those figures. I was referring to United Kingdom numbers.
    In Scotland, women make up 45 per cent. of the work force, yet they are concentrated in a very narrow range of activities, and are absent from all but a handful of Scotland's top jobs. Why are there so few woman surgeons in the national health service, for example—only about 3.2 per cent.? Of approximately 16 cardiologists in Glasgow, only one is a woman.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Michie: Yes, but for the last time, as I must proceed.
    Lady Olga Maitland: On the question of female consultant surgeons, does the hon. Lady agree that the situation will change in the future? Women applying for consultancies today started their medical training long ago, when there were far fewer in the profession and there was therefore a smaller number available for these jobs.
    Mrs. Michie: I do not accept that. There has been an enormous improvement in the number of women going to university to study medicine. In fact, the proportion is now 50 per cent., and those people are qualifying. I know of women who try for consultant surgical jobs but cannot get them. If hon. Members will bear with me, I shall try to show why this is happening.
    I believe that this pattern of employment prevails because of the inability in the health service, as in other areas of employment, to cater for women who have children and family commitments. Women who take time out for maternity leave lose their place on the training and promotion ladder. That is what happens in the case of positions for consultant surgeons. Female doctors often have to find their own locums to cover maternity and annual leave, and, with minimum staffing levels in many

    449
    hospitals now, there is a reluctance to pay for locum cover. This is happening more and more in the new trust hospitals, and it is very worrying for women.
    Many female graduates in medicine opt for sessional work in, say, cytology screening, for day sessions in anaesthetics, or for general practice part-time work that does not involve on-call night duty. I am not denigrating those sections of the profession; I am simply saying that many women have to go into such areas although they would rather pursue another aspect of the medical world.
    The situation in the legal profession is similar. In Scotland women now make up 30 per cent. of the total membership of the Law Society, compared with only 2 per cent. in 1957. That is a considerable improvement. In the past two years, approximately 55 per cent. of those admitted as solicitors were women. That is good. But only four of the 50 members of the council of the Law Society of Scotland are women. Of the 91 full-time sheriffs, only six are women. 'There are no female High Court judges, although, happily, there is one temporary—I do not know how long she will be temporary. There are only five female QCs out of approximately 75 practising seniors.
    Until very recently, a female partner in a law firm who decided to have a family was out. She could not be a part-time partner. Fortunately, that is slowly changing. There is now such a thing as a part-time female partner in a law firm.
    I have used those examples to reinforce the need for far greater job market flexibility for women, for part-time working with proper pay and for job sharing for both men and women in all kinds of work. Unless this matter is addressed, the economy in particular will be denied access to the vast range of intelligence, abilities and skills represented by the female work force. I am convinced that the country will end up with a stressed-out female population who try to juggle all their commitments in terms of family care, home care and jobs.
    It was never thought that sex discrimination legislation would be the whole answer. It had to be accepted by all institutions, employers and trade unions, and, at the same time, there had to be a profound change in attitudes and actions. Of course there is room for the voluntary approach, which has been referred to, but, inevitably, that approach has its limitations.
    As we have heard, the Government support initiatives such as Opportunity 2000, whose aim is to improve the position of women at work in the United Kingdom and to promote good practice among employers. I understand that 61 organisations are now members of Opportunity 2000, but they represent only a quarter of the work force. What about the rest? What about the vast majority of women who work, particularly in the service industries?
    We need enlightened employment practices and women-friendly terms and conditions of service. The Government need to encourage the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission in promoting good practice among employers. To do that together with all its other tasks, it must be well resourced.
    Although child care is not strictly part of the sex discrimination legislation, and may be more appropriate to a debate on family law, it is extremely important. Good employers, whether large or small, should offer employees who are due to return to work after maternity leave various types of help.
    I commend some good employers for helping their employees, before they return to work, to find and choose
    450
    child care that will best suit the circumstances of the mother and the child. They are helped to decide between a child minder, nanny or nursery; if it is to be a nursery, they help her to choose whether it should be a private, council-run or workplace nursery. The best companies send in someone with expert knowledge on what is available for the returner to work.
    Everybody should be offered a short returning-to-work course that advises on balancing home commitments and work, and builds up a support network for working mothers. We all know that mothers have lost the support network of their families. The course should also identify strategies to make better use of mothers' time and, above all, help them to deal with feelings of guilt and anxiety, which often overwhelm a mother returning to work. She is returning to work because she either wants to or has to, and we should make it as easy as possible for her to do so.
    Being a working mother can have positive benefits for a woman, as it gives her greater independence and access to adult stimulation, and she is often better company for her children and their father. She can also bring positive benefits to the workplace, where she shows an increased sense of responsibility, sensitivity and maturity. Many working mothers become good managers, good negotiators and good counsellors.
    What can the Government do for the returning-to-work mother? First, they can ensure that good quality, affordable child care is available, including pre-school and after-school care. Without that, "equal opportunity" becomes a meaningless phrase. Affordability is a key component, because the average woman's earnings are still nearly 30 per cent. lower than the average male wage. I therefore endorse the Equal Opportunities Commission's call for a family policy to complement legislation on equal treatment.
    In supporting this motion, I make a special plea for part-time workers, proper conditions, good child care and a new single statute to bring together the law, which is spread over a number of Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments and legal decisions. It is a nightmare. That would help employers and individuals to recognise and understand their rights and obligations.
    6.33 pm
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: First, I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches on bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. I agree with them that it is long overdue and I am delighted that they managed to get the men in their party under control once and for all and got their own way by putting the debate forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I see that hon. Ladies have a sprinkling of the boys with them to support the motion.
    I found attractive the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) to recognise women's unpaid work. I have contributed to my household for many years without receiving a penny for it and the thought that I may get credit for my unpaid work warms my heart greatly. I am sure that it would also warm the heart of the Secretary of State who, sadly, has had to leave us, because it would, in one fell swoop, remove 644,000 people from the unemployment register as they would no longer be deemed unemployed.

    451
    I found it hard to recognise the terms of reference within which the hon. Lady made her speech. Had we read it between the wars, it might have been relevant, but we have made a great deal of progress since those days.
    Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gillan: No, I shall not give way.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) was extremely selective in her opening speech between regulations that she wishes to see introduced from Europe and those that she wants kept out. I was watching the reactions on the Opposition Benches when the Secretary of State was discussing the provisions that allow women to work at night.
    Several of our neighbours in the European Union may have proceedings started against them because they do not allow women to work at night. The hon. Lady appeared to agree with that; she was nodding, as were several other Opposition Members. I cannot believe that she would seek to fetter the freedom of choice of women to work in the evening. I think particularly of the wonderful ladies who look after us in the Tea Room, restaurants and bars in this place, who want that freedom to work in the evening.
    Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend touched on a most important point about the right of women to choose to work in the evenings and during the night, particularly if they are nurses. Does she agree that one reason why women find that attractive and helpful is that it is much easier for them to get child care cover at home, particularly if their husbands can help out?
    Mrs. Gillan: That is an extremely helpful point. I have friends who positively want to work in the evening because they can leave their small children with their husbands whom they feel they can trust implicitly.
    The whole framework of the debate shows that the Labour party has, once again, got the wrong end of the stick.
    Ms Eagle rose—
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gillan: No, I am trying to make progress.
    The way in which the motion is framed is extremely negative. It says:
    "women…face discrimination in all aspects of their lives".
    That is not true. It fails to recognise the great progress that we have made in this century, particularly in the past decade. It rehearses tired, worn-out policies and attitudes that should have been consigned to the rubbish bin of history a long time ago.
    Nothing illustrates that better than a subject on which Opposition Members were strangely silent—the positive discrimination to get women into Parliament. Hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong, but resolution 417 reported in the Labour party's "Conference Arrangements Committee Report 1993"—only last year—said that in future there would be
    "women only shortlists in 50 per cent. of the seats where a sitting Labour MP was not standing for re-election."
    Ms Jean Corston: Can the hon. Lady explain why the Prime Minister saw to it that Conservative
    452
    central office is imposing a requirement whereby 50 per cent. of Conservative candidates for the next election will be women?
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for that useful intervention, which enables me to point out to Opposition Members that in your case it is a quota and in ours a target, and that we expect our women to get there on merit. What an insult to force all-women lists on 50 per cent. of the Labour-held seats at the next election. What they are really saying is that women are not good enough to do it on their own, that the little women need a helping hand. It is a helping hand which I do not need. Neither do the lady Members who sit on the Opposition Benches.
    Would you like to be regarded as the token women on your Benches because you are there as part of some quota?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. Lady that she should address the Chair?
    Mrs. Gillan: I feel passionately about this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and am being carried away. I apologise and will try to remain in order.
    Do they want to be considered—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Gillan: Yes, of course I will give way.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when Labour Members voted against some of the women, it did not stop their leader putting them on the Front Bench?
    Mrs. Gillan: I remember that very well. I think that it was called the "tea room rebellion" by the men. It strengthens my argument, and I thank my hon. Friend for that timely reminder of the goings-on in the Tea Room in the House.
    Would Opposition Members like to be regarded as token women, because they are part of some quota? I do not think so. Neither Madam Speaker nor you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is in her position because you are part of some positive discrimination quota. You are there because you are the best people for the job. I am forced to admit, with some reluctance as I do not agree with quotas, that had you been part of a quota, it would have been extremely successful in both cases, but I do not think that it would have done anything for your self-esteem or for this place, because it would have been reflected in the behaviour of hon. Members who are very tough judges of the Chair's performance.
    Not one woman hon. Member was elected because of positive discrimination.
    Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gillan: No, I am making progress.
    They got here on merit. I am sure, however, that hon. Members, certainly on the Conservative Benches and perhaps on the Opposition Benches, will have a very different view of the women who enter Parliament as Labour Members after the next election. They will have been selected by methods outlined by the Labour party, and they will be the token women, forced on constituencies by reason of their sex.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gillan: No.

    453
    The Labour party is into tokenism. As I looked at the Order Paper today, to read the motion put down by the Opposition, I noticed that six hon. Members were supporting the motion. I glanced at the motions that had been prepared for the six Opposition days that we have so far had this year. The token woman, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), was one of the six hon. Members supporting the motion on each of the other Opposition days. On two days, there were women's issues, and the list of supporters included another woman, making four men and two women, the maximum number of women until today. Today, equality has come over the Labour party in a rush. We have three girls and three boys proposing the motion—even numbers; extremely twee.
    I just want to point out that there is no sex discrimination, positive or otherwise, on the Government side of the House. The Conservative party put down its amendment to the motion today under the names of its top people.
    Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman—sorry, hon. Lady—give way? [Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend. I wonder if I really should speak in this debate, after that. We hear all this bluster from the Opposition, criticising the Tories. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, while it is all very well to mention the suffragettes, the Pankhursts were Tories?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Pankhursts left the Liberal party when it refused to put women's suffrage into the 1884 Act. They joined the Conservatives and we got it through.
    Ms Eagle rose—
    Mrs. Gillan: I have given way enough, thank you. I thank my hon. Friends for those two very useful interventions.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Lady says that there is no discrimination in the Conservative party, why has she allowed interventions from men on her own Benches, but only one intervention from women Members on the Opposition Benches?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order but an intervention.
    Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to set the record straight, Sylvia Pankhurst was a socialist.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will recognise what are points of order and what are not.
    Mrs. Gillan: I gave way to one Opposition Member. Her intervention was totally inaccurate, so I felt that I would give way only to my hon. Friends who have proved very helpful to the speech that I am trying to make.
    Let us look at the real, up-to-date picture of women. Discrimination in any area is intolerable, whether it is against men or women, or on grounds of colour, creed or disability. As we have grown in knowledge and broadened our education, we have come to realise that it has no place in a civilised society.
    There are three keys to eradicating discrimination: education, example and effective legislation. The Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 provide the legislative framework. The Government watch
    454
    carefully for ways in which they can improve the legislation, and will continue to do so. However, we must guard against over-zealous interpretation of regulations and legislation that may eventually work against women, particularly in the workplace.
    I read with some pleasure an article in The Times of 9 March entitled:
    "285,000 women to gain from change in maternity pay".
    Excellent news, I thought. But my heart fell as I read that a spokesman for the Confederation of British Industry had condemned the measure, saying:
    "This is a social cost and should not be transferred solely to the employer."
    He added that some employers might be discouraged from taking on female employees.
    It reminded me of the days when I used to work outside this place and take on employees. It would be different today if I were considering a man and woman of equal qualifications and status, because I would have to think about the on-costs to my business. Those on-costs would sow a seed of doubt in my mind. That consideration may be sufficient to prejudice women against getting the jobs they deserve and for which they are qualified.
    Over-protectionism can work against the very group in society for which we are seeking parity. I know that the Government will guard against that. Time has moved on, and in many ways the real enemy is prejudice; that is what we need to fight.
    In the past week, I have spoken to more than 100 women. Some are colleagues here, some are friends, some are officials and some are former workmates. In virtually every single case, they attested that, although 10, 15 or 20 years ago, there was discrimination against them in the workplace, they now feel that it is plain prejudice and preconceptions of which sex fits the job.
    A private secretary in the civil service told me that some men still think that she is a shorthand typist. A woman doctor friend told me that she is often taken to be a nurse or a telephonist or receptionist in the casualty department. Strange though it may sound, I have suffered from prejudice and the preconceived idea that the role of a Member of Parliament has been traditionally male. Only the other day, a caller refused to talk to me and insisted on being put through to my boss, Mr. Gillan.
    The difference between discrimination and prejudice is important and we already have good legislation to cover genuine cases of discrimination. We must remember, however, that discrimination can work both ways. In a recent case in the Northern Ireland High Court, McConomy v. Croft Inns Ltd., the plaintiff was made to leave a public house that stipulated smart and casual dress. The plaintiff was asked to leave because he was sporting a pair of earrings. The plaintiff was a man and the High Court found in his favour, and rightly so, because a woman wearing a pair of earrings would have been served. That was an example of discrimination working against men.
    Cases of discrimination should not be trivial. In a recent case—Automotive Products v. Peake—an employer operated a rule that female employees could leave five minutes before the men and was taken to court by the men who said that it was not fair and discriminatory that they should be asked to work five minutes longer than the women. The employer said that it was a matter of stopping overcrowding when the workers were leaving the workplace. In the judgment, the Court of Appeal judge said:

    455
    "It was not discrimination for mankind to treat womankind with the courtesy and chivalry that we have been taught are right in society."
    The law recognises the fundamental difference between discrimination and prejudice and, in this day and age, we must guard more against prejudice.
    As a woman Member of Parliament, I am naturally concerned with women's issues, but not to the exclusion of all other issues. I find it strange that so far we have heard very little reference to, for example, the exploitation and degradation of women in pornography, for example, or to such issues as access to education and training, domestic violence, wrongful working practices, access to child care, women's choice over their own bodies and the safety of women. Many of those issues are of paramount importance, but in a motion that celebrates International Women's Day, the Opposition have chosen to highlight political differences and political issues without addressing some of the real issues that affect women in the United Kingdom today.
    I certainly want to increase the number of women who move into the highest echelons of politics, business, industry science, sport—virtually every aspect of life—and, as I said, we need examples and role models. I see no reason why any of my women colleagues in the House cannot act as a role Model for women who wish to become politicians. Nothing in this society impedes our progress. We have many role models.
    The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was interested only in singling out lawyers and medics as a touchstone for how successful women can be. That is a crying shame because it ignores many successful women in many walks of life. What about our British astronaut, Helen Sharman? What about our Queen—Elizabeth? What about Stella Rimington who runs MI5? What about Val Strachan, the chairman of the board of Customs and Excises? What about Barbara Mills, our Director of Public Prosecutions?
    Let me name a few women who are successful despite the terrible picture painted by the Opposition. What about Anita Roddick of the Body Shop or Kathleen O'Donovan, who at 35 became financial director of BTR? What about Prue Leith, Mary Archer, and our hotelier Anouska Hempel? What about our television journalists? We should look at what Kate Adie has achieved. What about our pop singers such as Annie Lennox, our designers, such as Zandra Rhodes, our sportswomen—Sally Gunnell, Sharron Davies and the golfer Laura Davies? What about our lawyers, Rose Heilbron to name but one; our writers—Iris Murdoch, Ruth Rendell and Jilly Cooper—I could continue.
    I recommend that Labour hon. Ladies look at the 1993 edition of "The Best of British Women". I do not recognise some of the archaic pictures that are being painted by the Opposition.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mrs. Gillan: I am coming to the end of my speech and I do not feel that Opposition Members have much to contribute.
    All those women demonstrate, as do tens of thousands of others in all walks of life, that what women require—and what the Government give them—is equal opportunity.
    Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that long list of distinguished women. I wonder whether perhaps she had forgotten probably the most successful female in this century in Britain, our noble Friend Baroness Thatcher.
    Mrs. Gillan: How could anyone forget Baroness Thatcher? We may be dealing with a whole generation of voters who have never lived under the misery of a Labour Government, but a colleague of mine told me of his wife's visit to a local school. When the young children asked her who was Prime Minister and she replied, "John Major", they did not believe her because they did not realise that a man could be Prime Minister.
    We must remember that positive discrimination in favour of women can also be discrimination against men. Women will and do compete on equal terms. We shall win on equal terms, and victory will be all the sweeter.
    6.58 pm
    Ms Janet Anderson: Somewhere in that rather patronising speech, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) denigrated the Labour party for positive policies to get more women selected. Is she aware that her right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is not with us this evening, presumably because she is, at this moment, scurrying around the country to try to persuade Conservative associations to select women?
    I now turn to what the Prime Minister said—
    Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Anderson: No. The hon. Lady did not give way, so I am not going to give way.
    At the launch of Opportunity 2000, the Prime Minister said:
    "At present, there is a social revolution going on in the role of women in our society…Not only is this revolution right socially, it is right economically…Yet even apart from the economics there is a yet stronger argument for accepting that the change in the role of women is fundamentally right."
    He continued:
    Why should"—
    as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) reminded us—
    "half our population go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase? The answer is of course they shouldn't, and increasingly they won't…I want to see all women having the same opportunities as men."
    What has happened to the Prime Minister's Opportunity 2000 initiative? He seems to have been strangely silent on the issue ever since. Could it be that the Prime Minister and Conservative Members are singularly embarrassed by their failure to make progress? After all, if we look at the Conservative Benches we see only 20 women out of a total of 330, while on the Labour Benches we are proud to have 36 women out of a total of 266. Surely if the Conservative party were serious about establishing equality of opportunity for women, it would have done more before now to get women into this place. We need no clearer illustration of the difficulties that it has faced than the fact that it has chosen a man to be its Minister for women.
    As has already been mentioned, Parliament has placed a duty on the Equal Opportunities Commission to keep the law on sex discrimination under review and to propose amendments where needed. In 1988 and 1990, the commission published sets of proposals in respect of the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation, which sought,

    457
    in the light of experience of the workings of the legislation, to improve the framework, clarify rights and obligations, including those conferred by European law, and ensure proper and affordable access to justice for every individual in Britain.
    The commission has said that it deeply regrets that the Government have, so far, rejected most of those proposals, and is pressing them to think again. It has challenged the legality of the present situation on equal pay for work of equal value, which is patently denying justice to individuals whose only means of challenging inequities is through legal processes, described by Lord Denning as being of a
    "tortuosity and complexity beyond compare."
    The commission also proposed to the Government a range of other measures, particularly in education and training, low pay, part-time work, maternity rights and pay, and pensions. The commission believes that without such measures, it will be impossible for the Government to achieve the aims set out by the Prime Minister at the launch of Opportunity 2000. But the Government have consistently and steadfastly refused to act on the commission's recommendations. The Government pay lip service to equality for women, but do nothing to attempt to change the male-dominated culture that still pervades our society.
    It is often said that an Englishman's home is his castle. But it is nearly always a woman who maintains it. Increasingly frequently, women run homes without the support of a man. Women customarily make major decisions for the household and family, often managing the household budget. However, it is more commonly the man who decides which areas of decision making he will leave to the woman and, furthermore, he may deny her knowledge of what he earns and owns. In addition, too many women remain restricted in what they may do outside the home by their partner's wishes.
    A woman is expected to smooth family relationships, provide social and emotional support as well as running the home. That role in the household can leave her with little or no time for herself. Fewer than eight households in 100 at any one time are made up of a breadwinner husband with a wife or partner who is at home full time looking after children. Yet women still take responsibility for, and carry out, the majority of household tasks. That is so whether or not they work outside the home. If other members of the household share the work, they tend to be seen as "helping".
    In UK households in 1987, 93 per cent. of the cleaning, 90 per cent. of the child care and 77 per cent. of the preparation of evening meals was done by women. No study since has found a significant change in that situation. In 1988, The Daily Telegraph reported a Gallup survey which found that three out of five women with families craved more time for themselves. It is estimated that, on average, basic child care tasks take around 50 hours a week. Even when the mother had no other job, basic tasks occupied more hours than most men worked in their job.
    Long working hours among men are a significant barrier for many to the more equal sharing of domestic responsibilities. Working hours in Britain are among the highest in Europe. Surveys consistently find more than 25 per cent. of men working more than 50 hours a week. It is not a surprise if they cannot do their fair share of the work at home.
    458
    It has been calculated that the average woman who takes time off work or works part time to care for her family, loses £224,000 in earnings over a lifetime. Women are financially penalised for taking primary responsibility for the care of families. Women in full-time paid work are more likely to describe themselves as tired or exhausted than the men who were mostly working longer hours but doing less domestic labour than the women. Where the wife does not have a job, husbands are more likely to dominate in decision making inside the home. Conversely, wives who are dominant in decision making are usually in paid employment.
    Surveys of people caring for disabled or frail elderly people have found that, for every male carer, three women are doing a similar job. A study on Tyneside found that 25 per cent. of women over 25 years old have such caring responsibilities. One woman carer cited in a 1988 study got up at 5 am and did not finish her housework until 10 pm in an attempt to resolve the conflicting demands on her time.
    The Secretary of State—I am sorry that he is not still with us—seemed to imply that, in terms of wages, women were doing rather well. I hope that his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will convey this message to him. Only the other week, a woman constituent of mine came to see me to inform me that she had been offered a job at £1 an hour.
    Twenty years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed, women still earn only 79 per cent. of men's full-time hourly earnings. They cluster in "women's jobs", often undervalued and underpaid. Women are also the bulk of part-time workers, with low pay and few opportunities for overtime or bonus earnings. Fragmentation of pay bargaining is likely to widen the gap, as the abolition of the remaining wages councils already has. Performance pay systems contain bias and leave a clouded picture that affects not only pay, but training and promotion chances.
    Britain introduced regulations in 1984 to provide for equal pay for work of equal value. But their complexity and limitations, and the legal marathons that they have launched, have meant that they have had little or no effect on the inequality gap. The equal pay laws and administrative provisions are failing to provide justice and ensure the principle of equal pay.
    I am sure that all my hon. Friends will agree with me that sex discrimination is neither lawful nor acceptable. It wastes talents and resources and denies human rights. Yet it persists in widely differing pay for women and men; fixed notions about male and female roles and capabilities; and the financial vulnerability and impoverished old age of millions of women forced to juggle paid work and family care. To close that inequality gap, we need a robust and sensible framework of law, a well-resourced Equal Opportunities Commission, to which the Government will listen, and a programme of Government-backed action to change attitudes and behaviour.
    Perhaps as a start, the Under-Secretary will take away with her a request that I have received from the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women, which has two active clubs in any constituency. That organisation has asked me to convey its opinions to the Minister. It believes that the publication of gender-based statistics would be of real help in highlighting problems and raising awareness generally. Such statistics would show that typical state pensions, SERPS values and personal pensions are usually based on men's earnings, resulting in misleading figures. They

    459
    would bring the difference to the attention of both men and women, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider their publication.
    7.9 pm
    Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: We have not had a debate of this kind for some time. I must be truthful, and say that I would not always wish to participate in such debates. Much of the ground has already been traversed, and I shall not go over it again; I will say, however, that I wholeheartedly support equal opportunities, as I would expect all hon. Members to do. We may, however, differ on what we consider to be equal opportunities, and on how they can be provided in future.
    I see much more equal opportunity now than I did many years ago, when I was starting my career. There have been changes. That does not mean that we should not seek further changes, but the Government are clearly helping. Later in my speech, I shall issue one or two challenges myself.
    According to the motion,
    "women in Britain face discrimination in all aspects of their lives."
    We could probably spend not part of a day but a whole week debating that, and still have a fair amount to say; we might not all agree at the end, but I am sure that we would have a very good discussion.
    I remember discussing equal opportunities with Dr. Sally Kosgei, then high commissioner for Kenya. Many of us got to know her quite well: she was a wonderful black woman from one of the villages in north Kenya. She thought that equal opportunities were fine; she said that they had equal opportunities in her country, for she had risen from a poor farming family to become a high commissioner. She had been educated in Africa and America. One day she said to me, with a large grin on her face, "If you want equal opportunities, you will have to decide that men will have the babies. As long as women have to have the babies—if they want them—there will never be equal opportunities in all aspects of our lives."
    That woman was right, in that women often wish to take time off to have children. It is a choice that we can all make—and do make, at some point in our lives. I sometimes find it difficult to understand why many members of our younger generation want everything at once, which is not always as easy as it may seem. I do not think that any amount of legislation could ensure that younger women, coming along in their professions, can have the top job as well as a family—and perhaps even give time to a husband.
    I acknowledge that some women choose not to do all that at the same time, but to concentrate solely on their careers; it is sometimes felt that they have an unfair advantage over those who give up work to have a family.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Lady has suggested that young women seem to want it all. An increasing number of cases have been cited of women who deliberately plan their first pregnancies much later in life to accommodate their careers. Society's response generally is abhorrence of that choice: enormous pressure is still being exerted on women to have children in what were formerly regarded as their child-bearing years. I take the hon. Lady's point, but much more than the biological processes needs to be changed.
    Mrs. Peacock: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I believe that people choose to have children at different stages. Some still choose to have families when they are very young, while others choose to build up their careers before starting a family. I do not think that many of us would criticise those who want to wait until later in life, when they may find it easier to adapt to a full-time career. As I have said, we all have the opportunity to make that choice.
    The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) mentioned the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women. I pay tribute to that organisation, which has worked assiduously for women's equality since the early 1930s—not only in encouraging Governments to act, but in encouraging younger people. I have been a member for 30 years, during which I have admired many other members who have played leading roles.
    Next month, I shall be a judge in the organisation's national public speaking competition, whose finals will be held in Brighton. The organisation arranges heats throughout the country, encouraging schoolgirls to participate. I consider it a very good project: it gives confidence to many young people. Having judged heats before, I know that many young girls are much more confident as a result, and have many more opportunities.
    The United Kingdom needs equal opportunities—and it needs women as well. We make up more than 50 per cent. of the population, and I consider it vital to harness our talents. That, indeed, will harness all society's talents, while allowing individuals to fulfil their potential.
    Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is still a long way to go? Four per cent. of the judiciary are women; 3 per cent. of university professors are women; 4 per cent. of the current Government are women. A very low percentage of women seem to be rising to the top of their professions.
    Mrs. Peacock: I shall come to that point shortly.
    The public appointments unit records that, in 1993, women took 40 per cent. of all new appointments: that is a great improvement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold)—who has been mentioned, but is not present this evening—is taking a great interest in encouraging women to stand for Parliament, and in recent years has recommended an increasing number of capable women to the public appointments unit. I welcome that.
    Since 1979, the number of women in higher education has risen by 100,000. I am sure that we all wish that the figure were greater, but it is increasing. Since the 1992 general election, 40 per cent. of those selected for the Conservative candidates list have been women—and that has happened without any need for quotas. Between 1987 and 1991, the proportion of women in practice at the Bar rose by 8 per cent.; more and more women are taking law degrees, and going straight through to the Bar. In 1983–84, there were 5,000 female solicitors; now there are more than 14,000—20 per cent. of the total.
    No party political issue is involved, but I discovered within a short time of arriving here that this place—like many others—ticks on the old boys' network. I think that we need an old girls' network. Some of us began to set up such a network some time ago. When John Timpson introduced me on a radio programme as the Member of

    461
    Parliament with a subversive network of women in the House of Commons, I took it as a compliment—although I am not sure that he meant it as one.
    Most of the women with whom I come into contact—women of all ages—want equality of opportunity: there is no doubt about that. Most, however, do not want quotas. Women supporters of the Conservative party and of the other political parties do not want more women candidate short lists. They do not want a Ministry for women.
    Ms Short: We have got one.
    Mrs. Peacock: If we had a Ministry and a Minister for women, everything would go to that one Department at the end of a corridor and would get lost. Every Minister and Ministry should take into account women's needs. Of course it is right to have a lead Minister and a lead Department, but we should not have a Department with responsibility solely for women, which would do much more harm than good. I would not want to be shunted to the end of a corridor to discuss what I want. I would want to be in the midst of things and to hear what is going on in each Department. We would lose that capability if we had a special Ministry.
    Women want to be taken seriously. If quotas and places were saved for us on committees or groups, the finger would be pointed at us, and someone would say, "We don't need to take notice of you. You're only here because we saved you a space." We would lose much of the credibilty that we have worked for many years to gain. I do not want that to happen.
    A serious challenge faces my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government. Fifty per cent. of medical students are female, but only 15 per cent. of consultants are women, so there is need for improvement. Although 46 per cent. of students at universities and polytechnics are female, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, only 3 per cent. are principal lecturers or professors. Only 5 per cent. of circuit judges are women, and we certainly need improvements in that sector. Only 8 per cent. of the 144,000 managers of large companies are women.
    Those figures represent our challenge for the future. I do not believe that we or the Government will meet that challenge by setting quotas. Women want to gain those jobs on merit, not through positive discrimination. If there were positive discrimination, we would not be taken seriously and it would undermine much of the work that has been done in Parliament and throughout the country in the past 20 to 30 years.
    7.21 pm
    Mr. John Maxton: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak as the token Opposition male. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) in her arguments, although her speech was thoughtful and dealt with the issues—unlike that of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), which was trivial, petty and condescending. If she came here on merit, then by God the Tory party must be desperately short of good candidates.
    Equally, I do not want to follow some of my hon. Friends, who rightly concentrated on discrimination against women in employment. Women are discriminated against in other sectors of life. I want to pick up from the
    462
    comments of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) about women's leisure activities and women in sport.
    The hon. Member started his speech by quoting from a Dutch newspaper that in 1948 described the athlete Fanny Blankers Koen as a housewife. He said that we have moved on some way since then. He obviously did not see "The Club," a Channel 4 programme about a golf club in the "Cutting Edge" series. When asked why women were not allowed to play at 9 o'clock in the morning, a member of that club said that they were all at home making the beds and clearing up the breakfast dishes. How could they play at 9 o'clock in the morning, he asked.
    Many women face great discrimination in sport. It starts at the top. For the good of the nation's health, women are actively encouraged to take part in physical activity. Television provides the biggest encouragement to people to take part in sport, because, after they watch it on television, they want to take part.
    When do we see women taking part in sports on television? There are hours of coverage of men playing golf, bowls and tennis, but the women who take part in those sports are rarely seen, so there is no encouragement for women to take them up. As has already been mentioned, the men who win Wimbledon get paid more than the women who win it. Poor old Sally Gunnell is paid less than Linford Christie when she takes part in the same meeting.
    There is also discrimination against women in sport at lower levels. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne referred to the fact that his wife is a top three-day eventer. That is one of the few sports where women compete equally with men and are not discriminated against. His wife is extremely lucky.
    My wife is a good golfer, athough she is not of an international standard. Last October, she played two rounds with a fellow female member of her golf club and qualified to take part in the Lady Golf Union's centenary two-ball foursome tournament on the old course at St. Andrew's. Many hon. Members will have seen the old course, with its magnificent Victorian building by the 18th green. That building houses the headquarters of the Royal and Ancient golf club, the managing organisation for golf in Britain and almost throughout the world.
    My wife and her golfing partner arrived with 250 women from all over the United Kingdom to take part in that prestigious golf tournament. For the practice round, they had to get changed in their cars in the car park, and they had to use public toilets because no women are allowed in the clubhouse of the Royal and Ancient golf course.
    Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that a similar position exists in cricket? This year, the British women's cricket team enjoyed the spectacular success of winning the world cup, but they had to be presented with the trophy on the pitch, because women are not allowed in the long room at Lord's.
    Mr. Maxton: I know that my hon. Friend is a good cricketer. Prejudice also exists in that sport.
    Some time ago, I raised the issue of discrimination against women in golf. I was accosted by a male member of a golf club in my constituency. He said, "But we don't discriminate against women in our club." I said, "You are quite right. You don't have any women members." That

    463
    golf club is in the middle of Glasgow and takes up an enormous amount of space for leisure activity, but its members refuse to allow women members. They do not even allow women into their clubhouse.
    Even if they are members, many women are discriminated against because they are not allowed to become full members or to take a full part in running a club. They feel that they are discriminated against at all levels.
    The annual general meeting of my wife's golf club decided to place an extra levy on all members except juniors—on top of their subscription—to pay for a new roof for the men's changing room. The women have to pay a levy towards the cost, proportionate to their subscription.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Quite right.
    Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman may say that that is right, but those women did not have a vote at the AGM when it was decided that a levy should be imposed on them. Does he still believe that it is right that such discrimination should take place? Of course it should not. There is still widespread discrimination against women in sport, and it could and should be stopped.
    It may be too draconian to decide at this stage that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 should be extended to cover leisure activities, but the Government and the Sports Councils should make it clear that no grants, and certainly no money from the national lottery, will be given to any club or sport that discriminates on the grounds of gender, whether against its members or by refusing to have women as members in the first place.
    Local authorities should certainly consider carefully whether to give rates relief to sports clubs that practise discrimination and perhaps licensing courts should consider whether they are prepared to grant a licence to a club that practises discrimination by refusing to accept women members, or by refusing to allow women to drink there.
    Those are some actions which could be taken to solve the problem of discrimination, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), will give a sympathetic hearing to what I have said.
    7.30 pm
    Lady Olga Maitland: In case my later remarks should somehow be misinterpreted, may I first say that I appreciate the commitment of the hon. Lady for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and the enormous amount of work that she has put in to help the cause of women. I know that she is sincere and has been working in this area for a long time. In many ways, we share common goals, but we differ in the means by which we want to achieve the fairest and best possible deal for women.
    I admit that there has been prejudice over the centuries and even nowadays, but, in attempting to right a wrong, there is always an enormous danger of lurching so far in the other direction that one make things worse. The Conservatives are trying to keep common sense and a sense of proportion to the fore. Having listened hard and long to the debate, and having read many articles and features about the Labour party's position and its attitude towards women, I must take exception to the way in which
    464
    it lectures us about the promotion of equal opportunities. I take particular exception to its attempts to remedy the problem by what I would call artificial social engineering.
    Positive discrimination is very degrading to women. I do not understand how Labour's proposals could possibly help us. The Labour party proposes a mountain of regulations and controls which would make it almost impossible for an employer to be able to afford to take on more women, let alone keep those whom he already employs. Its call for the minimum wage and its support for the European Community's social chapter would mean fewer jobs available to women, not more. How can that possibly be regarded as a fair deal?
    I see things differently and more clearly. I believe that there is a very strong socialist streak in the so-called reasonableness of the Labour party. That socialist streak is an attempt to control our lives rather than allow us women to make our own decisions. We should be carefully examining Labour's proposals and seeking examples of what it is doing so that we can make our own judgment.
    I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Lady wood omitted to mention a vote at the Labour party's annual conference last year in which more than 80 per cent. decided to accept women's quotas. In short, it was decided:
    "This conference notes the Party's commitment to achieving 40 per cent. of women as MPs for Labour by 1999 or two elections time".
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for drawing that to the House's attention, but the fact that she did so does not mean that I should not reinforce her remarks.
    It is extraordinary that the Labour party believes that the only realistic way of achieving its aims is to implement the women-only shortlist in 50 per cent. of seats where a sitting Labour Member of Parliament is not standing for re-election. Not surprisingly, the move has been scorned by some Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was reported in the Evening Standard of 23 November as saying that the plan was
    "wrong in principle and probably unworkable in practice".
    How right he is.
    Mrs. Currie: Should not my hon. Friend be a little more charitable to the Labour party? Derbyshire has 10 constituencies, six of which are held by the Conservatives. However, there are three women Members of Parliament—two are Tories and one is a Labour Member. In other words, 30 per cent. of the seats there are held by women without the operation of quotas. I offer my hon. Friend the contrast with Scotland, where the majority of seats are held by the Labour party—indeed, only a handful are not—but the number of women Labour Members is minuscule.
    Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It shows that the Conservative party believes in women progressing on merit alone and, my goodness, that is what they do.
    Ms Rachel Squire: As Scotland has been mentioned, will the hon. Lady explain why there is no Conservative woman Member of Parliament there? Might I suggest that it is either because women in Scotland have more sense than to join the Conservative party, or because the Conservative party operates an all-male shortlist in Scotland?
    Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady completely misses the point. The women in the Conservative party in Scotland would be insulted if they were artificially promoted to a seat because of their sex—the Conservative party prizes merit.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
    Lady Olga Maitland: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again; I have already done so a couple of times.
    Ann Carlton, the co-convener of "Labour Supporters for Real Equality", was quoted in Tribune no less on 17 November last year as saying:
    "Such measures are totally irrelevant to the abolition of the gender gap."
    Indeed, Labour Back Benchers have shown little enthusiasm for the obligation to vote for the four women in the shadow Cabinet elections.
    I shall tell a wee story almost out of school. I overheard a conversation between two male Labour Members. The first said robustly, "I think it is a load of nonsense. I have never heard such rubbish." The second said, "Well, I don't know; we have to be very careful about upsetting our sisters." One should never underestimate a man—indeed, one should never underestimate a woman—but the result was the Tea Room revolt.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They got fewer women, not more.
    Lady Olga Maitland: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the men got their own back and it became an electoral farce. Indeed, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was reported in the Daily Mail on 21 October as saying:
    "There was resentment among some MPs who didn't want to be told who they should vote for in a sexual way."
    Labour Members spread their votes as widely as possible and to the most unlikely women candidates, with the result that has already been outlined more than once this evening. We should re-emphasise the point because it reveals the triviality of the Labour party. Only two of the required four women collected sufficient votes and even the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was voted off.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: She was still put on the Front Bench.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I do not choose to give way to the hon. Member. It was interesting that The Times headed its leader column with the words "nonsensical election". When the Thunderer delivers an opinion such as that, perhaps it has a point. The affair did nothing to enhance the Labour party's standing, as The Guardian made clear on 26 October. After all, it trumpets the cause of the Opposition, not us, so Opposition Members should take heed. The article said:
    "This week's Shadow Cabinet election results…tells us a lot of things about the state of the Labour Party—and all of them are bad. The Labour Party aspires to govern the country. But these were not the results of a serious Party…Labour goes about the task like a natural party of opposition."
    Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
    Lady Olga Maitland: I think that I shall have to give way, because the dear lady is getting very upset.
    Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way at last. Is she aware that, in the previous shadow Cabinet elections, there were far more votes for women than ever before? [Interruption.] The average number of votes cast for women candidates was five per person instead of the compulsory four. Is not that an indication that Labour is voting for women as many candidates came near the top of the list—quite the reverse of what is happening in the Conservative party, where there are so few female Members of Parliament?
    Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady made a good attempt to try to portray that disastrous position. The truth was that the men cooked their goose for them.
    I was also somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Ladywood did not mention her party's commitment to the proposal for a women's ministry with full representation in the Cabinet. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) raised the matter first this evening.
    Ms Short: I am sorry. The hon. Lady is being polite in the way in which she is rude, at least in relation to me. She was not listening. I mentioned the ministry clearly. I said that the existing arrangements are a product of Jo Richardson's work. We have been watching it closely and we shall build on it when we take power.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I stand corrected if that was what the hon. Lady was trying to say. It was not at all clear. The brief for the so-called women's ministry, which seems to be designed to take on every male bastion in the establishment, will not do well for women and probably rebound badly. For a start, I do not think that women want to be put into a ghetto and I certainly do not think that we want to be marginalised. We see ourselves as members of mainstream society and we shall remain there.
    In short, it should be recognised that, try as it may, the Labour party will always fail to attract the female vote. It certainly did at the previous election, when it secured only 34 per cent. of the female vote, compared with 37 per cent. of the male vote. The women went elsewhere, largely to the Conservative party. In a misconceived attempt to rectify matters, the Labour party has backed positive discrimination and special treatment for women, which is falling on deaf ears. They almost sound like desperate measures to try to cling on to a disastrous situation.
    Labour Members are concerned about part-time workers as if they are trying to put across the impression that, if one works part time, it is somehow degrading, wrong or insulting. If one works part time, one inevitably receives less salary at the end of the week than if one works full time. The women who work part time do so entirely of their own free choice. They choose to do it so as to fit in with their family commitments and many of them do it in the children's early years when they cannot work full time. It is insulting to suggest somehow that they have become second-class citizens—far from it. If that was the case, why has the number of part-time workers escalated beyond all measure in the past decade?
    The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) referred to unpaid workers and implied that somehow it was insulting to be working in a voluntary sector. The wonderful charitable work that men and women have done has been enormously appreciated. The role of women in the charitable sector should never be undermined and should never be in any way regarded as derogatory to their

    467
    status. Those women would be insulted to think that, if they were raising money for Cancer Relief or Oxfam, they would need to be paid to do it.
    I am also absolutely astonished that the hon. Lady should suggest that housewives should be paid for looking after their families. She is probably referring to the "Wages for Housework" campaign. It strikes me that any woman wants to look after her family for all the hours that God sends. That means getting up in the middle of night, once, twice, three or four times. She does it out of the love for her family. The reward that I get from my family is their support and my sense of well-being means that we all become a much more united family. The mother who refuses to comply with her duties would be a rare animal. I do not think that it happens. It is the way we are made. It goes back to the real essence of "vive la difference". We cannot be changed.
    We are perfectly capable, thank you, of making our own way. We only ask that we are judged on our own merits and that we have a fair chance. The ideals of Emmeline Pankhurst, who campaigned vigorously for the vote, have not been upheld by what I call the angry feminist brigade. The difficulty is that the women of that brigade have clouded the real issues. Emmeline Pankhurst would turn in her grave if she could see the way in which they have brought the issue of sexism into the whole subject and their personal style of sexuality into the workplace, which has become offensive.
    We want straightforward, down to earth common sense and we want to get on with it. I am grateful for the practical approaches of the Government over the years to facilitate that chance. As a result of their commitment, a higher proportion of women work in Britain than in any other country in the European Community apart from Denmark. It is interesting that women work in Britain because the working community is available to provide the work. We are moving out of recession and there will be more opportunities for everyone.
    There are certainly plenty of achievements of which to be proud. In the past decade, between 1983 and 1992, there was an 11 per cent. increase in the female work force in full-time employment and a 29 per cent. increase in those choosing to work part time. In all, as the Secretary of State pointed out, 46 per cent. of the work force are now women. The greatest shift has been in the number of self-employed women, which has doubled to one woman in four.
    The best barometer of progress is in my constituency. Angry feminism has never entered their heads, but women play a key role in our society. Not one has ever mentioned to me that she has been a victim of sex discrimination. They all reflect the progress that has been greatly helped by the Government's down-to-earth, practical approaches. [Laughter.] Let me give some examples. [Laughter.] It is easy for the Opposition to chatter and jeer, but it may be worth while addressing what we have managed to accomplish.
    The chief executive of our council is a woman. There are women editors of all the local newspapers. There are women-only GP practices. As has already been pointed out, women now make up more than half the number of medical students. I accept that the number of women consultants is not yet nearly high enough, but bearing in mind the fact that half the medical student population are
    468
    now women I have no doubt that they will take their rightful place at the consultancy level once they have worked their way through the system.
    The women head teachers in my constituency are of the highest calibre. Their achievements in their schools are interesting, too. More girls than boys have passed their A-levels and in general girls achieve better results than boys at GCSE. The number of lawyers in Sutton reflects the rapidly growing proportion of women solicitors and women at the Bar. Women now constitute at least one third of the profession.
    Women in business have made a particular mark in Sutton. Indeed, in the past couple of years they have been slightly more successful than men in sustaining progress after starting up new companies. The Sutton Enterprise Agency tells me that that is because they are natural housekeepers and well disciplined. After handling a domestic budget with caution, women adapt well to handling a business budget without over-committing themselves. If they have one weakness, it is more to do with their initial lack of self-confidence than with discrimination by others.
    Sutton did not need the Labour party to tell it how to select a woman Member of Parliament. I was chosen by an association that genuinely had no strong feelings on the subject—so much so that one third of the candidates that it chose to interview in the first instance were women. There is only one job still outstanding in Sutton and I hear that that lack may soon be remedied when we get a woman chief of police.
    As something of a sideline to my speech, I pay a special tribute to the role of women in the police force, not only at WPC level, where women's contribution has been very professional, but as they work their way up through the system. The women assistant chief constables whom I have met have been most impressive.
    There is only one development about which I must admit to a touch of regret, and that is the creation of women priests. We shall have our fair share of them in Sutton, but I object on religious grounds, not on grounds of equal opportunity, to their elevation to the priesthood.
    If anything, the debate should be retitled "In Praise of Women's Progress". We should not allow ourselves to become complacent about what we have achieved. I believe that I have benefited enormously from the facilities that were put into my path when I was building my career. When I started in Fleet street 25 years ago, women made up only 10 per cent. of the work force on the Sunday Express. In those days the attitude was, "Oh, she can work in the fashion department, or the women's pages." Only because I had worked for a hard news agency could I manage to persuade people that I wanted to work in other areas.
    To tell an anecdote slightly against myself, there was once severe competition for a job as head of department. Having been given that post, I turned up to work to find a man seated at my desk opening my letters, dictating to my secretary and using my telephone. I said, "I hope that you'll step into my grave as quickly as you've stepped into my shoes." He said, "I have a right to be here; you are only a housewife."
    Ms Short: What happened next?
    Lady Olga Maitland: I won; I tipped him out. By the end of the week he was gone.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Without a quota.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Yes, without a quota.
    Women in Fleet street have now well and truly made their mark. Now we find many women in all the top positions, whether as news editors or even as editors of newspapers. Eve Pollard now edits the Sunday Express, where I used to work, and I rejoice in her success.
    We must examine the changes in our society and ask why they have come about. They have happened not only because of better education, and the fact that women are going into further and higher education, but because women now have higher aspirations. They will not settle for less. Moreover, society is more sympathetic to the idea that women can combine families with careers—some-thing that our grandmothers could never do.
    On the whole, I believe that the reason why women are so popular and successful in the workplace is their excellent track record. They are reliable; they work hard; they do not drink heavily; they manage their domestic lives efficiently; they do not build up the sort of criminal records that men do, or become involved in many squalid business deals. It is not surprising that women are in demand.
    We must keep a sense of proportion about what we seek to achieve. We should not be in any way complacent. I should be grossly insulted if I were employed in any capacity because of positive discrimination. I believe that such a move would rebound disastrously on us all. However, there is one factor to which we must pay attention—child care provision.
    I know what that involves, because I have three children, I have been a working mother and I have had to worry about them. I was fortunate, because having worked my way through Fleet street, I had what was described as an executive salary and could pay for my own child care, with someone resident in my home. But if one happens to be a woman who does not command such a salary—a teacher or a receptionist—
    Ms Short: A cleaner.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Yes, a full-time cleaner, or whatever—we should look seriously at the best ways to help to increase child care provision.
    Ms Short: Good.
    Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady should not get too excited. She thinks that I shall ignore all the initiatives that the Government have taken so far. I shall not. I welcome the Government's achievements in that regard. I welcome the fact that they have been imaginative and have an excellent record in encouraging pre-school provision, so that 90 per cent. of all three to four-year-olds take part in some form of group activity with their peer group. No one can deny that there are more day nurseries and more child minders. There is tax relief for employers' nurseries, and the Budget introduced a child care allowance, beginning in October, worth £28 a week to people on family credit.
    The National Council for One Parent Families was reported in The Daily Telegraph on 11 December as describing that allowance as
    "a step in the right direction".
    The measure will help 150,000 families and it is specifically aimed at encouraging single mothers to go to work and to move away from total dependence on state benefits.
    470
    I approve of another imaginative scheme—the out-of-school child care grant, which will help 50,000 children to have somewhere to go after school hours.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Duchy fund in Lancashire gives assistance to a kids club to do precisely that—to provide out-of-hours care for children.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Where Lancashire leads, the world follows. That is excellent news.
    Nevertheless, we have some way to go and child care is an issue that I wish to watch carefully. I shall watch in particular the cost of child minders, because I have a feeling that they are operating something of a scam. I cannot understand how they can charge such high fees for taking care of a toddler. Indeed, their charges put them out of range of women who cannot easily afford them. What I would us like to do—it may not be possible yet, but I would like to consider it—is look at other ways of providing child care, for example, with nursery vouchers. Indeed, why cannot we have tax relief? It has been talked about for some time, but the time has come to look at this matter more seriously.
    In conclusion, I welcome the Government's commit-ment to help women without being patronising. No one is more supportive than the Prime Minister. Ironically, he has done more to help women than his predecessor who, as we all know, was the first woman Prime Minister—Baroness Thatcher. The Prime Minister has shown his concern in this area by promoting more women to top jobs, be it in the Cabinet or his personal office. Indeed, he gave an enormous boost to the public appointments unit by appointing more women to public bodies. Our concern is to maintain the dignity of women and give them the very best opportunity to use their undoubted talents.
    8 pm
    Ms Jean Corston: The debate has shown the Conservative party at its worst. The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) illustrated something very interesting. As 22 hon. Members wished to speak in the debate, we were all asked to keep our speeches short. However, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam bored on for 29 minutes. That is the height of selfishness in a debate where so many hon. Members want to speak, bearing in mind that this is the first debate on sex discrimination in the House since 1975.
    As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said, the Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was 19 years ago next week. That debate and today's debate were initiated by the Labour party. The degree to which the Conservative party is embarrassed by that is shown by the fact that we have more women Members in our party than all the other parties put together. The Tory party busily reassembled its women Members to stick a few behind the Front Bench today because they have such a shortage of women Members and they are embarrassed.
    In 15 years of Conservative Government, there has not been a single half-day committed to debating sex discrimination. Tory Members are being asked to support a Government amendment which says that women in Britain now enjoy exceptionally wide and increasing opportunities, and asks the Government to continue to pursue the policies that have made that possible.

    471
    That is spitting in the wind because the United Kingdom Government have been referred to the European Court of Justice on issues of women's equality more often than any other European Union Government. For example, they have been referred on pension age, retirement age, equal pay for work of equal value, invalidity pensions and housing benefits. Last week, the Law Lords ruled that part-time workers, almost all of whom are women, are discriminated against by the Tory amendments to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which weakened and eroded women's rights on matters such as unfair dismissal and redundancy.
    The Government have constantly stressed the burdens on employers of treating women equally. It is interesting that they never tell us about the employers who do not agree with them. In the Financial Times of 4 March, the operations director of one company that had restructured its work force to increase the number of part-time workers to respond to daily fluctuations in customers' demands is quoting as saying:
    "'When we took this strategic decision it did not even enter our considerations that employing people part-time would make it easier to dismiss them. Our whole objective was to produce the goods that our customers wanted at the right time. As to increased potential costs—we are not looking to get rid of people.'"
    Despite 24 years of equal pay legislation, the United Kingdom is at the bottom of the league, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said. When we look at women's earnings as a percentage of men's earnings—this covers all women; it is not only professional women whose salaries may be as high as 80 or 100 per cent. of men's salaries, as is the case with Members of Parliament and if it is good enough for us, it should be good enough for everyone else—we find that in the United Kingdom, women's pay as a percentage of men's overall pay was 67.1 per cent. in 1991. In Denmark, it was 84.7 per cent; in France, it was 80 per cent; and in Greece, it was 75.8 per cent. That is what the Government are boasting about.
    We have seen the Government presiding over and encouraging the casualisation of the work force and job insecurity. They abolished the wages councils which were the last protection for hundreds of thousands of women working in low-paid jobs where it was difficult for them to be organised. We have now seen the sinister emergence of things called zero-hours contracts and key-time contracts which are offered to women, especially those in hotels and catering, and shops. A key-time contract guarantees some work but not regular hours. A zero-hours contract does not guarantee any hours at all.
    Employers who provide zero-hours contracts provide no commitment to employees to provide any work. Equally, employees do not commit themselves to work any hours at all. They are not contracted to work any hours at all. They are expected to be available for work at short notice, but they are not contracted so to be. Therefore, they must be available for work all the time, but they have no guarantee of work at any time. The Government boast about that.
    By 1983, it was clear that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 needed consolidation and strengthening. Jo Richardson, a friend of Labour Members and someone whom we miss very much—she would have been in the House 20 years a few days ago—introduced the
    472
    Sex Equality Bill on 9 December 1983. That Bill was opposed by the Government. It is to her great credit that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) supported Jo Richardson's Bill.
    That Bill recognised that the legislation needed consolidation. Jo Richardson proposed definitions of discrimination, including one that encompassed sexual harassment and pregnancy. She referred to the necessity for enforcement provisions in the Bill to include a procedure for assessing claims for equal work of equal value, and introduced the power to refer discriminatory or indirectly discriminatory collective agreements to the central arbitration committee. She said:
    "People's attitudes have changed. We feel that the time has come to move on and make the legislation better than it was. Groups of people and individuals have become more frustrated at what they see to be an unfair and unwarranted limitation on their rights as individuals, and the continuing domination by men, confirming the traditionally accepted role of women as dependants and the inferior sex."—[Official Report, 9 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 581.]
    That Bill was not supported by the Conservative Government and, as a private Member's Bill, it fell.
    The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and other hon. Members said that quotas are unnecessary. That has been the approach of several hon. Members, especially the Member who is probably the most senior of us all—if one likes, the first among equals. However, Barbara Castle who is much revered by Labour Members takes a different view. Last year, she wrote an article in a Sunday paper in which she said that throughout most of her political life she had been against quotas because she did not need any help. However, the older she got, the more she realised that that was an extraordinarily self-centred and selfish view, and she had received a lot of help to get in the House, as did many of us. She cited the case of one of her secretaries who, every time selections for a general election came around, tried to be selected to get in the House but who failed for years. That secretary was eventually elected in 1969, and is now the Speaker of the House. If Barbara Castle thinks that the experience of her secretary persuaded her to argue for quotas, it must be a convincing argument.
    I did some research into sex discrimination at work in 1989. I found that women in middle management consistently came up against what could be called a glass ceiling, while other women were condemned to a life of low-grade, low-status jobs.
    Only yesterday, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who is no longer in her place, and I were part of a group of hon. Members who visited Holloway women's prison, which has a record number of 479 inmates. I asked for the proportions of men and women who were working at Holloway. I was told that there were 226 people in the lower grades of staff, 90 per cent. of whom were women. I was also told that there were 10 governor grade jobs in Holloway, only one of which was held by a woman. That says it all.
    We have heard much about women's opportunities and child care, and the way in which women ought to be playing a part in the work force. However, Government policies place women in what I can only describe as a kind of guilt. If a woman is not working and has children, she feels guilty because the Government have eroded the concept of the family wage and driven down wages. She feels that she ought to be working, and that happened to me when my children were small and I wanted to improve my education. I did not have an opportunity to go out to work.

    473
    If a woman does work, she is made to feel guilty and told that she should be at home. There is no way for a woman to square that circle.
    There is also the question of the skills that women acquire while bringing up a family. Women learn conflict resolution, dispute avoidance, time management and budgeting—all things which organisations such as Lloyd's bank spend a fortune training men to learn. Yet when women do get jobs, they are condemned to low-grade, low-status jobs. The attributes of women ought to be recognised.
    We want legislation that gives part-time workers equal employment rights to full-time workers, strengthens the Equal Pay Act 1970, speeds up and simplifies equal value places, restores pay protection through wages councils, gives statutory parental leave, extends maternity leave to 18 weeks and ensures that all children have access to a nursery from the age of three. Above all, we want legislation that reforms the state pension system, because far too many women in this country are poor pensioners.
    People come to my surgery who cannot afford a pair of shows, and no hon. Member should be proud of that. Those people have each week the kind of money that most Conservatives would spend on an evening out.
    An old Chinese proverb says that women hold up half the sky. That is at the very least true, and it is a pity that the Government have done nothing to recognise that.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Members of all parties, and I hope that the House will bear with me if I depart slightly from what has gone before.
    Many of the major issues of dispute between the parties have been trotted out for display on the specific issue of sexual discrimination, and I do not intend to go back over them. Suffice it to say that I think we sometimes make greater issue about this matter than we need to.
    The reality is that there has been a natural progression during the past 30 to 40 years. There has been greater freedom for women in the workplace, and much of that has been brought about without Government legislation.
    There has been a deep change in the nature of work across the western world. The old, heavy, industrial, metal-bashing, smokestack industries are producing less of the work in this country. Service sector jobs, such as banking, require less muscle and a great deal of brain and co-ordination, and they have taken over and are continuing to grow. They will produce the increases in employment during the next few years, and the reality is that, in those jobs, women are every bit as capable as men of producing the goods and, in some respects, are probably far better.
    Companies must come to realise that there will be no excuse for them in the next few years. If they discriminate in any shape or form, they will only discriminate against themselves because the pool of talent is always limited and finite. It is up to companies to recognise that they need to make use of whatever talent is out there.
    That is a natural progression, and I wish that the Opposition would recognise that as much the Government have. It is absolutely critical that companies recognise that the talent among women is every bit as great as that among men.
    I often talk to my wife about aspects of sexual discrimination, and she says time and again that she wishes
    474
    that women who go on about discrimination would not decry the role of women at home. She often talks to women who hold down jobs and, during the conversation, they ask her what she does. When she replies that she is a housewife, the career women immediately freeze and move away. That is important, for having watched my wife looking after four children and running a home, I know that she is not my equal—she is my superior. There is no doubt that I could not possibly do it, and without her I would not be here. Some Opposition Members may wish that that was the case.
    Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right in noting that no one should be criticised or demeaned for deciding that they wish to be—for want of a better word—housewives. On the other side of the coin, does my hon. Friend agree that it is equally distasteful that women who decide that they wish to pursue a career and a family are more often than not also treated in certain quarters with some contempt, and are made to feel that, in some ways, they too cannot play a full role in bringing up a family and pursuing a job?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend raises an interesting matter, which, while it follows the point that I made, stands on its own.
    There was a momentous event last week when I noted, with some horror, the ruling of the Law Lords on the rights of part-time workers under the Employment Protection Act 1978, which, it was suggested, resulted in inadvertent sexual discrimination. I notice that the Opposition mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not referred to that decision. I hope that, by the end of my speech, they will perhaps have had enough of the matter. I wish to go into the basis of the ruling, because it is critical that we understand fully what the Law Lords have done. They said that the majority of part-time workers are women and the majority of full-time workers are men, using the 16-hour break point.
    The Law Lords went on to say that the difference in treatment of part-time and full-time workers accordingly tends adversely to affect more women than men. They said that, unless the difference of treatment is "objectively justified"—a critical point to which I will come back—it constitutes indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex contrary to European Community law.
    Finally, the burden of proving objective justification being on the Government, the evidence submitted by the Department did not establish that. It is important to note that the evidence consisted of an affidavit. I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to explain when she replies what constituted that affidavit, and what evidence was given to disprove that point.
    My big worry is that the width of the judgment is quite staggering. It does not just deal with redundancy and unfair dismissal. I believe that it will also back into occupational pensions in a dramatic way. Although the case did not relate to occupational pensions, there seems no reason under article 119 why part-time employees may not sue both public and private sector employers for equivalent occupational pension rights to full-timers and for equivalent holiday pay.
    Ms Short: What is wrong with that?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If our Government had decided to follow that course, that would have been fine. They were elected to make such decisions here and they would have

    475
    had to stand by them. In the same way, if the Labour party had been elected to government and carried through the House a decision to give part-time workers equal rights, that would have been the right way to proceed. The right way is not through the back door by means of a ruling based on European law, which has widened the aspect of the debate.
    Secondly, the ruling has immediate effect on occupational pension and holiday rights and also on redundancy rights. Part-time workers will now be able to claim redundancy pay from both public and private sector employers after only two years employment. New amending legislation will not be required. It has already been proved in several cases such as de Freyn and Barber, that article 119 is held to have had direct effect. That is critical. Those in the public employ will be able to sue with immediate effect as a result of the ruling.
    It is also possible to examine unfair dismissal. Public sector and private sector part-time employees who believe that they have been dismissed unfairly will be able to make claims again for unfair dismissal if employed for two years or more. Again, no legislation is required. It is also apparent that it will be possible to make some of the claims, if not all of them, retrospective. As a result of a decision taken not by my Front-Bench colleagues but by the Law Lords on a fairly debatable point, we may find that claims will feed through certainly for redundancy pay which are retrospective for up to four years. That will load costs on to industry in a way that I do not believe was ever entertained by the Law Lords.
    The ruling is a major step. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is thinking hard what to do on the issue. The Government would not necessarily have taken that step, but if we had done so we would have been justified in taking that step through the House, having carried the House with us. After all, the House is elected by the public on that basis. I hope that Opposition Members accept that this is another matter in which our powers to decide such matters have been stripped away. It is a critical decision. I shall deal with some of the main reasons why it is critical later.
    I hope that, instead of saying that a great decision has been made which has forced something that they wish to see come through into legislation, Opposition Members will see that if they were in our position they would consider that the ruling was not the right way to go about it. It is up to the Government to make such decisions and carry the House with them.
    I shall not go into detail on inadvertent sexual discrimination, but it is a dubious point. I should like to know a little more, if possible, from my hon. Friend the Minister about what we presented to justify our case. Once the Law Lords decided that it was right to rule on the procedural matters, we had to put forward a defence that the current position was objectively justified. I believe that we would have been able so to justify it. Time and again, we have demonstrated that our employment policy is based on flexibility. That is to say that the work force should be able to meet and match the jobs that are available. As employment prospects grew, part-time work would develop into full-time jobs; it was economically vital.
    Our position has been justified time and again. As we have moved out of recession we have been able to take
    476
    advantage of the employment policy. Employment has moved up quickly immediately. We are not seeing that in other countries in Europe. The rate of unemployment in Britain is dropping. Much of that is due to the fact that we have a more flexible work force than probably any other country in Europe. That has a lot to do with our position on part-time work. Therefore, although the Law Lords ruled that there was inadvertent sexual discrimination, we could have objectively justified that. We had good economic grounds for it.
    Once we have dealt with the basis of the ruling, it is important to consider why the ruling came through. There has been a major progressive change over the years. It has come from the European Court of Justice. As Lord Denning said many years ago:
    "The Treaty of Rome is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back."
    The judgment from the Lords in the past week has demonstrated clearly how that tide of law affects the divisional courts. The decision was based wholly on European treaties and declarations, not on any British legislation.
    Last year, in January, I made a speech in which I pointed out that, in many of the social provisions, sexual discrimination being one of them, we would see the tide of legal expertise flowing back from the court and avoiding our social chapter opt-out. Article 119, which I quoted on that occasion, article 118 and every other directive have thrown back all the social provisions that we would not necessarily wish to implement. Perhaps the Opposition would wish to implement them, but they should do so if and when they were ever elected to government. That is the key point. Opposition Members should not seek to introduce measures through the back door. They should seek to do so through their position in government.
    Ms Short: My understanding of the House of Lords ruling is that the Lords interpreted the British law as incorporating the treaty of accession into British law. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's speech is that he wishes Britain to leave the European Union. Is that what he is saying?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: No. The point that I am making is simply that while we signed up to several articles and declarations in the treaty of Rome, and subsequent amendments. The idea remained that we as a Parliament and a Government should be justified in making the decisions on how we believe that the economy should work here, as long as that does not affect other member states. That is clearly the case here. We decided to go for a flexible work force. We have produced such a work force. I believe that it has had beneficial results. We have more people in employment than ever before and a falling level of unemployment.
    I accept that Conservative and Opposition Members will never agree on that point, but if the people of Britain had elected a Government to follow their views, that would be fine. That is exactly what the Opposition would have been justified in doing. However, it is not what the people elected us to do. That is the problem for us. I wish to deal with that point.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the judgment about which he complains and the legislation about which he is worried would not have been invoked if the British Government

    477
    had treated women equally? Is he saying that, when the electorate last went to the polls, people consciously voted for a Government who would deny women equal treatment within the work force?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: No. The problem with this is the contrary. The principle of long standing that no Parliament may bind another has clearly been broken. The equal opportunities legislation was passed during a Labour tenure. The Labour party was in government, as it was for the 1978 Act. The point is simply that the articles referred to pre-date the Single European Act by a long time and bind us on the issue. The matters were dealt with under Labour. Therefore, it is up to the Government to decide whether we wish to see such provisions implemented.
    With respect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), I said earlier that I did not believe that the law on part-time work demonstrated sexual discrimination in the way that has been suggested. That is the key. It is not that we believe in sexual discrimination. We do not believe that there was sexual discrimination. The matter is simply about part-time workers. The economic justifications for a flexible work force speak louder than ever before.
    If I might make some suggestions to my hon. Friend, I think that we ought to fight the issue again rather than implement the judgment of the Lords. There is the opportunity to do that. In terms of legal precedence, the decision of their Lordships on that point is not a finding of law binding on other courts. It would be possible to allow those people who wish to do so to pursue the matter through the divisional court, to defend on the basis of justifiable reason, as we did previously, but to put more emphasis on the economic aspects.
    I wish that my hon. Friend would take consideration of that, bearing in mind that we do not believe that it is in reality sexual discrimination, but that it is economically justifiable as it exists at the moment. We should watch that come through the divisional court and make a decision afterwards, rather than jumping now. It would be open to a sued employer to fight on that basis from there.
    I would therefore support the Government in trying to do that. It would have grave economic consequences were we to accept the decision, not just in the aspects that I discussed earlier, but also as regards pension rights, the position as to which has yet to be quantified. We do not know what that would cost.
    There is a possibility that we can produce a declaratory or clarificatory Act which may help with regard to the 1978 Act. It would be important to ensure that we had the opportunity of saying that the House should be able to speak about justifiable reasons and tell the court clearly that that was the case. It would be a good position to take and it would help with regard to the case.
    My hon. Friend should bear in mind that it is time for us to think carefully about discussing again articles 117 onwards with our colleagues and friends in the European Community, because we would not wish all the social aspects of the treaty of Rome to be imported here. We believe that they will lead to an uneconomic and uncompetitive Britain. We also believe that the whole of Europe will become uneconomic, so we have to inform them that now is the time to ensure that we drop those aspects of the treaty. We should push for them to be taken out. They are not fields for common debate. They are fields in which national Governments must make all the decisions.
    478
    If the Labour party is elected, it will have to make a decision, simply on economic grounds, that its social policy is justifiable. It may well do so. It may be elected on that basis—I doubt it—but we have justified to our electorate that we believe that a flexible work force will be the one that will take us forward into the 21st century.
    I believe that the problem is that the Law Lords have taken unto themselves the position as a constitutional court now, and we need to take careful consideration of what they have been able to move into—with the social aspects. I wish to put it to my hon. Friend that we should fight, to ensure that we establish the justifiable reasons that we believe are there. I hope that she and her hon. Friends will come up with the sort of decisions that I have outlined.
    8.32 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman—I regret that I have temporarily, if I ever knew, forgotten his constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chingford."] The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred to the Law Lords' decision in the case that was taken to them by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which related to the differences that the Government have created in wages and conditions of work between part-time and full-time workers.
    In its extremely helpful little briefing pamphlet, "The Inequality Gap," the Equal Opportunities Commission says:
    "Britain has over 5 million part-time workers, 87 per cent. of them women, and the numbers are rising."
    More than 2 million of those part-time workers
    "earn so little, or are so sporadically employed, that they do not pay National Insurance and have no entitlements to unemployment and sickness pay, or to a State Pension, for which if not working they might have got credits."
    Another extremely helpful briefing document published by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, entitled "Unequal Opportunities," says:
    "The Equal Opportunities Commission's Annual Report for 1992 talks in terms of a 'surge in complaints about workplace sex discrimination'…The level of employment-related complaints and enquiries stood at 13,320, an increase of 47 per cent. on the previous year. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service reported a similar trend—sex discrimination complaints referred to the Service for arbitration rose by 67 per cent. in 1992."
    At the beginning of our debate, the Minister who has found Detroit more attractive than his duties as Minister for women spoke of Jo Richardson and of her struggle and her constant fight for the needs of women. I believe that Jo Richardson would have called for the rights of women—rights to equality in education and to equal pay for work of equal worth; and to equality in promotion prospects, in pensions, in access to justice and in health.
    Today I had the pleasure of declaring open—if that is the correct word for a piece of medical and scientific equipment—a new mammograph machine at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, the women's hospital on the fringes of my constituency. It is a very pleasant duty for any Member of Parliament actually to be able to welcome an improvement in a national health facility these days, as opposed to endlessly standing in cold vigils attempting to prevent closures.
    Another aspect of the basic inequalities that still work against women in this country is that 15,000 women die from breast cancer every year, 25,000 cases are reported

    479
    every year and, in the nation as a whole, the treatment, screening, after-care and counselling are patchy in the extreme.
    That is why, I am happy to say, a couple of weeks ago an all-party group was formed in the House to deal with the issue of breast cancer. I am equally happy to say that the group has representatives from both sides of the House, male and female, because that seems to emphasise something that has tended to be ignored in our debates, at least from the Conservative Benches this afternoon.
    Reference has been made to the value of women as housewives, almost as though women's work in the house, because essentially it is unpaid work—women in the house do not receive a brown envelope at the end of the week—is not really work. I assure Conservative Members that it is real work, and a great many women undertake it. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady does not need to reassure us.
    Ms Jackson: There are somewhat garbled shouts from sedentary positions attempting to refute the point that I am going to make.
    Mrs. Mahon: Do not give way to him.
    Ms Jackson: I have no intention of doing so.
    Obviously I did not make sufficiently clearly the point that there has been a great deal of patronage and patronising attitude swishing around the Chamber this afternoon on women's rights for equal treatment under the law in a range of our national life. One of the aspects that I have found especially patronising is the way in which men seem to think that, if they endorse our activities, that is the only validation we need, and that if they say that it is okay for women to work in the house, that is all we ever need to ask for.
    I have to tell Conservative Members that I am of an age when I can remember that women on their own were lauded. It was, of course, during a war. The men were away fighting. Then, women attempting to raise their families on their own were little heroines. I have found it especially shocking during the past few weeks that Ministers of the Crown have attempted to blame all society's ills on women who, for three main reasons—death, divorce and desertion—are responsible for raising 2.2 million of the nation's children on the most scandalously low levels of financial support that could be conceived of.
    I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion, as I realise that many other Members wish to take part in the debate. I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke as though the fight was over. She reeled off 10 or 15 women—I do not remember the precise number—who have achieved public recognition because they are successful in their chosen professions. Let us say that the number she gave was 15, and let us assume that the average age of those women is between 25 and 35. Let us assume also that women constitute half of the population of the country—in other words, 27 million human beings.
    If we were to invest £27 million in a bank and after 25 or 30 years our return were £15 there would be an absolute outcry at such a shameful rate. That is what we are discussing—the shameful rate of return on the vast pool of talent that is female. It is the equality of women in society
    480
    that we are discussing. Sadly, under the Conservative Government, the equality of women has taken many huge steps backwards. That is why I support the Opposition amendment, and why, if the House divides, I shall vote against the Government.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: In the end, the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) presented a rather utilitarian view of womanhood. Perhaps it is the over-emphasis on mechanical feminist issues that puts some Conservative Members off women's affairs. However, I welcome this debate. It has been a good discussion, and it is good for men to sit through such an occasion. I have listened and learnt.
    I endorse wholeheartedly the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). In a later intervention, the hon. Lady criticised my right hon. Friend for failing to say anything about the Law Lords' ruling. The extraordinary thing about the hon. Lady's speech was how little she dwelt on how that ruling had come about. It was a massive constitutional innovation, and surely it merited more than the cursory glance that she gave it. From my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a welcome pause is extremely appropriate. A decision of such constitutional magnitude requires some thought before it is responded to.
    I shall support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends, not least because it calls upon the Government to continue their successful policies in the field of opportunities for women. The last 15 years have seen a number of successful initiatives to enhance and promote opportunities and equality for women. Women now have independent and equal taxation; Opportunity 2000 will expand women's opportunities with employers; and there is a drive to increase the number of women in public appointments—to mention just three initiatives.
    We are not averse to generous measures such as were provided earlier this week under an EC directive on pregnant workers. The United Kingdom now gives qualifying women a longer period of maternity absence than any other EC member state and, at 18 weeks, one of the longest periods of paid maternity absence. Unlike the law in many member states, United Kingdom legislation gives all women, regardless of length of service or hours worked, a right to paid time off for antenatal care.
    But a key part of our policy has been a more laissez-faire attitude to some areas of policy that have benefited women. A higher proportion of women go out to work in Britain than in any other European Community country, except, as has been said, Denmark. Between March 1983 and September 1992, there was an 11 per cent. increase in the number of women in full-time employment and an increase of 29 per cent. in the number in part-time employment. Many women choose to work part time, and the Government's policies have encouraged the development of part-time work within a framework that safeguards employees against exploitation.
    The irony of this debate, however, lies in the fact that some of these very opportunities may be choked by last week's court ruling in the name of sex equality. The substance of the Law Lords' ruling on the Equal Opportunities Commission case has serious political and

    481
    economic implications for industries dependent heavily on part-time workers. Businesses in my constituency that would be affected include retailers—not just the big ones but the small ones as well. Small business was the main job generator of the 1980s. This ruling strikes a blow against the interests of all small businesses, which hitherto have benefited from the lower costs and flexibility of part-time workers.
    Whole industries, such as the restaurant and hotel industry, will be badly hit. The British hospitality industry plays a huge role. In fact, it is our biggest foreign exchange earner, bringing some £8 billion to £9 billion per annum into the United Kingdom. It may be that some Opposition Members do not attach much importance to these aspects of the argument, but many hon. Members support the Government's policy of leaving things as they are. Labour now wants everyone in one form of part-time work or another on a compulsory 35-hour week basis, but we believe that flexible labour markets assist economic growth and add to the general prosperity.
    The Opposition may feel gleeful about the court's decision, but surely they should show a hint of anxiety at the fact that their policies do not have the usual democratic consent. We believe that these matters, along with overall conduct of Government policy on labour relations, should be decided here—by Government and Parliament, which are accountable to the electors.
    Ms Short: Tory speech after Tory speech has subverted the rule of law. The House of Lords, on a judicial review, was interpreting British law. Tory Members of Parliament are saying that this is intolerable and will have to be overturned. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) suggested that the Government should subvert the ruling.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady demonstrates that she—along with most of her Front-Bench colleagues, I dare say—has absolutely no appreciation of how this ruling has arisen. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady listens, she may learn something. Opposition Members cannot claim that this ruling was achieved on the merits of the argument. They will find that the Government made little or no effort in court to establish that the alleged indirect discrimination against women was—in the jargon—objectively justified. The Government were principally contesting the vires of the United Kingdom's courts to rule on this matter at all. [Interruption.] If hon. Members listen, they may learn something.
    The House of Lords ruled that aspects of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 are incompatible with Community law. As the leader in The Times of 5 March pointed out, the ruling has, in effect, struck down as "unconstitutional" an Act of Parliament. That the Law Lords did such a thing demonstrates a new and perhaps alarming boldness. They could more tactfully have referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for adjudication. Instead, as The Times suggests—correctly, I believe—Britain now effectively has a constitutional court
    "which opens up the possibility, which many would regard as alarming, of Acts of Parliament being subjected to trial by judicial review, by pressure groups of all descriptions, such as the Commission for Racial Equality, the Child Poverty Action Group",
    or the CBI, the National Association for Freedom, the National Front,
    482
    "various trade unions, Greenpeace and even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds",
    come what may.
    When we wanted to join the European Community, it was not explained that we would be setting up our own courts to compete with us as law makers in matters such as this. I invite hon. Members to speculate on the outrage and uproar that would have been caused had it been explained during the passage of the European Community's legislation or the subsequent referendum that that was how European Community law would develop. We should feel that sense of outrage now.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the reasons why we signed up to the treaty of Rome and why people voted in the referendum to continue to accede to it was that we agreed with much of what it said, including its clear statement on equality?
    Mr. Jenkin: When the argument was made for Britain to join the European Community—it is extraordinary how this relates to sexual equality, but it does—we were told that we were giving up certain aspects of our trade policy so that it could be handled together and that we were handing over control of agriculture and fishing because those matters would be better organised together. It was not explained in detail that we could finish up with new bodies creating legislation in our land. On the contrary, the cry during the referendum was, "You've always got a veto. No decision that affects British interests can be made without a British Minister being present."
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said in the House that there would be no federation. He wrote in the White Paper that there would be no loss of essential national sovereignty. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) must try to justify those matters in her own mind as we carry on down this road.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) appears to want this country to be run from Brussels? The Opposition are federalists.
    Mr. Jenkin: In the unlikely event that the Opposition were ever elected and had to face the stringent free market discipline that the Community also embodies, which is why the Conservatives always were a pro-European party—
    Ms Short: They are not any more.
    Mr. Jenkin: We remain pro-European because we understand how free trade binds nations together. If the Opposition ever suffered the monetary discipline embodied in stages 2 and 3 of monetary union—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech once before on that issue and it was certainly not about sex discrimination. I hope that he will return to the issue that we are supposed to be debating.
    Mr. Jenkin: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will return to the point.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is right. The Opposition want this country to be run from Brussels because they cannot themselves get elected.

    483
    We should feel a sense of outrage because, only last summer, Madam Speaker gave a ruling to uphold article 9 of the Bill of Rights. An Opposition Member had complained that a court was questioning parliamentary privilege. Madam Speaker considered the matter to be of sufficient gravity to rule on it herself rather than refer it to the Committee of Privileges. She said:
    "There has of course been no amendment of the Bill of Rights, and that Act places a statutory prohibition on the questioning of our proceedings. Article 9 of the Act reads:
    'that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."'.—[Official Report, 21 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 351–2.]
    Who can possibly say that the Equal Opportunities Commission or their Lordships have respected article 9 of the Bill of Rights? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to question the Speaker's ruling, I suggest that she rises to her feet and does so.
    Mrs. Currie: I am delighted to do so—another sex change tonight. I merely wish to point out that their Lordships are part of this Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman's criticism is misapplied.
    Mr. Jenkin: The case was originally brought in the Divisional Court and the affect of the ruling is that the Divisional Court can now rule an Act of Parliament illegal. The hon. Lady must accept that she is wrong on that point.
    The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 was passed after the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1971 and presumably in the full knowledge of it, and after the relevant Community legislation had also been agreed.
    So what can we do in the light of that ruling? We can choose to accept the ruling. What that means for sexual equality and employment policy in the United Kingdom is that, as the Labour party wants, hon. and right hon. Members who sit on the Treasury Bench, whether they be Conservative or Labour, are to become mere agents and emissaries of a policy that is decided elsewhere. Instead of being servants of this House, they must be the apologists of others.
    Under that ruling, the Law Lords have treated Parliament no differently from an errant local authority that has passed some unreasonable bye-laws or an employment scheme run by a private company. In the forthcoming European elections, let the Opposition parties tell voters that that is what they want Parliament's status to be.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not negotiate an opt-out of the social chapter for it to be nullified so quickly in this way. In The Economist of 25 September 1993 he wrote that Britain had successfully used the Maastricht negotiations to reassert the authority of national Governments. One must assume that he was talking about sexual equality legislation as much as anything else. He went on to say:
    "It is clear now that the Community will remain a union of sovereign national states. That is what its peoples want: to take decisions through their own Parliaments.
    It is for nations to build Europe, not for Europe to attempt to supersede nations."
    I applaud those comments.
    For the Government now to continue their successful policies they must pursue a number of options. They could reassert Parliament's authority by ignoring the ruling, and
    484
    contest the claims on substantive information as and when they arise, objectively justifying the case that we wish to make. Better still, we could enact a declaratory Bill in which we deem the Government's policy to be "objectively justified"—the correct term—but this would only buy time. What we need is to extend the social chapter opt-out into something much more comprehensive in order to regain control of sex equality and employment legislation.
    We must opt out of articles 117 onwards of the Rome treaty, for this judgment was based not on the Maastricht treaty or even on the Single European Act but on articles contained in the original treaty of Rome. Subsidiarity is perhaps an argument that we should use, that these policies should be handled at the level of the nation state and not be in the treaty at all. Why was subsidiarity an argument not used in the ruling?
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who, in his Stockton lecture last Thursday, attacked "Eurosclerosis" and complained:
    "We burden our business with extra costs, preventing labour markets from working properly, stifling the regenerative processes of the capitalist system".
    He could have been talking about this ruling. Emboldened by those words, these options surely merit his further consideration.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who said on Monday in Brussels:
    "We should make our labour markets more flexible and job-friendly…That means not introducing new limitations on the labour market."
    The Secretary of State exactly echoed those sentiments this afternoon, but since this ruling does exactly what he abjures, the proposals to scale down the Community's social ambitions surely invite his further judgment.
    I applaud the Foreign Secretary's remarks in Brussels:
    "A community which forgets that its legitimacy derives from its electors"—
    Opposition Members would do well to remember this—
    "is turning its back, not just on the constraints of democracy but on the wisdom of democracy."
    What sort of Government will the British people be able to elect if they are compelled by the interpretation of European law to pursue policies to which they would otherwise be fundamentally opposed?
    We all agree that sovereignty requires to be pooled for a common good, but should it be a crime to ask "How much?" or perhaps to say, "Too much"? The one real chance that we have to express this is at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. I have no doubt that we shall be reviled and hated by the chattering classes of all the European nations for standing up against the inevitable march, so-called, of European history. We should, however, make sure that future Governments are able to carry out the policies on sexual equality and employment, as all else, for which we are elected.
    9 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I think that we have just heard a speech in favour of sex discrimination—I found it really sad.
    May I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on initiating this debate? Given that it is the

    485
    first of its kind for 20 years, I hope that we will not have to wait another 20 years for the next. I hope that we can repeat it every six months.
    I begin by paying tribute to the last Labour Government who gave us equal opportunities legislation. It is sad that the past 15 years have seen no improvement whatever. If anything, we have gone backwards under the Conservative Government. In 1970 I worked in a factory where I was paid less for doing exactly the same job as the men there. Many of my women friends deeply resented this. Some of them felt undervalued and inferior. I felt very angry, and I was very pleased when we had the first equal opportunities legislation. The Government, however, have not built on it.
    In the area that I want to concentrate on—low pay and how the gap has widened and the discrimination worsened—it is still the case that women in full-time work earn, on average, only 72 per cent. of men's full-time salaries. It means that two thirds of the six million workers earning less than the European decency threshold are women. Black women take home less pay than white women, so there is a further level of discrimination there.
    In the public sector, where women do the majority of jobs and where some occupations are almost entirely female, the picture of poverty pay in women's pockets still holds true. Three-quarters of ancillary health workers, two-thirds of local government manual workers, and most nurses and administrative and clerical staff, are women. In 1993, 61 per cent. of women in the health service's administrative and clerical jobs earned less than £220 a week, compared with 27 per cent. of men. These are some of the better paid jobs in the national health service.
    The Minister told us that the average wage was £250 a week. They would have been glad to see that. In ancillary work, where part-timers form two thirds of the workforce, part-time women earned 42p an hour less than full-time men. On high or low grades, the story is exactly the same. The Government bear a large responsibility for this discrimination continuing and worsening. Their worship of the free market at the expense of all other considerations has increased inequality and encouraged discrimination.
    The contracting out of ancillary jobs has left domestics, laundry workers and others taking a direct cut in wages as contractors put in lower bids than in-house tenders. It has also led to cuts in sickness benefit and holiday pay and a lack of pension rights. It has been hailed by the Government as a success story—but not for low-paid workers.
    Over the years, I have tabled amendments to the employment legislation on the plight of home workers, who represent the lowest paid, least protected, most exploited part of the sweatshop work force that the Government have done so much to encourage.
    The majority of home workers are women. I have found women home workers working for 28p an hour packing Christmas cards that are sold in Woolworths. I interviewed a pregnant woman who sat up all night for as little as 50p an hour knitting garments that sold in the high street for £100. That is not the world of Tory ladies such as the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) or for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). As the debate has progressed, I have realised that we come from different worlds.
    In Britain we have gender segregation, grade inequality, a lower value placed on many jobs where women are in the majority and job evaluation schemes that discriminate
    486
    against women. Unequal access to pay enhancements such as bonuses, weekend additions and overtime pay account for most of the difference between the pay of men and women in manual work. There is a great deal of work to be done to end that discrimination in pay.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Mahon: Certainly not.
    There is also discrimination against part-time workers in grading and enhancements.
    The abolition of the wages councils has already been mentioned. Wages councils were the only protection for the lowest paid people in Britain, who are mainly women. The Yorkshire and Humberside low pay unit carried out a survey in my constituency of Halifax—a very low-paid area. It found that since last year when the wages councils were scrapped, nearly one fifth of the vacancies in former wages council industries are now on offer at the Halifax job centre at 20 per cent. below the old minimum rate.
    A hairdressing job that last August paid £2.88 per hour is now on offer at £2 a hour. Is that progress? Is it what the Government think is good for Britain? Those women shop in the same marketplace as Conservative Members. They will be paying the same increased VAT on their domestic fuel, yet their pay has been reduced by 20 per cent.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is now an essential part of the Government's economic policy? Only two weeks ago, I happened to overhear a conversation in one of the male toilets in the House. Two Conservative Members were somewhat irate about the accusation that they were anti-women. One of them said to the other, "For God's sake, don't they understand that the vast majority of jobs that do not go to the third world go to women?" Does not that reflect their dependence on widening, not narrowing the gap of exploitation?
    Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It says it all about Conservative Members and what they think the British work force is worth. That is the value they put on workers.
    The Tory record—
    Mr. Duncan: That is the economic reality, luvvy.
    Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman said that that is the economic reality. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made £50,000 out of selling a council house. Opposition Members know too well the economic reality of that kind of chicanery from watching the antics on the Conservative Benches.
    The Tory record on low pay has been well argued by other hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, who is on the Front Bench. I shall dwell on what I believe needs to be done to end low pay and the discrimination against women in the work force. We need urgent reform of equal pay legislation.
    It was interesting to see the attack by Conservative Members on the House of Lords decision. The House of Lords simply found the Government guilty of discrimination against part-time workers.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the important thing about the Law Lords' ruling was that it was linked to European legislation? The key thing that the European Community has done for sex

    487
    discrimination legislation is to insist that countries keep records. The statistics again and again place Britain at the bottom of the league. Does my hon Friend recognise that the Law Lords have, for once, done a major service in recognising what I would have expected the whole House to recognise? Labour Members would have expressed delight; Conservative Members would have said, "Well, it's a fair cop." I would have expected the House to accept that the ruling has at least done something for low-paid workers in this country.
    Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Law Lords recognised what was a clear injustice and put it right. I found it quite distasteful that very privileged younger Conservative Members, who clearly have no idea of working for the wages that we are talking about, spent 20 minutes filibustering to keep people out of the debate. I found that so disgraceful.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been no filibustering this evening.
    Ms Rachel Squire: In view of her last point, does my hon. Friend agree that having listened at length to the comments of Conservative Members, perhaps we should propose that the industry and Parliament trust scheme is extended to enable Conservative Members to spend 28 days working as low-paid part-time workers in offices, shops and factories to help them appreciate the real world?
    Mrs. Mahon: What a splendid suggestion.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Mahon: There are no circumstances under which I will give way to the hon. Lady, who took half an hour to make a speech that completely trivialised what is a very serious inequality. She had her time. If she could not make a case—and she certainly did not—I am not giving way.
    I think that, first, the equal opportunities legislation needs to be simplified, and, secondly, the burden of proof for justifying inequality in pay should rest clearly with the employer. We should end the nonsense where the employee has to go out and make a case. It should rest fairly and squarely where it belongs—with the employer. Perhaps we could then see some more decent employment practices coming into being.
    I feel very strongly that the law should allow for group actions, and shift away from individual remedies, because women have become absolutely exhausted over the years going through the hoops of the law on an individual basis—we are pleased with the cases that have been won, and applaud them—only to find that when they return to the work force, they have to start all over again. How much better it would have been had they been acting for a whole group of women, and did not have to start all over again to get some justice.
    There must certainly be an end to the system that allows employers to circumvent equality legislation. Following the passage of the Equal Pay Act 1970, job segregation increased. I welcomed the legislation of the mid-1970s, because I had been a victim of inequality; there is no doubt, however, that the five-year lead-in to implementation of the Equal Pay Act resulted in unprecedented arrangements in which bad employers segregated the sexes, putting women in "women's jobs" and men in "men's jobs".
    488
    The "equal value" amendment was designed to deal with that; but there is increasing evidence that young men are being employed in what are traditionally female jobs—for instance, as hospital domestics. A deliberate attempt is being made to prevent the pursuing of equal-value cases. The labour market is being desegregated to perpetuate low pay and avoid the achievement of equality.
    Ms Rachel Squire: A good example of that is provided by the equal value claim made by five hospital domestics at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. Ten years ago, they had the audacity to claim that their work was of equal value to that of a hospital porter and a hospital groundsman. The Government and the health board involved have wasted £1 million of public money in doing everything possible to prevent the making of equal value awards. That is an example of the Government's commitment to equal value and equal pay.
    Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend has made her point very well; that is indeed a shameful example.
    If the Government are serious about ending sex discrimination, especially in regard to pay, I believe that they could take many steps now to improve the position of women. Let me list them: I do not expect that the Government will do anything, but I think it is worth putting them on record.
    All Opposition Members believe that a minimum wage is desperately needed. People are having to sweat to take home the rates that I mentioned earlier: following the abolition of wages councils, people who were earning as little as £2.88 an hour now earn £2 an hour, after just a few months. They desperately need protection. We are out of step with the rest of Europe and with America, which has a minimum wage. Surely the minimum wage is a basic right.
    I also think that part timers and home workers should be given equal employment rights—which means extending some form of health and safety cover to the people, mainly women, who work at home and who are currently the most exploited workers in the country. Home working is on the increase. It is very convenient for spivs who want to make a fast buck; those whom they persuade to work at home have no protection. The work is completely flexible, and the women concerned are using their own light and heating. It is a truly exploitative, third-world practice.
    We should bring back pay protection for workers in all low-paid industries. We should also extend maternity leave to 18 weeks, and bring it into line with maternity pay. We should ensure that all children have access to nursery places. We should make a commitment to improving and protecting universal child benefit, which is very important to women.
    Conservative Members have praised the women who stay at home to look after their families, and Opposition Members would do the same; we do not force women to go out to work if they do not wish to do so, and it is nonsense to suggest that we do. Women at home with children, however, are the only women with no access to any form of benefit apart from child benefit, which they go and collect themselves rather than waiting for their husbands to give it to them.
    The Government should reform the state pension scheme, although there is little hope of their doing so. I think that the pension age should be equalised at 60 for both sexes.

    489
    We have to keep low pay in the news. We have to keep showing what is happening to the flexible third-world work force that the Government have done so much to promote. We have to keep examining low pay, its growth and its effect on the work force because it is not good for Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that women are most likely to spend their disposable income locally and in local shops? Cutting women's disposable income, therefore, does more to damage small businesses, which the Conservative party claims to support, than anything else.
    Mrs. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was well said.
    If the Government believe that their strategy of promoting a low-pay, flexible work force will enable Britain to compete equally with its competitors in Europe in the next century, they are mistaken and they will damage our chances.
    9.21 pm
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on her speech. She spoke very much from her own experience and with considerable knowledge, unlike many Conservative Members.
    I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to Jo Richardson. I was in her team for a year and I know how fiercely she fought her disability and how she continued to carry the banner high for women in the House and outside. She was committed to equality of opportunity. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingam, Ladywood (Ms Short) is carrying the banner in her place. It could not pass to a better person.
    Everyone knows that ideas on men and women start almost in the cradle. Jo Richardson would have enjoyed part of this debate, but would have despaired at some of the attitudes expressed by Conservative Members. Recently, two primary school teachers in Wales asked the boys in their classes to write about the girls and the girls to write about the boys. Some of the pieces that were written, especially those by the younger children, are worth reading. They wrote:
    "girls wear beads and high heels…Boys stand up at the toilet, girls sit down."
    Some children wrote "no good" or "rubbish", and quite a lot used the description "fat". Boys were frequently described as
    "strong, noisy and keen on sport."
    Girls were described as "weak, quiet and scared." Some boys said:
    "girls are cissies, boys aren't, they're brave".
    It is not surprising that, even now, the GCSE education choices of English school children show substantial gender stereotyping, a matter that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who unfortunately was unable to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. More than twice as many boys as girls study computer science and physics, whereas nearly twice as many girls as boys study music, drama and biology. The degree courses of students are also divided on gender lines.
    The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned discrimination in sport. Despite their tremendous achievements, women are too
    490
    often treated as second-class citizens. That is totally unacceptable at the latter end of the 20th century, but there has been one good piece of news today. Jill Bridge, who is 27, today became the second woman managing director of an English football club—Blackpool. Only two of the 92 clubs in England have women managing directors, so there is still a long way to go.
    According to the Advertising Standards Authority, complaints about the sexual portrayal of women in advertisements trebled from 180 in 1992 to 536 last year. Last year, 56 complaints were upheld against one advertisement showing a young woman and the words:
    "She's terrific in bed. She's witty, intelligent and makes her own pasta. She doesn't have a Linn Hi-Fi, but her sister does, and she's the one I married."
    However, the Independent Television Commission let Danepak bacon off the hook despite complaints. Its advertisement showed a family of nudists cooking bacon and giving thanks that the low-fat product was less likely to spit in the pan.
    There have been few changes on television. Presenter Fiona Armstrong left GMTV rather than shorten her skirts, as she was instructed to do by her bosses. There is, of course, a different set of standards altogether for women performers. The policy still seems to be, "Hire them for their age and looks and fire them for their age and looks." How many women can we recall who appear regularly on television and look like some of the men—grey haired, balding and with bags under their eyes? It seems that only men can grow old and show it on the box.
    It is therefore not surprising that, after 60 years of campaigning, Millicent Fawcett wrote to a group of women:
    "You know from your own experience that equal pay and equal opportunity are still withheld from us. I shall expect to see you, individually and collectively, putting your shoulders to that wheel, and pushing the car of progress along in your generation as we did in ours."
    That was not advice that the former Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, thought worthy of note. In 1982 she claimed:
    "The battle for women's rights has largely been won. The days when they were demanded and discussed in strident tones should be gone forever."
    As many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), have said, we have made some progress, but there is still a long way to go.
    There was a time when it was believed that the Almighty had designed men especially to be judges, Prime Ministers and captains of industry and women to be secretaries, housewives and hairdressers, but not, it seems, to be priests in the Church of England. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), has shown her lack of commitment to women very clearly. She said that she was opposing the ordination of women because she believed that
    "it is theologically impossible for women to perform the specific role of sacramental priesthood."
    She went on to explain her outrage by saying:
    "considering the way the Church of England has been going over the past 2 or 3 decades, it would not in the least surprise me if one day I attended a nativity play and found that the Virgin Mary had a beard."
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend note the fact this month marks the 25th anniversary of the Church of Scotland

    491
    ordaining its first women minister? There are now more than 100 such ministers and not a single thunderbolt has hit any kirk in those 25 years.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I congratulate the Church of Scotland and hope that the Minister takes note.
    To the question, "Are women breaking into the top jobs in a big way?", the answer must be no. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seems to believe that people become Members of Parliament on merit alone. If that were the case, I assure her that there would be more women here now. The Cabinet contains two women, and there are only 60 female Members of Parliament. A survey in The Economist of the 100 top establishment posts showed that the number held by women had increased from two in 1972 to—wait for it—four in 1992. Men still rule the roost in Whitehall, despite a campaign launched by the Prime Minister two years ago to open up opportunities for women civil servants. New figures show that 90 per cent. of the highest-paid mandarins are men. Of course, Whitehall's huge female work force outnumbers its male work force, but women are confined mainly to typing, catering and cleaning.
    The Employment Secretary, who is, as we know, also the Minister for women, recently admitted that he did not know how the drive for equal opportunities was progressing. That is not surprising, since he spent only one hour in the Chamber today. In an interview in The Guardian last year, headed "Our Man in the Cabinet", he was asked what his priorities would be. He said:
    "taking up the cudgels on behalf of women in the workforce."
    The article goes on say:
    "When asked what his priorities will be, Hunt studies some typed notes on his desk on which several key paragraphs have been etched in yellow highlighter pen. 'We want to develop childcare and out-of-school and holiday childcare. I want a wide range of opportunities for women,'…how near is the Government to achieving this? 'I haven't been able to make a full assessment of the position yet,…come back and ask me in a month."
    Nine months later, we are still waiting for him to tell us. He certainly did not tell us this afternoon. Again, we know why and we are grateful to The Guardian for the information. He has gone to Detroit. It says that the Employment Secretary and the Chancellor
    "are preparing to descend on the Detroit job summit next week to lecture the world on the best way to provide quality employment opportunities…In readiness, they have produced a glossy, 16-page book titled The UK Approach."
    We know all about the UK approach. In the Employment Secretary's own Department, only two of its top civil servants are women, while only three of its 719 typists are men. I collected data from 15 Ministries which show that there are 69 women among 686 civil servants in the top four grades. At the Education Department, no women who have jobs in the top four grades, yet nearly half its staff are women. At the Foreign Office, all but three of the 819 secretaries and typists are women, but there is only one woman employed in the 31 top jobs.
    What happened to Opportunity 2000? The truth is that, despite so many of the Government's claims, women are still in the low-paid, comparatively menial jobs in the civil service, yet the Government continue to pat themselves on the back and say that they are encouraging women to reach their true potential.
    492
    The Tory record on promoting equal opportunity has not exactly been impressive. As we have heard today, they have done nothing to plug the loopholes in the Sex Discrimination Act or in the Equal Pay Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) noted, Britain, much to our shame, has been brought before the European Court of Justice for its failures on equality more often than any other country in the European Union.
    The Government seem to have gone out of their way to block or to scupper every EU directive which improves the position of women in the work force. They have blocked directives on parental leave, on part-time workers and on working time. They have gone out of their way to block any progressive social legislation. British maternity rights are still the worst in the European Union. The Government have removed the right of women to return to work after childbirth, and although they have been forced to agree the minimum 14 weeks of maternity leave, perhaps the Minister could explain the absurdity of a system which gives women 18 weeks maternity pay, but only 14 weeks maternity leave. The Government have removed the right of women who work in small firms to return to work after childbirth. They have removed the right of women to have child care costs taken into account when claiming income support.
    Despite the fact that the European courts and the House of Lords have forced the Government to concede some of the more blatant aspects of their continuing discrimination against women, the Government have fought tooth and nail all the way to resist. Unlike Conservative Members, we want a Europe that sets high social standards. The social chapter represents a set of basic standards to which civilised industrial nations should aspire.
    In opting out of the social chapter the Government have sought to deprive the workers of Britain of the rights and protection that workers in other European Union countries take for granted. The Government's double whammy in the workplace, through privatisation and deregulation, has robbed women of health and safety provision and of protection against unfair dismissal and exploitation, and has given them poverty wages.
    Three quarters of those protected by wages councils were women, so scrapping the councils has given yet more opportunities to cut wages in jobs heavily dominated by women workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) told us that the poor in this country are largely women. She also mentioned the isolation and poverty wages of home workers, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. If the Government do not tackle low pay and unequal pay and provide help with child care, women cannot in any sense be equal or have equal rights. There is no point in asking industry to promote equal opportunities policies when many have to be enshrined in a legal framework, or employers will take not a blind bit of notice.
    As even the Secretary of State conceded, the Government have presided over the most dramatic change in the role of women. In the past 20 years, there has been an increase of 2 million in the number of women in the work force and a fall of 2.8 million in the number of men. As everybody has said during the debate, those positions are mainly part time, and part-time work brings with it fewer employment rights and lower rates of pay.
    Last September, there were 10.6 million men and 10.3 million women at work. In 11 counties in Britain, women already form the majority of the work force. Even

    493
    Essex working man may be a thing of the past, because in Essex there are more women working than men. It may already be true that in Britain the typical worker is a woman.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) mentioned the conflict that can occur between home and work. The Health and Safety Executive reckons that 40 million working days a year are lost because of stress-related illness. What better argument could there be for the Government to agree to the parental leave directive?
    The rapid growth of the number of women in the work force needs new thinking, new policies, new attitudes and new expectations. The Government must face up to that by supporting the parental leave directive, providing adequate child care facilities, offering part-time workers more of the same rights as full-time workers have, bringing Britain into line with the rest of the European Union and providing a statutory minimum wage.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and many others have said today, a minimum wage would reduce the large and growing pay gap between men and women, thereby reducing the need for many people at work to claim benefits that in the end are funded by the taxpayer.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should not the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), who has taken part in the debate, be here for the wind-up?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady. She is speaking much too quickly.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was asking, Madam Speaker, whether it was a matter of courtesy to the House for those who have taken part in the debate, such as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, to be here for the wind-up?
    Madam Speaker: It is certainly a custom of the House for those who have taken part in a debate to be present for the wind-up.
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Where is the Secretary of State?
    Madam Speaker: Order. Not only this evening hut on other evenings I have made a note of those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate yet are not usually here for the wind-up. I have noted tonight, as on every other occasion, those who are not present for the wind-up.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Of course, Madam Speaker, we understand that the Secretary of State—our Minister for women—is in Detroit giving the people there the benefit of his experience of how to destroy 3 million jobs during a Government's period in office. Instead of the Government's nauseating hypocrisy about "back to basics", why do they not give a genuine political commitment to support men, women and families in the ways that we have suggested'?
    In the end, equality of opportunity is determined by the attitudes, self-confidence and persistence of women. Generally speaking, whenever women have pushed on the door, they have usually found that it was not really locked. Sometimes, it has needed a good hard shove and thousands of women with intelligence and talent have lived tragically wasted lives because it opened too late for them. As the
    494
    Government cannot or will not help to open the door, it is Labour who will gladly tackle the deprivation and discrimination that the majority of women suffer. Women's voices will be heard, but not by the deaf ears of this corrupt, incompetent and uncaring Government.
    9.40 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I join the tributes that were paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the two Opposition spokesmen to the late Jo Richardson. It is a sad event that we are having this debate and she is not able to be present. She was always an extremely good proponent of women's rights. As one who sometimes opposed her—not on women's rights but various other issues—I have to say that she was always a very straight fighter. She is a major loss to the House, and I am delighted to join the tributes that have so far been paid.
    Having begun on a friendly note, I regret that I must now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). That speech was a wasted opportunity. The hon. Lady thoroughly trivialised a very serious subject. She carefully avoided acknowledg-ing any advances that had been made. She found every European comparison statistic that was bad, and carefully avoided any that were good. She raised a number of issues on which she said Britain lagged behind the rest of Europe, and then utterly failed to address areas where we are ahead.
    The hon. Lady even had the audacity to suggest that this Government are interested in exploiting working children. She failed completely to point out that British law is stronger than the proposed directive in terms of the hours that children may work early and late, and in terms of the limits for hours of work during school holidays. Of course, she did not say that.
    The hon. Lady rightly called for investment in skills. But did she then welcome general and national vocational qualifications? Did she then welcome national vocational qualifications? Did she then welcome investment in people? Did she then welcome the national training targets? Did she then welcome the education and business partnerships'? She did not. She merely called for investment in training, and then ignored the fact that it has been going on while Labour has been asleep.
    The hon. Lady raised what is admittedly an extremely sad case: that of a man in his fifties who was finding it difficult to get a job. As a result of that, did she welcome the Government's "getting on" campaign? Did she welcome the raising of the training age? She did not. She blamed the Government for an increase in crime, and comfortably ignored the fact that crime is increasing in every western country. Presumably the Government are to blame for that as well.
    The hon. Lady concentrated on what she saw as Britain's disadvantage in maternity pay. She quietly forgot to acknowledge that we have the longest period of absence, with 40 weeks, or that 18 weeks is one of the longest periods of pay. What a speech. What a wasted opportunity. What a trivialisation of a serious subject.
    I come then to the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon). Normally, I would not comment on the fact that she is absent. The reason I do comment on it is that she had the crying impudence to criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being absent. My

    495
    right hon. Friend is preparing for a jobs summit. I do not know what the hon. Lady is doing, but I somehow doubt that it is entirely comparable.
    The hon. Lady's statistics were selective. She talked about women being disadvantaged in pensions, but she utterly neglected to mention that this is the only country in Europe where a woman who has never contributed a penny piece can nevertheless draw a pension in her own right when both she and her husband reach retirement age. She omitted to mention that there has been a growth in the numbers of women taking out occupational pensions, and she did not appear to understand the proposals for home responsibility protection.
    Once again, she called for skills during career breaks to be recognised, but she did not even mention accredited prior learning, an initiative of my right hon. Friend.
    The hon. Lady's speech was not exactly impressive, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) was. My hon. Friend spoke about the participation of women in sport, a serious point which was echoed on both sides of the House. He talked about surveys which show that there has been an increase of 1 million in the number of women taking part in sport from 1987 to 1990. The Government support the Women's Sports Foundation, which was founded in 1984 to raise the profile of women in sport. A nationwide award scheme for girls and young women was launched only last year. Therefore, I must say that that area has not exactly been entirely neglected.
    My hon. Friend welcomed Opportunity 2000, and I am sorry that that welcome was not echoed by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Widdecombe: No, I am terribly sorry. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was not interrupted, and time is extremely pressing. My hon. Friend welcomed Opportunity 2000.
    Mr. John Prescott: Get to the serious hit.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am going to get to the serious bit. I will demonstrate how the hon. Gentleman, the shadow spokesman for employment, gets the facts wrong time and time again. I hope that he is looking forward to that part of my speech.
    Before I come to that, I will mention the reasoned speech of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). She raised the matter of the Law Lords' judgment, as did some of my hon. Friends. This is where I come to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. East (Mr. Prescott) and his statements, and indeed those of the hon. Member for Ladywood. On different occasions, both hon. Members have said that they were delighted by the Law Lords' judgment, because it had driven a coach and horses through the Government's employment policy.
    That is interesting, because the maintenance of thresholds of difference between part-time and full-time workers was the policy of both our parties in government since 1963, when the Conservative party first introduced employment rights. Why were we the first to introduce employment rights if the labour party is so concerned about them?
    496
    The difference between part-time and full-time work was maintained by the Labour Government in its Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and again in a further Act in 1975. It is nonsense for the Opposition to try to pretend that the Law Lords' judgment drives a coach and horses through a specific piece of Conservative policy. Until recently—when the Labour party saw the chance for a cheap piece of political comment—the Opposition held exactly the same views as we did.
    We heard from Opposition Members that there were so few women in top posts. I ask them—can we hear the answer loud and clear?—how many general secretaries of trade unions are women? To save them the embarrassment, I will give the House the answer. There are three, out of 73. That is a great achievement for the Labour party.
    Mr. Prescott: What about the Church?
    Miss Widdecombe: Opposition Members are no better at theology than they are at politics.
    Then we heard an endless list of demands backed up by what appeared to be an equally endless list of spending pledges on child care. It is worth looking at what has happened to child care. If one listened to the Opposition, one would be forgiven for believing that there had been no increase in child care during the Government's term of office. Yet there have been substantial increases. The number of places in registered day nurseries, which are mainly used by working women, grew by 153 per cent. between 1988 and 1992.
    Ms Short: In Labour areas.
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady suggests that the increases have taken place in Labour areas. In fact, today there are only 23,000 places in 580 local authority-run day nurseries, compared to 29,000 in 1988. So the number of places in local authority nurseries has fallen. In 1992, there were 109,000 registered child minders with places for 254,000 children aged under five. That is an increase of 40 per cent. since 1988.
    Why are Opposition Members not welcoming all that? Why are they not cheering? Why are they not delighted at what those increases represent for freeing women to go to work? Why do they sit there with long faces? Why is it that, every time something goes right and someone in Britain benefits, Opposition Members do not like it? It is because they think that we might get some of the credit.
    One thing we know for a certainty. They certainly do not appear to get credit for their long spending lists. They have not managed to convince the electorate for a long time. I do not believe that they will be able to convince the electorate for an even longer time to come.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred to positive discrimina-tion. I know that the issue embarrasses the Labour party. It must be especially embarrassing to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, who replied to the debate for the Labour party. Positive discrimination did not work for Labour Members who contested shadow Cabinet places. Positive discrimination does not work. All it does is result in is a thoroughly patronising attitude to women.
    At present, every woman who sits in this House—I sincerely hope that the numbers are set to multiply—knows that she got here on her own merits. She was not

    497
    handed it as a patronising gift from men. It is my ambition that every woman who sits in the House in future will also be able to sit here on her own merits.
    The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) suggested that to choose a man as Minister for women was rather odd and an insult to women. But if we seriously believe that only women can represent women, there must be an argument that only men can represent men. It does not take us much further forward. It is a remarkably silly argument. We all represent all our electorate. We would do well to remember that 50 per cent. of our electorate are men.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned of private clubs. I entirely understand the difficulties that face women over private clubs. I understand the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman made, and I would not seek to minimise it. Nevertheless, if we are to have freedom of association and people are to be able to get together and form private clubs which they fund, it is right that they should have the freedom to do so.
    Mr. Maxton: I might accept that that might just be justifiable where clubs are funded entirely by their members' own means. However, I have grave reservations about that, when clubs take large amounts of land which is designated for use for leisure activities, and use it exclusively for men. When they then expect to receive rates relief and grants from the Sports Council for their activities, it is time that the Government put their foot down and said enough was enough.
    Miss Widdecombe: That is not an argument for amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which we are considering today, although it might be an argument for considering means of encouraging, rather than compelling, such clubs to consider their rules.
    The Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) was very critical of the fact that this is the first time that we have debated the Act since its inception, and the hon. Lady said that it was the Government's fault. Have there been no other Opposition Supply days in the past 20 years'? If it was so overwhelmingly important, why have not only the Government but the Opposition not put the subject forward for debate? The hon. Lady criticised us for abolishing wages councils. I do not remember her uttering any criticism of the abolition of 11 wages councils by the previous Labour Government. In fact, there was no criticism at all.
    What proves the Government's commitment is no the words we have heard from the Opposition, but what has been happening. Let me tell the House what has happened. We now have more women in full-time work; more women in part-time work; more women receiving and contributing to occupational pensions; more women rising higher in their place of work. Women are better able to choose their patterns of work. More women are breaking through in sport. There are more women in education—the Opposition did not mention that—and more women in public organisations. Real wages are 50 per cent. higher.
    We have managed to achieve all that without patronising women through positive discrimination. We have managed—
    Mr. Prescott: More women in the Church.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Conservative party had the first woman Prime Minister, and the Labour party has never got over that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    Last but not least, what about the poor men? Sex discrimination means that there should not be discrimination against either sex. Quite honestly, the poor old men have had it quite hard too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Until recently, they had to work five years longer than women for their pensions, in spite of living five years shorter. Until recently, they were expected to bear the sole responsibility for being a breadwinner and the sole responsibility for fighting the nation's battles.
    They also had the horrible prospect of being regarded with unremitting hostility by the massed ranks of the Labour sisterhood. To them are not the opportunities of part-time work; to them are not the same opportunities of flexible work. Where are the career breaks for men? Why have those things for so long been regarded as the prerogative of women? The Government's initiatives in relation to part-time work and flexible work, and encouraging new ways to work, are bringing liberation to workers of both sexes.
    I suppose that it is possible—I admit that I would be rather satisfied if it happened—that in 20 years' time men will be sitting here, earnestly claiming their rights in the face of 600 women Members of Parliament. In fact, I have never really understood why the 300 Group limits itself so much. I have never understood either why those limits also seem to apply to what Opposition Members have to say.
    Mr. Prescott: There is no need to shout; you only have two minutes.
    Miss Widdecombe: I have no need to shout to the hon. Gentleman—for the very simple reason that, no matter how loudly anyone speaks, the hon. Gentleman somehow never appears to hear. Even when he hears, he does not understand.
    Had they been here, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor would have been interested in Labour Members' spending pledges—universal child care, vast extensions to maternity pay, all the costs that would go with a long series of amendments. Is it still the Labour party's attitude that it can promise anything and cost nothing? If so, the result will be just what it was last time.
    Mr. Derek Foster 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 257, Noes 303.

    Division No. 160]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bayley, Hugh

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Ainger, Nick

    Beggs, Roy

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bell, Stuart

    Allen, Graham

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Benton, Joe

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ashton, Joe

    Berry, Roger

    Austin-Walker, John

    Betts, Clive

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Boateng, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Boyes, Roland

    Barron, Kevin

    Bradley, Keith

    Battle, John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    499

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

    Henderson, Doug

    Burden, Richard

    Heppell, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hinchliffe, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hoey, Kate

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Home Robertson, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clapham, Michael

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Clelland, David

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hutton, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Ingram, Adam

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jamieson, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Janner, Greville

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cryer, Bob

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cummings, John

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Keen, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Darling, Alistair

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Davidson, Ian

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lewis, Terry

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Livingstone, Ken

    Denham, John

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dewar, Donald

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dixon, Don

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dobson, Frank

    McAllion, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dowd, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McCrea, Rev William

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McKelvey, William

    Eastham, Ken

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Enright, Derek

    McLeish, Henry

    Etherington, Bill

    McMaster, Gordon

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McWilliam, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Madden, Max

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mahon, Alice

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Fisher, Mark

    Marek, Dr John

    Flynn, Paul

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Foulkes, George

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Fraser, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Fyfe, Maria

    Maxton, John

    Galloway, George

    Meacher, Michael

    Gapes, Mike

    Meale, Alan

    Garrett, John

    Michael, Alun

    George, Bruce

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Milburn, Alan

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Miller, Andrew

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gordon, Mildred

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Graham, Thomas

    Morley, Elliot

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gunnell, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hain, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Hall, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Hardy, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Hara, Edward

    500

    Olner, William

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

    O'Neill, Martin

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

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Parry, Robert

    Snape, Peter

    Patchett, Terry

    Soley, Clive

    Pickthall, Colin

    Spearing, Nigel

    Pike, Peter L.

    Spellar, John

    Pope, Greg

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Stevenson, George

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stott, Roger

    Prescott, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Straw, Jack

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Radice, Giles

    Turner, Dennis

    Randall, Stuart

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Raynsford, Nick

    Walley, Joan

    Redmond, Martin

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Reid, Dr John

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Watson, Mike

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Welsh, Andrew

    Rogers, Allan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wilson, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Salmond, Alex

    Wise, Audrey

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Short, Clare

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Simpson, Alan

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Burns, Simon

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Butler, Peter

    Alexander, Richard

    Butterfill, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Amess, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ancram, Michael

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Churchill, Mr

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Clappison, James

    Ashby, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Colvin, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Congdon, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Conway, Derek

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bates, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bellingham, Henry

    Couchman, James

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cran, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

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

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Day, Stephen

    Booth, Hartley

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Boswell, Tim

    Devlin, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bowden, Andrew

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bowis, John

    Dover, Den

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Duncan, Alan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Brazier, Julian

    Dunn, Bob

    Bright, Graham

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dykes, Hugh

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Eggar, Tim

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Elletson, Harold

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    501

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield,

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evennett, David

    Legg, Barry

    Faber, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lidington, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lightbown, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lord, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Luff, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maclean, David

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Madel, Sir David

    Gale, Roger

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gallie, Phil

    Malone, Gerald

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Mans, Keith

    Garnier, Edward

    Marland, Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Marlow, Tony

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorst, John

    Mates, Michael

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Merchant, Piers

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mills, Iain

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hannam, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Needham, Richard

    Harris, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Norris, Steve

    Hendry, Charles

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hicks, Robert

    Ottaway, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Paice, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Horam, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

    Pickles, Eric

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Richards, Rod

    Jack, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jessel, Toby

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knox, Sir David

    Shersby, Michael

    502

    Sims, Roger

    Tracey, Richard

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Tredinnick, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Trend, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Viggers, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Walden, George

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Waller, Gary

    Spring, Richard

    Ward, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Watts, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Wells, Bowen

    Stephen, Michael

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Stern, Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Stewart, Allan

    Whittingdale, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sumberg, David

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wilkinson, John

    Sykes, John

    Willetts, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Thomason, Roy

    Yeo, Tim

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mr. Michael Brown.

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

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Question on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 253.

    Division No. 161]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Alexander, Richard

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Burns, Simon

    Ancram, Michael

    Butler, Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Ashby, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carttiss, Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Cash, William

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Clappison, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Bates, Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Congdon, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Conway, Derek

    Bendall, Vivian

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Couchman, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Cran, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

    Booth, Hartley

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Boswell, Tim

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Day, Stephen

    Bowden, Andrew

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bowis, John

    Devlin, Tim

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brazier, Julian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bright, Graham

    Dover, Den

    503

    Duncan, Alan

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dunn, Bob

    Knapman, Roger

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Eggar, Tim

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Elletson, Harold

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

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Knox, Sir David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evennett, David

    Legg, Barry

    Faber, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lidington, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lightbown, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lord, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Luff, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maclean, David

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Madel, Sir David

    Gale, Roger

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gallie, Phil

    Malone, Gerald

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Mans, Keith

    Garnier, Edward

    Marland, Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Marlow, Tony

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorst, John

    Mates, Michael

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Merchant, Piers

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mills, Iain

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hannam, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Needham, Richard

    Harris, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Norris, Steve

    Hendry, Charles

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hicks, Robert

    Ottaway, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Paice, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Horam, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

    Pickles, Eric

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Richards, Rod

    Jack, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jessel, Toby

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    504

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Viggers, Peter

    Soames, Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spring, Richard

    Watts, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Wells, Bowen

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whitney, Ray

    Steen, Anthony

    Whittingdale, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stern, Michael

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Stewart, Allan

    Wilkinson, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Willetts, David

    Sumberg, David

    Wilshire, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sykes, John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomason, Roy

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cohen, Harry

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Connarty, Michael

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Corbett, Robin

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Ashton, Joe

    Cousins, Jim

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cox, Tom

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cryer, Bob

    Barnes, Harry

    Cummings, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Darling, Alistair

    Beggs, Roy

    Davidson, Ian

    Bell, Stuart

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Benton, Joe

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

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Denham, John

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Dewar, Donald

    Berts, Clive

    Dixon, Don

    Boateng, Paul

    Dobson, Frank

    Boyes, Roland

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bradley, Keith

    Dowd, Jim

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Byers, Stephen

    Eastham, Ken

    Callaghan, Jim

    Enright, Derek

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Etherington, Bill

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fatchett, Derek

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Faulds, Andrew

    Clapham, Michael

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Flynn, Paul

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Clelland, David

    Foulkes, George

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Fraser, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Fyfe, Maria

    505

    Galloway, George

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Gapes, Mike

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Garrett, John

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    George, Bruce

    Lewis, Terry

    Gerrard, Neil

    Litherland, Robert

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Livingstone, Ken

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Loyden, Eddie

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Gordon, Mildred

    McAllion, John

    Graham, Thomas

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    McCartney, Ian

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Grocott, Bruce

    Macdonald, Calum

    Gunnell, John

    McKelvey, William

    Hain, Peter

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hall, Mike

    McLeish, Henry

    Hanson, David

    McMaster, Gordon

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    McNamara, Kevin

    Harvey, Nick

    McWilliam, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Madden, Max

    Henderson, Doug

    Mahon, Alice

    Heppell, John

    Mandelson, Peter

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Marek, Dr John

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hoey, Kate

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Home Robertson, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Maxton, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Meacher, Michael

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Meale, Alan

    Hoyle, Doug

    Michael, Alun

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Milburn, Alan

    Hutton, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Ingram, Adam

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Jamieson, David

    Morley, Elliot

    Janner, Greville

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Mudie, George

    Jowell, Tessa

    Mullin, Chris

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Murphy, Paul

    Keen, Alan

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    506

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    O'Hara, Edward

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

    Olner, William

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

    O'Neill, Martin

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Snape, Peter

    Parry, Robert

    Soley, Clive

    Patchett, Terry

    Spearing, Nigel

    Pike, Peter L.

    Spellar, John

    Pope, Greg

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Stevenson, George

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stott, Roger

    Prescott, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Straw, Jack

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Radice, Giles

    Turner, Dennis

    Randall, Stuart

    Tyler, Paul

    Raynsford, Nick

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Redmond, Martin

    Walley, Joan

    Reid, Dr John

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rendel, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Watson, Mike

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Welsh, Andrew

    Rogers, Allan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wilson, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Salmond, Alex

    Wise, Audrey

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Short, Clare

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Simpson, Alan

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House notes, in the week of International Women's Day, that women in Britain now enjoy exceptionally wide and increasing opportunities underpinned by comprehensive and effective legislation; and calls on the Government to continue to pursue the policies which have made this possible.

    Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Bill [Money]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    10.25 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I apologise for not being present for Friday's debate; I had to attend a public inquiry in my constituency.
    It is clear that the Government did not consult adequately before encouraging the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) to present his Bill. The Rights Of Way Review Committee has been established for a long time—chaired originally by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr Spicer), more recently by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and now by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning).
    I am sure that, if the Department of Transport had consulted that committee, the problems that have now cropped up could have been avoided; I am delighted, however, that a fairly hasty consultation has taken place today. I hope that the Minister will confirm that tomorrow he will formally accept two amendments that will be proposed, and that, when he draws up the regulations, he will meet the requirements of ramblers and others who use footpaths.
    If we vote this motion down, the Government will have a fairly red face, but the taxpayer will save a small amount; however, the tour de France—which is coming to Britain in the summer—will be considerably embarrassed. The Government are trying to rush the measure through to make it possible to close the highway, enabling the event to take place.
    That strikes me as admirable; the worry is that the definition of a highway covers not only tarmacked roads but footpaths. Ramblers fear that it may be used to close footpaths for up to three days, causing them considerable inconvenience. I hope that the amendments will be carried tomorrow, and that that fear will be alleviated as a result.
    One or two cynics believe that the measure is much more expensive for the Government than it might have been, because the hon. Member for Hexham was persuaded to take the Bill on board in return for the provision of a bypass. No doubt the Minister will deny that. I will not say that I want a motorway in my constituency in return for my co-operation—although I would be quite pleased if the Government could speed up the Denton-Middleton part of the M66.
    I would settle for something much more modest from the Minister. I think that, when the first order is declared to close a road, he should simply ride a bicycle along the road at some speed, proclaiming that the order is in place.
    Seriously, I hope that the Minister will confirm that he will ensure that the amendments go through tomorrow, or, failing that, that they will be tabled in the Lords; and that the regulations will allay the fears of the ramblers and other groups.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Bill was passed on Friday, and the money is obviously needed. Let me suggest a way of dealing with the matter quite easily.
    There are tentative proposals to widen the M I to God knows how many lanes between junctions 28 and 32. In Derbyshire and South Yorkshire people do not want that motorway to be widened, so I suggest that the Government could use the £200 million they would have had to spend on it to pay for the Bill, which will enable the tour de France to take place in parts of southern Britain.
    Mr. Bennett: I shall leave the Minister to respond to my hon. Friend's intervention.
    I want assurances from the Minister that the amendments will be made to the Bill, and I want assurances about the regulations. What is even more important from the ramblers' point of view, we need assurances that his Department will consult the Rights of Way Review Committee before it introduces highway legislation that affects footpaths. That committee has done an extremely useful job during the 10 or 12 years of its existence,
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", states:
    "the Bill is not expected to result in any significant increase in public expenditure."
    However, by passing the money resolution, we shall clearly authorise and give powers to a Minister to spend public money.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the tour de France, which is just one major event. Significant costs could arise from the tour, because roads will have to be closed throughout much of our highway network. The legislation does not merely authorise that expenditure, however, as it provides for continuing powers for the Minister, and therefore potentially authorises continuing expenditure.
    When Bills are introduced, it is usual for the Government to give some sign of the likely annual expenditure that will result. Will the Minister give the House that calculation? I realise that the amount might be subject to some variation, but surely his Department has made some assessment of the costs involved; otherwise, it would not need this money resolution. I hope that he will tell us what expenditure of taxpayers' money will be involved.
    10.31 pm
    Ms Joan Walley: I endorse what my hon. Friends have said—especially the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There was a fairly extensive debate on the Bill on Friday, with much filibustering aimed at preventing the debate on women that was to take place later.
    During the debate on Friday, it was said that the Ramblers Association had made some out-of-place comments on the Bill. Reading Hansard will clearly show that I asked the Minister whether he would fully consider all the matters that that association brought to his attention.
    The money resolution allows us the opportunity to press the Minister for a firm undertaking that the amendments tabled in our names, which will be discussed tomorrow—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Lady must understand that we are discussing the money resolution, not other matters.
    Ms Walley: You are right to draw my attention to that fact, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because of the amount of money involved, proper consultation with the local authorities and with the Ramblers Association is crucial to ensure that the provisions that result from the Bill accord with what was genuinely intended by its introduction.
    No one wants to stop the tour de France passing through local authority areas in the south of England. However, we must make it clear that we should not use a private Member's Bill to introduce legislation that should properly be introduced by the Government.
    I am asking for proper consultation with the Ramblers Association. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, there is a Rights of Way Review Committee—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is straying too far.
    Ms Walley: I think that I have made my point, and I look forward to the Minister's comments, because I know that he wants the Bill to reach the statute book.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would not be a bad idea if, at this juncture, we considered the possibility of a new Standing Order to the effect that, before a Minister rises to speak, he must utter the words, "I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which I can rule tonight.
    10.34 pm
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is promoting the Bill. I shall explain why a money resolution is necessary. It might be useful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) if I begin by setting out what the money resolution is all about.
    It is a technical resolution, because the Bill is unlikely to result in any overall increase in expenditure out of votes. It is therefore not possible to guess how much money might be involved, and I shall explain why. A money resolution is required because the Bill will in some cases allow traffic authorities to exercise order-making functions, instead of the police in London or district councils in the shires. The resolution is necessary for the potential transfer of costs rather than any net increase.
    It is worth noting that we are considering whether to give traffic authorities discretion to charge commercial organisations for making orders under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which is not possible at the moment. With the exception of the tour de France, most events covered by the Bill have been taking place for many years. I am thinking specifically of the London marathon, a number of carnivals such as that in Notting Hill, the Lewes bonfire party and other bonfire events in southern England. We are discussing transfers, not additional expenditure.
    I deal now with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) did not find it
    510
    necessary to make representations to us about the Bill, although we should of course have listened carefully had she done so. I understood that ramblers were consulted about the road safety aspects of the tour de France, and it was not through lack of courtesy on our part that they did not make representations earlier than they did.
    However, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have indeed had constructive discussions today. It is my understanding that we are all of one mind, in the House and beyond, which is good news. I confirm that I accept the two amendments that we have discussed. I have no difficulty with that.
    The regulations are a particularly important aspect of the Bill. Of course, the Bill as drafted ensures that traffic regulation for large events such as the tour de France can take place without fear of challenge. It does not seek to amend the position of smaller events, which are dealt with under other powers. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish knows, new clause 16B limits the effect of the orders to three days, and states that they cannot be used more than once in any calendar year. I hope that he is reassured.
    Consultation is absolutely central to this method of legislating, not only for the tour de France but for other events. The fact that we were delighted to accept the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to promote the Bill does not mean that we are sidestepping our responsibilities. It was the quickest and surest way of getting a narrow aspect of legislation on to the statute book. I understand what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, but the most important issue to be covered by the Bill is consultation. As I said on Second Reading, I am minded to require a fairly lengthy period of consultation.
    The Bill covers large-scale events, which will be planned well in advance, and early consultation is essential. There are a number of ways in which traffic authorities may be required to give notice of events. We should bear it in mind that it is not the traffic authorities—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he too is going too wide of the money order.
    Mr. Key: Let me accept your wise guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall simply say that of course I take the point about the importance of notification of consultation.
    The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has kindly offered the transport supplementary grant for the county of Derbyshire, as well as the motorway widening money and the other trunk road money from his constituency and county. I shall seriously consider the offer. It would be of enormous benefit, and I am grateful to him for his offer.
    Ms Walley rose—
    Mr. Key: I gladly give way.
    Ms Walley: In relation to the money resolution, is the Minister not aware, as we are, from having read the annual report of the Department of Transport which has just been published, that the amount of money from central Government which is granted to local authorities such as Derbyshire will be cut substantially in future years?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members on both Front Benches that that is beyond the scope of the money resolution?
    Mr. Key: I am ever grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it means that I am deprived of the opportunity to say how much more money I look forward to saving in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I shall not go into that now.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Key: I am delighted to give way.
    Mr. Skinner: Just to ensure that it is correct, I am talking about money for widening the M1 between junctions 28 and 32. It has nothing to do with other moneys for trunk roads. Get it correct: Ministers should speak the truth.
    Mr. Key: It is a question of clarification—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Ministers must also be relevant.
    Mr. Key: I always try to be relevant, and I shall seek to reply to the hon. Gentleman in a relevant way by saying that I note his kind and generous offer of giving up motorway widening schemes in his constituency. I am sure that his constituents will be grateful to him for the effect that that will have on his local economy.
    Mr. Bennett: I appreciate the Minister's assurances, but may I take him back to the issue of the Rights of Way Review Committee?
    If the Department of the Environment has any proposals which deal with footpaths, it refers them to that committee at the beginning of consultation. The Department of Transport does not seem to realise that highway matters also cover footpaths.
    It would be simple to stress to the officials in the Department that they will refer those matters to the Rights of Way Review Committee at the beginning, rather than
    512
    when they find out that some mischief is afoot. That would save the Government considerable expenditure and time in chasing around trying to get it right at this late stage.
    Mr. Key: There is absolutely no confusion. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a division of responsibility on rights of way as access to the countryside between the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. The definition of a road and of a highway, with which we are concerned, is one thing, but a byway open to all traffic or a bridleway is a different issue. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was going to go down the path of consultation, but I was reprimanded from the Chair, so perhaps we can discuss it at another time.
    I am grateful to the House for listening so carefully to the importance of the money resolution. It is a modest measure, which, as I said, is about transferring funds which may be necessary as different authorities are asked to manage traffic for events which are not sponsored by those traffic authorities but for which they nevertheless have a responsibility for the management of traffic. That is about the sum of it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham did a grand job of lobbying on behalf of his constituents for the Haltwhistle bypass. However, that had nothing to do with the issue before us. That bypass was in the roads programme some 20 years ago, long before he was the Member for Hexham. I hope that, in 20 years' time, my hon. Friend will be remembered not only as the Member for the Haltwhistle bypass, but as the Member for the tour de France as well.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traftic Regulation (Special Events) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable Out of such money under any other Act.

    Mr. J. S. Craig (Ex-gratia Claim)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    10.44 pm
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the experience suffered by my constituent Mr. John Craig in seeking custody of his son. I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here to reply to the debate and I look forward to his response with great interest.
    There are a number of questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction. That is why over the next 10 minutes I shall press especially strongly the case that Mr. Craig has put to me. I hope that I shall receive satisfactory answers at the end of the debate.
    The breakdown of any marriage and the pain it causes to the parties involved, especially the children, must be matters for regret. Unfortunately, parents who have divorced cannot always agree which of them should retain custody of their children. Decisions on custody matters often have to be taken by the courts after hearing the parties involved, and on the basis of expert advice.
    The tragedy is that elementary failures in procedure by Norwich county court and the court welfare service prevented Mr. Craig from securing a proper hearing at all, and have left him seriously out of pocket.
    Mr. Craig's case was originally straightforward. In February 1992, he obtained better rights of access to his son, who had remained with his former wife. At his solicitor's request, a court welfare officer, Mrs. Tanner, was appointed to compile a social inquiry report on Mr. Craig's son. A full hearing for Mr. Craig's claim for custody of his son was set for Friday 22 January 1993 in Norwich county court. Mr. Craig's solicitors briefed a barrister, Mrs. Margaret Gee, to represent him. Mr. Craig had to meet the costs of his barrister and solicitor himself, while his former wife was legally aided.
    I must make one point absolutely clear at this stage. Mr. Craig's solicitors, Howard Pollock and Webb, told the chief clerk of Norwich county court that it would be
    "a fully contested action which would occupy the Court for the entirety of the day".
    Mr. Craig's counsel, Mrs. Gee, took the view that the case would require a full day, and the barrister representing Mr. Craig's ex-wife, Mr. Wardlow, apparently thought that it would take a day and a half. There can have been no doubt about the length of time that the lawyers expected the case to take, and that was known to the court before proceedings began.
    There were two judges hearing civil cases in Norwich on 21 and 22 January 1993. Judge Head and Judge Mellor had cases estimated to last one day listed for 21 January. They were each expected to hear a further one-day case the following day, and one of those was Mr. Craig's. Unfortunately, it became clear that Judge Head's case would overrun 21 January, so he would not be available on 22 January.
    Judge Mellor was approached by the listing officer on 21 January about the problem, and he took the view that he could deal with both the cases due to be heard on 22 January himself. Unfortunately, his original case was not
    514
    concluded until after 11 am on 22 January. That meant that the case before Mr. Craig's, despite its extremely brief settlement, was not concluded until midday.
    Judge Mellor then saw counsel in Mr. Craig's case. Mrs. Gee and Mr. Wardlow, the two barristers involved, applied to the judge for an adjournment to a later date. Both agreed that, because of the delay that had already occurred, the case could not be fitted in to that day's proceedings. Judge Mellor could not sit on the following Monday, and Mr. Wardlow would not be available then either. New dates were therefore agreed—18 and 19 March. Mrs. Tanner, the court welfare officer, was present in the listing officer's room when the new dates were set and agreed, and she agreed that she would be able to attend then to give her report.
    That may all appear complex, but it is important that the facts be set out exactly as they have been presented to me in answer to my inquiries. The barristers and solicitors in the case had made it clear that it would not be possible to conclude the case that day, and that was known to the judge and to the listing officer. That is what makes what happened next, and the explanations given for it, so hard to believe.
    The outstanding case before Judge Mellor was settled very rapidly and the listing officer, Mr. Crane, tried to contact the two counsel in Mr. Craig's case to reinstate it. Unfortunately, Mr. Craig and his representatives had left the court, so Mr. Crane could speak only to Mr. Wardlow, who declined to agree because an adjournment had already been granted and the other party's representatives had left. Attempts to use the Tannoy system to contact them failed.
    At this stage, I want to be absolutely clear on two points relating to the events in question. The first is that Judge Mellor granted the adjournment. It has subsequently been claimed that he had predicted that the other case would be rapidly compromised. Mr. Crane, the listings officer, argued that on 18 March.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department referred, in his letter to me on 16 July, to the judge's belief that he would be able to deal with both this case and that of Mr. Craig on 22 January. If Judge Mellor had believed that when counsel appeared before him on 22 January, he would not have granted an adjournment of the case at all. Up to two hours of the court's working day of five and a half hours had already been lost.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Will my hon. Friend accept it from me that Judge Mellor's decision to take the two cases on the Friday was made on the Thursday before he realised that his own case would overrun?
    Mr. Thompson: I shall pursue my argument to its conclusion and then possibly respond later to what my hon. Friend said. The important point in this case is that the information that I have received as Mr. Craig's Member of Parliament has been highly confusing. The responsibility lies with my hon. Friend to establish the facts. I can only operate on the facts and the understanding that I have been given.
    Mr. Crane knew that a full day was needed, yet still tried to argue that the case could have started, even though it could not finish. Indeed, he went further. He claimed that Judge Mellor believed that the court had been misled by a premature application for an adjournment. No one reading

    515
    the evidence from the two firms of solicitors and counsel about the likely length of the case could believe that. The explanations offered by the court administration lacked basic credibility.
    The failure to hear Mr. Craig's case on 22 January cost him £1,000 plus value added tax in fees to his counsel, apart from his solicitor's bill. Worse still was to follow for him. The hearing on 18 March began on time. Unfortunately, the court welfare officer was absent, despite her commitment to attend given on 22 January. Inquiries to the probation service revealed that Mrs. Tanner was on holiday in Australia for four weeks. It was only on 13 May that a copy of a letter from her dated 29 January announcing her unavailability was provided to the clerk of the court. Mr. Craig had become liable for a further bill of £500 plus VAT to his counsel without the case proceeding any further at all.
    The case was reallocated to dates in August 1993. However, because of the delay in hearing the case, Mr. Craig was advised to abandon his claim for custody and seek better rights of access. He was obliged to accept that advice. The courts are understandably reluctant to remove children from one parent's custody when they have been settled for a lengthy period.
    Serious questions arise from this case. First, there is the failure of the listing officer to contact Mr. Craig's solicitors on 22 January. That is particularly inexcusable as Howard, Pollok and Webb are a local firm which was already known to the listing officer at Norwich county court. I must stress that, despite that fact, absolutely no attempt was made to phone or fax them on 22 January.
    Secondly, there is the delay in responding to the complaints of those solicitors. It took the listing officer six weeks to respond to their initial letter of 2 February complaining about the proceedings in January. His explanation of events then was not credible. Moreover, Mr. Crane declined to refer any of those initial matters to the court administrator's office. Clearly, that was obstructive, and only when pressed again did he consent to do so.
    Finally, there is the matter of a letter of 29 January from Mrs. Tanner. I have no means of knowing whether it was sent by the probation service to Norwich county court at that time. If it was sent, what happened to it? Someone must have lost it. What explanation is there for the fact that. if the clerk of the court received a copy on 13 May, my hon. Friend's Department did not know of it on 18 May when it wrote to my constituent's solicitors refusing to pay compensation? Which officer of the court failed to inform my hon. Friend of the letter's existence before he wrote to me on 16 July again declining to accept liability for the administrative errors that had occurred?
    How was it that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), a Minister of State, Home Office, was able to write to me on 23 August last year informing me of the letter's existence, but no acknowledgement of its existence was given from Lord Chancellor's Department before 12 November?
    One or more officers of Norwich county court failed to tell the full story. I have no doubt that it was convenient for the county court administrators to be able to blame the probation service for not having informed the court that Mrs. Tanner would be unavailable in March. To ordinary people, it looks like a cover-up.
    516
    Is not the truth that the county court officers at Norwich have been more than economical with the truth because of their blunders?
    I said that I felt strongly about the way in which my constituent has been treated, and I am trying to get that across during the debate. The most alarming feature is that no one was willing to accept responsibility for the mistakes that occurred. Norwich county court's listings officer has blamed the counsel in the case for the failure to hear it on 22 January. That is not acceptable or credible, for the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor's Department to Mr. Craig's solicitors in May 1993. The court must rely on the estimates of time given by the parties' solicitors—in this case, one full day.
    It is on the basis of the fallacious information supplied by the listings officer that compensation has been refused by the Lord Chancellor's Department to Mr. Craig. I hope that my hon. Friend will announce that there has been a change of heart tonight. I am equally concerned that neither the Home Office nor the Lord Chancellor's Department accepts responsibility for the failure to conclude the proceedings in March 1993.
    It is not good enough to accept that Mrs. Tanner's letter was sent to Norwich county court, and that no blame therefore falls on Norfolk probation service. If it was sent, Norwich county court should have made the parties to the case aware of it. If the explanation that I received from the Home Office is right, Mr. Craig has been failed by the county court's administrators. The county court appears to prefer to rely on a claim that it did not receive the letter at all. We can all recognise the buck-passing here, which is occurring on a grand scale.
    Mr. Craig should have had justice in the courts—instead, he got a shabby deal. All he has received has been a litany of incredible excuses. I hope that tonight he will receive a proper apology, a full explanation and the overdue compensation which he deserves. I look forward to receiving a positive response from my hon. Friend and, once again, I am grateful to him for hearing me out.
    10.57 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels. He has been my hon. Friend for 11 years, and my personal friend for 20 years. I can well understand also the distress that his constituent Mr. Craig feels at the adjournment on two occasions of his application for custody of his son. As a result, he has suffered not only a delay in resolving an extremely sensitive and important family issue, but the wasted legal costs of the adjourned hearings.
    My Department is always prepared to consider any reasonable request for payment for such costs. However, there is an extremely important principle to consider whenever requests for payments from public funds are made. That is the duty that I have to the taxpayer to ensure that the financial loss from which payment is sought has genuinely arisen as a result of errors made by departmental staff. In this instance, I do not consider that to be the case.
    To explain why, I shall outline the circumstances that led to the adjournment of each hearing, and the reasons for the refusal of Mr. Craig's claim in each case. I beg the forgiveness of the small audience present, and that of the

    517
    perhaps larger readership tomorrow, if there is good deal of overlap between what I have to say and what my hon. Friend said.
    The first hearing took place at Norwich county court on 22 January 1993. As my hon. Friend said, two judges were hearing civil matters at the court that week, Judge Head and Judge Mellor. On the day before Mr. Craig's hearing, each judge had a single case in his list for which the parties had given a time estimate of one day. On 22 January, two one-day cases were listed, one of which was Mr. Craig's. Thus, there was every reason to suppose that Mr. Craig's case would be heard.
    Unfortunately, it became clear during the preceding day, the Thursday, that the case being heard by Judge Head would considerably overrun. That meant that Judge Head would be unable to hear either of the two cases listed for 22 January. On Thursday 21 January, the court listing officer, Mr. Crane, consulted Judge Mellor, who examined the files and decided that he would be able to hear both cases. He instructed that the other case be listed before Mr. Craig's case, as he believed that it was likely to settle.
    In the event, Judge Mellor's case of 21 January overran until 11.15 am on 22 January. Then counsel in Mr. Craig's case requested an adjournment, which was granted. Judge Mellor began to hear the other outstanding case, which reached' settlement within a few minutes. The listing officer made urgent attempts to locate Mr. Craig and his representatives to see whether they wanted the judge to hear the case after all, but they had already left. The listing officer was right to do that. Mr. Craig's solicitors wrote to the court on 2 February complaining that the list for 22 January had been overloaded. The listing officer did not reply to that letter until 18 March. I apologise to my hon. Friend for that delay, which was clearly unacceptable.
    My hon. Friend doubts the version of events given in the listing officer's letter. I agree that the letter was confusing and that the tone in which it was written was unfortunate. Specifically, the listing officer's initial refusal to refer the matter to the courts administrator's office, as requested, was clearly wrong. For that, too, I apologise. However, the fact remains that Judge Mellor instructed the listing officer on 21 January to list both cases before him on 22 January, and he did so.
    There are two important principles here. First, in preparing lists, courts have to rely on the time estimates given by the parties. If the estimate proves to be inaccurate, that is not the fault of the court. The president of the family division has recently issued a direction which emphasises the responsibilities of the parties in that matter.
    Secondly, there is the fundamental principle of judicial independence. As my hon. Friend will know, the judiciary is entirely independent of Government. That means that neither I nor any of my officials can intervene in individual cases or seek to question or influence judicial decisions. Listing is a judicial function, not an administrative one. The judge decides the list; the listing officer does his bidding. No blame can be attached to the court for its actions on 22 January.
    The second hearing of 18 March 1993 was fixed when the hearing of 22 January was adjourned. The court welfare officer involved in the case was present on 22 January, as my hon. Friend said, and confirmed that she could attend
    518
    on 18 March. However, on 18 March the court welfare officer failed to appear. The judge asked where she was and was told that she was in Australia. The judge then adjourned that hearing.
    The court subsequently asked for an explanation from the local court welfare service, which, as my hon. Friend knows, comes under the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The service wrote to the court on 13 May enclosing a copy of a letter from the court welfare officer to the court dated 29 January, in which she said that she would not be able to attend the hearing. There was no record that the original letter had been received by the court. Subsequent exhaustive searches have failed to produce any evidence that it was ever received.
    Regrettably, some confusion arose in the course of my correspondence with my hon. Friend about the case, because court staff did not initially tell officials at the Lord Chancellor's Department's headquarters of the court's correspondence with the court welfare service following the second hearing. I apologise for that error. My hon. Friend asked to be told who it was made by. It was made by the deputy chief clerk in the absence of the chief clerk. However, I am satisfied that that was an unfortunate oversight by the court, and that there was no intention to mislead Mr. Craig.
    As I have said, there is no evidence that the court welfare officer's letter was received by the court before the hearing on 18 March. The court cannot be expected to have taken action on a letter that it did not receive. In those circumstances, the court cannot be held to be at fault and thus there can be no payment.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: On the subject of payment, does my hon. Friend accept—I am sure that he does—that the delays that we have debated tonight have cost my constituent, Mr. Craig, a considerable sum of money? I specified the approximate sums in my speech. Therefore, in spite of the technicalities, my constituent has lost money, and he has a case in natural justice. Will my hon. Friend respond to that argument?
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that Mr. Craig has lost money. I think that the whole tenor of my remarks has been to concede that. However, the Lord Chancellor's Department is bound by law. There are only certain circumstances in which payments can be made. There must be demonstrable administrative error that gives rise to the consequential loss. It is my Department's case that there is no demonstrable administrative error causing the loss.
    I have also indicated to my hon. Friend, without seeking to be at all personally critical of the listing process, that the listing process is not administrative but judicial, and it is independent of Government and independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    As I have said, there is no evidence that the court welfare officer's letter was received by the court before the hearing on 18 March. The court cannot be expected to have taken action on a letter which it did not receive. In those circumstances—at the risk of saying it twice—the court cannot be held to be at fault and thus there can be no payment.
    I sympathise with Mr. Craig in his misfortune and the financial loss that he has suffered. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be proper for

    519
    me to authorise payment from public funds when that loss was not caused by administrative errors on the part of my staff.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  D-day Landings (Commemoration)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 793–94, if he will publish a list of the civilian events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings on 6 June, showing for each the date, location and estimated cost and intended public participation.

  Mr. Sproat
  Details of the Department of National Heritage's programme of civilian events will be announced in mid-April. Information about the large number of other events being planned in different parts of the country by various groups and individuals are available from the regional tourist boards.

  Arts Council
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what was the remit of the Arts Council's cultural diversity unit; what were its objectives; and how such objectives will now be served;

  (2) what was the remit of the Arts Council's disability unit; what were its objectives; and how those objectives will now be served.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Arts Council decided at its meeting in May 1993 to wind up in due course its strategic policy units covering cultural diversity, arts and disability and women in the arts, and to pass its continuing responsibilities to all relevant departments of the council.

  I understand that the decision to integrate the work of the units with the art form departments reflects the fact that the units have largely succeeded in their aims of changing attitudes and awareness among funded bodies, and bringing about changes in the council's own practices.

  The council will continue to take very seriously its commitment to these strategic policies in fulfilling its charter object to increase the accessibility of the arts to the public throughout the country.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many agency chief executives in his Department are currently paid more than £82,925, excluding performance-related bonuses; and whether such chief executives were recruited directly to their present post from outside the civil service.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has two executive agencies. The chief executives of both agencies are currently paid less than £82,925.
  312

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, column 791.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not have a computer-aided facilities management system.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since it came into operation.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department introduced a freepost facility in January 1994. It will be used when seeking advice or information from organisations, often of charitable status, whose members would provide their services free of charge, or when carrying out consultation exercises. Costs of the facility to date are £300. My Department does not operate a freephone facility.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department spends on child care; on what provision the sum is spent; how many children receive the child care; and if he will make a statement about child care.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: The Department of National Heritage was established in April 1992.

  In the 1993–94 financial year, this Department spent £1,650. excluding running costs—on child care. This provides one day care place in a nursery which opened in November 1993. In this instance, the place is subsidised as it can be justified in value-for-money terms.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of overall development assistance was accounted for by the aid and trade provisions each year since 1978.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The percentage of the gross aid programme taken up by ATP expenditure since 1978 is:

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  3.4

  1980–81

  2.6

  1981–82

  5.1

  313

  Per cent.

  1982–83

  4.5

  1983–84

  2.5

  1984–85

  5.0

  1985.86

  3.0

  1986–87

  6.4

  1987–88

  3.7

  1988–89

  4.0

  1989–90

  4.0

  1990–91

  5.6

  1991–92

  5.4

  1992–93

  4.8

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been established by the Overseas Development Administration to ensure the proper use of aid and trade provision funds provided by his Department; and what powers of discovery Overseas Development Administratioin officials have in regard to access to records of foreign nationals involved in ATP projects.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Following the announcement of the aid and trade provision review on 17 June 1993,Official Report, columns 675–76, ODA appraisal, approval and monitoring procedures for ATP projects have been brought into line with those applied to other bilateral aid projects. Under the Government-to-Government ATP grant agree-ment, ODA has rights of access to information relevant to the ATP contract between the overseas Government and the contractors.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate allegations that ATP funds, or other public funds provided through ODA programmes, have been used to bribe foreign officials or business men to secure contracts for British companies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Yes. If there is any such evidence available, we do and will investigate any allegations.

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to the general programmes budget of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 1994.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey has approved a grant of £6 million for UNHCR's general programmes budget for 1994. This follows our highest contribution ever in 1993, at over £50 million, to both UNHCR's general and special programmes budgets. We shall be continuing to monitor UNHCR's work and needs during the year with a view to responding appropriately to appeals as they issue.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the proportion of the aid budget for(a) 1989 and (b) 1994 taken up by the funding for the Pergau dam scheme in Malaysia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The estimated percentage of the aid budget taken up by the funding of the Pergau project in the financial year 1993–94 is 0.8 per cent. There was no expenditure on the project in 1989–90.
  314

  Overseas Aid Projects
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the build quality and value for money of(a) the Rihand power station in Uttar Pradesh, (b) Burri power station in Sudan, (c) the north Khartoum power station in Sudan, (d) the Ashuganj power station in Bangladesh, (e) the Pergau dam in Malaysia and (f) the Samanalawewa dam in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Under ODA guidelines we appraise and monitor the technical soundness of projects—including their "build quality"—and, whenever appropriate, we undertake contract price investigations to ensure value for money. The following build quality and value for money assessments have been made on the projects listed:

  (a) Construction at Rihand power station in India was assessed through ODA monitoring visits and reports during the successful completion of the project. Very high performance indicators for both production and on-line availability of the station indicate a good build quality. Operating costs per kilowatt hour generated by Rihand rank amongst the lowest of recently built coal fired power stations in India.

  (b) and

  (c) The Burri and Khartoum power stations in Sudan have been evaluated by ODA who concluded that the appropriateness of plant design was correct. There was competitive bidding for the two power stations among United Kingdom companies.

  (d) The Ashuganj generating plant in Bangladesh was commissioned in 1982 following United Kingdom competitive bidding. ODA evaluated the project in 1990 and, although there were operational difficulties, the evaluation concluded that the appropriateness of plant design was broadly correct and that it had been well engineered.

  (e) The quality of the design and construction of the Pergau project in Malaysia, which is about 50 per cent. complete, is good. A comprehensive value for money check was carried out before signature of the contract.

  (f) Construction of the components of the Samanalawewa dam in Sri Lanka part-funded by the United Kingdom —the engineering design, the tunnelling work, and the construction of the powerhouse—were assessed through ODA monitoring visits and regular reports from the United Kingdom contractors during the implementation of the project. Value-for-money checks were undertaken on the tenders for this work. Construction work not covered by the United Kingdom, including the dam itself, is the responsibility of the Japanese co-financiers.

TRANSPORT

  M11 Link Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contractual provisions apply to compensation to the contractors undertaking security work in respect of the M11 link road if the contract is cancelled.

  Mr. Norris
  The contract is let under the Institute of Civil Engineers conditions of contract which provide for determination. The form of contract between the main contractor and the security subcontractor is not for me to decide.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the M11 link road contract 4 complies in every respect with the procedure previously used by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  315
  Mr. Norris
  All procedures, including those to comply with EC directives, have been used by the Department to procure this work in the same way as previous contracts.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conditions apply to the payment of legal costs in relation to the possession of the construction sites for the M11 link road.

  Mr. Norris
  Each party bears its own legal costs incurred in the pursuance of court orders unless the court makes an order as to costs or legal aid is available.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conditions applied to the payment of security guards and policing of the construction site in respect of the M11 link road contract 4.

  Mr. Norris
  The contract provides for specific security measures which are included in the contract price and also for extraordinary security measures to be charged against a contingency item in the contract where the engineer considers it appropriate.

  Oil Wastes (Ships)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the capacity required for the receipt and storage of oil wastes for ships at each United Kingdom port.

  Mr. Norris
  The Prevention of Pollution (Reception Facilities) Order 1984—SI 1984–862—requires harbour authorities and terminal operators in the United Kingdom to provide oil reception facilities for ships that are adequate to meet their needs without causing undue delay. Advice and guidance on the assessment of the type and capacity of facilities needed to satisfy the provisions of the order are contained in merchant shipping notice No. M1462.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the capacity of facilities at each United Kingdom port for the storage of oily wastes from ships.

  Mr. Norris
  Information on oil reception facilities in United Kingdom ports, collected by the Department of Transport, is contained in the International Maritime Organisation circular MEPC/Circ.234, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Northern Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the refurbishment of trains, track and signalling on the Northern line; and what meetings he has had with London Transport on this.

  Mr. Norris
  I have received representations on this matter from a wide range of interests, including manufacturers, Members of Parliament, and members of the public. I have discussed it on a number of occasions with the chairman of London Transport.

  Transport Links (Ireland)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to undertake a study of combined transport links with Ireland; whether local authorities are to be consulted; and if he will make a statement.
  316
  Mr. Freeman
  The Irish and United Kingdom Governments have jointly appointed Mercer Management Consulting Ltd., in association with Indecon International Economic Consultants, to examine the potential for commercially viable combined transport services between Ireland, the United Kingdom and mainland Europe, as part of the EC Commission's PACT—pilot actions for combined transport—initiative.

  A number of local authorities have expressed an interest in the study and the consultants will be approaching them in due course.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not keep a central record of the use made of freephone and freepost services and could not say what use might have been made of these services in the past. From inquiries made within the Department we have not been able to trace any use of the services at present.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations are exempt from the parking restrictions imposed on red routes; and if he will list for each organisation the reasons why.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  vehicles being used for the provision of a London bus service, while waiting at an authorised stopping place or stand;

  vehicles displaying a current disabled person's badge, when stopping for the purpose of enabling people with disabilities to board or alight from the vehicle;

  Royal Mail liveried vehicles engaged in the collection or delivery of letters in accordance with the statutory duty of the Post Office for the provision of services for the conveyance of letters;

  licensed cabs stopping for the purpose of enabling a person to board or alight from the vehicle or to load or unload their personal luggage;

  vehicles waiting at any place for so long as may be necessary for the purpose of giving help required as a result of an accident or emergency or taking other action in the interests of public safety;

  vehicles required by law to stop, or obliged to stop in order to avoid an accident, or prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver's control;

  vehicles when used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes;

  vehicles waiting with the permission or at the discretion of a police constable in uniform.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the definitions of loading and unloading for vehicles using the prescribed loading bays on red routes.

  Mr. Norris
  Loading and unloading is not defined in any statute; it would be for the courts to determine any disputed cases.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the impact red routes will have on courier companies and the businesses they serve.
  317
  Mr. Norris
  Red routes will improve traffic conditions for all road users so that people and goods can move around the capital more easily. Courier firms and the businesses they serve will benefit from more reliable journey times and improved parking and loading arrangements on London's main roads.

  British Rail
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to lay before the House orders affecting railway pensions as provided for by the Railways Act 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to lay these orders between Easter and the

  £ million cash

  Nationalised industries

  National roads

  Central Government support to local authority capital expenditure (England)3

  British Rail1

  London Transport2

  Civil Aviation Authority

  England

  Total

  of which:

  Local roads

  Local public transport

  Local ports and airports

  Outturn

  1979–80

  367

  —

  12

  402

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  431

  —

  23

  472

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  409

  —

  24

  557

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  378

  —

  26

  762

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  439

  —

  20

  641

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  586

  —

  19

  718

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  550

  —

  19

  734

  —

  —

  —

  —.

  1986–87

  530

  225

  30

  766

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  631

  233

  33

  867

  596

  476

  90

  30

  1988–89

  695

  270

  35

  889

  672

  584

  52

  36

  1989–90

  889

  350

  54

  1,239

  627

  518

  70

  39

  1990–91

  1,022

  495

  74

  1,668

  747

  563

  113

  71

  1991–92

  1,293

  420

  88

  1,704

  916

  715

  106

  97

  1992–93

  1,573

  782

  119

  1,784

  1,022

  838

  102

  81

  1993–944

  1,207

  736

  156

  1,920

  1,101

  967

  114

  20

  Plans

  1994–95

  —

  997

  120

  1,829

  978

  857

  109

  11

  1995–96

  —

  1,022

  86

  1,779

  1,041

  918

  111

  12

  1 Individual figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 not available, but in the three year period 1994–95 to 1996–97 total investment will be around £2.7 billion.

  2 Prior to 1986–87, the Greater London council was responsible for London Transport.

  3 Figures not available on a comparable basis prior to 1987–88.

  4Forecast outturn.

  Supplementary Grant and Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for each metropolitan borough council in(a) South Yorkshire (b) West Yorkshire a summary of the transport supplementary grant made available for each of the past four years, broken down into (i) committed major scheme (gross), (ii) newly supported major schemes, (iii) bridge works, (iv) principal roads carriageways, (v) local safety silencers, (vi) packages, (vii) schemes specific, including bus priority, (viii) bus priority alone, (ix) minor works, (x) European regional development fund schemes and (xi) Industrial Development Act schemes;

  (2) if he will list for (a) Humberside (b) North Yorkshire a summary of the transport supplementary grant made available for each of the past four years, broken down into

  (i) committed major scheme (gross), (ii) newly supported major schemes, (iii) bridge works, (iv) principal roads carriageways, (v) local safety silencers, (vi) packages, (vii) schemes specific, including bus priority, (viii) bus priority
  318
  summer recess, following consultation with the pension scheme trustees and other interested parties, including the railway trade unions.

  Infrastructure Investment
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a breakdown by mode, year on year, of Government investment in Britain's transport infrastructure for the period 1979 to 1995.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Government transport expenditure plans have enabled investment shown in the table. The latest expenditure plans were published on 10 March in the "Transport Report 1994", Cmnd. 2506.
  alone, (ix) minor works, (x) European regional development fund schemes and (xi) Industrial Development Act schemes;

  (3) if he will list for each metropolitan borough council in (a) South Yorkshire (b) West Yorkshire a summary of the transport capital expenditure for local authorities for each of the past four years, broken down into (i) committed major scheme (gross), (ii) newly supported major schemes, (iii) bridge works, (iv) principal roads carriageways, (v) local safety silencers, (vi) packages, (vii) schemes specific, including bus priority, (viii) bus priority alone, (ix) minor works, (x) European regional development fund schemes and (xi) Industrial Development Act schemes;

  (4) if he will list for (a) Humberside (b) North Yorkshire a summary of the transport capital expenditure settlement for local authorities for each of the past four years, broken down into (i) committed major scheme (gross), (ii) newly supported major schemes, (iii) bridge works, (iv) principal roads carriageways, (v) local safety silencers, (vi) packages, (vii) schemes specific, including bus priority,

  319
  (viii) bus priority alone, (ix) minor works, (x) European regional development fund schemes and (xi) Industrial Development Act schemes.

  Mr. Key
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward legislation to bring public interest immunity certificates within statute law and parliamentary scrutiny.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will consider carefully any comments or recommendations Lord Justice Scott makes on this issue when his report is completed.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Sir Peter Levene
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between Sir Peter Levene's appointment as chairman of Canary Wharf and his position as the Prime Minister's efficiency adviser.

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Peter Levene will take no part in Government consideration of any issue which could involve a conflict of interest for him. There will be a review every six months of any prospective issues which could raise such a conflict so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 162, what happens to moneys raised from the sale of official gifts received by recent Prime Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 March 1994]: Gifts of small value are the property of the Prime Minister; the use of the proceeds from the sale of any such items is therefore a matter for the Prime Minister of the day to determine. Both my predecessor and I have made it our practice to donate all proceeds to charity. If any gifts from the official inventory were sold, the proceeds would accrue to official funds.

  Office Costs
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the annual total cost of the Prime Minister's office in each year(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) since 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: Figures on a consistent basis are not available.
  320
  Information on the total costs of the Prime Minister's office is not available before 1979–80. Spending in 1979–80 is recorded as £1.409 million, but that did not include charges for: the use of MOD aircraft; the use of buildings and for services supplied by the Property Services Agency and its successors; the use of the Government car service; the service personnel at Chequers; or for office services supplied by the Cabinet Office.

  The present No. 10 budget now includes charges for all these services. On that basis, the total annual cost for the completed financial years since 1990 has been as follows:

  Year

  £ thousands

  1990–91

  8,226

  1991–92

  8,664

  1992–93

  9,866

  These figures show payments made in the years in question. In some cases, this may relate to expenditure incurred in the previous financial year.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his question of 11 January, relating to expenditure of his Office.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: I have done so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the flexibility of the limits on therapeutic work for recipients of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We are considering the flexibility of the therapeutic work provisions in the context of the conditions which will apply to incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the amount of voluntary work that may be disregarded in considering entitlement to invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a number of representations. One of the measures introduced by the Social Security (Incapacity For Work) Bill will allow people receiving incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance to do up to 16 hours voluntary work a week without it affecting their benefit.

  Elderly People
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of over-80s who are not entitled to the basic retirement pension; how much it would cost for them to be provided with one; what help they will receive towards value added tax on their fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that approximately 75,000 persons in Great Britain who are aged 80 or over do not receive a basic state retirement pension. The estimated net cost of providing standard rate basic retirement pension to them is approximately £85 million per year at April 1994 prices.
  321
  Those not in receipt of basic pension but who receive income support will receive an additional 50p per week—single people—or 70p per week—couples. Those not in receipt of basic pension or income support but who receive the non-contributory retirement pension, available to persons aged 80 and over, will receive an additional 20p per week.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley will receive replies to his letters to the chief executive of the Child Support Agency of 16 November and 12 January.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand that Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, replied to the hon. Member on 9 March 1994.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual numbers with(a) terminal illness, (b) a prescribed condition and (c) the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance who should be considered for fast-tracking to the higher rate of incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We are considering this issue.

  Income-related Benefits
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider the rules for the treatment of capital made by the DSS in its calculation that for every £250 of saving, or part of £250, over and above £3,000 there could be a reduction of £1 in benefits payable.

  Mr. Burt
  The arrangements for the treatment of capital in the income-related benefits are kept under review, but we have no plans for change at present. The formula applied for taking account of capital above £3,000 does not imply any particular return on investments. It ensures that help is targeted on those who need it most, while not denying benefit to those with only a moderate amount of capital.

  Value Added Tax (Fuel)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the number of pensioners in their eighties who will receive less than pensioners in their sixties to compensate for the extra cost of VAT on their fuel bills; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many pensioners in their eighties have no entitlement to a basic retirement pension and how many are in receipt of a special over-80s pension; and what addition they will receive towards the additional cost of VAT on fuel.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that approximately 75,000 persons in Great Britain who are aged 80 or over do not receive a basic state retirement pension and that approximately 28,000 people aged 80 or over receive a non-contributory retirement pension.

  Extra help towards VAT on fuel for those aged 80 or over will be available on the same general basis as for all
  322
  persons of pensionable age, with the exception that those not in receipt of basic pension or income support but who receive a non-contributory retirement pension, available only to persons aged 80 or over, will receive total extra help of 20p per week.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what compensation for VAT on fuel will be paid to married women with an entitlement to a reduced retirement pension based on their own contributions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 28 February at column 615.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be added to war disablement pensions to compensate for the additional costs of VAT on fuel; how much will be received by a war widow also in receipt of a retirement pension towards the additional cost of VAT on fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The basic war disablement pension will not be increased beyond normal price indexation. The majority of war disablement pensioners are over pension age and will receive extra help through retirement pension; others will gain through invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance. War pensioners who choose to receive war pension unemployability supplement instead of retirement pension will receive the same extra help as retirement pensioners.

  The standard war widows pension will be increased by 50p a week on top of the normal uprating. A war widow who also receives, as a result of her own contributions, the full basic retirement pension, will receive a further 50p a week compensation.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the preliminary findings of the cost-benefit analysis of legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people undertaken by his Department; and when he expects to publish the full findings.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available. A cost-benefit analysis has not been prepared. Should the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill reach Committee stage, a compliance cost assessment will be provided in the normal way.

EDUCATION

  Student Numbers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimates he made of the numbers of students on two-year higher education courses before his recent announcement of notional tuition fee levels for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's expenditure plans, including tuition fee levels, announced at the time of the Budget allowed for a specified total number of students in higher education. In order to translate total numbers into the numbers of new entrants, it is necessary to make
  323
  assumptions about a number of factors, including the average length of courses. However, the number of students on two-year higher education courses was not separately assessed or identified.

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, column 841.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has no computer-aided facilities management systems. The information provided on 16 February shows a decline in 1993 in the incidence of theft.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many agency chief executives in his Department are currently paid more than £82,925, excluding performance-related bonuses; and whether such chief executives were recruited directly to their present post from outside the civil service.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Employee Share Schemes
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue next intends to publish updated guidance on approved employee share schemes, to replace versions dated 1991, and updated guidance on profit-related pay to replace the present editions published five years ago.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue published revised versions of its booklets and leaflets on approved employee share schemes on 7 March. Revision of the guidance notes on profit-related pay is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon he expects to announce details of the introduction and operation of approved employee share schemes and of statutory employee share ownership plans up to the end of March 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue expects to issue the latest figures on the introduction and operation of approved employee share schemes in April 1994—and annually in April thereafter. Similar information for statutory employee share ownership plans is not available.

  Inland Revenue (Information Technology Office)
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if employees of the information technology office of the Inland Revenue will benefit from civil service redundancy arrangements if they refuse to relocate consequent upon their being taken over by a private contractor.

  Mr. Dorrell
  If employees of the Inland Revenue's information technology office transfer with their work to a324
  private company as a result of the current procurement which forms part of the Department's market-testing programme, it is expected that the transfer will be within the scope of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. This means that current terms and conditions of employment will transfer to the new employer. If, following the transfer, the new employer asked employees to relocate, those employees whose terms and conditions did not include a mobility requirement would not be obliged to do so unless the new location was within reasonable daily travelling distance of their home. If the new employer was unable to offer alternative jobs to non-mobile employees, as a last resort they could be made redundant.

  Amusement with Prizes Machines
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue currently accrues to the Treasury from amusement with prizes and jackpot machines from each main category of premises on which they are located.

  Sir John Cope
  An estimated breakdown of gaming machine licence duty for 1992–93 is as follows:

  Amusement with prizes

  £ million

  Pubs

  33

  Inland arcades

  15

  Seaside arcades

  13

  Bingo halls

  12

  Single sites

  3

  Others

  7

  Total amusement with prizes

  83

  Jackpot machines

  15

  Total gaming machine licence duty

  98

  There is no breakdown for jackpot machines.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what calculations he has made as to the potential revenue that would accrue to the Treasury in respect of amusement with prizes machines in licensed betting offices.

  Sir John Cope
  No calculations have been made.

  Licensed Betting Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what calculations the Treasury has made as to the potential loss in tax revenue from licensed betting offices as a consequence of competition from the national lottery.

  Sir John Cope
  A duty rate of 12 per cent. is to apply to national lottery stakes. This rate has been set so as broadly to offset the anticipated revenue loss from expenditure diverted from other taxed goods. Any attempt to apportion this revenue loss between different taxes would be purely speculative.

  Taxation
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, columns 825–26, if he will give the percentages of earnings taken in income tax and national insurance contribution from a single-wage married couple at (a) half,

  325
  (b) three quarters, (c) average, and (d) twice average male manual earnings, in the years 1990–91, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is in the table:

  Income tax and national insurance contributions1 as a percentage of gross earnings

  Multiple of average earnings2

  1978–79

  1990–91

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Half average earnings

  14.1

  12.8

  11.6

  12.1

  Three quarters average earnings

  22.4

  19.9

  19.0

  19.2

  Average earnings

  26.7

  23.4

  22.8

  22.9

  Twice average earnings

  31.2

  26.1

  26.1

  26.4

  1 National insurance contributions are at the standard class 1 rate for employees not contracted-out of the state additional—earnings-related—pension scheme. Tax has been calculated assuming that no allowances or reliefs are available other than the standard allowance.

  2 Average earnings are taken to be the gross weekly manual earnings of full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are £244.50 and £272.00 in 1990–91 and 1992–93 respectively. In 1993–94 these are estimated to be £281.50 using an illustrative growth rate of 3.5 per cent.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the chancellor of the Exchequer if he publish for each year since 1978 a table showing(a) average earnings and (b) income tax liability on taxable income equal to (i) one quarter average earnings, (ii) one

  Income tax liability2 on taxable income at multiples of average earnings £ per week

  Year

  ¼

  ½

  1

  5

  10

  100

  1978–79

  6.50

  14.16

  29.47

  248.77

  633.89

  7,566.05

  1979–80

  7.48

  15.67

  32.07

  238.72

  566.62

  6,468.82

  1980–81

  9.86

  19.71

  39.42

  295.64

  689.84

  7,785.44

  1981–82

  10.94

  21.89

  43.77

  339.14

  776.84

  8,655.44

  1982.83

  11.81

  23.61

  47.22

  360.08

  832.28

  9,331.88

  1983–84

  12.83

  25.65

  51.30

  385.02

  898.02

  10,132.02

  1984–85

  13.88

  27.75

  55.50

  419.62

  974.62

  10,964.62

  1985–86

  14.89

  29.78

  59.55

  452.71

  1,048.21

  11,767.21

  1986–87

  15.50

  31.00

  62.00

  489.53

  1,130.93

  12,676.13

  1987–88

  15.77

  31.54

  63.07

  540.38

  1,241.18

  13,855.58

  1988–89

  16.02

  32.04

  64.08

  456.93

  969.53

  10,196.33

  1989–90

  17.49

  34.99

  69.98

  500.09

  1,059.89

  11,136.29

  1990–91

  19.14

  38.27

  76.55

  552.69

  1,165.09

  12,188.29

  1991–92

  20.54

  41.09

  82.18

  589.03

  1,246.43

  13,079.63

  1992–93

  19.81

  41.54

  85.00

  625.11

  1,320.51

  13,837.71

  1993–94

  20.09

  42.58

  87.57

  649.03

  1,368.83

  14,325.23

  Income tax liability as a percentage of taxable income at multiples of average earnings

  Year

  ¼

  ½

  1

  5

  10

  100

  1978–79

  28.0

  30.5

  31.8

  53.6

  68.3

  81.5

  1979–80

  27.4

  28.7

  29.3

  43.7

  51.8

  59.2

  1980–81

  30.0

  30.0

  30.0

  45.0

  52.5

  59.2

  1981–82

  30.0

  30.0

  30.0

  46.5

  53.2

  59.3

  1982–83

  30.0

  30.0

  30.0

  45.8

  52.9

  59.3

  1983–84

  30.0

  30.0

  30.0

  45.0

  52.5

  59.3

  1984–85

  30.0

  30.0

  30.0

  45.4

  52.7

  59.3

  1985–86

  30.0

  30.0

  30.0

  45.6

  52.8

  59.3

  1986–87

  29.0

  29.0

  29.0

  45.8

  52.9

  59.3

  1987–88

  27.0

  27.0

  27.0

  46.3

  53.1

  59.3

  1988–89

  25.0

  25.0

  25.0

  35.7

  37.8

  39.8

  1989–90

  25.0

  25.0

  25.0

  35.7

  37.9

  39.8

  1990–91

  25.0

  25.0

  25.0

  36.1

  38.0

  39.8

  1991–92

  25.0

  25.0

  25.0

  35.8

  37.9

  39.8

  1992–93

  22.8

  23.9

  24.4

  36.0

  38.0

  39.8

  1993–94

  22.3

  23.7

  24.3

  36.1

  38.0

  39.8

  Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. The
  326
  half average earnings, (iii) average earnings, (iv) five times average earnings, (v) 10 times average earnings and (vi) 100 times average earnings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is in the tables. Because taxable income excludes income covered by allowances, the gross incomes of taxpayers with these levels of taxable income would be significantly higher. The figures show that tax liability as a proportion of taxable income has fallen at all income levels over this period.

  Year

  Average earnings1 £ per week

  1978–79

  92.8

  1979–80

  109.3

  1980–81

  131.4

  1981–82

  145.9

  1982–83

  157.4

  1983–84

  171.0

  1984–85

  185.0

  1985–86

  198.5

  1986.87

  213.8

  1987–88

  233.6

  1988.89

  256.3

  1989–90

  279.9

  1990–91

  306.2

  1991–92

  328.7

  1992–93

  347.7

  1993–94

  359.9

  figure for 1993–94 is based on an illustrative assumption of 3.5 per cent. growth over 1992–93.

  2 Assuming all income is earned and that taxable income—income for income tax purposes less allowances and reliefs available at the taxpayer's marginal rate—is equal to the multiple of average earnings shown.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of a 20 per cent. basic rate of income tax in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates based on a projection of the 1991–92 survey of personal incomes are given.

  Revenue cost compared with a basic rate of 25 per cent, in a full year

  £ billion

  1993–94

  7.8

  1994–95

  9.2

  1995–96

  9.7

  327

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue cost to the Exchequer of the personal allowances in 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 in constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95 based on information about individuals on Inland Revenue records are given. These costs exclude the value of personal allowances to some individuals whose income is below the tax threshold. The costs for later years will depend on allowance levels for those years.

  Revenue cost of personal allowances1 in a full year at constant 1994–95 prices

  £ billion

  1993–942

  33.1

  1994–952

  31.1

  1 This includes the personal allowance, the married couple's allowance and the linked allowances, and the blind person's allowance.

  2 Assuming that prices increase by 2 per cent, in 1993–94 and 3.25 per cent, in 1994–95 in line with the illustrative assumptions in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1994–95.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue saving of the abolition of the married couple's allowance in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of the married couples allowance in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: The estimated costs in a full year are given in the table:

  Year

  1Cost £ billion

  1993–94

  5.0

  1994–95

  3.9

  1995–96

  3.1

  1 Includes the cost of allowances related to the married couples allowance, namely the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance.

  Incomes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing(a) the total number of taxpayers, (b) the number of taxpayers with incomes in excess of £100,000 and (c) the percentage of taxpayers with incomes in excess of £100,000 for (i) each region and (ii) each county of the United Kingdom for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for each region in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, the latest year for which information is available below United Kingdom level, are included in the first table. Married couples are counted as one unit in 1989–90 prior to the introduction of independent taxation. The second table includes estimates of the total number of taxpayers in each county in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92. All estimates are derived from the survey of personal incomes and the size of the survey limits the 328
  extent to which reliable estimates can be given at the county level for taxpayers with incomes over £100,000. The third table gives approximate numbers and percentages in 1991–92 for those counties estimated to have at least 500 taxpayers with incomes over £100,000.

  Table 1. Numbers of taxpayers by region, 1989–90 to 1991–92

  Number of taxpayers(thousands)

  Number of taxpayers with total income of more than £100.000 (thousands)

  Percentage of total taxpayers with total income of more than £100,000

  1989–901

  North

  1,060

  1

  0.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,770

  3

  0.2

  North West

  2,270

  6

  0.2

  East Midlands

  1,460

  4

  0.3

  West Midlands

  1,890

  3

  0.2

  East Anglia

  821

  3

  0.3

  South East

  7,110

  47

  0.7

  South West

  1,710

  5

  0.3

  Wales

  954

  2

  0.3

  Scotland

  2,060

  3

  0.1

  Northern Ireland

  483

  1

  0.1

  1990–91

  North

  1,240

  1

  0.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,160

  4

  0.2

  North West

  2,840

  5

  0.2

  East Midlands

  1,910

  2

  0.1

  West Midlands

  2,340

  5

  0.2

  East Anglia

  991

  3

  0.3

  South East

  8,850

  50

  0.6

  South West

  2,350

  5

  0.2

  Wales

  1,220

  1

  0.1

  Scotland

  2,340

  3

  0.1

  Northern Ireland

  542

  1

  0.1

  1991–92

  North

  1,270

  2

  0.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,140

  5

  0.2

  North West

  2,740

  7

  0.3

  East Midlands

  1,840

  4

  0.2

  West Midlands

  2,260

  5

  0.2

  East Anglia

  1,030

  4

  0.4

  South East

  8,610

  64

  0.7

  South West

  2,270

  6

  0.3

  Wales

  1,240

  2

  0.1

  Scotland

  2,320

  4

  0.2

  Northern Ireland

  513

  1

  0.1

  1 Married couples count as one taxpayer.

  Table 2. Number of taxpayers by English and Welsh County and Scottish Region, 1989–90 to 1991–92

  County

  1989–901

  1990–91

  Thousands 1991–92

  Tyne and Wear

  386

  434

  445

  Cleveland

  147

  177

  178

  Cumbria

  196

  251

  266

  Durham

  219

  225

  232

  Northumberland

  112

  151

  148

  Humberside

  320

  379

  345

  South Yorkshire

  432

  486

  519

  North Yorkshire

  291

  346

  383

  West Yorkshire

  729

  949

  898

  Cheshire

  388

  462

  442

  Lancashire

  542

  632

  631

  Greater Manchester

  874

  1,160

  1,090

  Merseyside

  469

  586

  582

  Derbyshire

  345

  423

  412

  Leicestershire

  344

  435

  406

  329

  County

  1989–901

  1990–91

  Thousands 1991–92

  Lincolnshire

  226

  285

  269

  Northamptonshire

  209

  281

  305

  Nottinghamshire

  338

  487

  447

  West Midlands

  835

  1,080

  1,080

  Hereford and Worcester

  271

  349

  332

  Shropshire

  153

  194

  177

  Staffordshire

  424

  474

  445

  Warwickshire

  211

  245

  227

  Cambridgeshire

  274

  321

  346

  Norfolk

  297

  334

  373

  Suffolk

  249

  336

  309

  Greater London

  2,800

  3,470

  3,350

  Bedfordshire

  200

  254

  248

  Berkshire

  283

  415

  356

  Buckinghamshire

  256

  324

  302

  East Sussex

  312

  352

  332

  Essex

  600

  751

  770

  Hampshire

  606

  801

  769

  Hertfordshire

  464

  524

  497

  Kent

  575

  688

  708

  Oxfordshire

  184

  256

  265

  Surrey

  418

  574

  560

  West Sussex

  351

  371

  390

  Isle of Wight

  56

  72

  56

  Avon

  326

  467

  448

  Cornwall

  155

  231

  208

  Devon

  401

  491

  527

  Dorset

  256

  336

  320

  Gloucestershire

  212

  290

  269

  Somerset

  163

  229

  221

  Wiltshire

  198

  308

  281

  Gwent

  153

  182

  161

  Mid Glamorgan

  172

  217

  225

  South Glamorgan

  139

  177

  177

  West Glamorgan

  103

  142

  148

  Dyfed

  113

  149

  192

  Gwynedd

  75

  101

  73

  Powys

  31

  52

  74

  Clwyd

  167

  204

  193

  Grampian

  249

  241

  231

  Tayside

  145

  174

  202

  Fife

  141

  154

  150

  Lothian

  334

  418

  367

  Central

  104

  143

  122

  Borders

  48

  36

  72

  Strathclyde

  902

  985

  955

  Dumfries and Galloway

  50

  74

  76

  Highlands

  71

  91

  115

  Island Authorities

  19

  23

  26

  1 Married couples count as one taxpayer.

  Table 3. Taxpayers with total income over £100,000 by English and Welsh County and Scottish Region 1991–921

  County

  Number (thousands)

  Taxpayers with total income over £100,000 as apercentage of total taxpayers

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  0.2

  North Yorkshire

  1

  0.4

  West Yorkshire

  2

  0.3

  Cheshire

  1

  0.3

  Lancashire

  1

  0.2

  Greater Manchester

  4

  0.3

  Merseyside

  1

  0.2

  Derbyshire

  1

  0.3

  330

  County

  Number (thousands)

  Taxpayers with total income over£100,000 as apercentage of total taxpayers

  Leicestershire

  1

  0.2

  Northamptonshire

  1

  0.2

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  0.2

  West Midlands

  2

  0.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  0.4

  Staffordshire

  1

  0.4

  Warwickshire

  1

  0.2

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  0.4

  Norfolk

  1

  0.2

  Suffolk

  2

  0.7

  Greater London

  36

  1.1

  Berkshire

  2

  0.5

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  0.8

  East Sussex

  1

  0.3

  Essex

  4

  0.5

  Hampshire

  2

  0.2

  Hertfordshire

  3

  0.7

  Kent

  3

  0.4

  Oxfordshire

  1

  0.4

  Surrey

  8

  1.4

  West Sussex

  1

  0.3

  Avon

  2

  0.5

  Devon

  1

  0.3

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0.2

  Wiltshire

  1

  0.2

  South Glamorgan

  1

  0.3

  Grampian

  1

  0.4

  Lothian

  1

  0.2

  Strathclyde

  2

  0.2

  1 Only counties where there are estimated to be at least 500 taxpayers with total income over £100,000 appear.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Imports
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the European directive relating to the importation of wine, spirits and tobacco products by postal or other services without carriage by those claiming importation for personal consumption.

  Sir John Cope
  Excisable goods cannot be imported into the United Kingdom by post or otherwise without paying United Kingdom rates of duty on them, except when the goods are accompanied by the purchaser and are for his or her personal consumption.

  Coronation Crown
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, columns 271–72, what were the results from monitoring the sales of the £5 coronation crown before and after the advertising campaign.

  Mr. Nelson
  Research showed that the advertisements increased public awareness of the circulating standard £5 coronation anniversary crown. There were also significant increases in the number of crowns issued after the advertisements appeared. Total issues of 1.7 million coins were therefore higher than they would otherwise have been.
  331

  Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will call for a report from LAUTRO as to how marry life assurance salesmen have left the register during 1993; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that LAUTRO recorded a net decrease of around 48,000 salesmen from the register during 1993. It believes that this reduction reflets mainly the higher standards now required by virtue of the training and competence arrangements introduced in April 1993.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the public sector borrowing requirement was funded from overseas in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  Data on "External and foreign currency financing of the public sector" are published by the Central Statistical Office in "Economic Trends" in the table "Counterparts to changes in money stock M4".

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 96, if he will provide whatever information is available of those occasions on which he, or other Ministers in his Department now or in the past, have signed public interest immunity certificates, and for what reasons.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 9 March 1994,Official Report, column 223.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the net cost to the Treasury of providing legal aid in personal injury cases(a) at all levels of claim and (b) for claims of up to £2,500.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is estimated that in the financial year 1992–93 the net cost to the legal aid fund of all personal injury cases was £25 million. It is not possible to break this down according to size of the claim. Other factors, such as the cost to the court service and legal aid administration, and the impact on the Department of Social Security's compensation recovery unit, none of which can be readily quantified, also have a bearing on the total net cost to the Exchequer of such cases.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Frederick West
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received over the media coverage of the arrest and subsequent court proceedings against Frederick West in Gloucester magistrates court.
  332
  The Solicitor-General
  Representations have been made to my office by solicitors representing both Mr. West and his wife in respect of certain published material. They were both arrested on 25 February 1994 and at that time the proceedings became "active" within the meaning of paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Mr. West is now charged with three offences of murder and his wife is on police bail. Proceedings therefore remain "active" in relation to both. Editors are under a legal obligation not to publish material which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice in the proceedings. I shall consider any material submitted to me in the context of the 1981 Act and other relevant legislation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plugs and Sockets
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is a deliberative process within the EC's current policy formulation within the field of telecommunications that might lead to the standardisation of plugs and sockets for the connection of consumer equipment to(a) the public switched telephone network, (b) the integrated services digital network and (c) the public data networks.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I can confirm that deliberative processes on possible standardisation of plugs and sockets are at different stages depending on the network and method of access used. For(a), the public switched telephone network, study by the Commission and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute remains at the information-gathering stage. On (b), requirements for direct attachment to the integrated services digital network have been technically defined prior to final adoption. For (c), any public data networks not covered by (a) and (b) above, there is much less clear agreement at the European level on the extent to which public data networks should be harmonised and deliberative processes have not advanced to any extent so far.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list in table form(a) the number of commercial advisers, brokers and underwriters his Department has employed in preparation for coal privatisation, (b) the names of such commercial advisers, brokers, underwriters, etc. and (c) the fees and commission (i) already paid and (ii) projected to such companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  N M Rothschild and Son Ltd. is employed as the Department's financial advisers on coal privatisation. Payments to the company are commercially confidential. My Department currently employs no brokers or underwriters in connection with coal privatisation.

  English Estates (Copeland)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total amount spent by English Estates in providing new factory premises and serviced sites in Copeland since June 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  English Estates has spent £4.1 million in Copeland.
  333
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many acres of serviced industrial land have been provided by English Estates in Copeland since 1991 under the Cumbria special support initiative announced by the Government in June 1991.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  English Estates has bought 49 acres of land of which 26 acres have been serviced.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 165, what plans the Post Office has to franchise the operation of Irvine and Kilwinning Crown post offices; and if he will make it his policy not to franchise the operation of these two Crown post offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that there are no present plans to franchise the operation of either Irvine or Kilwinning Crown post offices, but, if suitable opportunities arose, they do not preclude conversion of these offices to agency status. Decisions on the conversion of individual Crown post offices are an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 168, how many Post Office staff have left the Post Office under voluntary redundancy terms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that records of voluntary redundancies are not held centrally and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which post offices in Scotland are currently being considered for franchising; and within which parliamentary constituency each lies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that local consultations prior to conversion to agency status have taken place in respect of the following post offices in Scotland:

  Post Office and Parliamentary constituency

  Peterhead—Banff and Buchan

  Kirkcaldy—Kirkcaldy

  Stranraer—Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Annan—Dumfries

  Thurso—Caithness and Sutherland

  Livingston—Livingston

  Partick—Glasgow Hillhead

  Renfrew—Paisley North

  Anniesland—Glasgow Garscadden

  Elgin—Moray

  Wester Hailes—Edinburgh Pentlands

  Milngavie—Clydebank and Milngavie

  Greenock—Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Newington—Edinburgh South

  Charing Cross—Glasgow Hillhead

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, columns 166–67, within which parliamentary constituency each of the post offices in Scotland converted to agency status between April 1989 and January 1994 lies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the parliamentary constituencies in which the post offices in Scotland converted to agency status between April 1989 and January 1994 are as follows:334

  Post Office and Parliamentary Constituency

  Alexandria—Dumbarton

  Anstruther—Fife North East

  Arbroath—Angus East

  Banchory—Gordon

  Banff—Banff and Buchan

  Barrhead—Eastwood

  Bearsden—Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  Beith—Cunninghame North

  Bishopbriggs—Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  Bo'ness—Linlithgow

  Blairgowrie—Tayside North

  Brechin—Angus East

  Brodick—Cunninghame North

  Broughty Ferry—Angus East

  Broxburn—Livingston

  Bruntsfield—Edinburgh South

  Buckhaven—Fife Central

  Buckie—Moray

  Burns Statue Ayr—Ayr

  Burntisland—Kirkcaldy

  Campbeltown—Argyll and Bute

  Carnoustie—Angus East

  Cathcart—Glasgow Cathcart

  Coldstream—Rosburgh and Berwickshire

  Cowdenbeath—Dunfermline East

  Crieff—Perth and Kinross

  Cumnock—Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  Cupar—Fife North East

  Dalbeattie—Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Dalmuir—Clydebank and Milngavie

  Dingwall—Ross Cromarty and Skye

  Dunbar—East Lothian

  Dunblane—Stirling

  Dunoon—Argyll and Bute

  Duns—Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  Ellon—Gordon

  Forfar—Tayside North

  Forres—Moray

  Forrest Road—Edinburgh Central

  Fraserburgh—Banff and Buchan

  George Street Aberdeen—Not indentified

  Girvan—Ayr

  Glasgow Airport—Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  Gourock—Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  Grangemouth—Falkirk East

  Grantown on Spey—Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  Hawick—Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  Helensburgh—Dumbarton

  Hillhead—Glasgow Hillhead

  Huntly—Gordon

  Invergordon—Ross Cromarty and Skye

  lnverurie—Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  Jamaica Street—Cunninghame North

  Jeburgh—Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  Johnstone—Paisley South

  Kelso—Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  Kelvinbrige—Glasgow Maryhill

  Kilmacolm Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  Kilsyth—Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  Kinross—Perth and Kinross

  Kirkcudbright—Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Kirriemuir—Tayside North

  Kyle of Lochalsh—Ross Cromarty and Skye

  Lairg—Caithness and Sutherland

  Larkhall—Clydesdale

  Lanark—Clydesdale

  Largs—Cunninghame North

  Leith—Edinburgh Leith

  Leith Walk—Edinburgh Leith

  Leven—Fife Central

  Lochee—Dundee West

  Lochgelly—Dunfermline East

  Lochgilphead—Argyll and Bute

  Lockerbie—Dumfries

  Lossiemouth—Moray

  Maryhill—Glasgow Maryhill

  Maybole—Ayr

  Melrose—Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  335

  Moffat—Dumfries

  Montrose—Angus East

  Musselburgh—East Lothian

  Nairn—Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  Newton Stewart—Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Newlands Glasgow—Not Identified

  North Berwick—East Lothian

  Norton Park—Edinburgh East

  Oban—Argyll and Bute

  Parkhead—Glasgow Shettleston

  Peebles—Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Penicuik—Midlothian

  Pitlochry—Perth and Kinross

  Pollock—Glasgow Pollock

  Port Ellen—Argyll and Bute

  Port Glasgow—Greenock and port Glasgow

  Portobello—Edinburgh East

  Portree—Ross Cromarty and Skye

  Prestonpans—East Lothian

  Prestwick—Ayr

  Rothesay—Argyll and Bute

  Selkirk—Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Shawlands—Glasgow Pollock

  Shotts—Motherwell North

  St. George's Cross—Glasgow Maryhill

  St. Rollox—Glasgow Central

  Stevenston—Cunninghame North

  Stonehaven—Kincardine and Deeside

  Strathaven—East Kilbride

  Stromness—Orkney and Shetland

  Tain—Ross Cromarty and Skye

  Tollcross—Edinburgh Central

  Tranent—East Lothian

  Troon—Ayr

  Turriff—Banff and Buchan

  Uddingston—Hamilton

  West Kilbride—Cunninghame North

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  Comprehensive information about the Department's use of toll-free telephone lines is not collated centrally; but the Department currently operates three national toll-free telephone inquiry services. Their purposes and costs are as follows:

  ENTERPRISE INITIATIVE HELPLINE (0800 500 200)
  The line provides information and a single, comprehensive ordering point for literature about the Department's services for business.
  The service is bought in. Since its establishment costs have been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1987–88

  67,000

  1988–89

  106,700

  1989–90

  163,600

  1990–91

  166,400

  1991–92

  120,500

  1992–93

  124,200

  1993–94

  118,000

  ENVIRONMENTAL ENQUIRY POINT (0800 585 794)

  The line provides United Kingdom businesses with an information and signposting service on environmental issues.
  336
  The service is operated by Warren Spring Laboratory. Its costs, excluding staff costs, since inception have been as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  2,076

  1991–92

  3,311

  1992–93

  4,184

  1993–94

  2,262

  INNOVATION ENQUIRY LINE (0800 44 2001)
  The purpose of the line is to help raise awareness about innovation by providing a single telephone contact for those seeking information about the Department's innovation services, and to dispatch relevant literature and/or signpost inquirers to other sources of help.
  The line is operated in house. Its costs, excluding staff costs, since establishment have been as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  3,700

  1992–93

  13,700

  1993–94

  5,400

  1 (est)

  Free-post arrangements are made from time to time according to need, but details are not held centrally.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the report of the stage 3 radio spectrum review committee; and if he will make a statement on the future management of the radio spectrum.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The stage 3 radio spectrum review committee, chaired by Sir Colin Fielding and examining use of the spectrum from 28 to 470 MHz, has completed its task and I am pleased to announce that, in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence, Home Affairs, Scotland and National Heritage, I am today publishing the Committee's report. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The review was initiated as part of a rolling programme recommended by the Merriman committee, to audit present use of the radio spectrum, to analyse emerging developments and to assess potential new demands. The report addresses both civil and military use of the spectrum, and builds on previous work by the stage 1 and stage 2 spectrum review committees which examined use of the spectrum from 470 to 3400 MHz and 3400 MHz to 30 GHz respectively.

  I am sure that industry, commerce, service providers and users will all welcome this comprehensive analysis of the current uses and future demands of one of the most congested portions of the radio spectrum. Growth in mobile radio services and increasing competition in the provision of all manner of telecommunication services make this part of the spectrum of vital interest to the economic and social welfare of our nation.

  Sir Colin Fielding and members of the committee are to be congratulated on completing a comprehensive analysis of a complex and heavily used part of the spectrum. I am especially pleased that they have included management aspects of the spectrum under review, and addressed the potential of new technology as a means of making more efficient use of this scarce and valuable resource.
  337
  The Government will now give careful consideration to the Committee's recommendations and will respond to the report in due course. The recommendations on spectrum management and the role of the Radiocommunications Agency have implications that go beyond the part of the spectrum that was the subject of the review and the Government would now like to promote a wide-ranging discussion on these important matters. A consultative document on the future management of the radio spectrum will be published shortly. This will address the important issue of how to make more efficient use of the radio spectrum. This is the key to stimulating innovation and competition in the supply of radio services and boosting competitiveness through the increased use of radio technology. I will arrange for copies of the document to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The decison to publish a consultative document means that it would not be appropriate for the Government to respond fully to the spectrum review recommendations until the end of the consultation period for the consultative document.

  Letters (Delivery)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) first class and (b) second class letters were delivered by how many postmen or postwomen in the past year; at what cost; what were the comparable figures, five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 9 March 1994]: I understand from the Post Office that the information requested is as follows:

  First class letters

  Second class letters

  Postmen/ women

  Total cost

  Year

  Million

  Million

  Thousands

  £ million

  11993–94

  6,454

  9,456

  125.5

  3,968

  1988–89

  6,067

  7,137

  132.9

  2,539

  1983–84

  4,398

  5,790

  129.0

  2,661

  1978–79

  3,620

  5,718

  125.5

  1,410

  1 Budget figures for 1993–94.

  Prior to 1986–87 letters and parcels prepared combined accounts and it is therefore difficult to draw comparisons between the present business performance and that of 10 and 15 years ago.

  The staff numbers given are for those actually in post at the financial year-end and are not the average number in post during the year. Part-timers have been included on the basis of a 0.5 full-time equivalent.

  Direct comparisons of costs over the period could be misleading as there have been changes in accounting procedures and in the classification of costs during the period.

  Cable Networks
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that extensions to cable networks in the United Kingdom are carried out in rural areas as well as business and urban areas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: I am keen to see the benefits of cable TV and telephony extended to as many communities as possible. Some existing cable TV franchises, under which the franchisee
  338
  must make services available to every home, already cover rural as well as urban areas. The new franchising arrangements in the Broadcasting Act 1990 were specifically designed to encourage the extension of cable TV to semi-rural and rural areas, by giving franchisees the option of using radio as well as cable to deliver services, and allowing applicants to tailor build programmes to local conditions. The Independent Television Commission advertises new franchises where a credible interest in providing services has been received.

  Fibre Optic Cable System
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that a fibre optic cable system will cover all areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The Government's policy of promoting competition in telecommunications infrastructure is encouraging a large number of companies to install modern telecoms networks. The inter-exchange elements of the networks installed by BT, Mercury and Energis are already almost exclusively optical fibre. So are an increasing number of the links to individual businesses. Cable TV companies are installing optical fibre well down the network towards individual homes. I expect to see these trends accelerate. However, it is not for the Government to require the use of any particular technology. It is for telecoms operators to decide whether and when it is economic to use optical fibre or other technologies such as coaxial copper cable, copper wire, radio or satellite.

EMPLOYMENT

  Ballots (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the judgment between Blackpool and Fylde college and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and its implications for trade union members and trade unions in conducting ballots for industrial action.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is for the courts to decide, on the facts of each individual case, whether or not a union has complied with the requirements of the law on the organisation of industrial action.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes will be made to the funding arrangements for sheltered employment following the responses to the Employment Service's sheltered employment funding system consultative document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced to the House, on 28 June 1993,Official Report, columns 345–46, a consultation process on the funding of sheltered employment provided through local authorities and voluntary bodies. The arrangements for Remploy agreed in 1992 are unaffected. This consultation is now complete and we have received many helpful comments, which we have considered carefully.

  The main changes that will now be introduced are:

  339
  To set up formal contracts with targets, between the Employment Service and providers, to make explicit what is expected and to improve the effectiveness of our expenditure; Contracts will be for three years in principle, with annual renegotiation of details, and with arrangements for termination at six months' notice where specific reasons are given;
  Providers will be free to switch provision between factory places and placements, and between wage subsidies and other forms of support, provided minimum contract terms are met and cash limits are observed;
  Determining maximum grant by a formula derived from what it would cost to support someone with a specified productivity level at specified earnings in an employer placement;
  Increasing maximum grants per head to local authorities to the level offered to voluntary bodies; this will involve a small transfer of resources from the revenue support grant;
  All clients to have development plans regularly reviewed with providers;
  Subsuming the sheltered workshop training budget, currently focused on a few people, into the general grant for the programme;
  Host firms are to be allowed, and encouraged, to be legal employers of a client where this is in the client's interests;
  Encouraging better assessment, including more thorough exploration of alternatives, for those being considered for sheltered employment and, where appropriate, more progression to open employment;
  Contracts will specify a minimum number of places overall for a block grant—based on a maximum revenue grant per head; providers will be encouraged to offer more places and better quality through greater efficiency.

  These changes will ensure that as many severely disabled people as possible are supported from the resources available, and that provision is better targeted.

  As we discussed in our consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", there is need to consider whether the balance of places in sheltered workshops should be moved more towards sheltered placements. Further details were promised once decisions were made on funding.

  The balance between different forms of provision must respond to the assessed needs and the wishes of disabled people, and be decided in discussion between the ES and our local authority and voluntary body partners. Those needs and wishes can best be established locally. We intend, therefore, to proceed, not by setting national targets for different kinds of provision, but through the ES and providers discussing the right balance for particular localities when contracts are reviewed annually.

  In deciding the balance between workshop places and employer placements, we propose that regard should be paid to the following principles:
  The need to provide as many work opportunities, over as wide a range of occupations as possible and to the full range of eligible disabled people;
  The need to meet the wishes of very many severely disabled people to work alongside non-disabled people in integrated conditions;
  The need also to provide work in sheltered conditions for those who require it.

  We recognise that if, in a particular situation, it is agreed that the balance of provision should be changed in favour of placements, this might involve providers in extra costs in implementing the changes. We are prepared to help with these costs where the change is in the interests of disabled people, and more disabled people are helped as a result. Applications for capital grants to expand or improve workshop provision will continue to be dealt with under current arrangements, and we will continue to help workshops, where appropriate, through consultancy grants and through helping promote the products of sheltered industry.
  340
  Since the programme is moving increasingly towards encouraging a wide range of ways of helping severely disabled people, we agree that the recommendations of the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities should be adopted and the name of the programme should be changed to the supported employment programme.

  I believe that these decisions will create a modern framework within which we and our partners can work together successfully to help people with severe disabilities to obtain opportunities for productive work.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Such purchases are included within this Department's overall administration expenditure which is published every year in the annual report.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Disaggregated information of this sort could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The cost of such receptions is included in the entertainment expenditure for this Department which is published in the annual report.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made to East Timor by Her Majesty's Government's representatives in Indonesia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As the United Kingdom does not recognise Indonesia's annexation of East Timor, the British ambassador in Jakarta does not visit the territory. Other members of staff visit whenever a suitable opportunity arises. Most recently, a member of the staff visited East Timor in January.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings the military attache to the British embassy in Djakarta has had with the Indonesian military concerning operations in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The defence attaché in Jakarta is in regular contact with the Indonesian military authorities. He took part last year in an attachés' visit to East Timor organised by the Indonesian Defence Ministry.

  Sudan
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the European Union and its member states have taken in recent weeks in response to the continued conflict in Sudan.
  341
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 21 February the European Union and its member states issued a declaration condemning the latest offensive by the Government of Sudan, pressing for adequate access for the civilian population to humanitarian relief, commending the peace initiative of the Kenyan, Ethiopian, Eritrean and Ugandan Governments, and urging the parties to the civil war to respond positively to it. A copy of this statement has been placed in the Library of the House.

  On 8 March the Foreign Affairs Council agreed the establishment of a European Union arms embargo on Sudan as a further expression of our abhorrence of the continuing bloodshed. We were one of the prime movers behind this decision. The embargo covers weapons designed to kill and their ammunition, weapon platforms, non-weapon platforms and ancillary equipment. It also covers spare parts, repairs, maintenance and transfer of military technology. Contracts entered into force prior to the date of entry into force of the embargo are not affected. The text of the decision will be placed in the Library of the House.

  In our national implementation of this embargo, we will apply it to all categories of goods prefixed "ML" in group 1, part III, schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, as amended. The United Kingdom will interpret the embargo as also applying to goods prefixed "PL" in the above-mentioned group 1.

  European Union
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following meetings are planned:

  4 March: Research Council

  7–8 March: Foreign Affairs Council

  10 March: Internal Market Council

  21 March: ECOFIN Council

  23 March: Justice and Home Affairs Council

  24–25 March: Environment Council

  28–29 March: Agriculture Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  Research Council: 4 March

  Fourth framework programme

  Comitology

  Joint Research Centre

  Coal and steel research

  socio/economic research programme

  EURATOM

  White Paper—follow-up

  Foreign Affairs Council: 7–8 March

  White Paper: Follow-up

  Relations with Hungary

  Relations with Poland

  CFSP financing

  Dual use goods

  EEA: Interim acquis and implementing regulation

  Ex-Yugoslavia

  Middle east

  South Africa

  (poss) Relations with the EP

  (poss) Cohesion fund

  Budget discipline

  Own resources decision

  (poss) Russia

  Steel imports from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan

  Trade policy

  (poss) Anti-dumping: cement imports from Turkey, Tunisia and Romania

  Asylum and immigration

  342

  EC/China

  AOB: Relations with FSU countries

  Enlargement, completing negotiations with Norway

  First association councils with Hungary and Poland

  Internal Market Council: 10 March

  Operation of the internal market

  progress report on strategic programme

  progress report on trans-European networks

  Counterfeit goods regulation

  Amendment to directive 83/189 on technical standards

  (poss) Vehicle coupling device

  Legal protection of data bases

  (poss) Motor cycle speed, torque and power

  Novel foods

  Food additives other than colours and sweeteners

  Equipment for use in explosive atmospheres

  ECOFIN Council: 21 March (draft agenda)

  Danish convergence programme

  Own resources decision

  Court of Auditors 1992 report

  Relations with central and eastern Europe

  Planning for the IMF interim committee meeting

  Taxation of savings

  Transitional VAT system

  Anti-fraud programme

  White Paper follow-up

  Justice Council: 23 March

  agenda not yet available

  Environment Council: 24–25 March (draft agenda)

  Commission White Paper

  VOCs—volatile organic compound—stage I Birds directive

  Landfill

  Large combustion plants amendment

  Noise from earthmoving machinery

  Four-year statistics programme

  (poss) Car emissions

  Coastal zones resolution

  Integrated pollution control

  Agriculture Council: 28–29 March

  agenda not yet available

HEALTH

  Hospital Doctors (Negligence)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital doctors have been struck off in each year since 1979 for medical negligence or incompetence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The General Medical Council produces information annually about doctors who have been struck off the medical register. These statistics are published in the GMC's annual report and in the annual volumes of council minutes, copies of which are available in the Library. Information can also be obtained from the GMC press office.

  Dentistry
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental surgeons have been appointed by the Avon family health services authority in the Bristol area to undertake NHS treatment, for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total number of general service dentists, including principals, assistants and vocational trainees, under contract to Avon family health services authority, for the last three years are:
  343

  Year

  Number

  1991

  374

  1992

  374

  1993

  382

  Census carried out on 30 September in each year.

  Ethics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to take to maintain traditional ethical standards at top-level NHS management levels.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In January 1993, the national health service management executive issued guidance, HSG(93)5, to NHS trusts and health authorities about standards of business conduct for NHS staff, copies of which are available in the Library.

  In addition, from 1 April 1994 the boards of all NHS bodies will be required to comply with a new code of conduct which will ensure that public service values continue to underpin all decision-making at board level.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants had full-time, and how many part-time, contracts in each health authority and trust in each year since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The tables showing the numbers of full-time and part-time consultant contracts in each of the regional health authorities and in those trusts that were in existence in 1991 and 1992 will be placed in the Library. Information for all district health authorities is not available centrally.

  Care Orders
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many teenage mothers in care between 1986 and 1993 have had care orders placed on their babies.

  Mr. Bowis
  The age of mothers and whether they themselves are in care is not information required when local authorities make returns on children in care to the Department.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by her private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Disaggregated information of this sort could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of new furniture for her private offices during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Such purchases are included within my Department's overall administration expenditure which is published every year in the annual report.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by her 344
  Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much her Department and its predecessor has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department uses freephone and freepost facilities for the public to request and receive free information or materials on health-related subjects and on their rights as national health service patients. The facilities include the health information service and the health literature ordering service.

  Costing information for all the Department's freephone and freepost facilities could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Microwaves
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the comparative standards in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) the USA for field strengths of electro-magnetic energy within the microwave wave-bands relative to harmful effects caused to human beings.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom is one of the few countries which have formulated guidance, not standards, on restricting exposure. In November 1993 the National Radiological Protection Board published guidelines on restricting exposure to electromagnetic fields, copies of which are available in the Library. These are based on comprehensive reviews of relevant biological and human health studies carried out by NRPB staff and on the advice of the advisory group on non-ionising radiation set up by the director of the NRPB. In the United Kingdom, for populations including children, the levels range from 75 volts per metre, V/m, at 300 megahertz to 194 V/m at 300 gigahertz.

  Other countries, for example, France and Germany, have guidelines based on those issued in 1988 by the international non-ionizing radiation committee of the International Radiation Protection Association. For the general public, the levels range from 27.5 V/m to 61 V/m and for occupationally exposed people from 61 V/m to 137 V/m.

  In the United States of America, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1991 standard set levels based on "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments. For uncontrolled environments the levels range from 27.5 V/m to 194 V/m and for controlled environments from 61.4 V/m to 194 V/m.

  Maternity Units
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department last gave advice on security in maternity units.

  Mr. Sackville
  The revised "National Health Service Security Manual", funded by the Department and issued to the service on 29 April 1992, provides guidance and recommendations on general security matters, including patient safety. Copies of the manual are available in the Library.
  345

  Hospital Construction, Buckinghamshire
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the major hospital building projects in Buckinghamshire completed since 1978–79 or now under way, giving in each case the amount of public money spent.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Completed schemes

  Project/scheme

  Publicexpenditure1 £

  Completion date

  Amersham—dermatology unit

  2,306,769

  21 January 1994

  Amersham operating theatres

  1,333,653

  24 June 1983

  Amersham phase 1

  6,193,487

  22 July 1991

  Buckingham—phase 1

  1,263,502

  16 February 1990

  Milton Keynes DGH—end unit

  1,202,638

  24 September 1992

  Milton Keynes DGH—MI unit

  2,495,264

  24 November 1988

  Milton Keynes DGH—OPD

  3,578,463

  13 November 1989

  Milton Keynes DGH—phase 1

  16,358,544

  12 September 1983

  Milton Keynes DGH—phase 2

  17,333,464

  21 August 1991

  St. Johns EMI

  1,816,779

  11 March 1991

  Stoke Mandeville—maternity unit

  6,030,648

  5 May 1991

  Stoke Mandeville—OPD/hospice

  1,598,049

  18 July 1989

  Stoke Mandeville—pathology

  1,545,574

  5 May 1989

  Stoke Mandeville—X-Ray

  1,287,006

  10 July 1987

  Tindal MI development

  3,831,237

  7 May 1991

  Tweed Drive—nursing home

  1,224,958

  17 November 1989

  Wycombe pathology

  1,314,300

  5 July 1985

  DGH—District General Hospital.

  EMI—Elderly Mentally Infirm.

  OPD—Out-Patients Department.

  MI—Mental Illness.

  Schemes under construction

  Project/scheme

  Public Expenditure1

  Completion date

  Wycombe X-Ray extension and alterations

  955,526

  16 September 1994

  Milton Keynes—secure unit phase 2

  1,577,374

  28 November 1994

  Note: Information is not available for schemes before 1980.

  1 Includes construction costs, fees and equipment. Information is not available centrally on total costs for schemes. For example VAT and Land Purchase costs are excluded.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have had their audited accounts qualified; and if she will list them.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]: Qualifications were made to the audit opinions of five national health service trusts accounts for the financial year 1992–93. These were:

  Ashford Hospital NHS Trust

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Mental Handicap NHS Trust

  North East Essex Mental Health NHS Trust

  Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  London Implementation Group
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings she has had with members of the London implementation group; and what directions she gave them.
  346
  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman and chief executive of the London implementation group at regular intervals to discuss matters relating to London's health services.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total number of fundholding general practitioner practices in Greater London; and if she will list them by name and health district.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are currently 304 general practitioner fundholding practices in the four Thames regions. Detailed information is not available centrally, but is available from the regional health authorities concerned.

  Asthma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken by her Department to co-ordinate research into the causes of asthma among(a) adults and (b) children; and how much is spent on research in this area.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health is a founder member of the Respiratory Research Liaison Committee, which includes the major organisations with a research interest in respiratory diseases. The committee has a considerable interest in asthma. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 February at column 627. In addition, the national health service research and development strategy is determining research priorities on a range of difficult problems of direct relevance to the NHS and work is planned to establish detailed priorities in the field of respiratory diseases across all age groups.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, 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 MRC spent £759,000 on research into asthma and a further £757,000 on research which may be relevant to the condition.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have been held with the Department for Education concerning children's asthma and the effect on education; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Recent discussions have related to inquiries from teachers about children in need of medication for the relief of asthma. It has been agreed that teachers should, in consultation with parents and with appropriate medical advice, do all that is reasonable to enable these children to obtain maximum benefit from education and to participate as fully as possible in school life. Where possible children should be encouraged to manage their own condition with the support, as necessary, of teaching and school health service staff.

  University College Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what special assistance is to be given to University College hospital in 1993–94 and planned for 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1993–94 to date, £10,634 million transitional funding support has been agreed in respect of University College London hospitals. The level of transitional funding support for 1994–95 has not yet been determined.
  347

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the non-executive directors appointed to health trusts in the city of Salford, together with their full-time occupations and current places of residence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Non-executive directors of national health service trusts are expected to live or work in the area covered by the trust, or have connections with it. Information on the place of residence of those appointees is available from NHS trusts.

  Details of appointees are:

  Salford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Moorhouse—Public relations consultant

  Mr. N. Eldred—Business school director

  Mrs. P. Morris—Management consultant

  Professor R. Tallis—Professor of geriatric medicine

  Mrs. L. Fairfield—Solicitor

  Salford Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Wilkinson—Regional manager, community services

  Ms J. Marchant—Company secretary

  Mrs. P. Banning—Social worker

  Mr. J. Jesky—Managing director

  Mr. N. McArthur—Company chairman

  Mental Health Services of Salford NHS Trust

  Miss L. Frank-Riley—Enterprise manager

  Professor P. Huxley—University professor

  Mr. M. Jowett—Solicitor

  Mr. A. Freeman—Chartered accountant

  Mr. W. Smith—Retired company chairman

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 623, (1) what is the estimated cost of each campaign provisionally scheduled for 1994–95;

  (2) what is the budgeted and actual cost of each campaign listed;

  (3) during what months in 1994–95 it is intended that each of the community care, children's services, family health services complaints, GP fundholding, "The Health of the Nation", help with NHS treatment costs, "Keep Warm Keep Well", open government and patients charter campaigns will operate.

  Mr. Sackville
  Actual costs for 1993–94 will not be available until the final outturn figures are available. Final decisions on campaigns and campaign budgets for 1994–95 have not yet been made. Provisional figures for 1994–95 were listed in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 14 February at column 623.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 February,Official
  Report, column 623, if she will publish the telephone response and coupon response to each advertising and publicity campaign where applicable.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  Campaign

  Coupon/order card response

  Telephone response

  Travel Safe

  July 1993 to February 1994

  11,453

  2,748

  Blood Donor Recruitment

  April 1993 to February 1994

  n/a

  120,242

  Community Care

  April 1993 to February 1994

  103,558

  28,038

  348

  Campaign

  Coupon/order card response

  Telephone response

  Drugs and Solvent Misuse

  April 1993 to February 1994

  45,425

  37,763

  Organ Donation

  April 1993 to February 1994

  n/a

  11,022

  Health Service Professions Recruitment

  April 1993 to February 1994

  2,939

  n/a

  Blood Donations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was(a) the number of blood donors, (b) the quantity of blood donated and (c) the amount of blood required for each region for each month since April 1993;

  (2) in which of the English health regions there is a surplus of donated blood; and in how many regions blood plasma is in short supply.

  Mr. Sackville
  National stocks are sufficient at present to meet the needs of all health regions in England. Surplus stocks held in individual regions are transferred by the National Blood Authority if needed to satisfy requirements elsewhere.

  The additional information available centrally will be placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Illegal Fishing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current status of the bailiff who uncovered the unauthorised removal of salmon for the purpose of stripping eggs from them and which resulted in the RUC investigation into allegations against bailiffs and a scientist in 1990.

  Mr. Ancram
  This officer is a current employee of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Irelànd if he will investigate allegations that 4 in immature roach are being caught in Northern Ireland, blast frozen, offered to Northern Ireland tackle dealers and sold in Dublin tackle shops.

  Mr. Ancram
  No. Juvenile roach may be captured lawfully for use as bait under licence from the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any disciplinary action was taken by the Fisheries Conservancy Board against those members of staff about whom allegations of salmon egg stripping had been made in 1990.

  Mr. Ancram
  One member of staff was cautioned about the misuse of powers conferred by permit issued by the Department of Agriculture under section 14 of the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether all commercial fish farms have a consent to discharge.
  349
  Mr. Tim Smith
  All fish farms known to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland hold current discharge consents.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how frequently river bed sampling for residues of chemicals in use on commercial fish farms is carried out.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Discharge consents granted under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 for fish farms specify concentration limits for chemicals used in the industry. On the basis of the scientific data available on the chemicals used, there is no evidence to indicate that these compounds would accumulate in river bed sediments. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland regularly undertakes biological monitoring of invertebrates at locations downstream of fish farms. To date there is no evidence from this monitoring to indicate any accumulation in sediments giving rise to stress in invertebrate populations. For these reasons it is considered that there is no need for river bed chemical sampling.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether inspections are carried out to ensure the safe storage and minimum use of chemicals, anti-bactericides and disinfectants regularly used on fish farms.

  Mr. Ancram
  Department of Agriculture officials carry out regular inspections to ensure the safe storage of chemicals and to monitor the use of chemical substances on fish. Fish farmers are also required to keep a record of chemical usage. Water discharge consents issued under the Water Act (NI) 1972 lay down the maximum discharge concentration of chemicals which may be discharged into watercourses. As there are no major fish diseases present in Northern Ireland, the use of chemicals, anti-bactericides and disinfectants is generally well below the maximum levels permitted by the discharge consents.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has of a build-up of copper derivatives in river bed soils downstream from commercial fish farms.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is not aware of any use of chemicals containing copper in the fish farm industry in Northern Ireland. Monitoring of river bed soils for such substances downstream of fish farms is not, therefore, considered necessary.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how frequently samples of discharge into rivers/watercourses from commercial fish farms are taken.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has a rolling programme for monitoring fish farms for compliance with consents granted under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. Composite sampling is carried out over a continuous period of up to seven days. In addition, discharges from fish farms are monitored annually on a selective basis employing spot sampling.

  As part of the river monitoring programme undertaken by the Department in Northern Ireland, monitoring stations are located downstream of the vast majority of consented discharges. These stations are monitored on between four and 24 occasions annually.
  350

  Crime
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were sentenced to a prison term under each offence category in the latest year for which figures are available; and what numbers and percentage of the total were fine defaulters.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The numbers of people received into prison under sentence of immediate custody for each offence category for 1992 are given in the table and total 1,312. The number of people received into prison for fine default was 1,716. Therefore, the percentage which fine defaulters comprise of the total number received into prison—under sentence of immediate custody and for fine default but exclusive of remand receptions—was 57 per cent.

  Receptions under sentence of immediate custody, by offence 1992

  Number

  Violence against the person

  256

  Sexual Offences

  72

  Burglary

  191

  Robbery

  128

  Theft

  245

  Fraud and Forgery

  39

  Criminal Damage

  79

  Drugs Offences

  10

  Motoring Offences

  173

  Other Offences

  119

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to is answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 1034, if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of any surveys or research undertaken in relation to the advertising and promotion campaigns listed.

  Sir John Wheeler
  A copy of any surveys which are not confidential will be placed in the Library as soon as they become available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 1034, what is the budgeted and actual cost of each advertising and publicity campaign listed for 1993–94.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Campaign

  Budgeted cost

  Actual cost(to date)

  Annual Fire Safety Week

  30,000

  27,000

  Drink Driving

  333,000

  312,000

  Speeding

  58,000

  20,000

  Seat Belts

  139,000

  139,000

  Dipped Headlights

  38,000

  25,000

  Organ Donor Card

  20,000

  17,000

  Keep Warm, Keep Well Winter Warmth Campaign

  40,000

  39,648

  351

  Campaign

  Budgeted cost

  Actual cost (to date)

  NIE Share Offer

  621,000

  527,813

  Energy Management Assistance Scheme

  10,000

  12,441

  Help the Earth Week

  200,000

  236,882

  Homes Insulation Scheme

  35,000

  34,840

  Airport Signs

  19,500

  19,500

  To promote the role of Innovation and Research and Development

  30,000

  27,381

  Confidential Telephone

  608,000

  608,000

  Crime Prevention Awareness

  163,000

  1115,000

  The Business Radio Programme

  14,000

  14,000

  NVQ General Awareness Campaign

  46,000

  46,000

  YTP Campaign to Increase Recruitment

  15,000

  14,800

  Jobscene (Northern Ireland) Exhibition

  15,500

  15,580

  Overseas Export Marketing Programme

  10,000

  12,000

  Disablement Advisory Service Campaign

  33,500

  33,786

  Employers Forum on Disability

  10,000

  10,000

  National Continence Week (13–18 March 1994)

  30,000

  2—

  European Year of Older People

  None

  21,798

  Overseas Awareness Raising Programme

  385,000

  2—

  1 Estimate.

  2 Not yet available

  Reservoirs (Filter Sludge)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether contaminated filter sludge from reservoirs is being regularly dumped into rivers; if such dumping requires the approval of the Department of Environment (Northern Ireland); and where contaminated sludge from Killylane reservoir is dumped.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  It is not the practice of the Department of the Environment to discharge filter sludges produced as part of the water treatment process to rivers. Sludge from Killylane water treatment works is spread on land within the catchment area above the reservoir.

  Teachers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many newly qualified teachers were appointed to permanent teaching posts by each education board in 1993.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the latest figures available from the annual survey carried out by the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Research indicate that, in the 352
  spring term 1993, of those teachers holding permanent posts in grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland, 292 had qualified from initial teacher training institutions in 1992.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people(a) graduated or qualified and (b) failed in teacher training in each of the teacher training colleges and universities in 1993.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  1993

  Number who graduated or qualified

  Number who failed the final year examinations

  Stranmillis College of Education

  203

  1

  St. Mary's College of Education

  186

  0

  Queen's University

  220

  0

  University of Ulster

  160

  2

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Services (Merseyside)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the standard spending assessment for fire services in Merseyside.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Merseyside fire and civil defence authority's standard spending settlement for 1994–95 has been determined by reference to a distributional formula which was discussed with the local authority associations.

  Right of Silence
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from the police regarding his proposals on the right of silence.

  Mr. Howard
  The police have expressed their support for these proposals.

  War Crimes Act 1991
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are currently employed on work flowing from the War Crimes Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are 11 police officers, who form part of the Metropolitan police war crimes unit, engaged full time on work flowing from this Act.

  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at which point in the financial year he had discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment over the funding of fire and civil defence authorities for the execution of their statutory duties in the following financial year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Decisions about the local government finance settlement and service provision are taken collectively by Ministers and announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment.
  353
  Discussions between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office at official level take place from time to time on the lead up to these decisions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not have separate discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about fire and civil defence authorities.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the reasons for exemption from the requirement for local public inquiries of the combination schemes relating to proposed new fire authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The proposal to establish three combined fire authorities in Wales in place of the present eight was made in the White Paper on the future of local government in Wales published in March 1993. It has since been discussed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to make representations and, in the case of three of the existing fire authorities in Wales, to meet me to discuss the proposals. Also, clause 23 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill requires my right hon. and learned Friend to give notice of the general nature of the proposed combination schemes to the appropriate authorities and to consider any representations that they make. In the light of these factors, we see no need for public inquiries.

  Police Stations

  Bridewell

  Stanley Road

  Kirby

  Crosby

  St. Helens

  Total

  1994

  February 20

  54

  0

  0

  0

  0

  54

  February 21

  54

  0

  0

  0

  0

  54

  February 22

  54

  0

  0

  0

  0

  54

  February 23

  54

  0

  0

  0

  0

  54

  February 24

  62

  0

  0

  0

  0

  62

  February 25

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  60

  February 26

  65

  0

  0

  0

  0

  65

  February 27

  27

  12

  12

  0

  0

  51

  February 28

  39

  10

  9

  10

  0

  68

  March 1

  35

  10

  8

  10

  0

  63

  March 2

  41

  3

  3

  10

  0

  57

  March 3

  41

  8

  0

  8

  8

  65

  March 4

  44

  7

  0

  7

  7

  65

  March 5

  44

  7

  0

  7

  6

  64

  March 6

  44

  7

  0

  7

  6

  64

  March 7

  36

  10

  9

  11

  9

  75

  Information about costs is not yet available. The Prison Service will deal with reimbursement of expenditure incurred by police in accordance with the provisions of Home Office circular 36/1993, issued on 6 October 1993 to clerks to police authorities and chief officers of police.

  Details of number of police officers performing duties concerned with the holding of prisoners is not yet available centrally. It is understood these duties are being carried out by officers working their rest days.

  Between the end of December 1993 and the end of February 1994, the prison population in the north of England rose by just over 1,200. Prison accommodation pressures in the North will be eased by the reopening of Manchester prison, now under way, and the opening of the new prison at Doncaster in June. Rescheduling of refurbishment work at other prisons will also increase the availability of places during 1994.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prisoner
  354

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are being held in police stations in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of prisoners held in police cells in Greater Manchester overnight on Tuesday 8 March was 169.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners on average were being held in each of the police stations in the Merseyside area for each month since January 1993, and for each day so far in March 1994; what is the consequent cost in police overtime in each police cell on Merseyside for these duties; how many police officers are being taken off other duties for these purposes; and what reasons he has established for the trends in these figures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 1 January 1993 to 5 February 1993 an average total of 30 prisoners were held each night in police stations in the Merseyside area. The use of police cells ceased on 6 February 1993.

  Police cells in the Merseyside area came into use again on 20 February 1994, as follows:
  nights for which prisoners were held in police cells, for the months of January and February, broken down by police authority, and the cost to each authority.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 10 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoner nights for which prisoners were held in police cells in January and February.

  Details are as follows:

  Month

  Prisoner nights

  Police force

  January 1994

  16

  Greater Manchester

  February 1994

  3,394

  Greater Manchester

  February 1994

  474

  Merseyside

  355

  Month

  Prisoner nights

  Police force

  February 1994

  315

  Lancashire

  February 1994

  156

  Humberside

  February 1994

  139

  South Yorkshire

  February 1994

  91

  Northumbria

  February 1994

  3

  Cumbria

  Information about costs is not yet available. The Prison Service will deal with reimbursement of expenditure incurrerd by police in accordance with the provisions of Home Office Circular 36/1993, issued on 6 October 1993 to Clerks to Police Authorities and Chief Officers of Police.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his proposals to combat the use of drugs.

  Mr. Maclean
  Apart from several general inquiries from members of the public, we have had forwarded by Members of Parliament nine letters this year on the proposed increase in fines for the illegal possession of class B and class C drugs.

  Prison Officers (Attacks)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of attacks made on prison officers in prisons in England and Wales during the year 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 2,835 prisoners were found guilty of assaults on prison staff in 1993 under the prison disciplinary system. This includes offences of attempting, inciting and assisting assaults.

  Crime Detection
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources he is going to make available for the detection of crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since 1978–79 the Government have increased expenditure on the police service by 87 per cent. in real terms and we are introducing measures to free up more police officers from administrative tasks for front-line duties.

  It is for the chief constables to decide how to deploy their resources to the best effect within their force area and the Home Secretary has set key national objectives to assist them in determining their priorities.

  Police Gloucestershire
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about police levels in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received 12 letters from hon. Members and 20 letters from members of the public. A request from Gloucestershire police authority for additional officers is currently being considered.

  Gallows
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operational sets of gallows there are in the United Kingdom; and when he next expects them to be used.
  356
  Mr. Maclean
  There are no operational gallows in any Prison Service establishments in the United Kingdom.

  Motor Vehicle Insurance
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require police authorities to take further steps to ensure that motor vehicles are properly insured and licensed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. The enforcement of road traffic law is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Police Negotiating Board
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has received from the Police Negotiating Board concerning progress with the current round of negotiations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the Police Negotiating Board to let him have its recommendations by 3 April 1994.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what weight he attaches to the prison population as a measure of the success of the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's criminal justice policy objectives include the prevention of crime as well as the conviction and appropriate punishment of those who commit it. Prison population figures cannot in isolation be seen as a measure of either the success or the failure of the criminal justice system in its response to crime.

  Persistent Offenders
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to ensure that cautions are not used for persistent offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The new guidance on cautioning which I am about to issue to the police will make it clear that a second caution should be considered only where the second offence is trivial, or where it has been committed long enough after the first caution to suggest that the first one had some effect. People who offend persistently must expect to be prosecuted.

  House Breaking
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage increase in crimes of house breaking made known to the police over the most recent five-year period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Recorded offences of burglary in a dwelling increased by 47 per cent. in England and Wales between 1987 and 1992.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will re-examine the case of the murder of Hilda Murrell of Shrewsbury.
  357
  Mr. Howard
  The investigation of this murder is the responsibility of the chief constable of West Mercia constabulary, who will consider any new evidence which becomes available.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the legislation dealing with terrorism.

  Mr. Howard
  We keep the legislation under close review. In last year's Criminal Justice Act we strengthened the measures against terrorist finance. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is currently in Committee, contains new powers for the police to stop and search vehicles and persons for counter-terrorist purposes and creates two new terrorist offences.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of victims compensated for criminal injury during the past year; what was the total and average paid to them in that year and five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement on proposals to alter the terms of compensation for victims of criminal injury.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of the new arrangements for compensating blameless victims of violent crime were published in a White Paper on 15 December 1993—Cm. 2434. The new scheme is based on a tariff of awards and starts on 1 April. Victims will find the new scheme simpler and quicker than the one it supersedes. It will help restrain the spiralling costs of the present arrangements and make future expenditure more predictable and controllable.

  Annex A to the White Paper gave full historical details of awards made under the scheme. The information is extracted from that table.

  Financial year

  Number of awards made

  Total compensation paid £ (million)

  Average award (£)

  1992–93

  36,638

  152.5

  4,162

  1987–88

  20,991

  52.0

  2,479

  1982–83

  19,733

  29.4

  1,492

  1977–78

  14,052

  10.1

  719

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the number of claims, (b) the total sum paid out, (c) the average amount per case and (d) the maximum, minimum and average time taken to deal with claims for criminal injuries compensation for the last available year.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the year ended 31 March 1993 the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board received 65,977 new applications and paid out a total of £152.217 million. The average award was £4,162.

  The board does not maintain statistics on the time taken to deal with cases in the form requested. However, paragraph 6 of the 29th annual report of the board—Cm 2421—a copy of which is held in the Library of the House, provides some information about the time taken to resolve cases.
  358

  Amusement with Prizes Machines
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry over the task force recommendation in respect of amusement with prizes machines in licensed betting offices; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) what correspondence he has received in respect of amusement with prizes machines in licensed betting offices; whether he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he has plans for future discussions with the Betting Office Licencees Association in respect of amusement with prizes machines in licensed betting offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Policy on this issue is currently under review following the task force recommendation, and we will consult as necessary with interested parties. The outcome of the review will be made known in due course.

  Correspondence on the issue has been received from a number of Members of the House.

  Mandatory Life Sentences
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving the mandatory life sentence for murder have been released on life licence during the last 15 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is published annually in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales"—table 8.5 of the latest volume, for 1991, Cm 2157—a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of those prisoners serving the mandatory life sentence for murder who have been released on life licence during the last 15 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Bridgewater Three
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the safety of the convictions of the Bridgewater Three; and when he plans to make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of representations have been received from hon. Members and others about the safety of these convictions. The latest representations from the men's solicitors were received between June 1993 and February 1994. We understand that more may follow. We have asked the police to make inquiries into some of the matters raised. When those inquiries have been completed, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider, in the light of all the information available, whether there are grounds on which it would be right for him to take action in respect of any of the convictions.

  Neck Holds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the police forces whose officers have been trained in the use of neck holds as a restraint technique-procedure; in the case of each such
  359
  police force, what guidelines, advice or training has been given to officers as to the potential dangers of the use of neckholds; and when such guidelines, advice or training were issued;

  (2) whether police officers in Cleveland police force had had the benefit of guidelines, advice or training in the use of neck holds in July 1990;

  (3) whether police officers in the West Midlands police force had had the benefit of guidelines, advice or training in the use of neck holds in February 1987;

  (4) what circular instructions, guidelines or advice the Home Office has issued to police forces in England and Wales concerning the potential dangers of the use of neck holds as a restraint.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Training in self-defence and restraint is included in the initial training given to all police probationers at police district training centres. Cleveland and West Midlands police officers have received the same basic training as all forces. In 1992 a manual on police self-defence and restraint was issued by the central planning unit. A copy of the manual is in the Library of the House.

  The manual is being reviewed and the incidents in Cleveland in July 1990 and in the West Midlands in February 1987 will be taken into account. It is not feasible for the guidance to be prescriptive. What particular means of restraint is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of any struggle and any weapons which the subject may be attempting to use to resist arrest. In all circumstances, police officers are bound by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which provides that only such force as is reasonable to the circumstances may be used in making an arrest.

  Doncaster Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Doncaster prison will receive its first prisoners; how many prisoner places it will provide; and when he expects that it will reach full capacity.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 10 March 1994

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Doncaster Prison.

  The present plan is that Doncaster Prison will receive its first prisoners in July, although we shall accelerate this if possible. Premier Prison Services are contracted to provide 771 prisoner places, which is the certified normal accommodation. We expect to reach this level approximately two months after opening, depending on the requirements for places at the time.

  Escorted Prisoner (Death)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Prison Service has yet received a copy of Commander Alex Marnoch's report into the death of Ernest Hogg, the prisoner who died while in the custody of Group 4 Court Escort Services Ltd.; and if he will place a copy in the Library.
  360
  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 Mrs Joan Ruddock, dated 10 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Mr. Marnoch's report into the death of Mr. Ernest Hogg.
  I have not yet received Mr. Marnoch's final report but I expect to do shortly.
  It is not intended to place a copy of the report in the Library. It is not our practice to publish the reports of internal investigations which the Prison Service carries out for its own management purposes. There are two main reasons for this.
  First, given the closed and potentially volatile nature of the prison environment, publishing reports into incidents could cause problems for the day to day operation and management of the prison system. Knowledge of their contents and conclusions could, for example, lead to reprisals against staff. Second, the prospect of publication could discourage witnesses from being totally candid in the information they provide. If they knew their identities were to be revealed, they might be at risk of being treated as informers. This could make it more difficult for the Prison Service to discover the truth, learn the appropriate lessons and take prompt and effective follow up action.
  We will, however, publish the substance of Mr. Marnoch's main recommendations and the action taken to implement them as soon as we are in a position to do so.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Bosnia asylum applicants are waiting to be dealt with.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 8 March 1994, 1,937 applications for asylum from nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina were outstanding. This figure relates to principal applicants and does not include dependants.

  Voter Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned into the effectiveness of its publicity campaign for voter registration; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the latest opinion research available on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Pre and post-campaign omnibus research was commissioned for the autumn 1993 television advertising campaign.

  A copy of the research has been sent to the Library.

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite the voluntary services unit to review its decision for core funding for the National Alliance of Women's Organisations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The demands on the resources of the voluntary services unit are too great to enable it to core fund the National Alliance of Women's Organisations.

  Young Offenders
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 16 and 17-year-olds are currently being held on remand in adult prisons; and how many were held on average in the years 1979, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.
  361
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Jean Corston, dated 10 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many 16 and 17-year-olds are currently held on remand in adult prisons and how many were held on average in the years 1979, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.
  The available information is given in the attached table. No information is available for 1979, 1984 and for 17-year-olds in 1989.

  Remand population held in Adult Prison Service Establishments

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  31 December 1993

  0

  16

  30 June 1992

  0

  70

  30 June 1991

  6

  166

  30 June 1990

  10

  167

  30 June 1989

  2

  n/a

  Take-away Restaurants (Licences)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are issued to local authorities regarding the granting of late-night licences for take-away restaurants following the consultation exercise carried out last year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office has issued no guidelines to local authorities on their licensing of late-night refreshment houses under the Late Night Refreshment House Act 1969, and did not undertake consultation on the matter last year.

  Bail Hostels
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many proposals to open new bail hostels in the last year have been halted due to objections.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new bail hostels have been opened in 1993; how many new places have been created; and where these hostels are located.

  Mr. Maclean
  One new bail hostel opened in 1993 at Normanby road, Scunthorpe. This hostel can accommodate up to 22 men.

  Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) of 18 January,Official Report, columns 465–66, what considerations underlie his decision not to collect information centrally on the number of incidents requiring police deployment (a) per officer and (b) by 100,000 population by police and by year for each police authority; if he will consider holding the information in future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Two of the police perfomance indicators introduced jointly by the Home Office, the Audit 362
  Commission, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Association of Chief Police Officers cover police deployment: the number of incidents per 100 police officers and the number of incidents requiring immediate police response. These indicators will be collected annually, starting with the financial year ending March 1994, and will be collated by HMCIC.

  European Community
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the directives, regulations and resolutions of the European Community which give citizens of Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden the right of free movement, establishment, family reunification and equality of treatment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the agreement on the European Economic Area presented to Parliament in October 1992, Cm 2073. Part III of the agreement and the associated annexes deal with free movement of persons, services and capital.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many Welsh Development Agency staff will be involved in rural policy planning after the implementation of the agency's new structure at(a) regional and (b) national levels;

  (2) how the Welsh Development Agency plans to consult on issues affecting rural Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have arranged for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member, and for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list projects and programmes designed to benefit rural areas which involved co-operation between(a) the Welsh Development Agency and (b) the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales, Department of Employment and the training and enterprise councils in Wales in each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will list the publications giving details of partnership programmes between (a) the Welsh Development Agency and (b) the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales, Department of Employment and Welsh training and enterprise councils in which voluntary organisations may participate.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have arranged for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member, and for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the policy documents, publications and consultation documents which set out the rural policy proposals produced by(a) the Welsh Development Agency and (b) the Development Board for Rural Wales in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have arranged for the chief executives of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development
  363
  Board for Rural Wales to write to the hon. Member, and for copies of their responses to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the standard spending assessments for fire authorities in Wales for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no standard spending assessments for fire authorities in Wales. The standard spending assessments for county councils in Wales include provision for fire services.

  Deaf-blind Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to introduce services for the deaf-blind in north Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for local authorities and health authorities to identify the need for, and the priorities for the provision of, services for deaf-blind people in their area in their local strategies for health and social care plans.

  The responsibility for making appropriate educational provision for children who are deaf and blind rests with the local education authority.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the area of each individual environmentally sensitive area in Wales already designated or to be designated, estimated to be eligible for management agreements.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Eligible area (ha)

  Cambrian Mountains (Original) ESA

  27,600

  Cambrian Mountains (Extension) ES

  65,000

  Lleyn Peninsula ESA

  39,700

  Ynys Mon ESA

  60,000

  Radnor ESA

  80,000

  Preseli ESA

  104,000

  Clwydian Range ESA

  26,000

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers are estimated to be eligible for participation in each individual environmentally sensitive area in Wales already designated or to be designated in 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of farmers

  Cambrian Mountains (Original) ESA

  300

  Cambrian Mountains (Extension) ESA

  660

  Lleyn Peninsula ESA

  960

  Ynys Mons ESA

  1,576

  Radnor ESA

  1,035

  Preseli ESA

  2,300

  Clwydian Range ESA

  619

  364
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the area of each individual environmentally sensitive area in Wales already designated or to be designated in 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total area (ha)

  Cambrian Mountains (Original) ESA

  72,800

  Cambrian Mountains (Extension) ESA

  80,200

  Lleyn Peninsula ESA

  45,400

  Ynys Mons ESA

  72,000

  Radnor ESA

  100,500

  Preseli ESA

  120,900

  Clwydian Range ESA

  28,000

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to consult the leaders of the Opposition parties in Wales prior to making appointments to the chairmanship of non-departmental public bodies within his Department's responsibility.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have consulted the leaders of the Opposition parties in Wales on my proposals for the appointments of chairman and members to the Local Government Boundary Commission and await their response. I and my officials take into account the views of all correspondents on other appointments, if Members of Parliament wish to support particular people on the list.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a register of new appointees to executive bodies or advisory bodies to show previous and present political affiliations, together with financial contributors to any political parties.

  Mr. Redwood
  Political affiliation is not usually relevant and in most cases is unknown.

  Euro-link
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all agreements concluded under the Euro-link arrangements with companies and organisations from European regions, together with the region concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is contained in the table.

  Regional distribution of "substantive links " secured for Welsh companies/organisations engaged in "Euro-link"programme

  Number

  Germany

  Baden-Württemberg

  25

  Saxony

  7

  Bavaria

  1

  Berlin

  1

  Hamburg

  1

  Italy

  Lombardy

  7

  Piedmont

  2

  Veneto

  1

  365

  Number

  Spain

  Catalunya

  5

  Madrid

  4

  Galicia

  1

  France

  Paris

  3

  Rhone-Alpes

  1

  Provence

  1

  Total

  60

  Details of individual "substantive links" are not given in this answer as companies regard such information as "commercial in confidence".

  Written agreements are a commercial matter to be dealt with by companies as required.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Redwood
  Disaggregated information of this sort could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make it his policy to forbid the burning of orimulsion bitumen in any power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently no applications before Government for the burning of orimulsion at power stations in Wales. Any application to do so would be subject to the pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and would need to be determined in line with the statutory procedures.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will revise the formula for the allocation of Welsh revenue support grant so that local authority areas with high unemployment, housing needs and deprivation, receive an increase which is at least equal to the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The formulae for distributing revenue support grant in 1994–95 are set out in the Local Government Finance Report—Wales—1994–95 which received the approval of Parliament on 15 February. The formulae are agreed with the local authority associations and represent a fair and objective way of distributing revenue support grant to all local authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the reasons underlying the cash allocations of Dwyfor, Cynon Valley, Ogwr and Port Talbot in the Welsh revenue support grant and their relation to the Welsh average; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  For 1994–95 the standard spending assessments per head of population for Dwyfor, Cynon Valley, Ogwr and Port Talbot are £220, £204, £153 and 366
  £174 respectively. These compare with a district average of £159. SSAs are calculated with reference to a wide range of factors which reflect the relative need of Welsh local authorities to spend on services.

  NHS (Consultant Appointments)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional steps he intends to take to reduce the waiting time for consultant appointments in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Measures to reduce the time that people have to wait for a first out-patient appointment will be announced shortly.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the measures he proposes to monitor air pollution in Wales in the light of the report published on 24 February by the Institute of Public Health.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I understand the hon. Member may be referring to a recent report on air quality in London. In Wales, the Government operate a comprehensive monitoring network for the main air pollutants—including nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulates and ozone. Monitoring to date has shown that air quality in Wales is good and generally within the World Health Organisation and European Community guideline limits.

  Forensic Unit, Gwynedd
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to discourage Gwynedd health authority from building a medium secure forensic unit for mentally unstable criminal offenders in the grounds of Bryn-y-Neuadd hospital at Llanfairfechan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  On 29 April 1993, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales announced a £9.25 million package for new hospital facilities in Wales for mentally ill offenders. The package includes capital funding of up to £3 million for a new 25-bed medium secure unit for north Wales which will be the first purpose-built medium secure facility within the Principality. In England, over 650 places have been developed within 20 sites.

  The development of such a unit in north Wales was recommended by the all-Wales advisory group on forensic psychiatry. Ten potential sites were considered and the preferred proposal for Bryn-y-Neuadd hospital, Llanfairfechan was confirmed at the meeting of Gwynedd health authority on 22 November 1993 in the light of a thorough appraisal and advice from experts in the field. The decision was and remains entirely a matter for the health authority.

  Grapes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the potential effect upon vineyards in Wales of European Union proposals concerning the sugar content of grapes.

  Mr. Redwood
  The European Union has not made any proposals concerning the sugar content of English and
  367
  Welsh grapes. Reform proposals for the wine regime are expected soon and are likely to propose an increase in the minimum natural alcoholic strength of grapes.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is fully aware of the concerns of the Welsh industry and will seek to ensure that these are properly reflected in the forthcoming negotiations.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether there are any regions of Wales where there is a surplus of donated blood; and whether there are any regions where blood plasma is in short supply.

  National blood transfusion service (Wales) (1993–94)

  Major blood components required (units)

  Donors attending

  Quantity of usable donations (units)

  Red cell1

  Platelet

  April

  10,602

  9,038

  7,521

  2,935

  May

  9,367

  7,806

  7,237

  2,947

  June

  10,295

  8,640

  7,345

  3,376

  July

  10,583

  8,866

  7,607

  3,607

  August

  9,181

  7,724

  6,896

  3,014

  September

  10,242

  8,647

  7,527

  2,501

  October

  10,567

  8,844

  7,316

  2,878

  November

  9,932

  7,936

  7,257

  2,901

  December

  10,379

  8,868

  7,464

  3,277

  January

  10,414

  8,783

  7,291

  3,663

  1 These figures include whole blood units which equate to approximately 5 per cent, of the total.

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to present the next report of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 37th report of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales has been presented today. The report covers the financial year 1992–93 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Scotland of 2 February,Official Report, column 774, if he will list those hon. Members defeated in the general election of June 1987 who, at any subsequent date, have been appointed to public bodies by him or his predecessor; and if he will list those appointments.

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

  Harvey R. L.—Clwyd, South-West

  Hubbard-Miles P. C.—Bridgend

  Robinson M. N. F—Newport, West

  Terlezki S.—Cardiff, West

  None of the above have held, or currently hold, an appointment on bodies for which my Department has responsibility.
  368
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  For the area covered by the national blood transfusion service—Wales—there is a surplus of donated blood and there is no shortage of blood plasma.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number of blood donors, (b) the quantity of blood supplied and (c) the amount of blood required for each region in Wales for each month since April 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details for the area covered by the national blood transfusion service—Wales—are set out in the table.

ENVIRONMENT

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (i) internal and (ii) overseas travel by the Secretary of State since 27 May 1993.

  Mr. Gummer
  My budget for travel and subsistence for this financial year is £55,000. Since 27 May 1993 I have spent £5,588 on travel throughout the United Kingdom, attending projects in which my Department has been involved, explaining Government policies and listening to the views of local people. During the same period I have spent £15,274 on overseas travel. This has included attending EC Council of Ministers meetings, a United Nations conference on sustainable development in New York, a visit to eastern Europe to discuss environmental issues, and supporting Britain's Olympic bid in Monte Carlo.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region those sites of special scientific interest that have been damaged or destroyed during each of the last three years; and if he will indicate the nature of the damage in each case.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on loss of and damage to SSSIs generally and on the principal causes of such loss or damage is contained in the annual reports of English Nature and of the former Nature Conservancy Council, copies of which are in the Library. Information on individual sites is not available to my right hon. Friend.
  369
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the maximum fines under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for a landowner(a) carrying out a potentially damaging operation to a site of special scientific interest and (b) contravening a nature conservation order under section 29.

  Mr. Atkins
  The maximum fines for offences under section 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are set at levels 4 and 5 on the standard scale. They are currently £2,500 and £5,000 respectively.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many man hours have been spent by English Nature and its predecessor the Nature Conservancy Council in dealing with the protection of the site of special scientific interest at Westhay moor in Somerset since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are some 65 owners and occupiers of this SSSI. Detailed records are not maintained of work on individual sites, but English Nature estimate that at least three and a half man years have been spent since 1987 in protecting Westhay moor.

  Women's Refuges
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of(a) the number of places in women's refuges in England and Wales and (b) the number of women passing through women's refuges, in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  My Department does not hold information on the number of places in women's refuges nor the number of women passing through them. The Housing Corporation in 1992–93 provided funding for 1,730 bedrooms in 132 refuge schemes managed by housing associations. This provision is part of the Housing Corporation's revenue funding. The corporation also provides capital funding to women's refuges managed by housing associations.

  Coastal Conservation Areas
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he will introduce to help conserve and manage those areas of coastline and sea which are to be designated as special areas for conservation under the European Union directive on the conservation of flora, fauna and habitats.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government set out their policies and proposals for legislative changes in a public consultation paper issued on 4 October 1993. We are currently considering the responses to the consultation. The wider objectives for the conservation of our natural heritage were further addressed in the biodiversity action plan, published on 25 January 1994. Copies of both documents were placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in support of a single-tier structure of local government.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since we issued our consultation paper on the structure of local government in England in April 1991,370
  we have received many representations in favour of single-tier local government structures. They have come from local authorities and other local and national organisations, and from individuals including Members of this House. It is not possible, however, to produce a definitive list except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he expects the transitional costs of reorganisation in the Isle of Wight and Cleveland to amount to in total.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have made no such estimate. We have announced that we are prepared to make available to authorities in the Isle of Wight and Cleveland supplementary credit approvals up to a limit of £9 million in 1994–95. Subject to the approval of their applications for SCAs these arrangements will enable the authorities to borrow to meet specified transitional costs. The amount of SCAs issued will depend on the amounts incurred.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how the local authorities in Cleveland and the Isle of Wight are expected to raise the funds to cover the interest on the Government loan to cover the transitional costs of reorganisation;

  (2) what interest rate will be charged by the Government on the loan to Cleveland and the Isle of Wight to cover the transitional costs of reorganisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The authorities in Cleveland and the Isle of Wight will receive supplementary credit approvals up to a specified limit. These will enable them to borrow to meet specified transitional costs and the interest incurred on the borrowing. It is anticipated that the borrowings and rolled up interest will be repaid out of the savings arising from the reorganisations. The rate of interest incurred will depend on the pool, or other, rate at which each authority borrows.

  Eviction
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has provided to local authorities on the advice to be given to those who face eviction by bailiffs.

  Sir George Young
  None.

  Groundwork Trusts
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 710, if he will give a breakdown, using the categories used in his previous answer of money spent by Groundwork trusts which was collected from (a) local authorities and (b) the private sector for each year from 1988–89 to 1993–94.

  Mr. Atkins
  The tables show the income received from the local authorities and the private sector as devoted to expenditure on projects and running costs for the groundwork trusts in England. The information is not available in the categories specified in the previous question,Official Report, column 710, which referred to the breakdown of Groundwork's grant in aid, nor is it available on a comparable basis for earlier years.
  371

  Project costs £

  Running costs £

  1992–93

  Local authorities

  2,619,042

  1,240,551

  Private sector

  3,371,103

  247,363

  1993–941

  Local authorities

  3,357,715

  1,825,514

  Private sector

  3,435,145

  357,620

  1 Estimated.

  Council Tax
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tax banding appeals have been submitted to the Colchester valuation office; how many appeals have been decided; what is the likely time scale for resolution of the remaining appeals; and what assessment he has made of whether sufficient resources are available to the Colchester valuation office.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 17 February,Official Report, column 967. We are continuing to monitor closely the settlement of appeals in all offices of the Valuation Office agency. The agency is responsible for the allocation of resources to its individual offices.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many agency chief executives in his Department are currently paid more than £82,925, excluding performance-related bonuses; and whether such chief executives were recruited directly to their present post from outside the civil service.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Bird Deaths
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the results of the veterinary analysis of dead birds found recently on the east coast of Scotland and northern England.

  Mr. Atkins
  Some birds have been taken for post-mortem analysis and preliminary results indicate that they had low body weights and little or no fat reserves. Tissue samples were also analysed for heavy metal and organochlorine compounds but residues found were insufficient to have been the cause of death.

  In the recent North sea incident, it is believed that the sea-bird deaths were caused by starvation, 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 availability.

  Ministers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates between which each Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has held office in his Department since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State who have held office in this Department since 1979 are:372

  Lady Birk—March 1974 to January 1979

  Ernest Armstrong—June 1975 to May 1979

  Kenneth Marks—December 1975 to May 1979

  Guy Barnett—April 1976 to May 1979

  Lady Stedman—January 1979 to May 1979

  Lord Bellwin—May 1979 to 6 January 1983

  Hector Monro—May 1979 to September 1981

  Geoffrey Finsberg—May 1979 to September 1981

  Marcus Fox—May 1979 to January 1981

  Giles Shaw—January 1981 to 8 June 1983

  Sir George Young—September 1981 to 10 September 1986

  Neil Macfarlane—September 1981 to 2 September 1985

  William Waldegrave—9 June 1983 to 2 September 1985

  Lord Avon—10 September 1984 to 25 March 1985

  Richard Tracey—2 September 1985 to 15 June 1987

  Angela Rumbold—2 September 1985 to 10 September 1986

  Christopher Chope— 11 September 1986 to 23 July 1990

  Lord Skelmersdale—11 September 1986 to 15 June 1987

  David Trippier–15 June 1987 to 24 July 1989

  Colin Moynihan—15 June 1987 to 23 July 1990

  Marion Roe—15 June 1987 to 25 July 1988

  Virginia Bottomley—25 July 1988 to 27 October 1989

  Lord Hesketh—1 February 1989 to July 1990

  Lord Strathclyde—23 July 1990 to 7 September 1990

  Patrick Nicholls—23 July 1990 to 11 October 1990

  Robert Atkins—23 July 1990 to 30 November 1990

  David Heathcoat Amory—27 October 1989 to 30 November 1990

  Lady Blatch—7 September 1990 to 21 May 1991

  Robert Key—11 October 1990 to 13 April 1992

  Tony Baldry—30 November 1990 to date

  Tim Yeo—30 November 1990 to 13 April 1992

  Robin Squire—14 April 1992 to 27 May 1993

  Lord Strathclyde—14 April 1992 to 17 September 1993

  Baroness Denton—17 September 1993 to 11 January 1994

  The Earl of Arran—11 January 1994 to date

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he expects the cost of setting up the single regeneration budget offices to be.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 15 February,Official Report, column 734.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the setting up of the single regeneration budget has cost.

  Mr. Baldry
  The single regeneration budget combines 20 existing Government expenditure programmes to provide flexible and responsive support for local initiatives which promote regeneration, economic development and industrial competitiveness. As such no additional costs have been involved in setting up the Budget; indeed, the combination of programmes should improve value for money so that public investment will go further.

  European Funding Schemes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 566, if he will list the European funding schemes for which local authorities can apply.

  Mr. Baldry
  The principal sources of European Community funding available to local authorities are the European Community's three structural funds. These are the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. Local authorities may also be able to obtain grants or loans for specific purposes from various other European sources.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,
  373
  Official Report, column 566, what was the total amount of funding obtained by local authorities from Europe in each year since 1979 for which figures are available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has records of European regional development fund grants to local authorities in England. This information is set out in table 1. The figures represent the total value of ERDF grant approvals for local authority projects falling within my Department's policy responsibilities. However, it does not include grants to local authority companies, nor grants approved under programmes managed by other Departments.

  Table 1—ERDF approved for local authority projects from 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1993 (by calendar year)

  Year

  ERDF approved (£s)

  1979

  13,423,340

  1980

  10,711,800

  1981

  22,600,866

  1982

  45,059,387

  1983

  43,009,044

  1984

  78,125,916

  1985

  79,045,299

  1986

  80,781,998

  1987

  81,965,476

  1988

  69,794,279

  1989

  39,459,150

  1990

  113,679,498

  1991

  180,328,261

  1992

  170,427,853

  1993

  236,223,117

  Totals for all calendar years

  1,264,635,284

  Figures are also available for European Social Fund grants. Table 2 shows the total value of ESF grants approved or paid to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales since 1990. Figures covering years prior to 1990 are not readily accessible.

  Table 2—ESF granted for local authority projects from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1993 (by calendar year)

  Year

  ERDF granted (£s)

  1990

  83,680,023

  1991

  118,969,706

  1992

  126,532,128

  1993

  203,714,216

  Totals for all calendar years

  532,896,073

  Local Goverment Finance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve the standard spending assessment system.

  Mr. Baldry
  We will be looking carefully at the priorities for future work and research into the standard spending assessment system in consultation with the local authority associations. We are always prepared to consider new evidence in support of changes in SSAs.
  374
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the standard spending assessments for each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester for 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  The standard spending assessments for the local authorities in Greater Manchester for 1993–94 are as follows:

  Authority

  £ million

  £ head

  Bolton

  188.498

  715

  Bury

  12.651

  622

  Manchester

  412.867

  958

  Oldham

  169.177

  768

  Rochdale

  158.355

  770

  Salford

  175.339

  754

  Stockport

  175.121

  602

  Tameside

  149.805

  678

  Trafford

  144.103

  664

  Wigan

  202.121

  654

  Greater Manchester police authority

  157.194

  61

  Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority

  73.054

  28

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the total level of Government grant per head of population for 1994–95 for(a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster and (c) each of the district councils in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Baldry
  Authorities receive revenue support grant annually and, where their standard spending assessment for 1994–95 has been reduced by more than 2 per cent. as a result of incorporating the results of the SSA review and 1991 census data, will receive SSA reduction grant. The figures, expressed as pounds per head, for Wandsworth, Westminster and the district councils in Greater Manchester are given.

  Authority

  RSG

  SSA reduction grant

  Total

  Wandsworth

  507

  105

  612

  Westminster

  760

  41

  801

  Bolton

  386

  —

  386

  Bury

  282

  —

  282

  Manchester

  635

  —

  635

  Oldham

  443

  —

  443

  Rochdale

  442

  —

  442

  Salford

  430

  —

  430

  Stockport

  247

  —

  247

  Tameside

  349

  —

  349

  Trafford

  310

  —

  310

  Wigan

  329

  —

  329

  In addition, these authorities will receive redistributed national non-domestic rates of £196 per head.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of capital receipts currently held by each of the district authorities in Greater Manchester; and what is the total amount of reserved receipts held.

  Mr. Baldry
  Figures for usable receipts and for unapplied provision for credit liabilities are given. No separate figures are available for unapplied reserved receipts set aside as provision for credit liabilities.
  375

  Usable receipts at 31 March 1993 £ million

  Provision for credit liabilities(PCL) at31 March 1993 £ million

  Bolton

  1.8

  2.0

  Bury

  0.6

  14.5

  Manchester

  1.4

  70.2

  Oldham

  Nil

  35.9

  Rochdale

  3.8

  23.8

  Salford

  0.5

  19.5

  Stockport

  Nil

  15.3

  Tameside

  2.0

  115.8

  Trafford

  7.6

  29.5

  Wigan

  1.4

  25.1

  1 At 31 March 1992.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when regulations will be laid before Parliament to extend the home energy efficiency scheme to pensioners and disabled people, as announced in the Budget on 30 November.

  Mr. Atkins
  Proposals to amend the regulations governing the home efficiency scheme which would extend eligibility for the scheme to those receiving disability living allowance and those aged 60 and over were laid before Parliament yesterday.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision about the removal of Crown exemption from planning legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department issued a consultation paper in November 1992 inviting comments on proposals to remove Crown exemption from the planning system. Similar consultation papers were issued by the Scottish and Welsh Offices and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. The principle behind these proposals was that in future all Crown bodies should be required to apply for planning permission, hazardous substances consent, listed building consent, conservation area consent, and scheduled consent in the normal way.

  This principle received overwhelming support. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland therefore intend to remove Crown exemption from the planning system as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will introduce similar changes in Northern Ireland.

  We propose to introduce minor refinements to our original proposals, in response to comments on the consultation paper. In particular, we shall seek to provide an informal appeal mechanism to deal with disputes between local planning authorities and Crown bodies in relation to alleged breaches of planning control. This remedy would be in addition to a High Court declaration.

  Once implemented, these proposals will mark a significant increase in the openness and accountability of Government Departments.
  376

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date Ministers received the report of the Forestry Commission review group; and which Ministers received a copy.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The report of the forestry review group was submitted on 28 February to those Ministers who were represented on the review group.

  Car Boot Sales
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider measures to address the situation that whilst antique shops must be licensed and pay a fee as such, dealers selling at car boot sales are not subject to such a fee.

  Mr. Lang
  District and island councils may resolve to license the activities of second-hand dealers under the provisions of part II of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Antique dealers may be licensed as second-hand dealers under section 24 of that Act, and some authorities license car boot sales as private markets in terms of section 40, though such sales are exempt if held by charitable and certain other organisations. Licensing authorities may charge such reasonable fees as they may determine in relation to such licenses by virtue of paragraph 15 of schedule 1 to the 1982 Act. Any fee charged to participants selling goods at a car boot sale is at the discretion of the operator.

  Hospitals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals are currently directly managed by health boards; how many there will be on 1 April; and what percentage of total bed provision those hospitals will represent.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Numbers of directly managed hospitals and bed provision

  Numbers of hospitals in:

  Percentage bed provision1 in:

  DMUs

  Trusts

  DMUs

  Trusts

  At 30 September 1993

  195

  80

  68

  32

  At 1 April 19942

  81

  194

  16

  84

  1 Average available staffed beds during quarter ended 30 September 1993.

  2 Figures for 1 April 1994 are an estimate based on bed provision at 30 September 1993.

  Amenity Charges
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was generated by the NHS in Scotland from amenity charges; and how many people paid them in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information available in respect of income from amenity beds is as follows:
  377

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Single Rooms and Small Wards

  292,362

  258,323

  Figures are not available on the number of patients using amenity beds who paid for them.

  Charities
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards identifying defunct charitable accounts, with a view to reallocation of their funds, in terms of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have undertaken a preliminary trawl of banks and building societies in Scotland which indicates that the total amount held in dormant charitable accounts is likely to be between £100,000 and £150,000. We are at present considering the next steps and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Housing, Dreghorn
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many tenants have been decanted from their homes in Dreghorn while the refurbishment of their homes by Scottish Homes takes place; and whether all tenants were offered the opportunity to be decanted when it became apparent that the work on their homes was of a major nature;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the current programme of works being undertaken by Scottish Homes in Dreghorn; and how many homes are involved in the work;

  (3) what measures have been adopted by Scottish Homes to monitor the refurbishment work being undertaken by contractors operating on their contracts in Dreghorn;

  (4) what arrangements have been made by Scottish Homes for safeguarding the health and welfare of tenants living in Dreghorn while their homes have been subject to major refurbishment;

  (5) whether all Scottish Homes tenants in Dreghorn were advised of the nature of the refurbishment work to be undertaken on their properties before it began; what degree of choice tenants were given as regards agreeing to the work being carried out or not; and how many tenants opted not to be part of the programme of refurbishment;

  (6) what arrangements exist for Scottish Homes to compensate tenants living in Dreghorn whose properties have been damaged while the work on their homes has been carried out.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Community Nursing
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any health board or trust within any board area has plans to put community nursing out to compulsory competitive tender, or privatise this service by any other means.
  378
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any plans by health boards or NHS trusts to market test or privatise community nursing services. No proposals have been made to him or officials.

  NHS Privatisation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for further privatising within the NHS.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The Government are committed to a publicly funded health service with national health service units, both trusts and directly managed units, firmly within the public sector. However, our policy is to encourage the health service to concentrate its management skills on the core activities of the NHS and to use its expertise, where possible, to seek best value for money and improved quality in the provision of non-care services. I would expect such services to be competed for by both in-house and commercial contractors.

  Parole Board
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the number of persons appointed to the Parole Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 March 1994]: The size of the board will be kept under review in the light of the volume of cases, and the board's responsibilities under the Parole Board (Scotland) Rules 1993, which include interviewing prisoners.

  School Boards
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding(a) the number of schools without a constituted school board and (b) unfilled school board vacancies in each local education authority area in Scotland as at 28 February.

  Mr. Lang
  Statistics are currently being collected on the number of schools with and without a school board, following the 1993–94 round of biennial parental elections. The information will be published in a statistical bulletin in late spring. The most up-to-date figures available, relating to May 1992 and based on the 1991–92 round of elections, show that 657 schools in Scotland did not have school boards.

  Information on the number of unfilled school board vacancies is not held centrally.

  Schools Inspectors
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in Scotland have had teaching experience in primary schools of(a) 10 years or more and (b) less than 10 years; and what proportion of the total number of school inspectors have had any teaching experience in primary schools.

  Mr. Lang
  Nineteen of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have qualifications to teach in primary schools which represents 18 per cent. of the total number of inspectors whose duties include inspection in primary, secondary and special schools, further education, teacher education and community education. Of these, six have
  379
  more than 10 years' teaching experience in primary schools; seven have less than 10 years' teaching experience in primary schools; and six, although qualified to teach in primary schools, pursued teaching careers in other sectors of education for which they are also qualified. Nine have been head teachers of Scottish primary schools.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in Scotland were appointed(a) after 1990, (b) between 1985 and 1989, (c) between 1980 and 1984 and (d) before 1980.

  Mr. Lang
  Of the 107 members of the schools inspectorate(a) 30 were appointed after 1990, (b) 27 between 1985 and 1989, (c) 19 between 1980 and 1984 and (d) 31 before 1980.

  Milk Marketing Schemes
  Mr. Kynock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provisions in the Agriculture Act 1993 for the revocation of the north of Scotland milk marketing scheme, the Aberdeen and district milk marketing scheme and the Scottish milk marketing scheme.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has made an order under section 1(3) of the Agriculture Act 1993 to extend the deadline for the revocation of the three Scottish milk marketing schemes from 1 April 1994 to 1 January 1995. This is in recognition of the fact that a vesting day of 1 April 1994 is not achievable but does not preclude a vesting day earlier than 1 January 1995, provided the reorganisation schemes have been approved.

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of Ayrshire and Arran health board's evaluation committee tendered their resignations

  Practitioner profiles for salaried dentists and general dental practitioners in Scotland: 1992–93Fees authorised

  Percentage

  Salaried dentists

  General dental practitioners

  Total gross fees

  —

  100.00

  100.00

  Item of service fees Pre 1990 scale Fees

  —

  0.21

  0.12

  1990, 1991 and 1992 scales Fees

  —

  72.75

  75.12

  Registration fees

  Continuing care (current rate)

  —

  8.57

  7.67

  Continuing care (old rate)

  —

  0.50

  0.26

  Referral fees

  —

  0.03

  0.01

  Capitation (current rate)

  Item 41(a) ages of patients

  0-2

  0.09

  0.13

  3-5

  1.10

  0.99

  6-9

  3.53

  3.03

  10-14

  5.20

  4.65

  15-17

  4.18

  3.98

  All

  14.09

  12.79

  Item 41(b) ages of patients

  0-2

  0.00

  0.00

  3-5

  0.00

  0.00

  380
  from the committee over the wording of the recent urology contract and subsequently withdrew them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]: No members tendered resignations from the evaluation committee.

  Cottage Hospital Closures
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice his Department gave to Tayside health board in the years 1989 to 1990 regarding the board's plans for the future of Meigle cottage hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: At the accountability review meeting in 1990 the board's proposal for service developments throughout Tayside were discussed and the health board was advised that these might best be considered together as a package of changes.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate (i) the average annual income of salaried dental officers employed by health boards in Scotland and (ii) the average annual income of general dental practitioners within the national health service in Scotland; and if he will provide the average practitioner profiles for each category.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]: The current salary scale for full-time salaried dentists employed by health boards in Scotland runs from £19,036 to £27,714. The current salary for salaried plus bonus dentists is £18,176 plus bonuses in proportion to the amount of work carried out. The dental fee scale is currently set to pay to independent general dental practitioners as a whole a target average net income. For 1992–93 this is £36,352. The practitioner profiles for 1992–93 for salaried dentists in Scotland and for general dental practitioners in Scotland are shown in the table.
  381

  Percentage

  Salaried dentists

  General dental practitioners

  6–9

  0.00

  0.00

  10–14

  0.00

  0.01

  15–17

  0.00

  0.01

  All

  0.00

  0.02

  Capitation (old rate)

  —

  0.29

  0.08

  Weighted entry fees

  Weighted entry (current rate)

  Item 42(a) No. of decayed teeth

  2–3

  0.32

  0.24

  4–5

  0.43

  0.46

  6–7

  0.37

  0.43

  8 or more

  0.69

  1.19

  Total

  1.82

  2.31

  Item 42(b) No. of decayed teeth

  2–3

  0.10

  0.06

  4–5

  0.20

  0.10

  6–7

  0.18

  0.12

  8 or more

  0.53

  0.51

  Total

  1.02

  0.78

  Item 42(c) ages of patients

  0–2

  0.00

  0.00

  3–5

  0.00

  0.01

  6–9

  0.00

  0.02

  10–14

  0.02

  0.03

  15–17

  0.06

  0.06

  All

  0.09

  0.12

  Weighted entry (old rate)

  —

  0.68

  0.55

  DSS and prior approval fees

  DSS remissions

  17.50

  14.82

  Item of Service fees for DSS remission cases

  —

  24.48

  21.98

  Item of Service fees for prior approval cases

  —

  1.39

  4.66

  Capitation and Continuing Care Patients

  Percentage

  Salaried dentists

  General dental practitioners

  Continuing care

  75.30

  75.30

  Capitation

  Item 41 (a) ages of patients

  0.2

  0.75

  1.28

  3–5

  4.71

  4.39

  6–9

  6.91

  6.64

  10–14

  8.33

  8.19

  15–17

  4.01

  4.20

  Total

  24.70

  24.70

  Item 41 (b) ages of patients

  0–2

  0.00

  0.00

  3–5

  0.00

  0.00

  6–9

  0.00

  0.01

  10–14

  0.00

  0.01

  15–17

  0.00

  0.01

  Total

  0.01

  0.03

  Item 42 (c) ages of patients

  0–2

  0.00

  0.00

  3–5

  0.01

  0.05

  6–9

  0.01

  0.07

  10–14

  0.07

  0.09

  15–17

  0.07

  0.11

  Total

  0.17

  0.31

  382

  Regional Dental Officer References

  Average Number

  Salaried Dentists

  General Dental Practitioners

  Referrals

  1.53

  3.95

  Failed to attend

  0.64

  1.42

  Analysis of item of service 1992–93

  Percentage

  Salaried dentists

  General dental practitioners

  Diagnosis

  1. (a) Examination and advice

  9.27

  8.58

  (b) Extensive examinations and advice

  0.54

  1.27

  (c) Full case assessment

  0.43

  0.44

  (d) Treatment summary

  0.00

  0.00

  2. X-Rays

  1.59

  1.91

  Study models

  0.29

  0.43

  3. Colour photographs

  0.00

  0.00

  Preventive treatment

  6. Intensive instruction

  0.00

  0.00

  7. Surface applications

  0.02

  0.01

  Periodontal treatment

  10. (a) Simple scale and polish

  8.11

  9.17

  (b) Scale and polish>one visit

  1.66

  2.02

  383

  Percentage

  Salaried dentists

  General dental practitioners

  (c) Periodontal disease

  0.05

  0.15

  Other

  0.00

  0.00

  11. Surgical treatment

  0.01

  0.02

  Conservative treatment

  14. Amalgam fillings

  15.39

  13.46

  Fillings-other materials

  8.20

  8.63

  Sealants

  0.12

  0.30

  Pin or screw retention

  0.30

  0.46

  15. Endodontic treatment

  2.48

  4.60

  16. Porcelain veneers

  2.09

  2.38

  17. Inlays

  0.01

  0.31

  Crowns

  9.46

  15.76

  Core and post, pin or screw

  0.65

  1.34

  Re-cement

  0.16

  0.38

  18. Bridges

  2.17

  3.68

  Re-cement—adhesive

  0.01

  0.05

  Other

  0.00

  0.02

  Surgical treatment

  21. Extractions

  3.84

  3.13

  22. Surgical extractions

  0.35

  0.50

  23. Post-operative care

  0.06

  0.13

  24. General anaesthetics

  0.46

  0.46

  Sedations

  0.02

  0.20

  Non-orthodontic appliances

  27. Acrylic dentures

  14.46

  11.57

  Metal dentures

  4.49

  2.34

  Treatment prior to provision of dentures

  0.00

  0.02

  Soft lining

  0.01

  0.05

  Special trays

  0.43

  0.44

  Metal strip

  0.05

  0.01

  28. Denture repairs/alterations

  0.75

  0.89

  Re-line dentures

  0.23

  0.46

  Denture additions

  0.39

  0.54

  29. Obturators and splints

  0.04

  0.03

  Treatment involving other appliances

  0.09

  0.08

  Orthodontic treatment

  32. Active appliances

  0.70

  0.70

  Other forms of treatment

  35. Domiciliary visits

  0.43

  0.71

  Recalled attendance

  0.36

  0.65

  36. Miscellaneous

  0.19

  0.20

  37. Acute conditions

  0.06

  0.17

  40. Any other treatment

  0.15

  0.13

  Occasional treatment

  48. Issue of a prescription only

  0.36

  0.01

  49. X-rays

  0.14

  0.02

  50. Dressings/other palliative treatment

  2.21

  0.07

  51. Inlays, crowns and bridges

  0.38

  0.04

  52. Extractions

  4.55

  0.17

  53. Post-operative care

  0.21

  0.01

  54. General anaesthetics/sedations

  0.19

  0.03

  55. Denture repairs/alterations

  0.29

  0.08

  56. Acute conditions

  0.15

  0.02

  57. Domiciliary visits

  0.00

  0.00

  Recalled attendance

  0.35

  0.32

  58. Additional items—conservative

  0.07

  0.07

  59. Additional items—appliances

  0.01

  0.00

  Incomplete treatment

  62. Dentures

  0.27

  0.16

  384

  Percentage

  Salaried dentists

  General dental practitioners

  63. Fillings and endodontic treatment

  0.15

  0.10

  65. Crowns

  0.04

  0.08

  73. Any other treatment

  0.01

  0.00

  Porcelain veneers

  0.03

  0.01

  Footnote: Sub-totals may not add exactly owing to rounding.

  Data provided by dental practice of Central Services Agency.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 18 February,Official Report, columns 1056–58, if she will make a statement on (a) the response of delegates attending the continental challenge conference to the campaign on continental market opportunities, (b) the assessment of improvements in animal welfare monitored by veterinary officers and animal health inspectors, (c) the qualitative measurement of the plant health campaign, (d) the responses to the small producers of food campaign and (e) the qualitative assessment of the warble fly campaign.

  Mr. Jack
  (a) One hundred and sixty delegates attended the conference to launch "The Continental Challenge". Evaluation will take place throughout the course of the campaign, which runs throughout the year.

  (b) The Government have a continuing policy of seeking improvements for the welfare of farm animals. Nearly 160,000 leaflets dealing with animal welfare issues have been distributed in the current year. No data are collected centrally about the transport of casualty animals or heat stress in farm animals. However, the Government are satisfied that the advice offered will contribute to a better understanding of animals' needs in circumstances where unnecessary suffering might otherwise occur.

  (c) From its contacts with commercial growers and the general public, the plant health and seeds inspectorate considers that the plant health campaign has been effective in achieving its objective of raising awareness of the requirements of the single market.

  (d) The primary objective of the small producers of food booklet was to provide advice to small businesses on sources of help available. Some 30,000 booklets have been distributed and, of those who have chosen to comment, nearly all have said that they found it helpful.

  (e) Monitoring of the warble fly campaign is still taking place but early indications are that it has been successful.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list those areas of fisheries policy she has so far identified where her Department has responsibilities towards achieving the objectives of the United Kingdom biodiversity national action plan; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  In making fisheries policy, Ministers take account of the objectives for conserving biodiversity which are set out in the United Kingdom biodiversity national action plan.
  385
  While EC fisheries policy is based on the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks for commercial—human consumption—reasons, less emphasis has been given to the impact of fishing on other species and on the marine environment. During our presidency of the EC at the end of 1992, the basic EC regulation governing the common fisheries policy was amended to include a clear obligation that the CFP must provide for rational and responsible exploitation on a sustainable basis taking account of implications for the marine eco-system.

  Subsequently, at the December 1993 Fisheries Council I pressed for a re-examination of the industry fishing problem. As a result, the Commission is establishing a working group of marine ecologists and fisheries biologists to study the implications for the marine ecosystem of fishing in general and industrial fishing in particular.

  Wherever appropriate the United Kingdom introduces national conservation measures in addition to those applicable throughout the EC. Most recently fishing for nephrops with twin-rig trawls has been restricted to help improve conservation of this species. The United Kingdom Fisheries Departments currently undertake research to discover what, if any, long-term effects heavy fishing gear including beam trawls have on the sea bed and its benthic communities.

  It is clear that fishing effort should be reduced against many of the stocks around our shores, as elsewhere in the EC. To this end, the Government announced a package of conservation measures in February 1992. These included various changes to the licensing regime, a £25 million decommissioning scheme and restrictions on time at sea. Since then, license changes have been implemented and the first round of decommissioning has removed approximately 5,000 tonnes of fleet capacity, but the time at sea element of the package has been suspended pending a ruling by the ECJ. The industry's view is that technical conservation measures could play a much more significant role, and we are discussing its proposals with it.

  Bread wheat

  Milling wheat

  Feed wheat

  Feed barley

  Average 1992–93 marketing year12

  142.60

  125.50

  119.30

  113.00

  Week-ending 24 February 19941

  114.30

  100.40

  99.10

  103.20

  1 Source: Home Grown Cereals Authority.

  2 Ex-farm prices for the week ending 24 February 1994 reflect a reduction in prices this year as against 1993 as a result of CAP reform.

  3Source: European Commission.

  4 The first payments under the arable area payments scheme will fall under the 1994 EC budget.

  5 Includes set-aside payments for oilseeds and proteins as costs for the individual elements are not available.

  Butter
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy butter per 250 g pack, (b) the price at which the European Community sells butter per 250 g pack on the world market, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of butter, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on butter subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the butter market.
  386

  Cereals
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995 of the increase in set-aside compensation for cereal growers by 12 ecu per tonne, agreed last May by EC Agriculture Ministers.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission has estimated that the increase in set-aside compensation will add 352 mecu—£267 million—to the Community's 1995 and subsequent budgets.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy cereals per tonne, (b) what she estimates the price of cereals per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of cereals, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on cereal subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the cereals market.

  Mr. Jack
  (a) It is not possible to provide a single figure for the price of cereals in Britain per tonne which wholesalers have to pay. The following are average ex-farm prices for wheat and barley in pounds sterling per tonne.

  (b) It is not possible to make precise estimates about what prices might result if there were no market support in the EC. A large number of assumptions would be required in order to assess how domestic and world markets would react if commodity policy were to be changed.

  (c) The latest estimates for 1992–93 put cereal production at 166 million tonnes and consumption at 137 million tonnes.3

  (d) Total EC cereals expenditure in the 1993 calendar year was £5,154 million.4

  (e) The Exchequer cost of CAP support of cereals in the United Kingdom is estimated at £948 million for the 1993–94 financial year.5 The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of cereals support in other member states.

  Mr. Jack
  (a) The first-hand delivered price of butter in the United Kingdom is between 62p and 79p per 250 g pack; (b) the price of butter on the world market fluctuates, but the current minimum price under the international dairy agreement is $1,350 per tonne; (c) production of butter in EC dairies was 1,636,000 tonnes in 1992 and is estimated to be 1,658,000 tonnes in 1993; consumption of butter in the EC was 1,591,000 tonnes in 1992 and is estimated to be 1,567,000 tonnes in 1993; (d) the 1993 provisional outturn of CAP expenditure on butter support in the European Community amounted to £1 billion; (e) the Exchequer cost of CAP support of butter in the United Kingdom is estimated at £67.5 million for the 1993–94

  387
  financial year. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of butter support in other member states.

  Flood Defence Committees
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether the national code of local government conduct—DOE circular 8/90—applies to the flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority;

  (2) what advice she has given to county councils regarding the national code of local government conduct —DOE circular 8/90—and the benefits that farmers and landowners may receive from the National Rivers Authority flood defence operations.

  Mr. Jack
  The code does not apply directly to the flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority, but members of local authorities appointed to the committees are subject to the provisions in paragraph 33 of the code. No advice has been given to county councils regarding the code in relation to the flood defence operations of the National Rivers Authority because the pecuniary interests of all members cif flood defence committees are governed by provisions in sections 94 to 98 of the Local Government Finance Act 1972 and these provisions are specifically included in the terms of appointment issued to ministerial appointees.

  Sugar
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy sugar per kilogramme, (b) the price at which the European Community sells sugar per kilogramme on the world market, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of sugar, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on sugar subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the sugar market.

  Mr. Jack
  (a) Sugar manufacturers' list prices for bulk white sugar are currently around £0.66 per kilogramme, though the actual price paid is subject to negotiation between sugar producers and their customers.

  (b) Currently, quota sugar is being sold on the world market, with the aid of export refunds, at around 0.30 ecu per kilogramme—£0.22 per kilogramme1.

  (c) The latest figures from the European Commission estimate total Community sugar production for 1992–93 at 15,602,179 tonnes, of which 13,336,888 tonnes is quota sugar. Consumption is estimated at 11,818,179 tonnes.

  (d) The provisional outturn for Community expenditure for sugar in 1993 is 2,189 mecu—£1,720 million2.

  (e) The Exchequer cost of CAP support for sugar in the United Kingdom is estimated at £123,853 million for the 1993–94 financial year. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole which funds the cost of sugar support in other member states. Around 55 per cent. of the costs of the regime are recovered from levies raised on growers and processors, which contribute to EC own resources.
  1 £1 = 1.3228 ecu—2 £1 = 1.2729 ecu.
  388

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will estimate the proportion of common agricultural policy spending that does not go to farmers but is(a) paid to middlemen who store unwanted surplus food and (b) is used to subsidise this surplus for export on to world markets.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on EC expenditure on storage of intervention produce prior to its sale and on export refunds is contained in annex 9 and annex 5, respectively, of the annual financial reports of guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. These have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will arrange for a copy of the report of the European Commission on the common agricultural policy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 9 March to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler),Official Report, column 277.

  Horticultural Imports
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the operation of minimum import prices for horticultural products, particularly blackcurrants, imported into the European Community.

  Mr. Jack
  The Europe agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria provide for minimum import prices for fresh and frozen blackcurrants from these countries. They may come into force when:during each three-month period of the marketing year, the average unit value for each product imported into the Community is lower than the minimum import price for that product; and
  during any period of two weeks, the average unit value for each product imported in the Community is lower than 90 per cent. of the minimum import price for that product, in so far as the quantities imported during this period are not less than 4 per cent. of the normal annual import.

  The Commission is responsible for implementing and monitoring the arrangements in the Europe agreements.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list those aspects of agricultural, aquaculture and fisheries policy, with United Kingdom relevance, on which she transfers responsibility for answering oral parliamentary questions to another Department.

  Mr. Jack
  Ministers in this Department answer parliamentary questions on all agriculture, fisheries and food matters with United Kingdom relevance. Questions will only be transferred if the allocation of responsibilities between Departments suggests that in the particular case an answer could best be given by a Minister in another Department.
  389

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence her Department has of increased severity of symptoms induced by bovine immunodeficiency virus in non-experimental infections or of a syndrome of superinfection.

  Mr. Soames
  Disease induced by bovine immunodeficiency virus in non-experimental cattle has not been diagnosed in this country. Extremely detailed investigations are in progress in a herd in Cheshire in which cattle with serological evidence of exposure to the virus have been identified. We are not aware of any published reports from abroad of disease in non-experimental cattle definitely induced by BIV. The three cattle in the United States from which the virus has been isolated over a period of 25 years were in poor condition but it is not known what role, if any, BIV played. A recent Canadian paper on a serological survey in Ontario dairy cattle reported that positive BIV serological herd test results were associated with slightly lower than average milk production. A published summary of work carried out by Louisiana State university school of veterinary medicine suggested findings of a range of conditions in a single dairy herd where there was also serological evidence of BIV and of the virus which causes enzootic bovine leukosis.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by her Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much her Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  We have not, in the time available and without incurring disproportionate cost, been able to check comprehensively with all our agencies and outstations the actual expenditure in each financial year in the period specified.

  In general, the Department has made relatively little use of freephone and freepost facilities.

  A freephone service was set up in 1991 to enable members of the public to report incidents where they suspected the use of pesticides posed a serious risk to people, animals and wildlife.

  A further freephone line was set up this year as part of MAFF's "food sense" campaign. It will operate from 7 February to 16 March to enable members of the public to order information booklets.

  In a rather different category, two freephone numbers have been operating, since 1986 and 1993 respectively, for use by MAFF staff working in our information technology department who need to dial into the Ministry's datacommunications network whilst working away from the office.

  The recent cost of these facilities, to date, is:
  390

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Pesticides Incidents line

  —

  565.3

  329.1

  361.63

  Information Technology Department staff lines

  3,973.25

  6,887.5

  9,495.8

  8,523.22

  Our records indicate that MAFF has only operated one substantial freepost service. This was for a period ending in 1989 to enable members of the public to send for a MAFF booklet on food additives. Exact figures are not readily available, but the total annual cost did not exceed £5,000.

  National Milk Records
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to ensure that national milk records will continue to provide accurate information to dairy farmers.

  Mr. Jack
  The Milk Marketing Board proposed in its reorganisation scheme that the future of national milk records should be determined after vesting day by the residuary MMB. The scheme, which has been amended by the board three times, is subject to a further consultation exercise which will end on 8 April. I must not prejudge the decision which my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales have to take on whether to approve the scheme. I am sure, however, that if the residuary MMB is established and given the task as proposed it will reach its decision with full regard to the interests of milk producers.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 2 March,Official Report, columns 744–46, if the information published for the farm type cattle and sheep is the same as for the farm type mixed cattle and sheep in the revised series.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. There are four farm types which are included in the robust type cattle and sheep LFA. One of these is SDA mixed cattle and sheep, the other three are SDA specialist sheep, SDA specialist beef and DA cattle and sheep. A full description of the system of farm classification is contained in appendix 3 of farm incomes in the United Kingdom 1991–92.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 277, how livestock units translate in terms of numbers of hill cows and hill ewes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For the purposes of assessing stocking density on farms in the farm business survey, animal numbers are converted into livestock units—LU. One hill cow is equivalent to 0.75 LU and one hill ewe —eligible to SDA higher rate hill livestock compensatory allowance—is equivalent to 0.06 LU. Full details of the livestock units used in the farm business survey are contained in appendix 2 of Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1991–92.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the figures for net farm income
  391
  published for (a) the farm business survey and (b) the farm business survey weighted in accordance with the annual farm census (i) reflect the net farm income of whole farm enterprises or (ii) are adjusted to reflect the individual income of each (1) partner, (2) director and (3) shareholder; and what would be the effect of disaggregat-ing the figures along these lines on the averages for (x) total LFA income and (y) income of each person deriving a taxable personal income from livestock farming in the less-favoured areas.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The national results of net farm income from the farm business survey are weighted averages which reflect the income of the whole farm business. Net farm income represents the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on the tenant-type capital of the business. The cost of all hired labour and the inputted cost of all unpaid labour is included as an input and is deducted from the value of output in the calculation of net farm income. It is not, therefore, appropriate to divide net farm income between partners, directors and shareholders.

  Illegal Poisoning
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have been prosecuted as a result of the Ministry's campaign against illegal poisoning in each year since it started; what percentage increase this has been on each of the previous four years; and what has been the cost of the campaign in each year.

  Mr. Soames
  The campaign was launched in March 1991. It is not possible to identify the reason for a report of a prosecutable offence in every case but the number of people successfully prosecuted each year in England and Wales is as follows:

  Calendar years

  Number

  1987

  4

  1988

  5

  1989

  4

  1990

  8

  Start of campaign

  Number

  1991

  3

  1992

  10

  1993

  8

  1994

  2

  The estimated Exchequer costs of the campaign's publicity and administration are:

  Financial year

  £

  1991–92

  152,000

  1992–93

  148,000

  1993–94

  121,000

  392

DEFENCE

  Information Exchange Agreements
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles of the master information exchange arrangements agreements between the United States of America and Britain, outlining the subject matter of each title, the date each agreement was signed, and any other countries involved in each agreement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Master Information Exchange Agreement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom was signed in September 1988. It provides for the exchange, for defence purposes, of information concerning military, technical or scientific topics. Individual information projects are set out in annexes to the arrangement. There is a number of these involving many areas of my Department. Information on them is being collected and I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the new defence microbiology laboratory at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, will be in use; what it will be used for; why it is necessary; and how much its construction cost;

  (2) what is the subject matter of the substantial contract which is currently being carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment for another Government Department mentioned in the published 1992–93 accounts for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; what is the value of this contract; what is its duration; and when it started;

  (3) what is the purpose of the two new facilities under construction mentioned on page 25 of the 1992–93 annual report of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; why they are necessary; what is their cost; and which buildings they are replacing;

  (4) if, following the publication of the account of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, in its latest two annual reports, he will now publish the annual budgets of this establishment for each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment—CBDE—under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letters from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 10 March 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if, following the publication of the account of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down in its two latest annual reports, the annual budgets of this Establishment for each financial year since 1979 can now be published has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The budgetary figures for the years 1979–80 to 1984–85 are not readily available. The cash outturn for these years from available records are as follows:

  393

  Year

  Outturn £ million

  1979–80

  1.51

  1980–81

  14.4

  1981–82

  14.6

  1982–83

  16.3

  1983–84

  16.7

  1984–85

  16.7

  These figures are at 1992–93 price levels.
  3. In the years 1985–86 to 1990–91 the annual gross cash budgets for CBDE were as follows:

  Year

  Gross cash budget £ million

  1985–86

  17.9

  1986–87

  21.1

  1987–88

  21.7

  1988–89

  22.0

  1989–90

  22.3

  1990–91

  25.4

  The figures for 1990–91 include works and property management costs as MOD untied from PSA on 1 April 1990. These figures are also at 1992–93 price levels.
  4. CBDE became a Defence Agency on 1 April 1991 under the Next Steps programme and our annual published accounts are in accruals format to a Treasury Accounts Direction. From 1 April 1991, some expenditure previously controlled centrally was disaggregated to CBDE. The figures provided above are not directly comparable with those in the published Annual Reports because of the changes in the accounting and financial procedures.
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the new Defence Microbiology laboratory at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down will be in use; what it will be used for; why it is necessary and how much its construction will cost has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The new Defence Microbiology laboratory is intended to be available for use in 1998. It will be used to handle dangerous pathogens under safe conditions in high containment facilities. The building will be used to carry out work into protective measures against biological warfare agents including detection and medical countermeasures. The new building is necessary to replace existing buildings which will have reached the end of their life within the next ten years.
  3. Currently, the building is at the design stage. As the construction will be subject to competitive tender, it is not possible to provide details of the estimated cost at this time.
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what is the purpose of the two new facilities under construction mentioned on page 25 of the 1992–93 annual report of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, why are they necessary, what is their cost and which buildings they are replacing has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. One facility will provide a laboratory in which equipment and volunteers can be exposed to steady low level concentrations of test materials; these may be simulants or actual agents. This laboratory which cost approximately £3M replaces four existing buildings which have reached the end of their life.
  3. The second facility is a laboratory in which toxic materials can be prepared as required for the programme to access the potential hazard to the UK Armed Forces and to investigate improved protective measures. This facility will be the UK's
  394
  Single Small Scale Facility allowed under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It cost approximately £4.3M and replaces three existing buildings which have reached the end of their life. In both cases, a new facility is a more cost effective solution than refurbishment of the old buildings which are over 40 years old.
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what is the subject matter of the substantial contract which is currently being carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment for another Government Department mentioned in the published 1992–93 accounts, what is the value of this contract, what is its duration and when it started has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. This contract is being carried out on behalf of the Home Office and is concerned with the protection of the public against the possible effects of chemical and biological materials. It would not be in the interests of security to disclose further details of the work involved under this contract.

  RAF Personnel Management Centre
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many tenders were received for the refurbishment of offices for the Air Officer Commanding the RAF personnel management centre, Innsworth; and whether the lowest tender received was accepted;

  (2) what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment of offices for the Air Officer Commanding the RAF personnel management centre, Innsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The construction and refurbishment work in hand at RAF Innsworth is related to the reorganisation of the RAF command structure and the establishment of the new RAF personnel and training command which will operate from the site from 1 April 1994. The estimated cost of the new office accommodation for the personnel and training command headquarters as a whole, including furniture and fittings, is about £12,000,000.

  This major new build project was fully completed and the winning contractor, Mowlems, was selected from four competitive tenders, of which it was the lowest. In addition to the new build, some refurbishment of the RAF personnel management centre office block, which will form part of the new personnel and training command, is currently taking place at an estimated cost of some £90,000. This work is being carried out by Taylor Woodrow as part of a wider contract to undertake ad hoc works and maintenance for a fixed three-year period—this contract was also selected by competitive tender. No specific expenditure has been made on the personal offices of the air officer commanding the personnel management centre.

  Fox Armoured Cars
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Army's current holding of Fox armoured cars and of each category of the CVR (T); and what changes are planned in the fleets of these vehicles.

  Mr. Hanley
  Current holdings and planned changes in the fleets of Fox armoured cars and the combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked)—CVR (T)—are listed in the table:
  395

  Type

  Quantity

  Planned changes

  CVR (Wheeled) Fox

  356

  It is planned that all vehicles will be taken out of service by early 1995

  CVR(T) Scorpion

  262

  104 will be converted to CVR(T) Sabre using turrets from Fox vehicles. A further 31 will remain in service at the British Army Training Unit, Suffield (BATUS) in Canada. It is planned that the remainder will be taken out of service by the end of 1994

  CVR(T) Sabre

  2

  Total will be 106 after conversion of 104 Fox and 104 Scorpion

  CVR(T) Samson

  90

  Due to reduce to approximately 55

  CVR(T) Striker

  89

  Due to reduce to approximately 58

  CVR(T) Sultan

  283

  Due to reduce to approximately 141

  CVR(T) Spartan

  658

  Due to reduce to approximately 627

  CVR(T) Samaritan

  50

  No changes planned

  CVR(T) Scimitar

  314

  No changes planned

  Dinner (Tower of London)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the Army Board dinner for 35 hosted by he Minister of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), in the Tower of London in February; who was invited; what was the cost; and to what vote the cost was charged.

  Mr. Hanley
  The purpose of the Army board dinner held in the Tower of London was to honour those guests present for their outstanding support to the Army.

  In addition to myself, the following attended:

  The Duke of Wellington, KG

  Major General Lord Michael Fitzalan-Howard

  Lord Westbury

  Lord Chalfont

  Lieutenant General The Honourable Sir William Rous

  General Sir Peter Inge

  General Sir Michael Wilkes

  General Sir John Learmont

  General Sir John Wilsey

  General Sir Charles Guthrie

  Vice Admiral Sir Barry Wilson

  Lieutenant General Sir Jeremy Blacker

  Colonel Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison

  Sir John Chilcot

  Sir Donald Spiers

  Sir David Gillmore

  Sir Colin McColl

  Sir Neil Thorne

  Sir Piers Bengough

  Sir Michael Burton

  Sir Michael Alexander

  Judge Rant

  Major General Michael Walker

  Colonel Philip Creasey

  Mr. Moray Stewart

  Dr. Alan Borg

  Dr. Brian Holden-Reed

  Dr. David Chandler

  The Very Reverend Eric Evans

  Mr. Tony Hall

  Mr. John Chisholm

  Mrs. Stella Rimington

  Mr. Gordon Hourston

  Mr. Kenneth Rose

  Mr. Murdo Maclean

  396
  The cost was £1,573.91 including VAT and was charged to the chief of the Defence Staff's entertainment allowance, which is included in class 1, vote 1, subhead item I11.

  Wild Boars (Catterick)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date of his Department's attempts to trap two wild boars at Catterick barracks, Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In April 1993, some 30 boars escaped from a farm at Easby near Richmond in north Yorkshire. With a view to preventing damage to MOD property, my Department has been liaising with the local authority in an attempt to capture the boars. All but two have now been recaptured.

  The cost so far to my Department has been around £3,500; covering the cost of repairs to sports fields, use of equipment and the land warden's time. It is our intention to claim this from the farmer's insurance company in due course.

  RAF
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of each type of aircraft were in service with the RAF at(a) 1 January 1984 and (b) 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not hold records of the information requested as at 1 January 1984. Details of the types of numbers of RAF aircraft—those in squadron service, operational conversion units, and support and training units, excluding in-use-reserves—as at March 1984 and March 1994 are:

  1984

  1994

  Andover

  13

  8

  BAel46

  2

  3

  Buccaneer

  32

  112

  Bulldog

  107

  96

  Canberra

  41

  13

  Chinook

  30

  216

  Chipmunk

  61

  51

  Devon

  5

  —

  Dominie

  18

  10

  397

  1984

  1994

  Gazelle

  23

  25

  Harrier GR3/T4

  80

  9

  Harrier GR5/7

  —

  49

  Hawk

  130

  105

  Hercules

  57

  55

  Hunter

  17

  1

  HS125

  12

  7

  Jaguar GR1A/T2A

  129

  47

  Jet Provost

  158

  —

  Jetstream

  9

  9

  Lightning

  42

  —

  Nimrod MR2

  32

  24

  Nimrod R

  3

  3

  Pembroke

  5

  —

  Phantom

  112

  —

  Puma

  35

  35

  Sea King

  13

  16

  Sentry

  —

  6

  Shackleton

  5

  —

  Tornado F3

  —

  3102

  Tornado GR1

  102

  126

  Tristar

  2

  8

  Tucano

  —

  105

  VC10

  15

  16

  Victor

  19

  —

  Vulcan B2

  6

  —

  Wessex

  62

  54

  1 All Bucaneers are due to be brought out of service on 31 March 1994.

  2 Chinook numbers are currelty reduced as a result of the mid-life update programme.

  3 Restructuring of the Tornado F3 is due to complete by 1 April this year.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of the current advertising campaign on television for the Territorial Army; and what account the campaign has taken of the numbers of regular soldiers being made redundant.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Territorial Army requires about 20,000 new recruits annually. The recent television advertisements were part of the annual recruiting campaign.

  Regular soldiers who are leaving the Army on redundancy terms are given information about the TA and receive an invitation to join. Many soldiers prefer, however, to settle into civilian life before considering such an option.

  Service Children
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the number of children of service personnel in(a) Humberside, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) South Yorkshire and (d) West Yorkshire whose places at an independent or private school were paid for by his Department in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the locations of children of service parents claiming boarding school allowance is not collected annually. The most recent figures are for 1992, and are as follows:

  Number

  (a) Humberside

  47

  (b) North Yorkshire

  697

  (c) South Yorkshire

  Nil

  (d) West Yorkshire

  185

  398

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will send a copy of the joint air miss working group's report on the air miss between any Army Lynx helicopter and a Royal Air Force Tornado over the north Yorkshire moors on 17 January 1993 to the hon. Member for Don Valley.

  Mr. Hanley
  A copy of the air miss report into the incident, which occured on 12 January 1993, is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will send the hon. Member for Don Valley a copy of the report of the joint air miss working group's report on the air miss between a Royal Air Force Tornado and a Jet Ranger helicopter over Caithness on 8 April 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  A copy of the air miss report is available in the Library of the House.

  MK95 Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what means the five MK95 Lynx helicopters were delivered last year to the Portuguese Navy, and at what cost; what consideration was given to the use of RAF aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Delivery of the five MK95 Lynx helicopters was a matter for the Portuguese Government and Westland Helicopters. RAF aircraft were not involved.

  Equipment Damage
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all instances of damage to armed services equipment by private contractors reported for each year since 1990, together with the cost in each instance and the total cost.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost and effort. My Department does not maintain central records of such instances, however MOD contract conditions address such possibilities, and are invoked as necessary.

  RAF Maintenance Work
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests he or his Department have received from the Treasury or other parts of the Government that maintenance work for the RAF should be moved into the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It would not be appropriate to give details of interdepartmental discussions, and I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 15 December 1993,Official Report, column 739.

  Submarines
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent representations he has received concerning the complaints of infringement by Royal Navy submarines and United States submarines of the code of safety in fishing areas; and if he will make a statement;
  399
  (2) what is the average amount of time spent investigating allegations concerning near-collisions bet-ween Royal Navy submarines and fishing vessels; to whom the reports of such investigations are submitted; who makes the decisions concerning the holding of courts martial where negligence of watch officers and others is concerned; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many incidents involving allegations concern-ing near-collisions between (a) Royal Navy submarines or (b) United States Navy submarines and United Kingdom fishing vessels over the past seven years have been the subject of formal investigations; of these, how many led to courts martial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have received no recent formal representations concerning complaints of infringement of Royal Navy submarines and United States Navy submarines of the code of practice in fishing areas.

  Since the formal adoption of the code of practice in October 1993, the only incident to have taken place between a Royal Navy submarine and a United Kingdom fishing vessel is that between HMS Valiant and the fishing vessel Audacious on 8 November 1993. A full investigation was immediately put in hand, which has recently been concluded. The findings, which are currently being examined, will be made available shortly to the members of the Department of Transport's fishing industry safety committee sub-group dealing with submarine and fishing vessels matters, which includes representatives of the fishermen's federations.

  Reports of investigations are submitted via flag officer submarines to the commander-in-chief fleet. It is for the commander-in-chief fleet to make any decisions regarding courts martial. It is difficult to give an average for the amount of time spent investigating incidents; this depends on the complexity of each individual case.

  Investigations into near collisions between United States Navy submarines and United Kingdom fishing vessels during the past seven years are a matter for the appropriate United States authorities. The code of practice governing the conduct of submarines when operating in the vicinity of fishing vessels does, of course, apply to all foreign submarines operating dived within United Kingdom territorial waters.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who drew up the list of defence firms which Lady Thatcher promised to supply to Malaysia under the arms deal negotiated between 1985 and 1988; what were the criteria for choice; and which were the companies selected.

  Mr. Aitken
  'There is no such list.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 1055, if he will provide whatever information is available of those occasions on which he, or other Ministers in his Department, have signed public interest immunity certificates, and for what reasons.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since my right hon. and learned Friend became Secretary of State for Defence, he or other Ministers in his Department have signed public interest immunity certificates on seven occasions.
  400
  In June 1992, my right hon. and learned Friend signed a certificate which set out the national security and personal safety grounds for screening certain members of the armed forces from the public, and for the protection of certain information from disclosure. This certificate was prepared for the hearing of a civil claim. In the event, the hearing was delayed, and he signed a fresh certificate in similar terms in March 1993. He signed certificates for the same purpose in January 1993 in relation to another civil claim, and in April 1993 in relation to the proceedings of an inquest.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) signed PII certificates in relation to two cases. In January 1993 he signed a certificate for the same purposes as those in the first instance above in relation to the proceedings of an inquest. In February 1993, in relation to criminal proceedings, he signed a certificate setting out the grounds for protecting information, the disclosure of which would be harmful to national security.

  In October 1992 my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State signed a certificate relating to a case heard in camera by agreement of the court and the parties. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement signed in September 1992 certifica-tes in the same terms in connection with the Matrix Churchill case. The certificate signed by the Minister of State was not used.

  Belize Defence Force
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), of 23 February,Official Report, column 23, he will list all items of equipment, vehicles, ammunition and stores of over £1,000 value he intends to give to the Belize defence force; what plans he has to provide (a) helicopter support and (b) aircraft engineering support to the force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Of the £338,000 worth of equipment the MOD intends to gift to the Belize defence force the following items have been identified as being of more than £1,000 in value:

  Vehicles:

  Up to 23 3/4 tonne Land Rovers and a small number of trucks

  Ammunition:

  5.566mm and 7.62mm ammunition

  81mm mortar rounds

  66mm Heat rockets

  We have discussed with the Government of Belize their future requirements for helicopters and associated engineering support. We are currently providing expert assistance to help them identify their precise needs.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) former service men or (b) current service men have contacted his Department complaining of ill-health effects they believe to be desert fever arising from contamination from serving in the British forces in Operation Granby.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 15 former and six serving members of the armed forces have contacted my department expressing concern about their health following service in the Gulf. All have been offered the opportunity to be medically assessed by a military
  401
  consultant. Of the 14 who have accepted this offer, 12 have so far been examined. All have been found to be suffering from separate medically recognised conditions which are not peculiar to service in the Gulf.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent communication he has had with the Trauma After Care Trust regarding concerns over Desert Storm fever; and what plans he has to meet with TACT to discuss the problems.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has no record of receiving any communication from TACT since July 1993 and I have no plans to meet any of TACT's representatives.

  Reserve Forces Reorganisation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to report on the reorganisation of the reserve forces, following his review.

  Mr. Hanley
  Further to my answer of 17 February to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside,Official Report, column 998–99, Ministers have today written to hon. Members about the responses received during the consultation period. Work is continuing on our policy proposals.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  Such purchases are included within my Department's overall administration expenditure which is published every year in the supply estimates.

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

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: From records currently available formal directions have been issued since 1979 on the following occasions:

  April 1984

  (D Day 40th anniversary celebrations)

  February 1985

  (Type 22 frigate)

  December 1987

  (Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment)

  June 1991

  (Chieftain replacement)

  January 1992

  (HMS Endurance replacement)

  January 1992

  (RNSD Copenacre)

  March 1992

  (image intensifiers)

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many agency chief executives in his Department are currently paid more than £82,925, excluding performance-related bonuses; and whether such chief executives were recruited directly to their present post from outside the civil service.
  402
  Mr. David Davis
  None of the agency chief executives in my Department is currently paid more than £82,925 excluding performance-related bonuses.

  Disclosure of Information
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in drawing up codes of practice for the disclosure of information held by local authorities and the national health service; and when he expects to publish proposals for consultation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The local authority associations have responded positively to the suggestion in the White Paper, "Open Government" (Cm 2290) that they could usefully adopt a voluntary code of practice on disclosure of information. The associations are preparing a draft.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has asked the NHS Management Executive to take forward the proposal for a code of practice for the NHS. A task force has been set up for this purpose and I understand a draft code should be ready for wider consultation by the summer, with a view to implementation by the end of the year.

  Official Information (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to publicise its code of practice on official information when it comes into force in April; and what budget has been allocated for this purpose.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I will be making a further announcement on the implementation of the code of practice later this month. Material explaining the operation of the code will be available from Departments and will also be offered to advice centres and similar outlets. A budget of £15,000 has been allocated centrally for these purposes.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date a copy of the permanent secretary's handbook was made available to Lord Justice Scott.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The handbook for heads of Departments has not been submitted to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. However, copies of certain of the separate documents which are included in the handbook have been provided at the inquiry's request, including some of the documents mentioned in the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman's question yesterday, 9 March,Official Report, column 256.

  Charterline
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many calls have been made to charterline since its inception; what has been the average daily call rate and the average cost per call; how many personnel work on charterline; and what has been the total cost to date of charterline, including promotion and all associated costs.

  Mr. David Davis
  Over 5,530 calls have been made to charterline since its inception, an average of 25 calls a day.
  403
  IBM has nine trained staff available to answer charterline calls, who also perform a wide range of other tasks and answer other calls. Up to four of these are awaiting charterline and other calls at any one time.

  The operational cost per call to date is £68. If call volumes were higher, significant economies of scale could be achieved. The operational costs of a pilot study are always relatively high. One of the purposes of the charterline pilot study is to assess the demand of the service and the volume of calls and costs that would be associated with a national service. The pilot study will ensure that, if charterline is rolled out, it is done on a high-quality and extremely cost-effective basis.

  Total set-up costs amount to £1,251,000. These include initial research, project planning and management, system design, contractual advice and data collection, which are all one-off costs. Running costs to date amount to £1,037,679. These include paid advertising, research during the pilot study, set up and use of ACORN data—which categorise groups of households into one of 38 types, on the basis of such factors as the ages of the people living there, the size of their home, the type of work they do, their ethnic background and so on—operational costs, and operation of the charterline language service, which is available in Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if market-tested contracts awarded to private contractors will be audited by the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The National Audit Office will be able to audit records held by Departments in the normal way, to ensure that their contracting procedures ensure that propriety and regularity are safeguarded and that best value for money is obtained.

  Departments and agencies will ensure that where finance-related work is contracted out the NAO will continue to have access to documents to enable it to carry out certification audits of the Department and value-for-money examinations of the way in which the Department
  404
  has used its resources. The right of access to any such documents no longer held by the Department of agencies should be provided for in the contract. Even where documents are available in the Department, the NAO will normally require access to the contractor to ensure procedures operate correctly and that propriety and regularity are safeguarded.

  It is not intended that the NAO should have access to records relating to the contractor's affairs, nor that he should conduct a certification audit of the contractor.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total value of all market-tested contracts awarded to private contractors to date.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Private contractors have been awarded £855.3 million of work under the competing for quality programme. Some contracts are still subject to negotiation.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of market tests in each Government Department were won by(a) in-house bids, (b) other public bodies in competition with in-house bids and (c) the private sector in competition with in-house bids.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I expect to publish aggregate information on the proportion of bids won by in-house bids and by other bidders very shortly in the citizens charter second report.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what proportion by value of the market tests in each Government Department there were in-house bids; and what proportion by value of the market tests in each Government Department were won by(a) in-house bids, (b) other public sector bodies and (c) private sector bidders.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I expect to publish aggregate information on the proportion by value of bids won by in-house bids and by other bidders very shortly in the citizens charter second report.

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

Adult Education and VAT
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to levy VAT on adult educational classes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, some changes to the VAT exemption for education and training are being considered to aid clarity and consistency. However, I can give an assurance that these changes will not result in VAT being applied to currently VAT-free adult education classes provided by further education colleges and local authority adult education centres.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for that satisfactory reply. I do not think that I need: 0 ask any supplementaries.
Lord Stoddarl of Swindon: My Lords, if my noble friend has none, I have. The organisations named were specific, but presumably what the Minister is saying is that outside Further education establishments like, for example, the university of the air, the Open University, it is possible that VAT will be applied. Perhaps we may also have an assurance that it will not be applied for those organisations.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there will be VAT on certain arrangements; that is, educational courses like driving lessons. I think that I can give a fairly categoric assurance that there will be no VAT levied on what amounts to mainstream education, on fee-paying education by colleges, schools and universities, as legally defined, which are VAT exempt. Other fee-paying education is VAT exempt if provided otherwise than for profit. It is the expression "otherwise than for profit" that we want to remove because it causes a certain degree of confusion; but it will be the status of the institution that will largely govern whether or not VAT will be levied. However, I do not envisage that the fees charged by the university of the air will be subject to VAT.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it has been most encouraging that in giving that answer he has no: used the phrase,"We have no plans"? Whenever the Government use that phrase we know that they have plans to implement VAT increases immediately. However, the answer has been most encouraging.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may offer my condolences to tie noble Lord on his collarbone. I am
1526
sure that he will soon recover. I can give him an assurance that when we say,"We have no plans", we mean exactly that. It means that we have no plans.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have thought of a supplementary question. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no weakening of the consultative paper's proposal to exempt educational charities in the voluntary sector from VAT?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the consultation paper is a consultation paper and the consultation period ended on 28th February. Obviously it is too early to come to any final conclusions but I can certainly give the assurance that the noble Baroness asked for as regards educational charities.

Torture
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made representations to any foreign governments about condoning the use of torture and, if so, which ones.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we make frequent representations to governments about abuses of human rights, including torture. We do so bilaterally, with our European Union partners, and in the United Nations and other international human rights bodies. We make our representations confidentially where that is more likely to produce results. There are many countries where publicity for our actions would be counter-productive.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will do all she can. But is she aware that on some governments those representations have about the same impact as a fly buzzing round an elephant? Far stronger action is needed against widespread and vicious torture. The United Nations Committee against Torture should warn the 100 or so governments who sustain and condone torture that both aid and trade will be reassessed and that provision will be made for the victims to claim compensation. Will the Government agree to recommend that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's anxiety. I share with him the view that torture is a particularly pernicious form of human rights abuse because the victims' ability to continue normal lives and activities is permanently damaged as a result. Torture is prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is spelt out in more detail, as perhaps the noble Lord knows, in the Convention against Torture which entered into force in 1987. That includes not only torture but other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
We have supported the work that is being undertaken by the UN Commission on Human Rights. We have supported the appointment of the special rapporteur on

1527
torture to investigate the allegations in all those countries. As the noble Lord may know, the new incumbent is a British national from Essex University. We believe that the work that is being done, the publicity which is given where it will do good and constant reminders to all governments in private are beginning to have an effect. We are seeing a better situation in some countries. I can assure the noble Lord that we will take all possible measures that are consistent with reducing the amount of torture. That is, I believe, what the noble Lord wants. It is what I want; and it is certainly what the Government want.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the particular protests which the Government have made to other governments should not be revealed, but can she give us some idea of the number of such protests made to other governments in, say,1993?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the specific numbers in 1993; but at a rough guess, remembering the number of occasions on which I have been involved in such matters, there were certainly between 40 and 50. Many of those were made in private.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take the opportunity of the visit by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao of India which begins on Sunday to make representations to him about the widespread use of torture in Kashmir, as evidenced by Physicians for Human Rights, Asia Watch and others, and about the impunity enjoyed by the armed forces, no member of which has ever to our knowledge been prosecuted for those criminal offences? In particular will the Prime Minister be asked whether he will issue an invitation to Dr. Nigel Rodley to pay a visit to Kashmir and advise on measures that can be taken to stop those practices?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we shall most certainly, as we always have done, take the opportunity of the visit of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to raise such issues; and we shall not cease to do so after he goes back to India. We have always asked the Indian Government what is happening and have sought to encourage them to be more open and to admit observers, not only to Kashmir but to any other human rights problems that we have come across. Most recently, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State during his visit to India in November discussed the situation in Kashmir and overall human rights with both the Indian Prime Minister and the Indian Home Minister.
As regards a specific invitation to visit Kashmir, I certainly will consider that. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows, while we have been encouraged by the establishment last year of an Indian human rights commission, there is plenty of progress still to be made.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the Government will not extend a welcome into the European Community for a country which is guilty of torture?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not aware that there has been any consideration of a country guilty of torture as a member by the European Union. I suspect that the noble Lord refers to Turkey, in regard to which, as he knows, we have widespread concern about human rights violations. We recognise that terrorists are active in certain areas of Turkey. We have repeatedly said that the Turkish Government must combat terrorism within the rule of law and with full respect for human rights. That is the view not only of the United Kingdom but of every country within the European Union.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a role for the voluntary sector in both identifying the practice of torture and its victims and in giving support to them and their families? Can she say whether that can be used in any way to increase the effectiveness of Her Majesty's Government's policy in that area? Are Her Majesty's Government able to give that sector support in this way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I believe my noble friend knows, just last year — perhaps it was two years ago— we were able to set up an entirely new human rights department in the Foreign Office, particularly to carry out work not only with other governments but also with those members of the NGO community who look into the abuse of human rights and problems of torture. Today, I read that a new non-governmental organisation, the Redress Trust, has recently come into being and is arguing for UK courts to assume jurisdiction for claims by UK nationals who allege that they have been tortured in third countries. We shall work with them and with other nongovernmental organisations. They certainly add to what governments can do. But, as I said in the beginning, sometimes we have to act in private; and that is not always something that a campaigning non-governmental organisation wishes to do.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Baroness would agree that the growth and spread of torture as an instrument of government are a blot on the history of this century? If I am right (as I believe I am), can she tell us whether there is any hope at all of international indignation spreading widely so that a real punch can be given to trying to reverse this process, reduce the incidence of torture and stop its gradual increase— which I believe she will agree has been a feature of the end of this century?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, for once I join with the noble Lord and say, yes, there has perhaps been an increase in this century in our knowledge of what is going on. But the most fundamental thing that has to be achieved is to get better government in those countries, and bring armed forces, where they are the perpetrators of torture, under the rule of law. One of the things that we have particularly tried to do through our Good Government Programme is to bring to countries where there is not proper respect for human rights a realisation of what has to be done and training for people to make sure that this is achieved.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me where one can conveniently obtain a list of those countries which so far have not adopted the convention against torture?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not have one in my file today but I shall see that one is sent to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the representation that the Government are undoubtedly making to the countries that practise torture would be greatly strengthened if Her Majesty's Government at the same time resolutely declined to supply them with arms?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we cannot stand out against the United Nations convention where a country has the right to defend itself. The noble Lord knows full well that we are extremely careful about those countries to whom we sell arms and on all occasions, if we have any doubts, we seek to resist the application for an export licence for those arms. I shall certainly continue, as I have already been doing with my colleagues, to make sure that arms which are exported are exported only for defence purposes and not for purposes of aggression— certainly not for torture.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following my noble friend's question on arms sales, would the Minister inform the House of the Government's latest policies on arms sales to Indonesia, particularly in the light of Indonesia's repressive policies towards the independence movement in East Timor?
Baroness Chal ker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is extremely interested in Indonesia but she goes very wide of the original Question. There are allegations that torture persists in Indonesia. Torture is banned by law in Indonesia. That is why we expect the Indonesian Government to investigate all allegations in whatever part of Indonesia such incidents are said to occur and to take appropriate action against offenders. With regard to sales of arms to Indonesia or any other country, we stand by the policy that we have declared. They have a right to defend themselves. We do not export arms which would be used for repression.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the ban on torture in Indonesia is adhered to?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is very difficult to say. We do not have people viewing what goes on in every corner of Indonesia. I believe that the Indonesian Government are very well aware of the international community's view, which is expressed to them frequently. But Indonesia is one country whose leadership reacts very violently to public comment from abroad. That does not help the potential victims of torture in that country. There are better ways to make the point go home.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, would the Minister give an undertaking to look again at the
1530
information that torture is not permitted in Indonesia? Is she aware that New Zealand human rights organisations have complained about specific, named cases of cruel and oppressive torture in Indonesia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very well aware of my noble friend's long interest in the plight of the Indonesian people. I can only tell him what I have been told. I shall look into the detailed briefing behind the information that I was given earlier today. The Indonesian Government have been trying to make some progress. The position in Irian Jaya is one source of a number of reports. Things had improved there sufficiently for the International Committee of the Red Cross to close its offices there in 1993. But I believe that there is much more progress to be made and we shall do all that we can to see that such progress is made.

Aeroflot: Safety Record
3.24 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in respect of services operated into and out of the United Kingdom by Aeroflot, in the light of its safety record.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, following the recent incident to Flight 242 en route to Moscow from London, we wrote to the Russian aeronautical authorities and to Aeroflot seeking an urgent report. Their reply is currently being analysed but we are satisfied that there was no danger to passengers at any time during the incident. A few minor failings in safety procedures have been identified and are being rectified by the Russian authorities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that it is the policy of international civil aviation that when an airline has a really bad accident record it is refused access to a number of countries? Will he also confirm that unless Aeroflot improves its safety record, which has been deplorable in the past few years, such action will have to be taken?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend knows from his previous experience at the Department of Transport, where a serious failure (or ongoing failures) to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation standards is identified the Civil Aviation Authority has powers to detain aircraft. The United Kingdom can consider revoking or refusing to renew airline operating permits, effectively preventing the carrier from operating in the UK. With regard to Aeroflot, it has flown to and from the United Kingdom for many years. While there have been many complaints about the quality of its service, safety has not been a problem.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that very close scrutiny is currently being given

1531
by the Civil Aviation Authority to the safety record of Aeroflot, which was once the largest international airline in the world but is now terribly fragmented? If the CAA is dissatisfied with its investigations, will the Minister also confirm that Aeroflot could be precluded from flying into and out of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that the International Federation of Airline Pilots, and indeed a number of Aeroflot pilots themselves, have expressed deep concern about certain elements of safety affecting that fragmented airline?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, clearly incidents such as the one on Flight 242 from London to Moscow give us great concern. As I explained, if that concern were to increase in any serious degree we have the powers to revoke or refuse to renew the operating permit. Indeed, that would effectively prevent the airline from operating to and from the United Kingdom. With regard to Aeroflot more generally, it is certainly true that we have concerns about its safety record within the former Soviet Union itself. Evidence of underfunding in air traffic control, fuel shortages, poor maintenance of aircraft, and so on, is certainly there to be seen. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice to United Kingdom citizens is to avoid internal CIS flights if at all possible for those very reasons.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a corollary, in relation to flights into the former Soviet Union, its airports are plagued by chronic under-investment and a lack of modern tracking and radar equipment? What danger does that pose to our inbound flights to the former Soviet Union and to passengers on those flights?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, obviously it depends rather on the gateway airport in the former Soviet Union into which flights from London arrive. Our concern is less about those gateway flights, where the Soviet authorities have perhaps over the years taken steps to ensure decent air traffic control systems, than about other airports within the former Soviet Union, where international flights do not often venture but to which United Kingdom citizens can travel on domestic Aeroflot flights. As I said, we have advised United Kingdom citizens that they should attempt to avoid travelling on such internal flights if at all possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, now that we have much better relations with the modern Russian Government, especially since the Prime Minister's recent visit to Moscow, will the Minister consider tactfully and diplomatically offering the services of British experts, with a view to helping Aeroflot improve its ways?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we try to give the former Soviet Union, and Aeroflot in particular, advice on safety procedures to improve both the quality and safety of flights. For example, some of the issues brought to our attention in the incident in question were that safety briefing cards were not available, that safety briefings were not given and that perhaps the crew were less than totally in command when the aircraft had to divert to Berlin due to the outer
1532
layer of the co-pilot's window becoming crazed. We have drawn to the attention of the former Soviet Union the question of briefing cards and so forth. We are assured that those matters will be attended to in the future and therefore the quality of the service— to which the Question really relates— will be much improved. I can assure your Lordships' House that we shall be watching the situation carefully.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is that not an indication of the difficult economic circumstances which pertain in the former Soviet Union? Is it not an area where more direct assistance may be given? While in no way underestimating the dangers that may arise, is it not an area where economic and technical aid may be beneficial in improving relations with the former Soviet Union and improving the situation there?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is. The CAA and various aviation authorities in the United Kingdom are always keen to develop business abroad. I am sure that if we could see our way to help Aeroflot, both by aid and perhaps more importantly by expertise, in running its civil aviation services we would be very willing to do so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the calamitous list of shortcomings which my noble friend read out, is it not surprising that it was the window and not the pilot of the plane which diverted to Berlin that became crazed? Would a useful way of advancing our knowledge of what is going on in that airline, so that the CAA is in a position to make rational judgments in regard to opening our airports to it, be to use the know-how fund as a means of placing British instructors in Aeroflot offices who would then be able to report back to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said earlier to your Lordships, Aeroflot has flown out of and into the UK for some years. Complaints in regard to the safety of its flights have not been common. There is no doubt that in this case a serious, though not unusual, problem arose— windows on aircraft do sometimes craze. The Aeroflot procedures told the pilot that he should divert to Berlin, which he did. Unfortunately, as the report in the newspapers at the time indicated, there did not appear to be the kind of communication between aeroplane staff, the cabin crew, the pilot and the passengers that we would expect on a normal airline. We have questions about the handling by the cabin crew of the incident and the amount of information they gave to passengers, as well as the way in which the passengers were almost left high and dry in Berlin, pretty well oblivious as to why they came to be there and what was going to be done to move them on.

Bosnia: UN Request for Troops
3.33 p.m.
Lord Brannan Lord Brannan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the United Nations request for extra troops in Bosnia, they are now proposing to send more British troops to the area to help secure peace and, if so, when, and how many.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a Statement on this issue at 3.30 this afternoon, which I shall be repeating to your Lordships later. would not wish to pre-empt that Statement.
Lord Brannan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply. In view of what he said I look forward with keen anticipation to the Statement and shall reserve my comments until I hear it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if my noble friend Lord Cranborne, with the leave of the House, now repeats a Statement to be made in another place on the British forces in Bosnia.

Bosnia: UK Troop Reinforcements
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"Since the first deployment of UNPROFOR troops to former Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom has contributed to the growing international military effort to contain the conflict and alleviate suffering. In the spring of 1992 we sent an Army field ambulance to Croatia. In the autumn of that year we sent an armoured infantry battalion group to Bosnia to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict. This deployment has undoubtedly helped to save many thousands of lives. The Royal. Navy and the Royal Air Force are also making a very important contribution.
"There are now some 2,450 British soldiers serving in UNPROFOR's Bosnia-Herzegovina command— a contribution second only to the French. Since the beginning of the year we have also provided the commander for UN forces in Bosnia, Lieutenant General Sir Michael Rose, who is carrying out hi; responsibilities in a most impressive manner. Our military effort in former Yugoslavia is outstanding in scale, range and quality, and we need fear no comparison with the contribution of any other nation in the world.
"Until recently the diplomatic and military efforts of the international community achieved limited success. Spillover of the conflict was prevented and relief was successfully brought to its victims, but the
1534
warring factions in Bosnia seemed determined to carry on fighting. The prospect, however, has been transformed by the NATO ultimatum which followed the mortar attack on the Sarajevo market place on 5th February, the ceasefire agreement in Sarajevo which was negotiated by General Rose on 9th February, and the removal or corralling of the heavy weapons attacking the city. These dramatic events not only brought a fragile calm to Sarajevo itself but have acted as a catalyst elsewhere in Bosnia. On 23rd February a ceasefire was signed between the Bosnian Government and Bosnian Croat commanders which provided for withdrawal of troops from a buffer zone, withdrawal, or UN control, of heavy weapons and the opening of routes. On Tuesday of this week, UN troops took control of Tuzla airport. There have of course been many disappointments in Bosnia before, and there may be others to come. But if the ceasefires in Sarajevo and central Bosnia hold, they could be the first steps towards the ending of the conflict. I pay tribute to those in UNPROFOR who negotiated the ceasefires, and in particular General Rose, General Cot and Mr. Akashi.
"The ceasefires have brought not only new opportunities for UNPROFOR but also new responsibilities. To police a buffer zone and monitor heavy weapons, large numbers of men are needed on the ground. In central Bosnia the front line between Moslems and Croats is 125 miles long. Quite suddenly, UNPROFOR has found its task greatly expanded and its resources greatly overstretched, both in Sarajevo and central Bosnia. The United Nations has therefore appealed for additional troops. The Coldstream Guards, whose mission hitherto had been to support humanitarian aid convoys, have found themselves with a major peacekeeping task on their doorstep. Their enthusiasm is great; they are determined to do their utmost to make the ceasefire a success. But it has become clear that the effort involved, while tolerable for a time, is unsustainable beyond the short term with their current manpower. The question of reinforcement has thus become an immediate issue, not just for the British contingent but for UNPROFOR as a whole.
"The United Kingdom has a national interest in securing a peaceful outcome to the Bosnian conflict, but this interest is equally shared by other European nations, some of which have closer links with the Balkans, and is also shared by the world community at large. Although the United Kingdom contribution to the region is already a large one, a further UK contribution at this stage as part of a co-ordinated international effort would help to make the difference between success and failure for the ceasefires. This in turn should contribute to shortening the conflict and reduce the burden on British troops currently in Bosnia.
"It was for these reasons that we took the initiative in convening a meeting of troop contributors, actual and potential, in New York, under the chairmanship of Sir David Hannay, our ambassador to the United Nations, to see whether or not the international community was prepared to provide more troops for

1535
UNPROFOR to take advantage of the window of opportunity which has suddenly opened there. The results of this meeting were very encouraging. Leaving aside any offer by the United Kingdom there have been offers amounting to some 3,850 new troops, plus further offers to redeploy some 2,450 troops from elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. This gives a total of 6,300 extra troops for Bosnia, in addition to any UK contribution. Finally, up to a further 4,000 troops are expected to deploy by the summer.
"As part of this response Her Majesty's Government have decided to reinforce the British UNPROFOR contingent by sending a second battalion group, some 900 strong, to central Bosnia, initially for four months. Its nucleus will be the 1st Duke of Wellington's Regiment, who are equipped with the Saxon wheeled armoured personnel carrier. Advance elements of the battalion will be in Split by tonight. The battalion group will include engineers, signallers and support troops and a medium reconnaissance squadron of the Light Dragoons.
"We will always be cautious when sending British troops to serve in a foreign country. We have had to strike a balance among a number of factors: the manpower demands of UNPROFOR's expanding role, the prospects of peace taking hold, our own national interest, the willingness of the rest of the world to recognise theirs, and, above all, the need to ensure that British troops are not asked to do the impossible. Our judgment is that reinforcement is the right course at the present time. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the battalion group Godspeed."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in another place. I say at the outset that we welcome the Statement. We join the Government in congratulating Mr. Akashi, General Cot and General Rose, all of whom have played their part in what appears to be— I use the word advisedly— a good march forward towards peace.
We pay tribute, with the Government, to the British troops for the job done both in UNPROFOR and generally. They are all UN troops, but they are British troops as well. We can hold our heads high when we consider the role that they have played. But they are overstretched and tired, as I believe the Government now recognise, and have been for some time. Given that there has been a new development in the role of UNPROFOR— the situation has changed— why did it take so long for the Government to make up their mind to send the new battalion group? Here was a chance for the Government to play a leading role, not just two weeks after the event but at the time of the event itself, to make sure that we were in the driving seat.
I note the expression in the Statement about peacekeeping. Are we assured that the role of UNPROFOR in Bosnia is now not only devoted to
1536
making sure that humanitarian aid gets through but also to local peacekeeping— although not peace making. I am sure the noble Viscount will appreciate the difference between peacekeeping and intervening to make peace. If there is local peace there, then it may be kept, but that does not mean moving in to make peace where no peace exists. Can the noble Viscount say what other countries make up the 3,850 new troops and in what proportion? The same question can be asked about the 4,000 troops that we are expecting later on.
I ask the noble Viscount those questions because they are the fundamental questions of the moment. There will no doubt be many more, and there will be many more Statements as we go on. I join the noble Viscount, however, in recognising that when we send troops on active service in a foreign country we are embarking on a dangerous venture; it is a matter of great risk. And with the noble Viscount, from these Benches, we wish them Godspeed and a safe return.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, after hesitating for nearly three weeks the Government have now taken the right decision. The Cabinet might learn some courage and decisiveness from General Rose in Bosnia. His record since his appointment entitled him to a much prompter and more positive reply than he received.
The Government are right, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right, to stress the risks involved. Things can go wrong. Our troops could be put in unacceptable danger and the Government may be faced with much more difficult decisions than those they have had to take so far. Nevertheless, hope is rising in Bosnia. The situation has improved, thanks largely to the skill and courage of the British forces there, including their leadership. The Government are undoubtedly right to take the steps they have.
The Government are also entitled to be commended for their recruiting efforts at the United Nations. Our ambassador showed considerable energy and skill in achieving even the comparatively small number of recruits now promised. But the exercise at the United Nations surely displays once again that the whole business of arranging the organisation and recruitment of peacekeeping troops at the United Nations is totally inadequate. What have the Government done to support the Secretary-General in his proposed reforms for the recruiting, earmarking and organisation of peacekeep-ing forces? It is not enough to go ad hoc as we have done, call a meeting together of likely nations, and then harangue them. It should be organised on a proper basis, perhaps under a revised military staffs committee which we had once after the war. These matters need to be looked at urgently. It may well be— I think it is— that our troops are the best peacekeepers in the world. They are the readiest and the most easily available. But we cannot just go on giving an open-ended commitment to United Nations peacekeeping. Other countries must play their part.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, for their welcome in principle of the decision which the Government made this morning. I am sure also that the congratulations and appreciation which they express for

1537
the generals concerned and for the troops of the UN forces— in particular for British troops— will be greatly appreciated and noted in those quarters. I believe that both noble Lords asked the same fundamental question: why did it take so long?
I hope that both noble Lords will appreciate the importance of this, as a United Nations effort. It was important for Her Majesty's Government to make sure that the United Nations as a whole backed not only with words but with deeds the reinforcement that we were contemplating. In that context, therefore, I wish to emphasise to both noble Lords the remarkable work done by the Foreign Office's mission to the United Nations, led by our permanent representative, Sir David Hannay. He has worked astonishingly hard and— I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams— very fast to secure backing for the initiative which he took when he summoned the number of meetings over the past few days in New York. The result of what I would call haste with due deliberation has been that the UN as a whole has provided the backing and a very large number of nations have pledged troops and/or expressed interest in pledging troops. It was worth adopting that approach rather than to deliver British reinforcements at once without doing so in the context of the United Nations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that all of us are aware of the alleged shortcomings of the United Nations organisation as regards military matters. I know that he will be pleased to learn that work has been continuing to see whether improvement can be made to the military planning cells in New York. There has been progress in that regard, but there is always room for more.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked which countries were going to contribute. The list is a reasonably long one and some contributions are necessarily smaller than others. I draw the attention of the noble Lord to some in particular. The French announcement yesterday of a further contribution of a 800-strong battalion to Sarajevo is greatly welcomed. That has been the result of conversations between London and Paris in the context which I tried to explain to the noble Lord a few moments ago. The Russians have also undertaken to deploy a further 300 troops which should be of some value, particularly in view of their special relationship with the Serbs and the role which the Russians have already played in establishing a ceasefire in Sarajevo. The Ukrainians have also agreed to make a contribution. A number of other countries too have agreed to contribute.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Brarnall: My Lords, I greatly welcome the Minister's Statement that the splendid Duke of Wellington's Regiment is being sent, with necessary support, to Bosnia. I am greatly relieved that it will arrive there tomorrow. It has been patently obvious for some time that although the United Nations may well need 10,000 extra troops fully to exploit all the opportunities created by General Rose's remarkable success in the pursuit of peace, the urgent need of that British general was perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 men to safeguard and consolidate what he had already achieved
1538
and to relieve and sustain those desperately tired and overstretched soldiers operating in appalling conditions. Through our training, experience, professionalism and infrastructure, and for many other reasons, we are uniquely qualified to provide them.
So it is a cause for some regret that, instead of procrastinating and arguing who was to do what and when, we were not prepared, as a member of the Security Council, to take a more positive lead earlier and, using that famous phrase, which I am sure General Rose uses the whole time— that is to say,"Follow me" — to send these troops, as we could have done two to three weeks ago, when the strain on General Rose's troops was far less severe and the risks of losing some very real opportunities of extending United Nations control to other crucial areas on the road to a political settlement was less great.
Of General Rose I said recently in your Lordships' House that if mountains could be moved he would move them, and indeed he has. I hope that the Government will continue to listen to him, support his determination and strength, and continue to build on his success.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, nobody knows better than the noble and gallant Lord the qualities not only of General Rose, with whom I recognise he has had a long, professional association, but also of the British troops under his command and the conditions in which they have worked. I say to the noble and gallant Lord very much the same as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. This is a United Nations operation. If it is to succeed it is clearly important that it should be well founded and well supported, not only by ourselves but by other members of the United Nations who will also have to contribute troops to this operation and support the demands of General Rose.
Therefore, it was well worth while making sure— if your Lordships will allow me to use the phrase— that our ducks were in a row in order that when we did deploy we deployed in a way which was sustainable not only militarily but diplomatically. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will take that factor into consideration as well as the purely military ones.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, it is the duty of all of us to support our troops when they are sent overseas, but it is also our duty to look ahead in order to safeguard their welfare. Perhaps I may ask a simple question. Obviously, the larger the force which we have overseas, the greater the number of replacements which will be required in due course in order that our men shall have proper rest, facilities for training and leave. Are the Government satisfied that with this larger force we shall be able to ensure that the men overseas can be replaced to the same extent? With the present reductions, is the Minister certain, and can he give us an assurance, that our forces are not overstretched in the task that they will be required to do? I refer not only to the force which is there but also to the replacements that will be needed. Does the Minister agree that it is time to look ahead in order to find some better and more secure way of getting the forces necessary when international engagements of

1539
this kind are undertaken? I have no doubt that there will be more to come in the future if there is to be any kind of international new world order.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for the first point. It is well worth saying that the logistical support in the broadest sense for the British contingent in the former Yugoslavia— I do not think I decry other nations' efforts in this regard— is the envy of our allies. The substantial reorganisation which has taken place in that respect within the British Army over the past few years is beginning to show the kind of benefit to which I have just referred.
In terms of overstretch, it is perfectly clear that this deployment will have an effect on the key measure for overstretch, which is the tour interval. There have been exchanges between your Lordships and myself over the past 18 months or so about whether our estimates of the interval are, in the phrase,"robust or not". It is clear that there will be some effect. However, we are confident in our belief— I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, of this— that the mean objective of a 24-month interval for the tour plot is still readily achievable by 1995, as we have always predicted.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his excuse for the dither and delay is particularly weak? If you are going to take the lead, you do not say,"I will go if you go, Charlie." You say,"Follow me", as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said. That would have been a much better response instead of waiting for a fortnight for the urgent demand from General Rose. Will the Minister say how many British troops General Rose would really like because, as he said, the British and French are the troops who can really be relied on while the record of some (the Ukrainians, to take one example) is not particularly good?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is tempting to follow the noble Lord down the road of British soldiers leaping into the breach, waving swords and saying,"Follow me". However, I must advise the noble Lord that the initiative that was taken— the "Follow me" cry — came in the first instance in New York rather than in Bosnia. I submit to the noble Lord that this was right for the reasons that I have given a number of times."Follow me" was precisely what Sir David Hannay suggested to potential troop contributors. What is interesting is that so many of them said,"Yes, we will follow you".
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while I congratulate the Government and my noble friend on everything that they have done, should not a future target be to strengthen the United Nations' operation worldwide and not simply in Bosnia? Under chapter 7 of the Charter, the United Nations should have better apparatus for drawing a pool of troops from a wider range of countries and for designating troops to be available for such policing operations. If that had been done earlier— and if it is done sooner in the future— the situation in the former Yugoslavia may be easier for the UN to handle.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with his usual eloquence, my noble and learned friend makes the same sort of point that was made by the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Callaghan. There is, of course, room for improvement in the command and control structure and in the military structure of the United Nations. I believe that all of your Lordships would acknowledge that. We hope that bitter experience will teach all of us and the United Nations that we can improve on existing mechanisms. I say to my noble and learned friend simply this: the experience in Bosnia will add greatly to the impetus of the point of view that he has expressed.
Lord Annan: My Lords, if it is clear from the Statement that General Rose would have preferred larger reinforcements, is it not possible to use British troops in north west Europe, which is not a theatre immediately threatened with any crisis, as reinforcements and replacements, particularly in view of the fact that, by its constitution, Germany is not allowed to send troops overseas and can therefore cover for any British troops withdrawn from there?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we shall, of course, continue to keep the situation under review. However, I must emphasise that the number of troops requested and the number being provided by the summer are pretty nearly in alignment. Therefore, as far as I am aware, for the moment UNPROFOR command is happy with the numbers being provided under the new initiative.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, even those of us who have grave reservations about British troops being in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, understand that when a general— a British general in particular— asks for reinforcements, they have to be given, provided that that is in accordance with government policy. Can the Minister reply to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel? Can he give the assurance that British troops, having developed from being a force to deliver humanitarian aid into a peacekeeping force, will not now develop into a peace-making force, which would put them on one side or the other in the conflict? Secondly, can he tell the House whether any Turkish troops will be added to the extra contingent which is being sent?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it has been said many times in your Lordships' House from all sides, but in particular by my noble friend Lady Chalker, that it is impossible to make peace between two sides which do not wish to do so. It is important that we should continue to target very carefully the job that we are asking our troops to do. That is why the Statement detailed in the way that it did what those tasks are. They have been detailed very much more clearly than perhaps I felt that I had the time to do in answer to your Lordships this afternoon. However, I advise the noble Lord that the delivery of humanitarian aid and the other tasks the existing forces have been undertaking will continue, with the tasks detailed in the Statement being added in the light of the increased number of troops now joining UNPROFOR.

1541
I can confirm that the Turkish Government have offered 1,000 troops for use in Bosnia. I understand that request is being sympathetically considered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is it not a remarkable achievement that the first of the troops should actually be in Split tonight within a few hours of this Statement being made? Does not that suggest that the Government might have been further advanced in their preparations and more efficient than they themselves have been prepared to claim?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I wanted to emphasise the reason for the approach that we have taken. I have endeavoured to be as clear as I can about the rationale behind our approach. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that unready troops are not ready to be deployed on the evening of the announcement. The Duke of Wellington's Regiment and the associated troops within the battalion group have been training for months for this eventuality and have been ready for very nearly as many weeks. Their vehicles have been ready; their weapons have been ready; and, above all, the men have been ready. I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as I understand it, one of the purposes of the troops to be deployed in Bosnia, as of the troops currently deployed, is to protect humanitarian aid convoys. Can the Minister say whether the opening of Tuzla airport is now definitely secured by the presence, I understand, of United Nations' Scandinavian troops under UNPROFOR command and whether we are still subject to Bosnian-Serb agreement before flights can be made into Tuzla airport?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my understanding is that, as the Statement said, this Tuesday United Nations troops— Scandinavian troops, as the noble Baroness pointed out— took possession of Tuzla airport but that the final arrangements are not yet in place for the complete opening of the airport to humanitarian aid. However, we are optimistic that that will shortly be so.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated for acting with purpose, clarity and resolution in this matter and enabling the United Nations troops to carry out their role. Does the Minister agree that the breakthrough that has been established in the former Yugoslavia is the consequence of a United Nations ultimatum to make air to ground strikes if the shelling of Sarajevo were to continue? Many Members on this side of the House see that as a crucial breakthrough and are satisfied that through its peacekeeping troops Britain is taking the lead in maintaining something in the nature of a peace-making endeavour. I congratulate the Government on taking a role in what many of us see as a necessary peace-making endeavour through ground troops who have a peacekeeping role. That is an admirable balance.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I agree with him. The moment that he described was crucial. It was fortunate that close air support proved to be unnecessary because it was then easy to continue and to resume humanitarian aid. We did so faster than would otherwise have been possible had we used close air support. I suspect that the fact that under Resolution No.816 the United Nations was prepared to allow the shooting down of aeroplanes proved that it meant business and that a form of words was not used merely to cover its inadequacies. It meant what it said.
Lord Jay: My Lords, although we understand that both the United States and Germany have constitutional difficulties in supplying ground troops, are they giving at least moral and logistic support and support in other ways?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the United States has given considerable support to our team in New York in the construction of this package. We are considering ways in which the United States will be willing and able to give more practical support. I hope that those ways will become apparent in the forthcoming days.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I understand that the 1st Battalion of the Coldstream Guards has made three emergency tours in three years. Will the Minister confirm that it will be relieved by the Royal Anglians on schedule? Secondly, is the medium recce squadron of the Light Dragoons an additional squadron and not the one already out there?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is yes in both cases.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. — (Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Teacher Training Agency]:
[Amendments Nos.1 and 2 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No.3:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause: ("Functions of the Higher Education Funding Councils in respect of teacher training
1. — (1) The Higher Education Funding Council for England shall exercise in relation to England, and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales shall exercise in relation to Wales—

(a) their functions as a funding agency under this Part;

(b) the function of providing information and advice on teacher education; and

(c) such other functions as may be conferred on them by or under this Part.

(2) The objectives of each of the two councils in exercising those functions shall be—

(a) to contribute to raising the standards of teaching;

1543

(b) to improve the quality and efficiency of all routes into the teaching profession;

(c) to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes for the training of school teachers.

(3) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt—

(a) that section 82 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (which provides for the joint exercise by any two or more councils of any of their functions) enables the two councils referred to in subsection (1) to exercise jointly any or all of the functions referred to in that subsection, and

(b) the the references in section 82 of that Act to functions includes the power, contained in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act, to establish a committee, so that any or all of the functions conferred by subsection (1) may be exercised jointly by those two councils through the medium, or with the advice or other assistance, of a committee established by them jointly.").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos.3,22,26,60,66,67,73 and 78. But, first, I wish to say a few words about the whole Bill. It is really two Bills in one. Part II, which is concerned solely with student unions, has excited much comment within and outside your Lordships' House. The Minister has been made fully aware of these comments and I think that we would all like to congratulate her on the very skilful manner in which she has handled the situation. I know that all universities and the CVCP are extremely grateful to her for the receptive and constructive way in which she has dealt with their anxieties. Part I of the Bill is completely different but, I hope and, indeed, expect, that the Minister will be just as helpful and receptie to the equally real anxieties which exist about the Government's intentions and proposals.
I am sorry my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant is unfortunately not able to be in his place today. For many of us who thought that this Bill would by now have reached the other place, diaries have had to be rearranged and for him this day was impossible. But he has authorised me to say that he strongly supports the remarks that I am about to make.
These amendments go to the heart of Part I of the Bill. We propose them because we are as concerned as the Government say they are to do all that is possible to improve school teaching and teacher education. There can be no disagreement about these objectives but only on the bestmeans of achieving them.
The effect of the amendments is to charge the Higher Education Funding Council for England (but not for Wales because that is to retain its responsibilities) with all the responsibilities for the funding of teacher education apart from two exceptions; that is, the accreditation of teachers and the promotion of teaching as a career, to which I shall refer later. This change carries with it three consequential changes in wording of the Bill: first, to replace "Teacher Training Agency" by HEFCs in England and Wales in Clause 1 and the other clauses where TTA appears; secondly, to omit Schedule 1, which deals with the nitty-gritty of TTA; and, thirdly, to replace Clause 2, which defines the membership and method of appointment of members of the TTA, by a new clause, which specifies the desirable attributes for membership of any joint committee which the English and Welsh funding councils might wish to establish in order to assist them in performing their functions as
1544
defined in Clause 1 of the amendment. These functions are almost entirely the same as those specified in the Bill for the TTA.
Funding councils have the power to create committees for any purpose— these may also be joint committees— and, indeed, they have already exercised it. For example, on 4th January 1993 it was announced that all three funding councils— in England, Wales and Scotland— had formed a joint medical advisory committee on matters affecting medical education and research in Great Britain.
I would like to submit that this example from teaching and research in the great profession of medicine should be emulated in school teaching. Good quality services in both teaching and medicine are vital to national well-being and crucially depend on the quality of the training of the entrants to the profession. The resemblance should not and does not end there. Both areas of study have theoretical and practical aspects. A doctor cannot be a good physician or surgeon unless he knows how the various parts of the body work at the molecular and cellular levels no less than at the skeletal. But he must also be able to observe and interpret signs and symptoms in his patient before prescribing therapy. He learns the former— that is, the intellectual framework— largely in the university and the latter by the practical work in the wards and clinics of hospitals, where his teachers always include registrars and consultants employed by the NHS health authority or trust, who often also have honorary university appointments. Those students who are successful in their courses, both theory and practical, are then admitted to degrees by their university or to membership of the royal colleges. However, their licence to practise medicine is dependent on being granted admission to the register held by the General Medical Council.
So it is and so it should remain with teachers. They need an intellectual pedagogical framework plus practical experience. To acquire both requires the partnership of higher educational institutions and schools, and it is equally right that qualified teacher status, like a licence to practise medicine, should be in the gift of neither but reserved to the state, perhaps using some mechanism analogous to the General Medical and Dental Councils. I note that Amendment No.65 suggests that a general teaching council should have the responsibility of advising the Secretary of State on this matter and, in passing, I should say that that seems to me to be a good idea.
But I return to my main theme. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say in opening and concluding the Second Reading debate and, because that was three months ago, I have since scrutinised the Official Report. She then claimed that a teacher training agency was necessary. She said:
"They underpin the essential teacher training reforms" — [Official Report, 7/12/93; col.819.]
I have tried very hard to find an argument for this assertion which would also justify a change from the present arrangement. I shall leave out of detailed consideration the notion, which is obnoxious to me, in the Bill that the members of this new TTA quango are

1545
all to be appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of "appearing to him" to satisfy particular criteria laid down by him; that it cannot hold a meeting in the absence of a "representative of the Secretary of State", nor see any papers to which he is debarred access, as stated in paragraph 10 of the schedule. This is "Big Brother" indeed. It seems there is to be a chaperon to whatever is said or read— an arrangement which I find wholly repugnant.
But let us put that aside and ask what is the evidence that "essential reforms"— I use the Minister's words — are being impeded by the present arrangement. None has been proffered by her. The essential matter of accreditation of universities, colleges and schools to see if they,
"have the necessary commitment to the Secretary of State's criteria [and can] deliver quality courses",
is, as she said, now based on inspection of courses by Ofsted and, as she also said, that will continue. Only the body to which Ofsted reports will change. What gain is there in that?
She also made. great play with the criticism that the Higher Education F. unding Council allocates funds on a formula basis and therefore she argued that, under present arrangements, educational research projects do not compete for funds. I think that she is seriously misinformed about that. Is she not aware, first, that the formulae used for funding universities in every subject area have within them a very large element of reward for high quality as seen by the HEFC through its quality assessment exercise, which also takes account of grants from other sources such as research councils; and, secondly, that within the universities money for research by members of faculties of education is up against very tough competition indeed from hard-nosed researchers in the expensive, experimental,"hard" sciences of engineering, technology and the natural sciences? How will the Secretary of State arrive at the research element of the grant to be made to any teacher training agency? I really do not know because he will have no means available to him which is in any way comparable in rigour to those already in use in universities and funding councils.
It is argued also that initial teacher training should be more school-centred. I suppose that many Members of this House have a gut feeling that that must be right. But, I want more than gut feeling as evidence, because I know how this country's blue collar workforce and its performance in the past has been held back by apprenticeship training based on that principle, in such marked and adverse contrast with that of other nations which sensibly combine practice and theory by insisting on a proper foundation in relevant theory as well as good training and practical skills.
To create an agency and to give it a clear steer to more school-centred training is premature, given the lack of evidence as to its value, especially since it is less than two years since the Government gave schools a larger role in initial teacher training and that change has had insufficient time either to settle down or to be properly evaluated.
Therefore, I find myself unconvinced by the Government's arguments for creating a teacher training
1546
agency. I can see several arguments against. First, and foremost, by removing teacher training from competition for funds with other disciplines there is a serious danger of not bringing to bear on decisions affecting resources for education those tough criteria now applied in other disciplines. Secondly, staff in universities receiving basic funds from a source different from those of their colleagues will then see themselves as peculiar, if not second class, and their links with cognate disciplines and with research necessary to inform and enrich their own work will weaken. Thirdly, quality will be more difficult to deliver and assessment of, particularly, school-provided initial teacher training will be more complex and less uniform in standard.
I could extend that list but I will not. Perhaps others will do so. Instead, I shall conclude by trying to answer the question: who, besides the Government, wants that change? Do the parents want it? I know that the Government attach great importance to their views. Here these organisations, which, incidentally, supported the 1992 change for more involvement of schools in initial teacher training, most certainly do not want the change. They are worried that such a change will distract teachers from their primary duty of teaching. They cannot understand why, if the Higher Education Funding Council in Wales can be entrusted with that responsibility, its English counterpart cannot. For somewhat similar reasons the National Association of Governors and Managers is also opposed and it says:
"Most Governing Bodies will decline to support school-centred ITT until successful experiments have proved its viability and value".
Organisations representing teachers, head teachers (from both maintained and independent schools), university teachers, vice-chancellors and educational researchers all stand in opposition to Part I of this Bill. It is only too easy to dismiss the views of some of those organisations representing teachers and universities on the grounds that they have vested interests and no one likes change. Even if selfishness of this kind were the motive— and I do not believe for a moment that it is — it in no way invalidates the arguments which have been advanced.
Therefore, the plain fact is that in answer to the question I posed for myself I can find not one single body of knowledgeable people which considers desirable the establishment of a teacher training agency as against the present arrangements. I can respect the arguments which may be adduced in support of the opposition. But if one wishes to give higher visibility to teacher training, to subject it to special scrutiny and funding without breaking the indispensable functional links between theory and practice, between higher education and schools, then I recommend the device of a special committee of the Higher Education Funding Councils of England and Wales. I accordingly hope that the Committee will accept Amendment No.3 and those that go with it which I enumerated in my opening sentence.
I have not dealt with two matters, although I referred briefly to them; namely, the promotion of teaching as a career, which forms part of Clause 1(2), and the award

1547
of qualified teacher status, which is the subject of Clause 13. That is quite a deliberate omission on my part because neither of those functions sits easily with funding, nor is there any amendment dealing with such matters due to be considered today. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: In the unfortunate absence of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and as one of those whose name is attached to the amendment (and those consequent upon it), I should like to add a word or two to the very exhaustive coverage which has already been given to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
The main point that I should like to make is that so far as I know there is no dispute about the Government's objective. All are agreed that there must be some changes in the course of time in the way in which teachers are educated, as, indeed, we have seen and are seeing changes in the way in which members of other professions now receive education and training. In a changing world, change is inevitable.
In the case of teachers, in the run up to the proposals a great deal was made of the argument that some university departments which deal with such matters are committed to theories— if you like, progressive theories — which are now shown to be invalid. I do not believe that anyone will accuse me of being in favour of progress or progressive theories in any sphere. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and I have been arguing about such matters for about 30 years.
The way in which one goes about checking any unfortunate consequences of such commitments can only be through looking at the training and education of teachers in the context of other professions. Other professions base what they do on research and that research is subject to highly competitive peer criticism. Therefore, it would seem that it is by bringing the teaching profession closer to other professions — that is to say, making it part of the structure of higher education as a whole— that the way can be sought, even if one accepts the Government's case that change is needed.
It is somewhat paradoxical that, if would-be teachers are to be merely deposited in schools and those schools given the responsibility for their training, they will almost certainly have to be looked after by people from the very generation whose political and educational philosophy is most challenged. They will be people who qualified as teachers in, let us say, the 1960s. I did not come to that conclusion myself; indeed, I am not clever enough. It was pointed out to me in a very interesting memorandum from the University of Exeter, which has a big responsibility for teacher education throughout the South West of England and whose objections to the Bill in its present form are supported not only by the relevant professions in the area but also by elected councillors on the Devon County Council of all political parties.
What I feel the Government should have tried to do — and what we are now suggesting they should do— is to accept the fact that change is needed but also to recognise that they can within their own objectives
1548
accept the basic content of Amendment No.3; in other words, the substitution for an unknown and inevitably unpopular quango of exactly what is done, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, in the medical profession, namely to have a committee of the funding council which will give an overview of the supply of teachers (which is most important) and of the way in which they are trained.
Far from being in opposition to the Government's proposals, I believe that the amendment we are offering this afternoon gives the Government a way of having what they wish— that is, a greater degree of overview of teacher training education— and at the same time avoids, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, the universal opposition of almost everyone who would have to take part in the system which they propose. One can say,"We can do without so-and-so". But you cannot, for example, enlist the schools in a system if those schools say,"We have neither the resources nor the will to do that on our own"— and many schools have said that— "nor do we wish to do so without the customary backing of an institution of higher education to which we can look for advice and monitoring". The whole debate seems to me to be something which we really ought to have been able to avoid. By now the Government should have come round to the view that the above approach is the one which would suit them best.
I should not like the noble Lord to think that it is only long-established universities which are hostile to the present proposal for a new quango. Many Members of the Committee will no doubt have received letters from Oxford University. Cambridge is so well represented in the Chamber this afternoon that one need not worry about it, and it may well be said that Exeter is an old-fashioned university. However, let us take the most up-to-date of all our universities; namely, the Open University. Not only has it developed new methods of teaching and recruited new types of students, but it is also carrying out research— for example, distance learning of various kinds— which will eventually be of great importance to our education system as a whole.
The Vice-Chancellor of the Open University has written to me detailing the enormous amount of work which the university already carries out in respect of the training and education of teachers, including in-service and advanced training, which is also important. He also says that he very much hopes— as, indeed, does the Open University as a whole— that our amendment will be accepted and the proposed agency rejected. Do I need to say more?
Baroness Warnock: In putting my name to this amendment, I have little to add to what the other Members of the Committee who have put their names to it have said. However, I wish to make one or two points. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, I scrutinised what the Minister said in opening and closing the debate at Second Reading of this Bill, and like him I noticed that she stated that the establishment of a separate funding authority for teaching training was necessary to underpin the necessary teacher training reform. But I, too, was unable to find any arguments to demonstrate

1549
this necessity because without the underpinning of a new authority quite radical reforms in the training of teachers have been going on for a decade now with accelerating success all over the country. Partnerships of a much closer nature between schools and universities have been growing up in Oxford, Keele, Exeter and Birmingham to name just a few. A considerable investment of funds by the universities has gone into that.
The improvement of standards and of the preparation of teachers is already beginning to become apparent, but there has also been set up a limited experiment in school centred courses; that is, courses where schools control the provision of teaching. However, this has been running for a short time and there are only a few hundred teachers who are trainees now involved in this. It is certain that there has been no time to evaluate the results. Therefore, I believe it is extremely early days to propose that the new funding authority should balance the different kinds. of training courses— the university based courses and the school centred courses. I believe we ought to let the present experiment run for a long time yet to yield some results before even raising the question of balance, let alone enshrining it in legislation.
There is no doubt that the removal of teacher education and educational research from the control of the universities would greatly diminish the standing of the professional qualifications of teachers and would considerably narrow the potential scope of research into educational topics, which must in many cases be conducted in institutions where there exist related faculties such as the faculty of psychology or urban studies or linguistics or philosophy.
It is not only those who carry out research who need the facilities of a university but also the student teachers themselves. It is difficult to see how in a school centred course, funded by a totally separate funding council, such students could attend lectures in subjects that are relevant to their studies or have the use of libraries to pursue their studies. It is not clear to me by what criteria the teacher training agency— if it were set up— would allocate funds to the proposed new courses. Even in the case of the present post-graduate certificate courses where schools are being asked to take much greater responsibility for the practical aspects of students' work, it is not yet clear that the right balance has been struck in every case in the workload and the salary allocation of the school based tutors, or mentors, enabling them to divide their time reasonably between their school pupils and their trainee students.
When the link with universities is broken altogether — if it is— the allocation of time and resources must be made by the school governing bodies. The school governing bodies will thereby have to take on yet another entirely new and unfamiliar burden which will entail a great deal of time and a great deal of work if it is to be done properly; and in which, of course, any funding agency will have to play its part. I suppose some of these difficulties could be overcome if it were strictly necessary but the question remains: why is the establishment of a new funding authority supposed to be necessary? In what way will the teaching profession be improved by this forcible separation from higher
1550
education as a whole? Why is this arrangement thought to be so utterly necessary in England but not necessary in either Wales or Scotland?
It is hard not to suspect that the teacher training agency is being put forward as a means to control not merely the numbers of teachers to be trained but the kind of training and the level of training that they will receive. The TTA will be able to allocate funds to schools as it thinks fit, and that means as the Secretary of State thinks fit. It is as if the teaching profession is somehow being punished for its past sins by its partial banishment from the universities. School controlled courses with a whole new funding mechanism attached may be the thin end of a wedge the effect of 'which may be to downgrade teachers, driving them further and further away from the position occupied by the other professions, or driving some of them— a balanced number— away; namely, those whose qualifications are to be based on school alone.
I detect here a relic of that ancient belief of which I have spoken before and which, since then, I have heard the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State express himself — that teachers do not really need training and that teaching is so easy that teachers, especially primary school teachers, need at most a few hours in the classroom to get the hang of it. It is almost beyond—
Lord Elton: I did not quite follow the noble Baroness. Was she attributing this view to the Secretary of State or quoting from him, or is it just a general impression she has?
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful for that question. I have seen it reported, and also heard, the Secretary of State say that what is good enough for Eton— I believe that was the example he used although I cannot remember— should be good enough for a primary school; namely, an untrained teacher. I think it is almost beyond belief that anyone should hold even the relics of such a view when we are becoming more and mom conscious of the immense responsibility that teachers have; when we are asking them to compensate for the emotional, social and linguistic deprivation under which many of their pupils struggle, and when we require them to teach the difference— as we are told— between right and wrong and also to identify those children who will' have special educational needs. It is beyond belief that we should still be suggesting, by implication, that teaching is something any fool can do and that the training of teachers can therefore be funded and regulated with no regard to the kind of intellectual—.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If the noble Baroness is attributing quite monstrous comments to my right honourable friend it would be helpful, given that he is not in any position to defend himself in this Chamber, for the noble Baroness either to give sources for her comments or to leave that kind of speculation out of this debate. This is a serious debate and I believe we should

1551
have a serious discussion, not deal in speculation as regards what we think my right honourable friend may or may not have said.
Baroness Warnock: I understand that, but I believe that in the absence of my being able to find the necessity for the proposed new funding agency— I wait to be told that I am wrong— I am naturally obliged to look for reasons for the setting up of such an agency that would explain the insistence on having it. As I said, I simply fail to see that the establishment of such an agency is necessary at a time when our teacher training reforms are going ahead at a considerable pace and with considerable success. In the absence of any argument to prove that there is that necessity, it is only natural that one should look for a hidden agenda.
I am afraid that I am unmoved by the response of the noble Baroness the Minister. Although she may not subscribe in any way to the belief that teachers do not really require training, I believe that a considerable number of people have that view at the back of their minds. My point is simply that as we rightly demand more and more of teachers it seems ill-timed to suggest the removal of a proportion of teachers from the intellectual framework of the universities within which they ought to be doing their practical work and without which the practical work has no effect.
Lord Elton: As one who spent 10 years' teaching in the classroom perhaps I may be allowed to follow the noble Baroness, who has also had a distinguished career in the classroom and elsewhere. It seems to me that the first point that we have to establish is the view that we hold of teachers and of teaching as a profession. I yield to nobody in my regard for teaching as a profession. I believe that the teachers of this country are the trustees of our future and the guardians of our children for a great many hours of the day.
I am not one of those to whom my noble friend Lord Beloff attributed the view that all teachers trained in the 1960s are unreliable, either in their politics or philosophy. I believe that a great deal of very good work is being done in our schools. I believe that it is wrong to lay at the door of the teaching profession many of the present ills of society and the decline in standards in society, as is so popular in the newspapers.
However, having said that, it is clear that everything is not as good as it might be at present and that we need to look abroad if we are to see what standards can be achieved. If we are to make a change the question before the Committee is whether, as the amendment proposes, we should adapt what we have already or whether, in view of the urgency and importance of the question, we should create a specialist body to focus on a specific question.
One of the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, advanced against that a moment ago was that it would be an organisation appointed by the Secretary of State on criteria which rested on his judgment. I may be wrong, but I believe that the bodies which do that job now— the HEFC and the FEFC— are appointed by the
1552
Secretary of State on criteria which he has to determine. If that is the case then the change proposed in the amendment is no change.
I shall not tackle the whole of the matter because my noble friend will deal with it, but there is one area on which I have strong views. It has been suggested that school-based teacher training will be in some way defective because it will deprive the students receiving it of the input of a university education. I think that I am right in saying that it is proposed that only postgraduate students shall be admitted to those courses. In that case, they will already have completed a degree course at university.
Earl Russell: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell me where in the Bill it says that only postgraduate students shall be admitted to those courses?
Lord Elton: That is a question to ask the Minister. I do not say that out of ignorance; one will not find it in the Bill. However, I imagine that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to find it in the Bill and therefore his wish should be addressed to the Minister.
My point is that this system can be used— and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will be used— for postgraduate training. I taught for three years in a teacher training college and it was clear to me, and equally clear to my students, that much the most valuable time was spent on teaching practice in schools. Therefore, the focus on schools in the last postgraduate year should be regarded with great favour. It need not be isolated from institutes of education. There is no reason why there should not be co-operation between schools and those bodies which operate in their area.
Therefore, I ask the Committee not to run away from this idea without considering it. Arguments have been put forward from university common rooms which look very good and sound very strong and which address the interests of universities. I ask the Committee to consider the aspects of the issue which touch the interests of teachers and the pupils they will teach. It seems to me that this system proposes a route in that respect which may offer improvements over what is available now.
I urge the Committee not to dismiss this but to look at it carefully. I believe that Members of the Committee will find merit which will lead them not to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his supporters into the Lobby.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to ask for clarification of something that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said. The noble Baroness spoke about a hidden agenda. Is she suggesting that there is any unwarranted interference with academic freedom? Is she suggesting that any excessive control or abuse of executive powers is involved?
Baroness Warnock: I do not know whether it is proper for me to answer. I do not believe that I said anything about academic freedom. However, I do suggest the possibility of undue control of the content of teacher training courses which are not school based but school centered in that the funding council, whose

1553
membership is determined by the Secretary of State, will decide where to place resources and which schools should have them. I am not speaking of academic freedom directly but about the possibility, but not the inevitability, of undue control.
Earl Russell: I do not want to appear ungracious. Therefore, I shall say now to the noble Baroness that while I shall express my thanks in their due place for what has now happened to Part II of the Bill what I shall say will be even warmer than the note I wrote to her on 24th February, because since then further thought has made me more and more pleased with the changes to Part II of the Bill. It is now positively good.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, I cannot extend that pleasure to Part I of the Bill. I rise to speak to my proposal to delete Clause 1. The noble Baroness may wish to say that that is a rather far-reaching proposal. Before she does so, I hope that she may reflect that it is no more far-reaching than her own amendment, which I warmly welcome, to delete Clause 20. Before she makes a distinction I hope that she will bear in mind the story of Oscar Wilde's Latin teacher. Oscar Wilde had a Latin essay to write. Needless to say, he had left it too late to prepare it so he found a passage on exactly that topic in Cicero and copied it word for word. The essay came back covered in red ink: "Far too ornate. Very flowery. Very bad Latin"."But please, sir, it's Cicero"."Well, my boy, Cicero could get away with it; you can't". I hope that the noble Baroness will not give me that reply.
I shall say a brief word about Amendment No.3. Amendment No.3 is a moderate amendment. Indeed, I might describe it as an extremely moderate amendment. Nevertheless, were the noble Baroness to agree to take it away and think about it I would, in those circumstances, not feel the need to press that Clause I should not stand part of the Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, I have been very perplexed as to why Part I of the Bill has been introduced. However, since we debated the subject at Second Reading we have had an explanation from the Prime Minister in his "Back to Basics" interview in the Daily Express on 17th February. He said that the purpose of the Bill was to take influence from fashionable theorists and give it to schools. Behind those words I get more than a whiff of the suspicion that the noble Barone1s, Lady Warnock, suggests that teachers do not really need training but should learn on the job. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I also get more than a whiff of an interference with academic freedom. I hear a determination to rule out of court a certain body of ideas about education which at times have not found favour in certain quarters of the Conservative Party.
Education i s an academic subject. These are academic argurnents on which the jury is still out. You do not resolve academic arguments by creating a quango to ensure the success of one faction and not the other. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made the obvious point that we are dealing with an attempt to take power from one quango to another quango. He is of course correct. But the higher education funding council necessarily
1554
represents a diversity of interests to match the diversity of higher education. It is not an appropriate body to impose on the training of teachers by force of authority one particular academic philosophy.
It is no part of my purpose— any more than it was part of the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff— to argue about who is right, first because I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, who, when this matter was debated on 1st May 1991, said:
"So often the answer is not either/or but it is both/and". — [Official Report, 1/5/91; col.806].
Secondly, there are some things which rightness does not excuse. For example, I have a personal preference for the teaching of reading by the phonic method. for the simple but limited reason that that is the way I have been taught and it appears to work. Nevertheless, I would think it a gross abuse of my parliamentary position to attempt to use legislation and take the full weight of executive patronage to impose that method of teaching reading on others who had studied the subject far more deeply than I would ever live to do. That is not the way you win academic arguments. Indeed, it seems to me that it would be a fundamental interference with academic freedom. It would also be an extreme exercise in political correctitude. I believe that noble Lords know that I am no friend of political correctitude, but political correctitude may come from either the Right or the Left. It needs to be opposed no matter from which quarter it may come. Members of a government in office for 14 years must accept that for some people it may appear that they are now the fashionable theorists.
One has to imagine this clause in other hands. I shall not refer to the present Opposition, still less before the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has spoken. It is a commonplace that today's lunatic fringe is the day after tomorrow's orthodoxy. Can one imagine in 30 years' time a teacher training agency that teaches people how to eliminate heterosexist body language in class? The Government are unwisely laying themselves wide open to that.
An article by Mr. Stephan Shakespeare in the Daily Telegraph on llth February shows some of the dangers that may lurk behind this Bill. In the first place, he has confused the University of London Institute of Education with the University of London external degree. I do not know whether any legal action is pending on that matter. I would be quite glad if that were so. Secondly, he takes vehement objection to the notion that the concept of literacy is fraught with difficulty. He appears to want to prohibit the use of any such objectionable notion. But if he were to do that he would interfere not only with educational research but would also prohibit a vast amount of research into the growth of literacy in Tudor and Stuart England. I shall give one small example of what I mean when I say that the concept of literacy is fraught with difficulty. I take it from the Record Office of your Lordships' House. In a document of 1642 a man attempted to sign his name, mis-spelled it, crossed it out, tried again, made a blob, buried the word under the ink, gave up and made a mark. When I come to consider whether or not that man was literate I have to face the fact that it is indeed true that the concept of literacy is fraught with difficulty. If Mr. Shakespeare and his friends want to use the teacher

1555
training agency to ban any such doctrine they will be sending some of the best historians in the University of Cambridge over to America.
If you want to change anything in education you have to do it by working with teachers and giving them a chance to change their own ideas. You cannot change a culture by legislation. If that were not true we would not have Roman Catholics in this country today. The amount of effort that has been put into eradicating Roman Catholicism by force of law is immense. It has failed. As a believer in religious and political pluralism, I am glad that they have survived.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out to me at Second Reading, accreditation is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. It is something on which the Secretary of State should take professional advice. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility in the same sense that it is the responsibility of the House to confirm measures that have gone through the General Synod. I believe that the House would agree that we should not lightly, wantonly or unadvisedly set those aside.
This matter was at one time the responsibility of a body known as CATE. The Secretary of State's attitude to CATE makes Petruchio look like a new man. The Secretary of State has murdered CATE. That is not all. There is a very large series of practical questions here. The schools do not want this new responsibility. SCOP has conducted a survey in which, out of 1,202 respondents, only 12 (less than 1 per cent.) want a major share of responsibility for intellectual and pedagogical development of prospective teachers. Schools are for teaching children. They are stretched to their limit. Only in today's local paper I read that my borough of Brent plans to sack large numbers of teachers in order to allow the Conservative council to cut the council tax. You cannot do that and impose upon schools major new responsibilities. You cannot have good teachers unless they are trained in their subject as well as in teaching. You cannot train them in their subject without access to major libraries.
I have been in the House long enough to know that no one who intends to legislate can possibly refuse to accept laws made by Parliament. But if your Lordships look at degrees in the United States I do not know of anyone who gives equal weight to a BA from Yale and a BA from the State University of Alaska at Fairbanks, even though as state universities go that is quite a good one and I do not wish to slur it. In much the same way, if the Bill were to become law and I were to be a school governor— as after retirement would not be impossible — I should find it difficult to give equal weight to the qualifications of a teacher qualified under this Bill and those of a teacher qualified by what I recognise as the normal process.
Lord Skidelsky: I wish to put the case for Clause 1 in a way that I hope will commend itself to the Committee. Noble Lords will, I think, agree that teacher training is not like most other university subjects. I shall come to medicine a little later because it has been raised and in some ways it is like teacher training, but there are also important differences. In any case, the Secretary of
1556
State is not concerned with the supply and quality of historians, no doubt to the great relief of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
However, the Secretary of State has long had the statutory responsibility for the supply of teachers. The classic English doctrine put by the Bryce Commission in 1895 is still worth repeating. It wrote:
"The fact is that the body of teachers must necessarily occupy a somewhat anomalous position in the … national life. The service they render is one over which the State must, in self-defence, retain effective oversight … Nor, on the other hand, do the teachers stand in the same relation to the Government as does the Civil Service".
In France and Germany, teachers do stand in relation to the government very much more like the Civil Service and their funding and accreditation arrangements reflect that fact. But the English way, which is the way I support, has been different. It has been to delegate the state's responsibilities to various independent or quasi-independent bodies on the well-known hands-off principle.
However, that delegation cannot be unconditional and its form has varied many times this century. The question is whether the delegated arrangements at any one time enable the Secretary of State to fulfil his responsibilities effectively. That is the nub of the argument and that is the nub of the Bill.
I read with great interest the briefing I received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Its case against the proposed new arrangements is impressive, but it rests on one premise: that nothing is wrong with the present quality of teacher education. I believe that to be a blinkered view for two reasons. First, it ignores the widespread criticism of the quality of teaching there has been over many years. Some of the HMI reports have been pretty scathing. In that respect, I suggest that there is a difference from medicine and the arrangements for dealing with the funding of medicine through a medical council. There has not, to my knowledge, been widespread criticism of the way doctors are trained. If it were felt to any great extent that thousands of people were dying because doctors were incompetent, I suggest that there would be very strong pressure to introduce different arrangements. There has been strong criticism of teacher training.
Lord Dainton: Would the noble Lord be prepared to give evidence for that emanating from the Office for Standards in Education?
Lord Skidelsky: Is the noble Lord referring to evidence of widespread criticism of teacher training?
Lord Dainton: I am referring to criticism associated with incompetence of teachers.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: Certainly, there have been many reports. The HMI report of 7th December 1993 is a good example. The Committee would agree, I think, that the quality of teaching is linked to the quality of teacher training, which in turn affects pupils' achievements.
The second reason for the different position from medicine is that school education is being set new tasks today by the urgent need, accepted on all sides, to raise

1557
our level of national economic efficiency. Unless we upgrade our skills, we cannot get back to full employment without a disastrous decline in our standard of living. I have heard that argument many times from the Opposition Benches and it is an argument that I accept.
Under those circumstances, the Secretary of State's effective oversight of which Lord Bryce spoke has to take new forms. School education cannot remain a secret garden, impenetrable to outsiders, with the state simply paying up for whatever the professionals wish to do.
I understand the argument that school education should not be used as a form of manpower planning. It was put most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Beloff in a recent debate in this House. But I find it difficult to understand the position of those who preach the urgency of improving national skills, yet want to deny the Secretary of State any effective means of improving teacher quality on which pupils' achievements so largely depend.
The present position is that the funding of initial teacher training, vested in the Higher Education Funding Council, is separated from the accreditation of initial teacher training vested in the Secretary of State acting on the advice of CATE (the Council for the Accreditation for Teacher Education). It makes good sense to unite those two functions in a single body which will be able to direct funds to where they can be used most effectively.
Under the proposed system the Secretary of State loses his power to accredit courses and the power to fund directly school-based courses. So the principle of delegation is being, maintained by the new proposal. It is even being extended. Moreover, from the point of view of accountability, to which I attach great importance, it must be right to concentrate responsibility in a single place. How are responsibilities for funding, scrutiny and accreditation shared out now? Hardly anyone knows. We are shunted from acronym to acronym. Now we will have one body which will not be able to escape public scrutiny— the teacher training agency. The whole procedure for channelling money will he brought out of the vestry and displayed to the full view of the congregation.
There is one other argument which I find compelling. The new funder, the teacher training agency, will not provide teacher training itself. At present, the funding councils allocate block grants to the universities which can then allocate them between their various subject categories. It is notoriously difficult for any institution, with the best will in the world, to take a detached view about the relative merits of its component operations. If there are cuts in the budget, its natural response is to share them out all round. It is much easier for an agency which does not provide teacher training itself to apply quality criteria impartially.
I understand the fears behind the amendment and I share some of them. The arguments I have been advancing this afternoon would be overwhelmed if it turned out that the main purpose of the Government's exercise was to kill off courses of which they disapproved. Education is riddled with ideology, as the
1558
noble Earl said earlier, and that applies as much to teacher training as any other parts of it. We cannot get rid of it, so there must be room for diversity of approach within the quality standards. Whatever my private views may be, I do not want Right-wing coercion to replace the Left-wing coercion which has been too prevalent in some education colleges.
It is essential therefore that the appointments to the new agency be above reproach. There must be no suggestion of ideological favouritism or jobs for the boys. That is a crucial element in the contract which those of us who support the measure with open eyes want from the Government. I urge the Minister not just to give us that assurance but to act on it. It is not for our sake but for the credibility of the whole reform that the Secretary of State must behave honourably in the matter. It is in that spirit that I support the Government and oppose the amendment.
Lord Flowers: We have heard from the ancient universities and from the relatively modern ones. Perhaps I may speak as someone who, in his retirement, has become a governor of a former polytechnic, Middlesex University. I have to tell the Committee that the university opposes this part of the Bill as strongly as anyone else. I oppose it and if I get half a chance I shall vote for the amendment we are considering.
It is perfectly understandable that governments should occasionally be concerned about some aspects of education at some level and should wish to have the right and the power to do something about it. I too am disturbed about teacher training, and I want something done about it. But what we are talking about this afternoon is not whether or not that is the case, but, if there is something that ought to be done, how one should go about it and how the Government should influence matters.
This Bill proposes special arrangements outside the normal funding arrangements for universities to deal with the particular case of teacher training. That is the subject that happens to disturb them at the present time. But there are many other subjects which might on some occasion or other give rise to equal concern I can see perfectly good reasons why at some date in the future governments might be concerned about the teaching of doctors, or lawyers. They have in the past been concerned about the teaching of engineers. They might be concerned about economics; or, for all I know, about divinity. Are we to have special arrangements for funding, accountability, accreditation and scrutiny for all of those areas outside the normal funding arrangements? It really makes no sense.
The funding councils for England, Scotland and Wales are supposed to oversee and further the whole of the higher education system in every aspect. If their work is so soon to be fragmented— this is the first step — in this manner, why were they ever set up, and how are they supposed to carry out their responsibilities? It is simply not sensible to try to fund universities in this way. The Government have the power to require the funding councils to give particular attention to whatever field is bothering them. That should be sufficient. I shall vote for the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to take a slightly different line. There can be very little doubt that if these amendments were carried into this Bill they would be rejected by another place. The conventional exchanges—
Noble Lords: Not easily ! Who says so? Order!
Lord Beloff: Will the noble Lord give evidence for his view that another place is committed to this kind of Bill? I know of no evidence to that effect. So far as I know, such an idea has not been debated.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was unaware that I was giving evidence. I thought that I was expressing a personal opinion, which— I am grateful to my noble and learned friend— I gather I am entitled to do. I am trying to get to the realities of the situation. What we are really debating is a question of opinion. We are all agreed on the end, but we disagree as to the means to the end. That is a matter of opinion upon which people are entitled with total integrity to disagree. But in the result, as this Bill was introduced into this House, if another place rejects it— as I suggest is all but inevitable if it is amended in this form— what will happen is that traditional exchanges will continue, and continue. As this Bill was introduced in this House, it is not possible to invoke the Parliament Act to seek Royal Assent. In reality therefore we are looking ahead to a situation where in the long run we should have to defer to the elected Chamber. Is it sensible, when one has a difference of opinion as to the means rather than the end, to support this amendment, which would inevitably alter the whole structure of the Bill? As I understand it, there is no question of the Government being prepared to think again, and no question of their being prepared to drop the Bill. That is the reality.
The situation is that, in a sense, there is a sectional dispute on a matter of opinion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Skidelsky in what he said about the nub of the argument. If there had been any fear of any taint upon academic freedom, or any abuse of executive power, I would, as noble Lords know, have voted for the amendment and against the Government. But that simply does not arise.
Looked at objectively, the situation as regards academic freedom is that since September 1993 groups of schools have been able to apply for funds to run their own courses with higher education involvement as they wish; that the agency will have the same measure of independence as the existing funding council; that all teacher training in the past has had to meet the national criteria as set down by the Secretary of State; and that that will continue to be so. Finally, as to the quality of teacher training, it is certainly arguable— and the Government so argue— that it can benefit from an approach concerted between the council for accredita-tion which advised the Secretary of State on individual courses with the Higher Education Funding Council of England and the department that approves the courses. As that is an arguable approach, and as there is a perfectly respectable but genuine difference of opinion,
1560
is this a matter upon which the Government should be taken head on? If so, I ask the Committee, to what purpose?
Lord Glenamara: I shall not detain the Committee more than a few minutes, but I want to express the warmest possible support for this excellent amendment. I hope very much indeed that we shall have an opportunity to vote on it. I do not support it for any high-falutin' reasons, but simply because, as someone who has been involved in the education system all his adult life, I believe deeply that this Bill will damage the quality of our teaching service. That is why I support the amendment.
First, let me say that, like many other Members of the Committee, I greatly welcome the Government's proposed changes to Part II. But I am amazed that they have not suggested any changes to Part I, bearing in mind the debate that we had on Second Reading, when not quite all, but almost all speakers in the Chamber opposed it. In spite of the opposition of this House, the Government have not come forward with any proposals at all to amend Part I of the Bill.
There is no justification anywhere in the education system for this part of the Bill. The Government have tried to justify it on grounds of quality, efficiency, choice and accountability. I cannot see any of those being improved by this Bill. Indeed, quality will be depressed by it, and so will efficiency.
At Second Reading, I said that this measure took us back to the pupil-teacher system of the early years of this century — and indeed it does. Pupils leaving school could stay on and be trained as teachers in the school. They became excellent technicians; they knew how to write on the blackboard; they knew how to avoid elliptical questions, and all that sort of thing; they were taught the technique of teaching. They had no depths whatever. Surely in this day and age, with the advances in knowledge and technology that have been made, we need something better than that.
At the end of the war, I was headmaster of a secondary school. At one time I had in my school three of the one-year trainees who had come out of the forces. I know the problems that I had with those teachers. They came straight out of the forces into the schools, having done a few months' training in a college.
I point out again that Clause 11 of the Bill gives schools the power to devise schemes for training teachers. I invite the Committee, as I invited the Chamber at Second Reading, to consider any typical body of governors of a school and understand that the Bill would put in their hands the power to devise schemes for training teachers. That cannot be right. The proposal is based on the old idea of "watching Nellie". I was in the bank the other day and saw there a young boy sitting behind the girl who served me. Obviously, he was straight from school. He was learning the job by sitting there and watching how to count out the money and so on. That is what the noble Baroness wants to do in our schools. She shakes her head but it is exactly that. They will be teachers who are wholly trained in schools — they will sit and watch other teachers teaching. That is what she wants.

1561
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, nothing in the Bill says that the trainees have to be graduates. They may or may not be graduates. I am not a betting man but I should like to bet that if this scheme goes ahead we shall see school-leavers with two or three A-levels from secondary schools being trained in another school.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: Could the noble Lord tell us, if it were put in the statute or if he were reassured that all the people who train to be teachers by that method were to be university graduates, whether that would remove his objection?
Lord Glenamara: Of course it would not. I am saying that they may or may not be graduates. They may be school-leavers who stay on at the same school and train as teachers. That may or may not involve the universities. Why does the noble Baroness shake her head? That is, exactly what the Bill says.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the noble Lord would point to where it says that in the Bill. I should be grateful to him if he would point out to me the provision in the Bill which says that.
Lord Glenamara: I am pointing out something that it does not say. The Bill does not say that they have to be graduates.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that clarification. However, my noble friend asked the noble Lord, that doubt being removed from the noble Lord's mind, whether his objection would be removed as a counter to it.
Lord Glenamara: I say no. I answer that quite clearly by saying no. It is one objection to it— that they may not be graduates. I think that a lot of them will simply be secondary school-leavers. The noble Baroness shakes her head. How does she know? There is nothing in the Bill to stop it. The body of governors can have its own scheme for the training of teachers. There is nothing to say that the trainees have to be graduates. They may be people with a couple of A-levels and nothing more.
The other point to remember is that Clause 11 makes it clear that the school may or may not involve the university. So those trainees may have no contact whatever with a university. I believe that it is a great pity to sever the links between teacher training and the universities.
Why should the change be made? There is no demand for the change anywhere in the educational world, none whatever. It has been opposed by every single body in the educational world from top to bottom. Everybody— not only teachers but vice-chancellors and all levels— the whole educational world opposes it. So why make the cht. nge?
In conclusion, I have intimate knowledge of the teacher training department of a very large university. I believe that teacher training today is excellent. A great deal of it is done in schools. The noble Baroness shakes her head. She was responsible for training many of them
1562
until quite recently. But in the department which I know about— in a university that is bigger than hers— the training is excellent. First-rate teachers are being turned out. They spend a lot of their training time in schools and that time, as the noble Baroness knows, has recently been increased. So why mess up the whole system once again?
I oppose the notion. It will damage the training of teachers and depress the teaching quality in our schools. I appeal to the Committee to vote for the amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to take the opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for the time, patience and readiness to listen to very real concerns which characterised her approach to Part II of the Bill, which dealt with student unions. It is not too late for her to follow, I hope, the same course with regard to some aspects of Part I, which we are now debating, and to take away the alternative courses of action now being put forward in greater detail than could be done at Second Reading to see what can be done to meet our concerns. She has gained much respect and gratitude already. I hope that she will do so again.
I respect the Government's general intention to correct past mistakes. I have seen something of the shortcomings of education in schools. I have known graduates who encountered a very rigid ideology in their teacher training courses. Though it is only anecdotal evidence, I know of one undergraduate who came up to read English and had to be given special teaching in English grammar. There was also one gifted graduate, with a first in English, who nearly gave up her teacher training course because she found it very difficult to accept the requirement not to teach but to wait for children to take the entire initiative to learn on their own.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, skilfully captured both those aspects of current pedagogic dogma in his phrases at Second Reading:
"the misuse of linguistics in order to decry the importance of teaching grammar; and … the belief that didactic teaching is so uncongenial to learning that children should spend all their time trying to reinvent the wheel".
Thus, I fully endorse the need to do some radical thinking to correct the undoubted flaws in the present system. However, I cannot believe that it is right to divorce teacher training from the whole system of higher education in the way proposed. I am not happy about an agency which is to be separate from and deprived of all the interdisciplinary advice, research and even practitioner experience which it would have if it remained part of the higher education system as a whole.
It seems to me that the Government are embarking on setting up yet another agency with extensive powers of intervention in a vital area of higher education and it is quite unnecessary. It seems to me equally unnecessary to set up a new funding mechanism when there is already the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Pedagogic education, like medical or legal education, needs to be related to and closely involved with teaching and research in university faculties as well as involving practical work in schools. That is why it would save much bureaucracy and make good sense to

1563
have the whole issue of teacher training dealt with, as the noble Lords' amendment suggests, by a new Committee of the HEFCE.
There are certainly faults, many of long standing, in present teacher training practice. I believe that the will exists to make the whole system work better and that people are prepared to identify and correct the undoubted faults. In any case, we face a whole range of new developments and requirements in teaching. However, we do not need to duplicate effort. We need to ensure that the funding and organisation of teacher education are recognised, valued and kept under scrutiny. Rigorous standards should be required as part of the whole complex, interlocking system of higher education and as a valued part of university life— not as a separate entity combining extensive powers of intervention with no responsibility toward or fruitful relationship with the rest of the infrastructure of higher education.
A good teacher is one of the most valuable people in a child's life. We have all had at least one and often many such teachers. It is vital that teacher training should stay in the mainstream and have the best possible chance of producing persons of quality and protecting their academic independence. It seems to me that the amendment offers the best formula for that. I hope very much that the Government will be able to adopt it. I must apologise for the fact that a long-standing engagement will force me to leave the Chamber at 7.30, for which I am very sorry.
Lord Judd: I hope that the Minister will take seriously the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. She speaks with tremendous authority and experience of education and I always find her interventions worth a guinea a second.
In his penetrating introduction to this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was absolutely right to pose the key question.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene to ask whether he is rising at this stage with any thought in his mind that we are nearing the conclusion of the debate.
Lord Judd: I would not dream of bringing to a conclusion such a tremendously important debate. I hope that all those with insights to share will share them. I am sure that the Minister is listening attentively and is benefiting tremendously from the exchange.
The key question was: who wants the TTA? It is a question which has conspicuously gone unanswered since the Bill first appeared on the horizon. As I have suggested to the Chamber before, it was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who sagaciously made an important contribution to our discussions on the previous Bill when he said that, above all, in this realm of education it is essential to establish consensus. Would that the present Secretary of State would take a leaf out of the book of his wise predecessor.
I fear that as it stands this part of the Bill remains depressingly unimaginative, demeaning and altogether retrograde. I must therefore make it absolutely clear to
1564
the Committee and all those concerned that if the government-proposed, and totally unwanted, TTA as we see it before us is established, the next Labour Government will abolish it. It is an obstruction to the fulfilment of the very objectives it claims to serve.
In the meantime, our efforts in this Committee stage must be to limit the damage in the intervening period. Before I make a few observations in that respect perhaps I may pose three other questions to which so far I have not heard an answer. Why on earth are the Government unpicking their own Higher Education Funding Council for England established barely a year ago? Do they not recognise that that will inevitably still further destabilise the already anxious and uncertain world of education? Secondly, why is England different from Wales and Northern Ireland? They are to be allowed to build for the future on existing structures. Thirdly, why is it different from Scotland? A serious research exercise is responsibly under way in Scotland to see exactly what will make most sense for the future.
I hope that in replying to this part of the deliberations the Minister will endeavour to deal with those questions. However, what preoccupies many of us when we look at the Bill is the significant extension of the Secretary of State's powers which it contains. I identified, as did the scrutiny committee, at least nine more powers delegated to the Secretary of State. In the context of all the upheaval, the propositions, the counter-propositions, the adjustments and the back-tracking that we have seen in recent years, can any of us really regard with equanimity the prospect of still more delegated powers for our Secretary of State? I should have thought that we see the living evidence of the foolishness of such an approach.
Then there is the whole issue of the quango. We know that there is concern from all sides of the Chamber about the proliferation of quangos and the damage that they are doing to the whole quality of our democracy. The Bill, and in particular this clause, envisages still more centralisation. How will the Minister and her department deal adequately with the growing number of school-centred schemes, which is obviously the design of the Administration opposite? The Bill removes healthy checks and balances in the present system. I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, but he knows all about ideological commitment and speaks about it very honestly. In that kind of setting where it is so important, checks and balances are greatly needed.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to interrupt. But is he suggesting with regard to delegated powers that there is anything that the Secretary of State can do under the new proposals that he cannot already do?
Lord Judd: That is a powerful point, as one would expect from the noble Lord. The Bill underlines, strengthens and reiterates those possibilities and, indeed, in some respects it accentuates them.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord said at the outset that he

1565
counted no fewer than nine new powers to the Secretary of State. It would be enormously helpful if he were to point out what and where they are.
Lord Judd: I was anticipating that request. I can assure the Minister that as the Bill proceeds we shall do exactly that.
The procedure which the Bill spells out also undermines democratic accountability. It opens up yet another situation ripe for crude political patronage. It will be possible for the Secretary of State to pack the new agency with government supporters, as has happened in almost every other sphere of quango activity in the nation. It will introduce duplication and waste, not least in office administrative staff. We shall see duplication beyond what is already there in the Higher Education Funding Council. But what I find quite amazing is that, as we all read with great interest the procedures of the Scott inquiry in which we hear Ministers claiming that they cannot deal with all the detail of government, here is a proposition to put still more detail directly on the desk of the Secretary of State.
The proposal undermines the status and quality of the teaching profession at the very time that we should be rebuilding them. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, again in his introductory remarks, we should consider other professions. For example, when we look at nursing we see that in recent years in the professional interest of nursing an important move was made towards university education of nurses and the importance of higher education in their preparation for service is stressed.
It is clear to us on these Benches that the close involvement of teacher preparation with higher education is essential. I believe that it was during the Second Reading debate that I shared with noble Lords an experience in an Inner London school I shall never forget. When left alone with some of the youngsters to talk to them directly about their feelings on education, I asked them what they found most important in their teachers. The answer came unequivocally,"Oh sir, somebody who knows and loves their subject". That is a point to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred. We need teachers who have a depth of knowledge in their subject, a love and understanding of the material and on top of that the skills to deploy that effectively. Skills and techniques cannot become a substitute for knowledge.
There are also in the Bill some extraordinary and dangerously simplistic views regarding research. How can there be a concept of research that suggests that we can somehow separate it into methodology and technique and the research into the subject matter itself? The two are obviously inextricably interrelated. Indeed, who can look easily at a proposition which is going to give more direct political authority, through his own appointed quango, to the Secretary of State to direct research when we all know that the quality of research depends upon demonstrable independence from political intervention?
There is a similar disturbing blurring of vital distinctions between funding and the handling of criteria for accreditation, a task essentially, if ever there was
1566
one, for a general teaching council. Then implicit in this whole first clause is the Government's determination to see the promotion of school-centered teacher preparation as distinct from the partnership between schools and higher education. I find that a very questionable proposition simply in these terms. At the moment we have a few hundred trainee teacher apprentices in schools consortia in a scheme which is yet to be evaluated. Yet we are building a whole new strategy on that basis before the evaluation has taken place. At the same time we have many thousands of teachers in preparation in higher education institutions which are regularly inspected and accredited.
Schools are about the education of children. They are not about the training of teachers. That is why there is such deep concern among very pressurised teachers, trying to do their best, about taking on this extra burden. They do not know how they will take it on and they very much doubt whether they will do it justice. It is also why there is so much concern among parents. I hope I am not being unfair in saying that the proposition before us is a cheap and nasty one. It is still more evidence of knowing the price of everything and the value of very little. I am concerned at the demoralisation which is there in so much of the teaching profession at the moment because of all the chopping and changing and new ideas; several a day. It has been well demonstrated — I find it quite alarming— in the figures recently revealed which suggest that there has been a 6 per cent. drop this year in the number of graduates applying to undertake courses to prepare as teachers.
This is a vital debate on the clause. I feel that the Minister herself has somehow managed— certainly in my view, and I do not believe I am alone— to convey her sense of concern behind the scenes during the prolonged and painful deliberations about much that is contained in the Bill. I hope that where she has genuine doubts she will feel strengthened by much that has already been said and what may be said during the rest of the evening. I wonder whether, even at this eleventh hour, she might not herself have it in her heart to give some kind of undertaking to the Committee that she will at least take away the ideas and propositions before us this evening, look at them and consider them and not insist on dismissing them, so that before we complete our deliberations on the Bill we shall have time to hear her reflections and to discuss together what we should make of them and how we want to respond in that situation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I want to ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. I was interested in what he said in the last part of his speech. What concerns me is that if the Committee adopts the amendment, we shall have a different Bill and a completely different proposition. We shall then not be able to look in detail at the things that are worrying us about the proposals in Clause 1 and, if possible, amend them. We shall not be able to do that. It is therefore crucial that we do not pass the amendment and that we look very carefully at the various points the noble Lord has made. I am not making a tricky political point. It is a House of Lords point. What does the noble Lord think about that?
Lord Judd: That is a very important point. What will be terribly important, as I am sure the Minister will understand, is what she will have to share with us and the way she shares it with us in her response to the debate. We must weigh that up. I have quoted the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the indispensability of consensus in building sound education systems for the future. It is something to which we on these Benches are deeply committed. It is an exercise through which we are going ourselves in preparing our own policies for the future. In that sense therefore there is nothing we would welcome more than a move towards a genuine consensus. However, if that is to happen, we shall have to have some kind of indication— I do not expect the Minister to give us all the answers tonight— that she is taking the debate seriously, which I am sure she is, and will take the matter away and think about it.
Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, asked the question: who wants the change? Several noble Lords have said that they have concerns. I too have concerns. But my concerns are solely from the point of view of employing the products of the school system. Of course, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that education is not manpower planning, but the reality is that one of the reasons for the high level of unemployment in this country is that the product of the education system is not capable of meeting the needs of industry and the commercial community. Therefore, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton— who wants the change?— is that certain employers do.
The current standards of children coming through the education system often— very often— do not match up to the needs of industry and commerce. We need disciplined young people. We need young people who know how to concentrate on work. We need young people who can read; young people who can write; and, particularly, young people who can aim for accuracy in mathematics. We do not have the luxury of employing project-based young people who freewheel their way through a system. We are in a competitive world where we need to have the best educated workforce. We do not have it now. In nearly 30 years of working in this country in industry and commerce I can say that standards have slipped. I can assure the Committee that they have slipped. I am aware that I shall bring down the wrath of a lot of people in the Committee by making that statement. But we have had the views of the academic sector, the views of the teaching profession, and I felt I ought to make just a few comments from another side.
The teacher training agency, with the appointment of persons who should influence future courses with their,
"experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters",
will help these young people to take from their education something to make them worthy and indeed valued in the workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says— I paraphrase, I hope correctly— that there must be changes in the way teachers are educated, but not now; let us run with what we have and see how it works out. I submit that we do not have much time. I have been
1568
convinced that this Part I will actually benefit the group which interests me most; namely, the young people coming into the workforce.
Baroness Cox: I should like to support what the noble Baroness has just said and to respond to a point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. She suggested that there was a hidden agenda. I see no hidden agenda in these proposals. I strongly support the teacher training agency not as a hidden agenda but because it represents a positive approach to teacher education. It establishes a specialist body, uniting functions and responsibilities for funding and accreditation, and supporting good practice in teacher training. There is an enormous and urgent necessity for proposals of this kind. If there were not problems the Bill would not be necessary. I should like to follow the noble Baroness in responding to one of the requests made earlier on for some research-based evidence of why there are problems which need this very urgent kind of response. I shall not recite very many but I would just like to give a few specific examples.
There is a lot of evidence of serious underachievement in many schools; for example, declining reading ability in many primary schools seriously stunts young children's ability to learn, as evidenced by Martin Turner. There is the problem of reading difficulties among many undergraduates, documented by Bernard Lamb. This hampers academic performance and sometimes necessitates remedial education even for undergraduates. Illiteracy also affects the employability of school-leavers. Many employers find that they cannot employ school-leavers because they cannot even read safety notices. There is under-attainment in mathematics which puts British pupils at a disadvantage in competition with young people from other countries. Professor Prais found that our 16 year-olds are two years behind their West German counterparts. That is totally unacceptable.
I must emphasise that of course there are many good schools which are undertaking good teaching, but there is also research which shows enormous variations between schools, even in a similar catchment area. For example, in formal examination results some schools may achieve three to four times as many exam passes as schools in similar areas, or even adjacent schools. Such variations reflect the quality of teaching, which in turn reflects the quality of teacher education.
Perhaps I may refer to the HMI report published on 7th December 1993. That report found that in urban schools 40 per cent. of lessons were unsatisfactory and in some schools two-thirds of lessons were poor or unsatisfactory. Far too many teachers had low expectations of their children and, overall, nearly 30 per cent. of lessons in primary schools were unsatisfactory.
This is an urgent situation. There is a need for much greater evidence of proof from the education establishment and from higher education, that they have been ready to address these situations, which have been going on for some time. In the worst schools, the inspectors criticised in their report the inadequate knowledge the teachers of older primary children had of their own subject areas, the unacceptably low standard

1569
of work and the fact that many children were engaged in mundane tasks such as copying and colouring. They also criticised poor punctuality, persistent bad behaviour of pupils, unfinished homework and the slow pace of lessons.
These reports are desperately serious. They show that we are betraying a large number of young people in our schools. I believe that it is this which merits the special attention and the provisions of this Bill for teacher training. Those provisions do not devalue teacher training and they do not undermine the status of teachers. They respect the vital contribution of teachers and the wellbeing of our schools and our children, and they seek to enhance that.
I believe that many of the reservations expressed by noble Lords promoting the amendments before us, which would prevent the establishment of the teacher training agency, are in essence groundless. Research would not be jeopardised— why should it be? Indeed, rigorous policy-related research could be promoted and any institution or researcher could apply for funding from any existing source, including the HEFC as it stands. So far as membership of that body is concerned, as I understand there is no difference in principle between the membership proposed for the TTA and the HEFC. Like the HEFC, the TTA would consist of appointed members, chosen according to specified, relevant criteria. In its transparency of operation, the TTA would be at least as open, if not more open, to public scrutiny and accountability as a body formed within the HEFC.
I conclude by saying that I believe that the establishment of this specialist body, combining crucial responsibilities for funding and accreditation, would enable current good practice to be promoted and encouraged and the remaining problems, which are all too evident and are betraying many of our children, to be addressed more urgently and more effectively. Such a body is not a threat to academic freedom or to independent research. I believe it is essential for the future wellbeing of all our children. I therefore hope that the Committee will oppose the amendments before us and support the establishment of a teacher training agency.
6 p.m.
Lord Annan: I have two questions for the noble Baroness. Can she say whether the Government are really dissatisfied with the way in which universities have allowed their institutes of education to develop and with their supervision of the whole of teacher training? That is the first question I wish to put to the noble Baroness. Two noble Baronesses have been making very important points with which many people would agree.
I myself have had experience of this matter. When I became Provost of University College I found that no one there had ever been taught how to teach. I was not foolish enough to Ask horny-handed professors who had been teaching for years to submit to so appalling an intrusion, but I suggested that newly appointed university teachers should go to the institute of education and be put on a course precisely to meet that
1570
need. That was done and after a few years I thought it was right to monitor the result. All those who had attended the course said that it was a perfectly appalling experience. They were never taught how to give a lecture, how to hold a seminar or how to give a tutorial. That is very characteristic. There was no question of talk and chalk. There was much theory, but no talk and chalk or practical experience of any kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, made an analogy between medical education, in which we start with the pre-clinical schools in the universities and then move to the medical schools, but in many modern medical schools today that distinction has been much blurred. It has been found that simply to separate the pre-clinical rigidly from the clinical teaching does not produce the best kind of doctor. However, here I must again pay tribute to the institutes of education which I have just criticised. A famous course was put on during the 1970s by Mrs. J. Miller. It was much needed. It was called "The Survival Kit Course". That was for anyone who was going to teach in schools in some of the toughest and roughest areas in London. I would like a frank answer to the question as to whether that is why the Government have made this change.
The second question I want to ask is this: it was maintained by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that there was really no difference in present practice and that everybody would in fact have had a degree either from a university or from what used to be called a teacher training college. It would only be as a postgraduate experience that students went into the schools. Is that correct? Even if it were— I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her head— is that quite adequate?
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, made a most important point. One really cannot expect schools which are trying to teach children also to take on yet another burden— and, my God, the burdens which have been put on schools in the past three or four years are enormous ! Yet another burden is now being put on them in asking them to try to teach the prospective teachers. I believe that they should certainly have some theoretical training, provided that it is mixed in with the practical courses as well, as I suggested a moment ago.
Do we really need this additional quango? In a way I despair. This Government began in 1980 with a very noble and high-minded attempt to cut back the enormous growth of bureaucracy. I remember when Mr. Heseltine came into the Department of the Environment and a swathe of civil servants were dispensed with. I well remember the charming man who used to come to see me at the National Gallery to find out whether everything was going well in the museums and galleries. Suddenly, he did not appear any more. I cannot say that the gallery necessarily suffered a tremendous loss in efficiency as a result of that.
Why then create yet another quango? I ask myself: are you, as a Government, still interested in reducing unnecessary bureaucracy? I know that the noble Baroness answered me on the questions of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Higher Education Quality Council and said that great efforts were now going to be made to cut down the extent of bureaucracy, and of course I take her word for that. But

1571
do we need this extra body? I hope that she will be able to answer these two questions, because on them and on her answer my vote will depend.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was peculiarly relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Judd— having got to his feet rather early, I thought— made it clear that he had not got it in his mind that the debate would necessarily reach an early conclusion. I shall be brief in intruding into a debate in which almost all of the participants have been distinguished academics. I venture in with some diffidence.
There are three questions— some have been asked before— about which I am particularly concerned to hear answers from my noble friend the Minister. The first is the question with which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, opened his remarks: who wants this change? In particular, are the teachers (without whom, good or bad, no change will work) persuaded that it has merits?
Secondly, why butcher the Higher Education Funding Council for England? It has not been long in this world. Has its performance given grounds for despair? What hope, what real chance, is there of the teacher training agency which is now to be set up doing better? Perhaps I may observe gently to my noble friend that amenability to the requirements of a Secretary of State— and Secretaries of State have successors from time to time— is not in everyone's view the highest of human virtues.
My third question echoes one which has already been asked. Is the separation of teachers from universities desirable? Is it the aim and intention of the Bill that that separation should take place? I am relieved to see my noble friend shake her head so clearly and, if I may say so, so articulately. I was going to say that if that was the aim, it would be incomprehensible. Then, I am bound to say, it seems to me that the separation is likely to take place and must therefore be regarded as an accident. It is a particular accident that I would wish to see avoided.
I end my few remarks with one brief observation. I have always cherished and felt myself fortunate to have just a nodding acquaintance with one or two of those eminent people who occupy the post of vice-chancellor of one of the universities. I could say the same of those who have been, or are, heads of colleges. My observations of those eminent people have led me to believe that they are not always totally united in their views on education and that from time to time they differ strongly among themselves. What I am leading up to is wondering how I can express my astonishment at the way in which the Government have united those eminent people in opposition to their proposals. That cannot be just luck, or ill-luck, because this is not the first time that the Government have done it. I am wondering whether the Government have learnt any lessons from succeeding in uniting those eminent persons. Perhaps they will recall that on the last occasion when it happened, they did not win. The vice-chancellors, united, did.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for responding briefly to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Those points are at the heart of the debate. Perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness that I am not in the least cross at her for saying what she did. My observation of what has happened to standards of literacy is very close to hers. I deplore it as she does.
The question is the cause of the problem and the remedy. I began to think hard about this when I went over to the United States with two school-age children. We in this country think we have a British problem. We think it is something that is our fault. They think they have an American problem. They think it is something that is their fault. In the United States, where they have a federal constitution in the true and best sense of that word, the government do much less to direct teachers. I found in the 70s that, left to themselves, American teachers had moved much further and faster away from progressive education than any British teachers. That is something from which the Government might learn a lesson.
A problem that is happening across the Atlantic cannot be the result only of national policy in one country. Looking at the behaviour of my children when they are left to themselves, I think that the explanation is technological. Rather over 400 years ago we had a change in our culture— a massive shift from the visual to the verbal. Many people said that that was the result of people spreading the poison of heresy in their preaching or, as others preferred to put it, lighting a candle which will never be put out. I think that we are living in a time when that change is going into reverse. We are shifting away from the verbal in our culture and back to the visual. Once again, we are trying to blame all sorts of people for the change. Once again, the moving force is technological and we will not change that by bashing British teachers.
Baroness Young: Like many noble Lords, I have been very exercised in my mind about Part I of the Bill. I have listened with great interest to the debate this afternoon and read with care the extensive briefing that I was sent by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the accompanying memoranda of a number of vice-chancellors. Having not only read all the briefing but listened to the debate I have come to the conclusion that the Government are right on this matter and I very much hope that the amendment will not be carried this evening.
I think that we are all agreed on the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, made and that we all want to see an improvement in teacher training and the raising of standards. It is certainly not my wish to criticise teachers generally. A great many are doing very good work under very difficult circumstances and they need all the support we can give them. But sadly— and this is where I detect a serious point for society— there is a real dichotomy between the academics who have spoken this afternoon and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who speaks as an employer. I do not think that there is anything to be gained by conducting a great argument

1573
about this. However, the noble Baroness made the important point that if we do riot have properly qualified teachers providing a good education we are simply allowing our young people to grow up to be unemployed. That is a very serious matter. It is not a party point. I should have thought that we would all agree on it. Whether we like it or not, that is what comes out of report after report about what employers require.
It seems to me that the question ultimately before us is whether we should continue with what I broadly claim is the same as before— that is, that teacher training will continue in the way that it has for some considerable time. One must question that proposition, whatever the unanimity of view of all those involved. After all, the great efforts that have been made with the national curriculum, testing and assessment have been criticised throughout by everybody in the teaching profession. It is only now that people are beginning to recognise the value of many of close things. They may not have been absolutely right the first time round but at least we are getting to a stage where there is a large measure of agreement.
There are details of the Bill I would like to see amended and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will examine them. I believe that she will. However, we must look at the new proposals for what they will achieve. There have been a great many misunderstandings. As I understand it, the Bill, if anything, reduces the powers of the Secretary of State to affect the future pattern of teacher training. The Secretary of State retains his power to set criteria for training courses and to define the competence that new teachers must possess. On the other hand, he is giving up the power to fund school-centered courses and to approve individual teacher training courses. He is taking no new powers over higher education institutions and is re-enacting the safeguards for academic freedom. The argument as to whether he is acquiring new powers is debatable.
I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, with whom I nearly always find myself in complete agreement. However, I do not believe that the analogy with medical education stands up. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made that point too. By and large, people are satisfied with doctors. Although the question of what one does with an incompetent doctor once trained is real, that is a slightly different issue. After all, one can complain as a patient, provided that one survives, or as a member of the family. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, spoke about all kinds of other issues such as historians, divinity and so forth. I have no doubt that the Church would have something to say if it felt that people were riot properly qualified.
The truth of the matter is that as regards education we are talking about children and their lives. They are not in a position to make a complaint; they must take what comes to them. Therefore, a different situation exists. I believe that the Government's proposals are right. I shall support them this evening. I shall look for some amendments, although I will not go into that matter now because the hour is too late. The Government are broadly right and they deserve our support.
Lord Desai: The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, justified the Bill by saying that standards of education are slipping. I believe that they are, which means that they were once higher and have fallen. Why does the noble Baroness not ask herself who has been in power for the last 15 years while our education standards have been slipping?
Why is it, for example, that the United States has a similar problem? Both societies have something in common. We have been under-investing in education for a long time. Our schools are badly in need of repair and our teachers have not received good pay. The Government believe in free markets and incomes, and so forth, and they must ask whether, if we have bad teachers, we are paying teachers enough to attract good people. We must ask whether the education system has been harried, worried and made insecure by such an annual rate of legislation, chopping and changing, and changing again. If all those things occur standards will slip. Aspects other than teacher training may be at fault and therefore there is no argument to say that because standards are slipping we must change teacher training.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am grateful for the good debate that we have had today. It has ranged widely on issues such as the nature of the training of teachers and what goes on in schools. At this stage in the debate it would be helpful to look at what the amendment will do and at what the Government are proposing in Clause I, rather than allowing ourselves to vote on issues which have nothing to do with what is being proposed.
We have heard real anxieties about taking teacher training out of higher education. I share that anxiety. But that is not what the Government are proposing. The crucial part of the education of any teacher is education in the subject he will teach. There is nothing in the Bill which suggests that that will come out of the university system. There is nothing in the Bill which suggests that teaching should not continue to be an all-graduate profession. Many Members of the Committee believe that that is right. There is no proposal to set up a teacher training agency, wholly divorced from higher education, which threatens the position of teacher training and the education of people who will teach in our schools. The teacher training agency is not a new quango; it is not one more addition to the range of quangos.
I was the chief inspector for teacher training within Her Majesty's inspectorate at the time when CATE was set up. I remember the happy moment when we decided that the acronym would fit a female name; we decided that sexism in quango names was good. As the Secretary of State's professional adviser, I was also involved in the writing of the criteria for teacher training courses, which it has been CATE's responsibility to operate. That is a crucial way in which we bear on the quality of the training of teachers through the criteria which the Secretary of State lays down for what goes on in teacher training. It does not determine the academic content of individual parts of the course but the overall totality of knowledge and skills which teachers should have at the end of their training period.

1575
It is extraordinary that the amendment suggests that the funding council for all of higher education— responsible for the funding of half a million students across the whole gamut of engineering, medicine, science, history, the humanities, the social sciences and so forth— should also have within it the extraordinary accretion of a professional body operating the criteria for the training of one particular group. No one has raised any question about what is glaringly wrong with the amendment. It would be extraordinary for a funding council, which deals with all the complexities of formula funding and unit funding, to have within it a body which accredits a small number of the millions of courses
Lord Dainton: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I expressly excluded accreditation from the business of the amendment that I proposed. Perhaps the noble Baroness will accept that.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: In that case, where does the noble Lord believe that accreditation will take place? Are we to have a separation of the accreditation of courses and their content from the funding?
Lord Dainton: As I said in my speech, it is done by Ofsted and will continue to be done by Ofsted.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Ofsted does not accredit courses. The accreditation of courses has been done by CATE. The power of the Government's proposal in Clause 1, which is a genuine and real way to bear upon the quality of the training of teachers for children in our schools— an aim to which all Members are committed— is that it brings together the work of accreditation of courses. Until recently that work was done by CATE, acting on HMI advice— I know very well about that— on the advice of Ofsted, to bring that together with the funding competence. For the first time we shall be giving a body which does the job real teeth in that where there is excellence and high quality in the training of teachers the money can flow but where the system is unsuccessful and falls below standards the funding can be cut off.
That is an important new thrust which, in a way that nothing else could, will bring together a powerful tool for raising the quality of teacher training. It is needed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for stating how many improvements have taken place during the past 10 years. That is true. The teacher training system has begun to respond very well to the criteria and the work of CATE. But it is still not good enough. Only last year HMI stated in its report The New Teacher in School that one in four of the teachers coming out of the new system was unable to cope with the demands of the job in the classroom. Therefore, one in four of the teachers teaching in every class and one in four of the experiences of the children in those classes was substandard and below par. Of course there have been improvements, but I accept that further work needs to be done.
I believe genuinely that the setting up of a high-powered separate agency which would bring together quite properly the funding work that is
1576
currently being done together with the valued judgments and the accreditation of courses is the best tool that we have. I hope that everyone who cares about the quality of teaching in our schools will vote with the Government this evening and will not vote in favour of this new and quite bizarre proposal which allows a funding council to divert itself from its proper purposes towards continuing to look at a very tiny minority of the courses within its control.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether I could add my voice, as someone who works in commerce and industry, to what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said.
I also, like most of us who work in those areas, have noticed a decided decline in the quality of the product of our state system of education, and I believe that it must be the responsibility of the establishment which has run that system for so long to look somewhat more closely within itself.
The movers of this amendment seem to believe that the proposed agency is not necessary and that those of its intended duties which they find acceptable could be better discharged by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. A large part of their argument seems to me to run something like this: teacher education is largely part of higher education, so why not trust the HEFC to sort it out, if, indeed, it has any remaining problems, about which some of us do not seem quite so sure?
With the very greatest respect, I have to disagree with them. I go further and suggest that they may not have been particularly close to our teacher education courses over the past 25 years and so they may not perhaps fully appreciate how irrelevant and dangerous our teacher education courses have, I believe, become and how different and separate they are from much of the rest of higher education.
I suggest that not so much by way of criticising the movers of this amendment and some of their supporters, who are all highly respected figures in the world of true academe, as by way of exonerating them from any blame which might attach to them if they had known what was going on but felt that it was not their responsibility to do anything about it, or, worse, turned a blind eye to it, which I feel sure was not the case.
I, on the other hand, have had an unusual insight into what our teacher educators and their courses have been up to, but, as the lone representative of commerce and industry on the Council for National Academic Awards and its teacher education sub-committee for 10 years, until last year, I was always in a minority, usually of one, when I challenged the so-called best practice of the teacher education establishments.
I would remind your Lordships, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that the CNAA validated rather more than half the whole teacher education system until its demise a year ago. What is it then which, in my view, makes teacher education so different that it should not be absorbed by the HEFCE and the rest of higher education in the way that these amendments appear to envisage?

1577
Before answering that question, I should perhaps mention that I am well aware of the trap which the movers and supporters of the amendment may think that I am setting for myself. Surely, they might argue, the worse teacher education is, and the more separate it is, the more our amendment is appropriate; the more teacher education should be encouraged towards the rigorous bosom of the rest of higher education. I admit that this may sound a beguiling argument but it fails to acknowledge what I see as the reality of the situation, two aspects of which I feel I should submit to the Committee.
My first point is not one which will be well received by those Members of the Committee who work in or are close to higher education in this country, but I have made it before and I shall doubtless feel obliged to make it again. It is that, influenced by my years on the CNAA, I personally do not have a very high opinion of the quality of higher education delivered by many of our social science and humanities departments. I do not believe that for the: cost involved enough value is added to what students learnt at A-level in these areas, although, of course, there are many sparkling exceptions with which some Members of the Committee present are or have been closely associated. Since teacher training is close in character to these faculties, and perhaps particularly to social science, or it is as it has been delivered in recent years, I personally would simply not trust higher education or the HEFC to grasp the teacher training nettle with sufficient firmness.
My second point is that the teacher educators, or teacher trainers, as we are now rightly being encouraged to call them, do not really want to be part of the rest of HE and the rest of HE does not really want to be associated with the teacher education departments in colleges either. Any process of assimilation will be long and difficult. I speak from years of experience of trying, and failing, to persuade serious academics from other faculties to sit on the CNAA teacher education sub-committee and thus help influence our courses to better purpose. The subject content and the whole ethos of teacher education was just too difficult, different and uncomfortable for real academics to tolerate for more than about two meetings. Resistance to such influence and advice by the teacher educators was also fierce and I am sure it will continue to be so in future.
So I for one am convinced that teacher training in this country now requires very special attention, which I fear will not be forthcoming from the rest of higher education or the HEFCE. I believe that that attention can be given only by a new body such as that proposed in the teacher training agency, which will be able to give all its energies to the purposes set out in the Bill. If it succeeds, it will, in my view, have cured the greatest ill which lies at the root of our education system.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. I have listened with great interest to the debate. I have a peripheral interest. I remember opening a new building in the 1960s and having a hand in the appointment of its first director.
1578
That building was a ghastly piece of architecture but it was a teacher training college. It is now a flourishing department in what is a very new university.
I have tried to strip the heart out of the debate. If I listened to those who oppose the Government's proposals, it may be supposed that that teacher training department would be feeling rather threatened and disillusioned. It may perhaps be thinking that it does not have much future. That simply is not so. The work that the department does has increasingly been in partnership with schools. It is increasingly oriented that way and the courses involve more and more classroom time. Nothing in this Bill leads us to suppose that that will change.
What is the heart of the discussion which has generated so much thunder in this Chamber? To me, it comes down to some very small points. First, in future is teacher training to be controlled by a committee of a quango or a quango? That is quite a small question when it is discussed as bluntly as that.
One then asks the second question as to whether it is a matter of clarity or administrative convenience. When I think about that, I come down quite clearly in favour of clarity because administrative convenience can be catered for by other means.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a very strong plea for consensus in this matter. I have always been a great democrat and I believe in democracy for just so long as everybody agrees with me. I put the noble Lord's plea in that category and I hope that I never have to remind him of it, because there may be occasions when he will regret those words.
Lord Haskel: I should just like to clarify the point about the needs of employers. I have been an employer in industry for over 30 years. Quite simply, it is the needs of industry that have changed, not so much the quality of education. I have not noticed the difference in the quality of people coming into industry now and 20 years ago. However, what is different is the demands on them. Twenty years ago there were jobs to sweep up around machines. For that, you did not need to be able to read and write. But today, such jobs do not exist. Similarly,20 years ago there were supervisors and foremen to look after you. Today, those people do not exist; you have to do that work yourself. The demands are much higher.
I believe that we can well leave it to the TECs and to the arrangements that schools are making with industry to inform the schools what it is that industry requires. However, I am not so sure that it is as relevant as other Members of the Committee have implied in the debate.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say a few further words from this side of the Committee. It has been some time since I was involved in education matters in the Chamber. I had forgotten how much I miss the kind of speeches that I have heard today. In particular, I had forgotten how much I miss hearing a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Indeed, it has been just too long since I heard him speak on such matters. I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not respond rather acerbically to him today as I have in the past.

1579
There is one question that I must ask the Minister. I appreciate the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in that the best way to deal with such matters is to ask questions. Essentially, what the noble Baronesses, Lady 'Cathain, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said is that teachers have failed their pupils and that therefore they have failed the nation, thus causing a crises about which something must be done. Does the Minister agree with her noble friends that that is the present situation— that teachers have failed their pupils and a crisis has resulted? If she does, will she tell me why, in the past, in response to my questions about teachers she and her predecessors have always gone out of their way to say what a tremendously good job they
do?
There is a logical problem here: either they are doing a tremendously good job, in which case the Minister will reject what her noble friend said; or they are not, in which case she will reject what she and her colleagues have said in the past. I should like to know the answer to that question. There is no way of getting into the matter unless we can work on the basis of what the state of affairs is supposed to be. I have to say that I do not believe that teachers have failed their pupils and the nation. Despite the rather selective quotations from the reports of inspectors and of Ofsted, those reports overwhelmingly say that teachers are actually doing a good job. Indeed, the Government confirm that to be the case when they constantly parade before us pupils' achievements in GCSEs, A-levels, and so on.
The Government must tell us what they think has been going on over the past 15 years. Which side are they on? I know which side I am on. I am on the side which says that teachers are doing a good job. However, I believe that they could do a better job. That is quite a different logical position. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wishes to intervene. I give way.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: I am much obliged. In his recent Ofsted report, Professor Sutherland said:
"A stubbornly persistent minority of poor work remains: 15% of the teaching of the post-I6 year olds and 30% of that received by pupils in Key Stage 2 is less than satisfactory, and a small proportion is downright poor".
Is the noble Lord aware of that?
Lord Peston: That is exactly my point. I am delighted that the noble Lord has produced that quotation rather than leaving it to me to do so. There is no doubting the fact that there is a problem which needs a solution. However, it is not a problem of the sort about which some Members of the Committee have talked; namely, that the teaching profession has failed the nation. The problem is that some teachers need to do better.
The latter leads to the obvious point which also relates to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. As was pointed out to her by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Baroness did admit that there had been considerable improvements. When I observe considerable improvements, I say that we should reinforce what is producing such improvements. We
1580
must not tear down the structure and say that the way to deal with it is to start all over again. That is completely irrational.
I move on now to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, in response to my noble friend Lord Glenamara. I am sorry that I seem constantly to be wearing a logical hat. However, as regards remarks such as,"This is not in the Bill", I must point out that almost the whole of human knowledge is not in the Bill. Therefore, such a statement carries no weight. The question is: what is in the Bill?
The Minister can deal with the matter very easily. My noble friend said that he was concerned about whether the teaching profession will stay as an all-graduate profession. The noble Baroness said that she was completely confident that it would. We can deal with that with the greatest of ease. In her reply, the Minister can simply pledge that she will write into the Bill a clause which says that the teaching profession will remain a total graduate profession. That would deal with my noble friend's point. Of course, there are other questions but that one can be dealt with very easily. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, will press the point when we come to deal with the matter.
I should also like the Minister to reply to the other question raised by my noble friend Lord Desai—
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. So far, the noble Lord has repeated questions that have already been put by other Members of the Committee. Moreover, I believe that he is about to repeat a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. We have been speaking on the amendments for two hours and 32 minutes. I have yet to sum up the debate. There are something like three pages of amendments to get through during the course of the evening. I wonder whether it will be possible for me to conclude the debate now.
Lord Peston: I regard the Minister's intervention as really quite insulting. I have not spoken for two hours and 32 minutes. So far as I know, I have spoken for about three or four minutes. As a spokesman for this side of the Committee it is not unreasonable for me to underline and clarify some of the points that have been made. However, the noble Baroness will be delighted to hear that I shall sit here for as long as she cares to speak. I have done so in the past, but I have never stood up to ask her to please shut up or not speak. I would like her not to say that to me either now or ever again.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Get on with it!
Lord Peston: No. I do not need that kind of intervention from Members of the Committee on that side of the Chamber. We have sat here for a considerable period of time. I believe that Members of the Committee on this side are entitled to say a few words.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: That is two speeches that you have had.
Lord Peston: No, I have not had one yet.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Well, you have had one and a half!
Lord Peston: The embarrassment for me is that I was actually coming to my final point which would have been dealt with a good deal more quickly if Members of the Committee on the opposite side had been able to sit quietly and listen for a change.
I should like the Minister to answer my final question. I should like to stress the fact that I would appreciate receiving some answers. Is the Minister saying that standards have fallen? That is the central question. My own view is that there is no evidence to show that standards have fallen. The question before us is: are standards high enough? Further, and related to that, is the question of what will raise standards. I am convinced that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is the way to raise standards. However, as someone who is always open minded I am totally ready to listen to the Minister as she explains to me how her method will rake standards rather than the one proposed.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord took offence at my intervention, I apologise unreservedly. However, I was referring to the degree of repetition at this late hour. Members of the Committee are united about the importance of high quality teacher education and professional training. Indeed, perhaps I may use the words of my right honourable friend which appeared in the opening paragraph of the consultative book which was sent out on the reforms of teacher training. He said:
"In education the role of the teacher is central. For every child, high standards of achievement depend on the skill and dedication of individual teachers. It is therefore essential to ensure a continuing supply of highly qualified entrants to the profession".
It is clear from what I have heard from today's debate that there are concerns about the Bill and much misunderstanding of its provisions.
I believe that it is common ground that there is a set of important jobs to be done in respect of teacher education— encouraging good applicants, making sure the courses that they take meet the necessary standards, distributing student numbers between institutions, and funding the tuition provided. All those tasks need to be carried out with one aim in view: ensuring a continuing supply of enough high quality and well-trained entrants to the teaching profession across the full range of subjects.
I hope it is also common ground that teacher training has some key characteristics which distinguish it from the generality of higher education provision. It is a topic for which my right honourable friend has some general statutory responsibility under the 1944 Act. It is an area of provision where he has for some time now had direct control over the content of courses in the interests of consistency and high standards. It is now the only area of higher education which is inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors, working within Ofsted. It is an area where responsibility is taken not only by higher education institutions but also by schools.
In considering how most effectively to carry out the tasks we all agree are necessary for good teaching, we need to find an answer which fits the special
1582
circumstances of teacher education— not simply to look for a model which works in another area. It was a careful consideration of these issues which led us to conclude that those tasks would be best served by a free-standing agency, wholly dedicated to the quality and supply of teacher training.
The linkages between the functions I have mentioned are clear. They focus on two core elements— numbers and quality— which must themselves be linked. Teacher supply depends on attracting enough students and funding enough places. Teacher quality depends on all courses meeting essential standards. Both numbers and quality also depend on the promotion and encouragement of teaching as a career. Action in pursuit of these objectives is currently shared among the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Department for Education, all with separate access to Ofsted advice, and the Teaching as a Career Unit. The teacher training agency will bring all of these together and be able to use Ofsted advice consistently across all its functions.
I believe that there is a strong practical case for bringing these vital functions together. We sought views on the question of accreditation in our consultation document last summer and there was strong support for our aim of ensuring high quality with the minimum of bureaucracy. Institutional accreditation will allow us to do that. Having it carried out by the agency will avoid the current overlap of roles between the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which has its own quality assessment duty, and the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education which advises the Secretary of State on course quality with a view to course approval. CATE advised us that institutional accreditation, carried out by the agency, was in its view the best way ahead.
Giving authoritative and up-to-date information and advice about teaching as a career will be very much easier for a body like the TTA, at the heart of funding and accreditation decisions, than for a semi-detached body such as the Teaching as a Career Unit.
The agency has been attacked as an additional bureaucracy. Many Members of the Committee today have asked, who needs another quango? But we are in the business of rationalisation, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lady Perry. The teacher training agency as proposed in the Bill will replace the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and the Teaching as a Career Unit. It will reduce the functions in the Department for Education and take over that part of funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
The agency is also seen by some as an attack on higher education. Higher education is not in any way threatened by these proposals. It has a changing role, in partnership with schools. But it is not under threat. All degrees, including Bachelor of Education degrees, will be under the control of higher education. Postgraduate courses will also be provided in higher education and some postgraduate training will be school-centred, as it is at the moment.

1583
However, I am happy to clarify what I know to be a concern about wholly school-centred training. It is and will continue to be offered to students who are already graduates. I see my noble friend Lady Perry and indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford have tabled amendments— Nos.50 and 63— designed to limit schools to offering only postgraduate courses. When we reach those amendments, I shall be more than delighted to include an assurance on the face of the Bill, and therefore I shall recommend that the Committee accepts my noble friend's Amendment No.63.
There is also another confusion about wholly school based teacher training courses. I have made the point that such courses will apply only to postgraduates. Only schools or consortia of schools which apply voluntarily and which by assessment are considered suitable to the task, and are subject to inspection by Ofsted, will be able to provide these courses. These early schemes will indeed be evaluated and there will be positively no imposition on any school or schools to provide wholly school based initial teacher training. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, asked why, if this can be done in Wales, it cannot be done in England. However, the scale is vastly different. In Wales one is talking about 2,500 students, whereas in England one is talking about 20 times that number of students, many of whom are in specialist teacher training colleges.
Two important omissions have been made in the amendment that we are considering. The promotional activities of the Teaching as a Career Unit are not referred to and, as has already been said, accreditation is not dealt with. I believe these to be important activities and I believe it makes sense that they should come under one umbrella.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said he would prefer the device of a separate specialist committee. My noble friend Lady Perry has dealt with that point, but the amendments before the Committee tonight do not require a separate specialist committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, also referred to research projects not competing for funds. I believe he completely misunderstood the point that I made on Second Reading in relation to research funds. I expect that, as the Higher Education Funding Council does at the moment, the teacher training agency would allocate funds on a formula basis to departments and not to specific projects. I well understand that there is other competition for project funds from other sources and of course there is nothing in this Bill to prevent that from continuing.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, also queried the role of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the teacher training agency. All the points which the noble Lord found so objectionable such as the constitution of the TTA, appointments made by the Secretary of State, his view on appropriate experience of members and the Secretary of State's powers to send assessors to meetings apply in exactly the same way to the Higher Education Funding Council.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and all other Members of the Committee who have made generous comments about Part II of the Bill. However, the noble
1584
Earl was concerned about teaching methods. We do not, nor have we ever, advocated interfering with teaching methods. There is no measure in this Bill, nor in any legislation anywhere, which seeks to impose teaching methods on schools. However, what is important is that the effectiveness or otherwise of teaching methods in our schools should be subject to a proper judgment by external inspection. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the agency will have the powers and authority to accredit institutions. The agency will indeed have the power to accredit institutions, working within the criteria that will be set by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Earl also mentioned the Higher Education Funding Council representing the diversity of higher education. The HEFC certainly represents the wide sweep of higher education but it certainly does not represent teachers and schools. While a sub-committee might do so, this amendment does not give us a guarantee that this committee will be dedicated to the quality of teachers.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, were concerned about teacher training and asked whether it had ever been criticised. I can inform both my noble friend and the noble Lord that Ofsted and its predecessor body have not been universally complimentary about teacher training, nor would one expect them to be. However, many of the reforms have come about precisely because of the shortcomings that have been pointed out by the inspectorate.
Perhaps I may give some examples. An increase in school-based experience in teacher training came about because Ofsted found that young teachers in classrooms simply were not taught the craft of managing children in the classroom. The importance of paying greater attention to subject competence has been stressed. That was a point which was made extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Too many teachers do not have the subject competence which they require to teach in schools. Perhaps too much theory has been levelled at them in the past and too little attention has been paid to subject competence.
There is a need to improve the teaching of reading by primary teachers. To be anecdotal for a moment, recently I visited a school and met a young teacher who had enjoyed her teacher training experience. I asked her whether she had any criticisms. She had two. First, she was not taught enough about managing children in the classroom in a practical way. She was the teacher of a class of six year-olds. I found her second point devastating. In a four-year Bachelor of Education degree course she had not been taught how to teach children to read. That is a disgrace when someone is given the sole responsibility for teaching six year-olds.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, asked why there should be special arrangements for teacher training. The noble Lord gave some interesting examples— engineers, lawyers, doctors, accountants and so on. The very foundation on which most learning takes place and is subsequently developed relies upon the competence, the experience, the quality and professionalism of our teachers. I make no apology for arguing that within the

1585
framework of higher education and schools an agency wholly dedicated to the supply and quality of teacher training is a thoroughly good thing.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave a refreshing view from the world of business and commerce. She reminded us of the importance of being concerned about the quality of outputs from education. She put some balance back into the debate. But I was deeply saddened that the one view that came from the body of employers in industry and commerce should have been so challenged during the course of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked whether shortcomings were the fault of teachers. What would the noble Lord have said to a vice-chancellor who not so long ago said to me, in the margins of a meeting, that at his university he had to lay on remedial English classes for his undergraduates who were reading English?
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke of new powers but declined to list them. I have no doubt that we shall get round to them during the passage of the Bill. I must tell the noble Lord that most of the order-making and direction-making powers in the Bill simply replicate those in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in respect of the Higher Education Funding Council. Others are simply technical and underpin the normal business of the agency, such as the designation of training providers.
The noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Peyton, asked me whether I was dissatisfied with teacher training. It is not necessary to be dissatisfied in order to see a good argument for improvement. Much has been achieved. I have given one reason: bringing a number of disparate bodies together and making sense of the arrangements. There are very good and positive arguments for doing that. However, as in a school report, there is always room for improvement, and I believe that these changes will bring that about.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether teachers have failed. Perhaps I may reply to that point with another question. Could it be that some of the training has failed the teachers?
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, made some very positive comments about the reforms. But she also made what I believe to be a monstrous interpretation of the purpose of the provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness attributed the purpose of the Bill to the promotion of an untrained teaching force. That is such a grotesque interpretation that I regard the comments of the noble Baroness as deeply unworthy of the debate and an unacceptable commentary on all of those who support an emphasis on quality in the training of our teachers. Those people include my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my ministerial colleagues and young teachers who feel let clown by inadequate training but most essentially those young teachers of tomorrow who are looking for quality teacher training.
I should also make it clear, as I hope I did at Second Reading, that there are some practical aspects of the Bill on which I shall want to consider the arguments very carefully, especially in the light of what has been said today. The notion of some hidden agenda has apparently been fuelled by the proposal that the agency should take
1586
responsibility for funding non-teacher training courses offered by education departments and the funding of education research. I find that a puzzling view. As the "blue paper" noted, those proposals were made on essentially practical grounds. They would allow education departments to interact with one major funding body and keep links between courses currently funded within a single academic subject category and its related category of research funding.
If those whom these proposals were intended to assist — those in the institutions of higher education— do not want us to use those existing boundaries and would prefer the agency only to fund courses of teacher training, then the case for any wider role may he weakened. As I have made clear, the Government's intention is to have a body whose main focus is on teacher training. That is the point on which we stand. But when we reach later amendments on those wider functions I shall listen very carefully to the views expressed and then take those issues away for further reflection and discussion.
I should like to remind the Committee of some aspects of the Bill which I believe will be welcomed. My right honourable friend is giving up the power to fund school-centred courses. He is giving up the power to approve individual teacher training courses. He is taking no new powers over higher education institutions, and he will re-enact the safeguards for academic freedom contained in the 1992 Act. There is no intention, nor will there be a power, to require schools to become involved in teacher training. Only those schools which apply and are considered suitable will be allowed to provide school-centred courses for postgraduates, as I said earlier.
The amendments in this group would emasculate our proposals. They do not address the present fragmentation of various services— advice, promotional activity, quality assessment and accreditation. They would not encourage a link between funding and high quality teacher training. Accreditation would remain the Secretary of State's own, unfettered responsibility, and the promotion of teaching as a career would not be anyone's statutory duty.
The Bill as proposed addresses all of those issues by establishing a body which brings the functions together and which is wholly dedicated to the supply of high quality teacher training. The objectives of the agency would be firmly set out in statute. They include raising standards of teaching and increasing the quality and efficiency of courses. Action which was not carried out with a view to furthering the agency's objectives would be open to challenge in the courts. That is our agenda. It is clear, it is open and it is set out on the face of the Bill in Clause 1 for all to see.
Lord Judd: Before the Minister sits clown perhaps she will comment on one point which may help to clarify the matters before the Committee. I totally accept her point about some of the provisions for delegated powers being a reiteration and strengthening of what already exists. But in their own memorandum to the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers her department said that the Bill contains seven

1587
provisions for new delegated legislation and two amendments to existing powers to make such legislation.
Baroness Blatch: There is nothing inconsistent in what we said to the scrutiny committee and what I have said in Committee today. I said that it depends on what one means by "new". Many of those powers replicate powers which already exist under the present system. There is nothing new. Perhaps the noble Lord thinks it inappropriate that there should be proper powers to do the job properly.
Lord Dainton: I thank the Minister for her careful consideration of the points that have been put before her today. As everyone has said, this is a matter of agreement on objectives but disagreement over the means of achieving them. There are still a considerable number of differences.
I have been asking myself what is the best way forward. On some matters the Minister has offered careful consideration of the points that have been made. I hope that that means all of the points that have been made, some of which she has answered completely and some of which she has not. I am much taken by the proposal, which I believe was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that the area surrounding the amendment that we have been debating today should provide an opportunity for more discussions. It is on that basis that I am prepared to seek leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, in the hope that the window of opportunity — the door to which they referred— will be kept open. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,74; Not-Contents,110.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Falkland, V.

Acton, L.

Flowers, L.

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Airedale, L.

Glenamara, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L

Bridges, L.

Gregson, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dainton, L. [Teller]

Hooson, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

David, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Desai, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Eatwell, L.

Judd, L.

1588

Kirkwood, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rea, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Richard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Longford, E.

Russell, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Serota, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Sherfield, L.

McNair, L.

Stedman, B.

Meriyn-Rees, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Meston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Walpole, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wamock, B.

Nicol, B.

Wharton, B.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Peston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Annaly, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Annan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bumham, L.

Milverton, L.

Byron, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cadman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Caldecote, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Camock, L.

Northbourne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chesham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Courtown, E.

Radnor, E.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rennell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Romney, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denham, L.

Sharpies, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Downshire, M.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Stewartby, L.

Elton, L.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Strafford, E.

Finsberg, L.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.[Teller]

Glenarthur, L.

Goschen, V.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Hacking, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.[Teller]

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Howe, E.

Wise, L.

Huntly, M.

Young, B

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.19 p.m.
[Amendment N7.3A not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1994
7.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)rose to move, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 17th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft Representation a' the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1994 increases the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and at local government elections in Great Britain to take account of inflation.
The existing limits were set in March 1992. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has power to vary the maxima, where in his view there has been a change in the value of money, and it seems reasonable to increase the limits to take account of the change. The main political parties and the local authority associations are aware of the proposal to increase the limits. The aim is to have the increases in place in good time for the local government elections in May and also the outstanding parliamentary by-elections.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1994 perform two different functions. First, they increase the limits on candidates' election expense at European parliamentary elections to take account of inflation. The existing limits have not changed since the last European parliamentary general election in 1989.
1590
Secondly, they apply for the purposes of European parliamentary elections in England and Wales an amendment made by the Education Act 1993 about the use of grant-maintained schools as polling stations. That amendment was made to ensure that returning officers continued to have the right to use, free of charge, rooms in grant-maintained schools once responsibility for funding such schools passed to new funding authorities.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, while the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 increases the limits at local elections in Northern Ireland. Those increases correspond to the increases in Great Britain. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 17th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the orders this evening. As she said, the four orders and regulations propose raising the maximum limit of candidates' election expenses. It is important for the functioning of democracy that expenses should be both generous enough to enable the democratic process to be undertaken properly and at the same time limited to secure broad equality between parties and candidates. Equality in that sense is essential to the adequate functioning of democracy.
I wish to say, however, that the limits set by the orders still stand in some contrast to the huge variations at the national level. It is also vital, in the view of my party, that there should be clear limits to national expenditure in the elections if democratic equality is to be achieved.
At the local level, political agents for parties have the responsibility for ensuring that expenditure limits are adhered to. Of course, the sanctions against failure to do so are rightly severe. However, if that is justified at local level to ensure that the limits are kept, there is also a case for it at national level. That is to say, if there were national limits on political expenditure at election times then a national figure in each political party should take responsibility for keeping to them in the same way as an agent in a local party takes responsibility in local elections.
It is in that context that we welcome the proposals to upgrade the expenses, but we want to see consideration being given to extending the kind of framework to the national level as well as the local level.
There are a number of specific comments that I should like to make about the orders. We do not particularly like the element of judgment given to the Home Secretary to determine whether expenses need to be raised to take account of inflation. We would prefer there to be an automatic link between inflation and the increases so as to diminish the amount of political judgment involved.

1591
Secondly, there is a growing disparity between the limits in question for candidates in borough constituencies and candidates in county constituencies. The current orders give an increase of 6.1 per cent. in county elections and only 4.9 per cent. in the case of borough elections. We believe that there is a case for starting to review the question, which I believe was last looked at in the early 1970s, about whether the difference between county constituencies and borough constituencies should continue.
Thirdly, there may be a case for a more fundamental review in the sense that electioneering techniques, if I may call them that, have changed a good deal since the various Acts were passed in which the powers were given to make those orders. Not only has the range of techniques increased, but also the capital cost of equipment at elections has gone up with changes in technology— the cost of computers, telephones, desk-top printing and so on. We believe that there might be a case for distinguishing in expenses between capital and recurrent expenditure in that changed technological context.
We also need to bear in mind that some of the changes in election techniques, particularly telephone canvassing, may make it more difficult in time to trace the expenditure that was actually made through such methods of eliciting political support.
On the European elections, to look forward, my party is now committed to an idea which the Liberal Party has had for a long time— namely, that the European Parliament should be elected by a more proportional system of voting. Eventually, if that came about, it would be necessary to reconsider the basis of the funding of election expenses since the voting system would be on a different basis from the one that prevails at the moment.
Finally, we welcome the proposal to include grant-maintained schools within the ambit of the orders because we are keen to facilitate the greatest amount of access to polling stations. Of course, the wider the range of buildings that the authorities can use, the more scope there is for extending that kind of access. So we welcome it.
Overall, we welcome the orders. We believe that the time has come to have a closer look at the framework of British democracy and the real costs associated with it, as well as the need to limit national expenditure on elections.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House long on this issue. I wish to associate myself with what the noble Lord has just said about the disparity in the nature of the orders between local and national expenditure. It is ludicrous to say that for local expenditure a fixed sum must be adhered to at all costs and very severe penalties are incurred if those costs are exceeded. But nationally, the Conservative Party can raise money from heaven knows where — Asil Nadir or anyone else— to splurge the country with advertisements, media coverage, and anything they can, and that is apparently totally uncontrolled. I cannot understand
1592
what the principle is. I hope that the noble Baroness will tell me the philosophical principle which makes it appropriate to have a close control over local parliamentary election expenditure and no control whatever over national expenditure. How can that conceivably be justified on any grounds at all? Perhaps the noble Baroness will address that problem when she answers what I have to say.
I also think that it is perfectly correct, as the noble Lord said, that we are reaching a stage when electoral procedures, tactics and practice have changed very substantially from what they were some time ago. It is time we looked at the matter again in a more comprehensive way than these particular orders envisage. We should keep up with those changes and adjust our practice to them. It is important for democracy that our practice should keep in step with the advances which technology introduces. On all those issues I welcome the orders. I regard them as interim orders, a preliminary to some general review of the way in which we conduct these matters.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Bonham-Carter, for their observations on this matter and for their welcome for the orders as such. Both noble Lords rightly drew attention to the fact that information technology and its changes have an effect in the area of electioneering, as they do in any other area. I am sure that my right honourable and learned friend will note the remarks that were made by both noble Lords and also those on the issue of national expenditure by political parties. As both noble Lords rightly said, that issue is outside the scope of the orders which I put before the House.
Perhaps I may also say that the differential in borough and county expenses is based on geography and recognises certain facts which I believe at this time are fair. I am grateful to the noble Lords, and I commend these four orders to the House.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that the fact that national expenditure is outside these orders is critical. Will she tell us why she thinks national expenditure is outside these orders?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am moving four orders to deal with the specific matter of expenditure by candidates in local and European elections. That is the reason why I am here tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties)Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Czech Republic) Order 1994
7.33 p.m
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 7th February, be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move draft Orders in Council concerning Europe agreements establishing associations between the European Community on the one hand and Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia on the other. These orders specify the agreements as European treaties under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are mixed competence agreements and, therefore, require approval by all EC member states and the assent of the European Parliament before they can come into force.
The year 1989 marked the beginning of the reintegration of these countries into the wider European family. The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to bring them back into the European fold. Bilaterally, we set up the Know How Fund, through which the best of British expertise is helping to restructure these economies. But we have also worked hard to ensure that the European Union developed a positive and effective approach to this new challenge. These efforts bore fruit last June when tie European Council agreed that the
1594
associate countries should join the Union as soon as they were ready to take on the obligations of membership.
The agreements before your Lordships tonight are an important step in that process. They establish a framework for a closer relationship between the European Union and its Eastern neighbours. Through trade, economic co-operation and political dialogue, we will work together with a clear objective; namely, to help these countries prepare themselves for membership of the European Union.
The Europe agreements with Poland and Hungary have already entered into force, and both we and they are reaping the benefits that flow from them. Inaugural association councils were held at ministerial level with these countries this week.
It is right that Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia should join them. They are anxious to prepare themselves for membership of the European Union. We are anxious to help them. The Europe agreements before your Lordships today are the most effective means of assistance we can give. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 7th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
7.35 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the objective of both the European agreements before this House tonight and similar agreements concluded with Hungary and Poland is, according to the explanatory notes attached to all the agreements before us, to provide,
"an appropriate framework for … gradual integration into the Community and [the] setting up [of] institutions for an effective association".
That ringing objective was strengthened, as the noble Baroness reminded us, at Copenhagen, where it was stated that the agreements are indeed the precursors to full membership. Will the Minister confirm— I believe that she did, but I would like to hear it said again— that the British Government indeed view the agreements as the first step towards full membership? Do they represent a commitment by Britain and other members of the European Union actively to promote that full membership?
If full membership is indeed the objective of these agreements and they are the first step, then we should evaluate and judge the agreements to the degree to which they assist the transition of the central and east European states to full membership of the European Union for the central and east European states would surely imply three fundamental changes: first, the transition to market economies and liberal democracy; second, the attainment of levels of income per head roughly approaching those of the European Union average; and, third, the development of a structure of production in agriculture and industry which can be integrated into the European Union without excessive disruption on either side. Therefore, the fundamental question which should be asked is whether the content and operations of the agreements before us are such as to attain those three goals.

1595
The first two goals are of course closely linked. The transition to market economies and liberal democracy is likely to be effected successfully, and to endure, in an economic environment of growing prosperity. The greatest danger now faced in eastern Europe is that democracy should be linked with poverty.
Perhaps I may deal first with the issue of transition to a market economy, and turn later to the question of building the foundations of prosperity. I shall also later have some comments to make concerning the declared intent of the agreements and the future of the common agricultural policy. In doing so, perhaps I may remind the House that these agreements have already been in effect as interim agreements for the past two years or so, so their impact can already be seen.
On the question of transition, the central and east European economies are urged to move rapidly towards a market economy, and in particular to open up their domestic markets. Yet the European agreements contain substantial protectionist barriers, particularly towards so-called sensitive industrial products— notably steel, textiles and coal— and severe restrictions on the export of agricultural goods to the European Union. Does the Minister agree that there is an obvious economic, and indeed political, inconsistency here? We encourage the central and east European countries to adopt free markets while carefully manipulating the markets in our own favour by excluding exactly the goods which those countries have some capability of selling.
In a recent article in the Independent newspaper, the distinguished commentator on east European affairs, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, described current arrangements as: "shameful and shamefaced protectionism". It is hardly surprising then that the inconsistency in the message that we give to east European countries has caused considerable political resentment in central and eastern Europe. Does the Minister agree that that resentment towards the European Union is likely to hamper the political transition in central and eastern Europe and tarnish the image of the market economy? What will the Government do to diminish that growing resentment about the protectionism of the agreements?
I turn now to the growth of prosperity in central and eastern Europe. Raising the living standards of the central and eastern European economies is a vital prerequisite for achieving the stated objective of membership. Given the problems and the economic costs of transition, it is vital that the central and eastern European economies should be able to maximise their foreign exchange earnings. That speeds their development by financing the import of necessary new technologies and also limits the growth of their foreign debt, which might otherwise prove a severe constraint on their growth towards prosperity.
Much is made in these agreements of the asymmetry of the relationship defined between the central and eastern European states and the European Union. Essentially, that means that more concessions are being granted to the central and eastern European states than are being required in respect of the European Union. I suggest to the Minister that that much vaunted asymmetry is in fact a fig leaf for the European Union's
1596
protectionist attitude towards eastern Europe. It is the kind of asymmetry that would be present were I given a 10 yard start on Mr. Linford Christie in a 100 yard race, or, with due respect to the noble Baroness, if she and I were given five points out of six in an ice dance competition with Jayne Torville and Christopher Dean. Asymmetry there would not help us too much, and I am afraid it is not helping the eastern European countries either.
Is the Minister aware that, in the first year of operation of the interim agreements, exports from the Czech and Slovak republics to the European Union increased by the massive amount of 1.8 per cent., whereas exports from the European Union into the Czech and Slovak republics increased by 23.1 per cent. Over that same period of the operation of the interim agreements, exports from Bulgaria into the European Union increased by 4.8 per cent. Exports to Bulgaria increased by 17.3 per cent. The story is the same with respect to Romania. Exports from Romania into the European Union increased by 14.1 per cent. but exports to Romania from the European Union increased by 42.7 per cent. That, it seems to me, is what is meant by asymmetry; they buy from us we do not buy from them.
Does the Minister agree that urgent action must be taken now to halt the deterioration in the trading position of the central and eastern European states? Should not the action taken at the Copenhagen summit to bring forward the phased reduction in EU tariff barriers be accelerated? Indeed, in view of the fact that European Union trade surpluses are growing rapidly — that is, that trade with the East is creating jobs in the West and destroying jobs in the East— is not there a case for removing all European Union industrial protectionist measures now?
This discussion of protection leads me naturally to the agricultural part of the agreements. The most obvious inconsistency in the agreements is their approach to agricultural trade and the common agricultural policy. Unlike the provisions for industrial trade, which are designed to wither away in five years, agricultural trade restrictions, particularly in sensitive areas, are to remain in place. Some agricultural imports from central and eastern Europe, such as sugar, are still to be totally banned.
Not only are those restrictions particularly pernicious in their limitations on the potential exports of countries such as Hungary and Bulgaria, which depend very heavily on agricultural trade for foreign exchange earnings, but also they create major distortions in the development of central and eastern European agriculture, forcing agricultural development into a pattern dictated by the arbitrary restrictions imposed by the agreements rather than that which would be appropriate to the market. If the European Union is serious in its intent that the agreements should be the precursor to membership, the structure of agricultural production should be guided in a direction appropriate to membership and not a direction appropriate to the current obsessions of the EU agricultural Ministers.
Does the Minister agree that the common agricultural policy could not survive in its current form, and perhaps not survive at all, if the central and eastern European

1597
economies joined the European Union? If she believes that the common agricultural policy would be changed fundamentally by the central and eastern European countries' entry, would she not agree that agreements such as these, which do not take into account such fundamental changes, are likely to be damaging to the membership prospects of the central and eastern European countries? They need an agricultural structure appropriate to the agricultural system that they would enter and not an agricultural system which would disappear because of their entry.
It is only fair to tell the Minister that this afternoon her right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture told a sub-committee of your Lordships' House that in her view the agreements with respect to agriculture were simply trade agreements and were not agreements which would aid transition. If the governments are serious about the central and eastern European countries joining the European Union and if we are not simply holding out a hope that we have no intention of satisfying, should there not be a major reform of the agreements, a reform which seriously addresses the question of agricultural transition and embodies a declaration that the European Union recognises that the common agricultural policy could not exist in its current form, if at all, once central and eastern European countries join?
For the people of Europe these agreements should be as important as the Marshall Plan. They should be as generous as the Americans were to us, both in their trade and aid provisions and in the manner in which they allow poorer countries to discriminate in their development against the rich. That is what the Americans did for us.
Instead, these agreements fail to live up to the hopes of the people of western Europe and the people of eastern Europe. They reflect the cold face of short-term economic calculation rather than the warm welcome of long-term development commitment. They are better than nothing and for that reason we welcome them. But they are not adequate to the historic task in hand.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long on these agreements, which are very similar to those which already exist with Poland and Hungary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that they contain certain intrinsic weaknesses. It is in precisely those areas in which the central and eastern European countries find it most easy to make exports that the agreements are most restrictive; that is to say, in textiles, steel and agriculture.
However, in another place when putting forward these agreements, the Minister said:
"I should mention the inclusion of the important preambular paragraphs in each of the agreements that look forward to the associate countries' accession. We want the associate countries to join the European Union as soon as they are ready to take on the economic and political obligations of membership. That commitment was made, at British urging, by the Copenhagen European Council in June last year". — [Official Report. Commons,28)2/94; col.663.]
So these agreements are about enlargement. That is something that we should not neglect. I have one or two
1598
comments to make on that subject. I hope that we do not repeat the mistake that we made with Turkey in arousing hopes that we cannot fulfil.
I believe that Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic are natural and essential members of the European Union and, given a long transitional period, their entry should be speeded up and welcomed as part of the consolidation of Europe after the 1989 revolutions.
I must confess that I am far more doubtful about Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia as members of the European Union. Are we really sure that we want to encourage them to join us? Have we taken into account the digestive capacity of the European Union? After all, we are taking on Sweden, Finland and Austria and though they have many advantages as members of the European Union in being net contributors and in being fairly well-established— some very well established— democracies, nonetheless the absorption of new members, as we have found in the past, is a difficult and lengthy process.
Do we really feel that politically, historically and culturally the backgrounds of Bulgaria and Romania make them countries which within the foreseeable future will be natural members of the European Union? Will they become members whom we can absorb without difficulty? Have we learnt nothing from the experience of Greece? That was hardly a satisfactory episode in the development of the European Union. I am not criticising Greece; I am simply saying that its history, culture and bureaucratic and political infrastructure make it very difficult for it to comply with the standards of administration and so forth demanded by the European Union. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us when answering whether the Government are committed to the early or later accession of Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia to the European Union. If so, I shall be rather worried.
My final point is that it is impossible toclay— I do not refer to 28th February when the Minister of State was speaking in another place— not to ask what is the real attitude of the British Government to enlargement. For years the British Government have been campaigning for enlargement, congratulating themselves on the progress made at Maastricht and at the Copenhagen Council in June of last year. Now we find that they are putting enlargement in jeopardy— the noble Baroness called it their positive and effective approach— by making objections to the proposed voting procedures in the Council of Ministers.
We on these Benches have constantly said that enlargement would lead to the need for institutional change within the European Union. Those changes must be made early rather than late; they should have been discussed at Maastricht and if they were not discussed at Maastricht they should have been discussed immediately afterwards. The Community started with six members which became 12. The arrangements were originally largely consensual. When membership increased to 12 it led to more voting. When the Single European Act was passed it moved to qualified majority voting, and when membership reaches 16 in number the idea of consensus becomes ludicrous.

1599
The question of voting is central to enlargement, yet the Government suddenly find that it is a matter of such importance and principle that they are prepared to jeopardise their whole campaign for an enlarged Community. That certainly needs an explanation and an answer. Are the Government prepared to see the collapse of their campaign for enlargement on this issue? I should like to know what the noble Baroness thinks. Have not the Government thought about the issue? Does it come as a total surprise? It is an almost incredible example of what the Guardian described this morning as tactical thinking which was pitiful. It is a basic incompetence for which the present Administration have become famous.
Also, we should not forget the offence that it gives to our Scandinavian friends who would support within the European Community most of the features for which we have been fighting. Some answer must be given to that critical question, which must be decided this week.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I listened with interest to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Bonham-Carter. It is clear that we all believe in the importance of drawing in the countries of central Europe closer to the European Union. Even though we can be critical of the agreements, they are certainly the most practical way of proceeding. I believe they are good for the European Union and they are a good deal better for the associate countries than either the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Bonham-Carter, would have us believe.
I do not view the thought of going ice dancing with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, however attractive he may be, with relish, particularly not at the present moment because we would hate to crack his other collarbone. But we wish him well and perhaps when we are both in better health we shall experiment in some way.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked whether the association of the agreements before us tonight were a first step to membership. Without hesitation I answer him yes. The British Government are committed to promoting the case for their membership. I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that it will take longer for countries like Bulgaria and Romania, and maybe Slovakia, to attain that degree of economic basis that would allow them to be members. But during that time we hope that they will also improve on the other aspects of their organisation as countries which I know worry him.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, greatly exaggerated what he said was a resentment within the countries of eastern Europe which will benefit from the agreements. When the Czech Republic Prime Minister, Prime Minister Klaus, talked with the Prime Minister at No.10 earlier this week, he gave no indication of any resentment, and in my discussions with various politicians from those countries, I hear nothing but a welcome for the way in which particularly the British Government have gone about seeking to get the enlargement discussions on the road and to put in place
1600
these specific agreements as a first step to eventually wider enlargement beyond 15 or 16 members, whichever we achieve next year.
When the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked about the agreements being a transitional device, I felt that I should point out that in the preamble to each agreement it states quite clearly that the associate countries had the ultimate objective to accede to the Community. That objective was endorsed in June 1993 by the Copenhagen European Council. We hope that a practical framework will arise from the agreements through which those countries can achieve that objective.
At the Copenhagen Council, when the CEE objective of membership was endorsed, the council defined a framework which was geared to that objective of membership— a structured dialogue at all levels, improved market access, approximation of laws and improved use of the PHARE programme. The agreements cover all those areas and I believe will be important for the countries concerned, though perhaps more important for the Czech Republic in the short term and for the other three in the longer term.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked me a number of questions about trade. The United Kingdom has consistently argued for more liberal agreements both for industrial goods and agriculture. The agreements did not satisfy our demands. The United Kingdom is in fact largely responsible for some modest but very positive changes which we managed to get agreed. We would like to have seen more.
The noble Lord spoke, too, of the provisions being less generous. I can agree with him. They are certainly less generous in those sensitive sectors than we would have wished. However, we shall continue to press the case for freer trade between the Community and its eastern neighbours, basing that argument on those arguments we used for the European Council and have used in discussions in Brussels both before and since.
As regards the impact of these interim agreements on trade between the Union and the eastern European countries, the volume of trade has increased over the past three years, although the CEE countries are currently in deficit with the European Union. That is truly to be expected while the Union is in recession and the CEE countries need substantial imports of European Union goods to sustain their economic reform. In other words, it is precisely that transitional phase with which they are having to cope. One of the better outcomes has been the decision which we gained at Copenhagen that from 1995 the majority of industrial products from the Czech Republic and Slovakia will have free access to the European Union. So steps forward have been made already, and so far as I can tell there is no reason why further steps of that nature could not be taken even after these agreements. It is important for the countries of eastern Europe to concentrate on removing their domestic barriers to trade; for instance, by improvement in their infrastructure, their financial systems and flows on potential markets. Many CEE exporters believe that these barriers are the major obstacle to the expansion of trade which they wish to pursue.
I mentioned the liberalisation for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I should also have mentioned the

1601
complete liberalisation for Romania and Bulgaria by 1996. Perhaps I may also say. particularly in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the duties on imports of the so-called sensitive goods— steel and textiles— will disappear by 1998. While one would always like to be able to do even more, what those republics need above all is a predictability and a certainty so they know exactly where they are moving.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, began to talk about CAP reform. I do not think it comes as any surprise to him to hear me say that reform of the common agricultural policy is urgently needed anyway, but I doubt whether the agreements themselves will provide the major incentive towards CAP reform— certainly not one comparable with the importance of the impact of GATT or the need to respect the Edinburgh limits on CAP expenditure. The main purpose of the agricultural provisions in the Europe agreements is to improve the CEE access to EU markets by steadily reducing the tariffs and increasing the quantities that can enter the European Union under the reduced tariff quotas.
The noble Lord was anxious that the changes of which I have been speaking should perhaps hasten the way to CEE accession to the European Union. I think they will indeed. certainly give some help, although I have made clear that they are not as generous as we would like them to be. The noble Lord said that perhaps these Europe agreements appear to be defined in terms of preservation of the current structure of the CAP rather than a CAP which will include CEE agriculture.
The agricultural concessions in the Europe agreements were designed to offer CEE countries immediate benefit by means of improved terms of access to the markets of the European Union for their agricultural exports. The concessions have to be expressed in terms of the current mechanisms of the CAP since nothing else could provide the benefit in terms of improved agricultural access which the concessions were intended to confer. But the agricultural provisions of the Europe agreements were not designed to be a means of transition to the CAP by CEE countries. It is most important that he central and eastern European countries are not misled into thinking of them in that way. Indeed, the very decision that the CEE countries should in due course become members of the European Union was not taken until after the process of negotiating the Europe agreements had been completed.
The issue of how the CAP needs to be adjusted in order to accommodate the eventual accession by the CEE countries is one that is only now starting to be addressed by the European Union's policy-makers. It is a critical matter to be addressed. When agreement has been reached on the kind of adjustments that need to be made, we must examine the ways in which the Europe agreements might need to be modified in order to facilitate progress towards the accession.
There are other ways in which we are helping those countries to change their manner of operation. My own department has been deeply involved in giving assistance from the know-how funds to try to get financial and technical expertise up to the level which will be needed. There are some extremely well-trained people in all these countries but never before have they
1602
had the chance to apply that training. What the know-how funds have been so successful in doing is helping the application of knowledge already gained in their own universities. It is interesting to see how well we have done with the know-how funds. It has perhaps shown the way to the PHARE fund for central and eastern European countries and to TACIS for the former Soviet Union in how they may help in those countries. The United Kingdom goes on seeking to contribute through the PHARE programme for the benefit of those countries.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for the most informative and helpful answers that she has been giving to my questions. Does she agree with me on the point that I was trying to make towards the end of my remarks? I attempted to draw a comparison between the assistance which the United States provided for western European reconstruction after the Second World War and the assistance which we are providing to eastern Europe for its reconstruction.
American efforts had two characteristics: first, the scale of aid, which in modern terms was much greater than the aid which we are giving to eastern Europe today; secondly, and probably much more importantly, the Americans opened their markets to western European goods but allowed the western Europeans systematically to discriminate against American goods so that they could build up their markets without facing too soon the cold wind of the highest quality competition in the world, which then came from the United States. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Baroness that in pursuing an opening of markets in eastern Europe we should be prepared to open our markets rapidly while allowing them for a transition period to discriminate against us.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I am someone who fervently believes in the whole of the GATT reforms, that idea is certainly at one with those of the Government. The difficulty is that we are talking about the situation of 12 member countries, not just ourselves. We are also talking of liberalisation at the same time as we have agreement at last on the GATT round. Taking the two things together, while we wish to be as generous as we can and encourage the market economies of eastern Europe and the liberalisation of trade, we are in a very different position from that which existed in the late 1940s. Nevertheless, this country will do all it can, and has done as much as it can, both bilaterally and in other ways, to assist those countries, and we shall go on doing so. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right to try to make that direct comparison.
I certainly believe that we have given the right signal to all six ex-communist countries of central Europe. There is certainly no discrimination against Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia although I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Bonharn-Carter, as I said earlier. I observe that they will apply when they are ready. I believe that their readiness will inevitably be

1603
further away than that of the Czech Republic in particular, which is likely to follow, as the noble Lord said, Hungary and Poland in being early applicants.
Perhaps I may make one comment as regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, concerning institutional change. We always knew that this was going to be a most difficult and contentious argument. I do not believe that anyone who knows the reality of European politics is surprised that that has been so this week but there is no question of any collapse of the enlargement negotiations. There are other questions under discussion, but it may be that they are not highlighted so much by the media.
I hope that there will be a solution on all the outstanding points next week. I am clear that these matters need to be resolved in a way that looks after the substantial minorities of the three or maybe four countries who are to join the European Union in the shorter term, and not only those of the existing 12 members, as Spain has so clearly explained for herself. There will always be substantial minorities. Unless the European Union has it within its power to understand their needs, then I do not believe that it will be the sort of union we want. It is possible to get agreement, and we shall. I have tried to answer the questions put to me. I believe that the orders are good orders, and I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.20 p.m.]

Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No.4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Duties with respect to the teacher training curriculum
In carrying out their functions under section 1 above the Teacher Training Agency shall have regard to—

(i) the need to ensure that education is provided in accordance with section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988; and

(ii) the need to promote the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development of all pupils.").

The noble Lord said: Any Act of Parliament which delegates substantial powers and money to an agency should have set out clearly on the face of it the broad principles which should inform the decisions and actions of that agency. The relevant objective of the teacher training agency set out in Clause 1(2) (a) is to raise the standards of teaching. The provisions do not define teaching. I believe there is need for a rather more explicit statement of what the objectives of teaching should be and what kind of teaching it should be.
By a fortunate chance, we have a most excellent definition of "education", as we understand it in this country, in Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It is worth noting that those objectives cannot be assumed. In the French lycé e system, spiritual and moral
1604
values and the spiritual and moral development of pupils are not matters for the schools. Indeed, schools are expressly forbidden to attend to the spiritual and moral development of their pupils. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to clarify the objectives of the legislation by stating on the face of the Bill the fact that Section 1 of the Education Reform Act is to be regarded as providing the object of the teaching that is to be promoted by the agency. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his amendment. Its two purposes are stated clearly. They are worthy purposes which I would not expect my noble friend Lady Blatch to reject. Indeed, if we are to have teacher training, we must ensure that it is training which enables Section 1 of the Education Reform Act to be fulfilled and implemented. There is also,
"the need to promote the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development of all pupils",
which, in my school days— I know that that is a long time ago— was as much the object of one's teachers as of one's parents. I hope that standards have not changed much since then, but let us make sure that they do not.
I do not suggest that the amendment necessarily fulfils the purposes which the noble Lord and I have in mind, but I hope very much that my noble friend Lady Blatch will say that she accepts the principle of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lord Renton will not be surprised to hear me say that I am very sympathetic to the intentions that lie behind the new clause. It is very much in tune with our own priorities. The reference to the Education Reform Act 1988 is, of course, a reference to one of our landmark pieces of legislation. I recall the support of both noble Lords for similar amendments to the 1992 Schools Act which, I believe, have added significantly to its effect and have helped further to promote the important debate about ethos and values in our schools.
We are already pursuing these priorities in the field of initial teacher training. The Secretary of State's criteria for initial teacher training courses have only recently been revised with those aims in mind. They require that all new primary and secondary teachers must be ready to promote the moral and spiritual well-being of pupils. They also require teachers to be able to deliver the statutory curriculum, which is governed by Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It will be one of the key tasks of the agency to ensure that all initial teacher training institutions, including schools, are capable of providing courses which fully meet my right honourable friend's criteria.
There is certainly no difference of principle between the noble Lord and myself here. I can also understand the desire to see the principle enshrined in statute. The drafting of the new clause does, however, give me reason to pause. As my right honourable friend has noted, it appears to carry an implication that the agency will have a more direct involvement with the provision of education than would be possible in practice. The duties in Section 1 of the Education Reform Act are

1605
placed on the Secretary of State, on local authorities, on governors and on heads. I would not want the agency to have any role in inspecting what goes on in classrooms; that is a role for Ofsted. Nor would it be appropriate for the agency to set criteria for initial teacher training courses. That. must remain a matter for the Secretary of State on the advice of the agency.
Under Clause l of the Bill, the agency will have the objective of raising the standard of teaching, which is the main contribution that it can make to the matters raised by the new clause. I have no doubt that in pursuing its objectives the TTA will aim to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, social, cultural and physical development of all pupils— as well, of course, as to their academic development— or mental develop-ment in the terms of the Education Reform Act. There may well be a case for making this explicit on the face of the Bill. The wording of the new clause, however, could, as I have explained, take the agency into deeper waters in usurping the roles of Ofsted and the Secretary of State than I believe the noble Lord may have intended.
I cannot therefore accept the new clause as it stands, but, in accepting the principle, I accept that the noble Lord and my noble friend may wish to come back with an alternative amendment to Clause 1 which meets the concerns I have raised. I should naturally be happy to pursue the matter further between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for those encouraging words. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No.5:
After Clause I. insert the following new clause:
("Requirements for teachers with relevant training
In carrying out their functions under section 1 above the Teacher Training Agency shall have regard to the demand from schools for teachers with training in various skills and disciplines and shall aim to achieve a balance between supply and demand.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the balance of courses and the kind of courses that will be supported by the agency. In Clause 5(4) (a), the agency is required to have regard,
"to any forecasts of demand for newly-qualified teachers notified to them by the Secretary of State".
This is a probing amendment, because I am not sure what that phrase means. If it means that the Secretary of State will bring together forecasts from schools for the convenience of the agency and will pass them on to the school, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. If it means that the Secretary of State will create his own forecasts, I have some anxieties. If so, he would have arbitrary control over the kind of teaching and the subjects to be taught.
While I have absolute confidence in the present Secretary of State— not to mention the present Minister of State— it is unlikely that either of them will be in post for the next 25 years. There will be changes. It seems unsatisfactory that such matters should be at the whim of whoever happens to be Secretary of State for a certain period of time. The purpose of the amendment,
1606
therefore, is to try to make the teacher training agency balance supply and demand as far as possible. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I will not comment on whether the teacher training agency will,
"have regard to the demand from schools for teachers with training in various skills and disciplines and shall aim to achieve a balance between supply and demand".
However, I would like to say a word about the supply and demand and also about the various skills arid disciplines. It is very important that we should keep an eye on the number of teachers who will be needed in schools, looking into the future with the demographic changes that are likely to happen. Somebody must obviously keep an eye on that.
With regard to the various skills and disciplines, I just want to say a word about parents and teachers. I think it is important that teachers should, when they are having their initial training, be aware of what parents are like and take them into their confidence. The teachers should have help and guidance in their training to speak to parents, to get to know parents and to be able to feel confident about bringing them into schools. A number of places are having schools with parents going in. That is helpful but I think that the teachers need guidance about this. Within their initial teacher training it would be very helpful to them if there were some element in it to deal with parents. I ask the Minister whether that could possibly be written into the Bill somewhere.
Amendment No.5 deals with supply arid demand. Amendment No.43, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd and myself, is linked with that amendment and I would like to speak to it. This amendment widens the professional knowledge avail-able to the teacher training agency when it is deciding how many new teachers are required. At present Clause 5(4) (a) only requires the agency to have regard to forecasts of demand for new teachers, which are relayed to them by the Secretary of State. The Bill in its present form does not encourage confidence that the Government are aware of the needs of the profession. The 1992– 93 HMI report on standards and quality in education and research by the Royal Society indicate shortfalls in the numbers of new teachers in areas like modern languages, maths, science and technology. Yet the Bill does not address these worries.
Recent initiatives which attempt to address the problem of shortfalls— that is, the shortening of the B.Ed. course and the articled teachers scheme— need to be more clearly assessed rather than the radical and hasty changes in this Bill which, regarding teacher supply issues in particular, are irrelevant and unproductive of anything save the transfer of more power to the Secretary of State.
One of the suspicions that I have heard about this Bill is that the department and Ministers are aware that by 1997 there will be a serious shortage of secondary teachers in a number of subjects and that this Bill will make it possible to hurry teachers through their training. I am particularly grateful that this afternoon the Minister

1607
has given us a commitment that it will still be an all-graduate profession. That reassures me and removes some of my worries.
The Minister has attempted to reassure the profession by saying that the involvement of schools will be entirely voluntary. However, if there are no extra resources made available to schools for training of staff who take part and for their increased responsibilities schools may not come forward and further shortfalls in teacher numbers may arise while existing shortfalls may not be dealt with.
The Minister claimed during Second Reading that it will be central to the agency's funding allocation work that it keeps abreast of supply issues. That claim appears in col.820 of the Official Report. This amendment seeks to ensure that the agency will have a statutory duty to pay attention to the people with expertise and involvement in the teaching profession. It would thus truly be able to keep abreast of the issues and would be more likely to deal with shortfalls in teacher supply than it would in its present form.
Baroness Blatch: A number of points that were raised by the noble Baroness have almost nothing to do with Amendment No.5; for example, the relationship between teachers and parents, which is important, and whether that is covered in initial teacher training. That is another important issue, but it has nothing to do with the supply and demand for teachers.
Baroness David: The amendment states:
"in various skills and disciplines".
I was getting in my bit about parents under that.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness asked whether I could give an assurance that the important aspect of the relationship between a teacher and a parent will be covered in the initial teacher training. That has nothing to do with supply and demand but it has everything to do with making sure that that important aspect is covered. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his criteria made absolutely certain that that is a very important part of initial teacher training.
As regards the forecast of a serious shortage of secondary school teachers in particular subjects, the present system of annual returns showing where the surpluses and shortages are, and the introduction of bursary schemes, is successfully dealing with some of those issues.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important aspect of supply and demand for teachers. Overall supply is currently very buoyant. Vacancies are currently at an all-time low. Recruitment of initial teacher training students for 1993– 94 is up on the previous year in all of the secondary shortage subjects of maths, science, technology and modern languages. The Open University post-graduate course and the first round of school-centred courses are having a positive effect in shortage subject areas. The CTC Trust's Smallpeice Programme is making a valuable contribution to technology recruitment. I have visited many of these schemes and I can vouch for that.
1608
All of this is good news. We are not complacent. I do, of course, recognise that the teacher supply position is cyclical. I can assure Members of the Committee that the Government will continue to take a central role in monitoring and forecasting demand for teachers so that supply can be adjusted as necessary.
The department currently produces forecasts which take account of present and likely future demand from schools. The are very detailed and look at demand for teachers with specific subject specialisms, just as the amendment proposes. We plan to carry on with that work when the agency has been established. Clause 5(4) of the Bill requires the agency to have regard to my right honourable friend's detailed demand forecasts in allocating its resources.
The material difference which the new clause would make would be to give the work of forecasting demand to the agency and not the department. While I can understand the arguments for letting a specialist agency have this additional responsibility, I do not think that it would be the right answer. In looking ahead, the key determinant of overall demand— within which specific targets must be met — will have to be the number of teachers which schools employ.
Unconstrained by inevitable limits on resources, the pattern of demand from schools would no doubt be very different. But the real world will always be one in which public spending on schools— as on hospitals and other essential services— must be limited to that which the country can afford. We should do no service to students to train them as teachers to meet unrealistic forecasts of demand.
It will be the Government who are responsible for the overall judgment about public spending, and they will be best placed to consider what that implies for the demand for teachers. It would be wrong to leave that judgment about finance to the agency; although as it develops its expertise and knowledge of the schools and teacher training systems it will of course be able to offer helpful advice on other factors affecting teacher demand, which can be fed into the department's forecasts.
In short, I believe that the important functions raised by this new clause are already covered under the arrangements we propose, which give the department and the agency rather different roles for the reasons I have set out. In the light of that, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the position. I shall withdraw the amendment but wish to stress that the Government's principle of diversity and choice for parents cannot be a reality unless there is available a suitable supply of trained teachers to teach the subjects which parents and their children choose.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. As regards receiving advice from other agencies— as provided in the other amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and with which I did not deal— it is important to note that information will come into the agency and into the department from all corners. We do not want to make it an absolute

1609
requirement that it should have to have regard to everything from any source. Once one goes down that road the procedure becomes not only very lengthy but also subjective. It is important that advice is received and there is nothing in the Bill which prevents advice from being given. But there is nothing in the Bill which makes that a requTement.
Lord Northbourne: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No.6:
After Clause 1, invert the following new clause:
("Religi7US education teacher training.
In carrying out their functions under section 1 above the Teacher Training Agency shall ensure the provision of an adequate supply of teachers who have special skills in the teaching of religious education.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No.7. Earlier this afternoon we had the big guns of academia here, and I am confident that academic subjects will be looked after well, whether it is the teacher training agency or some other organisation which is in charge. But I am afraid that non-academic: subjects will be pushed aside and marginalised. I believe that that has happened to a considerable extent to personal and social education in the national curriculum. When we discussed that matter in 1988, the noble Baroness gave an assurance of the Government's commitment to personal and social education. However, what we have now is merely a cross-curricular theme. As I understand it, we do not even have a curriculum for it.
Both religious education and personal and social education are difficult to teach. Not everybody wants to teach them. They are best taught by using special teaching techniques and with a special degree of commitment. In my view, there is a need for specialist teachers for those two subjects above all.
Amendment No.6 is designed to ensure that the training of specialist teachers for RE does not become marginalised or pushed aside by the claims of examination subjects.
Amendment No.7 deals with the teaching of life skills, which is called personal and social education. What a switch off that is. I can imagine any teenager worth his salt going to sleep the moment he hears that title. I would call that subject "This is your life".
The declining moral and social influence of Christianity and the disarray and uncertainty of families in their educating role strengthen the need for all young persons to have an opportunity to learn at school how to take responsibility for their own lives; to make reasoned choices; to cope with anger, disappointment and success; to understand their own sexuality and about relationships; to understand the rights and needs of children and the responsibilities of parenthood; to exercise their own rights with due respect to the rights of others; and to be good citizens and so on. The purpose of Amendment No.7 is to ensure that the training of teachers in personal and social education does not become marginalised by other subjects which the academics regard as more important in the national curriculum. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I was very glad to add my name to Amendment No.6 because, like the Secretary of State, I believe that it is of great importance that teachers should have sufficient understanding and skill to be able to teach religious education. I hope to hear from my friend Lady Blatch either that she considers that some special reference should be made to that skill in this Bill or that she can give us an assurance that the basic teaching of trainers, in the light of the recent amendments to the curriculum, will include a skill in teaching religious education. If that were to happen, Amendment No.6 would not be necessary. I make no comment on Amendment No.7.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: Had it not been for the words "Teacher Training Agency" in the amendments, I believe that I should have added my name to them. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I were talking privately yesterday about the Bill and he said that he did not expect to find that we were both on the same side. I am very much in agreement with these two amendments and the points which they raise.
Two matters struck me about the amendments. First, at a time when Sir Ron Dearing is bringing in new ideas about the post-14 curriculum and so on, there is a good deal of anxiety that the pendulum will swing too far the other way and that there will be such an emphasis on vocational technical education that preparation for life will be squeezed out. Therefore, I believe that both the amendments about religious education and "This is your life" are timely in that context.
I have been struck by the tremendous challenge which religious education now offers to our education system. The Committee will forgive me if I have made that point before. However, it seems to me that the relevant education system in the United Kingdom at this juncture is preparing youngsters for the excitement and challenge of living in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society. Religious education means religious education. It does not mean religious indoctrination. That requires a great deal of preparation, skill, understanding and perception on the part of those who are undertaking the teaching because it is necessary to understand the variety of religions which go into making up the fabric of our society. Therefore, from that standpoint, I believe that the amendment is important.
As regards "This is your life" or life skills, the point that we should bear in mind is that in other contexts in this Chamber we are tremendously concerned about delinquency, drug addiction, legitimacy, young single parents and so on. That is highly relevant to those social challenges. It is an example of how money well spent in time is preventive and removes the need to rush around too late trying to make good the things that have gone wrong. Therefore, from both those standpoints, I commend the amendments for the very serious consideration of the Minister.
Lord Elton: I am one of those who believes that life cannot be properly understood, let alone lived, without an understanding of religion. I support warmly the intention behind both my noble friend's amendments.

1611
Moreover, it is not very long since this Chamber put on the statute book a requirement that religious education should be taught. I now hear increasingly often, and worryingly, that there are insufficient fully qualified and enthusiastic teachers to do that job. Therefore, there is need for a commitment from the Government to make good that shortfall. However, I doubt whether the amendments are the right way to achieve that.
I suspect that my noble friend will not use the phrase but I believe that inclusio unius est exclusio alterius should be quoted because if specific provision is made for one subject, the suggestion is that other subjects do not matter as much. Although we may feel that they matter a little less, they are still too important to leave out. I hope that my noble friend will give a sympathetic reply and will find a way to reassure us— which will remain reassuring after the Minister and her right honourable friend, in years to come have been sadly swept from office and perhaps from the face of this globe— that there will always be a proper supply of teachers trained for that purpose.
Lord Lucas: Surely the point is not that there should be a supply of specialist teachers who can teach these subjects but that every teacher should be taught them. Certainly, if you consider teachers in the further education sector, every single one of those teachers has to take responsibility for the guidance and counselling of the students. The same is the case in many comprehensive schools. They all need to have these skills and they ought to be, and I am sure are, part of their basic education.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I welcome Amendment No.6, but I would like to put a slight question mark on Amendment No.7, simply to say that I very much hope that those who have skills in the teaching of personal and social education do indeed include people who will teach the subject in the context of moral considerations and the value of family life. I fear that at the moment that is not often so.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: While I support the spirit behind Amendment No.6 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I must say that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, am not entirely convinced that it is appropriate to have such a provision on the face of the Bill. Unfortunately my Latin is not up to his very succinct standard. Nevertheless, I believe that I understood it sufficiently to grasp what he was saying. I hope that we shall receive an assurance from the Government on the issue. But my concern, which is greater in the field — and is one that I do not think we can deal with by means of this legislation— is to ensure that the schools themselves do employ qualified and experienced religious education teachers in order to give the teaching required. It is too often being given by those who are not skilled in the field.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, in the current multi-faith situation, religion is a much more difficult and delicate subject to teach than used to be the case. However, that is a matter which must be dealt with through another means. I just hope the Government will
1612
be able to give us sufficient reassurance on the point and that, perhaps, the actual words of the amendment will not be necessary.
Lord Addington: I rise to express briefly my hope that the Government will not be putting forward such amendments. I say that for the simple reason that I believe we have had enough debate about moral considerations, the values of family life and what is the correct moral situation. If we put such a provision in the Bill, we shall have to define it elsewhere. I suggest that we might have to change it within a few minutes.
Lord Northbourne: I should like to point out to the noble Lord that the words "family life" do not appear in the amendment. That was done purposely.
Lord Addington: I am sorry, but I referred to the "values of family life".
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may take first the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is perhaps the changing and moving of the goalposts in such issues which has done most damage as regards the difficulty that teachers have in addressing the subject. I, for one, should like to see us get back to first principles in such matters. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He has given us the opportunity to discuss, once again, the importance of underpinning all education; that is, religiously, morally and, indeed, socially. Those are the areas which can provide the cement of a decent and civilised society.
This Government have done much to promote and raise the profile of the teaching of religious education and that side of education which relates to responsibility and citizenship. I have to put on record the personal commitment of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I refer to his commitment to ensuring that all education is set in the context of the values about which we are talking tonight.
In our schools legislation in 1988,1992 and 1993 we highlighted the importance of those areas. The Education Act 1993 also made sex education part of the statutory curriculum, and, by virtue of Section 46 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986, all sex education must encourage pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. Here I note very seriously the points made by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The production of circulars on religious and sex education as guidance for teachers in schools is most important. Again, such documents emphasise the context within which such subjects are dealt. As I said when speaking to the previous amendment, the Secretary of State's criteria for all teacher training courses cover the need for all teachers — primary and secondary— to be ready to promote pupils' moral, social and cultural development in their pastoral role. In accrediting and funding providers of training, the agency will be obliged to apply those criteria to all courses. Therefore, I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Basic teacher training is well covered. It is important to cover such matters under existing arrangements.

1613
As regards more specialist training, the issues in respect of the training of teachers are different for personal and social education, for sex education and, indeed, for religious education. I tend towards the view that sex education is usually better delivered by responsible, experienced teachers rather than newly qualified ones. That leads me to see specialist training in that area as best suited to an in-service model, arranged through schools, rather than directly funded by the TTA.
For personal and social education, the position is more complicated. All teachers have pastoral respon-sibilities and, as I said before, that is at it should be. For them, provision will best be made as part of a more general training programme.
The case of religious education is different again. All primary teachers, unless they specifically decide otherwise on religious grounds, will be trained to deliver the full statutory curriculum including religious education. For secondary specialist teachers, however, the supply responsibility will be shared between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will give forecasts of demand to the TTA, and the agency, which will make its funding decisions.
While sharing the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and that of other Members of the Committee, that we should have adequate training in those fields, I believe that the proposed new clauses would confuse existing and planned responsibilities which, as I hope I have explained, will fully cover— and will continue to do so— all that the noble Lord seeks to achieve. It is unnecessary to write them into the statute if the aim is to ensure that they continue. Indeed, such excessively detailed priorities could be counter-productive, as my noble friend Lord Renton suggested, by casting doubt on anything that is not specifically prescribed. On that basis, and in the light of the valuable debate that we have had, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the Minister. From her response, I do not quite feel that she dealt with the subject of life skills education which is at the heart of my amendment. However, with the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment tonight, but reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.7 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Membership, & c. of the agency:]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No.8:
Page 2, line 2, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England").
The noble Baroness said: We now come to Clause 2, which deals with the membership of the agency. The grouping includes Amendments Nos.8–13 and 16–21. I shall speak to the amendments which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend. I shall deal first with Amendment No.8, which seeks to ensure that the special relationship between higher education and teacher training is formally recognised. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on the matter and that she will be able to accept the amendment. The Secretary of State should consult with the Higher
1614
Education Funding Council for England as regards the names of those people whom he wishes to put forward for membership, or advice on his own nominees.
I move on now to Amendment No.11, which requires that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the experience of "qualified" teachers; that is, those who have been through the system of teacher training and who work in the classroom, putting into practice that experience rather than the more general experience in the provision of education as mentioned in the Bill. That is specific experience that the teacher training agency cannot afford to overlook when making decisions.
I turn now to Amendment No.18, which deals with membership and research. If the agency is to be responsible for the funding of research,
"into, the theory, practice and management of education",
as set out in Clause 4(1) (b), then it is imperative that the teacher training agency includes members who have the appropriate experience of such research. Even if later amendments are accepted and research funding remains with the Higher Education Funding Council, it is important that the training responsibilities of the TTA. and higher education research are bridged. That seems to me to be extremely important. Any decision for funding research cannot be divorced from decisions on teacher training.
The last amendment to which our names are attached is Amendment No.20. It involves parents and governors. In listing examples of practical experience: that might be desirable in members of the TTA, there can be no good reason why experience as a parent of a child in a school or as a school governor should not be included. Of course, governors may well be parents. The subsection is not prescriptive. It provides a checklist of qualities that the Secretary of State should take into account. I think that those are the amendments in the group to which our names are attached. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos.9,10,16 and 21, which stand in my name and which are in the group we are discussing. The purpose of these amendments is to secure that the Secretary of State consults with the Churches before making appointments to the teacher training agency. This would be parallel to the provision which the Government agreed to in the 1993 Education Act regarding consultation with the Churches over appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools. The Committee will remember that the Churches provide approximately one-third of the schools in the maintained sector and our partnership with the state in the provision of schools was recognised by the Government and is given expression through consulta-tion with the Churches being on the face of the 1993 Act.
The Church colleges of education are currently training over a quarter— I believe the figure is 28 per cent. — of our teachers and therefore the Churches request parallel consultation as regards membership of the teacher training agency. We wish to continue to work in partnership with the state in teacher education

1615
although many of our Church colleges have diversified into other areas of higher education. In putting forward this amendment, my hope is that the Government will accept it as a symbol of significant and serious consultation. I say that because our experience of consultation over appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools has not been encouraging and I owe it to the Committee to relate what has happened.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church were invited to suggest names of people for appointment to the Funding Agency for Schools. After consultation with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and others, I, as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education put forward three names. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds put forward two names. Since we put forward those names in July last year, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds and I heard nothing at all on this matter from the Secretary of State or his officers until we read in the press the names of those who had been appointed to the funding agency. None of those whom we had named have been appointed, although the Secretary of State has appointed other people from our Churches. Of course he is perfectly entitled to do that but in view of the provisions of the 1993 Act, and on the grounds of common courtesy, I had expected that the Secretary of State might have informed me that the names which I had submitted were not acceptable, and he could indeed have asked for others. If he had in mind other names of prominent people in the Church of England, I expected that he would have consulted me as chairman of the Board of Education, or perhaps the Archbishops, but none of that happened.
I had thought that the provision of the 1993 Act about consultation was an acceptance of the need for realistic discussion and that it was not just a barren formality. If there is to be genuine partnership between government and Churches in these areas where the Churches have a specific contribution to make, I suggest that we need something notably better than what has happened: we shall not be able to sustain confidence otherwise. I wish to press the point a little further. The 1993 Act states:
"Before appointing any member of the agency the Secretary of State shall consult [the Churches)".
When the Government were moving this amendment in the debate on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said:
"I should like to be absolutely clear on the matter. Presumably it means that every time the Secretary of State needs to appoint a member to the Funding Agency for Schools he will consult the Churches". — [Official Report, 10/6/93; col.1128.]
The Minister replied in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby:
"In answer to his first question as to whether we would consult the Churches every time, the answer is yes". — [Official Report, 10/6/93; col.1132.)
I put it to the Committee that, in the light of the wording of the Act and of the assurance that the Minister gave, the Government have not really fulfilled the terms of the Act, or risen to the assurances which they gave us.
In returning to these particular amendments, I move them hoping that the Government will accept them not only in the letter of the law but also in a spirit of genuine partnership. The Churches have played an historic part
1616
in the education of teachers and that contribution to teacher education continues. The quality of our Church colleges is widely respected. We want to work in continuing and developing partnership and I hope the Government will acknowledge that by the acceptance of these reasonable amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Two amendments in this grouping appear in my name— Nos.17 and 19. In speaking to Amendment No.17, I have spoken earlier this evening of the difficulty of achieving the cross-fertilisation of other more serious academic disciplines with that of teacher training. This amendment would make sure that representatives of such other disciplines sit on the new teacher training agency. I appreciate that the clause as already drafted in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider appointing people who appear to him to,
"have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in schools",
and of higher education generally. But I am not quite sure that that is the same thing as having been good at actually teaching proper academic subjects, and it is people who have achieved that whom I would like to see included on the teacher training agency. If the amendment is superfluous, I apologise, but in any case I would very much like to hear my noble friend confirm that such people will indeed be members of the teacher training agency and— I think this is important— any of its relevant sub-committees.
In moving to Amendment No.19, this amendment would remove from the Bill the presumption that those appointed to the teacher training agency would be currently engaged in teaching or teacher training or providing higher education. I have to say that this is an unnecessary and possibly dangerous provision in the Bill. First, there is of course the point that people who have just retired from teaching, or the other activities, might bring a lifetime of experience to the agency. Secondly, they are also likely to have the time to devote to the agency's work which it will certainly require if it is to succeed. And, thirdly, it seems to me that it is the newer and trendier ideas in education which have done so much to diminish its quality in recent, and not-so-recent years. Much of what has gone wrong in teacher training owes its origins to these newer and trendier philosophies.
So I cannot help feeling that, if these lines were to be removed from the Bill, it would allow some of our older and wiser academics, and indeed teacher trainers— although I fear these may be somewhat fewer and further between— to be members of the agency, and perhaps encourage a return to the sort of basics in education of which the vast majority of Members of the Committee approve.
Baroness Cox: As my name appears on Amendments Nos.17 and 19 alongside that of my noble friend Lord Pearson, I wish to state briefly why I was pleased to support these amendments.
So far as concerns Amendment No.17, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who made powerful representations about the importance of a love and in-depth knowledge of a subject before one can teach

1617
that subject well. Therefore, I should like to believe that the Bill made provision for the important principle of subject expertise in teaching to be recognised in the agency. I ask how anyone can teach mathematics, history or any other subject without a grounding in the subject itself. The recognition of that principle should be reflected in the membership of the committees and sub-committees relevant to the TTA.
I would argue that only with some provision for representation of that subject expertise can there be an assurance that the integrity of the disciplines themselves can be safeguarded, standards maintained and appropriate up-to-date knowledge transmitted to the next generation. It is in that spirit that I support Amendment No.17.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to Amendment No.19. I agree with my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that what seems at present to be the overriding criterion of appointment, namely, that the members should be currently engaged in teaching, should not be the principal criterion. There is the importance of subject expertise which I hive just mentioned. There is also the important principle of representation from outside the education system, such as from the professions or industry, to reflect the users and the wider society, which provides the resources for educational standards and benefits from or is disadvantaged by good or poor quality education respectively.
In other words, in Amendment No.19 we are setting out the principle of the importance of some representation by outsiders without vested interests in the system itself as it now stands.
In that spirit I support the amendments. Although they are principally probing amendments, I shall value my noble friend's response to the spirit behind them.
The Earl of Radnor: Perhaps this is the right time to speak to Amendment No.12, which introduces the subject of pupils with special learning difficulties. While we are discussing teacher training and the teacher training agency, we have to consider the end product and what the teacher will have to try to teach.
The Secretary of State has set out the people he considers to be desirable members of the agency. It is a commendably short list, but there is an immense gap in it. It does not include anyone with experience of children with learning difficulties. If my noble friend wished to broaden the membership, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), proposes, special educational needs might be appropriate. There is certainly no doubt that some provision of this type must be included somewhere in the Bill. This would seem to be the first place for it to be included. I cannot imagine an agency which does not cover that subject.
My noble friend will know perfectly well the number of statemented children. She will also agree that statemented children represent only the tip of the iceberg. It is now acknowledged that there are many children in school who do not have statements but who need special treatment from their teachers. That means that all teachers must have some knowledge of educational needs of that nature. That is important.
1618
Two noble Baronesses and one noble Lord have spoken this evening about the effectiveness of children leaving school for commerce who are not good enough. Here is a reservoir of children who must be properly taught. I am told that they represent 20 per cent. of all children, if one takes statemented children with those who have special needs but do not have a statement. Those children are probably of considerable intelligence but are just not able to realise their potential without proper teaching. Therefore, we must include somewhere the suggestion that such expertise should be represented among the eight to 12 members of the agency.
My noble friend, with whom I have corresponded on the subject, may well say that that expertise is delivered through various agencies and local education authori-ties. However, local education authorities are of variable quality in that respect. Children in one part of the country may be very lucky. Some authorities are excellent. But in another part of the country the position may be totally different. As a result of their teachers not being properly taught, the children themselves will not be taught properly and will be a loss to the country.
This is such a simple amendment. The argument becomes a little more powerful in Amendment No.29. But I feel that there should be someone on the board who has some knowledge of the subject, or at least there should be some admission that the Secretary of State might consider that.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps this is the right moment for me to speak to Amendment No.13 in my name and in the name of other noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Rix. He is very sorry not to be present because he has pursued the issue from the beginning. He did so at Second Reading and has done so since. He has a family funeral today and so cannot be here.
I am much cheered to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said about liking my Amendment No.13. Although it saw the light of day about two months after the noble Earl's amendment, my amendment goes much wider than his. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon it. Amendment No.13 will ensure that at least one person on the TTA has expertise in special education. That is essential if it is to evaluate the quality of special needs training offered by those who seek funding. It is also essential that the members are currently involved in special needs education so that that evaluation is as informed as possible.
High quality special needs training is not just a laudable aim; it has to be achieved. As the Minister will agree, the 1993 Act and code of practice place a responsibility on all schools and teachers to identify and meet the special educational needs of all pupils. Furthermore, many children with, for example, severe learning difficulties or sensory impairment will require teachers who have undergone further specialist training. Under the 1993 Act and the code of practice, if schools fail to meet those responsibilities parents can appeal to the tribunal.
The Minister knows all this much better than any of us, and she is deeply committed to making it all work. She and two of her ministerial colleagues and officials

1619
had a long and helpful meeting with disability organisations to discuss these issues. While they are very grateful, they still believe that something needs to be written into the Bill. It is vital that we get it right. We are discussing a group of disparate though related amendments. Amendments Nos.12 and 13 are closely related. I hope that when the Minster replies she can give a positive response to Amendment No.13, which will also embrace Amendment No.12, or will undertake to bring forward an amendment of her own to achieve the same aim, even if it does it by a different route. If she cannot do that, perhaps she can indicate clearly that she is willing to continue discussions before Report stage. I would then be sufficiently happy and grateful not to bore the Committee any further and not move Amendment No.13.
Lord Swinfen: Very briefly, I should like to support Amendment No.13 to which my name has also been placed. I am thinking of the ultimate product of this exercise; that is, the pupil with special educational needs. If the teacher training agency does not have the expertise at the very top of the pyramid, how can we make certain that the pupil with special educational needs will be properly taught at the bottom of the pyramid? I realise that one in a group of 12 may not have all the expertise that is required for special education, but we must remember that if pupils with special needs are not properly taught they will not be able to play a full part in life and therefore will not have a particularly satisfactory life. They may well end up costing the state a great deal more. It is wiser to make a proper investment early in their lives by making certain that the right people are in place to see that they are properly taught.
Lord Addington: I should like to speak very briefly to Amendments Nos.11 to 13. Amendment No.11 mentions "a qualified teacher". Possibly some integration of the wording here will achieve a situation from which we can all benefit, because a qualified teacher in the field of specific learning difficulties is probably what the Committee is looking for. The amendment, which has my name to it and the lead name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is one that refers to a particular category of specific learning difficulty. As the noble Lord who has just spoken said, there is a great divergency. We are beginning to probe what is needed in the new stages of the whole problem of dealing with different issues. In the past we have discussed those with specific learning difficulties, but there is beginning to be a divergence about what needs to be done next because of the divergence of difficulties. I will be very grateful if, when she replies, the Minister will be able to tell us how the thinking is going on incorporating all of these types of difficulties and what progress is being made upon it. I know that the noble Baroness has been very active in looking at the problems involved and seeing whether any thoughts have appeared in this area.
Baroness David: I should like to speak briefly to these two amendments. I prefer the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I believe that
1620
"special educational needs" is a better phrase than "special learning difficulties", for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said.
The noble Baroness has been very helpful in all of these discussions about special educational needs, the code of practice and so on. I hope that, if she is not willing to accept Amendment No.13 at once, we can perhaps have a discussion about it before the next stage of the Bill. I strongly support Amendment No.13, for the reasons given.
Lord Elton: I suspect that my noble friend will be put into a difficulty by some of the amendments and helped out of it by others. Looking at the more helpful side first, I hope that she will carefully consider Amendment No.19 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson, which relieves her of the difficulty, if I understand the language of the Bill correctly, of being required to appoint people who are fully engaged in education or the provision of education at the time.
If we add to that the provision wanted by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that they should be qualified teachers doing it, then we are in danger of limiting ourselves to appointing eight to 12 people who have a fairly narrow experience of the subject which they are meant to oversee. For example, I presume they will want people with primary experience, but many practising primary teachers stay in the same primary school for a long time. To take them out of the school and put them on to the national body may give them a great shock and not give the wider experience that perhaps the body needs.
Therefore, my noble friend's Amendment No.19 may go too far but perhaps he can tell me what will be the effect in law of the words in line 5:
"In appointing the members of the agency the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him— "
and then follow paragraphs (a) and (b). Does that apply to just some of the people and others need not be bound by it? In which case my noble friend's amendment may not be so urgently needed.
There is another difficulty which is familiar to any Members of the Committee who have previously debated the matter. It becomes worse at Report stage. The suggestion is that one must include special needs, special learning difficulties, parents, academic subjects, denominational education, research and theory represented in the committee. Many noble Lords not here today may read Hansard and say: "By gum, I forgot about history; no one has put geography down". You will find that the eight places have to be filled by polymaths if you are to make it work at all. My noble friend will either have to increase the eight or 12 to a larger number or be very selective. Once we are selective, we get into the old difficulty of appearing to give more importance to one aspect than another.
I suspect that my noble friend would be well advised to stick with her formula of giving the Secretary of State a broad brush direction. There is possibly one exception to that. It is the Church because of its historic and continuing role in the denominational schools. I feel that that should be recognised in the Bill as it has been in others. I hope that in responding to that, the Minister

1621
will be able to give some happy and reassuring answer to what sounded like the deeply worrying complaint expressed by the right reverend Prelate when he moved his amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, a question. As my noble friend Lady Warnock said over a decade ago that one child in six has a special educational need at all times and that one in five has a special educational need at times, does the noble Lord, Lord Elton, agree that one member of the committee with a knowledge of special educational needs is not unreasonable?
Lord Elton: It is clearly a subject which must be properly dealt with. I am glad that my noble friend has given me the excuse to get back on my feet because I forgot to put a question to the Minister. Will the body, first, be empowered and, secondly, be funded to appoint specialist panels? The answer may be to have advisory panels to deal with big subjects and that would spread through all the subjects to he taught and all the age levels of teaching. It is a big matter and the question is whether one person on the board would be enough. I wonder whether my noble friend has given any thought as to how the body might obtain authoritative advice and act on it.
Earl Russell: When I first arrived at the London University, there was a group of professors who were known collectively as the ancien régime. One of them once commented en a proposal to change something in the syllabus: "This proposal originates with the teachers of the subject which I regard as a most improper manner". If the noble Baroness is not able to accept Amendment No.13, she may risk being classified along with the ancien régime. She has been at great pains to disclaim any notion of a vendetta against the subject. I am very relieved to hear that. But it may be more difficult to eradicate that impression if Amendment No.18 is not accepted
I listened with distress to the story of the right reverend Prelate about his experiences with consulta-tion. I remember with equal distress a similar story told by the right reverend Prelate about the difficulties of consultation that he experienced on the last Bill. When, in a year's time, we all meet together for the next education Bill, I hope to hear the right reverend Prelate say that he has been third time lucky.
I ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Does he; lot understand that he is the "trendy" now?
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, will not mind my speaking now because I am about to say that I rather like his Amendment No.8. The Higher Education Funding Council for England and the teacher training authority will have to work closely together. And the auguries for that are not good. I have heard from several sources— although, I agree, not at first hand— that the Higher Education Funding Council for England has told E. number of the smaller independent teacher training colleges that, come the passing of the Bill, the council will dispense with all responsibility for those institutions and that they will become children of
1622
the TTA. Not surprisingly, that worries those institutions a good deal. They see themselves categorised as second-class providers, not part of the higher education system. I do not believe that that is desirable. I hope very much that we can have something in the Bill which binds the Higher Education Funding Council for England into the structure.
Baroness Warnock: I am about to make another monstrous suggestion; namely, that I strongly support the view that special educational needs should be mentioned in Clause 13. Given the very detailed instructions or suggestions in the code of practice that followed Part III of the 1993 Education Bill, an enormous responsibility is laid on teachers. Often, quite junior class teachers may have the responsibility of identifying children with special educational needs at a fairly early stage of those needs becoming apparent. It should be written on the face of the Bill that the training of any teacher ought to include a course of training, however short, on the identification of special needs against a background of general child development. It is terribly important that there should be on the training authority— if such we are to have— somebody who has that in mind. I understand fully the danger of becoming too specific about who should be a member of the board and what their qualifications should be. But this matter covers all the categories of people there and should be borne in mind. I would be extremely grateful if, at some time, we can have an assurance, through the setting up of the membership of the board, that the general consideration— namely, that young teachers should have some knowledge of that area— could be looked after.
Lord Judd: I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassuring comments in reply to this general debate. It is an extremely difficult issue. Clearly, when one looks at the composition of this body, there are all sorts of categories that one would like to see covered. How is it best to be done? Will it be best done by saying that we will have a group of people who can look at all the interests or that, for reassurance, there are certain people whom we must have there?
To be candid, when we discussed with colleagues our own approach to this issue, our feeling was that we needed a mixture. Some people were needed who could keep a general oversight but there were certain things that were so important that others should be there. That relates very much to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about good faith and commitment in getting the best possible body that could carry confidence in all areas. I support my noble friend Lady David in her remarks about research and parents and governors. It is all immensely important.
Perhaps I may comment on a couple of matters that have been mentioned. First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I should have been very tempted in many ways to ally myself with his amendment. It is a very important amendment, dealing with academic subjects. I was sad that he seemed to ally himself with a move to de-emphasise the importance of current experience, which seems to me crucial. I feel that that was unfortunate. It is important to emphasise

1623
the need to have not just people who have experience of providing education but to have teachers— some people with real teaching experience— in that body of people.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: With the greatest respect, I do not disagree with the noble Lord ept to say that I was not seeking to dissociate myself from current experience. I was merely suggesting that current experience should include some— I do not know how much and the amendment does not suggest it— current academic expertise apart from teacher training expertise.
Lord Judd: That is good to hear. The noble Lord will perhaps look again at the wording which may be a little ambiguous in that respect.
I make just one observation to the right reverend Prelate. As an Anglican I am extremely glad to see him again ramming home his argument. However, I wonder whether he would agree with me that as we move forward, again in the context of our multi-ethnic society, it is tremendously important to start talking about consultation in a wider context than the Church of England alone. If we are talking about making a success of everything that we are trying to do, particularly where there are communities in which the Church of England may not be a substantial reality in the neighbourhood, we have to think on an equal footing not only of other denominations— I sometimes feel that it is unfortunate to refer to "other denominations" because they are denominations in their own right— but also of other faiths as well. That principle has a wider application.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. The amendment does refer to "other religious denominations". It is not exclusive to the Church of England. It reflects the provisions in previous Acts. The reason for its presence there is that we are the providers of the colleges. That is what presents our unique case.
Baroness Blatch: I enjoyed that exchange. In appointing members to the agency, we intend to take account of a variety of experience and expertise in schools as well as in higher education and the wider world. The agency's membership of eight to 12 will not be large. It will clearly be less than the Higher Education Funding Council for England's membership of 12 to 15. That reflects the teacher training agency's much more tightly focused remit.
We believe that the size of the membership coupled with a requirement to consult on certain issues, and a willingness to consult on others— should be sufficient for it to represent a wide range of interests, including those of specific groups such as the Churches and special needs interests from whom we have heard today. However, all of the agency's members must be willing and able to act in the best interests of the agency and of its statutory objectives. In order to do that, they must have the necessary flexibility. It is therefore a matter of
1624
principle— certainly with the department— that members should not act as representatives of one particular interest group.
I listened carefully to what the right reverend Prelate said. I am sorry that, in relating a very sad tale, he did not refer to the exchange of letters between himself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Churches were indeed consulted on the appointments to be made for the Funding Agency for Schools. Indeed, a canon with wide diocesan experience and considerable experience of education in schools— not a nomination from the Churches — was appointed. We did that consistent with the Act, which gives a requirement to consult but does not give awarding rights of appointments. There was another Church appointment — a Roman Catholic appointment— of the head of a school in an inner city with considerable experience not only in education but also of the grant-maintained sector, for which that body is particularly responsible.
But it was only on 4th March that the right reverend Prelate wrote a letter to my right honourable friend, who received it on 5th or 6th March. The moment my right honourable friend received that letter he was distressed, to say the least, that the right reverend Prelate had not received a communication from my department to explain what had happened in the making of appointments to that body. Immediately my right honourable friend wrote to the right reverend Prelate. The letter was posted and, indeed, a copy was faxed to make certain that the right reverend Prelate received it before the debate this evening.
Let me begin by paying tribute to the important role which the voluntary colleges have played and must continue to play as specialist providers of teacher training, particularly, though by no means exclusively, in the training of primary teachers. That is something we have reflected on the face of the Bill in Clause 6. Indeed, I believe the very fact that there is to be a specialist funding agency in this area means that colleges will be able to relate to a body which shares their central concerns and will be well placed to recognise their particular contribution.
Turning to the right reverend Prelate's first amendments— Amendments Nos.9 and 10— I would draw attention to the fact that Clause 2 already allows the Secretary of State to take into account the important role of Church institutions when appointing the members of the new agency. I am sure any Secretary of State will want to strike a sensible balance of membership which reflects the roles of all those groups, although of course those members must be appointed on a personal basis and will, once appointed, act in the best interest of the agency and its statutory objectives.
We were reminded that in the case of the Funding Agency for Schools we did, on reflection, include a reference to voluntary schools in the provisions on membership. That is an issue to which I have just referred but should like to come back to at the next stage in a way which I hope will meet the right reverend Prelate's concerns. The amendments as drafted have, I am told, some untoward effects on the clause as a whole

1625
and so I could not in any case at this stage add them to the Bill. But I shall certainly accept the point of principle in Amendment No.16.
I fully understand why the right reverend Prelate in Amendment No.21 would like to see consultation with Church bodies before the teacher training agency's members are appointed. I recognise that that too will be the case for the Funding Agency for Schools. But such consultation would be required not only prior to the initial appointments, but also before every single subsequent appointment, including those to fill ad hoc vacancies. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept that that is an unwieldy process. It also risks teacher training agency members being seen as representatives of specific interest groups, where I am sure Members of the Committee will share my reservations. Again I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton regarding the difficulty of being inclusive or exclusive.
I must therefore oppose Amendment No.21. But I take heed of all noble Lords' concerns that there should be adequate recognition of the position of the Churches. I can assure the Committee that, just because of the size and nature of the important role played by Church colleges, about which we have heard from many sides, and reinforced by Clause 6 of the Bill, it is inconceivable that those interests will be overlooked.
My noble friend Lord Lucas made an important but rather depressing point— from wherever he received his information— that somehow or other the Higher Education Funding Council would act disfavourably to specific colleges. That is a point which perhaps may have been better made in the debate on Clause 1— that perhaps they look after their own. However, there are certainly around half a dozen colleges where the great majority of their funding will in future come from the agency and not from the Higher Education Funding Council. They certainly have nothing to fear from this Bill. Indeed, as specialist providers of initial teacher training they can expect to enjoy a valuable relationship with the agency.
Although 1 am sympathetic to the motives behind Amendment No.12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Radnor and Amendment No.13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is not in his place— and I understand why not— I must resist adding either of the suggested additional phrases to the Bill. The model for agency membership, on which the provisions in Clause 2 are closely modelled, is the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The 1992 Act does not mention special needs, but in fact the funding council does have members with backgrounds in this area. The Secretary of State would have equal freedom to choose people with such backgrounds as agency members under Clause 2 as it stands.
In so far as noble Lords wish to ensure that initial teacher training takes account of basic special needs issues, that is not an issue for the Bill. The requirements for courses will riot be set by the agency. They are contained within the criteria which are well established and will be kept up to date as necessary by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will consult widely as and when revisions are needed. I
1626
believe that this is the way in which suitable special needs content will be assured in all courses, whether offered by schools or higher education institutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, made an important point. I wonder whether she would agree with me that this whole issue is strengthened very much by Section 3 of the Education Act 1993 because now on the statute is a requirement for the provisions of that Act to be delivered by non-specialist classroom teachers, just as they are to be delivered by specialist classroom teachers, all knowing quite precisely what their part is in that. Any criteria for basic teacher training must reflect the need for initial teacher training to recognise the importance of stages 1,2 and 3 in the process of determining, identifying and then attending to the special needs of young people.
I turn now to Amendments Nos.11,18 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I expect we shall see on the teacher training agency those who did qualify as teachers and parents with children in schools, or school governors, or individuals with experience of research into, or the study of, education. But Clause 2 as drafted does nothing to exclude individuals with any of these characteristics. Parents and governors are not a breed set apart. They come from every walk of life. In almost any non-departmental body one will find people who are governors and who are parents of children attending our schools. The issue is whether it is necessary to list possible areas of experience in such great detail. I cannot believe that this would be the right approach. I must therefore oppose those amendments.
Amendment No.8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seeks consultation on appointments with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I noticed the support given for that by my noble friend Lord Lucas. That would be very cumbersome. This is a relatively small body and it would have to he done every time the agency had an ad hoc vacancy. The funding council is in any case a body which itself is appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no logic in the amendment. It also overlooks that we have already, in Clause 2(2) (a), included a reference to experience in the provision of higher education as something to which the Secretary of State must have regard.
My noble friend Lord Pearson made powerful points about the sorts of experience it would be desirable to see represented on the agency. He identified, in particular, experience of academic matters other than teacher education, and the experience of retired persons. There is a very real case for people who come from the subject faculties of higher education to have an input, to address the point that was made so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and agreed to by many people in the Chamber— the importance of improving the subject competence of our teachers. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord on these points. The existing Clause 2(2) (a) already indicates that we see the potential value of those with experience of providing school education or higher education. The drafting in the Bill does not preclude experience of those matters outside the field of teacher education, so we are already well down the road to meeting my noble friend on this point.

1627
Similarly, I must acknowledge that retired persons with the right blend of experience could make a valuable contribution to the agency. The reference to "current" experience in the drafting of the Bill is common in legislation about new bodies of this sort. It is essential that current experience is included, but that does not preclude the important and valuable aggregated experience of someone immediately past retirement who can make a contribution, and who very often has the time to make a contribution, to such bodies. So I can assure my noble friend that it will in no way preclude the possibility that one or more retired persons could play their part as members of the agency. On that basis I hope that he will feel able to withdraw Amendment No.19.
As regards Amendment No.17, I say to my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Pearson that I am told that it has a slightly untoward effect as drafted. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw this amendment and allow me to look at the possibility of bringing one forward which meets his concerns and which meshes with the points already reflected in Clause 2.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked one or two questions. First, he referred to the specialist panels. I can assure him that the agency will have the power to establish committees. Those committees could include non-members of the agency as wished. The powers come from Schedule 1, paragraph 8. Secondly, my noble friend also questioned the meaning of the membership provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill. Again, I can clarify for him and also give him an assurance that those words are only an indication of desirable areas of experience. They do not exhaust the possibilities, nor indeed do all those areas necessarily have to be present in TTA membership.
There is enormous sympathy here given that teacher training has to address all these issues. I already recognise in principle the importance of Church involvement. I would like to address that at Report stage. Of course it is inconceivable that special need is not in some way reflected in the membership. As to whether there will be something on the face of the Bill I am not prepared to be definitive at this stage. But the interests covered will be absolutely essential, in that the work of the teacher, as we have been reminded, seeks to address the needs of the one in every five of our children in school who at some time in their life have special needs. The requirement now in the statute is that teachers must be equipped to meet the needs of those children. Therefore, the training of those teachers is very important.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I was very disap-pointed with the noble Baroness's reply at first, but she sounds now as though the door is not closed. She said that she was not absolutely certain. Is she saying that she will be willing to discuss the matter further?
Baroness Blatch: I wish to reflect on all that has been said. So many of the categories which have been
1628
mentioned are important categories. It is a question of what appears on the Bill and what does not. The fact that a matter does not appear on the face of the Bill raises the question of whether the interests of the affected group are properly met. I wish to reflect on what has been said. I shall perhaps come back on that issue, but if I do not I am fairly certain that the noble Baroness will at Report stage.
The Earl of Radnor: In view of what my noble friend has just said, I hope that something will come out of this reflection. We are talking about a very serious area of teaching involving a number of teachers and a great number of under-performing people whom they are going to teach. I hope that we do not return at Report stage with nothing.
As regards my Amendment No.12 it will not be very good to have people representing any particular facet of education on the agency. Nothing is said at the top of page 2 of the Bill about representation, but it speaks of the "experience of'. That is quite different. I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I certainly reserve the right to come back, probably with the noble Baroness, and put forward something ourselves if my noble friend is unable to.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that my noble friend will take my previous words as an indication that this is not a neglected subject and it will not be one. Perhaps I may make a distinction. We are predominantly speaking here about basic initial teacher training. Just as in nursing we need to start with a sound basic training on which the specialist's special needs training will be developed. So there is a distinction that initial teacher training ought to equip teachers to deal with the normal everyday work of the teacher, which includes in the basic training the importance of identifying children's special needs. The Bills of 1988,1992 and 1993 and this Bill are all dedicated to the needs of all children. The intention is to make sure that special needs are an important part of consideration of the TTA as a whole.
Baroness David: As I opened the debate on these various amendments, perhaps I should now respond. It has been very useful to learn a bit more about the Government's thinking on the members of the agency. My guess is that perhaps eight members will not be enough and that the number will have to be 12. I think that we would probably all like to reflect on what the Minister said, to read through it in Hansard and to decide on what points we should like to come back.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his support on Amendment No.8 and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in his place, for his support on Amendment No.18. Amendment No.18 is the one that I am most worried about. We really should have somebody there who has experience of and who has shown capacity in research into the theory, practice and management of education. That seems an extremely important amendment, so there is not much doubt that we shall probably come back with it.
I should very much like to read what the Minister said and reflect on it before deciding what we shall come back with. If we manage to have any discussions in the

1629
meantime on special educational needs, that will be very useful because that is another extremely important matter. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No.8.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.9:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("persons who appear to him").
The right reverend Prelate said: I should like to speak to this amendment briefly because the Minister regretted that I did not refer to the letter that I had received from the Secretary of State. I am not in the business of scoring debating points, but since the Minister has drawn attention to the letter, which I was prepared to regard as private, I think that it is right that the Committee should know what that apology actually comprised. I am grateful for that apology. What the Secretary of State actually said was this:
"I am sorry that you were not informed of my decisions on the initial membership of the Funding Agency for Schools at the time they were announced. This was a discourtesy on the part of the Department which I have made very clear must not happen again".
I am sorry to say that I do not read in that any apology for any failure to consult or be in touch with me. The only apology was for the fact that I was not informed of the appointments at the time that they were announced. I did not wish to draw attention to the letter, but as the Minister implied that I was failing in my duties in not doing so, I feel bound to say that that was the letter that I received.
I understand that the Minister is not entirely happy with my amendment because it is perhaps too far-reaching in that it seeks to ensure that, before appointing any member, the Secretary of State shall consult. That precisely reflects the provisions that the Government included in the 1993 Act. We were merely repeating what: is already in legislation. I do not want to press the point, however, and am immensely grateful to the Minister for indicating that she is prepared to discuss this matter with us further and to try to meet the Churches. I am sorry if, in speaking about what has happened over the funding agency, I have in any way embarrassed the noble Baroness.
Baroness Match: I note what the right reverend Prelate says. Indeed, while he was quoting from it, I re-read the first pan of that letter. The reason that I made it public was that I believed that the right reverend Prelate had told half the story and I wanted to put on the record the distress of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The right reverend Prelate raises a very important point. Nobody— not even those who are being appointed— are able to know of that appointment until the time of the announcement. It would be quite inappropriate and wholly discourteous to anybody being appointed to a body for a third party, unconnected, to be told of the appointment. What I do think is important is that when the letters went out to those who had been interviewed and to those who were to be appointed, the right reverend Prelate and the other Church authorities should have been told at the same time. Any expectation
1630
that such information can go out ahead of that time would present real difficulties for my right honourable friend.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I do not wish to continue this debate in public, but I thought that the word in the Bill was "consult" not "inform". I think that we should continue this discussion elsewhere, However, I feel that I have to say that what the noble Baroness has just said simply does not meet the anxieties which I have tried to express and which were, I think, echoed by other Members of the Committee. I hope that further discussions elsewhere will produce a more satisfactory result. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.10 to 13 not moved.]
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No.14:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.15,45 and 74. They address the issue of equal opportunities and I shall speak briefly. It is surprising that the Bill omits to mention equal opportunity considerations. It is not necessary for me to point out to the Committee that it is an extremely important issue for the multi-racial society that we are creating in this country. There is a great deal of evidence on the matter in the Swann Report, which was published in 1985, and in the report entitled Set to Fail, published by the Commission on Racial Equality. Hertfordshire County Council has investigated discrimi-nation in admissions. The Department for Education has published a document entitled Exclusions. Those and other documents have made clear that, in respect of under achievement, low expectations held by teachers, discrimination in admissions and the education of children whose first language is not English, a considerable degree of progress must yet be made. It is important that we should make a greater effort to ensure that something better is done in that respect.
Earlier today we discussed teacher performance. It was pointed out that the majority of teachers were all right but that there were problems in respect of 15 to 20 per cent. We must do better in that respect. A similar problem exists in respect of this issue. Although the total number of children concerned is not large— it is about 5 or 6 per cent. — in certain inner city areas the proportion is large. It is important that we do not let those children fail and allow them to be blighted throughout their lives. It is also necessary that a member of the teacher training authority should have an appreciation of the importance of equal opportunity policies and be able to bring those to bear directly on the deliberations of the authority.
The second set of considerations relates to teacher recruitment and is dealt with in Amendments Nos.45 and 74. The problem is that we are failing to recruit in sufficient quantity teachers from the ethnic minorities. I shall not bore the Committee with statistics, which have been clearly pointed out in a CRE publication entitled Ethnic Minority School Teachers and in the UCCA report of 1993. We are failing both in terms of teacher recruitment and as regards the willingness of students to enter teacher training in schools.
One of the relevant questions is: do institutions which run teacher training courses practise an equal opportunities policy? That is extremely important. We must see to it that institutions have equal opportunities policies and that we have some means of monitoring that those policies are implemented. Amendment No.45 adds to Clause 5 a new clause which states that consideration should be taken of the existence of an equal opportunities policy and the means of its implementation.
It may be argued that such formal consideration is rather bureaucratic but I do not believe that that is the case. We have adopted such practices in other areas and we should be able to follow that best practice.
Amendment No.74 deals with information gathering and how to make information available. The amendment follows the wording of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It basically says that, just as is carried out in the National Health Service and the criminal justice system, we should collect data on the ethnic minorities in teacher training. That would enable the teacher training agency to see to it that we do better than we do at present in terms of equal opportunities. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton: Frankly, I should not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we all believe in equality of opportunity; and thank goodness we have had that to a greater and ever increasing extent in this country for some generations now. I hope that it will improve with each generation. But to write that provision into this clause, which deals with the choosing of members of the teacher training agency, is to my mind somewhat inappropriate.
How is anyone to find out whether a person has been good at or has had experience of "delivery of equality of opportunity"? I suppose that it could be said that we have all tried to do that. I hope that I do not appear to be too frivolous when I say that I find the drafting of the amendment to be very odd. It is almost like saying that we want a delivery of a quantity of groceries in particular front gardens. To write such a provision into the statute does not seem to me to be appropriate in regard to a matter on which we are all agreed. It does not need to be contained in a statute at all.
Lord Judd: I warmly support the amendments. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will forgive me for saying that he seemed to show a degree of complacency about the situation in this country. I do not share that at all. When we look at the matter in the sphere of education, it is quite disturbing. In the context of this short debate, we must re-emphasise the point that the 1988 survey found that only 2 per cent. of teachers were of ethnic minority origin whereas the average ethnic minority population of the United Kingdom stood at 5.5 per cent. In most of the eight areas surveyed it was higher than that, one at 26 per cent. and one at 33.5 per cent. It is also significant that in the same year, the same report showed that 24 per cent. of applications to study medicine were from Asian students and 7 per cent. Of
1632
applications for law courses were from black students. Apart from the general situation, that suggests that there is a special need for action in the sphere of education.
The other point which should be stressed is that, if we are to tackle this issue successfully, it is necessary to introduce a system of monitoring. That has been done in both the National Health Service and the criminal justice system. It is proving to be a way in which specific progress can be made.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a reassuring reply. However, in conclusion I should say that one of the greatest difficulties in our society is that very many people believe that we are OK on this front and believe that their own attitudes are OK and are quite unaware that, seen from the perspective of the ethnic minority, they are far from being so. The issue is now being taken very seriously in legal quarters. For example, it is being taken very seriously by judges, and others, on training courses. If we can do more within the sphere of education, we shall be serving the future of the country, in its multi-ethnic condition, well indeed.
Lord Skidelsky: The aspect of the amendments which appeals especially to me is the issue of monitoring; in other words, just finding out. A single agency set up to oversee all aspects of education would be in an ideal position to collect data about the ethnic origins of those entering the teaching profession. That is something that we would like to know. The collection and monitoring of such data would, in turn, facilitate properly-targeted steps to ensure equality of opportunity.
It is possible that there is already a means in existence for collecting such information. However, I do not believe that there is. To obtain and publish such data would not be too costly. Indeed, it would require an official and a computer. But the benefit in terms of informing policy would far exceed the cost. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give consideration to accepting the spirit of the proposal.
Earl Russell: I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I believe that this is an area in which it is not only necessary for justice to be done, but also that it should be seen to be done. In his back to basics interview, to which I have already referred, the Prime Minister drew attention to a growing disrespect for our institutions. I also see that, and I regret it. It is most important that that should be slowed down and, preferably, reversed. One of the reasons for that disrespect may be that people, because of their race— or for any other reason— feel that they are stuck outside the shop window looking in. It is a state of mind which encourages a good deal of anger.
My views about racial discrimination go back to the time when I was a small child in the United States and was picked on for being English. That raised in me a slow-burning fuse of resentment. In other cases, I can imagine that the feeling may be stronger. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Surely, racial discrimination is quite a

1633
separate matter and a somewhat narrower one than that covered by the thought of equal opportunity. In any event, racial discrimination is covered by legislation that we have expressly for the purpose of preventing it.
Earl Russell: We have here a series of categories which overlap. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the prohibition of racial discrimination. However, it is generally perceived by members of any group of people who feel that they may be subject to discrimination— and those groups are many— that there is often a process of stereotyping and of differential expectations. That is widely perceived, with some excuse, to be discriminatory in its effect. For example, girls who want to take science sometimes have such an experience. Indeed, I believe that there was a case in today 's newspapers of a girl who was turned down for a job as a garage mechanic because she was thought to be too dainty for the work. That is the sort of area where lack of equality of opportunity and discrimination can very easily merge into each other. That was the sort of situation that I had in mind.
Baroness Blatch: Equal opportunities issues will, quite rightly, be among those to which the agency will have to have regard in carrying out all its functions. The Bill extends the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act to the agency's funding functions, making it unlawful for the agency to exercise them in a way which constitutes sex or race discrimination.
I have listened carefully to the debate and the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for the inclusion of experience of the delivery of equality of opportunity within the membership of the agency. I recognise that the current drafting of Clause 2 does not list all the areas of experience that might be desirable within such a body.
There is a particular reason why we should not add the suggested reference to equality of opportunity on the face of the Bill. It is not because this is an unimportant issue. Of course, it is of vital importance, as my noble friend Lord Renton said. But it is so vital that we already have legislation covering the activities of education establishments and others which outlaw discrimination on the grounds of race or sex and make the delivery of equality of opportunity a requirement for every possible member of the agency— not an activity of a minority to be represented upon it.
I would certainly not wish to deny that there are those who have particular knowledge and experience in equal opportunity issues whose expertise might be very valuable to the agency. I can assure the Committee that we will not ignore such experience when considering possible appointees to the agency. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment about membership.
I turn now to the issues raised by another of the noble Lord's amendments, Amendment No.45, relating to equal opportunities policies. The agency's concern to promote and raise standards of teaching means that it will want to encourage the most promising candidates from all backgrounds and may well decide, as the funding council has done in this area, to support projects designed to attract applicants from groups which are
1634
traditionally under-represented in the teaching force. I would not, however, want to widen the agency's remit, as the amendment does, to require it, in effect, to monitor the application of the race relations and sex discrimination Acts in schools and higher education. There are already mechanisms in place in those Acts for that, and they should be kept distinct.
Important messages have been sent not only to further education colleges but also to higher education institutions and schools about their responsibilities. The Government have made clear that racial harassment and discrimination have no place in the education service. Schools and colleges have an important responsibility to work towards the promotion of equality of opportunity for the different ethnic groups who are part of our national life.
I noted particular concern that schools, as new providers of initial teacher training, may perhaps lag behind the traditional higher education providers in having clear policies to safeguard equality of opportunity. I believe, however, that this overlooks the wide experience that schools have of operating within existing legislation in this field, helped by guidance from the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and indeed the Department for Education, which includes a chapter about equal opportunities in the Guide to the Law given toevery single school governor in England.
Finally, I turn to the noble Lord's amendment concerning the provision of information by schools and institutions to the agency about equal opportunities policies. The Secretary of State can, under Clause 14, ask for information on any matters which relate to the agency's responsibilities. So there would not be anything to be gained by this reference.
However, I recognise that there is a case, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky pointed out, for data to he collected on ethnic minority entry into teaching. The agency may well want to play a role. There are already independent agencies — the Graduate Teacher Training Registry, for example— which either collect such data now or may choose to do so in future. Ofsted will certainly have much relevant information. I do not believe that it would be right for the legislation to imply that the agency must have the central role in ethnic monitoring of this kind, or indeed in collecting and passing on to central government policies or other material relevant to equal opportunities.
I stress again that equal opportunities will be one of the agency's concerns for legal and practical reasons and, we consider, for desirable reasons. But we must beware of getting this one strand of its activity— however important — out of proportion and seeming to give the agency a role for which it has not been designed and which it will not be well placed to discharge.
I take the point that my noble friend Lord Renton made a moment ago. How does a body of this size detect particular discriminatory behaviour in a school that is situated many miles away? Let us take the example of a school that has no ethnic minority appointment on its staff. Is that a case for deeming that it is in breach of the law in these matters? If there is no prima-facie evidence of a breach, what kind of investigation will take place of

1635
any particular institution, given that there are 25,000 schools in the country, to establish whether the reason for there not being an ethnic minority appointment is that the school has been breaching the law or simply that that happens to be the case and the school has acted entirely properly? I agree that it would be impracticable. However, I have taken note of the point about monitoring.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, although I am not entirely happy with it. The point has to be made that we have laws banning racial discrimination and we need something much more positive in relation to equal opportunities. While it is no doubt difficult and complicated to do that, that is no reason for not being explicit and bold on the subject.
I recognise the difficulties in relation to monitoring. I did not say that we would like a quota and that in every school there has to be somebody from an ethnic minority. That is not the problem. The problem is whether every institution has an equal opportunities policy. Can we be sure that when such people are not represented that is for a perfectly good reason? Can we be sure that at the macro level we are doing enough? Unless we monitor the situation carefully we shall not advance at the rate which is necessary and we shall not be seen to advance.
I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble Baroness said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.15 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Teacher Training Agency]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No.23:
Page 16, line 8, after ("State") insert ("a representative of the Office for Standards in Education and a representative of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No.23 I should like to speak also to Amendment No.24. I can be extremely brief. The amendments permit representatives of SCAA and Ofsted to attend meetings of the TTA. We believe that this is important to ensure there is an appropriate flow of information between the different agencies so that where necessary cross-referencing can take place. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I entirely support the case for a close working relationship between the teacher training agency and Ofsted, which will be advising the agency on the quality of teacher training provision. I am sure that that will develop rapidly and will be made much easier by Ofsted having one body to advise it on accreditation and funding issues rather than three— the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Department for Education. I am also sure that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the agency will want to exchange information, although the working links will be less close.
1636
The Secretary of State's criteria require teacher training courses to prepare students to teach the statutory curriculum, but it will be Ofsted which will be monitoring that in detail and not the agency. The agency needs a general understanding of the issues and the likely demands of the teacher training system which will stem from curriculum developments of various kinds, whether or not they are added by the Secretary of State to his criteria in due course.
However, I do not think that it would be right to legislate to give either of those bodies an absolute right of access to meetings and papers in cases where the agency wants to keep them at bay. The only need for legislation is to allow for such enforcement. While it is right that the Secretary of State should have fall-back powers— which I hope we shall not need to use— because of his responsibility for establishing and funding the agency, it would not be consistent with the agency's independence to give others the same rights.
I am aware that the 1993 Act gave Her Majesty's inspectorate those rights in respect of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, but that is a body whose aims are so tightly linked to those of Ofsted that it would be hard to imagine any business which was not of mutual concern. There are not the same rights for HMI in respect of the Funding Agency for Schools because they will have business which may not be so directly relevant to the proper concerns of Her Majesty's inspectors. I believe that the teacher training agency should follow the funding agency model rather than that of the SCAA. I do not believe that very much divides us on the point. What is absolutely certain is that there is the closest possible relationship between these bodies, but I hope that an absolute legal entitlement to attend will not be supported.
Lord Judd: One thing that I will say for the Minister is that she always gives a very full reply. She has said some very positive things that we shall need to look at very closely. I find the reply rather reassuring, and in those circumstances I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.24 and 25 not moved.]
Schedule I agreed to.
Clause 3 [The funding agencies]:
[Amendment No.26 not moved].
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Qualifying activities and eligible institutions:]
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No.27:
Page 2, line 37, after ("provision") insert ("of the pedagogical elements of a course").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove the ability to fund the subject study element of a course of initial teacher training from the new teacher training agency and to leave it where it currently is with the Higher Education Funding Council. In the debate earlier I was very pleased that the opinion of the Committee was very strongly in favour of teacher training courses being wholly funded by the new teacher training agency. I was also very pleased that in the

1637
course of that debate there was strong support for the importance of keeping the teachers' study of the subjects that they would teach within the main stream of higher education.
It is my view that there is no more important gift that a teacher brings to pupils than the teacher's enthusiasm, knowledge and genuine intellectual curiosity in the subject that he or she teaches. What is probably more important than any of the other skills that the teacher has is the ability lo inspire excitement and curiosity in the subject that is being taught.
I believe that it will normally be assumed that somebody who teaches, particularly at the secondary level— although I will turn to the primary sector in a moment— will have learned the subject that he or she is to teach in the main stream of higher education: in the department of physics if the teacher is to teach physics, in the department of history if the teacher is to teach history, and so on. Alas, this is not always the case. In some cases the teacher trainers, who are not necessarily main line subject specialists, still have to undertake the teaching of the teacher's subject knowledge. In my view, that is a very second-rate preparation for a secondary teacher, I believe that even in the case of teachers of primary age children, particularly those towards the top end of the primary school, their in-depth knowledge of subjects is very important. Young children remember for a very long time what is said by their teachers. An ignorant and uneducated teacher in the subject that is being taught can do great damage, whereas a teacher who can light up the subject and make it exciting can also encourage an enthusiasm for and love of learning of that subject for life.
My fear is that the result of the Bill as it stands will not be what the Government intend; that is, to encourage people to send teacher training students back into their departments of education for their subject study. It will be very much easier for the vice-chancellors to say that the funding for the whole of the course comes from one single source— the teacher training agency— and therefore the whole of the teaching will be done in the teacher training department. I believe that that would be a very unfortunate result. I am sure that the Government would not want that to happen. Therefore, although this is only a probing amendment I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging about the Government's. intent.
Baroness Match: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Perry for the constructive way in which she has spoken to this important issue. I understand the motives for it— and I support much of what she has said so far. The importance of newly qualified teachers having the necessary knowledge and understanding of the subjects to underpin effective teaching is one of the key criteria for courses of initial training and will remain so.
The need for specialist subject study is particularly important at secondary level and the top end of primary schools where specialist teachers are increasingly used when opportunity permits. The arguments about specialism are more complex in relation to primary classroom teachers who deal with all nine subjects of the
1638
primary national curriculum and religious education. To meet the needs of these teachers for a wide subject base, we have proposed a six-subject primary Bachelor of Education course which covers a number of subjects at reasonable depth, rather than one or two in depth and the rest somewhat superficially. But such courses will still be at first degree level and will be offered and validated by higher education institutions.
I hope I can reassure my noble friend that there is no threat to the current position under the Bill as drafted. I see no encouragement for any particular pattern of subject study, or its separation from subject departments within universities and colleges. I do, however, see a strong push for higher standards, and quality of subject study will clearly be one important factor which the agency will want to consider in deciding on the relative merits of courses when making its funding decisions. Ofsted in its reports on the quality of education departments will reflect among other factors the way in which good subject knowledge makes for better teacher training. Higher Education Funding Council quality assessments on subject departments will also be relevant — a course which is known to draw on subject study in an excellent subject department will clearly have an advantage.
I do, however, see two serious problems with the amendment before us. One is essentially administrative and one more fundamental. The administrative difficulties would arise both for the TTA and for institutions. There would need to be a completely new approach to funding. This would have to involve a pro rata approach based on the time taken on the pedagogical elements of each and every course. There is no precedent for defining or separately funding subject study in teacher training courses. Nor is there any easy distinction to be drawn between subject study and subject application— which would predominantly fall into the pedagogical category. Disentangling the two for primary Bachelor of Education students studying 10 subjects would be very difficult. There is no convenient way of calculating or checking this. The distinction between subject and professional studies, for example, does not simply relate to the time a student is in a higher education institution compared with the time spent in school.
Even if the subject study could be separately identified, there is the question of who would fund it if not the teacher training agency. The Higher Education Funding Council could do so for courses provided by higher education institutions, but the teacher training agency would not be able to fund the subject study in school-centred courses. Small as that might be in some cases, I am sure the Committee would not like to see postgraduate courses running with no subject study at all.
But the real difficulty with this amendment is in its potential effect on the ability of the teacher training agency to fulfil its role. The problem is that it would be much harder for the agency to identify and therefore reward the most cost-effective, high quality training. Instead of looking at, say, all Bachelor of Education provision on a comparable basis, it would see a fractured picture. The most expensive courses in the

1639
agency's terms would be those which had most pedagogical training and which might therefore lose out. We certainly want sufficient high quality subject study, but not at the expense of high quality professional training, which is equally vital if schools are to have effective teachers.
I hope that my noble friend will see the strength and the force of being able to have quality assessment information about where the best subject study is provided in higher education to make sure that the judgments are made by the funding agency to ensure that those courses are properly supported. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel it appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for her detailed and thoughtful reply. I am not at all sure that I accept the administrative difficulties of separating out the parts of an undergraduate course, particularly where the students are following the same course as people on a mainstream degree in engineering, history or whatever else it is. There I believe it is possible to identify half the course, two years or whatever it is. I do not believe that postgraduate courses pose a problem because they are all pedagogy. No one should be learning the subject they will teach at the postgraduate level. So there would not be a problem with postgraduate study. However, I am grateful to the Minister for her sympathetic response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No.28:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("training") and insert ("education").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this a profoundly important amendment which goes right to the centre of the whole purpose of the Bill and related matters. Obviously there is not time to debate it fully at this hour, and therefore I shall be extremely brief.
What the amendment seeks to establish is that in the preparation of our teachers we are talking about "education" and not simply about "training". We think that it is extremely unfortunate that at this crucial point in the Bill the word "training" is used instead of "education". The Minister would do a great deal to assist morale and reassure the House if she could simply say this evening that she takes the point and will see that the change is made.
Lord Renton: It seems to me that paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 4 between them give us all that the noble Lord would wish to have and give us what we ought to have. Paragraph (a), which he wishes to alter, refers to,
"the provision of teacher training".
As a funding agency, the teacher training agency has to consider the funding of teacher training. I would have thought that it would be missing out on its main purpose if it did not. But to console the noble Lord, he will find in paragraph (b) that among the activities qualifying for funding is,
1640
"the provision of higher education in, or the undertaking of research into, the theory, practice and management of education".
The Bill gives us the best of both worlds. I do not see what the noble Lord is worrying about.
Baroness Blatch: What is in a word? No definition of the term is offered in this amendment, and I am not sure that I have been properly enlightened by what I have heard so far.
I do not find the concept of the training of teachers demeaning. Doctors, lawyers and captains of industry are all quite happy to talk about their professional or management training which ensures that they have the skills that they need to carry out their important tasks. Graduates compete vigorously to be taken on as trainees in large organisations. Training is an attractive option, not a deterrent.
"Teacher training" is already a term used in legislation, and has been so used since 1944. It is used in the awards regulations as well as in the teachers regulations. It is clear and unambiguous. A power to fund teacher education could cover any course taken by an intending or serving teacher, including the first degree taken by someone who goes on to do postgraduate training and a serving teacher's evening classes in car maintenance.
We want the agency to fund courses which are clearly designed to develop the ability of trainee teachers to meet the demands of their future profession. That may include increasing their subject expertise through higher education in a particular discipline. There is no problem about that being part, as now, of courses defined as teacher training. But we do not want to open the definition wider into territory which is properly the concern of other funders.
I understand that many teacher training sections in higher education institutions wish to refer to themselves as providers of teacher education. That is perhaps natural. They clearly operate within departments or faculties of education. But there is nothing in this Bill that will change that, or compel them to change their chosen labels.
The term "teacher training" is used consistently in legislation. It is well understood by the public. There is nothing sinister in it. If it smacks of well-focused and purposeful activity, then I am glad. But anyone who believes that it is somehow sinister, and that the teacher training agency will fund only narrow, utilitarian courses, is wide of the mark. Teacher training will continue to be regulated by the Secretary of State's criteria and I can assure noble Lords that those criteria will remain as broad and as balanced as they are at present.
Lord Judd: That is just about the most depressing reply that I could have expected from the Minister. It seems to me that, far from reassuring us, it underlines all the anxieties that we have about the absence of vision and the demeaning purpose of this legislation, together with other legislation that has been undertaken.
The preparation of teachers is about education, of which training is a part. It is not about training of which education is a part. We cannot have it both ways. If we are saying that the really inspirational element is the

1641
whole quality of the approach to education— the knowledge, understanding and love of the subject and the ability to communicate it— and then on top of that one is acquiring skills, classroom experience and so on to help one to deploy that to good effect, then we have the matter in proportion.
I hope that I am allowed to say in this Chamber that I have become very fond of the Minister during these long deliberations together. So often she puts herself out to try to meet us and she always gives very full responses. But every now and then we come up against a moment of truth when we realise that there is a yawning gulf between her perception and our perception on this side of the Chamber. What creates maximum anxiety on these Benches is that the Government have no vision about the challenge to teachers and the future of education. I am very sad indeed that she has not felt able to respond tonight.
However, looking at the Committee and being a realist, in view of the hour, I feel that I have no option but—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Despite the flattery that he has just dispensed across the Dispatch Box, perhaps I could say to him that I think that it was mightily ungenerous to take that view of what we are about in this Bill.
We have talked at considerable length today about quality and making sure that our teachers are trained well to meet the challenges of the classroom. We have spoken about graduate entry into the profession, the highest possible subject competence and all the safeguards of those interests. I feel that simply because we are not prepared to concede the word "education" for "training", when education is a very large part of that training, is extremely ungenerous. I hope that he will not think, because I gave him a technical answer — a real technical answer because a good deal of teacher education goes on which is not about training for teachers in the classroom— that somehow or other I am subordinating the importance of the quality of education in training for our teachers.
Lord Judd: Obviously we must have a very full debate on this subject at some more suitable hour. I do not want to be unfair. I hate to be ungenerous and I do not want to add unfairness to that, if that is what the Minister feels that I have been doing. But when she reads her words she will see that she took as her examples management trainees in industry and so on. I want to see very good training in industry for management and the rest. But education is about something far bigger than that. Within the context of education we then narrow down to specific areas of management training and the rest for particular applications in particular sectors of society. But the whole point about education is that it sets a much wider context.
Lord Swinfen: I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps I may take an example which is not from business or industry but from academia. There can be a very highly educated historian who without the proper training in teaching is unable to
1642
impart to pupils any of the history that he or she knows. It is the training in teaching in that particular subject that is important.
The noble Lord can walk through Venice and his education will be improved, but it may not help his training in any degree at all.
Lord Judd: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his intervention. He is somebody for whom I have great admiration. But on this point we must agree to differ. To me it is absolutely clear that a teacher will not be much use unless he has specific training in the techniques which will enable him to make the best possible applied use of his knowledge. But unless teachers are educated in the fullest sense, no amount of technical training will add up to anything. That is the point I make.
I believe that the Minister in the department has got the priorities wrong. What has been said tonight has underlined all my anxieties. However, because of the hour and because I am sure that the Minister, who is extremely sporting about these matters and enjoys a debate, will be glad to return to the subject at some future date, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No.29:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert:
("(aa) the provision of teacher training related to specific learning difficulties; ").
The noble Earl said: The wording of Amendment No.29 is similar to the wording of my earlier amendment. As I said when I spoke to the earlier amendment, Amendment No.29 has a little more meat to it. It requires,
"the provision of teacher training related to specific learning difficulties",
to be included in the list of those matters that can he funded. The arguments are the same, so I shall not repeat them. However, since I last spoke I have had a little time for reflection. As I believe I indicated, I was extremely disappointed with my noble friend's reply. But I felt that this matter was too wide to be encompassed and again asked her whether she would take the matter away and reconsider it.
Amendment No.35 is something more or less dear to her heart. It would prevent anyone from obtaining money for special needs of any sort— I do not mind what the wording is; it can be widened— unless that person is a teacher. There is no point in retracing my steps. All I say is that it is absolutely wrong that a Bill such as this should contain nothing in relation to special educational needs. I hope that my noble friend will go away and think how this point can be worked in to suit herself, and then we can see how it suits us. Or we can perhaps discuss the matter.
We are dealing not just with teachers but, as I said earlier, with the people whom teachers teach, It is a large block of pupils who cannot be ignored. If once more it should be said that it is all dealt with through the various agencies and the local education authorities, then I can only say, as I said before, that that is a variable feast which is rather unreliable at the moment. The proof of the pudding is that it is not working.
I have been president of the Dyslexia Foundation for 21 years; we teach teachers, and they pay for it. But they cannot pay quite enough. It costs us £ 85,000 a year and sometimes one wonders who is meant to be funding whom. Perhaps I may conclude by quoting my noble friend, who said at Second Reading that she wanted,
"a vigorous and independent body dedicated to teacher training and able to address it in all its aspects". — (Official Report, 7/12/93; col.820.)
This is not just "all" its aspects; it is an extremely important aspect and I hope that on Report we will, between us, be able to come up with something better than we have seen this evening. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is unable to be here due to a very long-standing commitment and asked me, with the leave of the Committee, to speak briefly to Amendments Nos.30 and 31, which are in his name. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I shall say just a few words to each of those amendments.
With regard to Amendment No.30, the atmosphere and ethos of a school, which makes it possible for teachers to teach and for pupils to learn effectively, depends to a considerable extent on the head teacher. The job of a head is a very different one from that of a classroom teacher or even the head of a department. The job cannot be taught effectively in short periods of in-service training. It can be argued, therefore, that there is a need for proper training; courses especially for head teachers which might take place, for example, during a sabbatical term or some other such sabbatical period. Amendment No.30 is designed to enable the teacher training agency to fund such courses specifically for heads.
In regard to Amendment No.31, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wishes me to emphasise that this is a probing amendment. It is meant to highlight the fact that education is a continuing process, from birth through to adulthood. It is not enough to assume that parents can educate pre-school children without some support and advice just because they have once been children themselves. Prospective parents need to understand the emotional needs of young children for security, stimulation and boundaries of acceptable behaviour. As toddlers grow up, they need to learn to interact with others their own age and to trust adults around them. They need the socialising influence of attending perhaps a playgroup or a family centre with their parents before being launched into school, whether it be nursery school or reception class. Parents who play with their children and stimulate their interest— perhaps even teach them to read, which I would argue is most important— help their child to make an easy transition to school and to start easily to learn once they are in the formal education system. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the agency to fund as appropriate organisations which train and support parents as their child's first teacher. Those are the ideas behind the two amendments which I wish to put forward for the Committee's consideration.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: I wish to speak to Amendment No.29, which has my name to it. The noble Earl spoke with considerable force about the need to try to get something about special educational needs into the Bill. There is another capacity in which his amendment is incredibly interesting, in that it actually uses the longhand for the problem of dyslexia. Has the Minister any thoughts on this or is any thinking going on in the department? I do not expect an answer tonight. Has the noble Baroness thought about trying to write into the curriculum individual types of learning difficulty?
I know that we have made great progress in previous Bills with the idea of making provision. Indeed, the noble Baroness has been very much to the fore in making sure that a new code of practice is well written. But I would ask her whether she has given any thought to the idea of writing individual types of disability into government drafting, as every type requires a different type of teaching. I realise that this may be just the start of a long process, but if the noble Baroness has any thoughts on the matter I should very much like to hear them. I also support what the noble Earl said about trying to get something into the Bill on the general degree of special educational needs as it is such a large field.
Baroness David: I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos.30 and 31. I do not feel very strongly about Amendment No.30. It seems to me that in-service training would be very adequate and I believe that GEST money sometimes goes to preparing teachers to become head teachers. I support Amendment No.31 very much on the lines of what I said on an earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northboume. Children spend a great deal of time with their parents — far longer than they spend in school— and I do think that something in the training of teachers could be included. Training for parents as well is extremely important. I support that amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether I may just cast a little doubt on Amendment No.35. I am sure it was not in the mind of the noble Earl when he put down the amendment but I fear that it might preclude funding in future for very worthy schools and courses, such as the curative education course of the Rudolph Steiner Camphill movement. I have the same worry when we come to Amendments Nos.41 and 48. At the moment these courses and the communities in which they take place do not appeal for public funding of the nature envisaged by the Bill but I think it possible that they might in future.
I must declare an interest as the father of a mentally handicapped child who has the great good fortune to attend a Sheiling Community school, whose teachers, or co-workers as they are called, have all been trained in the curative curriculum to which I have just referred.
This curriculum certainly does not provide for its students to go to institutions of higher education. The teachers do not normally have a teacher education certificate in the manner which I believe is envisaged by this amendment. I would not want to say anything more

1645
about that at the moment. It appears possible to me that the movers of the amendment have not thought of this difficulty and I would not want it to escape unnoticed at this stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Turning to the areas of specific learning difficulties, I have heard the strong support for the teacher training agency taking over funding for some types of courses from the local authorities. I recognise the force of those arguments. But I believe that it is right to review the evidence before making a final decision on the right way ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether the Government have considered writing in on the face of the Bill specific categories of special needs. It is a very difficult matter to consider because I would like to think that the education service as envisaged both in this Bill and other education Bills, is to serve the needs of all children with whatever learning difficulties they may have and that they should be properly addressed. Once one goes down the road of specifying particular learning categories then one has all the problems of inclusivity and exclusivity.
We have recently conducted a survey asking LEAs about their use of funding for special needs teacher training under the: 1993– 94 grants for education support and training programme. It has been argued that transferring the funding arrangements for certain long courses to the agency could help safeguard the existence of these courses and free the GEST programme to support other areas of special educational needs teacher training. We shall certainly look carefully at that proposition i n the light of the evidence we have received from the survey. However, even if that were to be done, it would not be necessary to amend this Bill.
So as regards the powers of the Bill, it will be possible to accommodate whatever comes from that work. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Turning now to the amendment about head teachers presented by my noble friend Lady Cox, let me say at once that I share the view about the value of high quality training for head teachers. Studies consistently show that it is the quality of the head teacher which has the most significant impact on the quality of the school. With the increasing devolution of responsibilities to schools, through self-governing status and local management: of schools, it is even more essential that head teachers should have well-developed leadership, management and administrative skills.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England does have a role in in-service provision, in the sense that heads, and other serving teachers, may choose to take higher degrees which are funded by the council alongside other higher education courses. Under our proposals that funding responsibility would pass to the teacher training agency.
I know that the head teacher associations and others would like us to consider some new approaches to funding for some or all management training, which might involve the teacher training agency in the central
1646
administration of funds. Our minds are certainly not closed to that and we are continuing to discuss and consider other options.
But such a role for the teacher training agency is entirely compatible with the Bill as drafted. For the purpose of all its provision, teacher training includes head teacher training. We do not need to add anything to the Bill to allow the TTA to fund some of that training if that seems right. I hope with my assurance that the powers that this amendment seeks are already in the Bill, and that our minds are far from closed about their possible use, that my noble friend Lady Cox will be content not to move the amendment.
I turn finally to the amendment on parents as the child's first teachers. As so often, I find myself in complete agreement with much of what I know the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would have said had he been here and what other Members of the Committee have said. I appreciate the enormous importance of the role of parents in educating their children. Parents must take the central role in instilling a code of values and of behaviour which their children will take throughout life. But they also have an important role to play before children arrive at school in laying the foundations for successful education; in support of the school at the early stages in the teaching and practice of basic skills; and later in the encouragement of homework and research, so as to help their children achieve to the very best of their ability.
The importance in early childhood of stimulating play, exposure to books, hearing and talking with adults, is now well recognised. All children should have access to these experiences. They are not expensive luxuries, but accessible to all. In many cases, it will be parents who offer this stimulus, often shared with other carers, whether a grandmother helping out a working mother, or paid helpers in a day nursery or a childminder's own home.
The Government have supported several measures which encourage parents to take a more active role in their children's education and give them more influence and information. To take only a few examples, we have guaranteed places for parents on governing bodies, funded pre-school playgroups and provided much more information on schools' and pupils' performance. Local authorities are also free to develop schemes which bring parents into the classroom, and a number have done so with enthusiasm.
The government-funded Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit is currently administering a new programme involving both parents and their children. It is known as the family literacy initiative. Parents also play an important role in the work of playgroups. Nearly all playgroups involve parents in some way. Around 250,000 parents, for example, are active in running Pre-school Playgroups Association playgroups.
In terms of education for parenthood, the Education Reform Act 1988 requires that the curriculum as a whole for all maintained schools should prepare young people for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Adult relationships, marriage

1647
and parenthood are among those responsibilities. Within national curriculum science, pupils aged 11 to 14 are required to learn about,
"the factors necessary for the well-being of young children in the early stages of their development".
Despite what Members of the Committee have said, I do not think there is a distinct role for the teacher training agency in this area. I have mentioned on a number of occasions that it is to be a specialist agency. That will be its strength. It will have a very clear focus on teacher education and training. There are objectives in Clause 1 to reflect that. The agency must concentrate on maintaining and improving the standards of initial teacher education and training for the 60,000 students on courses leading to qualified teacher status. To extend its responsibility to the very different and complex training needs of millions of parents would be to divert its energies and, indeed, its resources from this vital task. It is for that reason that I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that, in doing so, he will take note of some of the difficulties mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The Earl of Radnor: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I shall read Hansard carefully and consider what she has said in more detail before deciding whether to return to the matter at a later stage. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for the point that he made. It had eluded me, but it is obviously of some, if not considerable, importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.31 and 32 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No.32:
Page 2, leave out lines 38 and 39.
The noble Earl said: The words that I seek to delete are those giving the teacher training agency responsibility for,
"the provision of higher education in, or the undertaking of research into, the theory, practice and management of education".
After Clause 1, this is, for me, the second most important feature of the Bill. Encouraged by what the noble Baroness said earlier and given the hour of the night, I shall take slightly less time than I would otherwise. However, the issue deserves a minute or two.
There is considerable concern among universities at what is perceived as an attempted amputation of a subject from higher education. Everybody dislikes amputation. The only normal justification is that the amputated limb was rotten. We do not recognise that to be the case. I hope that the Minister does not maintain it to be the case. I do not believe that she does.
In the working of higher education, there is increasingly a constant inter-relationship between subjects. To have one subject taken out of the ambit of all the others, administered by a different agency, with different funding rules, different formulae and different ways of carrying on, will create problems which will be very much akin to those of dual nationality. I believe that that would be awkward. It is also important to
1648
understand that education as an academic subject extends far beyond the scope of teacher training. It is a subject which touches at every turn some other subject — history, philosophy and psychology, to mention only a few.
The day before yesterday the Secretary of State spoke at my college on the teaching of values. Happily, his speech was entirely undisturbed. He raised some big issues. Those issues to be properly considered would involve knowledge and understanding of the works of Plato, Aquinas, Locke and Mill, to mention only a few. They are not issues which I would expect everybody involved in teacher training to need to have at their finger-tips. To study such issues one needs a proper academic context. On that occasion the person in the chair was the chaplin, which was entirely appropriate to the occasion. If one wrenches education as a subject out of its academic matrix one will make these subject links very much more difficult.
The other problem, of course, is that education is not by any means sufficiently defined in the Bill. The words are:
"the theory, practice and management of education".
It does not state "school education". Perhaps I may take an example in which I must declare an interest. My wife works in Oxford University on the 16th century. Should she wish to investigate the Vatican's interest, if any, in the Catholic restoration under Mary Tudor and wish to apply for a grant to work at the Vatican, would she then have to apply to the teacher training agency? I do not believe that that is the appropriate body for the subject.
Or again, if someone wants to work on cathedral schools in 12th century France, as people often do— that is a subject on which work should be done— I do not believe that it should come within the purview of the teacher training agency. Or yet again, the chairman of Ofsted, wearing his academic hat as a professor of the philosophy of religion, might well have been supervising a thesis on Locke, for which he might have wanted as the external examiners one professor of history and one professor of education. That would seem to me a perfectly logical academic combination; and to have the one subject taken out of the matrix— administered separately— would seem to be an entirely unnecessary interference with links between subjects, which are growing, need to continue to grow and should not be disturbed. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos.33 and 34.
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No.33 at this point. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is one of the keys to the Bill and that therefore we need to spend a little time on it. My noble friend Lady Carnegy regrets that she cannot be here because she has had to take a train to Scotland.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the teacher training agency the power to fund research into initial teacher training without depriving the funding councils of their responsibility for funding all other courses in education not connected with teacher training and also for funding educational research in general. It is difficult

1649
to grasp the distinction between these different activities. At present the HEFCE funding of education is divided as follows: £ 106 million per year roughly goes to initial teacher training; £ 50 million per year is spent on other academic studies in education; and £ 26 million per year roughly is spent on the funding of research, with a much smaller amount for capital equipment. As I understand it, under the Government's scheme, the whole of that sum will be channelled through the teacher training agency. Under our amendment, the £ 106 million for initial teacher training would come from the teacher training agency, as the Government want, but the Higher Education Funding Council for England would continue to provide £ 50 million for other academic studies in education, and most of the £ 26 million for research.
There is obviously an overlap between Amendment No.33, the noble Earl's amendment and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Perry. We all want to take from the teacher training agency the provision of higher education. We all agree that that activity should not be funded by the teacher training agency. We want to give the agency the power to commission research which it wants done. I do not believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wants to do that.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the £ 50 million going to "other activities" and about the research. I should like to draw attention to a letter sent from the Vice-Chancellor of the Open University to the Minister, a copy of which my noble friend Lady Carnegy showed to me. It relates to the "other academic activities". The Vice Chancellor says:
"More particularly, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted could have the effect: of transferring to the TTA responsibility for funding the courses we provide in, and the research we undertake into, the theory, practice and management of higher education. This includes, for example, courses on post-compulsory education and on open and distance learning at the HE level. In addition, it includes the research we undertake into the techniques of distance teaching and particularly into the quality and effectiveness of the OU's own teaching and the learning experience of OU students".
Is it the intention of the Bill as drafted that all such research into teaching and training in higher education should be funded by the teacher training agency? If that is the case, our amendment seeks to remove that power.
As regards the other element of research, no more than the noble Earl, Lord Russell, do I want researchers into 15th century chantry schools applying to the teacher training agency for funding. But I want the teacher training agency to be able to say,"We need this research undertaken and we are willing to commission it from a university department", or the Government should be able to tell the teacher training agency that they wish research to be undertaken.
Perhaps I may emphasise that there would be no need to disturb any of the existing arrangements if all were well with educational research but its quality is extremely variable and much research which could make education policy more effective is not being carried out. When I said as much on Second Reading, there was a howl of execration from The Times Educational Supplement. I suppose one should take that seriously. But I received a number of unsolicited letters
1650
in support. More authoritatively, a recent survey has been carried out by the Economic and Social Research Council, which concluded that there are:
"genuine structural problems involving a long 'tail' of mediocre research performance, notwithstanding some islands of excellence. In part this is due to the incorporation of the former monotechnic teacher training colleges into universities. Typically, staff in such departments have no background in research, nor, indeed, training. Yet they feel— and often are—under an obligation to conduct research and the result is not always very successful".
That is a genuine problem. To the extent that the TTA will be able to channel funds towards research into effective teaching, it may deliver what policy-makers need and lift the whole level of education research in general without impinging on the academic freedom that we all want. I conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister whether she will be willing to take the amendment away for consideration and, perhaps, accept that it is a way of meeting the Government's purpose without infringing academic freedom.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No.34 which is tabled in my name. I have little to add to what my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have already said. Most particularly, Amendment No.34 addresses the issues to which the noble Earl spoke with his usual convincing eloquence. I shall simply add to what he said as regards the difficulties that would be created by the teaching of education, wheresoever it occurred, being funded through a teacher training agency.
In this country there are several instances of universities which have departments of education which do not undertake teacher training; they are purely academic departments. They offer courses which very often form part of a two-subject undergraduate degree. To require such subject departments to obtain their funding for teaching from a teacher training agency when they undertake no training of teachers would be a very odd way to conduct business and would not make a useful contribution to the very high standards that we want them to have. I very much support Amendment No.34, but I am less sure that I feel strongly about research being transferred back to the higher education funding council. There is much to be said for the research which underpins good teacher training to remain with the TTA.
Lord Judd: I should just like to add a few words to what has already been said about the amendments. They produce a very acute dilemma. I believe that they illustrate the fundamentally unsatisfactory nature of the TTA as proposed. I shall take first the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As currently drafted, the Bill will separate educational research from other areas of research and will allow the TTA under the direction of the Secretary of State to prevent research into aspects of its own activities that are causing concern and enable it to set the agenda to serve its own limited ends.
The noble Earl's amendment would separate initial teacher education and training from research, which would be liable to encourage the more rapid moves to an apprenticeship model of training and would discourage

1651
higher education institutes from seeking to stay involved in initial teacher education. If we have to go down that appalling road, that illustrates the fact that it will be absolutely essential to lock into the agency some sort of very real presence of independent research interests which will be able to demonstrate, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, put it earlier, not only that justice is being done but also that it is being seen to be done.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which enables the commissioning of research, I understand that as a result the TTA could ask any higher education institute to conduct research on its behalf. As most higher education schools of education have established research programmes, the amendment would leave many of those programmes in place. However, there is still a concern that the Secretary of State would be able to intervene directly through the TTA to dictate research criteria. Consequently, much independent research could disappear.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: I hope I may point out to the noble Lord that the Secretary of State can commission research now into anything he wants. This is an example of delegated power.
Lord Judd: If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, I think this is again an indication of the point I tried to make much earlier in our deliberations today as regards giving a potential boost to something which many of us would find, perhaps even in the present situation, not altogether satisfactory.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. It seems to me that its effect would be to remove the provision of higher education from the list of activities which qualify for funding from the new body which oversees initial teacher education. We would not feel happy with the amendment because it would make it even more likely that some, if not all, teacher education and training would proceed without a higher education input. Examination of all three amendments only serves to underline that we are trying to make the unacceptable acceptable, and failing. What is basically flawed is the Bill and the whole concept of the TTA.
Baroness Blatch: I do not underestimate the importance of these matters. I strongly endorse the importance of a healthy body of high quality and independent research into educational topics and courses in the same topics. The powers which the Bill gives to the training agency are on all fours with those that the 1992 Act gave to the funding councils; and the power of the Secretary of State to influence allocations for both taught courses and research programmes is equally constrained.
To deal with courses into the theory, practice and management of education first, there is no intention of bringing these under any system of accreditation according to criteria, as quite properly happens for initial teacher training courses. There will be no alteration of academic freedom, nor are we trying to cut the funding for this area. There is one other
1652
misunderstanding that I wish to correct, which is that by placing these under the remit of the agency we intend to push such matters as higher degrees in education into schools. I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 11 which specifically restricts the powers of schools to provide teacher training to courses for the initial training of school teachers.
Initial teacher training and higher degrees in education currently form part of Academic Subject Category 11 of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. This is a funding category for the whole of education, which includes not only the initial training of school teachers but also courses in, for example, further education teacher training, the education elements of undergraduate modular degrees and higher degrees in education.
In preparing for the Bill, and in our consultation paper last autumn leading up to it, we have worked on the basis that it is right to preserve the broad unity of the current funding category for education. This is not just an administrative question. It is also a question of how best to support education departments across the country, by allowing them to concentrate their dealings as far as possible with one funding body, the teacher training agency.
It is very often the same education departments and their staff that deal both with higher degrees in education, such as MEds, and with initial teacher training, including BEds. To divorce the funding of one type of provision from the other could be seen as artificial. I wonder whether it would also risk isolating initial teacher training from other education provision — something which I know this Chamber does not want to see. The same need for links applies also in the case of research and I note that Amendment No.34, in the name of my noble friend Lady Perry, would in practice leave the agency with the ability to fund research.
Let me therefore turn now to the question of research, which I know is of great concern to many Members of the Committee. We should expect the TTA to continue to operate a formula-driven, quality-based allocation for the generality of research funds now in Unit of Assessment 71, in much the same way as the funding councils now do. I do not think that means there is no case for transferring the funds. To build on the close links between education departments and the new agency, and reinforce the important relationship between teaching and research, there is certainly a case for the agency to fund education research. That is why we have so proposed.
I am more sympathetic with the arguments of practicality which suggest that common research standards, and flexibility in research allocations, may need special attention if the funding is being separately handled. It is important not to exaggerate such concerns. The research assessment exercise is currently carried out in a large number of discrete units, of which Unit of Assessment 71 is but one. The money which flows as a result is not ring fenced but each department will know what it has earned and, I expect, will want to hang on to it. Institutions can decide under which assessment unit they will submit any piece of interdisciplinary research. They would not lose that freedom under these proposals.

1653
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky— speaking not only for himself but also for my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour— for his comments in speaking to the amendment. I very much agree that the teacher training agency must be able to commission research projects to help guide its actions— to help to identify the best types of training, for example. We have every intention that it should do so. I believe that it has the necessary powers under the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky drew attention to the distinction between higher education research and the need to allow the power to commission research which could, for example, underpin and inform the development of policy. I know that the issue of protecting academic freedom, which I have addressed, nevertheless remains an anxiety to Members of the Committee.
As I noted in an earlier debate, I should very much like to take away the issues which we have dealt with in this grouping and think about them further in the light of the debate. The amendments as drafted are overlapping and somewhat confusing. We would all be well served by the opportunity to stand back to reflect and look at these two areas again and come back at Report stage with some way forward.
Earl Russell: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her promise to take this issue away and look at it. I too shall promise to consider very carefully what she said. We have not yet quite achieved a meeting of arguments. and she has made points which I want to consider. There ire points that I made, notably that about research in higher education, which she did not address.
There are real problems about the amputation of one subject from the rest of the academic context. I did not hear those addressed. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the difficulty of separating research on education from the training of teachers. But it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had a point when he said that there are real difficulties in each direction. That is the problem one runs into when one starts splitting up higher education into a number of different centres.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we all need to think about this subject further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.33 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No.36:
Page 3, leave out lines 6 to 8.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.36, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.37,38,39 and 47.
The intended effect of the amendments is to remove the duty which the Bill places on the teacher training agency and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to promote school-centred training alongside partnership training, which is now becoming the norm. In school-centred training one or more schools are responsible for the course and buy in any help thought to be needed from a higher education institution or elsewhere. In partnership training the institution is
1654
responsible for the course but schools contribute to it as partners under a contract between the institution and the governing body.
The amendments affect the teacher training agency's duty in Clause 1(2) (d) to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes of initial teacher training. Schools should be so involved. But that involvement is already achieved by partnership training. Whether it can satisfactorily be achieved by school-centred courses is highly questionable, for several reasons.
First, a school's first job is to educate the pupils. Training teachers is a subsidiary task which can conflict with the first one in many ways. For example, will the best teachers spend their time training students rather than teaching pupils? How far should pupils be used as guinea-pigs? And how far should the school's management effort be diverted from its first to a subsidiary task?
Secondly, teachers are neither trained to train adults nor do they have the expertise, accumulated over many years by the higher education institutions, in how best to select students and how to tackle all aspects of their training— for example, achieving the right mix of theory and its application and helping students become reflective and self-critical professionals rather than merely imitators of the techniques used by experienced professionals.
Thirdly, school-centred training, particularly for primary teachers, is likely to depend on consortia working by schools, involving novel financial and administrative arrangements and heavy responsibilities for governors and staff. Frankly, consortia have a poor track record where substantial financial outlay and risk, and changes in normal working, are involved.
The amendments seek to ensure that schools are eligible for funding by the agency under Clause 4(2) (b) only if they are in a partnership scheme with an institution of further or higher education and not on their own. The clause as it stands, together with Clause 11, gives effect to the Secretary of State's aims, stated last spring, of putting schools in the driving seat over initial teacher education. As amended, the clause will ensure instead the continuation of successful partnerships between higher education institutions arid schools, making clear the distinction between school-based and school-centred training. In the almost universal opposition to the Bill from the profession, to which we have heard a good deal of reference this evening, nobody has denied that it is vital for trainee teachers to gain practical experience in the classroom. However, there are other aspects of learning to teach which cannot be taught in schools alone where, after all, the main aim is to teach school children. I suggest that wide and in-depth experience, links with research, tutors' support and the chance to study and think about the profession itself can be provided only in institutes of higher education in universities.
The involvement and support of both teachers and tutors is seen as positive by successive HMI and Ofsted reports— the genuine partnerships that are the key to the most effective teacher education. Indeed, the 1991 HMI

1655
report on school-based initial teacher training summarised its findings in terms which the amendment is designed to help achieve. It stated:
'The success of school-based training depends on the quality of the relationship between the training institution and the school, the significant involvement of teachers in the planning, supervision and assessment of the students' training and the active involvement of tutors in supporting the students' work in schools".
This is a crucially important amendment to a very significant part of the Bill. The survey of the Standing Conference of Principals of higher education colleges, to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred earlier was very significant. SCOP went to 1,202 primary school head teachers in England and Wales. What was the response? Only 12 wanted to take a major share of responsibility for the intellectual and pedagogical development of trainee teachers; 1,038 wanted only a minor responsibility in providing student welfare support; 900 wanted a minimal involvement in course design; 840 wanted a minimal involvement in monitoring the quality of course provision; more than 70 per cent. would like a shared or major responsibility in developing students' competence in curriculum content, planning and assessment; and less than 25 per cent. wanted a shared or major responsibility in improving students' subject knowledge.
This is the reality of what it is like out there. If you like, it is the sand base on which the Government are trying to build the whole new structure. In that context I could not help but be amused to read in the Times Educational Supplement on 11th February a report of what had happened at Harrow. Harrow is one of the most prestigious schools in the country. It has taken on students from the London University Institute of Education, but next September that arrangement will end because the school says that its senior staff cannot afford to spend time supervising five trainees.
The Times Educational Supplement report went on:
"The decision of a high profile, well-resourced school such as Harrow will sound a warning for others thinking of expanding teacher training".
It is interesting to see that Nicholas Bomford, the headmaster of the school, said:
"We haven't really got the means of coping. We were concerned that the demands on teaching staff here were going to be very much greater".
The report went on: "Mr Bomford said that the work required is being under-estimated. 'It's not just a case of taking a master off for x periods of time. They have full school duties already. Nor is it just a case of bringing in a supply teacher. There's more to working in any school than that'"
That is the head master of Harrow on the validity of the scheme which is being thrust upon the whole state sector. I find this a powerful commentary and I would be interested to hear the Minister's response.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: Despite being an Old Harrovian, I am not keen on either this amendment or the one that follows. It probably comes from lack of knowledge, but it seems to me that any institution within the higher or further education sector alone is not wide enough for subsection (2) on funding. I think
1656
particularly of the institution with which I am involved, which teaches teachers. Where my lack of knowledge arises is that I am not sure whether we would be classed as an institute within the higher or further education sector. If we are not, I would want the catch-all (c) at the end.
Perhaps when my noble friend answers, she can put my mind at rest, because we teach many teachers who are already teachers in the special form of teaching. Then they can go on dealing with the children I have mentioned. I would hate, through taking out the lines under either of the amendments, to feel that we were deprived of the chance of ever getting any funding. We always live in hopes, we have never had a penny from anyone yet and we feel that one day we might be considered valuable enough to get a little something from the Government.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should have said that, if Amendment No.36 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No.37.
Baroness Blatch: I have heard Members of the Committee question the ability of any group of schools to run a postgraduate training course unless they are in partnership with an institution of higher education. I think that is a serious underestimation of the abilities and commitment of some of our best schools and their teachers.
The proper test of whether or not a course should lead to qualified teacher status, and be funded to do so, is whether the course meets the Secretary of State's criteria and produces fully competent teachers. The Government are fully prepared for school-centred courses to be tested against the same standards as any other courses. They will be inspected and reported on by the inspectorate. They will be funded by the agency to the extent that the quality and efficiency of the training they offer, in the words of Clause 1, justifies that expenditure from the agency's budget.
The current pioneering school-centred initial teacher training courses have had to pass the same course approval process as higher education courses. Indeed, they have been, as newcomers to teacher training, given closer scrutiny than many existing providers. I can say that Her Majesty's Inspectorate is monitoring the scheme and will be publishing a report in due course.
It is the case that most of the school-centred initial teacher training pioneers are acting in partnership with higher education institutions in some way. Some higher education institutions are very supportive, although there are worrying suggestions that some institutions will have nothing to do with school-centred courses, purely on philosophical grounds, and withdraw their own trainees from schools which are involved.
But the place which some schools choose to offer higher education does not justify putting into law an arbitrary restriction requiring all schools to do so. The reason cannot be quality. That, as I have said, is the subject of a separate test. I fear it is simply the desire to limit the freedom of schools and preserve a role in every course for higher education which the noble Lord must fear it would not be able to secure on its merits.

1657
The amendment would enable higher education institutions acting in concert to prevent any school-centred courses from operating if they refused to form partnerships on anything but their own terms; and with their own control of funding they could stop the school-centred initial teacher training scheme in its tracks.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I notice that the noble Earl has not spoken in this debate, but would he wish me to address the amendment that is grouped here?
Earl Russell: I would wish to hear a very brief answer. I would not wish to detain the Committee too long.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful. But it would be presumptuous of me to assume what the noble Earl might have said had he spoken to the amendment.
There is a variety of diverse bodies and institutions which may now, or in the future, play a role on teacher education and training. We do not intend to attempt to anticipate all such possibilities on the face of the Bill. However, we do believe that where a body or institution not covered by categories that we have specified wishes to be designated as eligible for funding, it is right that there should be the opportunity for that, subject of course to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. That is secured by the clause as we have drafted it.
The present amendments might, however, prevent bodies which may be well suited to the role of acting as, for example, the co-ordinating body for a teacher training course, from being recognised as an eligible recipient of funding by the funding agencies. That would place an unnecessary and undesirable restriction on the funding 2. ctivities of the agencies. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment. Indeed, I think there would be some impact on an amendment by the diocesan boards to become involved as teacher training providers.
I turn finally to Amendment No.47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, who is not in her place— I believe it is the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. This amendment does two quite different things, the second of which is also the subject of an amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, as I just said. I shall take them in turn.
First, the amendment removes from the Bill a requirement that I he agency shall establish and maintain an appropriate balance between school-centred and other courses. This follows of course from the opposition that we have already had to the school initial teacher training scheme in its entirety. But we shall have school-centred courses, and we shall certainly want them to grow to the extent that good schools wish to be involved and to the extent that the quality and efficiency of their training justifies.
I must re-emphasise this point. If schools do not want to be involved in school-based teacher training, they do not have to be. So far as the wholly school-based postgraduate training is concerned, I have made the point very clearly that that will not be imposed. In fact,
1658
there are no powers to impose such training. So, if the noble Lord is correct in the rather gloomy figures that he gave to the Committee this evening, those schools will simply not volunteer to become involved. 'There may, however, be some confusion in the minds of some noble Lords about the primary and secondary circulars, which require minimum weeks in any particular course to be spent in schools and to work in partnership with higher education institutions; and where some higher education institutions are simply not parting with enough of the money that they receive for the unit of teacher training to the schools to cover their costs in becoming involved.
I must stress that the balance will not be determined by any hidden factors which are not clearly set out on the face of the Bill. The agency has a public and statutory agenda which it must address in this, as in all other aspects of its work.
The second quite distinct effect of Amendment No.47 would be to remove the agency's duty to avoid discouraging the institutions that it funds from developing other sources of income. The wording at issue replicates that used in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in relation to the further and higher education funding councils. There is nothing remotely sinister in this wording. The purpose of this subsection is not to pressurise institutions into maxirnising their non-teacher training funding. On the contrary, it is to afford institutions a protection, so that funding is not automatically reduced pound for pound every time they identify a charitable or other private source of funding. I do not believe that there should be any discouragement of the flow of resources into education from commercial, private or charitable sources. I am sure that Members of the Committee— particularly those with long experience of higher education— would endorse that view.
My noble friend Lord Radnor was concerned about direct funding by the teacher training agency. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a power under the Bill to designate new providers of training who could apply to the agency for funds. That could include those currently in the provision of education elsewhere in the education sector. I made that point in referring to the diocesan boards.
As regards the timetable for primary partnerships to which I referred earlier, as a result of the primary and secondary circulars, where schools were working in partnership with the higher education institutions, the primary schools have until 1996. The nature of partnerships is likely to be very different too. Until institutions have worked out new models in discussions with schools, it is far too early to ask the schools whether they are willing to participate in them. This is very new. There is a good deal of anxiety and I feel that it will take some time for proper partnerships to be developed between higher education and the schools.
Where they are working, and working well, we shall learn much from them and do what we can to disseminate good practice. I am sure that the models will be worked out with school needs very much in mind. I understand the anxieties but I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Judd: I should have been happier if the Minister in her reply had been able to give some assurance that in this area we would not see the same kind of story that we have seen in the whole area of opting out in secondary education, with a bonanza of financial inducements to schools to move out of local education authority control, with all the assurances that they were being given free choice at the same time. I hope that we shall not go through that rather sordid kind of exercise in this context. That is one point.
The other point by which I still remain bemused, and which I raised right at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon, is that it is rather strange to find a whole new strategy being put into place at the very time that an experiment is still under way and has not yet been evaluated. That seems to me to be very odd and impetuous. But we have got rather used to impetuosity from our political masters at DfE-not from the Minister sitting opposite perhaps but from some of those with whom she has to deal.
I am not reassured by what the Minister said. But again, I am a realist about the hour and the state of the Committee. I think that we shall have to pursue this matter on another occasion. In that context, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.37 to 39 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.40:
Page 3, line 11, after ("activities") insert ("or any body co-ordinating qualifying activities carried out by one or more such institutions").
The right reverend Prelate said: The intention of this amendment— and Amendment No.51 goes with it— is to make provision for a diocese, for instance, to be a provider of school-centred courses.
It is true to say that at the moment both the colleges of education and the Churches as a whole would wish to wait before deciding whether they wish to move in that direction. But when the current experiments have been evaluated, it may be that the church schools would wish to take their part in school-centred training of teachers. To make that possible, we need this provision, or something very similar, which will enable dioceses to be the appropriate body. Church schools are normally overseen by the diocese and it would be the diocese that would put forward a programme. I do not think that under the Bill as drafted there is provision for a diocese to take any initiative.
With that in mind I move the amendment, in the hope that the Government will accept it or something similar to it. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for explaining his intentions in tabling these amendments. But what he is seeking to achieve can be secured under the Bill as drafted.
A co-ordinating body— whether a diocesan board or, as in a real current example, the City Technology Colleges Trust— will be able to receive funds direct from the teacher training agency if it is acting as the agent of a group of eligible institutions. The funding
1660
must be spent on the provision of training under the control of the eligible bodies; for example, the group of schools concerned in a school-centred course. That secures the necessary accountability for the use of the funds. Such schools may well want to pay for a third party— for example, the co-ordinating body or a higher education institution— to take part in the provision of that training. That is quite acceptable under the Bill as it stands. But the decision is one for the eligible institutions and not the co-ordinating body.
It may be that the right reverend Prelate feels that diocesan boards should be able to participate in a training consortium in their own right— not in fact as "co-ordinating bodies" but as providers of training. That case is also catered for under the Bill, through the designation power in Clause 4(2) (c). We have ensured that any decision to designate providers which are not schools or higher education institutions, or bodies established by them to act on their behalf, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. That is a sensible safeguard and that scrutiny would be denied by the first of the right reverend Prelate's amendments.
Turning to the second of the right reverend Prelate's amendments— Amendment No.51— I can understand that he might want, for example, school provision that was co-ordinated by a diocesan body to be counted as school-centred for the purposes of Clause 6. Where the schools took full responsibility for designing and providing the course that would be entirely right and would be allowed under Clause 6 as drafted. But if the schools were not in control it would not be right for the course to be seen as school-centred.
It is because of that difficulty, which I perceive we would be left with by the amendment, that I hope the amendment will not be pressed. I believe that most of what the right reverend Prelate is seeking can be achieved under the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I shall wish to study in more detail what she said and see whether it convinces me or, more accurately, convinces my advisers. In the hope that that is the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No.41:
Page 3, line II, at end insert ("except that in the case of training specialist teachers of pupils with special educational needs, eligibility is limited to institutions of higher education offering courses in collaboration with relevant schools and services").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.41 I shall speak also to Amendment No.48, which is grouped with it. Perhaps I may first apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for not being here for the beginning of his Amendment No.29. I am afraid business in the Chamber moved rather more swiftly than could my wheels along the corridor.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Never!
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): This time yes, I am afraid.

1661
I do not think I am overlapping the noble Earl's amendment, which was not aimed at ensuring the continuance of the collaborative arrangements with IHEs but rather focused the sights of the TTA on teaching of specific learning difficulties. I certainly echo remarks of the noble Earl that I did hear; that is, that we need something in regard to special educational needs written into the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No.41, which would ensure that specialist courses now available— for example, for teachers of children with sensory impairments— continue to be provided by institutions of higher education,
"in collaboration with relevant schools and services".
Amendment No.48 would ensure that the special educational needs aspects of the initial teacher training course continue to have an input from institutions of higher education. That collaboration has been developed over many years and has recently been encouraged by the Government. It ensures that initial teacher training benefits not only from innovative practices developed in individual schools, but also from contact with up-to-date developments across the whole field of special educational needs both in this country and abroad.
The code of practice, as we know, incorporated in the 1993 Education Act places explicit demands on ordinary schools to offer certain levels of support to pupils with special educational needs, and failure to meet those demands would lay them open to appeals to tribunals by parents of pupils with special educational needs. There could also be a proliferation of appeals from parents of pupils with the more severe forms of special educational need if the required standard of specialist teaching is not offered. That is what Amendment No.41 seeks to avoid.
I accept that from discussions with Ministers there appears to be no intention to transfer training of specialist teachers to schools alone. But while the Bill does not explicitly promote that, neither does it exclude it, which would jeopardise the high level of skills, knowledge and understanding demanded of specialist teachers and currently obtained on courses offered through collaboration between schools and IHEs. It is vital that their training is not cut off from access to developments it special needs at national and international level.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about these amendments. I understand that we must also reflect on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I hope that the amendments will not cut across his concerns.
The Minister is deeply committed to improving the quality of special needs teaching. We all want the code of practice to work. I really do believe that if the amendments were written into the Bill we would be going a step further towards ensuring the code's success. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I wish briefly to support both amendments to which my name is added and as a rider to say that the warning raised by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch on Amendment No.35 needs to be
1662
heeded. We probably need to look at that before the next stage of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will view the amendments sympathetically and possibly come back with some of her own to achieve the same purpose.
Lord Addington: I add my support to the amendments. They are really about carrying on best practice as it currently goes on. I hope that the Minister can be sympathetic towards them.
Baroness Blatch: The starting point in considering amendments must be the provisions already in the Bill. As drafted, it already empowers the agency to fund any teacher training. Therefore, by definition, it would have power to fund training for teachers of children with specific learning difficulties. Moreover, it would already be open to the agency under the Bill to restrict particular aspects of its funding to in-service provision.
Amendment No.41, which the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), have tabled on this subject, will have force if we do decide, following the survey of LEAs to which I referred earlier, to ask the teacher training agency to fund some specialist in-service courses. But I fear that it would unduly restrict the range of providers of special needs courses which the agencies could fund. I am sure that all signatories to the amendment would not wish to see that.
The amendment would limit eligible providers to higher education institutions offering courses with collaboration from schools and services with relevant expertise in this area, such as special schools, social services and district health authorities. It may well he true that most special schools are not in a position to offer their own special needs teacher training, but a few of the larger special schools may feel they have the resources and the wealth of staff expertise to do so. One has only to think of the very special needs of the blind, the deaf, autistic children, and so on. I hope therefore that the amendment will be withdrawn.
I understand the concerns reflected in Amendment No.48. I do, however, have a concern that it would unduly limit the power of schools to provide initial teacher training. I do not doubt that in many cases schools offering their own courses will arrange for some aspects to be provided jointly with higher education institutions. That may well include those aspects which deal with the identification and teaching of pupils with special educational needs. But I believe that the schools concerned should have the choice as to which aspects of the course— if any— should be shared with higher education institutions.
A group of schools with some excellent special needs departments or units— or a group of schools including a special school— may well be able to deal effectively with that aspect. And they will certainly have to deal effectively with this, as with all other aspects of the criteria, if they are to be accredited and allowed to offer a course of initial teacher training. I remind the Committee that the full standards which apply to courses of training in higher education also apply to those run by schools; and special schools would be no exception.

1663
With that assurance, and on reflection of what I have said in the course of the debate, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank noble Lords for supporting me. Quite a large proportion of the Chamber spoke in support. I also thank the Minister for her careful reply. I shall read it with equal care before reflecting on what to do.
I wish to make two general points. With regard to Amendment No.48, disability organisations have told me that surveys show that the majority of schools are doubtful whether they would be in a position to add training to their prime responsibility to offer a high quality of education to their pupils. The Government always say that they believe in carefully targeted legislation to improve the position of people with disabilities. It is very important that we preserve the best and continue to improve special needs education. I firmly believe that we need perhaps not these amendments but something very like them written into the Bill to ensure that this provision finds its mark. I do not know whether the Minister will agree to pursue this matter outside the Chamber if, on reflection, I feel that we need to go further. Is her door open? Do I see the noble Baroness nodding or perhaps she is rising?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I should put it on record that I shall of course continue to discuss all these matters between now and Report stage. But I made it clear that it is not the legislation which is inhibiting good, special needs teacher training or further courses in special needs training. We shall discuss it between now and Report stage.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am very grateful to the Minister. I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.42:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("() No course in teacher training or teacher education at any eligible institution shall qualify for funding under this Part unless that institution publishes and makes available to each student undertaking such course:

(a) the profile of the academic content of the course, set out so that each student shall have reasonable expectations as to what he will be required to study in each fortnight of the course in question;

(b) where appropriate, the amount of time which will be spent teaching students to teach children how to read and write English, and by what methods;

(c) the reading list which is proposed for the course in question;

(d) the names of any external examiners appointed to report on the course to the institution at which the course is proposed;

(e) the publications, if any, of those who are to teach the course;

(f) the teaching workload of those teaching the course, giving the number of hours per week and the number of weeks per annum that teachers on the course are contracted to teach their students either in lectures or in tutorials or other small groups;

(g) the workload of those teaching the course in any other activities related to the course, such as the marking of students' papers; and

1664

(h) the amount of time which the course teachers have spent teaching in schools, together with the names of the schools in question.")—

The noble Lord said: Some Members of the Committee may detect a certain similarity between this amendment and those to which I spoke during the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill through your Lordships' House a little more than two years ago. I thought then, and still think, that its provisions would be helpful for all higher education courses.
The amendment is not intended to be in any way prescriptive. It can be accused of no draconian interference from the Secretary of State and I must say I would have thought that it was in the best, if somewhat new, traditions of the Citizen's Charter.
Very briefly, the amendment intends to let a little daylight into what is going on in our teacher training courses. It will allow potential students to know what they should be doing on their course, and it will allow them and others to comment as to whether these aims have been met and are desirable or otherwise.
At this late stage I shall be very brief as the amendment is largely self-explanatory. It requires the institutions, as a condition of their funding, to publish certain information about their courses and those who are to teach them. Paragraph (a) of the amendment requires the publication of the course's academic profile to be set out fortnight by fortnight. Some Members of the Committee may argue that fortnightly is too tight, but a number of people with whom I have discussed it feel that monthly would be too loose, so I am suggesting that the profile should be set out fortnightly.
I trust that paragraph (b) does not seem too prescriptive in what it seeks to disclose, but I feel sure that the failure to teach students how to teach children to read and write properly has been one of the greatest failures of our teacher training system in recent years.
Several students have complained to me that as little as 5 per cent. of their course can be spent on this subject. Worse, as I mentioned at Second Reading, there is a widespread aversion to the phonics method of teaching children how to read, which is an old and trusted method and appears to work rather better than the "real books" and other trendy methods, which may be largely responsible for so much illiteracy in our society today.
I contend that once you have learnt to read and write you can in fact teach yourself most of the rest of any curriculum or subject and much else. I must say that you can do this, and many people are doing it and have done it, without what seems to me to be the often doubtful benefit of higher education. But if you cannot read and write you are condemned to low status for a lifetime.
Paragraph (c) requires the publication of reading lists. That is one of the areas where consistent bias still shows up in many teacher education courses, if it exists. If reading lists were more prominently displayed I feel sure that the courses would quickly become more balanced. Students would be able to absorb and quote from a wider range of literature than is at present encouraged by our teacher educators— to the benefit, I am sure, of all concerned.
Likewise, paragraph (d) would give at least the initiated the knowledge as to whether external examiners of a particular bent might be scratching each other's backs to the detriment of the breadth of the courses in question.
I believe that paragraph (e) is also important. It requires the list of publications by those who are to teach a course to be made available to those who are to follow it, and to others. That should be information of which the teachers concerned should be proud, and in any case it is usually available from their CVs. I cannot help feeling that it would be helpful for students to know where their teachers stand on the various issues which will be covered by their courses. Naturally, one expects good academics to teach their subjects in an even-handed way and if they are doing that, they have nothing to fear from the paragraph. If, however, they are pushing their own particular viewpoint, the amendment should help to put their students on their toes, to take issue with the tutors concerned.
Paragraphs (f) and (g) are designed to provide more general inforrnation as to the workload of the teachers who are to teach those courses. I feel sure that that will be helpful to students so that they know what availability they may expect from their tutors and what is to be expected of them in lectures, tutorials and so on. I might add that some students have suggested to me that it would also be helpful to know how many essays they are expected to write and of what sort of length.
Finally, paragraph (h) addresses a serious problem in the world of teacher education— that those who teach the teachers may not always themselves be very good at teaching. In fact, I understand that they are often rather bad at it and, if that were so, I should have thought that that would cast doubt on their ability to teach potential teachers. If I were considering signing up for a teacher training course, I think I should like to know if the people who were going to teach me to teach could themselves actually teach. This paragraph would help students to find out and would put pressure on teacher educators in future to be able to practise what they preach.
I am sorry to have taken so long at this time of the evening to move the amendment, which is, of course, a probing amendment, but I hope that I have covered the amendment's provisions with sufficient clarity and brevity. I beg to move.
Midnight
Baroness Cox: I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment which stands in my name also and to emphasise that its purpose, as is self-evident, is to ensure that information on the content of courses in education should be in the public domain. The public have a legitimate interest in the content of such courses. People who have a particular right to know include, as my noble friend has said, students embarking on such courses; the general public, whose money finances them; employers and schools, which are influenced by the products of the courses in the sense of the quality of the teacher training that is provided. It is a fact that at the moment that information is often difficult to obtain.
I agree with my noble friend that this is a probing
1666
amendment. Perhaps some parts of it are more fundamental than others. Paragraphs (a) to (e) and (h) are very important. I should like to highlight paragraph (b) on reading. Students should expect to be taught how to teach children to read in view of recent research which found that 84 per cent. of primary teachers had spent five hours or less learning to teach reading while they were at college. That is immensely serious. Only 9 per cent. of primary teachers had covered in detail the phonics method of reading on their course. That is a matter of such fundamental concern that I think it is the kind of information that should be generally available. Although this is a probing amendment, it raises fundamental issues of accountability, openness and transparency. I hope that in that spirit, my noble friend the Minister will feel sympathetic towards it.
Lord Swinfen: When he responds, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Pearson will say why he has chosen the period of a fortnight in paragraph (a). In some subjects, the time might need to be a week while in others it should be a month, so 1 think that my noble friend has drawn the provision too tightly.
I have great sympathy with paragraphs (f) and (g) because I understand from my daughter, who spent some time at a polytechnic, that certain lecturers often did not turn up, with the excuse that they were too busy doing something else. Although they should have attended and taught certain lectures in the course, they did not arrive for them.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend Lord Pearson, supported by my noble friend Lady Cox, has spoken persuasively about the right to certain core items of information for students on initial teacher training courses. I believe that the items listed in the amendment should be among those which institutions publish and make available. After all, it is not unusual for students to wish to know what their programmes are a week or a fortnight ahead. I do not see that as at all unreasonable.
My noble friend has caught the spirit of our charters with this amendment. He has promoted openness, which is good for government and good for teacher training institutions. With more time, I might even be able to add a few items to the list myself, but I do not think that we shall be able to give this issue the detailed attention that it deserves during the passage of the Bill or be sure enough of getting the details right to put them on the face of the legislation.
I should like to reflect and discuss with my noble friends how we might return to this issue at the next stage and pursue the objectives in a way that gives more flexibility and detail. I hope that in the light of that assurance my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In thanking my noble friend for that reply, it is in order for me to answer my noble friend Lord Swinfen as to why a fortnight. I agree that that is something of a controversial timescale. The reason that I chose a fortnight was that many academics with whom I discussed the matter believed that, if the period were once a week, that would be too prescriptive and would control too closely the method by which they

1667
wished to deliver their knowledge. Once a month might have been too lax. Most people with whom I discussed the matter believed that for teacher training courses once a fortnight would be reasonable.
By way of further thanks to my noble friend the Minister, I believe that some of these items should be on the face of the Bill. I hope that, unless she can assure me that sufficient force will be put on the institutions concerned to achieve the same ends without their being on the face of the Bill, we can discuss the matter in the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Grants, loans and other payments]:
[Amendments Nos.43 to 45 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No.46:
Page 3. line 46, at end insert ("and
(c) in relation to any particular institution, to any assessment of the quality of education provided by the institution to students having learning difficulties.").
The noble Baroness said: I assure the Committee that with Amendment No.46 we shift extremely briefly from pupils with special educational needs to would-be teachers with disabilities. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the teacher training agency will enable students with disabilities to gain access to the curriculum, inform and encourage them and see that it does not set up new obstacles to training.
First, if disabled students are to have equality of opportunity, it is vital that any funding system should take account of the extra costs of training them. Disability organisations believe that there are strong grounds for ring-fencing funds to improve that access to course and college buildings. At present, disabled applicants have limited choice because either the buildings are not accessible or they find that the course itself is inaccessible.
Secondly, at present little public information is aimed at would-be disabled teachers, although TASC, the Teaching as a Career Unit, has recently agreed to work with the Disabled Teachers' Campaign group on information for disabled students. The new teacher training agency offers a very good opportunity to ensure that this work is continued and developed.
Thirdly, there was anxiety among the disabled organisations about proposals in the White Paper that a new funding system would reward colleges more generously for BEd students who completed their course in three years instead of the usual four. It is well known that some disabled students may need extra time to study. These plans could act as a disincentive or oblige those with more severe disabilities to consider a part-time BEd which received no mandatory funding from LEAs. The organisations believe that it is most important that three and four-year courses should be treated as equally valid alternatives and should have parity of funding.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this issue. Ever the optimist, I hope that tonight on this third attempt I shall be lucky and she will respond encouragingly. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that in the course of this part of the Bill I have been encouraging and understanding of the noble Baroness. I am grateful to her for the way in which she introduced her amendment. I understand the motivation for it. I accept fully that the quality of education for students with learning difficulties is of great importance and that such students should not receive an inferior training because of those difficulties. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the quality of education for those students is an integral part of the overall quality of provision at an institution.
The Bill as drafted will require the funding agencies to take account of general assessments of the quality of education in allocating their funds. But I believe that it would be invidious to single out a particular component of overall quality for special scrutiny, however worthy it may be.
I naturally support the ideal that there should be adequate access to courses and buildings for students with disabilities and a recognition that such students may take longer to complete a course. The Government's policy is that all students with the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from higher education should be able to do so.
We have sought to ensure that practical help is available. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 gives the HE funding council wide powers to fund relevant activities, including, for example, building adaptations to improve physical access to provision. The mandatory awards regulations also provide for generous support in the form of three separate allowances and LEAs have discretion to make grant payments if students need to repeat or extend study for reasons associated with their disabilities.
I hope that in the light of that answer, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I shall read extremely carefully what she said. I am somewhat reassured. I shall go away and consider the matter but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provisions supplementary to s.5]:
[Amendments Nos.47 and 48 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.49:
Page 4, line 6, leave out from second ("courses; ") to end of line 9.
The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment has the effect of deleting Clause 6(1) (b). I recognise that the clause appears as a section of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 but it still troubles me. On the face of it, the clause is reasonable in not discouraging funding from other sources. But "not discouraging" is a double negative and it could easily become "encouraging". Therefore, it could be used to push institutions into finding money from other sources, whether voluntary,

1669
commercial or foreign, and so become a reason for starving selected institutions of a proper level of state funding.
It may be that I am particularly sensitive about the issue because some of the institutions concerned in the Bill are independent Church bodies. It is the wrong moment at which to apply strict logic. At this time of the morning, it is difficult to come by. But if the clause means only "not discouraging", it is not necessary. If it means "encouraging", then it could be rather disturbing. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can allay the fears of the right reverend Prelate. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the agency's duty to avoid discouraging-4 take the point about the difficulty of understanding the double negative— the institutions they fund from developing other sources of income. I touched on that point in opposing an earlier amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, which would have had the same effect.
1 made clear that the wording at issue replicates that used in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in relation to the further and higher education funding councils. There is no question of any hidden agenda behind the wording. The right reverend Prelate may be concerned that the subsection would put pressure on institutions to obtain as much of their funding as they could from non-TTA sources. But its purpose is in fact the opposite; it is to prevent institutions from being automatically penalised whenever they attract funds from a charitable or other private source by means of an equivalent reduction in their TTA grant. I do not believe that the flow of resources into education from commercial, private or charitable sources should be discouraged in any way. I am sure that Members of the Committee— particularly those with long experience of higher education—would agree with that view.
In the light of that assurance, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.50:
Page 4, line 11, after ("provided") insert ("for post-graduate students").
The right reverend Prelate said: I move this amendment because it is grouped with Amendment No.63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. My version of the amendment has the benefit of brevity, which would please the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, if he were here. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is much more thorough-going and fool-proof or— should I say?— non-graduate proof. I fully accept that the noble Baroness has done her homework better than I have. I was delighted to hear the Minister say earlier that she would accept Amendment No.63. Therefore, I am only
1670
moving my amendment in order to get Amendment No.63 on board, so to speak. I shall seek leave to withdraw it in due course. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I shall speak but briefly to Amendment No.63 because it relates to Clause 11 with which we shall not deal tonight. The definition in that clause of school-based, school-centred, courses is extended by the amendment to make it clear that such courses should be open only to people who already hold a degree, or an equivalent qualification, either from a UK institution or from abroad. I, too, was delighted to hear the Minister say earlier that she was minded to accept the amendment.
Lord Judd: I should like to congratulate both the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate. If they had the intention of testing the opinion of the Committee tonight, they could be sure of my support. Shortly put, they are doing a great deal to make a stand as regards the things about which I was enthusing not very many minutes ago.
Baroness Blatch: As Members of the Committee know from what I said on Second Reading and during an earlier debate today, I have absolutely no difficulty with the aims of this group of amendments. It reflects the Government's intentions. If it reassures Members of the Committee to have those intentions spelt out clearly on the face of the Bill, I am more than happy to accept that judgment.
However, I fear that the amendment tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate does not secure his intentions as it amends only a definition rather than a power or a duty. But that which my noble friend Lady Perry has helpfully tabled seems to me to meet the case exactly. I shall, of course, deal with the minor consequential amendment to which my noble friend referred. I fully support such an addition to the Bill.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness says anything further, perhaps I may join in the thanks that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, offered to those who tabled the amendments. I also thank the noble Baroness for her reply.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.51 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Grants to the funding agencies]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No.52:
Page 5, line 2, at end insert ("after consultation with appropriate bodies").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos.53 and 55. The Secretary of State having the power to impose requirements is, in our view, unacceptable. Recent events in education and elsewhere have shown that that sort of blanket increase in powers to the Secretary of

1671
State is not wise; neither is it a basis for successful policy development and implementation. In our view, the Secretary of State should be required to consult very widely and be clearly accountable to Parliament.
The amendments are, therefore, designed to ensure the accountability of the Secretary of State and to provide some protection against him proceeding without due consultation, or ignoring representations made to him. I am quite sure we all agree that in a democracy such protection is in the interests of both the public and, indeed, of the Minister concerned. Because I think that that relates to the amendments that we will approach in a moment (upon which the scrutiny committee made its own recommendations) I commend the amendments to the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments would have the effect of requiring consultation with "appropriate bodies", and votes in two Houses of Parliament about, the detailed minutiae of the financial memorandum which the department must establish for every non-departmental public body to allow the department's accounting officer to satisfy himself that his funds are being spent on the purpose for which they have been voted by Parliament. This is not the business of anyone but the two bodies concerned, acting within the statutory framework which the Bill lays down and which gives the agency considerable independence in pursuit of its defined objectives.
We have already written into Clause 7 a number of limitations on what such a memorandum might contain — so as to make it quite clear that it cannot be used under any circumstances to trench on academic freedom, the content of courses, or the individual institutions to be funded. I fail to understand what else it might contain of sufficient concern to justify the ponderous procedures proposed under the amendment and I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Judd: As the Minister will not be moved, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.53 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No.54:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert:
("() shall not relate to the academic content of courses provided in these institutions, and").
The noble Earl said: Having heard and been encouraged by what the noble Baroness said about this amendment, I suppose I should say yesterday afternoon, I will say only that I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 7(3) precisely replicates certain safeguards for academic freedom in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, relating to the Secretary of State's grants to the Higher Education Funding Councils. We have provided exactly the same restrictions on the terms and conditions that the Secretary of State may apply to his grants to the TTA. They provide the effective safeguards for academic freedom to which the Committee has rightly attached great importance. I am therefore a little surprised that the noble Earl felt that there was any need for more such
1672
restrictions to be written into this clause. The amendment prevents the Secretary of State from applying terms and conditions which relate to the academic content of courses.
But Clause 7(3) (a) of the Bill already contains a prohibition relating to particular courses of study and programmes of research, including to the content of such courses or programmes. We have therefore already provided the necessary guarantees. I should not like it to be assumed, by the addition of these words to this Bill, that there is something lacking in the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act in this respect. I can see no reason why the provisions of this clause relating to the TTA should not be the same as the 1992 provisions for the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which I found reassuring. I had of course looked at Clause 7 (3) (a) before I tabled this amendment. I take the point about particular institutions. I had in mind things such as a general requirement about how reading shall be taught but, having heard what the noble Baroness said this afternoon and having seen her shake her head so emphatically, I am now happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.55 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No.56 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No.57:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is really to respond to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, in which it used the words,
"We accordingly urge the House to consider whether directions under Clause 8 should not be subject to the affirmative procedure".
We have considered that and we think they should be and are therefore proposing an amendment accordingly. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The Secretary of State has taken no powers in this Bill that were not in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in respect of the existing funding councils. The existing powers have not been used. But they are there to provide an assurance that action can be taken swiftly if the unexpected should arise.
The Secretary of State has two direction making powers under Clause 8. First, he can make general directions to the funding agencies about the exercise of their functions. It is most unlikely that we should ever need to use this in practice, since we expect the agencies to use their funds effectively and prudently. But, since the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable to Parliament for the use of the agencies' funds, it would be improper for him to have no such power when in practice he could one day face a real need for action.

1673
And if that need did arise— following attempts to persuade the agency by non-statutory means— it would almost certainly require speed, which the affirmative resolution procedure does not allow.
Secondly, the Secretary of State may also make specific directions to the agencies about their support for individual institutions, where he has evidence of financial mismanagement at those institutions. He may for example need: o direct that the institution's funding should be stopped in whole or in part until the matter can be investigated. Again, this is a power which a prudent Parliament should expect him to have. In the unlikely event of this procedure being needed, speed would be of the essence.
I hope that For those convincing reasons the amendments will not be pressed.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness used the argument of the 1992 Act, but we should remember that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was not in existence when we passed the 1992 Act. Thanks to that committee, this Chamber has acquired slightly greater expertise in considering these matters. Without prejudging the generality of the argument, I hope that in future we shall not use it as an argument against a report from that committee and say that something has been done in the past. That committee is refining the practice of this Chamber and we should allow it to continue to do so.
Lord Judd: I find the Minister's reply rather disappointing. It seems to me as still a relatively new boy in this Chamber that one of the functions of this Chamber is to be a guardian of the quality and spirit of democracy, about which we can be a little objective. In that sense I would have thought that there should be a presumption that if a distinguished committee of this kind makes such a firm recommendation to us we take it seriously.
I am afraid that I detected from the Minister's reply a presumption, which is all too characteristic of this Government, that except under extreme duress from both Houses it should not be necessary for the Government to explain, give account and obtain the full commitment and democratic support of this Chamber and the other place.
That is also sad, because if we had a confident Administration wanting to move forward in that context of consensus about which I spoke earlier but with the feeling that the people who matter are with them, they would want to do The Government would want to seek the endorsement of Parliament. I am sad that we seem to be moving still further towards government by ministerial diktat in such a sensitive area as education. However, I do not see much alternative at 26 minutes past midnight but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Joint exercise of functions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No.58 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No.59.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.58:
Page 5, line 40, leave out from ("agency") to ("where") in line 41 and insert ("may delegate the exercise of any of their functions to any other relevant funding body").
The right reverend Prelate said: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify, by limiting the power of funding agencies to act together. It is not disputed that there should be co-operation and co-ordination. As it stands, however, the Higher Education Funding Council could ask the teacher training agency to handle all education grants to some institutions.
Many of the colleges of higher education, as distinct from universities, have a proportion of teacher education alongside other higher education courses. Let us take a Church college of higher education in which 55 per cent. of the students are in teacher education and 45 per cent. taking other courses. The Higher Education Funding Council could shunt all financial responsibility through to the teacher training agency, and that could in effect disconnect the college from the Higher Education Funding Council.
The colleges which have diversified are firm in their determination to remain in the higher education sector. I have been asked specifically by the Church colleges and a number of colleges represented by SCOP to press the amendment.
The amendment allows for joint action but ensures that in such cases it is the higher education body which has the pre-eminent responsibility. Delegation can go only that one way: the teacher training agency can delegate its responsibilities to the Higher Education Funding Council but not the other way round. That leaves the colleges in direct touch with the Higher Education Funding Council. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: Perhaps I may make a brief' observation in support of Amendment No.59. I do not understand why the Government have used the word "may". Our amendment would lead to greater efficiency because it would require the funding agency, and any other relevant funding body, to act jointly rather than leaving it as they "may" do so, as the Bill states. I should have thought that that was something that our cost-conscious Government— as they like to describe themselves— would have welcomed. I had hoped that the Minister might feel able at least to accept this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The right reverend Prelate's amendment replaces the deletion with a provision which in effect allows the agency and Welsh council, when acting under the Bill, to delegate any of the functions to any other funding body. The teacher training agency could delegate the exercise of some— indeed all— of its functions; for example, to the Funding Agency for Schools. Moreover, this could be done without Parliament, the Secretary of State, or indeed the body to which the functions were being delegated, having any say in the matter whatever. I would be surprised if that met with the approval of this Chamber. It is certainly possible that some routine functions may be better carried out by staff working within a different body, but there is nothing to prevent services being brought in from another body as the legislation already stands. The

1675
amendment would block valuable joint and co-operative working among funding bodies and allow completely unrestricted delegation of functions. I am sure that that is not what is meant by the amendment.
As to the requirement proposed in Amendment No.59 that the agencies must exercise their duties jointly where they reach certain conclusions about them, I fail to see what such an apparent nannying requirement will amount to in practice. I am sure that if either institution does not want to exercise a power jointly it will decide that the conditions are not met. We have given the agency all the powers that it needs to do its business sensibly. We should let it get on with that without imposing extra, even if unenforceable, duties.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I recognise that the amendment I have proposed is perhaps too widely drawn. I still feel that there is substance in what I put forward. I should like the opportunity to look more carefully at what the Minister said and, if necessary, bring this back in an amended form at a later stage. I do not think that it is right to detain the Committee at this hour of the night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judd: If the Minister has this scepticism I do not know why she has bothered to have the clause at all. If they are not going to do it unless they want to do it, why have the clause? It seems to me that she has defeated her own argument.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.59 and 60 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Efficiency studies]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No.61:
Page 6, line I5, at end insert:
1676
("() For the purposes of section 10(1) "any person" shall mean either the Audit Commission or the Office for Standards in Education.").
The noble Lord said: I submit that this new addition to Clause 10 improves the accountability of the TTA and ensures that its activities are monitored by those bodies that are already established for just such a purpose; that is, the Audit Commission and Ofsted. Without this being specified, the funding agency is in the position of choosing its own inspectors. Even by the standards of this Government, clearly that is not satisfactory. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It would be unduly restrictive to this small but potentially beneficial area of the agency's functions if it were to be limited to only two possible sources of value-for-money studies. I can imagine that the agency may want to promote studies which will be suitably carried out by the Audit Commission and Ofsted. Equally, it may want to do work, such as a study of good purchasing practice like the one recently published by the HEFCE, which may be better done by another body. Because of that unduly restrictive constraint, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Judd: I am not convinced by that reply and neither, do I believe, is the Minister. However, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty six minutes before one o'clock.

  UNHCR GENERAL PROGRAMMES BUDGET: UK CONTRIBUTION
  UNHCR GENERAL PROGRAMMES BUDGET: UK CONTRIBUTION
  MACEDONIA: EC POSITION ON GREEK BLOCKADE
  MACEDONIA: EC POSITION ON GREEK BLOCKADE
  EUROPEAN UNION: EXCHANGE OF SECRET INFORMATION
  EUROPEAN UNION: EXCHANGE OF SECRET INFORMATION
  UN WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL, FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
  UN WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL, FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
  TANZANIA: OVERSEAS TRADE
  TANZANIA: OVERSEAS TRADE
  ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE, HOUSE OF LORDS: RELOCATION
  ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE, HOUSE OF LORDS: RELOCATION
  PATIENT "S"
  PATIENT "S"
  "RURALITY": DEFINITION
  "RURALITY": DEFINITION
  COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
  COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
  SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATEON
  SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATEON
  PLANNING: REMOVAL OF CROWN EXEMPTION
  PLANNING: REMOVAL OF CROWN EXEMPTION
  HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME
  HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS, UKRAINE: OWNERSHIP
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS, UKRAINE: OWNERSHIP
  UKRAINE: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  UKRAINE: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  PARTICIPATION FOR PEACE: RUSSIAN ATTITUDE
  PARTICIPATION FOR PEACE: RUSSIAN ATTITUDE
  KOREAN PENINSULA
  KOREAN PENINSULA
  COTONOU AGREEMENT
  COTONOU AGREEMENT
  RWANDA
  RWANDA
  NATIONAL LOTTERY: GRANTS TO MILLENNIUM PROJECTS
  NATIONAL LOTTERY: GRANTS TO MILLENNIUM PROJECTS
  SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: CONSULTATION PAPER
  SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: CONSULTATION PAPER
  PEERS' EXPENSES
  PEERS' EXPENSES
  ROYAL BRITISH LEGION: DISCUSSIONS
  ROYAL BRITISH LEGION: DISCUSSIONS

  ARMS EMBARGOES: SUBSIDIARIES OF UK COMPANIES
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  ARMS EMBARGOES: SUBSIDIARIES OF UK COMPANIES
  PASSIVE SMOKING
  PASSIVE SMOKING
  LEAs: LATE PAYMENT OF TUITION FEES
  LEAs: LATE PAYMENT OF TUITION FEES
  TERRORIST CONTACTS AND SURVEILLANCE
  TERRORIST CONTACTS AND SURVEILLANCE
  TERRORIST INCIDENTS
  TERRORIST INCIDENTS