Sitting of 14 March 1994

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

    Rail Links (West Wales)
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek urgent talks with the EC Transport Commissioner with a view to improving rail links between west Wales and the continent of Europe.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the Transport Commissioner. Rail links with west Wales are already included in the proposed trans-European conventional rail network.
    Mr. Davies: With due respect, that does not amount to very much. Do not the Secretary of State and the Minister realise that, with an increasing amount of British trade locked into the European Union and as west Wales is on the periphery of the Brussels empire, there is a real problem in trade and investment? Is the Minister aware that there are many ideas to improve the situation, such as upgrading the ports and providing ferry links with Poole and rail links through the north downs? Will he sit down with the Transport Commissioner and with representatives of Dyfed county council and the local authorities to try to solve that serious problem?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend and I are most anxious to ensure that the whole of Wales, including west Wales, has first-class links with the continent for trading purposes. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there will be three inter-city trains a day running from south Wales to Waterloo, the international terminal, and one of those trains will serve Milford Haven. I am told that, certainly, the others will start from Swansea.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for the north downs railway line from Reading to Redhill to be upgraded to provide a direct rail link between the channel tunnel and south Wales? Since such a route would avoid congested lines through inner London, provide a direct passenger train service to Europe from Wales and put Cardiff within only four hours of Paris, will he undertake to press the case with British Rail?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I will ensure that that matter is given every consideration.

    Development Agencies
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reorganise the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): The chairman of the Welsh Development Agency has recently announced the terms of his internal reorganisation of that agency and I have recently announced the new guidelines, which I have issued. The future of the Development Board for Rural Wales is under review.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those announcements are most welcome? Will he give the House an assurance that the standards followed by the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales in future will be those that the Committee of Public Accounts and Parliament have the right to expect?
    Mr. Redwood: I strongly hope that that will be the case. I have asked the chairmen and chief executives of those agencies to take full account of the strong views of the PAC and the House of Commons and of my views. We want the highest standards. I wish to see the agencies uphold them and I trust that they will do so.
    Mr. Flynn: What is the point if all the work of those two bodies is negated by the actions of privatised companies, especially British Gas, where, we are told, the number of jobs in Wales is about to be reduced from 2,903 to, probably, less than 1,000 because it is pursuing a policy which is profit first and in which safety and the regional need for jobs in Wales come nowhere?
    Mr. Redwood: I have written to the chairman of British Gas saying that Wales offers a great deal and have urged the company to make full use of Wales for the location of its business activities. I have received a reply in which he admits that Wales is a good place in which to locate and assures me that there will still be a strong presence there. I am afraid that Wales cannot be exempt from the efficiency gains that British Gas will be making, any more than the rest of the United Kingdom can.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed to me at the weekend by tenants of the Development Board for Rural Wales on the Ffrwgrech estate in Brecon? He will know that the development board must pursue a policy of maximising its assets, but the tenants are concerned that the whole of the estate is to be sold to an outside investor. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House that he will encourage the Development Board for Rural Wales to look first to its own tenants so that we build in rural Wales an economy in which, very often, local businesses own their own factories?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is better if tenants buy their own freehold premises. I wish to see the development board offer those premises to the tenants, but, of course, the tenants must make a fair offer in return. We wish to raise money by selling existing assets so that we have more money to spend on new assets to create new investment and new jobs for Wales. However, I will ensure that the chairman of the DBRW is aware of my hon. Friend's remarks. Like my hon. Friend, I want tenants to be given a fair opportunity.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State give his unequivocal backing to the public statement made today by the chairman of the DBRW that the interests of economic development in rural Wales are best served by having a separate organisation, the DBRW?
    Mr. Redwood: I am reviewing the best way to deliver those services, so I wish to complete that review before answering that question.
    Mr. Llwyd: Although I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said about the British Gas situation and would very much like to associate myself with his comments, if there is to be a reorganisation of the DBRW will the Secretary of State consider the rent reviews? That has been a matter of grave concern, especially in my constituency where one third or more of the units are empty simply because the rack rents asked may be reasonable in Birmingham but are not in rural Wales.
    Mr. Redwood: I quite agree that rents must be related to market circumstances. I have asked all the agencies with empty property to put at the top of their list the need to find tenants for those properties and, therefore, to find a market-clearing level of rent that enables those tenants to come forward. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If hon. Members have other points that they would like to be taken into account in my review of the DBRW, they have a good opportunity to do that now or in writing this week.
    Mr. Morgan: Notwithstanding the public admonition from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) to the Secretary of State in his supplementary question earlier, as the senior-ranking Tory member of the Public Accounts Committee, does the Secretary of State agree that the executive reorganisation at the top of the Welsh Development Agency to which he referred in his answer is in clear breach of the undertakings given by him to the House on 19 October when he introduced the report by Sir John Caines and said that those recommendations would be accepted in full by the top management of the WDA? Does he also agree that, until the mess of that reorganisation is sorted out, it is unlikely that the WDA and the DBRW will be able to repeat the amazing sporting achievements of Colin Jackson and Steve Robinson over the past weekend?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman did not say how he thought that was out of line with the Caines report. Of course, I will consider any allegation that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make specifically on that point. The chairman has announced his reorganisation. I believe that it will deliver more service for less administrative cost, which is something I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in Clwyd.
    Mr. Redwood: The level in January 1994 was 16,739 unadjusted out of work or 9.1 per cent.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the past two weeks, 80 potential jobs have been lost from Clwyd to Merseyside and a similar number have been placed under threat by the deliberate actions of the Welsh
    604
    Office in respect of the mishandling of a planning application at Mostyn in Clwyd? Will the Secretary of State please explain to the House why he took those actions and why he allowed that to happen, despite repeated warnings to the contrary?
    Mr. Redwood: I should be delighted to have this opportunity to put the record straight. The hon. Gentleman well knows why I took the action that I did. I had wanted the local authority to settle the issue. I thought that that was the best way forward. I thought that it would be able to take full account of the environmental objections, the jobs and the economic case.
    I then received legal advice that stated that, because the application impinged on a European special protection area, I had to call it in. I had no choice. Had the local authority gone ahead and made the decision, it would have been subject to legal challenge and might not have stood up. I acted as I did because of that legal advice. It would have been better if the local authority had been asked to determine the matter. I cannot comment now on the substance of the application because I have to approach it with an open mind.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policies of the Government, and especially the Welsh Office, have led to a huge increase in the number of new jobs in Clwyd replacing the jobs lost in traditional industries? Would he care to pay a tribute to the work of Chwarae Teg in getting women into the work force in Clwyd, and especially in helping them with training?
    Mr. Redwood: I should, indeed, like to echo my hon. Friend's comments: there has been a massive expansion in investment and job opportunities.
    Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman wrote those comments.
    Mr. Redwood: No. My hon. Friend speaks for himself. He seems to know better than Labour Members what is good news in Clwyd and how much has been arrived at because of the Government's policies and the agencies that have been assisting. I hope that Labour Members will also welcome that news because, although there are still too many people out of work, there have been many major new projects, particularly in the energy field in that part of Wales, and there is much more good news to come.
    Mr. Ron Davies: It is a truly appalling figure for Clwyd, as indeed it is for the whole of Wales. We now have 10 per cent. unemployment in Wales, and under this Government we have seen the loss of 113,000 manufacturing jobs. What action does the Secretary of State advocate to tackle those critical weaknesses in British industry, which were identified in a recent Royal Society of Arts report as
    "chronic underinvestment, a lack of commitment, inflexibility and the failure to focus on long term goals"?
    Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that he has any responsibility at all for what is happening to the Welsh economy?
    Mr. Redwood: Unemployment is falling and I look forward to further falls in the months ahead because of the economic policies that we are pursuing. It is a bit rich for Labour Members to come up with that criticism, because they have no ideas, no new money to offer and only one gag—the gag from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East

    605
    (Mr. Brown), who stops them saying anything that they want to say. What is the point of being a socialist if one cannot spend more of other people's money, or offer to spend more of other people's money? Our policies are based on labour market flexibility, encouragement for investment, low inflation and sound economic fundamentals.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. Redwood: In January 1994, the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure was 127,500—a fall of 6,500 since January 1993 or an average fall of 500 a month.
    Mr. Coombs: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact of a high-spending, high-taxing Welsh assembly and the European social chapter on unemployment in Wales? Would not the Labour party's policies and those of their European cronies be disastrous for Wales and lead to a reversal of the trend in unemployment which my right hon. Friend so warmly welcomes, as I do?
    Mr. Redwood: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. An assembly that taxed more and regulated more would put businesses off going to Wales and drive out some of those already there. I understand that Labour Members are getting worried about that. They think that maybe the assembly should not have taxing powers. But surely it would have spending powers; that means that it would end up taxing more, which would be bad news for business and bad news for jobs.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: With reference to the question on the Order Paper, are not the figures far too high, especially in the male sector? Does the Secretary of State recognise that part-time jobs for women will never replace the thousands of jobs lost in coal and steel? Will the Government and the Welsh Development Agency step up their efforts to bring new enterprises to Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: That is exactly what we are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the news today, which I just heard, of up to 600 new jobs over a three-year period from the Goodings satellite television receiver venture in Mid Glamorgan. That is extremely welcome news and means that there are likely to be further falls in unemployment which I, like Labour Members, sincerely wish to see. Of course, one in 10 out of work is far too many, but our policies of low inflation, good economic growth and attraction of investment will deliver jobs.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend estimated the impact of inward investment on unemployment in Wales? Does he believe that inward investment would be encouraged by a national minimum wage, the adoption of the social chapter and the nonsenses from Brussels which are advocated by the Opposition?
    Mr. Redwood: I have, indeed, looked at the figures. More than 11,000 new and safeguarded jobs in the first 10 months of this year have been attracted, as recorded by Welsh Development International, and there may have been more. Those jobs are extremely beneficial. The worry is that if the policies of the Opposition were followed, Wales would no longer be attractive for many of those
    606
    companies that come, they say, because they want to benefit from being in the EC and have the added benefit of not having the same social arrangements as are enjoyed by some continental countries.
    Mr. Wigley: I welcome those 600 new jobs and any other new jobs which come. Does the Secretary of State realise that 2,000 jobs are about to be lost in the gas industry, and that 400 or 500 of those are in Clwyd? On the point made by the Secretary of State a moment ago with regard to Mostyn docks, does he realise that the loss of that infrastructure project will affect not only Clwyd but my county of Gwynedd? Why was it not possible for the Welsh Office to turn that around within five weeks, as in the case of Cardiff? If that had been done, would not the project be alive and would not we be looking forward to the jobs that came with it?
    Mr. Redwood: I should like to turn it around as quickly as possible and come to a fair decision, but I must take legal advice. There is no point in acting illegally, because the decision would be overturned in a court of law. A proper environmental assessment is needed so that a proper judgment can be reached, given the special European designation in that area. That is the problem, and why progress takes time. It must be done carefully so that people can see that it is done fairly.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome other good news, such as that from Amcor Packaging, where there will be 150 new jobs during the next three years, from Control Techniques in Newtown and from Stevens and George in Merthyr Tydfil, which recently announced new jobs.

    Energy and Transport Strategy
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for a co-ordinated strategy for (a) energy and (b) transport for Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Plans are set out in "Sustainable Development—The UK Strategy", "This Common Inheritance", annual progress reports, the 1994 Welsh Office departmental report and various policy planning guidance notes and in my right hon. Friend's announcement to the House on 3 March on strategic road plans.
    Mr. Hughes: May I encourage Ministers to make sure that there is a clearly separate energy and transport strategy for the Principality that fits in with the UK and European framework? Given that one of the things that would benefit both would be the transfer of freight from road to rail in Wales, will Ministers consider whether there can be an increase in subsidy for that purpose? Would not that take traffic away from the roads, increase the use of the railways, save energy, reduce pollution and reduce congestion at the same time?
    Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I will make sure that the interests of Wales are fully safeguarded in the UK's consideration of the matter. It is not possible for Wales to be considered in isolation because of the obvious relativity involved.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about freight traffic on the railway, I think that the principle is absolutely sound.

    607
    I look forward to the opportunities that I am sure the channel tunnel will bring for an increase in freight traffic in Wales carried on the railways.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Will my hon. Friend join me in being careful of the phrase—the cant, humbug phrase—"co-ordinated strategy" when used by the Opposition? Is that not normally a code for more state interference, more bossiness from Whitehall and less listening to what the people of Wales really want? Does he agree that, these days, proposals to build new railway lines would be open to considerable environmental objections?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There are enough examples in the past of left-wing and Labour Governments—including those supported by the Liberal party—trotting out plan after plan. We know full well that the one thing centralised planning is sure to do is fail.
    Mr. Llew Smith: On energy, will the Minister inform me as to what proportion of the non-fossil fuel levy goes to renewables and what proportion to nuclear?
    Mr. Jones: That is a rather detailed question for which I had better provide the hon. Gentleman with a detailed answer.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for extending the deregulation initiative to the work of his Department.
    Mr. Redwood: The deregulation initiative runs across Whitehall. The Welsh Office is co-operating fully.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he includes in his review of the regulations the appalling complexity that now seems to pervade every aspect of agricultural administration, which supposedly requires every farmer to have a double first in legal interpretation and accountancy?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses. Of course, we shall work with our European partners and urge simplification and a more accessible system. Where we have powers ourselves, I shall make sure that they are properly used, as I have done in simplifying the integrated administration and control system forms recently.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in view of what has happened in the past six to nine months in Wales, what we have is not deregulation in the Welsh Office but the Welsh Office out of control? Rather than accepting the proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), it is about time that the Secretary of State got to grips with the unelected bodies in Wales and the corruption that pervades right through the system.
    Mr. Redwood: It is a grotesque calumny to say that there is corruption right through the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again before saying that and realise that such serious allegations require evidence to back them. Of course, I wish to see the high standards that he desires; I have made no secret of that. I have also set out guidelines and guidance to ensure that high standards are observed.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has made to take Welsh hospitals into the next century; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Since 1979, £1.4 billion has been spent on improving the national health service estate in Wales: 60 major hospital schemes have been completed or are under way. I am to announce shortly details of the new capital programme. My right hon. Friend and I regularly visit hospitals throughout Wales. I look forward this coming Wednesday to launching the new magnetic resonance imaging scanner in Cardiff at the University hospital of Wales.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I hope that the Minister is aware that there is an increasing fashion among hospital administrators to locate all the facilities that they possibly can under one roof, regardless of the convenience or feelings of the local community or of the use that it makes of those facilities. Does he have any sympathy with older hospitals, much loved by their patients, which face closure as a result of that misguided policy? I should like an answer, particularly on Cardiff royal infirmary.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The interests of the community clearly ought to be considered on every occasion. The movement towards trust status, whose popularity in Wales is increasing rapidly, emphasises exactly that point. That is what we look for in every application for trust status. There must be greater benefits to the local community that the hospitals serve.
    On the point about Cardiff royal infirmary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already placed it firmly on the record, and I fully subscribe to his view, that the closest consideration must be given to any question of closing a hospital in Wales. The case must be fully proved before such action can be justified.
    Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposed cancer treatment centre at Glan Clwyd NHS trust hospital, which will benefit cancer sufferers throughout north Wales and beyond, will go ahead as planned, despite attempts by Opposition Members to stop the plan?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I know that my hon. Friend has been stalwart in campaigning for the new facility at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. It is absolutely right that we should have that new cancer treatment facility in north Wales. It has been most carefully researched and the decision has been given the go-ahead. I look forward to the centre being set up as soon as possible.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick to discuss his proposals for local government reorganisation.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that my constituents in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick will be angry and disappointed with that reply because they believe that the continuing failure of the Welsh Office to single out that one area—where, in an Electoral Reform Society ballot with a 75 per cent. turnout, almost 90 per

    609
    cent. voted in favour of staying with Bridgend—will bring democracy into disrepute and turn to ashes anything that the Government have ever said about respecting the will of the people?
    Mr. Jones: I am disappointed to realise that my presence is so sorely missed in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick. We have already carefully considered the matter in the proposals that we are putting to the House. There will be the fullest opportunity to debate it in the Second Reading debate tomorrow afternoon on the Local Government (Wales) Bill. I am sure that in Committee we shall give the most careful consideration to where the three communities should be located. I must say that they appear to be much more rural in character and more appropriate to the Vale of Glamorgan.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that there is widespread concern throughout the length and breadth of Wales, and not only in the Vale of Glamorgan, the heads of the valleys, Meirionnydd and Montgomery, at the boundaries contained in the Local Government (Wales) Bill? The Minister referred to the Bill, which will receive its Second Reading tomorrow. May I take it from the reply that he has just given that he is prepared to be flexible? If so, will he tell us the extent to which the Government are prepared to be flexible on boundaries, should the Bill receive a Second Reading?
    Mr. Jones: It is, of course, for Parliament to consider that.

    EC Commission
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last visited Brussels; and when he next intends to visit Brussels to discuss with the Commissioner matters relating to his departmental responsibilities.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: There has been no occasion for my right hon. Friend to visit Brussels since his appointment. He has, however, renewed invitations to key Commissioners to visit Wales and we hope that they will be able to do so.
    Mr. Rowlands: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a neglect of duty, considering that so many decisions taken in Brussels affect our communities. For example, is he aware that, during the past five years, all four pits in my constituency have closed and more than 2,000 miners' jobs have been lost? Will there be a repeat performance of the charade and farce that accompanied the first RECHAR programme, when the second programme is introduced? How much money is available under the second phase of RECHAR and will it go directly to those communities affected directly by pit closures, such as mine?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that his constituency did especially well under the RECHAR programme. Merthyr has had about 10 projects with a value of £1.3 million and Wales has had about 170 projects, valued at £21 million. I am glad to be able to tell him that the RECHAR programme is one of the initiatives that will be continued and that 0.4 billion ecu will be devoted to it.
    On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, United Kingdom interests are well represented by my right hon.
    610
    Friends and the Welsh Office is very much in touch with the Commission through its officials and through Ministers when necessary. I had the privilege of attending an informal council in Liege just before Christmas.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 600 jobs that the Secretary of State announced earlier have been created to produce transceivers for the satellite industry, which are destined for the Dutch and German market? When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visits Brussels, will he resist all the trans-European, pan-socialist dogma which has driven business out of Germany and Holland and brought it to south Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt about it—many companies in south Wales are operating with machinery that was once in Europe and has been drawn back to Wales because it is more productive there.
    On our relationships with Europe, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been leading an export mission to Europe and this evening I am going to Barcelona to lead another export mission. My hon. Friend is right—[Interruption. ] Opposition Members simply do not realise how much progress Wales has made as a gateway into Europe.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments to unelected bodies in Wales are his responsibility.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend is currently responsible for 798 appointments to public bodies in Wales. The quarterly list updating the details to 1 March will be available in the Library of the House shortly.
    Mr. Powell: I wonder whether the Minister will give us some information. He is aware of the fight that the Conservative party put up against quangos and unelected bodies. Why have the Conservatives changed their minds? Can he give details of the political affiliations of those appointed? Can he also give due consideration to ensuring that when the chairman of Mid-Glamorgan health authority is appointed, he or she will have the political affiliation that is shared by all the Members of Parliament who represent Mid-Glamorgan?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we do not know the political affiliations of a great many of those appointees. They are not asked that question, although they are given an opportunity to instance a position that they have held in a political party. I am sure that there a great many members of the Labour party, the Liberal party and Plaid Cymru among those 798 appointees to whom I referred in the answer.

    Barry-Rhoose Railway Line
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans there are for the opening of the railway line between Barry and Rhoose for passenger traffic.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that South Glamorgan county council is in the lead with Regional Railways in an investigation into the feasibility of introducing a limited passenger rail service on the Vale of Glamorgan line with a stop at Rhoose.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend note the warm welcome that has been given in the Vale of Glamorgan to the announcement by the Welsh Office that grant aid is likely to be available for an improved road link between Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff Wales? Will he join me in urging the highway authority, South Glamorgan county council, to take up that offer of help? Is any grant aid likely to be available for the rail link to which my right hon. Friend alluded?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks about my right hon. Friend's announcement about the road link to the airport at Rhoose. With regard to the rail link, it is possible for us to assist such a scheme if it is submitted to us as part of the strategic development scheme.

    Welsh Elected Body
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make it his policy to ensure an elected body for Wales.
    Mr. Redwood: We do not need another elected body in Wales.
    Mr. Jones: We have had 15 years of Conservative Government, during which we have seen greater centralisation than ever before in the history of democracy, powers stripped away from local authorities and Conservatives appointed to quangos in Wales. The Minister of State has just told us that he is to visit Barcelona—Catalonia is the most successful economy in Europe. Is not it time that the Government learnt that the people of Wales now want their own Parliament?
    Mr. Redwood: I am very interested in the idea that Catalonia is the most successful economy in western Europe. I thought that Spain had an unemployment rate of about one in four of the work force. I certainly would not want such a rate for Wales and his comment shows that there is no progress in the hon. Gentleman's views.
    We do not want another body that taxes, regulates and legislates—too many laws already exist. We need to deregulate to make the task of business easier, so that people in Wales can have real jobs and more choice.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole thrust of Government policy is to ensure that decisions are made in schools by governing bodies and in hospitals by trusts and that it is not designed to try to create yet another layer of bureaucracy? Surely the unitary authority programme that we have brought forward has been warmly welcomed in Wales. There has been no drive towards creating a third layer of local government.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. He has answered another part of the previous question, because we restore real power to people—parents and patients—and offer choices in public services which Opposition Members would deny people. That is exactly the kind of democracy that is best and closest to people. An assembly would have to take powers away from local government and that would cause rows in the Opposition camp as well.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does not the Minister feel a sense of shame that he has to appoint about 800 people to
    612
    quangos and that they are responsible for about one third of public expenditure in Wales? Should not democracy mean
    "government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people"?
    Is not the use of unaccountable Tory placemen a corruption of democracy?
    Mr. Redwood: I believe that local councils appoint quite a lot of people to the governing bodies of schools. I think that that is perfectly healthy and it is an analogue to what I am doing on behalf of Parliament and the people of Wales, in appointing people to bodies charged by the House, often under Labour legislation, to carry out certain tasks. As for spending, by far and away the biggest part of the Welsh Office delegated budget passes directly to local government in the form of a bloc grant.

    Inward Investment
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of inward investment to Wales.
    Mr. Redwood: In the first 10 months of the current financial year, Welsh Development International recorded 120 projects, which promise about 11,000 new and safeguarded jobs and a capital investment of £630 million.
    Dr. Spink: Does not that demonstrate our economic success in a difficult world recession in a way that is not just good for Wales but good for the whole of our nation?
    Mr. Redwood: That was a short and accurate question and I would give a short and accurate answer—yes.
    Mr. Ainger: Does not the Minister accept that instead of sending the Minister of State to Barcelona he should send him to Brussels especially to intervene in the mess that the Commission has got itself in over Interreg II, as a result of which Dyfed in particular stands to lose a significant sum—possibly tens of millions of pounds—in European investment in the next six years because we are now being excluded by the Commission from the consultation process? Can he assure us that either he or the Minister of State is taking the matter up at the highest level in Brussels?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Office is taking the matter up in Brussels, as he would expect. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State does great work for Wales in representing us in many countries in Europe, and I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) recognises that there is benefit in trade links of the type that my right hon. Friend is extending. The Under-Secretary also recently visited Brussels.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Stipends
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the effect which the reduction of their contribution towards stipends will have on the number of parish clergy.
    Mr. Michael Alison: The proportion of the costs of stipends met by the Church Commissioners is estimated to decrease from 37 per cent. to about 20 per cent. by 1997 as a result of our planned reductions in diocesan stipend allocations. The extent to which that affects the number of parish clergy will depend on diocesan planning and lay giving. Our remaining support for dioceses will, however, continue to be targeted to help sustain the parochial ministry in areas of greatest need.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any organisation in financial difficulties needs to seek to restrain its overhead costs? Can he therefore assure the House that synods, bishops and the Commissioners themselves will not be exempt from the need for stringency?
    Mr. Alison: The General Synod proposes to introduce cash-limited budgeting during the next two or three years. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Commissioners themselves have managed to reduce their staff by 25 per cent. during the past 11 years and that increasing productivity will continue on trend.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what provisions are being made by the Church Commissioners to protect stipends of clergy following losses made on the property markets.
    Mr. Alison: As the majority of the stipends bill is met from lay giving in parishes, any further improvement in stipend levels will largely depend on the willingness of laity to give more generously. Stipends are being increased by an average of 2.9 per cent. from this April and the majority of dioceses have recently supported a proposal for modest increases from April next year.
    Mr. Banks: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that those enormous losses were made by the Church Commissioners? Is it because of the incompetence in property speculation that the commissioners showed or is it because the Almighty has indicated his strong disapproval of property speculation? In either case, is not it unfair that priests should be expected to suffer the consequences, and that lay members should be asked to increase their contributions to cover the incompetence of the commissioners? Surely the Church Commissioners and their advisers should foot the bill.
    Mr. Alison: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear the answer that I gave him, which is that the stipends are increasing by rather more next year than the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary salary, and probably by rather more the year after than the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary salary. So the invocation of the Divinity upon the prospects for pay in different parts of the country should take into account that He is obviously looking rather less favourably on Members of Parliament than on the clergy.

    Parsons (Early Retirement)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans there are to introduce an early retirement scheme for parsons; and what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the financial consequences of such a scheme.
    Mr. Alison: The pension scheme already contains a provision enabling clergy to retire with an immediate pension and retirement lump sum up to five years before the minimum normal pension age. Discussions are taking place within the Church to determine whether it would be appropriate and financially feasible to introduce a specific scheme aimed at encouraging some clergy who are close to pension age to retire early, in order to free posts for younger clergy.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the parsons' freehold affects the efficiency of the Church adversely, and also restricts opportunities for young and enthusiastic ordinands?
    Mr. Alison: No, I do not think that I can go down that road. The parsons' freehold is not an immovable and irresistible block in the way of movement in the Church; nevertheless, I believe that it gives some genuine and, I believe, appropriate independence to clergy whose doctrine and ministry may not always be strictly in line with what parishioners want. I consider that desirable.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Public Record Office
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of the public visited the Public Record Office search rooms in Chancery lane during 1993.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): A total number of 104,429 reader visits were made to the Public Record Office search rooms at the Chancery lane site during 1993. The census microfilm search room accounted for 76,798 of the visits, while the remaining 27,000-odd visits were to the search rooms for original documents.
    Mr. Lidington: The Department's plan to shift the PRO's facilities in their entirety to Kew will create difficulties of access for many readers who use Chancery lane. Will my hon. Friend consider keeping the Chancery lane search rooms open, perhaps as a family history centre, so that people can use the microfilm and other facilities?
    Mr. Taylor: No decision has yet been made about the future use of the Chancery lane site. It is the subject of a review currently being undertaken by the Public Record Office and Property Holdings. The review is expected to be completed by 30 September 1994. If my hon. Friend wishes to give me the benefit of his thoughts, I shall be very grateful.
    Mr. Maclennan: If a member of the public searched any part of the PRO, would he find a precedent—since the English revolution of 1688—for the monstrous and unconstitutional pressure put by the Lord Chancellor on Mr. Justice Wood, the president of the employment appeals tribunal, to violate his judicial oath and deny appellants an oral hearing in order, in his own words, to save the taxpayer costs?
    Mr. Taylor: It is no part of my job to respond on judicial matters from the Dispatch Box; but I happen to think that if the hon. Gentleman were fully appraised of the facts, he would not have expressed himself in that way.
    Mr. Boateng: It is, however, part of the Minister's job to respond to questions relating to the Public Record Office itself. Will he confirm that the review that he mentioned in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) includes inquiries with the intention of imposing a charge on use of the PRO? Does he not accept that his role, and that of the Lord Chancellor, is to protect ease of access and freedom of use? Are we not witnessing—in terms of the development of the PRO—not the next step, but the final step to privatisation?
    Mr. Taylor: There are no current plans to privatise the PRO. As for charging the public, the question of charges for access to the records is the subject of a review currently being undertaken by the PRO. An extensive market research exercise asking for the views of users has been carried out. The review is expected to be completed by 31 March; so the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House will not have long to wait.

    Sex Offences
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to encourage the publication of the names and addresses of those appearing on court lists in respect of sex offences and subsequently being found guilty.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I have no plans to encourage the publication of the names and addresses of those convicted in the courts of sex offences.
    Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that 21 homosexual men were recently prosecuted in my local court for acts of gross indecency in a public toilet only a few minutes' walk from my house? Is he aware that all the public toilets in my constituency must now be closed at night, and that one has been taken out of use? Would not the publication of those men's names and addresses act as a deterrent?
    Mr. Taylor: It is not the function of the courts to publicise details of convicted persons. The press may do so when the information is given in proceedings held in open court, unless a restriction order is in force, and, as my hon. Friend should know, almost all such cases are held in open court. The only exemptions are for the victims of sexual offences and for children and young persons involved in criminal offences.
    Mrs. Roche: So far as sexual offences are concerned, can the Minister tell the House what stage the judicial studies programme for the training of judges in these matters has reached? Are outside speakers being taken on to deal with very serious matters, such as rape trauma syndrome?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady may be reassured that the matters she raises are high on the agenda of the Judicial Studies Board. Outside experts will certainly be contracted to provide the benefit of their knowledge and wisdom.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations have taken place between the magistrates' associations and his Department over the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor and I and our officials have consulted the Magistrates' Association on many occasions in the two years since our proposals were published. We shall continue to do so.
    Mr. O'Brien: How does the Minister reconcile the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 31 January—Official Report, Vol. 236, column 610—in which he said that justices' clerks would be responsible to local magistrates committees, with the fact that in my area of Wakefield and Pontefract the magistrates committees will be abolished as a result of the amalgamation proposed under the Bill? How does the Minister reconcile his reply on that occasion with practicality? Will he now face reality and change the proposals in the Bill to ensure that local magistrates committees may continue?
    Mr. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. I am at pains to tell him that, even if there are amalgamations—for example, in his own area—they will merely create a larger administrative unit under a magistrates courts committee. There will be a magistrates courts committee consisting of locally selected magistrates, and I can repeat the assurance that the justices' clerks and their chief will be answerable to the committee, which will have the authority. It will be a locally run service, which is what the hon. Gentleman and I both want.
    Mr. Sims: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the magistracy in south-east and south-west London has been very concerned at suggestions that the Lord Chancellor might use his powers under this legislation to amalgamate all the courts in the area under a single administration. Can my hon. Friend assure me that no such plan will be implemented without very careful consultation? Can he assure me, in particular, that the Lord Chancellor will have to satisfy himself that amalgamation would be more cost effective than the present arrangements?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend should know that we are still exploring with the outer London action group the details of its proposals. My officials' next meeting with the group will be held on Wednesday. The Lord Chancellor and I are hopeful that it will be possible to find a system that delivers our objectives in restructuring the outer London service, but falls short of amalgamating committees. We are working with the service to that end.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received from legal practitioners, the Law Society and the Bar Council regarding the freezing of legal aid rates.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Department has to date received about 20 letters from solicitors and local law societies expressing concern about legal aid rates. The Law Society and the Bar Council are consulted when fee rates are reviewed and have expressed similar concerns.
    Mr. Llwyd: Does the Lord Chancellor's Department realise that growing numbers of solicitors' firms are now going out of legal aid practice altogether and that this sad fact, coupled with last year's savage cuts in the green form

    617
    scheme, has resulted in tens of thousands of people in Wales, England and Scotland being deprived of access to legal advice and assistance?
    Mr. Taylor: There is no evidence that legal aid fee rates are inadequate to allow solicitors to continue to undertake legal aid work. Since 1988–89, the proportion of solicitors' offices in England and Wales that received payment for legal aid work has increased from 68 to 82 per cent.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the Government were to do more to encourage private insurance in litigation cases, there would be less pressure on the legal aid fund and less need to freeze legal aid rates?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend should know that expenditure on legal aid this year is expected to rise by 12 per cent. The Lord Chancellor announced that he will be increasing all legal aid income eligibility limits by 3.8 per cent. and the green form limit by 15 per cent. He is also abolishing the means test for ABWOR—assistance by way of representation—for mental health review tribunals. Those measures prove the Government's continuing commitment to the legal aid scheme. Legal expenses insurance certainly has a role to play, but the market must show itself willing to participate. Progress in that respect seems to be slow.

    Limitation Law
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to complete his review of the limitation law.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: We are considering whether the Limitation Act 1980 should be amended to change the limitation period that applies where a plaintiff claims damages for non-accidental personal injuries. We hope to reach a conclusion by the end of the year.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister accept that the current limitation law is out-dated and inappropriate and does not take account of, for example, the specific circumstances of people who have been subject to childhood sexual abuse and who try to take legal action in adult life? Will he assure me that the circumstances of such people will be taken into account in the current review and give me an idea of how soon the review will be completed?
    Mr. Taylor: The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second is by the end of the year.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average age of the magistrates serving on the Lichfield and Rugeley benches.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The average age of magistrates serving on the Lichfield and Rugeley benches is, in both instances, 52.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done? Does he agree that, if it is to be seen to be done, magistrates should be drawn from all age groups and from all sociological backgrounds? What exactly are the Government doing to encourage that?
    Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor seeks to maintain a proper balance of ages on benches. It is important that there should be young as well as older people to ensure a continuity of experience. Efforts are made to ensure that people are aware that it is open to them to apply, but only those who put themselves forward can be appointed.

    Trainee Solicitors
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with the Law Society on the remuneration of solicitors in training.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: None. Trainee solicitors negotiate their own terms with their employers. This is an internal matter within the profession.
    Mr. Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great problems being experienced by aspiring solicitors in getting grants from local authorities because such grants are discretionary? Is he further aware that, four years ago, the College of Law received two thirds of its income from local authorities but the figure has now fallen to 9 per cent? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Department for Education to see what can be done, otherwise solicitors will be drawn from an ever narrower bunch of people in society?
    Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about law students rather than trainee solicitors, to whom his initial question referred, he has correctly anticipated my answer. The policy on the awarding of grants for postgraduate education is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education. However, I do consult Ministers at the Department for Education and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that trainee solicitors face another problem in that many study for three years for a qualification and then sometimes have a job getting on to a course for their final year in order to achieve the full qualification? Is he proposing to do anything to make more places available so that when trainee solicitors have completed three years' training, they have the opportunity to become fully qualified?
    Mr. Taylor: As I understand the problem, the difficulty is that grants for postgraduate qualifications—that is, the solicitors' professional examination after a degree—are discretionary; they are in the hands of local authorities. It is a matter for local authorities to decide and it lies ill in the mouths of those who argue for local authorities to have discretion to blame the Government for the way in which that discretion is used.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Law Society, the solicitors and all those involved in the profession are excellent, they should be responsible for making proposals to ensure that trainee solicitors can be remunerated properly while they are training?
    Mr. Taylor: Yes, of course. The profession has responsibilities which are concomitant with being independent and self-regulating.

Insolvency (Employees' Rights)
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Insolvency Act provisions relating to employees' rights as regards administrators, administrative receivers and, in Scotland, receivers. The need for this statement arises out of a recent judgment by the Court of Appeal in the administration of Paramount Airways Ltd. For the House to appreciate the importance of this, let me first set out the legal background.
Under the Insolvency Act 1986, an administrator may be appointed to manage the affairs, business and property of a company in financial difficulties with a view to the survival of the company or its business, the approval of a voluntary arrangement or the sanctioning of a compromise or arrangement with its creditors.
The administrator has to consider the basis of continuing the business and, in particular, the position of the employees. Under the Act, he has 14 days from his appointment to decide whether to adopt contracts of employment. Where the business is continued with a view to its successful disposal, it hasbeen the practice of administrators formally to notify employees that, while they would continue to be employed by the company and to be paid their wages and so on, their contracts of employment would not be adopted by the administrator.
In the event of the survival of the company or a successful sale of its business, employees would continue with the company or the purchaser and their contracts would be maintained. If, however, the administrator concluded that survival or safe was not possible, he would, as was done in the Paramount case, have no alternative but to dismiss employees. The administrator would, of course, expect to pay employees' wages or salaries for the period of their employment under the administration. But, before the Paramount judgment, it was not thought that other payments, such as pay in lieu of notice and redundancy pay, would have priority.
The result of the Paramount judgment, subject to the outcome of any appeal by the administrators to the House of Lords, is that the entitlements arising out of dismissal would rank on the cessation of the administration as a first charge against the assets in the administrator's possession. This would place them in priority to all other claims against those assets.
At first sight, this may be thought to have advantages for employees. In practice, however, administrators will feel that they have little alternative but to dismiss the company's work force within the first 14 days and either close down the business or look to new terms of contract. Employees' rights in such circumstances in relation to termination entitlements will rank only as a claim with other creditors.
Indeed, the real position may be far bleaker. Because of the weight of the claims that would arise on dismissal and which would be a first charge against the assets, companies considering administration may conclude that it does not offer a rescue route and may simply move to liquidation, termination of the business, dismissal of employees and a break-up sale of the assets which will not be in the interests of anybody.
620
It is also necessary to deal with the position of administrative receivers. There are 3,000 receiverships in this country every year. In almost half of them, it has proved possible to save all or part of the business. This practice will be placed in jeopardy, with all that that means for jobs, commercial activity and business confidence. We must, therefore, remove this uncertainty as a matter of urgency.
Accordingly, I intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity that will enable an administrator or a receiver to adopt a contract of employment with more restricted effects than at present. The change will allow him to adopt the contract with the effect that only wages, salaries and pension contributions falling to be paid thereafter will qualify as expenses of the procedure. Other liabilities arising from the contract of employment will remain, but will be treated as an unsecured claim against the company.
As regards administrative receivers, in addition to the need to limit the extent of the expenses that have priority, it is intended to restrict the receiver's personal liability to the same expenses as for administrators. What that means in practice is that the administrator or receiver will not have to renegotiate contracts of employment within 14 days from the date of appointment.
The proposed change will have only the limited effects that I have described. It will not affect the employee's position under employment law.
In view of the immediacy of the need for this legislation, I propose that, when enacted, it will have effect in relation to any contract of employment adopted after today. I am sure that the House will recognise the need for the measures that I have proposed and that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to see them brought in at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Robin Cook: I welcome the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has made a statement on a ruling that has caused alarm to receivers and to some of the unions that represent the work forces most at risk. We accept that it is plainly impossible for receivers to provide a business plan to rescue an enterprise within 14 days, and that the effect of the ruling will be to oblige them to close the business rather than to try to trade out of bankruptcy.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is perhaps particularly important for the Government to remove the threat to receivers as total bankruptcies are still running at the rate of one every 90 seconds of the working day and no longer show any signs of reducing, despite all the promises of recovery?
In the circumstances, we will not resist the proposed legislation, but will the President clarify three points that arise from it? First, for the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that any legislation that takes effect from today's date will not remove the legal rights of Paramount Airways' employees or of any other company put into receivership before today's date?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is genuine bitterness among workers who, after many years of loyal service, are made redundant by a company in receivership and who receive only statutory redundancy, despite an entitlement to much more under their contracts? Before introducing legislation, will he therefore review the limit on statutory redundancy pay, which is still based on a maximum wage of £205 per week? Is he aware that last

621
year was the first for a decade in which that statutory limit was not uprated and that it now sets a maximum that is well below the average wage of industry?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman circulate his warm words about the success of receivers, which I endorse, to his ministerial colleagues, particularly those with responsibility for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, which in the past five years have achieved a staggering fourfold increase in the number of companies that they have put into bankruptcy? Almost always, those companies were wound up straight away; they rarely went into receivership.
Now that the President has rescued the function of receivers, will he remind the tax authorities that it is in everyone's interest, including their own, that businesses should be kept as trading enterprises rather than put out of business by the Government?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) welcomed my proposals and for his assurance that the official Opposition will in no way obstruct the rapid progress of legislation through the House.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he sought in response to his first question: there will be no change in the legal position before today's date. From midnight tonight, my proposals will affect new arrangements, but will not upset previous ones as we are not indulging in any sort of retrospective legislation.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of much wider issues. My right hon. Friends in the Department of Employment and in the Treasury will no doubt read with interest what he said. I think that it would be wrong for me to widen the narrow suggestion that I have put to the House.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on taking such speedy action but for which a large number of firms that might have survived would have undoubtedly gone to the wall and have been abandoned and many thousands of employees would have lost their jobs? Therefore, does he agree that it is essential that hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in maintaining employment and helping firms to survive allow the Bill the speediest passage through the House?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and to the officials of my Department and a number of other Departments who have worked through the weekend to bring us to the point at which we could make the statement today.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, very much welcome his prompt statement today? There have already been announcements in the past week and during the weekend of receiverships that would have been banded into liquidation and jobs would have been lost. I must echo the view of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) that it is vital that the Bill goes through quickly and urgently and that all hon. Members support it and recognise that it is an issue of jobs. Nevertheless, will he confirm that, when he brings forward the legislative proposals, he can guarantee that where a receivership is successful in bringing a business to its ultimate sale the rights of employees will be fully
622
safeguarded? That assurance is necessary as people would want to know that, if the receiver is successful, they have the right to share the net benefits of the receiver's success. How many receiverships in administrations lead to a successful onward sale? We still have far too high a level of bankruptcies and not enough successful rescues.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. Of course, he is right: the proposal has behind it the real chance of saving many more jobs. In answer specifically to the question about the number of receiverships that are, in practice, likely to be successful, may I say that it appears to be approaching half which lead to on-going opportunities for companies concerned. The existing rights, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, for example, would not be affected by what I have said today. I am dealing specifically with the narrow aspect which I outlined in the statement.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: The speed with which my right hon. Friend has acted is welcome and will save many jobs in the future when receiverships occur from today's date. Does he agree that one of the problems of judge-made law is that it is retrospective? Will he give some indication of what the situation will be for companies for which receivers have been in place for more than 14 days already, and for receiverships over the past few years that have been concluded on the basis of the law as it stood before the Paramount judgment was the one with which they complied?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. I must consider the principle of retrospection and, as I have made clear to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the changes that I am proposing will come into effect only from midnight tonight, if Parliament legislates in the way in which I hope that it will. The specific answer to my hon. Friend is that the law will remain what it is until the process of change comes into effect at 12 o' clock tonight.
Mr. Terry Davis: Given the importance, not only of saving as many jobs as possible but of providing as much compensation as possible to people who lose their jobs after years of loyal service to companies that go into receivership, does not the President agree that it is a good opportunity to improve compensation rights for redundancy?
Mr. Heseltine: It would be an abuse if I were to try to use the expedited processes which I am asking the House to consider for anything other than the most narrow of purposes which justify asking Parliament to move at such speed. There are plenty of other opportunities for my hon. Friends to consider the wider issues in a timely way.
Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeking to preserve the system of receivership, which has saved tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs in high-profile cases such as Leyland DAF and Rolls-Royce plc, as well as in many smaller receiverships. Does he agree that 14 days would be too short for any potential purchaser to carry out a duly diligent investigation when he is thinking of buying a business from the receiver and that liquidation and jobs losses would be much speedier if he had not acted this afternoon?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I join him in paying tribute to the work of extremely professional receivers in finding ways to keep businesses going and seeking negotiations which, as we have said, happily are successful in a high proportion of cases. There have been some very well-publicised events recently, perhaps most significantly that of Leyland DAF, but there are others. We are all in the debt of the very skilled men and women who carry out that work.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a bit rich for a Minister who has just sacked 31,000 miners to be telling us that he is concerned about employees' jobs after 15 years of Tory rule and when 4 million casualties are looking for work. Will he answer this question? If the Major Government go into receivership this summer through lack of support, will he act as administrator?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will realise that the people who lost their jobs in the coal industry received very generous redundancy terms which were far in excess of those available to the vast majority of people. The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the fact that unemployment is now falling.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's very prompt statement, may I put it to him that it is important that, in the medium term, we have a thorough review of insolvency law because the present bias towards the banks and away from trade creditors, much of which is built on case law, provides a very strong disincentive for unscrupulous bankers to put companies into receivership and instead to place them straight into liquidation?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has a particular interest in the subject. We are consulting at the moment on the wider issues that he raises. The consultation period is due to end on 31 March and we will then be able to reach what decisions are appropriate.
Mr. John Gunnell: Having asked for a statement during business questions last Thursday, I thank the President for making it today. I hope that any questions that I put to the Leader of the House in future will receive such a speedy response.
Does not the judgment of the Court of Appeal reveal that the drafting of the insolvency legislation was inadequate?
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that several important receiverships are on-going. The present situation covers half the receivership and the Court of Appeal judgment, which one hopes will be appealed against in the House of Lords, while the other half will come into effect
624
at midnight tonight. What will happen in the case of constructive receiverships, such as that at RFS Doncaster, which are on-going at the moment and in respect of which vital jobs are at stake?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier reply when I said that I am not seeking to change the law retrospectively. The law is the law and receivers will have to make up their own minds, in the light of their best judgment and best professional advice, how they continue the receiverships in which they are already engaged. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point about the inadequate original drafting, I could not for a moment consider the possibility that anything that this Government had done was in any way inadequate. Nevertheless, on mature reflection, we have decided to have another look at it.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing legislation forward and on not being tempted to wait until the House of Lords gave its judgment. However, will he now give a very clear signal to receivers currently investigating companies that it is the will of the whole House that the legislation should go through and therefore their actions should not in any way be influenced by the Paramount case?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. I am aware that there is one case—there are probably others—in which receivers are under pressure to reach judgments because of the near expiry of the 14 days. I have asked officials to consider how we can draw the attention of such receivers to the statement that I have made this afternoon.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In view of the stress and strain that is put on families and workers by receiverships, and of course the inadequate drafting that has been referred to, can the President of the Board of Trade assure the House that he will consult widely as a matter of urgency, and especially consult the Trades Union Congress, prior to publishing the Bill? Can he tell the House when he intends to publish the Bill?
Mr. Heseltine: The House realises that there is a dilemma about consulting widely on such a matter where urgency seems to be so important. There is bound to be an opportunity for people to make representations. We will publish the Bill and the House will then be invited to consider it speedily. We will do our best to take account of representations from any sources where people wish to make them. I do not have a specific date because that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I have given the clearest indication I can that the Government consider this to be a matter of great urgency.

Points of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I should like your ruling on a matter arising from the private Bill being promoted by the London Docklands development corporation.
The main purpose of the private Bill is to enable the development corporation to make byelaws covering the use of the former docks and the areas surrounding them. The Bill would give additional powers to the Secretary of State for the Environment relating to those byelaws, and they may seem appropriate for inclusion in a private Bill. However, clause 22 of the Bill would, I think extraordinarily, empower the Secretary of State to dispose of all or part of the assets of the London Docklands development corporation without any further reference to the House.
The most recent published accounts of the London Docklands development corporation show that the value of its assets exceeds £1,200 million. That is an enormous sum of public money which was put into the hands of the London Docklands development corporation under a general public Bill. Surely the power to give away those assets, which belong to the taxpayer, should not be smuggled through in a private Bill. This is not a private matter—it concerns a huge sum of public money.
I want to know why the Secretary of State for the Environment was allowed to include this public matter in a private Bill and how the House can safeguard the interests of the taxpayer.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised the question whether clause 22 of the Bill is a proper provision to be included in a private Bill. In the past, the Speaker has ruled that certain private Bills presented to the House should not proceed to a Second Reading because their principal provisions involved matters of public policy or conflicted with the general law. That ruling can be found at pages 804–805 of Erskine May.
However, there are precedents for provisions in private Bills giving the Secretary of State powers relating to the transfer of the property and functions of the promoting body—for example, section 10 of the British Waterways Act 1983. I cannot therefore rule that clause 22 of this Bill is not proper to be included. Of course, it is open to hon. Members to argue on Second Reading that the powers are too wide or that the relevant orders should come before the House. There are no petitions against the Bill, and the Bill has completed its passage in the House of Lords. It will be for the Committee on Unopposed Bills now to consider what amendments may be necessary.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Obviously, I accept your ruling and bear in mind the precedents. However, I am led to believe that the precedent that you quoted did not involve such an enormous sum of money or the possible gratuitous disposal of assets totalling as much as £1,200 million.
I should like to know your views on this matter, Madam Speaker. I understand that the authorities of this House, including the Speaker's Counsel, and those of the House of Lords look at such Bills to see whether their provisions are appropriate. It seems strange to me and to many of my hon. Friends that your advisers and those of the Lord Chancellor
626
did not suggest to the promoters of the Bill that, at the very least, they might have provided in the Bill as originally drafted that such transfers could not take place without the prior consent of the House by a debatable order.
Mr. Nigel SpearingFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank you for your ruling. You may have expected that some hon. Members would refer to the matter during the debate, and it may be that something will emerge from that. Whatever may emerge in terms of the procedures in the House for which the Bill at the moment does not provide, is it your ruling that the Committee on Unopposed Bills can also consider whether, even with the safeguards, such a provision in a private Bill affecting the powers of a Secretary of State who has established the corporation and who has the power to dissolve it is in order in terms of the relationship between private and public legislation?
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill wishes to make a point.
Mr. Hughes: I am sorry that I was not here when you began to deal with the point of order, Madam Speaker. I was alerted by your Secretary and by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I am the hon. Member who is promoting the Bill. This is a point which has emerged late in the day. Advice has been taken, and will be available to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other colleagues at 7 o'clock when the Bill is due to have its Second Reading. The advice that you have given already will be taken into account, Madam Speaker, and there may be further information available later. I ask hon. Members to be patient. I understand that the issue is important, but the point was neither raised nor spotted earlier. The purpose of the procedure is to give the House a chance to see whether such issues arise.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In reply to the latter point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South, the answer, of course, is yes. The matter can come before the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am raising a point of order similar to that which I raised on Friday. There have now been three mortar bomb attacks at Heathrow airport, which is, more or less, in my constituency, and yet I still cannot get an opportunity to get the Home Secretary to appear in the Chamber to make a statement. I understand and respect your decision with regard to my previous point of order. It seems strange that the whole country is talking about the busiest international airport in the world being under threat. Discussions are taking place in the press and among Opposition Members on the lack of security—I do not believe that to be the case—and yet I, the hon. Member who has the airport in his constituency, have no way of raising the matter in the House. I find that deplorable.
Madam Speaker: I believe that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) wishes to make a similar point.
Mr. David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I preface my remarks by

627
saying that I totally understand and fully support your ruling on my request for an emergency debate? I seek your guidance. Sunday's mortar took off from and landed in my constituency, and my constituents therefore rightly expect me to inform the House that the last thing that they want is a knee-jerk over-reaction. The other thing that they would want the House to know is that they have absolutely no intention of being bombed into submission by evil psychopaths. How on earth can they make that view known to the House? Perhaps you will give me some guidance, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have raised their points of order and for the support which they have given to the Chair. Right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench have no doubt heard the strength of feeling which has been expressed today. I think that we had better leave it at that for the moment.
Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I informed you that I wished to raise a point of order because I am being treated differently from other hon. Members—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have exchanged correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, and I asked him to see me. He did so, and I hoped to be able to explain the procedures of the House to him. I asked also a senior Officer of the House to try to help him to understand the way in which our procedures operate. I received a letter from him on Friday which I am now reading and to which I shall be replying. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise points of order on those matters. I have taken weeks to try to help him with the procedures of the House.
The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on Friday. He must give me an opportunity to read his letter and reply to it. The matter does not constitute a point of order. I explained that this morning to the hon. Gentleman. Officers of the House have also tried to be helpful. I have given him a good deal of time. My door is open to the hon. Gentleman if wants to see me again. However, unless he understands the procedures of the House, it will be extremely difficult. He is still unfamiliar with them. If he wants to come and see me again, my door is open and I will willingly go through them all with him again.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Llew Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order. I am moving on to the point of order from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
Mr. Smith: It is because of the discussions that I have had with you, Madam Speaker, and the assistance from your colleagues that I am raising the point of order. I am discriminated against—
Madam Speaker: Order. There is no discrimination against the hon. Gentleman. I have attempted personally to explain to him the procedures and to do everything that I can to help him. I am still willing to help him if he does not understand. He is unfamiliar with the way in which we proceed in the House. The hon. Gentleman can take up my time as Speaker at any time that he wishes, but he cannot abuse the procedures of the House by raising points of order which are not points of order.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Monday, I raised with you a question about the then imminent decision of the Government on the blocking minority rights which arise under article O of the Maastricht treaty. You said that you would consider the matter. I am grateful to you for that. However, the matter is still under consideration. As there has been no debate in the House because of the nature of the instruments in question, will you consider taking a private notice question for tomorrow on the matter? Apparently, the decision has not yet been taken. The decision so vitally affects the interests not only of the House but of the country that we deserve at the least an opportunity to put questions on a statement and to have a debate on the matter.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman has already explained, I looked into the matter after he first raised it. If he wishes to put in a private notice question to me tomorrow, of course I shall consider it seriously, as I always do. However, proposals for changes in voting procedures in the Council of Ministers are not founded on European Community documents of the type that are subject automatically to our procedures. Nothing out of order has occurred. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to secure a debate on the issue, as well as putting in a PNQ to me, he should make his request known in the usual way.

ESTIMATES DAY
2ND ALLOTTED DAY
ESTIMATES DAY
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94
    Class VII, Vote 1

      Housing Corporation
      [Relevant documents: 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 (Cm 2363)]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £213,686,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, improvements and investments, payments to the Housing Corporation, payments to commute loan charges on grants to local authorities including the urban programme and urban development grant, and other sundry services.—[Sir George Young. ]
      4.2 pm
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: I know that estimates debates are not necessarily the most gripping of the matters that come before the House, Madam Speaker, but you will know as a student of political history that they are key to the powers and privileges of the House because the scrutiny of Government policies and expenditure is the heart of the House of Commons. I take seriously the Select Committee's responsibilities with regard to that function.
      We have devoted two or three evidence sessions every year to hearings on the Department of the Environment estimates and annual reports. We have produced a report on each of the subjects. By that means, the Committee has tracked the progress of the Housing Corporation for several years, noting its triumphs and difficulties and following its development as the funding and regulatory body for non-local authority social housing in England. About 15 months ago, my colleagues on the Committee and I judged that the time was right to launch a full-scale inquiry into the activities of the corporation. The Committee's predecessors had resolved to do that, but, for one reason or another, it did not seem right to have a full investigation at that time.
      The inquiry that we held and the report that came out of it marked something of a return to housing as a subject for the first time for some years, although, of course, we looked at some aspects in our annual estimates hearings. At least those in the Department's environmental and countryside divisions, who had had the focus of our spotlight on them for some 10 years, were able to retire, albeit temporarily, into the darkness while we looked at housing.
      The key is for a Select Committee to consider a balanced range of issues. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee for their non-partisan, consensus approach to the inquiry. If a Committee is effectively to bring issues to the attention of the public and the House it can best be done by co-operation. Together, we were able to agree conclusions that did not lack bite or duck the issues, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction will agree. Apart from the work that the Select Committee put into the report, I must
      630
      also pay tribute to the two men who advised us during the inquiry—Richard Best and Peter Chapman—who gave us sterling guidance, which was most helpful.
      During its inquiry, which lasted from February to April last year, the Select Committee questioned 16 groups of witnesses, visited housing association developments in Leeds, rural Yorkshire and east London, and considered 140 written submissions. Since I read every page of those submissions, I can confirm that they contained much high-quality evidence, not merely from housing associations and interested bodies but, in some cases, in movingly written notes from members of the public and tenants. We did not need to travel overseas because the Housing Corporation is a peculiarly British animal—a public sector body which funds and regulates a disparate collection of private sector organisations.
      I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I proceed by summarising the main proposals in the Committee's report and in each case comment on the responses from the Government and the corporation.
      We began by considering the relationship between the corporation and its sponsoring Department—the Department of the Environment. The Housing Corporation is a quango and is therefore quasi-autonomous, whatever that means. Some people told us that the corporation was a creature—usually a poodle—of Government. No one told us that it was too autonomous.
      The Committee's view is that under the out-going chairman, Sir Christopher Benson, to whom I pay tribute, the corporation behaved in a correct but unpoodle-like manner. The Committee was given a copy of the corporation's top secret corporate plan. Frankly, we were surprised at its tone. Sir Christopher and his colleagues did not shrink from giving strong advice, whether it was welcome or not.
      The Committee felt that the relationship between the corporation and the Department was about right. The corporation spends a lot of public money and is rightly closely supervised in that. As a non-governmental organisation, however, it must remain free to express its views on policy matters—but only in private.
      When people first learn that the Housing Corporation's corporate plan is not published they are surprised, given the huge sums of public money involved. The frank advice to which I referred is partly the reason why it remains a private document. The Committee felt strongly that the plan should be published, as a contribution to the continuing public debate on social housing. The Government did not feel able to accept the Committee's recommendations, for reasons that I understand, but the corporation has at least been able to produce its first three-year statement of plans and priorities.
      That statement is effectively an agreed version of the corporate plan, without the discussion of alternatives that characterises the latter, but retaining an encouraging tone of frankness. The statement is certainly more useful than the annual report, which has not been terribly useful to anyone who has taken a close interest in the corporation's work. The Housing Corporation should be congratulated on producing its new document. There can be no doubt that future editions could be improved by greater openness and more discussion of the relative merits of policy options.
      Openness is also required in the appointment of the corporation's board which, in the Committee's view, did not fully reflect the breadth of experience desirable in such an organisation. I therefore welcome the recent

      631
      appointment of new members with experience of housing—in one case, a local authority housing manager and in another, a housing association tenant. The fresh perspectives that those new board members will bring will be of great value to the corporation and to the Government.
      The announcement last Tuesday that Sir Brian Pearse, the chief executive of the Midland bank, is to succeed Sir Christopher Benson as chairman, is also to be welcomed. I trust that Sir Brian will continue his predecessor's robust approach to his work. I think that my right hon. Friend has brought off a considerable coup in managing to secure the appointment of Sir Brian Pearse. There is absolutely no doubt that the relationship between housing associations and those who are increasingly financing them will be of key importance in coming years.
      The Committee gained the impression both at first and at second hand that, at regional level, the corporation works effectively as a partner of housing associations. Like many partners, the corporation can at some times be a little interfering and bossy and at others less helpful than some would wish. In most respects, however, it is supportive and effective. We suggested some improvements, such as aligning the corporation's regional structure with that of the Department and seeking feedback, through a consultative process, with local interests. In each case, the Government responded positively, for which I am grateful. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to inform us of progress on realignment, especially as it affects London and the home counties, and on the twice-yearly consultative meetings, which I understand may start as early as next month.
      Important as it is to get the structures and personalities right, there are other, more important issues that the Committee identified. The first is the question of housing association grant rates, together with affordability of rents and availability of private finance. The Committee recognised, as do most observers and those more closely involved, that those apparently separate considerations are in fact interwoven and interdependent. As the Government quite properly seek to contain public expenditure and attract a higher proportion of private capital into the development of social housing, so they must face the likelihood that housing associations will find it increasingly difficult to secure their loans, that many of them will find it necessary to increase their rents and that, at the end of the chain, increasing numbers of tenants will find it ever more difficult to escape the protective embrace of housing benefit.
      Whether we term that state of affairs somewhat emotively "the poverty trap" or whether we characterise it as housing benefit dependency, the effect is the same. The Exchequer necessarily spends vast amounts of public money on housing benefit, yet everyone—including those in receipt of the benefit—wishes that it were otherwise. The Committee did not pretend to know how to resolve the dilemma of how to provide an affordable safety net without, at the same time, creating a disincentive to work, but all Members were as one in calling on the Government to get on with tackling the problem. It is surely in no one's interest that we should continue to subsidise that powerful deterrent to self-betterment.
      Therefore, I was disappointed that, in their response, the Government were apparently content to refer to the
      632
      existence of an inter-departmental working group that discusses such issues "on a regular basis". Having heard nothing since of the discussions of the group, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister what is being done to counter housing benefit dependency and, in particular, to investigate the relationship between HAG rates, rent levels and benefit entitlement?
      Mr. Den Dover: I have read the report with much interest, and note its concentration on tenants and their importance in housing associations. Did the Committee consider secured, as opposed to assured, tenancies, and what direct measures can be taken to bring down tenants' rents to a more manageable level?
      Mr. Jones: I think that the two issues are slightly separate. We certainly addressed the former issue, albeit tangentially. The latter issue depends very much on addressing the relationship that I have just described.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister has exercised delicate judgment in setting HAG rates for 1994–95 at 62 per cent. I know that the announcement was not universally welcomed but, in revising the original objective of a cut to 60 per cent., my right hon. Friend has shown that he is willing to listen and reconsider. So far, and despite the small reduction in HAG rates announced my right hon. Friend, the great majority of housing associations appear to have been able to continue to raise private finance for development.
      It is worth repeating here the Committee's concern that
      "if the Government waits until a funding crisis arrives, any action it then takes may be too late."
      Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take a long-term view and, in particular, that he will consider seriously the need to set housing association grant at a level that will enable associations to avoid running out of loan security or finding that they are no longer able to raise money from private institutions?
      The second major issue that I wish to raise is that of standards. There are two quite separate concerns here. One relates to standards of housing provision and the quality of the accommodation that associations provide and the other to standards of housing management. On the former, I do not count myself among those who mourn the passing of the Parker Morris standards, which applied to all public sector housing. However, if they build houses that are inappropriate to people's housing needs and aspirations, housing associations will run the risk of replicating some of the social problems that have arisen as a result of the misguided policies of the 1960s and the 1970s.
      Therefore, I welcome the recent evidence of a shift towards the rehabilitation of existing property and away from new build, not least because such property is likely to provide tenants with more space and better facilities as well as address the issue of urban regeneration.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Government are encouraging the rehabilitation of property and everyone would accept that that should be achieved. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that in areas where property is of extremely low value, such as in the north, it is difficult for either an owner-occupier or, for the very same reason, a housing association to invest properties that are worth less than the cost of those improvements?
      Mr. Jones: One of the experiences that I have enjoyed in the House has been my period of common service with the hon. Member on the Select Committee on the

      633
      Environment. One of the facts that I will retain until my dying day is that the problem to which the hon. Member referred exists in places such as Burnley. It needs to be tackled in the broad context of urban regeneration, not just through housing association grant but through our approach to home improvements. That is absolutely key to solving the problem.
      Can my right hon. Friend the Minister tell the House whether the Government now accept that rehabilitation offers several important advantages over new build'? Does he intend to increase still further the proportion of rehabilitated property? On the subject of specialisation, the focusing of housing association work not just on rehabilitation but, for example, on the disabled, other specialist groups and rural housing is extremely important and welcome.
      As for standards of management by housing associations, the Committee learnt that those vary widely. Such is also my experience as a constituency Member, because I have known excellent housing associations and also pretty poor ones. I suggest that that experience is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement last week that the Department is to fund the Institute of Housing's good practice unit for the next three years.
      One of the unit's first tasks might be to consider the evidence that the Committee received, which suggested that small, local associations are more popular with tenants than the larger, national ones. Some of the latter came in for strong criticism because of their remoteness and lack of responsiveness. Some evidence, however, suggests a trend towards ever-larger associations, whether through merger or large-scale transfer of local authority stock.
      Some large housing associations have an excellent record, either because they really care about delivering quality maintenance or because they have been organised in such a way as to overcome the argument about remoteness. The Paddington Churches housing association, for example, has a development in my constituency. People were naturally worried about a housing association that had its headquarters in Paddington. They have overcome their concern because the association has established an office on the estate to which people can go with their problems about maintenance or queries about their rent. The Sutton housing trust also has its headquarters in my constituency and it has an excellent record of attentiveness to the problems of its tenants.
      Do the Government accept, as the Committee has, that a diverse housing association movement, encompassing a range of providers meeting specialist or general needs at local level, represents the most attractive and effective option for enlightened housing management? If so, what can my right hon. Friend say tonight to reassure those who fear that the Government's policies will lead to the creation of even larger, more remote landlords?
      May I ask my right hon. Friend, purely from my point of view rather than that of the Committee, whether he has considered the scope of rent officers, given the increasing number of assured tenancies? I wonder whether the jurisdiction of rent officers over housing associations is appropriate any longer and whether it might be better for rents to be set by housing associations, obviously after consultation with their tenants.
      Thirdly, I wish to mention tenants' rights, which emerged as one of the main themes of the Committee's inquiry and was the subject of the concluding chapter of
      634
      our report. In all the discussion of bureaucracies, finance, policy initiatives and so on, it is all too easy to lose sight of the fact that the Housing Corporation, housing associations and associated paraphernalia exist to provide a service not to Government, not to Parliament, but to tenants.
      The Committee met and spoke to housing association tenants during its inquiry and received written evidence from several more. Although no national organisation was able formally to represent to us the views of all tenants, we heard oral evidence from the Tenants' Participation Advisory Service, an organisation with which I was extremely impressed.
      I think that we gained a pretty good idea of what tenants want. In addition to affordable rents, to which I have referred, tenants want access to information, a prompt and effective repairs and maintenance service, to participate in decisions that affect them and to know that any complaints will be dealt with fairly. The news on all those fronts is good.
      In their response to the Committee's report, the Government promised that the corporation would seek the views of tenants as part of its monitoring of associations' performance. The corporation also undertook to monitor more closely associations' performance on repairs and maintenance and to improve associations' performance on tenant participation. To what extent have those fine words resulted in action? What feedback has been received from tenants about the effectiveness of the measures announced in the Government's response to the Committee's report?
      The announcement that a tenants' ombudsman would be appointed preceded the Committee's inquiry but was not divorced from it. In our report, we had much to say about the way in which the proposed service should be constituted and should operate. Although I understand the difficulties involved in proposing primary legislation, I am disappointed that the new ombudsman is not demonstrably independent of the corporation. I wish Mr. Jeffries well and it is to be hoped that he will prove his independence in practice, but I and my colleagues were worried lest confidence in that important service be dented due to its close association with the corporation.
      With his characteristic fairness, my right hon. Friend the Minister left the door open by promising to keep the new service under review and to place it on a statutory footing, should that prove necessary at a later date. Perhaps he would expand a little on that statement tonight and tell the House how he proposes to review the work of the ombudsman and when he expects to decide whether to legislate.
      No right is more important to tenants than the right to buy. The situation pertaining to charitable housing associations remains unacceptable to me and to many Conservative Members. I know that in the more enlightened charitable housing associations there has been a growing realisation that they are causing themselves as much damage as they are the tenants because, inevitably, they are driving the most motivated and ambitious of their tenants to leave their estates and to find their homes outside. That is not good for the community, it is not good for the housing association and most assuredly it is not good for the tenant. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will send a clear message to the other place that people who own more than one house should not stand in the way of the aspirations of ordinary people who are tenants of charitable housing associations.
      Mr. Nick Raynsford: I have listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which faithfully followed the course of the Committee's consideration and report until he reached the last point, on which I recall no recommendation of the Select Committee. I think that he should make it clear that he is expressing his own view, rather than the view of the Select Committee, on that subject.
      Mr. Jones: I am happy to underscore that because not only is it my view, but, over the years, it has been one of the points that have most characterised the differences between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. We believe in the aspirations of those people who wish to buy their homes, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.
      I could go on at greater length, but I think that many Members wish to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity to consider the work of the Housing Corporation and to acquaint the House with the important work of the Environment Committee. I am also pleased to be able to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his constructive approach to the inquiry and his helpful response to the report. However, there remain some items of unfinished business. I warn my right hon. Friend that today's debate marks only another stage in the process and that, in the best tradition of the Environment Committee, we shall follow up our report before the dust of Marsham street has settled on his files.
      4.24 pm
      Mr. John Fraser: The Select Committee inquiry has done a service in focusing on a subject that is, in my view, of great economic and social importance. It is of economic importance because, at least in London—housing problems vary in different parts of the country—the capital cannot work efficiently unless there are affordable homes for those who work and receive moderate incomes. I am thinking of people employed in transport, education, health and other essential services; people begining their careers, who cannot yet afford to buy homes; and those who are training—often after university—and are still on moderate incomes.
      I shall concentrate, however, on the social importance of housing, to which the Committee referred. We do irreparable damage to the fabric of society by gearing housing in a way that adversely affects the construction of society and the preservation of values. There is, for instance, something very wrong with a society that does not enable people to live near their parents. Enormous social reinforcements are provided when grandmothers can look after children and do some babysitting and other members of the family can provide a stimulus. That is an important ingredient in the health of the inner city.
      It is equally important for parents to live near their own parents. Like many other Members of Parliament, I am visited every week by people who ask why their elderly mothers, aunts or other close relatives cannot live with or close to them, where they can be taken care of, rather than having to live in expensive old people's homes, sometimes unhappily.
      Housing policy, albeit unintentionally, is not just breaking up families but making self-help and sustenance from within the family impossible. That is certainly happening in my borough. It is difficult to rebuild an inner city when the children who grow up successfully there
      636
      cannot afford to live in the area—near their parents—and must move away. Rebuilding inner-city society depends on values as well as bricks and mortar; one reinforces the other.
      There is a further dimension to the social aspect: social housing must be truly affordable for those who work or want to return to work. We need to provide housing that is not a trap and does not create a poverty ghetto. What I find offensive is an apartheid in housing, based on social and economic status.
      There are examples in my constituency, where housing has been built on reduced grant for assured tenancies. We are building homes with gardens where people cannot afford to buy a spade; we are building homes with picture windows and greater floor space, where people can hardly afford curtains and carpets. Children are being brought up by parents who have 'no money to provide any social stimulus, entertainment or holidays—all of which are important to the growing-up process. We are building housing that imposes heavy penalties on those who want to return to work, to stay in work or to gain promotion.
      Let me illustrate the problem by referring to some recent building by housing associations in my constituency. New three-bedroomed homes have been built: the rent is £70 a week, in addition to council tax, charges for heat and lighting—soon to be taxed—and water rates. Let us take the example of a person who is in work, but whose spouse is not; they have two children, aged 12 and four. If that person's net income is £125 a week—about £150 gross—he or she will pay no rent, being very close to income support levels. If he or she receives an extra £1 in pay, they will lose 65 per cent. of it in a taper on the loss of housing benefit and 20 per cent. in the taper on council tax benefit. Thus, the result of an additional £1 a week will be a net gain of 15p.
      Let us take another example—a person with the same family structure but earning £175 a week net. That person's rent becomes £38.05 a week—22 per cent. of a low income. If he or she starts to move up the salary scale, every extra £1 earned will result in the loss of 65p in housing benefit taper and the withdrawal of 20p in council tax benefit—leaving 15p. That is a hell of a loss of benefit for someone earning only £175 a week.
      The penalty goes on and on. The figures are not substantially different in the case of a single-parent family and they are very much worse in the case of a single parent who has to pay for child care. Thus, people of moderate income are financially pinned into the home. Despite what has been said about rehabilitation and about concentration on the building of new estates, they are also corralled geographically. We are beginning to build houses with basements again. But they are proverbial basements. They are poverty basements, out of which it is very difficult to climb to the next floor. Such is the housing that is now being constructed with housing association grant.
      In a way, the position is even worse than that. Because of the indicative costs, and because of the uncertainty of the cost of converting a street property, housing associations—at least those in my area—are buying fewer properties for rehabilitation. Here we have another reason for the greater difficulty. Every time an individual property is bought, one is up against the private financial bureaucracy that housing associations now have to face. People have to cope with increasing isolation and are not securing the street properties that they want so much.

      637
      If I sound very pessimistic about the new type of housing on assured tenancies, my pessimism is increased by the fact that what is happening, in terms of the poverty trap, to the new assured tenancies—properties built with reduced grant—is happening also in the case of the older housing association properties that were the subject of secure tenancies, with rent control by the rent officer. The Milkwood estate in my constituency is run by the London and Quadrant housing association. That association applied for a rent increase, as, under Housing Corporation procedures, it was obliged to do. It asked the rent officer for an increase of £12 a week, but the rent officer decided on a figure of £14 to £15 a week. Typically, those tenants have had their rents increased from £37 to £51—a rise of 37 per cent. at a time when, for example, people who work for a local authority have had their income frozen.
      The same kind of trap is being constructed in the case of the older housing association estates. The rents under private assured tenancies are dragging up those under secure tenancies. The cure is reproducing the complaint. As we try to eradicate the problems of the 1960s—I am thinking of housing problems associated with poverty and with the poverty trap—the Government are driving down the grant and pushing up rents under assured tenancies. Thus, we see the creation of exactly the same phenomenon as prevailed in the past.
      And the prospects are even worse than that, I am afraid. It is not just that housing association tenants have to suffer penalties and disincentive. The situation can only get worse as the grant, which at one time was 80 per cent., comes down to 55 per cent. We know that the Government have massacred council housing. During the last Labour Government's final two years, the average rate of building social housing was 120,000 houses a year. The number is now down to 11,000, which is why I refer to the massacre of council housing. It is no wonder that the level of homelessness has gone up. It is not being replaced—
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fraser: No, I shall not give way. We are short of time.
      Housing is not being replaced by housing association production, which is running at only 21,000 homes a year and is set to decrease according to the Government's projection of its expenditure.
      The Government are creating a greater handicap for housing associations in three ways. The first is caused by cuts. Tulse Hill school in my constituency was knocked down—the Minister will know it well from his time as a councillor in Lambeth—and the site was bought by a housing association to provide homes for 160 people. It lies idle this year and will be idle for the next financial year because the Government have run out of housing association grant, even at reduced rates. It is disgraceful that we have the land and building workers available, but we cannot get on with building houses in an area which has a high level of homelessness.
      Secondly, the Government are imposing—
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
      Mr. Fraser: I said that I shall not give way.
      The Government are imposing a form of financial cannibalism on housing associations. Associations are having to charge their reserves and existing stock, but the
      638
      time comes when they can no longer eat their own flesh which, in financial terms, is what they are being asked to do. There will be a point at which private finance will say that there is no more security left on the balance sheet on which it can lend.
      Thirdly, private finance is beginning to get nervous about the housing association movement. I do not want to be overly pessimistic, but it is getting nervous because it is looking in part to security that is gradually running out and to what is called the rent stream. On the newer housing estates in my constituency which I have described—they are typical of those in the rest of the country—there is not a rent stream but a housing benefit stream. The Department of the Environment does not have complete control over the housing benefit stream and will eventually come up against the golden rule of politics which is, "It can only go on for so long." I give examples of that rule: it was true of the powers and rights of trade unions—the Government said that they could only go on for so long; it has been true of local government expenditure; and it is true of housing benefit. As rents go up, as grants are reduced, as the poverty trap tightens and expenditure on benefits goes up, the Treasury will one day—
      Mr. Warren Hawksley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fraser: No, I shall not give way.[Interruption.] Many hon. Members wish to speak and I shall best serve my colleagues by getting on and finishing my speech as quickly as possible.
      Eventually, housing benefit expenditure itself will be challenged, which will create a great deal of nervousness in the City, among the building societies and banks, many of them foreign.
      I am sorry to close on a pessimistic note. I have only one piece of optimism, which is that the golden rule of politics may yet help me out: "It can only go on for so long" must also apply to the Government.
      4.37 pm
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am very glad to be called to speak. I must first declare an interest as my wife is chairman of a housing association—
      Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I too, should have declared an interest as I belong to a firm that advises some housing associations. I apologise for not declaring it at the beginning.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I an grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: My interest is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I declare an interest as my wife is chairman of a housing association and a member of the Housing Corporation.
      This is an important issue which was brought to my attention by a group of ladies who came to my advice bureau some time ago. They represented various religious beliefs and wanted to talk to me about housing. As my wife knows more about the subject than I do, I twisted her arm and made her attend the advice bureau with me. We listened carefully to the ladies who spoke with great sincerity and were clearly very concerned about people less fortunate than themselves. We all agreed on one point—the

      639
      vexed question of affordable housing. I have raised the matter in the House before and I will continue to raise it because it is so important.
      Some time ago, the Select Committee on the Environment warned of the serious consequences if the housing association grant should fall below 67 per cent. In fact, it has fallen to 62 per cent. today. The problem is that with less grant, housing associations have to borrow from the private sector and as a consequence, rents tend to rise. The net result is that we get rents that are not affordable by low-income households, and that causes great concern.
      I am told that in the north-west of England, housing association rents for new homes are nearing market rents. The consequence is—this point has already been raised in the debate—that there are people receiving housing benefit living in those homes because they can better afford to live on the new estates. I am told that on some new estates in the north-west, as many as 95 per cent. of properties are let to tenants who are on housing benefit. They are often single parents with young children.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is giving serious consideration to the £9 billion that is spent on housing benefit. Nobody can blame him for that. After all, the social security budget is the largest budget of any Department and housing benefit is the third largest item in the social security budget. It is exceeded only by the state retirement pension and by income support.
      If the amount that we spend on housing benefit had been fairly constant for years, one could understand leaving it alone, but the fact that it has risen dramatically in recent years and has now reached £9 billion has led my right hon. Friend carefully to scrutinise it. However, I sometimes wonder whether there is any co-ordination between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury on such issues.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend considered two factors that may affect the affordability ratio? First, there are now far lower interest rates than was the case hitherto and, secondly, with construction costs that are far more reasonable than they were at the peak in 1988–89, it is possible to build and refurbish houses far more cheaply than before.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: I accept my hon. Friend's point. The fact that interest rates are far lower is beneficial, although it does not alter the fact that there are still too many people who find it difficult to get housing that they can afford. That is the point I am trying to make.
      One of the recommendations of the Environment Select Committee is that the Government should try to develop a strategy for easing the problems faced by housing association tenants and others caught in the poverty trap. As rents increase, the disposable income of tenants who are not receiving housing benefit drops and the possibility of the poverty trap increases.
      The National Federation of Housing Associations has defined affordability. It says that affordability exists if the majority of working households taking up new tenancies are not caught in the poverty trap because of dependency on housing benefit or because they are paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income on rent. The association
      640
      stresses that rents are not affordable when more than 50 per cent. of working tenants are either caught in the poverty trap through being dependent on housing benefit or, if not on housing benefit, are paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income on rent.
      I do not want a growth in the dependency culture. I want to encourage people to stand on their own feet—that was one of the things that drew me to the Conservative party. Of course there are people who we must look after, such as the sick, the elderly and the disabled. However, I want to ensure that young people are encouraged to find work rather than believing that the state should provide for them.
      I worry about the people who try to help themselves, such as those who take low-paid jobs and then find that they might have been better off if they had not gone out to work because they would have been more secure financially with benefits. It cannot be right, it is nonsense and economic madness for someone to be better off by not going out to work than by looking for a job. We must also think about the children who are brought up in such an environment. What sort of life will they have if they can honestly believe that they will be better off by not working than by seeking work? That is an example of initiative being penalised.
      Thrift by the elderly is also penalised; I make no apology for returning to the matter yet again. All of us must know of elderly constituents who, during their working lives, have put money aside, who have done without things and who have saved for the proverbial rainy day. They find that when they retire, their thrift is used to penalise them. As the rules currently apply, people with capital of between £3,000 and £16,000 find that interest is assumed—"assumed" is the all-important word—at the rate of £1 a week for every £250 of capital. As I have said before, I wish that some kind person would offer me such terms because I would transfer my savings immediately and I would live happily ever after.
      What incentive does the scenario I have described give to anyone to save? For years, I have repeatedly posed that question and I have never had an answer. I hope that I shall get an answer today. I should like an assurance that the ridiculously high assumed rate on savings will be considered urgently.
      Good housing is vital. As a nation, we can take pride in the fact that we have eliminated the awful slums that were such a blot on our industrial areas years ago. However, I often wonder whether we were wise to build the multi-storey tower blocks and to build the great council estates that sprawl on the outskirts of towns and which took people away from where they had lived as part of a community.
      We might have been better off spending money on the Coronation streets of this world—the old terraced houses which were well built. If we had only spent some money on modernising them and on making them more pleasant for people to live in, people would have been happier because there was far more community spirit there than one experiences today. However, I realise that there is no point in harping on about what happened in the past. Instead, we must try to ensure that we get things right in the future.
      The construction industry needs a boost. I am told that about half a million construction workers have lost their jobs over the past few years. If the estimate that every unemployed person costs about £9,000 per annum is right—that is the amount paid in benefit and the amount that is

      641
      lost in taxation—a great deal of money is involved. If we could get those people back to work, there would be a tremendous boost to the economy. We desperately need more low-cost housing.
      Mr. Charles Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 850,000 empty houses in this country? That translates into about 1,000 empty houses per constituency. Would he not rather those empty houses be brought back into use than more and more new houses being built over the green fields in his constituency?
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I watched him speaking effectively on this very point on television yesterday. I think that he said that Manchester city council was just about the worst in the country for unoccupied houses.
      Mr. Hendry: Second.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: Second?
      Mr. Raynsford: Westminster.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: I do not think that Westminster is top of the list. The hon. Gentleman should verify his facts before he interrupts.
      Mr. Tony Banks: You do not.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am sorry; I did not hear.
      Mr. Banks: You do not—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Sir Fergus Montgomery.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have your protection from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
      By reducing unemployment, we would help the building industry and we would rehouse people who are in urgent need. I hope that we would also do something about homelessness. I get depressed at the sight of all those people sleeping rough in our cities today. There are, of course, many reasons for that. Some are there as a result of divorce and broken homes; divorce has increased enormously over the years. Young people tend to leave home far earlier than they did and that has caused problems. Whatever the reasons, I hope that we can do something to try to solve at least part of that problem.
      I praise my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction. He does a great job in housing in the Department of the Environment. He is one of the most caring Ministers and he has earned enormous respect from people in the housing association world. However, I end by making the plea that the Housing Corporation is given adequate funds to enable housing associations to provide housing at affordable rents for people who are desperately in need.
      4.49 pm
      Mr. David Rendel: This morning, I took the opportunity to attend a meeting of Newbury district council's annual housing forum—an excellent institution which has proposed a number of good ideas in recent years—where I spoke to the council's housing manager and asked his advice on what I should say in the debate this afternoon, were I lucky enough to be called. He said that he could summarise what I should say in just two words:
      642
      "not enough". He said that there was not enough in terms of the approved development programme, not enough in terms of the proportion of housing association grant allowed for housing association schemes and not enough cheap rented accommodation.
      If it is true that there is not enough of those things in Newbury, how much more must it be true that there are not enough of them in deprived inner-city areas.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is playing true to the form of members of his party, who frequently castigate the Government for not spending enough and, once the Government do so, then say that they are spending too much. Is he aware that total spending on housing of the type that we are discussing has risen by about 60 per cent. since 1988–89 and now stands at about £12 billion a year?
      Mr. Bendel: I hope to show that, in practice, if the Government spend more on housing it is likely to pay for itself and that, therefore, whatever the Government are now spending, it would be beneficial to put more money in.
      The housing manager to whom I spoke said that it was wrong for the Government to place more emphasis on shared ownership, for which there is limited demand: only a certain number of people can benefit from that form of tenure.
      I recently visited a new housing association being built in Basingstoke by Wimpey, whose people kindly took me round the estate and showed me the different forms and sizes of housing and different forms of tenure. They told me which of the forms of tenure had been the easiest to fill. Interestingly, they said that the hardest to fill was shared ownership accommodation. When I asked why, they said that the answer was obvious: much of shared ownership costs more than outright purchase or renting, which is why people are unwilling to take it. A move towards more shared ownership, therefore, will have only limited applicability in trying to solve our housing crisis.
      To a large extent, I welcome the emphasis on rehabilitation in the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. We should all like the standard of housing in this country to be raised. Much housing is in far too poor a condition nowadays and there are many advantages to be gained from rehabilitating older housing stock wherever we can. But a balance should be struck.
      There is no point in putting all available resources into rehab or new housing. We must get the balance right. As long as the Government do not go overboard on rehab, I would welcome any moves to put money into that part of the housing movement.
      The Government claim that they wish to spread their resources more widely by reducing the amount of housing association grant to each housing association property. One can understand their reasons for wanting to do that, but here again there is a danger in going too far. If Government resources are to be spread more widely, more money will be needed from the private sector and, as has already been said, there is a limit to which the private sector will be prepared to meet its share of housing costs.
      Obviously, the more housing sector finance is demanded, the more rents of such housing will rise because interest on that finance will have to be paid. In addition, the larger the proportion of the money from the private sector, the higher the interest rate is likely to be, because the private sector will wish to have a higher interest rate if the risk is large. Clearly, there is a point at which it becomes

      643
      counterproductive to continue to lower the percentage of housing association grant into each housing association property. The Government's new proposals go beyond that point.
      What will happen? Rents will inevitably rise and much housing will no longer be affordable. At the same time, the Government's proposals on homelessness will push more homeless people into the private sector, where rents will also increase, leading to more dependence on housing benefit.
      Housing benefit is due to be capped. Somewhere, we shall come to a crunch point. Sadly, for various reasons, many people are losing homes that they have owned for a long time. For instance, people lose their jobs or face difficulties with the Child Support Agency. If they are vulnerable—for example, they may have young families—they will be housed by the local council and the costs of that housing will be met by housing benefit.
      When such people find another job, they may be worse off. Even in the present situation, with people being housed in comparatively cheap rented accommodation by local councils, they may face difficulties in paying the rent. For the many who are housed in private rented accommodation at higher rents, the problem will be exacerbated. I foresee a difficulty because if someone loses their job and then their house, they will be rehoused, but if they find another job, they may lose their house again. The Government are leading us into the position whereby people can either have a job or a house, but not both. I am sure that that is not a position which the Government will wish to endure.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of repossessions has been falling significantly in recent months? Will he pay tribute to the efforts of lending institutions in achieving that? Does not he accept that the housing market is on a stabilised, if not improving, trend?
      Mr. Rendel: I accept that there are some signs that the housing market is picking up. We have yet to see whether that will benefit or harm those who need cheap rented accommodation.
      The Government say that the housing benefit tapering system will ensure that people cannot lose their house and their job. The problem with the taper, however, as I think all housing professionals accept, is that it is much too sharp. That is why people are often better off remaining on benefits than getting a job.
      The tapering effect is 85p in every pound just on housing benefit and council tax, but when one takes on a job one may have extra expenses—for example, with the CSA or because of the costs of travelling to work. With the taper as sharp as it is at present, one may be better off remaining on benefit and not getting a job. We need an integrated tax and benefit system, but were Ito discuss that now I should stray wide of the subject of the debate.
      I commend two aspects of Government housing policy. The first is their living-over-the-shop initiative, which, if implemented across the country, would contribute a great deal to solving homelessness. It has many advantages. Shopkeepers can gain income and security for their shops. It can bring life back into the town centre and lead, therefore, to crime prevention. It can offer convenient places to live for young couples who have no children, or
      644
      perhaps elderly people, who often do not have transport to get them into town centres. I was proud to have promoted that policy long before the Government took it up and I was especially proud recently to have been able to open a scheme of that sort, as the housing spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, in my constituency in the centre of Newbury. Now that the scheme has been launched, it will encourage other people to open similar schemes. That scheme was for six flats and it has already been indicated that we may be able to get 12 more flats next door in the near future.
      The second aspect of Government policy that deserves some praise is mentioned specifically in the Select Committee report. It said:
      "We believe that, if and when there is a depressed property market, the Corporation should be ready to put in place a programme for acquisition of existing, unsold houses … The housing of homeless families in property integrated into the community as a whole may represent a more constructive approach than the growing concentration and segregation of such families on newly-built estates."
      I certainly agree. The Government's response was:
      "The Government believes that the Housing Market Package in 1992–93 was very successful."
      There were faults with that package. It involved no new money. Money was simply brought forward from future years—that was a pity—and involved mainly the purchase of new homes on large estates which could otherwise not find a buyer.
      However, there are many benefits to the scheme. It makes purchase under the right to buy less risky. Many people are unwilling to purchase their own homes because they fear that they may never be able to sell them again. If that scheme were renewed, it would clearly give housing associations a chance to take back those homes and thus make it less risky for tenants to purchase their own homes.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on the housing market package about which he was so disparaging? It enabled 18,000 homes to be purchased in 93 days, admittedly at a cost of £577 million brought forward from future years, when the housing market was especially depressed. Therefore, surely it encouraged the housing market to recover quicker.
      Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I was saying that that was one of the two aspects of the Government's housing policy of which I approved. Perhaps if he had listened more carefully, he would not have bothered to intervene.
      Mr. David Alton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a city such as Liverpool, where there are some 13,000 empty properties—some 7,000 in the private sector—there is a desperate need to use such properties to assist people who will not only drift away from that city to the south of England, but who are homeless?
      Mr. Rendel: I entirely agree. Indeed, it was one of the benefits that I was about to mention. One of the benefits of that system is that it allows housing associations to spread their properties throughout a community and thus leads to less of a ghetto-type situation, which we are moving towards.
      It is also true that it is a quick way in which to bring more cheap, rented accommodation into the housing association sector. In spite of the difficulties of buying a house in this country, it takes a lot less time to buy a house

      645
      that is on the market than to build a house from scratch. At present, housing is comparatively cheap and we need to use that sort of a scheme before the housing market takes off again. How sad that the Government's response went on the say:
      "The Government has no plans at present to repeat the initiative."
      When they do something right, it is a pity that they cannot carry it through for a longer period.
      In housing, the Government are their own worst enemy. Failure to invest in housing leads to rising homelessness, to fears about queue jumping—the cause of their latest document—to increases in housing benefit, which is a cause of worry to the Treasury, to a deepening of the poverty trap and to lower work incentives. The answer is two-fold. First, we must release the receipts from council house sales for further council accommodation and secondly we must have more direct Government investment in housing. Housing investment often pays for itself. Poor housing can lead to families breaking up; indeed, it is one of the most common causes, with all the involved costs to the Government.
      Housing investment can lead to lower benefit costs, better social conditions, less vandalism and other crime and more stability, especially for families with children, whose education will benefit as a result. We are discussing the level of housing investment by the Government. To use the words of Newbury district council's manager, which are echoed by almost all those professionally involved in housing and by councillors of all parties in local authorities throughout the country, the present level of Government investment in housing is simply not enough.
      5.4 pm
      Mr. Barry Field: Without wishing to be a founder member of the mutual admiration society, it should be incumbent on myself or at least somebody on the Committee to pay a tribute to the chairmanship of the Committee which produced the report. Many pundits in housing and in politics generally thought that the subject was a minefield and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) guided us through it excellently. In our press release when the report was published, we said that it showed that a controversial subject, such as housing, need not necessarily lead to a Select Committee being bogged down in some of the problems that we have seen elsewhere in the House. It is certainly a long-held tradition of the Environment Select Committee that it strives for some consensus in its reports because it believes that they pack a greater punch as a result when they arrive on the Minister's desk.
      Many of us have experience of housing and for some of us it has been a great joy. I share the happy distinction with the Prime Minister of having chaired a housing committee, although he seems to have done rather better than I have. One of my happier housing stories was that of the archetypal little lady who had several piles of rubble outside her back door and her front door, which seemed to be alarming her neighbours. The housing manager of the local authority went to see what was the problem and discovered that, single-handedly, she had knocked down all the internal supporting walls in her house so that when one opened the front door, one could look straight through to the back door and the kitchen. When asked why she had done it, she said that it was to give the budgie more room when she let it out of its cage to exercise.
      646
      There is nothing more personal to all of us than our homes and that is why the report and the work of the Housing Corporation is so important. My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee has already welcomed Sir Brian Pearse, whose deputy chairman, Peter Cook, was appointed the other day by the Secretary of State. I questioned the outgoing chairman, Sir Christopher Benson, on a particular point. I made the point in Committee that there would not be a company with which Sir Christopher was associated which would not introduce an age debtor scheme to the board of directors. I was therefore rather surprised that Corporation does not require or report to the Minister the length of time that housing associations hold on to cash, liquid assets, without reinvesting them. I ask the Minister to consider that specific point. I know that it was something of a soap box issue of mine during the compilation of the report, but if the housing association movement stands for anything, it is for the provision of low-cost housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) said. It is essential to make assets work hard and to invest in housing stock. There are a few housing associations—not many—who seem to accumulate the loot but do not invest it.
      Mr. Roy Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that that point is indicative of an attitude, which some Select Committee members noted, of the Housing Corporation—that its audit role is seen as being more that of accountant than of adviser? Perhaps in future the Housing Corporation should consider putting more effort—it already makes some—into the dissemination of good practice and giving guidance to housing associations on better management practice.
      Mr. Field: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I recall that, in the evidence that we heard in Committee, several housing associations felt that Sir Christopher's regime in respect of financial reporting—of which there was very little or none before his arrival at the Housing Corporation—was rather onerous.
      My experience as a chairman of a housing committee and as a director of a building society and of various other financial posts tells me that if we do not get the finances right or the debits and credits in order, nothing else flows. In respect of taxpayers' money, we must get the finances right and the debits and credits in order. I know of no business or organisation that got into trouble when its finances were properly managed and reported upon. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) in that regard, but that brings me to my next point. There is no doubt that Sir Christopher did a great job reforming the reporting structure and tightening up the way in which associations operate generally.
      My next point was not included in the Select Committee report—we could not include everything that we wanted to. However, I believe that the Chairman shares my view that there should be three levels of audit function on the part of the corporation, depending on the size of housing associations.
      I have referred to three levels, but that number is arbitrary. Perhaps there should be four or five levels. However, if we consider the example taken by the Department of Trade and Industry for auditing companies, it is clear that there are various points with which they must

      647
      now comply in the way that they report. The smallest companies can even dispense with the services of their auditors. Companies of the next size up can have abbreviated accounts. Full-sized companies must have the full works. There should be a small, medium and large structure for housing associations' requirements.
      Some of the smaller associations made a fair point when they told the Select Committee that there was a feeling that a sledgehammer was being used to crack a nut. I hope that that point might yet commend itself to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction.
      My next point has already been referred to by the Chairman of the Select Committee. During Environment questions the other day, I paraphrased Shakespeare to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction, saying that we want
      "Sir George for England and for housing tenants."—[Official Report, 16 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 937.]
      We want a right to buy for housing association tenants.
      I have been working with the North British housing association which, to recap briefly, took over the Greater London council's seaside homes when the GLC was quite rightly abolished. It was a moribund and useless organisation if ever there was one. In those days, the Liberal Democrats on the Isle of Wight concentrated entirely on politics and not on progress.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Field: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment if he will allow me to finish this point.
      The very first housing committee and council committee meeting that I attended as candidate on the Isle of Wight, debated the transfer of the GLC's seaside homes. As committee chairman, I had done a deal with the GLC for the transfer of the GLC homes in Horsham. Those homes were financed for a very nominal increase in nomination rights.
      The Liberals on the island went on and on about the fact that if the Government wanted them to acquire those properties, the Government should make the money available through the Housing Corporation or whatever. If the Liberals had concentrated less on the politics and more on progress, they could have had those houses for the benefit of the people of the Isle of Wight.
      Those houses went to the North British housing association, which has not commended itself to its island tenants. I have had some strong correspondence with its chief executive, Eric Armitage, who has tried to bamboozle me about the nomination rights for the properties concerned and on the opportunity for those tenants to purchase their properties. I will give way now to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
      Mr. Tony Banks: I shall pick up on that later.
      Mr. Field: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I like it when he picks up points from my speeches.
      The North British housing association had refused to allow several tenants to purchase their properties. Let us be quite clear about this. We are not talking about the right to buy in terms of discount. We are talking about the fact that the Minister has legislative power to allow those tenants to purchase their properties where those properties do not have specialist functions and are not warden assisted, but are stand-alone properties. A small number of the tenants
      648
      have the money to buy their properties and it is quite wrong that my hon. Friend the Minister and the North British housing association should stand in their way.
      Of 41 tenancies that have been allocated over the past five years, 29 went to London borough nominations, six went to internal transfers within the seaside and country homes lettings, and the Isle of Wight received just five nominations—which is why I say that the Liberal Democrats sold the Isle of Wight so badly down the river by not taking up that opportunity—and the housing association nominations for tenants living in the Greater London area amounted to just one.
      I am concerned about the way in which the North British has operated because, on its estate in Wootton, there is a small ransom strip of land which gives way to a quite valuable building plot. The association consulted its tenants about whether to sell that ransom strip which would have accommodated only two dwellings. The tenants said no, so the plot remains growing weeds in the middle of that housing estate.
      I have no objection to that. However, I cannot marry up the housing association consulting its tenants on the sale of that ransom strip with the fact that it obdurately refuses to allow some of the tenants to purchase their properties, which they would dearly like to do.
      I do not wish to finish on that sour note, particularly in view of the plaudits received by the Environment Select Committee's report on the Housing Corporation. I will finish on a more positive note. In Committee, we were assured that a housing ombudsman would be established as soon as possible and we felt strongly that the ombudsman should be independent of the Housing Corporation. However, the Minister told us that primary legislation is required to make the ombudsman independent, so as a pro tem measure, and to ensure that the housing ombudsman was available very quickly, it was set up under the aegis of the Housing Corporation.
      One of the great difficulties in the housing association world was the liquidation of the Legion Leasehold housing association. I am told, although I have not had this confirmed, that the ombudsman has taken up those concerns and worries and the tenants of Birch close at East Cowes are pleased about that. That good news story has arisen from our report. I am absolutely delighted and, may I say—not in a trite way—very proud to have been associated with the report because I believe that it is a major contribution to the housing debate in our country.
      5.17 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: I should tell Conservative Members that it is a pity that there is a Pavlovian response or knee-jerk reaction whenever someone mentions the Greater London council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There it goes again—as if its abolition was all good. If one consults Londoners, one would find that two thirds of Londoners, according to the latest opinion polls, have said that it is a great pity that the GLC was abolished and that London needs a strategic authority.
      If Conservative Members do not want to believe me, they should believe the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who made it clear, in respect of London's Olympic and Commonwealth games bids, that there is no way in which London will ever acquire international events like that because there is no one to sign

      649
      on the dotted line on behalf of London as a whole. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) should not assume that it has all been gain so far as London is concerned. That is not how we see it.
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred specifically to the seaside and country homes initiative of the GLC and the London county council. Only a strategic authority could have carried out such an initiative. That initiative gave elderly Londoners, particularly those in the east end, the opportunity to go to a part of the country where they could breathe the air rather than chew it first to enjoy their retirement. No one does that now. When the GLC was being abolished, we warned the Minister who is now Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction that transfer to the North British housing association was likely to prove to be a bad thing for the former GLC tenants. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight is now proving that point.
      Mr. Barry Field: My point is that the Greater London council was the greatest piece of political gerrymandering that the nation has ever seen, costing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to reinforce the Opposition vote in a number of Conservative-held borough councils such as Hastings.
      Mr. Banks: If we are talking about political gerrymandering, we need look only at Westminster to see what it has been doing.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the Housing Corporation. Perhaps we could come back to that now.
      Mr. Banks: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am only responding to the points made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight in his speech.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now blown the whistle, so we should get back to the debate.
      Mr. Banks: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say with the greatest respect that it is a great pity that the whistle was not blown a little earlier. However, I understand what you are saying.
      I welcome the report. In Newham, we are particularly dependent on housing associations. The London borough of Newham, works very closely with the East London housing association, London and Quadrant, the Family housing association and Circle 33. As more and more pressure is put on the local authority's housing stock, we are especially indebted to the housing associations for their ability to provide for single people when there is no statutory obligation on the part of the local authority.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman speaks with knowledge and some feeling about his constituency. In what way would his constituents be better off if the £11 million of council rent arrears in Newham were collected and redistributed to the people whom he represents and the councillors were elected to serve?
      Mr. Banks: I suppose one could suggest that that question is not relevant to the report, but I shall answer it because Mr. Deputy Speaker has not ruled it out of order. The answer is that they would be much better off.
      It is not as though the London borough of Newham is not taking all measures to get the rents. No one wants rent arrears. We do not encourage rent arrears in the London borough of Newham. However, the hon. Member for
      650
      Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) should realise that, for example, 69 per cent. of all council tenants in Newham are in receipt of housing benefit, which shows the level of poverty in my area. In 1992–93, 97.2 per cent. of all rents were collected by the London borough of Newham. If the Government were 97.2 per cent. successful in terms of running the country, I suspect that they would have a much better standing in the opinion polls than they do at present.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
      Mr. Banks: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, but there are other hon. Members who want to speak.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Of course, rents cannot be collected from vacant properties. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comment to make about the 400 empty properties which are currently standing idle in Newham and which could be serving local people?
      Mr. Banks: Of course there are empty properties in the London borough of Newham. A much greater proportion of them are in the private sector than in the public sector. In the London borough of Newham, we do not deliberately encourage people not to pay rent, or deliberately set out to keep properties empty. I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, because I can assure him that in my borough we take all the steps we possibly can to, first, collect rent and, secondly, ensure that there are no void properties.
      One of our problems is the inability to spend the sort of money that we want to spend on bringing unfit properties up to a state of decent habitation. There are many, empty properties in the London borough of Newham with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not soil his hands. He certainly would not want to go and live in them and therefore we should not expect other people to do so. The hon. Gentleman touches me on a raw nerve.
      I return to the point that I was trying to make with regard to the report. Paragraph 157 states:
      "We recommend that assessments of housing need—whether expressed as a range or as a precise figure—should be published by the DoE, using widely accepted methodology, on a regular basis."
      The Government's response, which I thought was very disappointing, was that there is no single accurate figure estimating the potential demand for social housing.
      One of the things that the Government should do is take far more pains to discover the extent of homelessness in my borough and, indeed, in London as a whole. We do not know the accurate figure with regard to homelessness in London. We do not know how many people are sleeping rough on the streets. The Greater London council used to collect the figures. However, now that it has gone, the Department of the Environment is not particularly interested in doing so. The Department always works on the assumption that if the statistics are not collected, ergo the problem has gone away. Of course, we must now rely on organisations such as the Salvation Army to know how bad the problem is.
      As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir. F. Montgomery) said, it is distressing to walk round London and see so many more people living rough on the streets. That is the important point. It is not anecdotal evidence—it is the evidence of one's own senses. Tory Members know that to be a fact. I know that some of them are very young and wet behind the ears, and know very little about

      651
      what goes on in London, but surely even they must have appreciated, when they were brought up to London in their earlier years, how many more homeless people are on the streets of London now. Whatever the figure, it is greater than it was in 1979, and that is the indication that I go by. It seems that the Government—
      Mr. Thomason rose—
      Mr. Banks: I think that it would be best if I did not give way. I am more than happy to give way to Tory Members, but I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to fall foul of the Deputy Speaker.[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) thinks that I am afraid of him, I shall give way.
      Mr. Thomason: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am especially grateful when he refers to some of us as being young. I hope that that included me, as I think that I am roughly the same age as the hon. Gentleman.
      Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of vacancies in the private sector in his constituency and housing pressures. Can he tell us what action his party would propose which would bring into greater use some of the private sector accommodation to remove the very straits about which he is complaining?
      Mr. Banks: As the House knows, I do not speak as a party spokesperson, so my comments are without authorisation. There is much that we could do. We could go into compulsory purchase in the private sector, especially with properties that have been vacant for a considerable period. It is offensive for homeless people or those living in particularly straitened circumstances to see houses that have been empty for such a long time, whether they are publicly or privately owned. That is one thing that could be done, and I would be very much in favour of doing it. Of course, I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor would say that it could be done only when resources allow.
      I return to the report. It is a great pity that the Government are not prepared to look more closely at housing problems in London and collate figures and statistics in such a way as to make them understand the difficulties that people face. The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir. G. Young) is often given the reputation as a decent, humane and warm-hearted Minister. That is a fairly rare accolade for anyone on the Government Front Bench these days. However, he should pay perhaps a little more attention to what is going on in Tower Hamlets at the moment, which is under the control of the Liberal Democrats.[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will pay a little attention to what I am saying.
      My late and much-lamented dear colleague, Ron Leighton, who died recently, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State about Tower Hamlets adopting the policy of placing its homeless families in private rented accommodation outside the borough. The council was doing that to fulfil its statutory duties under the homelessness legislation. Ron Leighton made four points to the Secretary of State, including the fact that the London borough of Tower Hamlets
      "are predominantly using this for Bengali families."
      He said that Tower Hamlets
      652
      "are 'exporting' their homeless families and expecting the receiving authority to pick them up in future years, as well as provide education and social services support.
      Families placed in this way were being charged up to £250 for a 3 bed house in Newham, an obviously inflated and unrealistic rent."
      Of course, because such rents are above housing benefit levels, they lead to rent arrears and the problem then of people being evicted and made homeless, but homeless in the London borough of Newham. I quote:
      "Families are being given no choice in this exercise."
      The Minister received a letter from the Bengali National Association in Newham which made precisely the same point. Mr. Osman Gali, the president of the association, said that up to
      "3–4 hundred families have been forced out of Tower Hamlets. The Council have adopted a policy of misleading the families by offering short-hold tenancies, and evidently the families were given false hopes of perm anent rehousing by the Council. Most homeless families who were already living temporarily in Newham, Waltham Forest, Hackney, Dagenham and other areas have been subjected to intense pressure by the Council officers."
      The letter goes on to refer to instances of harassment from Liberals in Tower Hamlets. One does not need to look at the racism of the British National party in Tower Hamlets—the Liberals can provide all the racism one would need in that part of east London.
      Mr. Gali also referred to "ethnic cleansing". That is an emotive phrase, but I get his point.
      I now turn to paragraph 157 and how it relates to paying attention and collating statistics, which is why I am disappointed with what the Government have said in response to the Select Committee report. Baroness Denton of Wakefield, the Minister responsible in the House of Lords, replied to my late colleague Ron Leighton in terms of the letter that he had written to the Secretary of State. She said:
      "Authorities should look carefully at the terms on which the accommodation is being offered, and in particular at the landlord's intentions once the minimum period for a tenancy has passed. They should assure themselves that accommodation will continue to be available for a reasonable period, and should consider every case on its merits in light of the circumstances of the household they are placing. Where a household is placed in such accommodation in the area of another authority, this should be done in liaison with that authority … I would be concerned if one authority was consciously adopting a policy of transferring homeless households into another authority's area in the expectation that this would off-load any future responsibility."
      That is precisely what Tower Hamlets is attempting to achieve, particularly with the Bengali families. The council is exporting them into other parts of the east end and transferring what they see as a problem to other areas.
      The noble Lady went on to say:
      "we are watching developments with interest. We will consider whether there are any problems for us to address when we reform the homelessness legislation."
      I hope that the Minister will say something about paragraph 157 and how he is responding in terms of monitoring the situation.
      The leader of Newham borough council, Councillor Timms, has written on number of occasions to Councillor Peter Hughes, the Liberal Democrat leader of Tower Hamlets council, and he has not even had the courtesy of a reply. That is how rude the Liberals in Tower Hamlets are, so on top of racism they add on a large dollop of rudeness. That is typical of Liberals, who like to come here and pose as decent people when the reality on the ground is completely different. The word hypocrisy comes immediately to my mind when I think of Liberal Democrats here and in Tower Hamlets.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: As a resident of Tower Hamlets, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's views about the racism of the Liberals in Tower Hamlets and the appalling management of the council. However, exporting the problem of homeless families beyond a council's boundaries is not limited to Tower Hamlets. In my constituency, through both housing associations and local authority housing, that is precisely what the old GLC did, and what agents of some Labour authorities in London are still doing.
      Mr. Banks: We are going back to the GLC, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under the mobility scheme, the GLC was able to give people a wider range of opportunities or a choice in terms of the location. It was, after all, the GLC and the London county council which provided substantial estates outside the Greater London area and on the periphery of that area. No one ever said that the GLC was exporting its problems, unless one thinks that giving a senior citizen the opportunity to move into a seaside or countryside home was exporting problems. If someone desperately wants that, why should they not have the opportunity when they retire? That can hardly be described as exporting problems. It was giving them the sort of opportunity which unfortunately they do not now enjoy and certainly will not enjoy until we have a strategic authority restored once again to the citizens of London.
      In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will respond to the following points. I think that it is now necessary to have a ministerial inquiry into what is going on in Tower Hamlets. We have tried hard to work with the Liberal authority and we know they have housing problems. We all have housing problems in the east end, but we do not expect councils to take the dogmatic, disgraceful and racist attitude which Tower Hamlets has been taking in terms of its housing and the question of homelessness. I hope that the Minister will be able to announce that he intends to look critically and urgently at the terrible racist housing policies in Tower Hamlets.
      5.35 pm
      Mr. Charles Hendry: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in the debate and particularly to follow the wide-ranging remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall start by declaring an interest, in that I am a newly appointed chairman of a company called Home Rent 16 to 23 plc, which is a private rented sector company.
      I congratulate the Select Committee on the report and on the thoroughness with which it has gone about tackling a detailed and complicated subject. I particularly welcome the fact that the Committee decided to look into it in the first place. The basic fact is that this year some £1.5 billion of public money is going to the Housing Corporation, which will enable some 58,000 new houses to be built for letting. The Government's reduction of the housing association grant rate, and thereby the bringing in of money from the private sector, has enabled the building of a significant number of new houses that would not have been built had we relied purely on public sector funding. During the past five years, the increase is estimated at some 55,000 additional units of housing.
      We must look at the balance between the number of houses that we want to achieve and the rent that is to be charged for those houses. The Government are absolutely right to say that we should be shifting the way in which
      654
      funding is contributed from subsidising bricks and mortar to subsiding the individuals who live in the houses. In other words, just because someone has a local authority or housing association house, it should not be built and provided for him at a below-average rent if he can afford to pay the realistic market rent. Those who cannot afford to pay that rate should be helped through the housing benefit system.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has left the Chamber, because he refused to take interventions during his speech. He was fundamentally wrong to look at the number of new houses that are built when we should be looking at the number of new lettings every year. We are concerned about the number of people who are able to move into social housing who would not otherwise be given that opportunity. The combined number of housing association and local authority lettings last year is the highest ever and is significantly higher than the number that applied in 1979 when the Government came to power.
      Mr. John Battle: If the Government's policies for access to local authority and housing association housing go through, and as a result of that landlords use shorthold assured tenancies or six month lets, if the same family is in a place for two years, will not that count in the Government's statistics as four lettings, although no other family has been housed?
      Mr. Hendry: I am more than happy to divert from the debate on the Select Committee report into the consultation document to which the hon. Gentleman refers, if you will allow us to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      If the private sector is to be used—most of my hon. Friends agree on that as an absolute principle—inevitably we shall see greater use of short-term assured tenancies. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that a short-term assured tenancy can provide in many cases a better quality of accommodation than local authority housing and can also provide security. Many of us live in short-term assured tenancies and, according to the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has bandied about, we are considered to be homeless.
      We must move from the negative attitude that the Opposition have continually taken towards the private rented sector and accept that it has a much more important role to play. One of the benefits that will result if the proposals in the consultation document are enacted is that there will be a better use of the private rented sector. In terms of the Housing Corporation and the money that is allocated to that, we must be certain that every penny of public sector money is being used to the best effect. The only way to do that is to squeeze the resources from time to time.
      To make sure that they are lean and efficient and use their resources sensibly and effectively, private companies, from time to time, clamp down the hatches and tighten their belts. That applies equally to the Housing Corporation. If we are to continue to be sure that every year we can put more money into the Housing Corporation, we must first be satisfied that every pound and every penny that go into it and into housing associations are used to best effect. If hon. Members on both sides of the House ask themselves honestly, they cannot say with their hand on their heart that that is the case.

      655
      We have concerns about the administration and running costs of the Housing Corporation. The squeeze that it is going through will make it look carefully at how its money is used. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, we can reduce the current grant rate in view of two factors that he outlined clearly. First, interest rates are lower than we have seen for a considerable time so the money that the housing associations are expected to borrow can be borrowed much more cheaply.
      Secondly, the difficulties that the building industry has faced in recent years have made it possible to build houses much more cheaply than for many years. That means that we can expect the housing associations to continue to provide a significant number of houses for letting. Indeed, there is no doubt that the 153,000 houses in the next three years to which we committed ourselves in our election manifesto will be comfortably exceeded, conceivably by as much as 25,000.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Does he agree that the fact that the Housing Corporation exceeded its targets last year has a great deal to do with the points that he has just made? Does he also agree that that will continue to play an important role in the funding and development of that part of the market in the years to come?
      Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly correct. The other element, to which tribute has already been paid, is last year's housing market package. It did much to bring back into use some of the empty properties available in the private sector. I am glad to see that the package has the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
      I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about housing benefit. We need to be careful that we do not create ghettos that are the only places in which people on housing benefit can afford to live. If we are to have a balance and if the amount of money that goes into bricks and mortar is to be squeezed, we have to accept that there is a limit on how much we can squeeze housing benefit. That point emphasises that there must be a right to buy for housing association properties.
      It is proper that the increasing number of people who live in housing association properties should have the same right to buy that they would have in local authority housing, if they wish to exercise it. Of course some sectors such as warden-controlled properties or properties specifically for the elderly need to be excluded. However, increasingly housing association developments are suitable for a much wider range of population. It is proper that they should also be bought under the right-to-buy scheme.
      I am also pleased to see that more attention is being paid to rehabilitation programmes. I have banged on endlessly in the House about the need to bring back into use the 850,000 empty properties in Britain. I am astonished by the recommendation from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for bringing back into use properties in the private sector.
      There are 750,000 empty houses in the private sector. We all accept that that is too many. However, the new policy initiative suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would involve taking the properties
      656
      back into public ownership under compulsory purchase. Assuming that the properties were bought at £20,000 apiece, which is a modest assessment, the hon. Gentleman has just developed a new Labour party policy that would cost £15 billion. No wonder he did not have the backing of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It is a barmy, barking mad idea and one which is fundamentally hostile to all the principles of freedom to which Conservative Members adhere.
      Why do Labour Members come up with every excuse in the book when considering why properties owned by Labour local authorities are empty, yet wish to introduce the most draconian powers that they can think of to tackle the empty properties in the private sector? If one is an incompetent local authority, one has the backing of the Labour party, but if one is an individual exercising one's freedom, one does not: The message is, "Do not let your granny die without selling her house first." The little politburo people from the Labour party will come round and say, "The house is empty. The old lady is dying. We had better buy it under compulsory purchase."
      We can bet one more thing for certain. Under the new policy suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, people would not get a market purchase price. They would get the least favourable price at which it was possible to buy the property. Then we would be looking forward to another Conservative Government at the earliest possible time to allow those properties to be bought back by the people to whom they rightfully belong.
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the acquisition of council property the district valuer decides the price level, which could affect either the owner-occupier or the tenant? Does he not understand that?
      Mr. Hendry: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West outlined his new policy involving compulsory purchase of empty properties in the private sector, although he did not elaborate on how his policy would work. Valuation may be done by the district valuer or it may simply be based on whatever price the hon. Gentleman cares to work out on the back of an envelope. Unless the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is willing to elaborate on his policy—sadly he is not in the Chamber now—we cannot know how it would work.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: In view of the confusion on the Opposition Benches about the compulsory purchase option canvassed by Opposition Members, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to make clear how the policy would operate in practice or to say that the policy is not a policy of the official Opposition?
      Mr. Hendry: I am sure that it is not merely incumbent on the Front-Bench spokesman. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will wish to outline his approach and that of the Front-Bench team to that policy development. I hope that he has the backing of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and will be able to say from where the £15 billion to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has just committed the Labour party will come.
      Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the large number of empty houses in the private sector. He accepted

      657
      that it was too large and that he would like to do something about it. Does he also accept that some of the houses remain empty because the owners want to sell them but cannot find a buyer and that, therefore, one of the quickest ways of bringing those houses back into occupation is for the Government to continue to give money to the housing associations to purchase second-hand homes and put them back into the cheap rented sector?
      Mr. Hendry: Clearly, we have a competition on the Opposition Benches for who can spend the most public money in the shortest possible time. Several initiatives designed to bring back into use empty houses in the private sector have already been introduced. To name just one, under the housing associations as managing agents—HAMA—initiative, housing associations can take over the letting and management of houses. So if people are worried about letting their property themselves, they can let it in a much more constructive and safe way than might otherwise have been the case.
      A huge amount of money—the best part of £1 billion—went into the housing market package. Although I broadly welcome the package, one element that worried me was that too often housing associations went to a local builder and bought up all the houses on a newly built estate. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke of a desire to see those houses bought around the community. I welcome that, but it has not always happened. Too often, an entire estate is bought up, with the result that anxieties about the same sort of people living in estates can materialise.
      I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to go back to Liberal authorities—particularly Tower Hamlets, which is one of the worst offenders in terms of sitting on empty local authority housing—with the same imagination and suggest that they do more to bring their empty properties back into use. Perhaps he could suggest some measures as draconian as those proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. For example, if people see local authority housing left empty too long, perhaps they should be allowed to buy it back from the local authority.
      Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although Tower Hamlets council is desperately trying to bring back into use empty properties owned by the council, as a result of the Government's housing policies, the lack of finance coming through and the capping of local authority finances, it is impossible for the council to do so faster than it is now?
      Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking some basic facts. If Tower Hamlets were slightly better at collecting rents and the council tax it would not have that problem. If the council had not achieved an indebtedness to which some third-world countries can only aspire, it would be paying far less in interest rates and could spend that money on services for the community instead.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend is being too generous to Tower Hamlets borough council. He has not mentioned its shambolic organisation of local services. Bureaucracy between the centre and the community, via all those neighbourhood councils, is slowing down lettings and administration and causing much of the problem.
      Mr. Hendry: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. We know the sort of election tactics that the Liberal Democrats have had to resort to in Tower Hamlets to
      658
      ensure that they continue to get their constituents' vote in spite of the way in which they are running the local authority.
      In recent years, housing in my constituency has improved significantly. The housing condition survey shows that people in the country as a whole are living in better housing than ever before. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister was able to visit my constituency last week to see the improvements being made on the Fairfield estate, where, under the estate action programme, money has been used radically to improve living conditions in nearly 200 houses. The estate was built in one of the coldest parts of my constituency, which is one of the coldest parts of the country. Even a duffle coat was scarcely enough to protect the Minister from the elements. Houses on the estate have been radically improved with better insulation and new windows and that has been possible only because of the money made available to the local authority under the estate action programme.
      I was especially pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister used his visit to encourage people to take part in the rent-to-mortgage scheme, whereby they can change their rents into mortgages without paying a penny more. Their aspirations for home ownership can thus be met and it is an imaginative policy, for which my right hon. Friend should take much credit. People who aspire to ownership but are worried about the commitment involved in taking on a mortgage can gradually take over ownership of their property. I hope that my constituents will take that policy to heart.
      I welcome the tenants incentive scheme to encourage people who live in local authority housing and housing association properties to take a cash sum to buy a property elsewhere. As the hon. Member for Newbury will appreciate, that is a boost to the private sector, as it will enable some private houses to be bought and will immediately make available additional houses in the social rented sector.
      If we are to debate the subject sensibly—today's debate has been sensible—the distortions must be removed. It saddens me greatly that no organisation has done more to damage sensible discussion than the charity Shelter. I have been in regular contact with Shelter for some years, especially as chairman of the all-party group on homelessness and have built up a great respect for its work. However, the publicity material that Shelter is publishing now is in breach of its charitable status. There are clear guidelines on what it is acceptable for a charity to do and it is regrettable that Shelter has passed beyond that barrier. As that organisation receives £1 million a year in public funds, it has a direct duty—
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hendry: No. Shelter has a duty to ensure that it does not distort deliberately the facts and continually exaggerate. I have therefore written to the Charity Commissioners to ask—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware that Shelter is a housing association.
      Mr. Hendry: Indeed it is not, but affordable housing is one of the issues that Shelter has been discussing most and it is also a core issue in the debate. If we want a sensible debate on affordable housing we must do without the distortions that Shelter has put about in its packs for

      659
      schools and letters to subscribers. It is important that we draw those distortions to the attention of the relevant authorities. In view of your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not pursue the matter, but it is crucial that Shelter should be aware that its campaign has been rumbled and will not be further tolerated.
      We must be aware of the amount of money that has been put into the Housing Corporation and housing associations. That money has enabled many more of our people than ever before to live in better conditions. It is a record of which the Government can be proud and I hope that it will encourage hon. Members to endorse the Select Committee's report.
      5.54 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and especially by his attack on Shelter. It is pretty despicable to attack an organisation for exercising its right to free speech, which I thought was a fundamental principle in this country. His attack is appalling and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, who represented High Peak with such distinction, would not have sunk to such an activity. It was unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman introduced such a note into the debate, as it had been useful and constructive.
      I hope that the Minister will take rather more notice of the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery). I would not normally agree with the views of the hon. Gentleman, but his contribution was a clear warning to the Government that major problems will result if they insist on pushing housing association grant down.
      I must pay tribute to the Select Committee's advisers, who served us extremely well, and to its officials. I join the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) in also paying tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who demonstrated that a Select Committee can deal with a politically controversial issue effectively without getting into the yah-boo of party politics. The Committee's report is a valuable contribution to the housing debate and the Chairman should take credit for that. Although I do not like praising Conservative Members, on this occasion I do so warmly.
      In my constituency, the housing shortage is a fundamental problem. When I was first elected as the Member for the old constituency of Stockport, North, about 4,000 people were on the housing waiting list in the metropolitan borough of Stockport, but more than 8,000 people are on the waiting list now and the authority has fewer properties at its command because some have been sold. There are fewer homes to rent. Homeless people on the waiting list in Stockport spend far more time in hostels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation than they did for almost the whole time that I represented the constituency.
      In Tameside, the situation is not as bad, because it has a larger stock of council dwellings and there is more private rented accommodation. During the years that I have represented that area, however, the position has got steadily worse.
      660
      One of the key facts in the report is that we are producing between 70,000 and 80,000 fewer dwellings than are necessary to meet the need. It does not matter how much the Government want to change their approach to homelessness; unless they deal with our failure to build sufficient houses, they will merely be changing the statistics and not the underlying reality. If, by the turn of the century, we are about 500,000 houses short, however much we change the definition of homelessness the position will get worse. It is essential that we build those houses.
      The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale explained to the Government how crazy it is to add so many building workers to the numbers of unemployed, rather than giving them the opportunity to produce the houses that we so desperately need. I do not mind how the Government do it and whether they use housing associations or council building programmes, but I plead with them to deal with the shortage of dwellings, because until they do so, they will not solve the problem of homelessness.
      I should prefer the Government to go for an approach that involves both housing associations and local authorities in doing some of the building. In both Tameside and Stockport, the local authority and the housing association have developed some very good partnership schemes whereby the local authority provides the land and the housing association does the building. That is clearly appropriate for some of the bigger sites.
      In respect of three areas of my constituency, however, I do not believe that that is the right approach. The first area is Haughton Green, which has a substantial Manchester overspill estate. It is an extremely well-run estate, built in the 1960s and consisting of high-quality dwellings that are extremely well looked after. A couple of the tower blocks have problems, but the rest of the houses are much appreciated by the tenants. That estate was built on a plan that involved a great deal of open space. Some of that open space is useful for young people to play on, but some of it is not really usable. It would be possible for Manchester to build a small number of dwellings to infill some of those spaces. Whereas it would be complicated to set things up so that housing associations could put two houses here and two small bungalows there, it would be very easy for Manchester to do that infilling. I only wish that the Government would allow it to get on and do it.
      The same applies to the Yew Tree estate in Tameside. Admittedly, that estate was built over old pit workings and some of the open spaces on the estate are probably necessary because of what is underneath them. But much of the open space on that 1970s estate is not necessary, and a substantial number of infill dwellings could be accommodated. Again, that would be a complicated process for a housing association to undertake. It would be far more logical to let the local authority build.
      The third area of my constituency is in the Stockport part of my constituency at Brinnington, where several blocks of flats have been pulled down. Again, it would be far more logical to allow the council to build replacement dwellings of the type that people want than to insist on the task going to housing associations.
      When the Committee started its inquiry, one of the big issues was whether the Housing Corporation would insist on a super-league consisting of a small number of housing associations, not showing much enthusiasm for small housing associations. It appeared during the inquiry that the idea of a super-league had disappeared. In a sense,

      661
      however, the Government are bringing the idea back by the way in which they are changing the grant levels. As they bring the grant level down, they make life difficult for all housing associations. But at least the big housing associations—those with a lot of existing stock—can share out the problem by increasing the rents of some of their older properties to cross-subsidise newer developments. But many of the small housing associations—especially those that I thought that the Government wanted to encourage, to deal with the problems of ethnic minority groups and people with learning difficulties, for example—will be disadvantaged.
      Small associations designed to specialise in providing accommodation for those particular groups do not have the big stock necessary for cross-subsidisation. For those specialist housing associations, the reduction in the grant level is particularly harsh. The Government are returning to the idea of the super-league by insisting that grant levels come down. Moreover, as grant levels come down, so the poverty trap gets worse.
      The Government have been chided about family values. On one or two of the housing association properties in my constituency, the Government, by the way in which they are setting the rules, are doing everything to destroy the family and to make it difficult for people to create new families. When the housing association offers dwellings to the local authority as agreed lettings, the local authority tends to offer those dwellings to people who are on benefits, because it does not believe that in my constituency people who are in work can afford the rents. The dwellings therefore go to people on benefits—more often than not, to women on their own with one or two small children, probably following a failed marriage or liaison.
      The woman may quickly become involved 'with someone else, but there is absolutely no chance that that man will move into the house because the rent that he would then have to pay is so high as to make such a move prohibitive. The man may visit on a pretty regular basis and in some cases may take a considerable amount of responsibility for the children, but it is not a state of affairs which anyone should be encouraging and it has been created solely as a result of the existing benefits system.
      If the Government are concerned to encourage people to establish new households, they must examine that problem. They must recognise that major difficulties exist in relation to the present level of dependency on benefits of people in those circumstances.
      I want to refer briefly to the role of the ombudsman. I do not believe that the ombudsman can have any credibility as long as he functions within the Housing Corporation set-up. I think that it is a mistake to go on setting up ombudsmen for insurance, for banking and so on. It would be far better to increase the powers of the national ombudsman to cover all those areas.
      Certainly as regards the Housing Corporation, it would be far better for the powers of the national ombudsman to take in the Housing Corporation and the housing associations rather than keeping them separate. I have received a considerable number of complaints about housing association property provided for the elderly and about the promises that were made about housing associations managing such property, especially in shared ownership schemes, to take away the worry. In many cases, the charges for providing the services have caused a great deal of concern.
      662
      I do not want to trade questions about empty properties across the Floor of the House today. I do, however, want to make a plea to the Government about empty properties. On three or four of the council estates that I know well, individual properties have been empty for six months and, in one case, for over 12 months. Those properties were bought by tenants under the right-to-buy provisions. Relatively soon afterwards, the buyers got into mortgage difficulties and the properties were repossessed by the building society. They have remained empty ever since. They are proving virtually impossible to sell.
      The building societies are extremely reluctant to go on knocking the price down to dispose of them; they are hanging on in the hope that, at some stage, they will get the asking price. Some of those houses are pretty dilapidated. One of them was more or less vandalised by the owner before he moved out. They are detracting from the appearance of the estate and are making the council the subject of criticism, as many people think that they belong to the council and that it is leaving them empty, not realising that the estate agent's board, long ago knocked down, is lying in the garden.
      It would be a simple matter for the Government to give local authorities permission to buy back properties on council estates and put them back into use. That would not involve a great change of policy and it would make a lot of sense. I should like the Government to allow local authorities much more freedom over their capital receipts. If they cannot give them that general freedom, however, I plead with the Minister to let the council buy properties back—especially the very small number of houses that were bought from the council and which cannot now be sold—and put them quickly back into use.
      The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned the question of living over the shop. I advise him not to get too enthusiastic about it because some of the worst property to let in my constituency is over shops. It is often pretty appalling accommodation. If one is to live over the shop, the accommodation must be properly renovated to a high standard.
      6.9 pm
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on his chairmanship of the Committee and on his report, which gives us the opportunity for the debate.
      I should like to consider a number of paragraphs in the Government's response to that report, starting with paragraphs 31 to 34, on the role of the private rented sector. The report states:
      "The Government is keen to see a revival of the private rented sector … the Government will consider the case for further assistance to increase the supply of private rented accommodation".
      When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will give some idea of the Government's further thinking on exactly what is being proposed. He will be aware of the proposals in my pamphlet. He might consider that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which is currently in Committee, represents a convenient opportunity to table new clauses to allow tenants to select a new landlord without that landlord necessarily having to be approved by the Housing Corporation. That approval denies choice to tenants who wish to opt for a new landlord. Why can they

      663
      not choose their own landlords? Why should they have to seek the approval of the Housing Corporation or anyone else? That restriction should be removed.
      If new lettings of council houses were offered on the basis of the Housing Act 1988, under assured tenancies, councils' ability to sell rented accommodation, if they so wished, would not be restricted.
      The Labour party's current document on housing states that the private rented sector
      "badly needs a boost."
      Exactly what the Opposition mean by that and what they intend to suggest has not been made clear. Although the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that he did not mind how the shortage of housing was addressed, he did not suggest any positive ideas on how the private rented sector could contribute.
      The size of the British private rented sector is well below that of other countries; it is half the average size in the OECD countries and under one quarter of that in west Germany. In Switzerland, the private rented sector accounts for 56 per cent. of all housing. The average useful floor space per head in Britain is 32 sq m in comparison with 36 sq m in the other 11 member states of the European Community. It is possible that the greater contribution made by the private rented sector in other countries in comparison with that in Britain has made it possible for those countries to provide more floor space per head.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Thurnham: We are short of time, so I will not give way.
      Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Government's response to the Committee's report refer to housing benefit. I notice that a working group has been established by the Departments of the Environment and of Social Security to discuss that matter regularly. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell me whether that working group is producing a report and whether, under the provisions of open government, mentioned elsewhere in the Government's report, its work might be made more available. It would be interesting to see exactly what is proposed for housing benefit. Would it be possible to consider it in a different way so that the growth of that benefit can be controlled?
      Paragraphs 66 and 69 of the Government's response refer to special needs. I understand that some friendly societies would be interested in investing in housing for people with disabilities. It would be worth exploring that possibility further because of the current restrictions in financing such projects.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has departed, but he made a strong attack on Tower Hamlets, which probably stems from the fact that it was subject to 30 years of uninterrupted, complacent Labour rule, before electoral change. If Tower Hamlets was under a Conservative administration, some of the recent developments would be worth considering. It is interesting to note that the local authority has been broken down into seven neighbourhood units. Considerable savings have been made by the business services unit, which I visited last week. I was extremely impressed by the savings that have been made by breaking down centralised services and
      664
      running them on a decentralised basis. Lessons could be learnt and it was suggested that the Government should set up an inquiry to consider what has happened in Tower Hamlets. I dare say that there would be much to consider on the political side, but we could learn positive lessons from the way in which the authority is run now that services have been decentralised.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: As a resident and council tax payer in Tower Hamlets, I do not share my hon. Friend's perception of Tower Hamlets as an efficient devolved administration.
      Mr. Thurnham: As he is a resident of Tower Hamlets, I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge, but I believe that lessons could be learnt about the way in which the business services unit is run. I would enjoy discussing with my hon. Friend some of the points that were made to me during my visit. I am grateful for that intervention, and I feel that I should now give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) the opportunity to intervene.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: The moment has passed by, but I wanted to intervene when the hon. Member made a comparison between our rented sector, including the private sector, and that of other countries, which is so much stronger. Perhaps that is due to the fact that in those countries renting is given parity of esteem with owner-occupation. Conservative Members give the game away when they talk about aspiring to owner-occupation as if that was somehow superior to renting. Until that argument is dropped, we will not be free of the ghettoisation of rented and social housing. Conservative Members should address that important issue.
      Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Lady is looking at the matter from the wrong angle, because the issue is whether property is privately or publicly owned. The advantage enjoyed by the countries that I mentioned is that they have a large privately owned sector—whether it is privately rented or owner-occupied is subsidiary to the advantage gained by the size of that sector. What distinguishes our country is that we have a high level of socially rented accommodation. I accept that the national figure for such accommodation has come down to 21 per cent., but in my constituency in Bolton the number of council houses has only fallen from 26,000 in 1983 to 23,000 today.
      Council houses represent part of the enormous assets of councils. I asked Bolton council officials for the total value of its assets. Although they did not have an up-to-date valuation, they estimated that, on the basis of insurance values, its total assets were worth £600 million. I estimate that housing may account for half of that figure. Substantial assets are held in public ownership and the issue should be how to get those assets transferred into private ownership.
      The Mail on Sunday listed the debts of local authorities and compared them with those of third world countries. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish might be interested to learn that Manchester's debt, which currently stands at £1.3 billion, is second only to that of El Salvador. I advocate that more council houses should be sold to reduce that debt. The total amount of all local authority debt is £37.5 billion.
      Mr. Raynsford: That has nothing to do with the debate.
      Mr. Thurnham: It has everything to do with it, because the private sector represents the way in which to solve our housing problems.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Thurnham: No. I have given way to the hon. Lady once.
      The private sector has played a great role in Switzerland, for example, which has a socially rented accommodation sector of just 14 per cent., according to the latest figures that I have seen. Why do we have a social rented sector twice that level? I am satisfied that resources could be made available far more efficiently through the private rented sector than through the public sector.
      6.18 pm
      Mr. John Battle: I welcome the opportunity to debate the report on the Housing Corporation by the Select Committee on the Environment. Some hon. Members on that Committee may recall that in December 1991 I asked whether the previous Chairman, Sir Hugh Rossi, would lead the Committee's debate on housing associations, with particular reference to their affordability and the impact of housing benefit. Therefore, I am especially pleased that a substantial piece of work on the Housing Corporation has been undertaken by the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), and I hope that it will not be another decade before the Environment Select Committee finds time to consider housing issues again.
      Since the publication of the Committee's report, time has moved on for all of us. I add a word of welcome to the newly appointed chairman of the Housing Corporation, Sir Brian Pearse. Although we welcome the Committee's report and its unanimous consensus in its recommendations and compliment the Committee on its work, I must register disappointment at the thinness of the Government's official response. That response, published in October last year, seems to have deliberately played down, if not side-stepped, the thrust and urgency of the Select Committee report's recommendations—the need to tackle the problem of affordability of housing association properties, squeezed between reducing grant rates on the one hand and inevitably high and increasing rents on the other, caught between housing association grant cuts and now the threatened housing benefit cuts.
      Although Ministers have tried to reassure us and suggested that people on no or low incomes have no reason to worry because, in the words of the Housing Minister,
      "housing benefit will take the strain",
      in recent weeks the threatening noises off from the Secretary of State for Social Security suggest that housing benefit may now prove to be the strands of a fraying rope. Housing benefit represents £8.7 billion of public expenditure and the Secretary of State for Social Security has made it clear, in articles that appeared in the newspapers on 3 March this year, that it is now to be targeted by his Department.
      It is also appropriate that the debate takes place in the context of the estimates, because that supportive arithmetic is crucial to the survival of housing associations as well as to the ability of tenants to pay their rent. In other words, the funding arrangements are at the core of the discussion. I hope that the Minister will not give us that new evasive expression, "I hear what you say" but mutter under his breath, "but I shall not do anything about it".
      666
      Recently, the Housing Corporation published the report "The Next 3 Years: The Housing Corporation's Plans and Priorities 1994–1997", partly in response to the Select Committee's recommendations. That welcome document takes on board the need for regional development, with the newly established regional consultative meetings, the improvement of the tenants' guarantee and tenants' rights, continued support for tenant participation and the setting up of the housing associations ombudsman service—all positive responses, and all warmly welcomed by Opposition Members. The report also, encouragingly, says that this year's focus will be on care in the community provision. That is welcome, too.
      However, I suspect, thinking of the ombudsman's service, that already many housing associations' tenants are writing to the ombudsman—as they are doing to Members of Parliament—complaining about their rent increases. Rapidly increasing rents are the main bone of contention, increasing at well above the inflation rate and pricing out those people who are not on middle incomes or who depend entirely on housing benefit. As the Select Committee report succinctly put it in paragraph 5,
      "In considering housing association grant rates the Government will have to bear in mind the likely consequences of its decisions in terms of affordability, availability of private finance and benefit dependency".
      The Minister will have to take seriously the words and reported comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security because he has been reported as saying that he wants measures to
      "discourage local authorities from paying housing benefit for unnecessarily expensive property".
      That is precisely the problem which confronts many housing associations, because their properties are proving expensive. Notably, in his chairman's foreword to The Next 3 Years", Sir Christopher Benson remarked:
      "There are occasions when given the nature of our relationship with the Department of Environment it is inappropriate for us to enter into open debate. These occasions arc in the main in the period prior to annual decisions being announced on public expenditure."
      Although it is easy to understand the difficulty that the Housing Corporation faces in publicly challenging the Government on setting housing association grant rates, it is not so easy to understand why the Housing Minister, in paragraph 2 of the Government's response, simply says:
      "Many of the recommendations are primarily addressed to the Housing Corporation. The Government's response takes account of the Corporation's views."
      If the corporation cannot take a public view on the arithmetic, I suggest that it is unacceptable for the Minister to push the Select Committee report back in the Housing Corporation's direction, thus fobbing off the key recommendations that the Select Committee spelt out—again I quote from the report:
      "Unless the poverty trap consequences of the Housing Benefit tapers are addressed, or procurement costs fall, proposals to make further reductions in HAG rates should be dropped."
      That is a strong statement. Although Sir Christopher Benson feels that he cannot comment publicly, the Minister cannot dismiss the recommendations as being primarily addressed to the Housing Corporation. The core recommendations of that consensus report are primarily addressed to the Government and to the Housing Minister and perhaps to that most powerful background voice of all in this connection—that of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
      In spite of the Select Committee's unanimous and strong call for further HAG rate reductions to be dropped,

      667
      on 4 August last year the Housing Minister went ahead and announced a HAG level for 1994–95 fixed at a national rate ceiling of 62 per cent. Either he did not hear or did not want to respond to the thrust of the Select Committee report, or he ignored it because he was overruled by the Treasury. He cannot simply pass on Treasury cuts and hope that the housing associations survive.
      The Government plan to reduce HAG to 55 per cent. by 1995–96. That will again massively increase rents and in turn increase the housing benefit bill.
      Last week, the Department of Social Security's annual report was published. It showed that rent allowances for private and housing association tenants are increasing by an average of 6.5 per cent. in real terms compared with 14.3 per cent. during the past four years. Yet figures from the National Federation of Housing Associations show rents increasing between 17 and 20 per cent. in 1993–94. As a result of rent increases of that nature, people will be priced out of housing associations and housing associations will be priced out of development entirely. They will be forced to cease to build and will have to live off their seed corn.
      It is important that the question of the so-called benefit trap, poverty trap or work disincentives is clearly understood. The Select Committee report recommended
      "that the Government instruct a Cabinet Committee or inter-Departmental working group to review the relationship between HAG rates and benefit entitlements and to develop a strategy for easing the problems faced by housing association tenants and others caught in the poverty trap."
      In the Government response, the Minister stated:
      "The Government maintains that in general it is a more efficient use of public resources to target subsidy on individuals through the benefits system, rather than on bricks and mortar through HAG."
      We have heard echoes of that policy from Conservative Members today.
      Although the Minister claimed, in his response to the report, that
      "The Department of the Environment, Department of Social Security and the Treasury work closely together to ensure that the interaction between the different subsidy systems is understood and appreciated",
      that is not what comes through. We believe that that approach is economic nonsense in the long term. Bricks and mortar are more efficient in the long term, and in housing we need to reinstate subsidies that go in the direction of bricks and mortar. I would rather direct towards the language of future investment. It is also difficult to believe that the Government have done the arithmetic.
      I recall that, at the time of the deregulation of the private rented sector, the Housing Bill of 1988 was passing through the House. In Committee, I asked the Minister what impact he thought that high market rents would have on the Department of Social Security budget. He replied that he did not expect them to have any impact.
      At that time, some of us were having to serve on two Committees simultaneously. The Social Security Bill was in Committee just along the Corridor, and I went to ask the Minister involved whether he knew that subsidised high rents in the private rented sector would absorb most of the social security budget, because they would absorb housing benefit.
      668
      Last week, the Downing street press office was telephoned about information in the newspapers concerning the intention of the Department of Social Security to target and cut housing benefit. Apparently, the press office responded to that serious inquiry by saying that housing benefit was solely a matter for local authorities, and was increasing because of high council rents. It did not spell out the fact that local authority rented properties are less expensive than housing association properties, which in turn are much less expensive than properties in the private rented sector. There seems to be great confusion at the heart of Government—a difficulty in understanding the link between housing benefit and rents across the board.
      The real problem is not experienced by the pensioner on full state pension, without the £2 supplementary occupational pension that floats such people out of housing benefit; nor is it experienced by the unemployed person on full housing benefit who takes on a housing association flat. Let us suppose that an unemployed person on full housing benefit visits a jobcentre and is offered a job at £140 a week—such offers are still a reality. If that person's rent is £65 a week once housing benefit has been discounted, he may well feel that he must turn down the job because he will lose his benefit. Many people are now describing that position as a work disincentive.
      The Social Security Bill Committee to which I referred earlier—the Committee that was sitting at the same time as the Committee considering the Housing Bill of 1988—spelt out that anyone who turned down a job offer would lose all entitlement to benefit. That is worse than being asked to choose between job and home: unless the matter is sorted out, people may well lose both. They are being caught between high rents and the difficulties involved in having to depend on benefit to cover those rents. That is because we have a Government who are addicted to a policy of high rents, and are unable to understand that that, does not square with high unemployment and low wages unless a huge housing benefit bill is to be created. This year's bill is £8.7 billion, the projected figure for next year is £10 billion, and that for the year after is £12 billion.
      According to the Secretary of State for Social Security, the only way out is for the Treasury to cut housing benefit. In practice, that means that people will be unable to make up the difference to pay their high rents, and will have to move out of their homes.
      Interestingly, the Minister has revealed that the Government's own affordability formula assumes that working households without any housing benefit can afford to spend 35 per cent. of their net incomes on rent. That is contradicted by the work of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which recently adopted the following policy:
      "Rents are affordable if the majority of working households taking up new tenancies are not caught in the poverty trap (because of dependency on housing benefit) or paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income on rent."
      In other words, rents are not affordable when more than 50 per cent. of working tenants are caught in the benefit trap through dependency on housing benefit, or—if they do not receive such benefit—spend more than 25 per cent. of their incomes on rent. Yet an increasing proportion of housing association rents in new lettings exceed that crucial criterion.

      669
      Responding to recommendations that particular proposals for further reductions in HAG rates be dropped until the resolution of the problems, the Minister said—in paragraph 50 of the Government's response—
      "The Government's decision was taken after consideration of a range of factors including the likely effect of lower grant rates on housing association rents, likely changes in procurement and borrowing costs, in income levels; the implication of likely changes in rent levels for housing benefit expenditure."
      Does the Minister for Housing Inner Cities and Construction—unlike his Treasury colleagues—recognise that the incomes of those at the lowest levels are falling, and that, as a consequence, housing benefit must inexorably rise to cover the gap between incomes and rents? More and more of the disposable income of tenants who do not receive housing benefit will be absorbed by their rent.
      On 1 February, on Radio 4, Anthony Mayer said:
      "At a rent of £55, a couple with a child has to earn over £12,000 a year … to escape the poverty trap."
      According to paragraph 53 of the Government's response, however,
      "The Government took account of findings from the Housing Corporation which indicated that the effects on rents of lower grant rates would be offset by changes in procurement and borrowing costs and in income levels."
      When the Minister appeared before the Environment Select Committee on 21 April 1993, he refused to comment on the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) about Housing Corporation advice to the Minister on HAG levels. He said that that was not a matter to be dealt with by the Committee. Since then, Anthony Mayer—who is chief executive of the Housing Corporation—has spoken to the committee members' conference of the National Federation of Housing Associations. He is reported to have said, on Friday 21 January, that the Housing Corporation board recommended retention of 67 per cent. HAG rates for 1994–95. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he rejected the Housing Corporation's advice when all the comments in the Government's response suggest that they were taking the Housing Corporation's findings on board.
      At a private seminar for lenders, Anthony Mayer went on to reveal that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had made it clear that the Government would do nothing to housing benefit that would compromise the position of housing associations, adding:
      "If the Government did make significant cuts in housing benefit the result would be immediate catastrophe. I would advise you all to resign immediately. The pack of cards would fold very quickly."
      In other words, there was a real danger that, as well as pricing out tenants, the removal of housing benefits would frighten away private investors and destabilise housing associations.
      Already, housing benefit is regarded as an insecure political variable—an unreliable income stream, subject to the cuts imposed by the Secretary of State for Social Security. That is why private investors are now backing off from all but the largest housing associations—those that can pool larger amounts of rent.
      It is difficult to discern where the Government's housing policy is headed. The Housing Corporation and housing associations are now caught in the centre of conflicting policies. Paragraph 68 of the Government's response stresses that the real strength of the housing association sector lies in diversity of management,
      670
      particularly when an association can bring specialised management skills to bear, or can offer a localised base for effective and sensitive housing management.
      We agree with that entirely; yet, in practice, Government policy pulls in the opposite direction. The Government are squeezing out special needs provision, and undermining the special needs management allowance with the Treasury cap on revenue support. That has led to a reduction in the supported housing association programme to 2,500 units for 1994–95.
      Furthermore, at the recent Housing Corporation conference, the Minister announced the introduction of arrangements to promote competition for capital and revenue needs in regard to supported housing. That will pile more pressure on the special needs sector. Smaller associations, particularly in rural areas, are still locked in the impasse of what charitable organisations can do—not least because, in such areas, those on low incomes cannot take up what the Government are promoting as share ownership schemes.
      Support has been withdrawn from self-build and co-ops. The Housing Corporation's capital support for housing co-operation developments has reached an all-time low: it is 1.54 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1994–95.
      The crucial issues of affordability, high rents, benefits, housing association rates and the effect of driving away private finance, as well as the key issue of diversity, have been side-stepped in the Government's response. As a result, housing associations will be forced simply to recreate the worst conditions of the large local authority estates of the past. The fundamental problem is lack of Government direction, the absence of a cohesive housing policy. Britain needs more homes for renting rather than a further Housing Corporation cut of £500 million, as happened in this year's Budget. We do not need more incentives to buy through tenant incentive schemes. We do not need more shared ownership schemes. What we need are policies that will result in the provision of more homes for renting.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Does not the tenants incentive scheme demonstrate the lack of coherence in the Government's policy? The resources for that scheme have been increased massively, but there has been no evaluation of the effectiveness of the policy. When I was involved in the scheme, I found that many of the people taking advantage of it would have bought homes and, therefore, moved out of housing association property in any case. This is yet another example of the residualisation of the social rented sector.
      Mr. Battle: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which proves that the Government are facing two ways. On one hand, a Secretary of State announces that there is no further need to build homes in Britain—in the homelessness review, the Government have a line about future generations who will not thank us for building more homes—but, on the other, there is more and more pushing in the direction of expanding home ownership at the expense of the rented sector. That is why the Government are in real difficulty. On the question of housing association policy, they are between a rock and a hard place.
      Labour believes that there is an absolute and acute shortage of homes to rent. We believe that unemployed

      671
      building workers could be used now to provide homes for renting. Capital receipts could and should be released for investment. We believe that housing associations, although they account for only 3 per cent. of the housing stock in Britain, have a dynamic and vital innovative role to play in the full panoply of housing provision and homes to rent. They ought not to be abandoned or priced out. Housing associations should be locally rooted and locally accountable to tenants and communities. They should be strengthened so that they may reassert their traditional role, including vital specialist provision. They should be allowed to develop and expand rehabilitation and to provide positive support for diversification. There is a positive vision for housing associations, but, referring to the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, I have to say that we are looking not for comment but for action.
      6.42 pm
      The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): Like other hon. Members, I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate to acknowledge the work of the Select Committee on the Environment. As we discovered during a Supply day debate on housing a few weeks ago, this is a subject on which we do not always manage to achieve unanimity. However, the Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), has produced a consensus report, which makes a very valuable contribution to the Housing Corporation's future "Operations in social housing. I congratulate the Committee on its achievement. Indeed, it has led to a moderate and consensual debate today.
      To the extent to which the confusion referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has existed, one detected some signs of incipient tension among Opposition Members. On one hand, we had the Dunfermline decree that there should be no new public expenditure commitments; on the other hand, we heard the expansionist ambitions of several Opposition Back-Bench Members. I see some trouble ahead. One of my constituents said to me at the weekend, "What is the point in supporting the Labour party if it does not intend to spend any more than the Tories?" The incipient tension to which I have referred is demonstrated by the contrast between what the Opposition would like to do—
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir George Young: Sorry, no. I have been done out of a couple of minutes by the hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West.
      The Government's response was published last October. We indicated our acceptance of the majority of the recommendations and our intention to act on them. Many have already been implemented, and others are being taken forward. I shall try to deal with the key points raised by the Committee's Chairman. There will not be enough time to get through all of them, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about those to which I do not manage to refer and shall, perhaps, copy the letter to other members of the Committee.
      672
      The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) rightly invited us to put housing in a slightly broader social context. He referred to a constituent confronted with a rent of, I think, £70 a week for a new housing association property. There is a trade-off between rents and output. If we had not taken our decisions on grant rates, the hon. Gentleman's constituent might not have had any property to move into.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) made a thoughtful speech, which touched on the issue of affordability. He raised a number of questions—for example, deemed interest on savings—for which the Department of Social Security is responsible. He rightly identified the mistakes that we made in the 1960s and the 1970s—some of the developments that were undertaken with the best of intentions but with disastrous results. I welcome the work that my hon. Friend's wife does on the Housing Corporation and as the chairman of a very substantial housing association.
      The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred to a conversation with his authority's director of housing. That officer is somewhat unusual in that his housing stock has been transferred. This is a policy on which the Government are keen, as it not only generates capital receipts, which can be recycled into investment in social housing, but enables the local authority to concentrate on its strategic and enabling role.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulty, in the case of one estate, of promoting shared ownership. If he looks at our plans, he will see that that is not the only home ownership initiative. There is the tenants incentive scheme, which is very popular and has nearly always been oversubscribed, and there are the low-cost home ownership proposals, which do not involve shared ownership and represent a growing part of the Housing Corporation's programme. The objections to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not apply with the same force to these other aspects. The hon. Gentleman talked about the flats over shops scheme—something on which I am keen. The Government have put about £25 million of public money on the table to drive the policy forward.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) was right to refer to the financial management of housing associations. Where there are substantial reserves, the Government encourage local housing associations to plough the funds back into fresh development. My hon. Friend was right to suggest that those resources are meant for investment in housing. In the case of a non-charitable housing association, there is normally an associated right to buy. But that does not cover certain properties that are particularly suitable for letting to the elderly. I should like to write to my hon. Friend about this matter.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised a number of points. I should like to deal with one of them—the issue of transporting families from one borough to another. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, and I repeat, that one borough should not export its problems to another unless the latter has so agreed. Each borough should develop a strategy to sort out its own problems. If it has greater needs, it will be provided, through the allocation process, with greater resources with which to tackle them.
      I enjoyed very much the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). It was cold in High Peak the weekend before last, but the visit was very worth

      673
      while. My hon. Friend rightly focused on the key currency of lettings as opposed to new build. My hon. Friend was right to concentrate on the potential for bringing 850,000 empty properties back into use—not, as was proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, by purchase, which would involve the expenditure of a very substantial amount of public money, raising the eyebrows of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), but by the promotion of management arrangements whereby the public sector would not have to own the properties but would have the benefit of letting them, using housing associations as an intermediary.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
      Sir George Young: If I am to do justice to the debate and deal with the questions that have been raised, I shall have to plough on.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that the local authority housing stock had been diminished through the right to buy. One must put on the other side of the scales the increased nominations to housing associations through new lets and relets. One must look at the total picture. Last week, I had a chat with the ombudsman, Roger Jeffries. I was impressed by the way in which Mr. Jeffries was making progress with complaints and, in particular, by his work on the promotion of mediation as a means of bringing disputes to a satisfactory conclusion. That is a matter in which I am very interested.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) rightly reminded us of the importance of the private rented sector. The latest figures show that the decline has been arrested and that sector now accounts for a growing percentage of tenure, which I welcome. My hon. Friend had some radical new ideas on tenant ownership on which the Government are reflecting.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, West made a rather alarmist speech. We have made it clear that we are reducing the housing association grant rate to get more units out of the given amount of public funds and it would be absurd to pursue those policies to the extent that one got no units because there was no funding. At the end of his speech, he worked himself up into a minor frenzy about the absence of housing policy. I suggest that he reads the editorial in the latest edition of Roof magazine, which contains some punchy criticism of any new thinking on housing by the Labour party. The editorial in Roof magazine does not usually spring to my support, so the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on what thoughtful people who write about housing are saying about the vacuum in Labour party policy.
      In the remaining time available, I shall deal quickly with some of the issues raised before I mention affordability. The Select Committee on the Environment referred to the constitution of the corporation's board and how appointments are made. Although it recognised that members of a public board could not be representative, it wanted a slightly broader mix of appointments. I am pleased to report that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said, earlier this month we appointed to the board two new members with precisely the skills for which the Select Committee invited us to look. Derek Waddington has had a long career in local government and is currently director of housing in Birmingham, which is the largest housing authority in the country. We also appointed Roger Council, who is a welfare benefits adviser
      674
      and a tenant of Yorkshire Metropolitan housing association. In 1992, he became the first elected tenant representative on its management committee. I am sure that both will both make a valuable contribution to the work of the Housing Corporation.
      Last week, we appointed Sir Brian Pearse as chairman of the corporation from 1 April. I am grateful for the kind words of all hon. Members about Sir Brian. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to Sir Christopher Benson for his important contribution to the changes that have been carried through in the past four years. It has been a difficult and challenging time for the corporation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West invited me to give a progress report on regional committees. We were not persuaded that a formal structure of regional committees was necessary, but we agreed that a forum to provide for regional consultation might be helpful. The corporation has taken the idea on board and I am pleased to announce that the first round of consultative meetings with local authorities, housing associations and tenants will commence in each region from next month. The first meeting is to be held on 13 April in the west midlands and, thereafter, meetings will be held every six months.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West also asked about regional office boundaries. There are benefits to be gained from conterminous boundaries between the corporation and my Department. I can therefore announce that the corporation proposes, with our approval, to revise its regional boundaries from 1 April 1995 to bring them into line with those of the Government's integrated regional offices, except in Merseyside where the present boundaries will be retained. The Yorkshire and Humberside and northern regions will continue to maintain a joint office to cover both regions from Leeds, and the east and east midlands regions will operate a joint office in Leicester. In both cases, the corporation will structure operations to produce data to the two regions covered by each office separately. The changes will produce valuable operational benefits.
      I deal now with grant rates, which were a recurrent theme in many of today's speeches. An important element of the Select Committee's work concerned the issues surrounding the HAG rate paid to support the corporation's capital programme. We have heard a great deal about the impact of falling grant rates on housing association rent levels and on the affordability of those rents. Even more has been said about how high rent levels have forced an increasing number of housing association tenants on to housing benefit and into the poverty trap, to use the words of Labour Members, or into the protective embrace of housing benefit, to use the words of my hon. Friends.
      I remind the House that we have not heard about the many additional homes that have been created by the reduction in HAG rates. We have not heard about the many additional families who have been decently housed as a result of the decisions and who would otherwise be homeless or waiting in inadequate accommodation. Each reduction in grant rate means that more private finance is levered into the programme and the available public resources are made to stretch further.
      Since 1988, when we decided to introduce the concept of mixed funding, a total of £2.6 billion of private finance has been raised to support housing association development, which is the equivalent of about 55,000 new homes. There is a real choice between, on the one hand, reducing

      675
      grant rates and increasing the supply of housing and, on the other, keeping grant rates high which, will indeed reduce rent levels but at the expense of the number of new homes that we can provide.
      At a time when development and borrowing costs have fallen fast, I make no apologies for taking the opportunity to use the savings to concentrate the funds available for housing investment on boosting output, especially as our benefit system focuses help on those people who might have difficulty paying their rent. I believe that it is a more effective use of resources—
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
      Sir George Young: I can perhaps save the hon. Lady's energy by assuring her that I do not propose to give way.
      I believe that that is a more effective use of resources than bricks and mortar grants which benefit all tenants, irrespective of income.
      I deal now with the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. The Environment Select Committee specifically recommended that I should not cut grant rates for next year unless procurement costs fell further. All the signs are that procurement costs in 1994–95 will continue to fall. The Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations accepted that, and it was clear from the corporation's model that I could set an average HAG rate of about 64 per cent. without affecting the affordability of the rents charged.
      In the event, having considered the likely impact on actual rents and on the ability of associations to pool rents across their stock and to make further efficiency savings, I felt justified in reducing the average HAG rate to 62 per cent. In fact, the continuing fall since then in gilt yields has meant that financing costs are likely to be even lower than we anticipated, which will further reduce the rents that associations need to charge.
      I also considered carefully the likely impact of lower grant rates on the availability of private finance. From our discussions with private lenders, and from the work done for the Housing Corporation by European Capital, I was confident that private finance would be available to support the development programme at an average grant rate of 62 per cent. In view of the number of bids for housing association grants received by the corporation—£4 for every I accepted—it seems that housing associations share my confidence and are coping well with the lower grant rates. The reduction of the average grant rate to 62 per cent. next year should result in an additional 2,600 new homes.
      To put the debate on rents in a broader perspective, the average rent for all housing association tenants on 31 March last year, which is the last full year for which figures
      676
      are available, was just £34 a week. Even excluding those who are still paying fair rents, the figure was only £38 a week. For new tenancies the average is £43 a week. It is important to keep that perspective.
      We have heard a great deal about the poverty trap. As the House will know, benefit system policy is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security. The system is designed to ensure that maximum benefit is targeted on those who need it most and the rules ensure that people are better off as their gross incomes increase. Only a very small proportion of those receiving income-related benefits face marginal deduction rates at the highest level, some of which we have heard about this evening.
      I assure the House that my Department and the Department of Social Security meet regularly in a working group that was set up to provide a forum to discuss, among other things, the relationship between policies on HAG rates and housing benefit. I and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who has been mentioned once or twice today, attended a seminar of private sector lenders last September when he said:
      "Housing benefit rules may well change from time to time. But we have an enduring commitment to making sure that people can afford the rented housing they need."
      Although the benefits review is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, I can tell the House that no conclusions have yet been reached, and hon. Members would be better advised to wait for a statement from my right hon. Friend than rely on press speculation.
      I mentioned the ombudsman a moment ago. So far, he has received 234 complaints, of which 85 per cent. have been accepted and are already being pursued. We shall keep the matter under review.
      The challenges facing the Housing Corporation demonstrate that it clearly has a sizeable task ahead. My view is that housing associations, their members and their officers have responded positively to the changes introduced in 1988. I am sure that they will face the next challenges with enthusiasm.
      Social housing is a constantly changing environment in which innovation and co-operation must be the key words. Housing associations have a good record and I am sure that they will continue to develop and to work with local authorities and private landlords to make the best use of all the rented housing stock, not simply to meet housing needs, but to create thriving communities. As I have already said, we have given full consideration to the Select Committee's recommendations—
      The debate was concluded and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to para (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, I raised a point of order about the remarkable power that the private Bill, promoted by the London Docklands development corporation, would give to the Secretary of State for the Environment to dispose of the corporation to anybody he liked at any time and at any price. That seem to me to be a rather remarkable power to be included in a private Bill because it relates to as much as £1.2 billion of public assets.
In response to my point of order, Madam Speaker quoted a precedent from a private Bill which is now the British Waterways Act 1983. Our queries earlier today related to two points: first, the giving of the power to dispose of the whole or part of the LDDC and secondly, the fact that the Bill as drafted, and as apparently accepted by the authorities of both Houses, does not require any order or decision made by the Secretary of State to come before the House.
I have now checked the British Waterways Act 1983. It contains a schedule, covering virtually two pages, which lays down the detailed and difficult procedure, with many hurdles, that the Secretary of State would have to follow in disposing of any of the property of the British Waterways Board. It seems to me that the precedent that was quoted does not fully meet our objections. In the Bill as presently drafted, there is no requirement to bring any such proposition to the House, whereas under the British Waterways Act, which was quoted as a precedent, there is a requirement to bring such propositions before the House under a special parliamentary procedure.
I should, therefore, be grateful for your ruling again, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is appropriate for this public measure to be smuggled through as part of a private Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Madam Speaker has already given considerable thought to the matter. She gave her ruling earlier today and I have no intention of altering or querying that in any way. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly possible during this debate, if he so wishes, to deploy the arguments that he has put as a point of order as arguments during debate. I further point out to him that if the Bill receives a Second Reading and goes to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, that Committee will be able to consider whether there should be any amendments or any other alterations.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may be able to assist the House before I move that the Bill be read a Second time. The clause to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has referred in this point of order and the one at the end of the statement this afternoon relates to the later transfer of functions from the LDDC. It is a perfectly proper matter of concern.
The hon. Gentleman may know—if he does not, this may be the way through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to
678
ensure that the matter is on the record—that his point has been understood by the promoter, the LDDC. I should like to repeat publicly an assurance, given privately in writing to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) by the corporation, that it is entirely happy to amend the Bill to ensure that in relation to this power, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider and to vote on an order without which there could not be that transfer of power. I hope that that meets the concern about the processes. The matter can, of course, be pursued further in the debate on Second Reading.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for pointing out this matter. The importance of the clause had not gone entirely without notice for some months. However, I give notice further to the point of order that when the Bill goes, as it probably will and perhaps should, to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, there will be discussions relating to the amendment that the promoter is willing to accept and to other matters. I refer especially to the issue that has been raised and has come into focus only in the past week—the relationship between public and private legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we can now make a start.
7.5 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We come to this debate against the background of the passage of almost 14 years since the legislation was presented to and approved by the House which entitled the Government to set up the first development corporations. The flagship of those development corporations was envisaged then as—I say this at the risk of being accused of being either metropolitan or regionalist—and could still be said to be, the London Docklands development corporation. It was set up, by order, under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the purpose of the regeneration of docklands. I and other hon. Members have been involved since that period in the debates about that process.
The fact that, unusually, the Bill is being sponsored by an Opposition Member does not change my view or that of other Opposition Members who represent docklands' constituencies that elected or imposed quangos are not the best way in which to proceed. We could all dig up hundreds of columns of comment on the history of development corporations that make that point over and over again. At this stage, however, I do not want to dwell on what has been or on what might have been. Indeed, I regard it as my job tonight specifically to deal with what will be.
The Bill comes before us tonight because the LDDC has realised that it has inherited the responsibility for regenerating an area of docklands, but that it does not have the consequential logical powers to manage that estate in certain areas. The point of order relates to the same powers, but specifically to what happens in the post-LDDC era.
We are talking about the legacy of the Port of London Authority and the legacy of the regulations that went with managing the port, such as the byelaws and the other powers that were given to that authority, which was a

679
non-elected authority in its day. The reality of docklands now, as anyone who lives or travels there knows and as my colleagues who represent docklands know, is that it is not a working port any more. The Port of London has moved downstream to Tilbury and the docklands is a very different community. It is a community in which there is some marine activity—all Opposition Members would, I think, say that there is too little. There is a new airport and new businesses have come in to replace the businesses on the wharves and along the docks.
There is much new residential accommodation and there are significant new regions of public provision. One of the consequences of the closing of the docks at the Port of London end of the Thames near to Tower bridge and along the shores of our boroughs in Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham is that much of the space that was previously private has become public open space. Many of the views that people had in the past were of wharves, cranes and commercial dock activity. That has changed. The wharves have become offices or flats and walkways through the wharves and down to the edge of the Thames have become public amenities in a way that they never were before. That makes it an entirely different area to manage. It is for that reason that the docklands corporation, for the first time, seeks to introduce a Bill that will give it power to manage.
As the explanatory memorandum says the Bill contains, among other things,
"powers to enable the London Docklands Development Corporation … to manage and regulate certain lands and waters within or in the vicinity of its area".
I want to elaborate on the main purposes of the Bill and deal with other linked matters.
If the Bill passes through this House—it has already passed through the other place—the corporation will take powers that relate almost entirely to land and water within the boundaries of the LDDC.
Pausing there, we are still at that stage where the LDDC has not rolled back any of its frontiers. That is a matter which I shall allude to in a minute. But dedesignation, as it is called—a power that has been changed from a power originally to roll back the dockland corporation in one move to a power to roll it back in part—has not yet begun, although it is very much under discussion.
We are discussing docklands as it has become. It is a great expanse comprising 400 acres of enclosed water, about 25 miles of dock edge, all owned by the LDDC. That is a lot of water and dock edge, owned by one authority. That is why, to be honest, the big player here is the LDDC.
Technically today, the statutory controls reside with the PLA, but that has become irrelevant to the functioning of the activities in the region in question. As of tonight, the LDDC has no more powers to govern what goes on in docklands than those of a private landowner. It has regulated the region; it has been the planning development authority; it has sought to police what it has planned. Local authorities such as mine have sometimes resented those powers. The reality, however, has been without any statutory backing. It has employed former harbour masters, 20 water wardens and a degree of bluster, good will and hope to try to get its own way.
Another reality is that with every year that passes not only do more people live and work in docklands than was the case when the LDDC first came into being in 1981 but
680
lots more people visit it on weekdays, as on a Sunday, to walk along from London bridge, for example, down to Hay's galleria, and along that and other riverside walks. They come to canoe, to sail and to take part in riverside sports or to visit places such as the docklands arena or even to appreciate the architecture, which in parts is as attractive by night as by day.
There are all sorts of new activities that act as a recreational magnet, bringing people from east London and beyond. These include a rowing club in the Royal Albert dock, and water sports centres in Millwall, the Greenland dock and the Royal Victoria docks. There is a water sports club in Shadwell basin. The London sea scouts have their headquarters in the East India docks. There are marinas, one on my side of the river in South dock and Greenland dock and one to be set up on each side of the river in the Albert basin. There are restaurants burgeoning all over the place. There are now even several floating restaurants. I have only visited one and when I went there for a public meeting it nearly sank, so it was not a good precedent for me. There will be, as there are now, historic vessels to visit and other docklands traditions will be retained by the restoration of buildings to their former glory. In addition, historic vessels will be restored to suitable sites.
There is some commercial traffic of course. Barges still take construction materials and excavated spoil in a good year to Canary wharf—in a less good year to other, lesser ventures. Some of the spoil will be from the Jubilee line extension, although some of that will go by road. We have tried to establish a decent riverbus service as part of London's integrated transport system. It has to be said, sadly, that two of those initiatives for such a service have sunk, but there are still people who want to put a third one afloat. I am sure that other hon. Members representing constituencies in the region will wish them well. We in the Liberal Democrats believe that a riverbus will really happen only when it is agreed as part of an integrated London transport structure that has a built-in and accepted subsidy that does not rely primarily on the private developer, who might be the beneficiary.
There are Sunday markets and there is even a plan for a floating market. Additional activities will attract other people.
What will the Bill do? If it is passed, it will give the corporation, instead of the PLA, general power to regulate and manage the areas designated in the Bill, subject to certain duties, some of which were inserted in the other place following negotiations with the London boroughs. These include, most importantly, a duty to secure a diversity of uses for the region and maintain public access to the waterside. One of the questions that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asks most often in this place—certainly I have often asked it, too—is why, when the original legislation was passed, it was not made clear for whose benefit the docklands were to be regenerated.
It was a wonderful Bill for setting out objectives, but it did not have any specified clientele. It was a general regeneration. Many of us that thought it would be helpful—and would have agreed that it was necessary to stress this from the beginning—that it should be regenerated in particular for the benefit of the communities living and working there.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As so often, one asks a question knowing the

681
answer. The hon. Gentleman well knows that during the long Committee stage of the original Bill, I moved amendment after amendment to achieve the purposes that he has mentioned, particularly to add national advantage, local importance and local advantage. The Government declined to act and the amendments were lost.
Mr. Hughes: When the hon. Gentleman was doing that, I was a mere candidate for the Greater London council. Although that was not an election I won, we did much better than we had before. One of the things that I was told, almost immediately after having taken my seat on St. David's day in 1983, was that the first piece of legislation that I should seek to understand was that which set up the urban development corporation in 1980. I was therefore given the full works and they remain on my shelf to this day.
I was aware of that debate, because that was the debate that the community was having in Southwark, the docklands, Tower Hamlets and Newham when the legislation was passed. That was a well-fought debate. The hon. Gentleman was pre-eminent in fighting that corner—I wish, like him, that he had won.
How will the Bill work? The main controls of the Bill will be by means of byelaws and they can be made for the purposes set out in schedule 3.
If Royal Assent is given, some parts of Bill will immediately come into effect, as is frequently the way with legislation. They include important provisions, for example, the control of obstructions on the waterside, the control of pollution, and the movement of vessels.
Therefore, there will be a control of activity on water and a control of activity adjacent to the water to which the public have access. It will be an offence to break those rules, just as it is an offence to break other principal and secondary legislation and byelaws, and, therefore, there is provision for an enforcement mechanism.
The Bill requires that before making byelaws, the docklands corporation is to consult the local authority—the borough council for the area in question—and to consult the Port of London Authority, the City of London corporation, which is the port health authority and the market authority for Billingsgate market, and the London fire and civil defence authority.
The way in which byelaws operate is adopted from traditional, statutory local government experience—the process contained in the Local Government Act 1972, which local authorities use for their own byelaws. One may object to the Secretary of State about the byelaws. He or she may hold a public inquiry and must confirm them. There is nothing unusual about the system and no additional, separate procedures are being sought. If the House agrees, as it has in the past, that that is the right way in which local authorities should proceed, the corporation asks that it is allowed to use the same procedure.
There are a few odds and ends to which I shall now allude. There are a number of miscellaneous clauses in the Bill. One provides for the extinguishing of certain navigation rights; another provides for the termination of the residual jurisdiction of the PLA, which would effectively say that it is no longer interested in or appropriate for the regulation of such activity; and another varies the boundaries of designated areas. It also deals with another matter, for which I know that the hon. Member for
682
Newham, South and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) have argued—I was with them when they did so.
They argued that there is and should be an annual report of the activities of the docklands corporation produced, sent to the Secretary of State, and made publicly available. I know that that is done already, but not in a compulsory and regulated manner. Opposition Members have had occasion to complain about the report, or to complain that it has come to our attention only after it has been the subject of a press conference or launch, which is entirely inappropriate.
The controversial matter to which the points of order alluded is the transfer of functions when the London Docklands development corporation ceases to exist. When I was asked to do this job, one of the questions that I asked my briefing team was what would happen when the LDDC went. It is all very well providing for its functions to be transferred, but to whom? It is obvious to me as a Member of Parliament and a democrat that it should go to some authority that is accountable. None of us wants a proposal for the handover to another authority which is not accountable.
Mr. Dobson: Such as Asil Nadir.
Mr. Hughes: Or, indeed, to Asil Nadir, who is not yet a public authority and seems certainly not accountable.
I shall outline what the Bill provides, make a comment that refers to the point of order and express a view. The Bill provides that there can be a transfer by an order of the Secretary of State about which he or she will have had to consult the borough council for the area concerned. I am reading expressly what I have been given:
"The Bill does not stipulate to whom the functions will be transferred, although it is the LDDC's favoured policy that functions should transfer to the same body as the land and management responsibilities will be transferred to."
I was asked, as it were, to say that that is a fairly Delphic statement and that it does not expressly say to which body the functions will be transferred. I am instructed that the reason that it does not expressly say that is that no decision has expressly been made.
Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Gentleman is on to an extremely interesting point to which, perhaps, we shall not get an answer in the debate. There is a difficult question to answer. If there is to be a successor body, which would then find that the land of the docklands area was no longer in its jurisdiction, and that it was in control only of the management of the docks and the water system, is it conceivable that that would be a sufficient task for a single body? If not, surely the logic points to the return of not merely the land in docklands to the boroughs of which they are part, but to the management of the water and of the docks in whatever local authority boundary they fall. Although it may appear to be a kind of a duplication of task, I am sure that it is one which the local authorities would be anxious to do and be capable of fulfilling.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman puts forward as his proposed suggestion one with which, as he would expect, I agree. The starting point must be that management and the regulatory authority are transferred to the democratically accountable three local authorities. If someone approached Members of Parliament or the local

683
authorities in question with another proposal that they found acceptable, but which was different, I am sure that we would not stand in their way.
If, for example the three local authorities came to an agreement that requested a common, joint committee to manage the water area, as has been done in the past, that might be a practical way forward. It may be easier to have one authority managing all the water space than three authorities in terms of benefit and scale of advantage. However, the assumption must be, as has been our assumption, that the best place to start is the boroughs, but the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that I cannot give him an answer. The reason why I cannot do so is that there is no answer yet to give. The Bill provides the route and the method, but does not provide the solution.
I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and to other colleagues that, if they find that an entirely unsatisfactory conclusion and if they want to know the answer before they allowed the Bill to leave the House, they must seek to get the answer, as I will, during the other stages of the Bill.
I link that answer to the point of order and suggest a way forward. I can assure the House that the debate about who takes over will come back to us. The hon. Member for Newham, South spotted the issue first and others have spotted it subsequently. They have spotted that, as the Bill stands at the moment, clause 22, previously clause 21, which provides for the transfer of the functions of the LDDC conferred on it by the Bill to another body by order of the Secretary of State, is exercisable by statutory instrument, but is not an order which the House has the power to prevent being passed. It does not require the approval of Parliament.
We often have debates like this. I have been on countless Committees that have debated amendments that this or that clause should come into force only if there is a negative or an affirmative resolution of the House to follow. The proposal that the docklands corporation makes through me to the House in answer to the point of order is that it will make those orders subject to negative resolution before the House.
Not only clause 20, but clause 22 will be open to that procedure. A resolution can be tabled which will annul those orders. We could debate the procedures here rather than off in a Committee somewhere and I hope that that will give us the peg on which to hang a debate. The right hon. Gentleman, his friends and I may want to try to push the LDDC to give us a more express answer before the debate and the other stages of the Bill. We may want to engage in thinking ahead rather than leaving it to later, which would be a perfectly responsible procedure to adopt. There is none the less, a promise that the transfer of functions will come before us and that it will be able to be the subject of an annulment procedure. I hope that it will allow us to stage that debate later.
I have two more substantive points to make. I am sure that other hon. Members want to speak. I shall make one point on behalf of the promoter and one more parochial point on behalf of my constituents.
The waters that we are discussing and which are managed by the LDDC are very deep. All of us who live alongside the river and know it well know the danger of the Thames. From my constituency experience, I know that it is difficult to manage safety. For example, what sort of
684
fencing should we use to stop children falling into the water? Rigid fencing may be easier to climb and provide a child with a sense of security. A child may fall over such fencing quite easily. It might be better to have less rigid or flexible fencing about which children feel insecure. If a child were to cycle down a slope towards a dock edge, flexible fencing would act as a break and throw that child back from the edge. Such safety issues are complicated debates. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and other bodies have been involved in such debates over the years. There is potentially great danger in the docklands. The management of the docklands must be concerned principally with the safety of the user, whether on the water in terms of sport or business or those on the dock or water edge.
Swimming in the Thames and in the docks is also dangerous. One of my first duties was to present regatta cups from the end of a jetty. It was no surprise that I ended up going into Greenland dock as part of the process. I remember someone on the quayside saying, "They would never have done that to Bob Mellish." That was probably true. As I swallowed a mouthful of extremely unpleasant water, I realised why my swimming in the past had been carried out elsewhere. The Government have still not yet made the Thames clean enough to make it the obvious place for me or others to swim in.
On a more serious point, since 1981 four children and 10 adults have drowned in the waters that we are talking about. No matter how well managed the waters are, they will still be dangerous and they will still be subject to infection. For example, toxic blue algae blooms in the summer. We will not be able to get rid of that from the docks in the short term because those blooms come from the Thames which has many nutrients and is a tidal river. We will not suddenly stop the benefits of a tidal river in the docklands and nor would we want to.
On many occasions, young people have had to be prevented from diving off bridges and other structures into the docks. I have often recently seen youngsters diving off dock edges during the summer as they have done in generations past. In addition, hundreds of vehicles have been retrieved from the docks. In 1992 alone, 22 submerged vehicles were recovered from the docks in the Isle of Dogs including—and I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) is aware of this—a Rolls-Royce and a fork lift truck. Perhaps the Rolls-Royce was left there because it was worth more while regarded as insurance than after retrieval—
Mr. Dobson: Probably Asil Nadir's.
Mr. Hughes: I hear a recurrent theme. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has an obsession tonight of which he really must rid himself. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the person to whom he referred is not likely to return to take part in this debate.
The proposed byelaws would make such dumping and other forms of pollution an offence. They would also make it an offence to take part in unauthorised swimming and diving. The first point, preventing the docks' waters from being polluted, is very important. It will also help safety. The second point is also important, although we cannot guarantee that that byelaw will be 100 per cent. obeyed because stopping youngsters swimming and diving is probably one of the most difficult tasks known to human kind.

685
The byelaws will also keep competing users apart. In all three of our boroughs, docks have been set aside and licensed for sailing. Long stretches of water set aside for sailing can be tempting for other sorts of riverside use such as wet bikes, water skiing and other motorised vessels. There have been many incidents in respect of which people have intervened to stop the motorised and more dangerous activity from interfering, often potentially fatally, with the more passive forms of activity. Dangerous behaviour will be an offence. That is important and I hope that we will all welcome that.
Bad practices go on because people think that they can get away with it. For example, on occasions building contractors find it convenient to wash out their cement skips in the nearest stretch of water. One might think that it does not matter if one lets one's fuel from one's vessel, or from some other activity, into the dock. It is rather like the water and the wine in the well. One thinks that no one notices, but the next day one discovers that everyone has let their oil into the dock and the dock has become very unpleasant indeed. A spill in 1992 measured 1,000 ft by 200 ft. That was a pretty big slick of oil in the docks. People have also emptied other things into the docks, including portable toilets, fairly regularly. I am sure that we would not want that to happen and the regulations allow action to be taken in those circumstances, too. If there is a marina, it is important that people behave properly there for the surrounding users.
I want now to consider the process of the Bill to date so that we appreciate that the Bill has been tested and sounded out in relation to everyone who might have a particular interest. The Bill does not propose a unique power. It is not as if similar powers have not been requested in the House before. Other landowners have comparable powers. They include the National Trust and the water authorities. The British Waterways Bill included similar powers. Transport undertakers, airports and railway companies have similar powers. We are all aware of private Bill procedures in which similar powers have been included. Those bodies have powers to make byelaws and those byelaws often relate to water.
The Merseyside Development Corporation Act 1985 conferred byelaw-making powers on Merseyside which is a similar development corporation to the LDDC. That was a precedent for this Bill as well as for the idea that it would be a good thing to update the authority and make the powers and enforcement belong to the people who do the work. In addition, there has been a consultation process.
There has been considerable consultation with user groups, local and other public authorities, residents' associations and other bodies. More than 90 such bodies have been consulted on the Bill and draft byelaws. No one said that there should be no byelaws. No one has objected in general terms to the proposed byelaws either.
There have been long discussions with the PLA from which the docklands corporation seeks to inherit. It has no objection to the Bill or to the amendments already made in the other place or proposed to be made in this place. No petitions have been lodged in this House. There were two petitions in the other place, one from the borough of Tower Hamlets and the other from the Docklands Forum. 13oth were withdrawn following negotiations before the Bill reached its Committee stage in the Lords. Newham and Southwark local authorities have not lodged petitions or expressed any formal opposition to the Bill.
686
In essence, the Bill comes to us with one specific issue to which we have been alerted, which we must address and which will be amended. That has to do with the power to debate and decide who takes over from the LDDC. Otherwise, everyone who has an interest believes that this is the right framework.
Newham has been involved and has been quite active. However, it is happy. Southwark has been less active, but has expressed no opposition. As we have heard, Tower Hamlets petitioned on the Bill, but reached an agreement with the docklands corporation in June 1993. One of the things that were agreed in that negotiation was that Tower Hamlets would have to be consulted in respect of the successor body and, in establishing successor bodies, the LDDC agreed to use reasonable endeavours to secure local representation on them. Tower Hamlets got something out of that and I hope that that is welcomed across the political divide, because it is clearly better than the previous position.
The corporation has also undertaken to make representations to the Secretary of State prior to any form of transfer of functions recommending that adequate financial provisions be made for successor bodies.
It is in respect of that that I should like to make a parochial point. The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction wrote to me recently, as he did to other hon. Members, saying that he was contemplating de-designation as a process.
One of the areas that he was contemplating de-designating first is that strip of the Southwark docklands from London bridge along the Thames eastward along the south bank roughly to the King's stairs adjacent to the Rotherhithe tunnel. That is the pan-handle of Southwark docklands.
There is a time and a place for everything. Perhaps before long, de-designation of that area and transfer to the local authority, should happen. I have been offered a meeting with the Minister. I shall take that up and discuss the detailed issues.
The issue that the community in Southwark is concerned about with regard to that area and the rest is that there should not be de-designation until we are sure that other public authorities have not only the power but the wherewithal to carry on and complete anything that is left incomplete. Equally importantly, they must have the finance to continue to maintain the jobs that have been started. For example, it is no good creating a lovely new park, a new water sports centre, the Surrey docks urban farm, the Lavender dock educational centre at the Pump House or any of the other things if we then say, "Thank you very much. It is yours now" and the Government do not provide, through the local authority or someone else, the wherewithal to fund them on an ongoing basis.
The precondition for me to say yes, go on and hand it back to Southwark, the precondition for the people of Southwark to say the same, and I suppose the precondition in many ways for the hon. Members for Bow and Poplar and for Newham, South, who represent the other parts of docklands, and for the Labour Front Bench, will be to say, "Fine, hand the docklands back to local authorities but do not give us the job without giving us the resources." That is a fundamentally important plea. I am all in favour of moving on, but I am not in favour of moving on without the resources to do it.
The Bill is a measure to bring the management of docklands up to date; a Bill which has no expressed

687
objection outside this place; a Bill which addresses some of the real concerns about how to look after a large number of people in a dangerous area but one with huge potential; and a Bill which has now addressed the question of how we will proceed hereafter by saying that there will be further parliamentary debates about it. Much of the Bill is technical, much of it is precedented and some of it is new.
Tonight, in responding to the Bill, I hope that hon. Members will feel that they can contribute to setting the framework for docklands in the new legislative structure. I hope that the debate will be listened to outside and that those who represent the area, know it, work in it, love it and believe in it can, as a result of the process, get a docklands that is more people centred, more people safe and more people beneficial than in the past. I think that that is the motivation of the corporation in the Bill.
For people who are an unelected quango, they have been trying very hard. I have to say that in the Bill they are doing fairly well. But I will not be complacent. I will not let them off the hook. I want them to continue trying even harder. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.
7.42 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his introduction to the Bill. As he said, the Bill is promoted by the London Docklands development corporation, which has been in existence since 1981. It proposes to give that body new powers to make byelaws relating to the former docks and the areas surrounding them. That is certainly necessary for the safety of people who live in the area and who might wish to work or take their leisure there. We do not argue with those propositions; indeed, we welcome them.
There is doubt among some of the organisations involved whether those duties should have been given to the London Docklands development corporation in the first place if it is a partly time-expired body and if it is intended that it should eventually give up its present role. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to deal with that aspect. There is another aspect to the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State powers to extend the role of the development corporation's byelaws outside the area covered by the London Docklands development corporation, which is a bit of a novelty.
Initially, I shall concentrate on what I regard as the big question about the Bill, which is clause 22. That clause empowers the Secretary of State to dispose of all or part of the London Docklands development corporation to anyone he likes. It seems that the Secretary of State will be able to transfer the entire assets of the London Docklands development corporation to any person, including, as I suggested, Mr. Asil Nadir in grateful thanks for his contribution to Tory party funds. I am not suggesting that that is the Government's intention, but they would be empowering themselves to do that under clause 22.
Disposing of assets on this scale is not a private matter and Labour Members believe that it should not have been included in a private Bill. The London Docklands development corporation has assets totalling at least £1,200 million. Any disposal of those assets, which have come to the development corporation as a result of money paid out by the taxpayer, should not be smuggled through
688
as the subject of a private Bill. Obviously, it was something which the Government wanted done. The development corporation did not introduce the proposition. It was included because the Department of the Environment asked the corporation to include it in the Bill. That suggests a cavalier attitude on the Government Benches about the control of public funds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing is in the Bill at the request of my Department. Indeed, when I speak later, I shall argue that clause 22 is unnecessary. It may be a matter for debate in Committee. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing is in the Bill at the behest of my Department. I am totally neutral in relation to the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister telling the House that his Department was not consulted on the contents of the Bill and was not aware of clause 22 before the Bill was printed?
Mr. Baldry: Of course, we were consulted on the Bill, as indeed we are consulted on most private measures. The promoters of Bills use their common sense and consult the Government on whether we are likely to oppose the provisions of a Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we tend to be neutral on the provisions of private Bills. I repeat that there is nothing in the Bill at our behest. I will certainly be arguing that clause 22 is unnecessary, for the reasons that I shall set out when I have the opportunity, as I hope I will in due course, of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Dobson: It opens up the possibility of a rather more neutral attitude by the Department of the Environment, as the sponsoring Department for one of these organisations, to suggest that it scarcely knew and certainly did not care that clause 22 was in the Bill. Certainly, the Department does not appear to have pointed out that it is an unprecedented clause and the propositions that have been put forward as precedents have never permitted the disposal of public assets on this scale without recourse to the House of Commons for permission for each such disposal.
If the Minister is suggesting that clause 22 be withdrawn, I am sure that that will whole-heartedly be supported by Labour. It would not have been a bad idea if the Minister's officials or one of his colleagues had suggested that in the first place. We would not have had to go to all the bother of tracking it down, making points of order and identifying clause 22 as a novelty in a way that apparently no one in the House of Lords managed to do.
Mr. Shore: We have just heard a remarkable statement on the most interesting question of consultation with different Government Departments. Does my hon. Friend think that there might have been some useful consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry? Surely it is odd that we should be debating this Bill, which seeks to regulate and control business activities in the docklands water area, when at the same time the House is considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which at the stroke of a pen would enable the President of the Board of Trade to scupper the whole Bill. What guarantees do we have that that will not happen?
Mr. Dobson: My right hon. Friend makes a good point and the Minister may explain that the clause is unnecessary

689
because the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will provide all the powers that are necessary. That would certainly be the logic of the position. This may be a minor effort at deregulation, and perhaps the London Docklands development corporation is seeking to ingratiate itself with its masters in putting forward the proposition.
It must be said that secret transfers of assets, secret subsidies and precious little role for elected representatives have always been part and parcel of the history of the LDDC. It is difficult to find out how much public money has been going into docklands because the Government and the LDDC have refused to disclose the full information. Time and again, Ministers have responded to detailed questions from Opposition Members by saying that the information was not available.
It is right that the House should look at the question of expenditure. As the Bill stands, there is a proposition that the LDDC can ask the Minister to agree to hand over all or some of the property, and also that the Secretary of State would be empowering himself to decide what to do. We must look at the priorities that the LDDC and the Government have been following in relation to docklands.
Mr. Simon Hughes: One of the benefits of doing this job is that one gets some information. I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman by giving him the figures that I have received for capital employed, which is cash expended by the LDDC from its setting up to 31 March 1993—the end of the past financial year. The total, from Government grants plus income from property disposals, rents, planning fees and miscellaneous sources, is £1,617 million.
Mr. Dobson: My own guesswork would have been wrong by just £17 million, and I hope that the rest of the figures that I quote on the basis of the inadequate public information will be equally accurate.
One of the problems with docklands and the question of large public subsidies is that the LDDC's activities are complicated by the existence of the enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. It is clear that billions of pounds of private and public money have been poured into London docklands and into the Isle of Dogs. The question arises, why are the people of the Isle of Dogs so dissatisfied with their circumstances that they recently voted in a Nazi to represent them on their local council?
That may be an example of the Government throwing money at a problem. The trouble is that they appear to have thrown and missed, because the money—instead of going to the people who needed it in docklands, the voters—has been snapped up by, generally speaking, a lot of foreign property speculators. In docklands, and on the Isle of Dogs in particular, thousands of people are living in bad housing and many of them are out of work. Many young people have poor job prospects and the Government have not thrown any public money at them.
The Government and the LDDC have thrown money at property developers. Of the LDDC's funds of £1.6 billion, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey confirmed, roughly 75 per cent., or £1.2 billion, has gone into supporting and subsidising property development. To be fair, the LDDC has put money into housing and 16,000 new dwellings have been built in the area. However, only 4,000 of those have been for council or housing association tenants at rents that local people can afford. On the Isle of Dogs, 3,055 houses have been built, but only 583 are available for rent at rents which local people can afford.
690
Over the past four years, about £20 million has been spent on social housing by the LDDC in docklands. There is still a desperate shortage and that shortage of housing that has been exploited by the British National party to promote racial strife and violence. The LDDC claims—this is the sort of thing on which it spends its money—that, since it came into existence, 40,000 jobs have been created in docklands. However, only 13,000 of those were new jobs. The rest were transfers of jobs from outside. It is estimated that, of the new jobs, only 3,000 went to people living, not in docklands, but in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Southwark as a whole.
Meanwhile, 15,000 existing local jobs have disappeared as many existing employers have been forced or bought out because their continued existence was seen to fit in badly with some of the development that was going on. The jobless figures in 1981 were 3,500, and in 1993 were 5,500—an increase of 54 per cent. Those unemployment figures, and the large numbers of young people who were born, went to school and live on the Isle of Dogs and who cannot get a job, have been exploited by the British National party to promote racial attacks, particularly on Bengali people.
Despite the money that has been poured into docklands, jobs for people who have grown up there are scarce and are getting scarcer. The job prospects for young people are getting worse. Local people are living in rundown properties, and housing waiting lists have risen by one third since the LDDC came into existence. The number of homeless people has almost trebled to 4,800. That is still going on.
Just before Christmas, the Isle of Dogs neighbourhood proposed to transfer land at nil cost to the East London housing association so that it could be used to build housing for people living on the Isle of Dogs, and it urged the LDDC to do the same. Between them, that would have permitted the building of 450 new homes, most of them on the Isle of Dogs. The Housing Corporation agreed to that idea in principle. The LDDC has not just rejected that—according to my informant, it has not even replied to the suggestion.
Meanwhile, in many parts of docklands, and again particularly on the Isle of Dogs, residents have had to put up with a great deal of noise, vibration, dust, disturbance and—for a considerable period—the loss of their television signal because of office development and the transport connections that were being made for that development.
Office building has boomed, and Canary wharf on the Isle of Dogs is a supreme example. It is a symbol of the 1980s—an unfinished, half-empty office development. It is estimated that Canary wharf alone received £1,600 million in subsidies from the taxpayer. That is £1,600 million for speculative offices, and £20 million for housing for ordinary people. The land sale, the help with transport connections and the enterprise zone tax allowances added together give the figure of £1,600 million for the taxpayer subsidy for the building of Canary wharf.
All that has come from a Government who cannot find money for London's hospitals, for the Northern line, for homes for the homeless, for people trying to start a family while living with their in-laws and for fighting crime in docklands. They could, however, find £1,600 million to help a Canadian property speculator who was so incompetent that, despite getting £1,600 million of taxpayers' money, he went bust. That was the ultimate expression of the Government's inner-city policies.

691
When looking at the people who may wish to decide to hand over part of the LDDC's property, or at Secretaries of State who may then wish to authorise that, it must be remembered that they tend to follow fashion. I have looked recently at the announcements that were made when the Canadian company Olympia and York was announced as the rescuer of the work at Canary wharf. An article in The Times by Barbara Amiel was entitled "The man who made the canary fly." Not to be outdone, The Sunday Times described the company as
"The quiet man who will make the canary sing."
A little later, after it all fell apart, we had The Observer headlines such as "This Canary Won't Sing", "Olympia and York's Leaning Tower of Debt" and "Nightmare in docklands."
Should anyone think that it was not an establishment set-up that gave us Canary wharf, I commend to them Ms Barbara Amiel's article, which said, referring to the Chelsea flower show:
"Corporate tents dotted the grounds. Robin Leigh-Pemberton, Governor of the Bank of England smiled at Lord Rippon. Lord Rothermere bowed to the Princess of Wales. Cabinet Ministers exchanged cautionary tales. An onlooker might have heard the contented voices of London's own, happy amongst themselves. In the middle of this and that, a small man with an ebullient smile dashed over to introduce himself to the president of Olympia and York, the construction company that was sponsoring the occasion. It was Mr. Brian Griffiths, head of the policy unit at No. 10."
They were all in it. They all believed that the developers of Canary wharf could walk on water. It turned out that they could not.
I believe that Ministers, the British establishment and the banks involved all demonstrated themselves to be a collection of hapless clowns in the backing that they gave to Canary wharf. Once it had failed, they decided to do anything to bail it out. Banks ran round like headless chickens, not trying to recover money from Canary wharf but closing down dozens of small businesses throughout the country and all over docklands in an effort to recoup the money that they had lost. The LDDC was wringing its hands. The Government extended the period of the special enterprise zone tax allowances to help bail it out.
Then the Government agreed to build the extension to the Jubilee line and helped Canary wharf obtain a £100 million loan from the European investment bank, also in an effort to bail it out. All the while, the people who live on the Isle of Dogs, the people who live in poor housing whose lives have been made a misery by the construction work, the people who find it difficult to find jobs, and the people who are disappointed and hurt that their children and grandchildren cannot find jobs, have been ignored by the Government, the LDDC and the developers. They are desperate for new and better homes. They are desperate for jobs for themselves and their children. They are outraged that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been poured instead into the marbled halls of the speculators.
It is the epitome of all that is wrong with Britain that when people move into the office block that is the most spectacular failure of a property development they will look down on the only part of Britain that has voted for a fascist to represent them in Parliament in recent times—not in Parliament, on the local council.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) laughs. He apparently thinks that it is funny that fascists represent
692
people anywhere in Britain. In docklands we see people who are absolutely sickened by the way in which they have been treated and want to be treated better. They note the contrast between all the money that has been poured into the pockets of the property speculators and all the money that has not been provided to make their lives decent. The only people who speak up for them are those in the Labour party.
8.4 pm
Ms Mildred Gordon: I grew up facing a grim dock wall in The Highway in east London. Although I was lulled to sleep at night by the sound of ships' horns, I had to climb to the third floor of my father's house to see the tops of cranes. If I wanted to look at the water I had to walk to Tower Hill gardens, which was 15 or 20 minutes away, or to King Edward memorial park in Shadwell. When the docks closed and my neighbours lost their jobs with the Port of London Authority and hit hard times, it was sad and bad for people in the district.
As time went on and the dock area became derelict, it was obvious that something needed to be done. The Government decided to take the project out of the hands of democratically elected bodies and set up an appointed quango, the London Docklands development corporation. If the people of the area were blighted by the closure of the docks, they were blighted a second time by the setting up of the LDDC. It has brought them no good. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has pointed out the failure of the LDDC to provide the desperately needed housing in the area. Seventy five per cent. of the housing that it built was for sale. The housing for rent was luxury housing that local people could not afford.
The Government and the LDDC bear a direct responsibility not only for the election of the measly British National party councillor—whom we shall get rid of—but for the racial antagonism and hatred that have developed in the area. Racial violence has grown while desperate people fight for the few resources in the area and the few houses that have been built. The affordable places that the Isle of Dogs neighbourhood built to house local people have not been built with the blessing of the LDDC. It took years before we were able to build Masthouse terrace because the LDDC caused delays. Then everyone wanted the few houses that were built. Yet it should have been possible to build thousands of homes for affordable rent. That vast area of land available could have solved the chronic housing problems of the area once and for all. The opportunity was wasted and those whom local people still call yuppies moved in while their own plight was worse than ever and no one seemed to care.
No jobs resulted from the setting up of the LDDC. The LDDC policy of property speculation meant that higher land prices forced out local businesses that employed local people. The unemployment rate in Tower Hamlets in the past few months has gone not down but up again. Jobs for local people were not created, despite all the money that went into the area. It has been estimated that every job that was created cost £45,000—what chronic mismanagement, what chronic waste of public money.
From 1981 to 1992, the LDDC received £1.6 billion grant in aid in addition to other concessions in the enterprise zone such as capital allowances, rates

693
allowances, tax allowances and so on. There was no trickle-down effect, as the LDDC and the Government had prophesied.
The whole Canary wharf project was madness. It was madness to build that huge edifice of offices isolated with no adequate public transport to reach it. When the Government sought to remedy the position, there was crazy mismanagement again. The docklands highway cost £650 million to construct. The Limehouse link is the most expensive mile of road that has ever been built. Despite assurances to the contrary, the docklands highway is used for commuter traffic to pass through Tower Hamlets. One only has to go to Tower Hamlets on any weekday evening to see that the traffic jams on the A 13 are as bad as ever. Come any evening and see how that £650 million has been wasted. The Government held up the building of the Jubilee line extension for £400 million and insisted that the money had to come from private industry. The Jubilee line extension is still not started and yet the Government have thrown the money away on roads.
The St. Vincent estate was knocked down to build the Limehouse link and 500 homes went by the board. Rehousing those people is one of the sore points that caused the trouble that led to the election of the British National party candidate.
Mr. Spearing: As Member of Parliament for a neighbouring constituency I pass through my hon. Friend's constituency frequently. I noticed that the site that was occupied by the St. Vincent estate is not above the enormous tunnel. Was the estate originally demolished to provide for that tunnel and if not, why were those flats not refurbished, as those on the other side of the road have been, instead of making the area into a blank site?
Ms Gordon: That is a good question. Most local people think that the LDDC picked the route that destroyed 500 units of public sector housing because it wanted the land for office developments or to sell off for expensive private housing. It could have built the road along the foreshore or in a tunnel instead of building a cut-and-cover road and then it would not have had to pull down the St Vincent estate. The bottom fell out of the market, no one wanted office developments or luxury housing and the land remains unused.
Although I wrote to the LDDC on behalf of local people and said that they had discussed plans and wanted affordable housing, council housing and community centres and so forth on the site, the LDDC has no intention of building anything of the kind. It never consults local people and it never does what they want. That is not its way.
Let us look at some other aspects—beyond the pantomime of the Jubilee line extension, which the Government and the LDDC have postponed over and over again—that is irritating local people. Let us consider why the people whom I represent and I do not feel that we ought to give further powers to the LDDC, which has not managed well the powers that it has.
The docklands light railway extension to Lewisham has been on the cards for a long time. It will cause a lot more disturbance of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras described. Local people have literally been made to eat dirt—dirt and dust seeps into their houses and they suffer from the noise of pile driving. Does the Minister know what pile driving sounds like night
694
and day? It can drive people mad. Local people have put up with that for years and now they are being asked to put up with more of it for the building of the docklands light railway.
Local people wanted that extension of public transport and could see that it had benefits—or some, if not all, did. Members of the Millwall park users group—the park will be taken over for a long time and people will lose that amenity while the railway extension is built—and other petitioners against the Bill spent many months preparing evidence for the House of Commons and House of Lords Select Committee. The Committee assured them and the neighbourhood that Island Gardens station would be built underground. I asked the Minister, in the Chamber, for a community trust fund to be set up with £1 million to compensate people for the loss of amenities during the years that the extension was being built. The residents could have controlled that trust fund and provided other amenities for the community, as a substitute for the football pitch, the park and all the other things that would be out of action.
In its wisdom, the House of Lords Committee decided that the primary purpose was to compensate local people by means of capital investment, which would enhance the area, rather than by handouts—it considered that the trust that I asked for was a handout—through a community trust or exceptional compensation payments. It also decided that the new underground Island Gardens station would be proposed as compensation for people in the area. Some people were satisfied with the proposal that the station would be underground, and that it would be properly staffed and that Millwall park would be levelled off and reinstated, which would improve the area.
After all their work and all those petitions and discussions, we have suddenly heard that the money is not there and that Island Gardens station might be deleted. Hon. Members might think that the docklands light railway is a great amenity for the community, but 25 per cent. of islanders do not live within reasonable walking distance of a station. If Island Gardens and Mudchute stations are not included in the Lewisham extension, another 25 per cent. of the community will not have the benefit of living within walking distance of a station on the direct line to Lewisham. The DLR primarily serves the business area and not the residential area. Many residents have a long walk to stations and the new proposal to delete Island Gardens and to let the community down, after having what local people considered were serious discussions, will make the position much worse.
A spur line is suggested for Island Gardens and Mudchute, but the local community has totally rejected that idea as trains would be infrequent and it is not what was promised or what they want. Everyone is asking when the trains will run in the evening and at weekends. They still stop at 9 o'clock at night and there are no trains on Saturdays and Sundays. People cannot go anywhere by train then. They have to wait in the cold for the infrequent buses.
So much for LDDC management and policies. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will agree that it has taken a long time for the Beckton extension to come into use. We are promised it next month—
Mr. Spearing: It is a year overdue.
Ms Gordon: Yes, it is a year overdue—so much for the way in which the LDDC manages things.
What about access to the water? I spoke to the Docklands sailing club today. Its members told me that if they want access to the LDDC-owned slipway they have to obtain permission each time that they want to use it and to travel to pick up the permit, which is very inconvenient. When the club holds a big event and its small car park is not big enough, it has to pay £50 a day for parking at Arnhem wharf. That would be fine if the car park was decent, but the site is littered with bollards and large potholes. What will the LDDC charge other local groups for decent parking—the sailing club is a charity—which is essential? We had enough trouble when the arena opened and there were no car parks or toilets. We must ask such questions if the LDDC is to have more powers.
Since I became a Member of Parliament in 1987, I have continually raised the question of access to the waterfront with officers of the LDDC. They once gave me a briefing downstairs with maps and so forth and showed me all the areas where there is supposed to be access to the waterfront. Many buildings were allowed to be built only if public access was provided. My secretary, who lives on the Isle of Dogs, said, "Just a minute. That long piece of waterfront looks as though you can walk along it, but there is a brick wall across it and you can't walk along but have to go round and along the road." She pointed to another place that looked as though one could walk along, but said that one can only go so far before having to scramble through mud and dog mess to get across to the other part of the path.
When the tall ships came along the river there was a great fuss when local people tried to see them. They were stopped by jets of water that shot up from the ground and by guards on land that was marked down as public open space. I have raised the matter over and over again.
In one press release, Michael Pickard was seen doing some bolt-cutting to open some space, but that was symbolic. I asked the LDDC to put up signs on every piece of public open space to say that the public had access to it. I also asked for street furniture and benches so that in hot weather, in an area with little parkland—it will be worse when Millwall park and Island Gardens are taken up by the building of the docklands light railway extension—people can sit by the water, get a breath of fresh air and cool off. Did the corporation do that? No. There are a few signs now, but, by and large, nothing has been done. A paltry sum would have been involved. The corporation has had millions—billions—but it cannot do that little thing for local people.
Local people have little for which to thank the LDDC and have had little joy out of its control over the area. This is the time at which we should be considering documents and Bills in connection with the running down and closing of the LDDC and the handing over of its tasks to the elected local authority. It is a strange time at which to be discussing extending its powers, especially given that it has mismanaged everything that it has handled so far.
8.20 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I start by thanking the board members and officers of the LDDC who have answered some of my questions and met at least some of my objections—as best they can—since I started to examine the Bill. I make no secret of the fact that I doubted
696
the need for the Bill and still have doubts about its contents. I agree, however, that there is a legal vacuum surrounding docklands, especially as regards the water itself and the areas immediately adjacent to it, and that that vacuum needs to be filled.
Originally, the docks were heavily policed, with a big wall, dock gates and high security. They fulfilled a special purpose under the dock companies and subsequently the Port of London Authority. The purpose of that area of water has now changed completely. It not now primarily an area for work but an area of public access, for leisure and recreation. We therefore need a different set of legal bases or byelaws for it.
The main question is whether a body set up temporarily, which is known to be going out of existence in the next few years, is the best body on which to confer additional powers by an Act of Parliament. That is why I have had doubts about the Bill, even though local authorities and others have understandably not opposed it. I understand, too, why recreational bodies such as rowing clubs and sailing organisations and the navigation authorities also see the need for byelaws, and I shall come to them in a minute.
Let us first look at the procedural problem, part of which we have discovered today and which has in any case become a little more acute for the reasons hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—that deregulation and the place of statutory instruments are now very much in the air as a result of the controversial Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
I shall not quote clause 22 extensively, but it deserves quoting in principle. Subsection (1) states:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any provision of the Act of 1980, the Secretary of State, on the application of the Corporation, may by order at any time transfer to any person ("the transferee") with the agreement of that person all or any part of the undertaking."
I must confess that when, amateur-like, I first read the Bill, I thought that the undertaking referred to was the undertaking to abide by the background to the byelaws. In fact, however, the undertaking refers to what we in east London might call the whole shebang.
That is a very considerable power. In the autumn, I corresponded with the promoters of the Bill who agreed that it was a power in which Parliament ought to have some say. They graciously agreed—there was common sense in the decision—that that power and the power in clause 20 should be exercised only subject to the negative resolution procedure of the House.
Acting on my usual instincts, I asked for the minimum rather than the maximum. Perhaps I should have gone further. But at least Parliament was brought into the matter. Perhaps I have become inured to the way in which the LDDC has been operating in the past few years. Parliament has not seen very much of the activities of the LDDC; as we know, it has been a quango under the Secretary of State.
I am glad that that was agreed, but other factors have come into play since then. I am grateful for the fact that my attention has been drawn to two amendments to the original Act relating to the transfer of operations. The original Act was the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I served on the Standing Committee that considered that legislation and fought for a long time to get some safeguards written into it. Section 165 says:

697
"Subject to this section. an urban development corporation may, by an agreement made with any local authority or any statutory undertakers and approved by the Secretary of State with the Treasury's concurrence:—

(a) transfer to the local authority the whole or any part of the corporation's undertaking, or

(b) transfer to the statutory undertakers the whole or any part of the corporation's undertakings which consists of a statutory undertaking".

That was common sense, because that was the sort of thing that might happen either during or at the end of the life of the LDDC. I am glad to say that subsection (8) of that same section says that
"Such a transfer shall be of no effect until it is approved by resolution of the House of Commons."
There we have a public and general Act relating to the transfer of property.
However, that provision was amended by section 180 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which adds after the words "local authority" the words "or other body". Thus, another public and general Act added to the powers of the Secretary of State and the LDDC to transfer—subject not just to the negative resolution procedure in this case but to an affirmative resolution that could require at least an hour and a half's debate.
I have a question for the Minister and, more particularly, the Committee to which the Bill will no doubt go following tonight's debate. Does the phrase in clause 22,
"or any provision of the Act of 1980"
refer to the Act of 1980, as amended? I assume that it probably does, in which case, the effect of clause 22 is far greater than some of us may have thought. If it is correct—quite honestly, I do not think any hon. Member could say a definite yea or nay at this stage—it means that clause 22 takes the place, at least in some respects, of the parts of the public and general Acts that I have quoted. That is a very important question. If clause 22 takes the place of those provisions, it means something highly controversial.
One of the matters that we have been discussing in the House in the past few weeks is the extent to which a regulation can change an Act of Parliament. In this case, we have a Bill privately promoted by a body set up by an order under the Secretary of State suddenly providing the Secretary of State and itself with enormously increased powers. That gives rise to questions that the Private Bill Committee may like to look at.
The Government may have seen the problem, too. They may not be too keen on the clause because it creates a closed circuit running something like this: Secretary of State; quango produced by order; quango produces private Bill to give more powers to the Secretary of State. That is not a democratically healthy circle. I shall leave it at that because the Minister and the Committee to which the occupants of the Chair have referred may have views on the matter as well. If, as I confess is the case, these matters have come to light only in the past week—although I was unhappy last October—parliamentary scrutiny has at least been shown to be effective. I do not think that anyone inside or outside the Chamber has been responsible for trying to pull a fast one. The problem has arisen at least partly inadvertently—if, indeed, the provisions have the effect that I fear.
That is the end of what I might call the procedutal prelude. I shall now consider the LDDC and the Bill,
698
particularly the byelaws contained in it. I will not consider the part relating to transfer, because I have already dealt with it.
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) sees the LDDC and its work in quite the same way as those of us on the north side of the river. I suspect that that difference is due to environmental considerations, because the Surrey docks have shown examples of what some people have said was needed. The late Lord Cross of Chelsea, who chaired the Select Committee of the Lords when the LDDC was set up, said that what was needed was lots of small houses, all with gardens, to rent at reasonable rates. He said that, unfortunately, we on the north of the river would not get them for a while, but that the LDDC might provide them. I suspect that a high proportion of those that it has provided—few enough—are probably in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I therefore forgive him for having what I might regard as a rosy-eyed view of the LDDC's activities.
Mr. Simon Hughes: There may be more of such housing on our side of the river, but we have never said that there is enough. On the contrary, many empty private flats are available for rent, but we could have fully occupied social housing, which is urgently needed and which would be willingly occupied.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. It shows just how unsuccessful the LDDC has been, because the Surrey docks, by nature of their size, layout and the fact that most of the docks, apart from the green land on the south dock, has been filled in, offered the maximum opportunities for such development.
The Bill entrenches, if anything, the existence of the LDDC—that temporary statutory body which was hailed, particularly by the former Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, as something akin to a new town corporation. It was the very opposite. New town corporations took lots of parcels of empty private land and put them together for housing and industry, based on a properly planned infrastructure. They created different zones for this, that and the other. The LDDC, however, took over vast areas of publicly owned land—railway land, dock land and gas land—and split it up for private development. It did not ensure that the necessary infrastructure existed.
I accept that the area has miles of roads and tunnels. Millions have been spent on roads, but the railways—
Ms Gordon: What about the docklands light railway?
Mr. Spearing: The DLR was first suggested by the dockland joint committee—the much abused but constructive committee of the Greater London council and the boroughs. In 1978, it published a booklet entitled "Bus, Underground or Tram?" The supertram was chosen. That option was the first proposal for public transport, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) has said, the Beckton extension in Newham will be the last to be, opened. We hope that it will be opened next week and that it will work.
Even if the system works, journeys are long. A person first gets on at Beckton, but to get to the Bank—the expensive extension on which Canary Wharf was predicated—he must change at Poplar. He must then change at Canary Wharf. Two changes must be made

699
because, in about 10 miles of railway, the electrical system is different. The DLR was the first plan, but it will be the last to be implemented.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar said, many people are employed in small workshops and small industries in docklands. The firms and their proprietors said that the development would fetch a lot of money—I do not blame them for that. They saw it as a capital gain. They either closed their existing firms or, if they wanted to keep going, they had to take sites a long way away. That meant that firms missed the local connections and local people, particularly those in the Canning Town area. Some of the firms have survived, others have not. Some of the industries that came to docklands have, however, brought their workers with them, particularly those who are left in the print industry.
The LDDC was not entitled by statute to set up a community, but it should have provided schools. In my constituency, the south of Newham, south of the A13, which covers a distance as great as from Earls Court to Blackfriars or from the south of Chelsea embankment to the middle of Hyde park, there is no secondary school. Despite the houses and gardens that have been built in New Beckton—those properties are full not of yuppies, but of hard-working local people—no secondary school exists. In the past five years, the three Members who represent Newham have visited Ministers to try to obtain that school, but the Government will not give us one.
I know that the provision of that school is not the responsibility of the LDDC, but the Government have tried to set up the area as a model. The LDDC has not done in Newham what it has done in other areas. We may not have Canary wharf in Newham, but nor do we have what we want. The LDDC has not achieved the regeneration of the community or the regeneration of families—that is what it is supposed to be about.
A suitable legal and constitutional structure does not exist. We have not had that under the LDDC and, given the way in which the transfer of responsibilities is envisaged, it does not look as though we will have a satisfactory structure in the future. The Bill is, perforce, an unwelcome necessity, because the LDDC must have some statutory duties to cover itself and those of us who are responsible for the law. If someone drowns in the dock or there is a need for policing, an authority must have some powers to offer some public order.
I was pleased to note that officials of the LDDC tabled a new clause for the Bill when it was considered in the Lords to provide it with some obligations. Clause 5(1) states:
"It shall be the duty of the Corporation, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under this Act, to have regard to the desirability of securing the use of the designated areas for a diversity of purposes which may include sporting, recreational, cultural, commercial, energy-related and navigational purposes."
It is a duty to "have regard" not a duty to do and it "may" meet that obligation. At least the obligation is included in the Bill, which is a good thing.
The designated areas are largely water. On the map that has been provided with the Bill, the land areas are, understandably, of limited size because the great bulk of the area is made up of the docks. Clause 7 says that the corporation, as part of its functions under the Act, should
700
"have regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining public access to the waterside."
The clause refers not to the river, but to the docks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has already mentioned.
The two big remaining docks are the West India docks, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, and the Royal docks in my constituency. They are 2.5 miles long and probably represent the biggest area of impounded water of its type in the world. They have 15 miles of deep water quays and represent an inestimable potential for London. They are a much underestimated resource. They are, however, expensive to maintain.
One of the good things that the LDDC has done is to re-establish the George V lock. It has also built two new swing bridges and a third is probably to come. It has resuscitated the West India docks lock and built new swing bridges within that system. The wharves are partly the responsibility of the landholders and partly the responsibility of the LDDC. It has told me that, before it is wound up, the wharves will be put into a fit state.
This is a harbour, however, and it is an expensive one to operate. When 10,000 to 15,000 tonne ships were coming into the Royals, lined up on each side—we have all seen the pictures—the costs of maintaining those docks and the West India docks was pooled and was a levy on the cargoes. It was relatively easy to do. However, if the docks are used for recreational purposes, as they will be, the money for them must be collected somehow.
I understand that £1 million a year could be needed for the dock systems. If that money is to be raised solely from the holders of the land around, the choice by the LDDC of the applicants for the local plan, especially in the Royal docks area, will be constrained by the question of who is to pay for those harbour costs. If we still had the Greater London council, which used to manage things such as Crystal Palace sports centre, Kenwood or whatever, it would have been an all-London facility, but, alas, we do not have that agency, which could have taken such administration in its stride.
We have proposals for housing—alas, not a high proportion of the type of homes that my hon. Friends and I wish for. There has been much talk about an urban village, but the housing constraints, debated this very afternoon in the House, mean that it will be difficult to achieve the balance of community that everyone locally wants and the housing that the people in need of housing in east London, from Newham and elsewhere, want.
The Victoria dock is currently used, under the initiative of the Newham borough council, as a magnificent sailing reach, open to the south-west prevailing wind. I do not think that anything should be put in place that would materially affect that magnificent sailing stretch, but there are proposals for bridging and for other crossings of that water.
The rowing course in the Albert Dock is well used, but there may be an opportunity to make extensions, and to create a course to Olympic standards. The course is already used many times a year by the Poplar and Blackwall club on the Thames for youth and national rowing, and it is something of which London can be proud. The pontoon dock could make a small harbour for learning for canoeists and all types of water activity that is not suited to the larger and longer reaches.
The LDDC has created an organisation known as the Royal Docks Management Authority—RODMA for short.

701
The borough council and I want to know how that organisation will fit in with those recreational demands, and how the money will be raised. I have had no convincing answer to those questions.
In docklands we have part of London's maritime heritage—a heritage of which we can be proud. There are possibilities for working areas of dockland as it was. HMS Warrior was built on the River Lea, only a few hundred yards from the Royal docks, at the old Thames ironworks. That water should be used for all types of purposes, as should the surrounding land. For example, there is a possibility of the university of East London setting up an area on the north side of the Albert dock.
However, the Bill will do very little in those respects. It does not give much vision. It fills in the legal vacuum of the byelaws, which is necessary, but, if we are to judge the future on the performance of the past, we shall not build on firm foundations. The Bill may be passed, with or without clause 22. I believe that there are some fundamental constitutional question marks over that clause. We need something much more radical and practical, and something that will provide the people of east London—indeed., the people of Greater London—with a better statutory and financial basis for the future of the Royal docks and the whole of the dockland area. It is the western extremity of the much-trumpeted Thameside corridor, which is, if not a jewel in the crown of the Government, at least something which they claim. Those claims will not be made manifest without more thought and a much better Bill.
8.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It may be helpful if I make clear the Government's approach to the Bill. Our remit is straightforward. It is to ensure that the provisions of the Bill accord with public policy generally. We have considered the Bill. It has been amended in another place—I understand to take account of the concerns of the boroughs—and we are generally content with its proposals.
The Bill is of a comparatively short compass. It acknowledges that the docks can still hold dangers for the general public and that in those circumstances there is a need for an effective regime to regulate the conduct of people in and around the dock estate, to ensure public health and safety, to prevent pollution and to secure the reasonable and quiet enjoyment of the dock environment.
That is what the corporation's Bill seeks to achieve. It is a thoroughly sensible Bill and it is slightly disappointing that Opposition Members have chosen to impair the speedy progress of the Bill, especially given its primary aim of ensuring the safety of the public in and around the clock estate.
Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister tell us in what way we have impaired the speedy progress of the Bill? All that we have done is to ask questions and raise points and get the promoters of the Bill to accept an amendment that the Government should have sought when they were consulted in the first place.
Mr. Baldry: Given that the hon. Gentleman has spent most of today trying to get the Bill ruled out of order—
Mr. Dobson: No, I have not.
Mr. Baldry: Absolutely. If the hon. Member looks at his point of order and the points that he made earlier, it seems strange that he is now indicating that he wishes the Bill to have a speedy passage.
The hon. Gentleman sought to raise an issue suggesting—
Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way again?
Mr. Baldry: Perhaps if I answered the point that the hon. Member initiated, he could then respond to it.
Mr. Dobson: Would not it have been better if the hon. Gentleman had not missed what had gone on earlier because he was not in the Chamber at the time?
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman argued that the Bill should be treated as a hybrid Bill because—
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like the hon. Member to identify any point at which I have said anything in the Chamber about this being a hybrid Bill. The only matter that has been challenged is whether it was appropriate to have what would be better in a public general Act in this private Bill.
Mr. Baldry: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is not arguing that the Bill is a hybrid Bill, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's definition of a hybrid Bill might be. It was clear what the hon. Gentleman's point of order was this afternoon. It was to seek to prevent debate on the Bill. That was the reason why he got to his feet and that was the sole reason why he came to the House. He sought to do two things this evening; one was to pursue that point and the other was to make an election address which doubtless will be used by his party in Millwall. Apart from that, he has not added much to the sum of human knowledge.
However, the hon. Gentleman did raise a point, to which I am seeking to respond, that clause 22 sought to create a new power. I shall deal with that point from the perspective of the Government and it is a matter that the sponsors of the Bill may wish to take on board in Committee. As far as I am concerned, clause 22 does not create a new power. Under section 165 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, as amended by section 180 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, urban development corporations' undertakings can be transferred to any local authority, statutory undertakers or any other body by agreement between the parties with the approval of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State can, by order, transfer urban development corporations' property rights and liabilities to himself. It could therefore be argued quite strongly—indeed, I would argue it if I were on the Committee—that clause 22 may be unnecessary as transfer of the powers to make byelaws for which it seeks to provide could be dealt with under the 1980 Act. As I have said, the Bill's sponsors may wish to take up that point in Committee.
I am saddened by the general tone of the debate. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) introduced it in a measured, responsible, positive and constructive way; subsequently, however, we have heard rather negative and destructive speeches. Labour Members have queued up to denounce the work of the LDDC: none could bring himself or herself to say a single decent thing about any of its achievements since its inception.

703
Let me explain why I find that sad. There are 12 urban development corporations in the country, all of which I have visited—as have my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction and many other Ministers. All the corporations are now in cities and the areas involved are not under the political control of the Conservative party; they are often controlled by Labour.
I am bound to say that in every other area Labour has managed to develop a strong sense of partnership with the development corporations. As my right hon. Friend and I embark each year on the review of the corporate plans of the various corporations, the point made to us in many other areas is not, "This development corporation is imposing terrible things on our area", but, "We welcome what the corporation is doing for our city: we appreciate the opportunities that it offers. We would like its life to be extended, because we see that the whole partnership approach is bringing enormous benefits to our area." It is sad that Labour Members do not appreciate the benefits that the LDDC has brought to their areas and constituents.
Ms Gordon: The Minister seems to be unaware that a fascist was elected to the council in the enterprise zone—the very area over which the LDDC has control, into which it has put so much money and work. The area is seething with discontent. Even if the LDDC's main aim was to promote business, businesses would run a mile from an area of racial violence and constant trouble.
When Labour Members have approached the LDDC asking for help for certain projects and explaining what the community wants, their requests have been largely ignored. Tricks have been pulled like the one involving the docklands light railway: our proposal for a community trust was rejected and we were told that our compensation would be an underground station at Island Gardens. But it has become clear that, with a stroke of the pen, the projected station is to be abandoned. That is our experience—a bad one. Perhaps other areas have had better experiences of urban development corporations.
Mr. Baldry: With respect, I consider that completely fanciful. First, all the local authorities concerned are represented on the development corporation. I am not a stranger to the boroughs concerned; I visit them frequently and meet borough leaders. I am sure that if they had the concerns to which the hon. Lady refers, they would make them clear to Ministers—but they do not. This kind of rhetoric, vocabulary and syntax in references to the LDDC is confined to Labour Members. I do not know whether that is because they feel that, as the development corporations were established by a Conservative Government, they cannot bring themselves to say a decent word about them; but I suspect that that is the only possible reason.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) expressed anxiety about the future of the area once the LDDC's life ended. It has always been accepted that the corporation's existence was finite: it was always part of the agreement with Parliament that, because of the scale of the regeneration that was needed, the corporations would need to take certain powers, but that in due course they would cease to exist and those powers—planning powers, for example—would have to be returned to the boroughs.
My right hon. Friend and I would be more than willing—certainly, I would—to meet hon. Members who
704
represent constituencies within the LDDC area to discuss a succession strategy. The development corporation is already beginning to work on such a strategy. It knows how much money it has to invest during the remaining period of its existence, and it is engaging in constructive, positive discussions with the boroughs concerned. I am more than willing to discuss the future of the docklands area with Labour Members: I am determined to drag them into the real world and to discuss the achievements and potential of the area for their benefit and that of their constituents.
Mr. Spearing: That invitation illustrates the vacuum that exists: if the debate does nothing else, it will have done that. Let me assure the Minister that visits from successive Ministers—including the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction—have been cordial, on a personal level; but the resources have been available to the wrong people, in the wrong places, in the wrong way.
The Minister said that no appreciation had been expressed. I think that, in my speech, I thanked board members and staff who are constrained by instructions from the Secretary of State and by existing laws; I also said that the LDDC had done a good job in regard to locks, swing bridges and docksides—thanks to a chairman whom I will not name, but who is now being appointed to yet another quango. I hope that he will do well, but I fear that he will not.
Mr. Baldry: I think that the only vacuum has been Labour Members' lack of appreciation and understanding of the LDDC's contribution to the regeneration of the docklands area.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that he could not find the figures showing how much public money had been invested in docklands. During the 13 years of its existence, the LDDC has invested some £1.6 billion of public money, but it has used that money to lever in substantial sums of private money—£6 billion. Every penny spent by the corporation is accounted for. Each year, it publishes its corporate plan and discusses it with local authorities.
The LDDC's deputy chairman, Lord Cocks, is a former Labour Member: indeed, I seem to recall his being a Labour Chief Whip. There is ample cross-party involvement. Everyone seeks to ensure that the money being invested is put to the best possible use for local people. Indeed, throughout its existence, the LDDC—like every other development corporation—has sought to work in partnership with the three local authorities, with private developers, with housing associations and with other statutory bodies.
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is committing himself to a burst of open government, will he tell us the cost of capital allowances for individual enterprise zones and for individual developments within them?
Mr. Baldry: I shall gladly answer any parliamentary question that the hon. Gentleman cares to table, provided that it has been deemed to be in order. He will not expect me to be able to answer off the top of my head specific questions such as the one he has just put to me.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks was that there was something covert and unspecified about the way in which development corporations operate. That is not true. Development corporations have money voted by Parliament. This is part of the inner cities vote of my

705
Department. It is perfectly transparent and perfectly accounted for each year in the corporations' plans. Indeed, it is in the interests of everyone that the expenditure of these bodies be revealed, as it can then be demonstrated clearly that, through the partnership approach that we advocate and promote, it has been possible to lever in substantial sums of private money for every pound of public money that is provided. The public-private partnership has been very much to the benefit of docklands and the rest of that part of London. It has enabled us to provide new roads, railways, tunnels and other facilities.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that for a very long time after the war vast parts of London constituting what is now the docklands development area were left derelict despite administration by Labour Governments and Labour councils? It was in response to that waste that, in the late 1970s, people like Lord Mellish, with Conservative support, argued passionately for this approach, which was put in train by the Conservative Government. In Salter road in Bermondsey, one can now see a transformation that is heart-warming by any standards.
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. Everyone recognised that the rundown of the docks and the urban decay, compounded by poor housing and inadequate community facilities, presented an enormous challenge. But the challenge was matched by the potential. The opportunities that were provided were unmatched anywhere in Europe. The London Docklands development corporation has helped to meet the challenge and secure realisation of much of the potential.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman talks about a public-private partnership. Will he tell us the cost of the capital allowances for the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone? One of his predecessors—the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Wales—simply refused to give this information. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that such information will be available?
Mr. Baldry: I thought that I had already answered that question. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am more than willing to provide him with as much information as possible and that I shall certainly answer any parliamentary question that is considered by the Table Office to be in order. I have made it clear several times this evening that it is in the interests of everyone that the fullest possible information about what is happening in docklands be provided.
It is desirable that we demonstrate clearly to the House and to the world at large the success of the partnership approach. It is very sad that the Labour party still has difficulty grasping the concept of partnership between the public and private sectors. What has come through clearly in the speeches of Opposition Members is that the only government they consider worth while is that which they control. It appears that they still regard public-private partnership as total anathema.
Opposition Members have complained of the insufficiency of new housing in docklands. It is clear that they have been walking around with their eyes closed. In docklands, more than 16,000 new homes have been completed. A good 20 per cent. of them are for low-income families. The development corporation has worked with II housing projects—some of them for shared ownership and
706
some of them for local authority homes. Environmental improvements have been made to 3,500 homes in 40 housing estates. The corporation has supported a whole range of initiatives right across the boroughs involved. Substantial sums of public and private money have gone into new office and other developments.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made scathing comments about jobs. The fact is that the number of jobs has increased from 27,000 in 1981 to 55,000 today. That is a very substantial increase and all the projections indicate that the number will quadruple to well over 200,000 by the year 2001. The docklands development corporation has also been investing substantially in skills of and for local people, again working in partnership with local authorities and other agencies. It has invested about £76 million to assist. docklands schools and post-16 colleges; it supports training schemes and more than 5,000 training places have been sponsored in a range of occupational skills; and schools have been helped in a variety of ways. I am glad that boroughs such as Newham and Tower Hamlets have worked closely with the development corporation on memoranda of agreement and the Accord programme and on a range of community projects such as the recently opened North Woolwich children's centre in Newham and the health centre for family care in Wapping. Currently, 84 voluntary and community groups receive funding support from the corporation.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Baldry: No, I shall not give way.
I could go on almost all night explaining the achievements in docklands: new jobs, new housing and a substantial number of small businesses and work spaces. I could talk about the extension of the Jubilee line to docklands and of the docklands light railway to Lewisham, which is another private finance initiative levering in money from the private sector to add to money raised in the public sector. I could talk until dawn, but that would still not impress Opposition Members, who are convinced that nothing good could ever come of the development corporation. They are determined for theological reasons never willingly to acknowledge that the corporation can do anything good. People who live in the area—
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Baldry: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman several times. People who live in the area have seen the new offices, the new housing and the new businesses and jobs that have come to docklands as a result of the Government's substantial investment in the LDDC which has been supported by the private sector. I only hope that in time Opposition Members will understand that the solid foundations laid by the LDDC will continue for many years to come, to be built on for the benefit of docklands and, more important, for the people who live there.
The Bill is a sensible measure. I am saddened that its progress through the House has not been speedier. It is intended to add to the safety of those who live and work in the docklands area, and the Government wish it a speedy passage.
9.6 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak for a second time.
I wish first to pick up on one or two of the Minister's comments, for which some of us are grateful. The Minister cannot complain that progress has been slow. So far, today's debate has lasted two hours and seven minutes. Since the Bill received a First Reading, there has been no delay other than that which was necessary while the Bill went to the Examiners, and it has won the first slot available for private Bills since then. We are all seeking to make good progress. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we welcome the fundamentals of the Bill regarding the making of byelaws and the governing of water in the area, and the Minister has heard no criticism about them.
If I were to divide the debate between the two sides of the House, I should say that on the Minister's side the argument is that everything in the docklands garden is rosy and that on this side people are saying that everything is not. The objective evidence tends to support the views expressed by those on this side. Of course, there are good things in docklands and the Minister was fair enough not to criticise me for saying otherwise. However, the most telling point from this side of the House is that, despite all the money being invested, there will never be a satisfactory result unless the people themselves are allowed much more opportunity to decide about that money. People will never be happy if they are told how their money is to be spent and if an undemocratic committee makes the planning decisions. The people themselves have a view. In the east end, in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, people have very strong views and are perfectly able to express them given half the chance.
Mr. Dobson: As the Minister would not give way, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wanted to urge the Minister to urge the LDDC to agree to produce and to publish figures that showed how many of the remaining jobs in docklands, how many of the jobs transferred to docklands and how many new jobs in docklands had gone to people living in docklands. Until the development corporation does that, it will not be trusted in terms of jobs by local people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Mr. Hughes: I agree entirely. One of the points with which we must deal is how we reconcile European legislation and local labour agreements. It is no good the LDDC making general points when all the results of its efforts do not go to the local community. Speaking for my constituency—the position is not dissimilar in Tower Hamlets—I point out that we have some of the highest unemployment in the country. When people see work being done and new jobs being created on their doorsteps, and when they cannot have those jobs, there is bound to be discontent.
I now turn to the central technical and drafting point of the debate—clause 22 and "the undertaking" referred to there. If we look at the definition clause, clause 2, we find a definition—perhaps I should say an only slightly illuminating definition—of "the undertaking". The amended definition reads as follows:
'"the undertaking' means the undertaking of the Corporation in connection with the designated areas, as from time to time authorised, or any part thereof and includes any functions conferred on the Corporation by or under this Act".
708
It is probably the case, as the Minister said, that the Local Government, Land and Planning Act 1980 gives the Government the power to hand over undertakings to whomsoever they will under various proceedings. The Bill seeks to deal specifically with the byelaw provisions and to decide where they go. That is my understanding, which seems to be consistent.
None the less, if we are giving byelaw powers to the LDDC, it is logical for us to want to know where those powers and the other substrata powers will go in future. We can have that debate in Committee. If the Committee is satisfied that there is no need to have different legislation and if we are happy with the substantive Act, we shall be happy with the Bill. None the less, that is a proper matter for debate. The crucial issue is where the powers, whether byelaws or substantive powers, will go.
Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if, in his wisdom, the Minister had decided that clause 22 is unnecessary, it might have been sensible if he or his officials had given that view to the LDDC? Most of our debate tonight would then have been quite unnecessary and the Minister might have been able go to his supper rather earlier.
Mr. Hughes: We shall never know why that did not happen. The Minister accepted that there has been consultation. Private Bills are sent to the Government so that they can give their views on it. The Government might have spotted that point earlier. Perhaps no one grasped the issue at an early stage.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the definition clause was amended. However, it is still ambiguous. The undertakings established by the Bill are undertakings of obligation rather than undertakings of business. The definition clause says:
"'the undertaking' means the undertaking of the Corporation in connection with the designated areas, as from time to time authorised, or any part thereof and includes any functions conferred on the Corporation by or under under this Act."
The word used is "includes". That does not mean that the clause excludes everything else. The clause includes the words "in connection with". Land within, say, a few hundred metres of the dock could well come within that definition. All this needs tidying up in a big way.
Mr. Hughes: Not only the hon. Gentleman, but I and others share that view. In terms of explicit, clear drafting, the definition clause does not get us much further than it would have done if it had not been included. There is a little exercise for us all to do. The moral of the story is that we must all go away with two tasks in terms of drafting. First, we could all try to make a better hash of what we are trying to do in clause 22 and try to ensure that things say what they are meant to say. Under clause 5 we have an addition, by amendment, giving a general duty as to designated areas. It may be, now that the promoters have accepted the principle of the general duty and been more specific, we could make an improvement on that, too, to make sure that we meet the needs of the people for whom the Bill is being promoted.
Let me now deal with the more factual questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), both in his speech and in interventions, dealt with the provision of services for docklands—housing, job creation, infrastructure and investment. We have dealt with figures setting out how

709
much money has been spent in docklands and there is a perfectly acceptable and agreed breakdown there. It is correct to say that the £1.6 billion includes only £155 million for social housing, so social housing has not been the core commitment. In single subject heading terms, the core commitment has been roads and transport. All dockland Members of Parliament would say that we need more housing investment and in particular more such investment to meet the needs of those who are either inadequately or badly housed or not housed at all.
An inspection of the Isle of Dogs figures or the Bermondsey figures shows that the nature of houses built is such that there is a significant mix. This was done for social mix purposes. In the Isle of Dogs, the owner-occupied figure is 30.1 per cent., private rented housing is 11.3 per cent., housing association housing is 10.9 per cent. and council housing is 47.7 per cent. The need is clearly for significantly more social housing.
It is quite possible to talk about demand for private housing until one is blue in the face, but it is true to say that there has not been that demand recently. Using the test of need, it is plain that we need more social housing at rents that people can afford. There is a need for more shared ownership and for cheap owner-occupied housing. What we do not need is a lot of luxury housing that lies empty year after year because no one can afford it.
Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Member have any figures showing how much of the money spent on social housing encompasses new spending for entirely new housing or for rehabilitating existing dwellings and how much was spent on houses to replace those knocked down for other purposes by the development corporation?
Mr. Hughes: The short answer is no. But it is a good question. Not very much housing has been knocked down. The only significant estate that I am aware of that was knocked down was for the purposes of the Limehouse link. Otherwise, there have been some that were knocked down as part of general improvement schemes, including south of the river, that were much less controversial.
I urge all hon. Members who have an interest in this issue to appreciate that if there are any unsatisfactory or unresolved issues, now is the time to tackle them. There are two reasons for this. The first is that we have the Bill before us and, therefore, have the corporation a bit more by the short and curlies than is usually the case. Secondly, de-designation will start soon and after that it will be too late. I invite them all to compile their lists. I will make: my list, we can aggregate them and we will go to see the Minister, his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction and the corporation officials to get what we can. I say specifically to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) that I include in that list what seems a perfectly reasonable request to make a bid for a station on the docklands light railway at Island Gardens. I had to battle for three years to get underground stations in Bermondsey and Southwark on the Jubilee line and eventually we got them. We need to join the hon. Lady's battle.
There are also small but important matters to consider, such as the need to ensure that we do not price local community groups such as the docklands sailing club out of using facilities because unreasonable rents are charged
710
for the use of the slipway or for the car park. All those are perfectly reasonable requests, for which we have to go into bat.
Mr. Heald rose—
Mr. Hughes: Just one second. I want to deal with the hon. Lady's other point.
I profoundly agree with the hon. Lady on the question of access to the waterfront. I have a pair of cutters ready sto cut open a gate which is meant to be open, but is locked. I will do so. I do not mind who arrests me for it because it is meant to be open space, it was promised to be so, there is no planning permission to stipulate that it be shut off and we must ensure that the LDDC delivers that promise. In my case, this involves King and Queen wharf and the hon. Lady also has good examples. We must ensure that the advantages to the public, not only of the steps to the river which they always had, but of the new opportunities, are theirs for the taking. It is no good losing all the business and all the docks and still not being able to get to the river. Let us take advantage.
Mr. Heald rose—
Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was once my opponent before he went to another seat.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am quite willing to concede that he thrashed me on that occasion. When he talks of property left idle because it is luxury property, does he agree that what has happened in the Dockyard ward in his constituency is a huge transformation and is, generally speaking, for the good? Does he agree that the mix of housing and industrial and retail use in that ward is well balanced and that the LDDC has achieved a great deal?
Mr. Hughes: I agree that there are many good things. There has been support for community groups, a lot of new-build housing, refurbishment in the Old Amos estate which was falling down and new road building. Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), we have had new schools built in areas which needed them.
Mr. Spearing: Has the hon. Gentleman had new secondary schools?
Mr. Hughes: We have not had new secondary schools; we had new city technology colleges. They were much more controversial, but that is a separate point.
Mr. Heald: I campaigned for them.
Mr. Hughes: Some of us campaigned against them, but they came in all the same.
Many of these new things are wonderful, but the point that I was making earlier was that, if one pulls the plug by de-designating without the resources to ensure that the Surrey water, the footpaths and the pump houses have the resources, we shall be left with a lot of potentially brilliant estates, which will become run down and not be the sort of public wealth which we want it to be. That is a crucial issue for us in the Dockyard and Riverside ward on our side of the river and we are first in the de-designation priority list.
That links with the hon. Lady's final point about the timetable for running down. I do not know whether she has seen the published timetable for de-designation, which the Government are working towards. It begins with south of the river in the current year, mid-1994 for Bermondsey

711
Riverside, 1995 for Beckton and Wapping, 1996 for the Surrey peninsula in Southwark and Limehouse and Tower Hamlets, 1997 for Isle of Dogs, South Poplar and West Leamouth in Tower Hamlets and 31 March 1998 for the Royals and what are described as the remainder—East Leamouth and the riverside belt in Newham.
That is the timetable, but it is still flexible and I understand that the hon. Lady, like the rest of us who share those views, have been invited to talk to the Minister about that. We need to do so and ensure that the timetable reflects the views of the local authorities, the local communities and ourselves. In my case, I shall make it absolutely clear that we are not yet ready to agree because we do not think that the package deal is yet in place.
To return to the points about employment made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, yes, there have been a lot more jobs created, but he is right to say that every new job is not a net increase in jobs. Many jobs have been lost. There has been a net increase, but even a net increase of jobs does not necessarily mean jobs for the locals. I use that term generically because we are all aware of the issues. The issue is that, in areas of high unemployment, jobs on one's doorstep are the best. That was the merit of the docks in the past.
The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to the general duty. I have alluded to that point and we may want to beef it up in clause 5. He also referred to the importance of the maritime heritage. We must ensure that we maximise that. He also emphasised the need for appropriate infrastructure. We all echo his plea and hope that the houses will not be built without ensuring that there are schools, roads, parks and community facilities to support the people in the area.
The Minister was challenged in respect of his thesis that the docklands has been a wonderful development. Whatever we may think about how it was created, it has done many good things. I am aware that I am now entering controversial territory, but I hope that there will be agreement about my next point.
I am not making a party political point, but one of the reasons why a British National party councillor was elected in the Isle of Dogs was that if one lives in a community where one cannot get a job or a decent home or have all the facilities, and if on one's doorstep there are people with luxury jobs who earn huge salaries and live in luxury housing which they sometimes do not use for half the year and who are clearly living a totally different life, one thinks that the democratic process is letting one down.
Underlying the debate about byelaws, the important debate is that of the future of democracy in docklands. If the Minister has not heard adequately from the three councils concerned, in the case of Tower Hamlets, what the people need, he should talk also to the neighbourhood councils, including the Isle of Dogs and the Wapping neighbourhood councils, where elected representatives will tell him what the people need.
Ms Gordon: I want to tell the hon. Member and the House about a meeting in my constituency at which two sections of the community nearly came to blows—it was touch and go.
The King Edward memorial park, a little local park which is one of the few small areas of open waterfront, was, according to the plaque, given to the people.of the
712
area in perpetuity. A development company made a bid for a large part of that park to build a luxury tennis centre. Local people with money, who had lately moved into expensive housing in the area, attended the meeting. The older residents opposed the proposal because they wanted to keep access to the whole of their park in which there were knock-about tennis courts where the kids played after school which were well used and there was no charge.
The wealthier people who had moved into the area said, "There isn't a decent tennis centre closer than Islington and it's about time we had one." The elderly residents were worried about their park. That meeting nearly came to blows. The development company had thugs seated around the auditorium. That is the kind of thing that is happening. People feel that they are being pushed out and that they have to fight for the few amenities that they have, let alone to gain more amenities from the LDDC.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is right. The Bill is clearly trying to improve the conditions of people who live and work in and visit docklands. I understand that, and that is why I am promoting the Bill. However, docklands as a whole will be judged by whether it improves the amenities in all respects for those who live and work in and visit the area.
As we are probably in the last few years of the docklands corporation, unless the Government understand that a fundamental change of attitude is still required so that people do not come in, make profits and leave, and do not simply put in their money for their own leverage and results, and unless the Government understand that we still have some of the largest problems in the country—and that means ending and narrowing the social divide—the history of docklands will be only partially successful. It will leave a legacy of discomfort, dissatisfaction and disrepair.
Mr. Spearing: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the planned de-designation timetable, which is controversial in terms of the agreements on planning, particularly for the Royal docks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a factor which the Minister might bear in mind—I am sure that there will be conversations about it—in that the proposals for a single regeneration budget for London and a senior regional director in a multi-ministry team, undoubtedly in Canary wharf, will have great significance because included in the Secretary of State's non-statutory notice was the fact that the whole of the operation of the London Docklands development corporation will come within the purview of that team and a controversial senior civil servant, who has yet to be appointed?
Mr. Hughes: I agree with that comment. We need to watch this space and ensure that we do not lose out in that respect.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. However, hon. Members must not think that it is the end of the battle for docklands to be as the people of docklands need them. That battle goes on. I hope that increasingly the Government will respond. But they will respond well only if they listen well and hear what the people of docklands north and south of the river say.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
9.31 pm
Sitting suspended.
It being Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Question on supplementary estimates, 1993–94.

CLASS VII, VOTE 1
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £213,686,000 he granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, Improvements and investments, payments to the Housing Corporation, payments to commute loan charges on grants to local authorities including the urban programme and urban development grant, and other sundry services.
The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 33

Division No. 163]

[10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Hague, William

Alexander, Richard

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Alton, David

Hanley, Jeremy

Amess, David

Harris, David

Ancram, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Arbuthnot, James

Hawkins, Nick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hayes, Jerry

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Heald, Oliver

Atkins, Robert

Hendry, Charles

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

Baldry, Tony

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bates, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Booth, Hartley

Jack, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bowis, John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Brandreth, Gyles

Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

Brazier, Julian

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bright, Graham

Kilfedder, Sir James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom

Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Kirkwood, Archy

Burns, Simon

Knapman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Butler, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Knox, Sir David

Clappison, James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Congdon, David

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Conway, Derek

Legg, Barry

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Cran, James

Lidington, David

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Lightbown, David

Devlin, Tim

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dover, Den

MacKay, Andrew

Duncan, Alan

Maclean, David

Duncan-Smith, Iain

McLoughlin, Patrick

Durant, Sir Anthony

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Malone, Gerald

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Mans, Keith

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Marlow, Tony

Fabricant, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Merchant, Piers

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Moate, Sir Roger

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Monro, Sir Hector

Gallie, Phil

Moss, Malcolm

Gillan, Cheryl

Nelson, Anthony

Gorst, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Paice, James

714

Pawsey, James

Sykes, John

Pickles, Eric

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rathbone, Tim

Thomason, Roy

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Rendel, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Richards, Rod

Thurnham, Peter

Riddick, Graham

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Robathan, Andrew

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

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Trend, Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Viggers, Peter

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sackville, Tom

Waller, Gary

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waterson, Nigel

Shersby, Michael

Watts, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wells, Bowen

Soames, Nicholas

Whittingdale, John

Speed, Sir Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Spink, Dr Robert

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Sproat, Iain

Wolfson, Mark

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wood, Timothy

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Stephen, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Streeter, Gary

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Sweeney, Walter

NOES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Lewis, Terry

Barnes, Harry

McCartney, Ian

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

McWilliam, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mahon, Alice

Corston, Ms Jean

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Cox, Tom

Maxton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Miller, Andrew

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dixon, Don

Pike, Peter L.

Dowd, Jim

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

Eastham, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Etherington, Bill

Spellar, John

Hall, Mike

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Hanson, David

Hardy, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Hinchliffe, David

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Hood, Jimmy

Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Question accordingly agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Questions which Madam Speaker was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (l) of Standing Order No. 53 (Question on voting of estimates, &c.).

ESTIMATES, 1994–95 (NAVY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1995 a number not exceeding 59,550 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1994–95 (ARMY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1995 a number not exceeding 157,155 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 125,000 for the Individual Reserves, and a number not exceeding 66,500 for the Territorial Army.

ESTIMATES, 1994–95 (AIR) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1995 a number not exceeding 78,450 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 19,250 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,500 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1992–93
Question put,
That a sum not exceeding £355,824,479.56 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 198.
The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 33.

Division No. 164]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Hunter, Andrew

Alexander, Richard

Jack, Michael

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Jenkin, Bernard

Alton, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Amess, David

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ancram, Michael

Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

Arbuthnot, James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Kirkwood, Archy

Baldry, Tony

Knapman, Roger

Bates, Michael

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Batiste, Spencer

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Booth, Hartley

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

Boswell, Tim

Knox, Sir David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Bowis, John

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Brandreth, Gyles

Legg, Barry

Brazier, Julian

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Bright, Graham

Lidington, David

Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Lightbown, David

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Lynne, Ms Liz

Burns, Simon

MacKay, Andrew

Burt, Alistair

Maclean, David

Butler, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Malone, Gerald

Clappison, James

Mans, Keith

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Marlow, Tony

Congdon, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Conway, Derek

Merchant, Piers

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Mills, Iain

Cran, James

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Devlin, Tim

Moate, Sir Roger

Dorrell, Stephen

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Dover, Den

Nelson, Anthony

Duncan, Alan

Neubert, Sir Michael

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Nicholls, Patrick

Durant, Sir Anthony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Paice, James

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Pawsey, James

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Pickles, Eric

Fabricant, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Rendel, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Richards, Rod

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Riddick, Graham

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Robathan, Andrew

Gallie, Phil

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Gillan, Cheryl

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Gorst, John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Sackville, Tom

Grylls, Sir Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hague, William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Shersby, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hanley, Jeremy

Soames, Nicholas

Harris, David

Speed, Sir Keith

Harvey, Nick

Spencer, Sir Derek

Hawkins, Nick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Hayes, Jerry

Spink, Dr Robert

Heald, Oliver

Sproat, Iain

Hendry, Charles

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

Stephen, Michael

716

Streeter, Gary

Waterson, Nigel

Sweeney, Walter

Watts, John

Sykes, John

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thomason, Roy

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Thumham, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wood, Timothy

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

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Trend, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Waller, Gary

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

NOES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Barnes, Harry

Lewis, Terry

Berry, Dr. Roger

McWilliam, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Mahon, Alice

Corston, Ms Jean

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Cox, Tom

Maxton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Pike, Peter L.

Dixon, Don

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dowd, Jim

Skinner, Dennis

Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

Eastham, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Enright, Derek

Spellar, John

Etherington, Bill

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Gunnell, John

Worthington, Tony

Hall, Mike

Hanson, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Home Robertson, John

Mr. Bob Cyer and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Hood, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94
Question put,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,148,689,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 199, 200 and 261.
The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 23.

Division No. 165]

[10.30 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clappison, James

Alexander, Richard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Congdon, David

Alton, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Amess, David

Cran, James

Ancram, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Arbuthnot, James

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dover, Den

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Alan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Baldry, Tony

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bates, Michael

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Boswell, Tim

Fabricant, Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bowis, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brandreth, Gyles

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brazier, Julian

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bright, Graham

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gallie, Phil

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gillan, Cheryl

Burns, Simon

Gorst, John

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butler, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Cartile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hague, William

Chapman, Sydney

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

717

Hampson, Dr Keith

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hanley, Jeremy

Nelson, Anthony

Harris, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Harvey, Nick

Nicholls, Patrick

Hawkins, Nick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hayes, Jerry

Paice, James

Heald, Oliver

Patnick, Irvine

Hendry, Charles

Pawsey, James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pickles, Eric

Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jack, Michael

Rendel, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Robathan, Andrew

Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sackville, Tom

Kirkwood, Archy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shersby, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

Soames, Nicholas

Knox, Sir David

Speed, Sir Keith

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Legg, Barry

Spink, Dr Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Sproat, Iain

Lidington, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lightbown, David

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Lynne, Ms Liz

Stephen, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Streeter, Gary

Maclean, David

Sweeney, Walter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sykes, John

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marlow, Tony

Thomason, Roy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thurnham, Peter

Moate, Sir Roger

Townend, John (Bridlington)

718

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

Widdecombe, Ann

Trend, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Waller, Gary

Wolfson, Mark

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wells, Bowen

Mr. Tim Wood and Mr. Derek Conway.

Whittingdale, John

NOES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Lewis, Terry

Barnes, Harry

McWilliam, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Mahon, Alice

Cox, Tom

Maxton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Pike, Peter L.

Dowd, Jim

Skinner, Dennis

Eastham, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Worthington, Tony

Gordon, Mildred

Hall, Mike

Tellers for the Noes:

Hanson, David

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Hood, Jimmy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the three foregoing Resolutions relating to supplementary estimates, 1993–94, estimates, excesses, 1992–93 and,supplementary estimates 1993–94 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1993 amd 1994: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Homosexual Offences (Prosecution)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
10.41 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first thank you for relinquishing your bed tonight to be with me. I have some dreadful bug and I should have been in my bed tonight. However, what I have to say is most important, so I shall struggle on. I also thank the Solicitor-General who executes his responsibilities with the highest level of integrity.
My local newspaper revealed that 21 homosexual men were arrested committing acts of gross indecency in a public toilet that my children pass on their way to school every day. I congratulate the Essex police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government on their policy and action in prosecuting those perverted men and protecting my community. All public toilets in my constituency now have to be closed at night—locked up—and one of them was taken entirely out of use on police advice to stop the homosexual act that I understand is called "cottaging".
The reduction in the, age of consent and the profound experiences of my constituents suggest an urgent need to review prosecution policy for homosexual offences and that is why I am raising the matter tonight.
I will defend the right of homosexuals to live without discrimination and in dignity—indeed, I welcome loving and caring relationships between all people—but there can be no equality between natural sexual intercourse and buggery, which is wrong because it is medically dangerous, social destructive and unnatural. It is against nature's laws. We must protect immature teenage boys from exploitation by homosexual men who tend to be more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts and live within a corrosive subculture.
Section 12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, as amended in 1967, gives that it is a felony for a person to commit buggery with another person or an animal, with the exception of consenting males who have attained the age of 21. Crown prosecutors must be concerned with two criteria in deciding whether to prosecute any offence, including buggery. First, there must be evidential sufficiency and, secondly, the prosecution must be in the public interest.
I will show that the public interest is best served by an uncompromising prosecution policy and by setting out the various issues and arguments covering equality and life style, immaturity, freedom, health and health education, promiscuity, the buggery lobby Stonewall's tactics and many other issues.
I will start with discrimination. The law as it now stands does not in any way criminalise homosexuality itself or discriminate against homosexuals. It simply prevents the sodomy of teenage boys, all women, small children and animals. The proposed reduction in the age at which buggery would be legal would increase discrimination, on the basis of gender, by making buggery legal with a teenage boy, but keeping it illegal with a woman of any age in or out of marriage. That would indeed be discriminatory.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Why should there be an age of consent for an act of perversion at all?
Dr. Spink: My hon. and learned Friend makes his point most succinctly, and I thank him for that.
I come to the quite different argument of equality. Stonewall has predicated its case on the falsehood that there is equality between the sex acts—the point that my hon. and learned Friend has just raised. Of course, all sexual acts are not equal. The acts of incest, paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and buggery have been outlawed over centuries in every civilisation, and for good reason.
Let me briefly review the argument of the prosecution policy for offences of forced buggery. Such offences are tried on indictment. If the victim is a woman, the maximum punishment is life. If the victim is a teenage boy aged 16 to 21, it is only 10 years. That is discrimination on the irrational basis of the gender of the victim. I know of no other crime where the sentence is determined by the gender of the victim. I want life for male rape.
I come now to the life style argument by quoting Christian Action Research and Education, which said in a letter on 7 February:
"Engaging in homosexual acts at a young age involves much more than sleeping with someone; it has now become a decision to adopt a particular lifestyle. The all-embracing power of the homosexual sub-culture in our society should not be underestimated."
An 18-year-old boy who consents to a homosexual act is initiated into a lifestyle that will separate him from the mainstream of society. For vulnerable and lonely teenage boys, homosexuality can offer immediate warmth and acceptance. There is a sense of identity and comradeship, but there is a price to pay—childlessness, instability, disease and now the mortal danger of AIDS. That price is not something which many teenage lads are properly able to evaluate, and that brings me to the immaturity argument.
Even at 18, boys can be sexually and socially confused. In the letter of 7 February, CARE stated:
"We do not believe homosexual orientation to be fixed and absolute, and note that emotional feelings towards those of the same sex are not uncommon, particularly in adolescence … The main role of the law in this area must be to protect individuals and especially young people from any exploitation."
Those are sound words, and I agree with them entirely.
The British Medical Association acknowledged in 1976 the
"slower rate of biological development"
of teenage boys. That comes from the Library research paper, 94/12. Moreover, in 1979, the Home Office Policy Advisory Committee on sexual offences stated:
"Many young people aged 16 are still at school or have just started work … They are all to some extent at risk of seduction by homosexuals, especially those in authority over them. Some boys may be confused about their sexuality and a boy who is so confused is particularly open to exploitation. The majority of us do not think that it is a sufficient answer to say that a 16 year old boy is strong enough to repulse any unwanted homosexual advances: the fact that the boy consents to homosexual advances does not mean that he is unlikely to be harmed."
Clearly, any reduction of the age of buggery would put teenage boys who are just below any new age at risk and under greater pressure from the "don't knock it until you've tried it" pro-buggery lobby. Stonewall stated in its "Case for Change" of September 1993 that if 18 was passed it would be back again for 16 and in the meantime it would insist on a policy of no prosecution for the buggery of 16 and 17-year-olds.
Prosecution policy sometimes accepts the existence of grey areas. It is known as the penumbra effect and currently operates with regard to sodomy. There is a general policy of non-prosecution for those over 18. I do

721
not want to see any such penumbra effect for 16 and 17-year-olds. I ask the Solicitor-General to clarify Government policy tonight. Prosecution policy must uphold a law that has been passed through all its stages in this House and another place and given Royal Assent. It would be a contempt of Parliament for a waiver to be given in those circumstances.
Mr. Alan Duncan: I have a very simple question. Why does my hon. Friend think that the solution to two 18-year-olds consenting to have sex together is to send them to prison?
Dr. Spink: My concern is to prevent those two 18-year-olds having sex that would be medically dangerous and would take them into a life style that they might regret when they became older. I want the age of consent to remain as it is at 21 because I truly, honestly and sincerely feel for those young people. I have a number of young children myself.
I turn now to the unworthy argument, "They do it anyway so why not legalise it?" Some teenage boys abuse dangerous drugs and solvents. I do not want to legalise those practices because, as with buggery, they put our lads at greater risk. Those lads deserve our love, our care and our protection from predatory older men and from themselves. We owe it to them, to their mothers and to their fathers.
I reject the voting age argument and the argument that people fight for their country at 18. One cannot indulge in drugs, in incest or in bestiality at 18 or bugger a woman at 18. Why should one be allowed to bugger a man at 18?
Let me deal now with the feeble-minded freedom argument. Absolute individual freedom is not possible in a civilised society. We all know that. Laws restrict individual freedom—even the freedom to damage oneself or consenting others in private.
While we are on intellectually sloppy arguments, let me put to bed immediately the argument that says that we are out of step with the continent. If that be so, so be it. The continent is out of step with nature. As for the case in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and articles 14 and 18 of the convention, we can face that challenge if we so wish.
The Church Society stated in January:
"There is no culture that accepts homosexuality as natural. All world religions consider it immoral."
However, I shall not moralise tonight in any way.[Interruption.] I have not done that. My arguments for animating prosecution policy are purely medical and social and based on my concern for young people. The medical arguments are the strongest, so let me address them now.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Spink: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I explain that it is the convention that hon. Members do not give way in an Adjournment debate unless it has been previously arranged. I have given way on several occasions, but I am using time up.
Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. May I point out that interventions are always at the discretion of the person who has the Floor.
Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
722
The medical arguments are the strongest. Hon. Members should look into the darkened, hollow eyes in the white shrunken faces of the young AIDS victims just down the road from here in King's College hospital. Then they would not relax prosecution policy, or legalise, and therefore promote disease-ridden practices of buggery.
Buggery is not like heterosexual intercourse. The receptor organ is entirely different and designed, not to protect, as in the female organ, which is 20 cells thick, but to damage by facilitating the exchange of fluids direct into the bloodstream through the one-cell-thick epithelium. We have gay bowel syndrome, parasitic colon diseases and hepatitis A. Buggery spreads venereal diseases. It spreads blood-borne disease such as AIDS and hepatitis B—a sobering thought even for the responsible sodomite, but not for the generally more promiscuous teenage boys who cannot evaluate the risks. Here I am relying on evidence from the British Medical Association, which stated in January that
"unsafe sexual behaviour and HIV infection have both increased among homosexual men after a period of decline and that recent figures for new HIV transmissions show that younger men are disproportionately affected."
Project SIGMA found that homosexuals under 21 are more likely to engage in receptive anal sex without protection. Those under 21 are more likely to be HIV positive and to contract rectal gonorrhoea than the over-21s.
I come now to the important health education argument—the key argument of the pro-teenage buggery lobby. That lobby argues that, to promote safe sex education, buggery should be legalised.
The Education Minister stated in answer to my written question:
"The new arrangements for sex education introduced by the Education Act 1993, which will come into force in September 1994, require maintained secondary schools to provide sex education".—[Official Report, 26 January 1994; Vol. 236, c.290.]
That sex education would include clear information on safe sex in a proper context for all children and young people.
Library research paper 94/12 states that in any event
"It is well documented that among"
homosexual
"and bisexual men knowledge of HIV risks is generally accurate and universally high."
The Health Education Authority stated in January 1994 that
"much of the"—
sex education—
"restriction is self-imposed by health educators and that there is no restriction on aiming health promotion at young"
homosexual
"men under the age of 21, nor on limiting education in schools aimed at the purpose of treating or preventing … disease."
The law therefore needs clarifying, not changing.
On balance and in the light of the evidence, I reject the health education argument. In a nutshell, children will get safe sex education at school, they universally and accurately know about safe sex and such education is now legal. Many homosexuals still—unbelievably—indulge in unsafe sex, in full knowledge of the dangers, and in any event, safe penetrative anal sex is an illusion.
The editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology has written:
"I find absurd the popular notion that condoms allow anyone safely to engaged in sexual relations with HIV carriers … The AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than sperm, therefore the effectiveness of condoms is seriously impaired by the well

723
established fact that latex rubber contains inherent structural flaws which are at least 50 times larger than the HIV virus."
There is food for thought.
Allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to show you this full-page picture of a suggestive nude male and a seductive nude lady. The headline asks, "Which do you find more attractive? " The man or the lady, I suppose. The advertisement continues:
"To help you sort out your feelings, it's quite likely you could have a sexual encounter or two with a member of your own sex.
Of course, this should still involve safer sex"—
interestingly it does not mention safe sex, only safer sex—
"This could include massage, body rubbing, or mutual masturbation.
Penetrative sex can be more risky. But it is unprotected anal sex that's the riskiest of all … So if you do try it, you should always use stronger condoms … if you practise safer sex"—
again safer and not safe—
"you know you're doing everything you can to protect yourself and your partner."
Nowhere does it hint at the possibility of saying no to what is an illegal act. The advertisement seems to be promoting the act.
That advertisement was published in a weekly football magazine for young boys, by the Health Education Authority using public funds. My constituent Mr. Waterton was right to complain of the shock and upset that the advertisement caused his children and those of his friends.Hon. Members will be astounded by that irresponsible advertisement.
On disinformation, I recall that Sir Ian McKellen told me during a live television debate that 97 out of every 100 practising homosexual men do not know about—or have never had any education about—safe sex and condom use. That obviously false assertion typifies the pro-buggery lobby tactics of spreading disinformation and confusion.
Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Spink: But some of their tactics have been more subtle and they have been aided by a biased or intellectually sloppy media. They talk only of some ephemeral equality, and never about the buggery of teenage boys, which is the only issue that is on the table now. They put up Sir Ian McKellen as their spokesman—a gentle, acceptable, lovable, media-wise operator. He is not some outrageous queen. He would not frighten the horses. He is the kingpin in the seductive, well-oiled homosexual propaganda magazine, but his actor's mask fell when he said that a case could be made for no age of consent.
I turn to homosexual promiscuity and the impact that that has on homosexuals' life expectancy, which is significantly lower than that of their heterosexual counterparts. In Essex, 21 homosexual men have, so far this year, been arrested indulging in acts of gross indecency in one toilet. That practice is happening in hon. Members' constituencies up and down the country even as I speak. Mrs. Edna Adams, a great Dorset dignitary, told me last week that a pair of jeans hung in a tree in Arrowsmith road indicated that the children were not safe because the homosexuals were out.
The promiscuity evidence is explained and developed in the book "The Sexual Dead-End" by Stephen Green MA, but I will give an example. Danneckers' survey found that
724
80 per cent. of young homosexuals had more than 20 sexual partners and one in seven had sex with more than 50 men in the previous year.
My seventeenth and final argument concerns public opinion. The buggery lobby, Stonewall, commissioned a Harris poll which found that 74 per cent. of the population approved of teenage buggery. Gallup, in its much more independent "Social Trends" poll four months earlier, found that 74 per cent. disapproved. It goes to show that if one pays the piper enough, he will play any tune that one wants. The truth is that the Great British public want homosexuals to live without discrimination but they do not want the buggery of teenage boys. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Dr. Spink: In 1977, their lordships refused to give a Second Reading to Lord Arran's Bill to lower the age for buggery from 21 to 18.
Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way on buggery?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made the point very clearly. May I also point out to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that this is a half-hour debate. The custom is to allow about half the time to the hon. Member raising the subject and about half the time to the Minister.
Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made an arrangement with the Minister, and I shall stick to it if I may.
The Lords threw out that Bill. One Member of the original Wolfenden Committee, the Marquess of Lothian, argued that boys between 18 and 21 were still at risk of exploitation. Those comments appeared in Hansard of 14 June 1977. Even the libertarian Lord Kinsey concluded that teenage lads experience considerable personal conflict over their homosexual activities and try to make heterosexual adjustments. I beg their lordships to do their duty again.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Solicitor-General, for listening so attentively to my arguments. Does the Solicitor-General recall that, while he was on sabbatical, Lady Thatcher said:
"any such proposal would give totally the wrong signal at this time. It would give offence to many people and worry many more and would give us great problems in the future. I would be very much against reducing the age of consent."—[Official Report, 15 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 391.]
Her words were prophetic. As Lady Thatcher indicated, any relaxation of prosecution policy would give totally the wrong signal. The overwhelming medical and social evidence shows that we need a red light not a green light to the buggery of teenage boys.
11.3 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I am answering the debate as the second Law Officer of the Crown, not as the Member of Parliament for Brighton, Pavilion, in which capacity I voted on the amendment to the age of consent that the House debated on 21 February this year.
I want to make it quite plain to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that I do not propose to follow him in discussing the relevant merits of any

725
particular age of consent. I am here to deal with current prosecuting policy on the basis of present law and nothing else.
I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the work done by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. In view of the extensive area that my hon. Friend has covered, I shall go straight to a number of the principal points that he has raised.
First, the CPS deals—and, in the nature of things, can only deal—with those cases brought to its attention by the police. The police set their own operational priorities; no politician, however senior, has any business or power to direct the operational behaviour of the police.
The second matter that I must make plain is that the prosecuting policy in this country is not a matter for the Government at all. It is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the head of the CPS, under the superintendence of the Attorney-General, as the first Law Officer of the Crown. No Minister, however senior, has any right to intervene in the execution of that policy.
There are three main offences to which prosecuting policy refers: buggery, gross indecency between males and solicitation of men. It is significant to observe that, in a number of respects, special safeguards operate before proceedings can be instituted. For example, in relation to buggery or gross indecency, where one or more of the men is under the age of 21, prosecution cannot be instituted without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Secondly, there is a time limit on the institution of prosecutions in those cases other than where the victim is a boy under the age of 16. In those other cases, the prosecution must be brought within 12 months of the offence being committed.
The maximum sentence for buggery in particular and, to a lesser extent, gross indecency reflects two main considerations—age and consent. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment and, depending upon age and consent, it descends to two years' imprisonment. As Lord Justice Lawton said in the case of Willis, in an ordinary case of buggery by a mature man with a boy under the age of 16, in the absence of mitigation or aggravation, the correct sentencing bracket is between three and five years. The maximum sentence for gross indecency varies between five years' and six months' imprisonment.
As my hon. Friend has said, the CPS applies two tests before it institutes proceedings. They are exactly the same tests as are applied to any other offences. First, it decides
726
whether the evidence affords a realistic prospect of conviction; secondly, if that prospect exists, it decides whether the prosecution is in the public interest.
I will glide quickly over the evidential test and go straight to questions of public interest, which I imagine will be of primary concern to most hon. Members.
My hon. Friend said that if one of the offences that I have mentioned had been committed, a prosecution ought to follow, as night follows day. The answer to his point was given as long ago as 1951 by Lord Shawcross, then the Attorney-General, who said:
"It has never been the rule in this Country—I hope it never will be—that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution."
Successive Attorney-Generals have followed that injunction from that day to this. Of course, broadly speaking, the graver the offence, the less likelihood there is that the public interest will allow of any other disposal but prosecution.
However, in deciding where the public interest lies we take into account a number of matters. They may include any of the following seven—first, the age and relative ages of the people involved; secondly, whether there is an element of seduction or corruption; thirdly, whether there is any breach of trust; fourthly, whether there has been any exploitation of position or influence; fifthly, the likely sentence; sixthly, the prevalence of a particular offence in an area; seventhly, the prevalence of annoyance or distress to the public.
Therefore, my hon. Friend will understand that there is a difference between offences committed in private and those committed in public as far as the incidence of public interest factors is concerned. The latter two categories—the sixth and seventh considerations that I mentioned—are likely to hold greater weight if the offence takes place in public.
The factors that I have dealt with are set out in the eighth paragraph to the "Code for Crown Prosecutors", which is a public document and a copy of which is in the Library.
My message for my hon. Friend is this. That is the way in which current prosecuting policy works. Those are some of the public interest factors that we apply. Each case is considered on its merits. It is considered without fear or favour, without affection or and on mature reflection he may come to the conclusion that—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

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

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

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of new furniture for each private office in his Departments during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Nelson
  The cost of new furniture in the Chancellor's office was £1,150. There was no expenditure on new furniture in other private offices.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many agency chief executives in his Departments 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. Dorrell
  One agency chief executive in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments is paid more than £82,925 per year, excluding performance-related bonuses. The person in question was recruited directly to the post from outside the civil service.

  Exchequer Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what property, leased or owned for the purposes of the Exchequer, is not in current use.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. All the properties occupied and used by the Treasury form part of the Government's common user estate which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will answer in respect of that property. The Treasury has no other property holdings.

  Inflation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps the Government are taking to prevent inflation in asset prices from spreading to goods and services;

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the inflationary effect of increases in house prices; and what steps the Government intend to take to prevent house prices from rising further in 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are committed to low inflation and will continue to conduct monetary policy so as to deliver their inflation target.
  456
  Monetary policy decisions are based on assessments of a range of monetary and other indicators, including house prices and other asset prices. Asset price movements have in the past been valuable leading indicators of inflation, but the Government do not rely on any single indicator.

  As stated in the 1994–95 "Financial Statement and Budget Report," while some recovery in house prices is expected in 1994, inflation is still forecast to remain within the Government's target range.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Government distinguish between asset inflation, cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation for the purposes of fiscal and monetary policy; and which of the three principally characterised inflation between 1987 and 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's monetary policy is set to deliver low inflation irrespective of its cause. Figures on a wide range of monetary and other indicators are monitored, including asset prices, earnings, other input prices and activity. These are published regularly in the monthly monetary report, which has included charts for the period referred to.

  PSBR
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the proportions and the amounts of the public sector borrowing requirement funded by the trading banks for each year since 1985 in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy; and what amount of United Kingdom gilts in each year were purchased and held by(a) banks, (b) pension funds and (c) other financial institutions.

  Mr. Nelson
  Data on Government financing by type of debt holder are published by the International Monetary Fund in its "Government Finance Statistics Yearbook". This covers the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy. More detailed sectoral analyses of United Kingdom gilt transactions are published by the Bank of England in its "Statistical Abstract".

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many collection staff were working for the Inland Revenue in each year since 1980(a) in London and the south-east and (b) in the United Kingdom as a whole in the area of value added tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No Inland Revenue staff are employed in the area of value added tax. Value added tax is entirely dealt with by Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total number of Customs and Excise officers engaged in value added tax inspections in the Doncaster area in each year for the last 10 years;

  (2) what was the total number of value added tax inspections carried out in the Doncaster area by Customs and Excise officers in each year for the last 10 years.

  Sir John Cope
  Information is not available for the whole period requested. For the years to the end of March 1991, March 1992 and March 1993 Doncaster local VAT office assigned 48, 50 and 47 officers respectively to visiting duties. For the year to the end of March 1994, it is expected that 45 officers will be assigned to this work.
  457
  A total of 4,088 visits were carried out by those staff in the year ending 31 March 1991, 3,197 in 1992 and 2,956 in 1993. It is planned to complete some 2,500 visits by the end of March 1994. Businesses are selected in accordance with their risk profile which may vary from year to year. Better targeting of resources and the time needed to carry out each visit also has an effect.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of what proportion of the total value added tax revenue is raised in(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Cope
  Estimated proportions are:

  Per cent.

  Wales

  4·6

  England

  85·2

  Scotland

  8·0

  Northern Ireland

  2·2

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the outstanding value added tax debt of registered business in the Doncaster area.

  Sir John Cope
  Information regarding total outstanding value added tax debt is not analysed by geographical areas. Providing this information for the Doncaster area would involve disproportionate cost.

  Excise Duties (Evasion)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis cases of evasion of duty on imports of wine, spirits or tobacco are dealt with in magistrates courts.

  List of voluntary organisations and housing associations who receive funding through section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 under the Rough Sleepers Initiative in 1993–94

  Organisation/Association

  Project

  London Borough

  Total grant (£)

  Alone in London Service

  Resettlement Work

  Camden

  21,000

  Arlington HA

  Arlington House hostel1

  Camden

  31,000

  Resettlement Work

  Centrepoint

  Vauxhall Hostel1

  Lambeth

  894,327

  'Off the Streets'

  Westminster

  Management of PSL properties1

  Westminster

  Resettlement Work

  Camden/Lambeth/Westminster

  Soho Square winter shelter

  Westminster

  CLHAS

  Resettlement Work

  Westminster/Camden/Islington

  80,467

  Crisis

  Tooley Street winter shelter

  Southwark

  216,225

  DePaul Trust

  Lord Clyde nightshelter1

  Lambeth

  295,211

  Moorhouse Road hostel1

  Westminster

  Resettlement Work

  Lambeth

  Drink Crisis Centre

  Hostel Workers

  Lambeth

  50,000

  English Churches

  Station Hotel hostel1

  Camden

  880,164

  Housing Group

  New To London hostel1

  Westminster

  MacNaghten House hostel1

  Camden

  Nevern Mansions hostel1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Resettlement Work

  Camden/Westminster

  Allied House winter shelter

  Islington

  Homeless Network

  Improved Support Project

  Westminster

  59,000

  Housing Services

  Managing PSL properties

  Camden

  273,295

  Agency

  Clearing Housing Project

  Camden

  Resettlement Work

  Camden

  Hyde HA

  Private Sector Leasing1

  Bromley

  106,100

  London Borough of Camden

  Albert Street winter shelter

  Camden

  79,000

  458
  Sir John Cope
  Proceedings for such cases may be taken in the magistrates court under sections 170(A) or (B) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, or under sections 170(1) or (2) of that Act if the magistrates court accepts jurisdiction where it considers its powers of sentencing adequate following representations from Customs and the defendant or his representative.

  Sections 170(A) or (B) carry maximum penalties of £5,000. Sections 170(1) or (2) involve fraudulent intent to evade duty and carry maximum penalties of six months' imprisonment and a penalty of £5,000 or three times the value of the goods concerned.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projects which have received rough sleepers initiative funding during 1993–94, the amounts allocated and the London boroughs in which they are located.

  Sir George Young
  As part of the rough sleepers initiative in central London my Department has allocated grant aid in 1993–94 under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to the housing associations and voluntary organisations shown in the following table.

  In addition, the Housing Corporation has made capital allocations of £67 million to 23 housing associations to provide at least 1,500 places in permanent accommodation for people who are in hostels or on the streets to move on to.
  459

  Organisation/Association

  Project

  London Borough

  Total grant (£)

  London Connection

  Resettlement Work

  Westminster

  182,448

  London and Quadrant Housing Trust

  Private Sector Leasing1

  Lewisham

  89,000

  Look Ahead HA

  Resettlement Work

  Westminster

  18,000

  Met Office

  Weather Forecasting

  —

  1,463

  National Council of YMCAs

  West Cromwell Road Hostel1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  74,000

  New Horizon Youth Centre

  Resettlement Work

  Westminster

  26,000

  North Lambeth Day Centre

  Resettlement Work

  Lambeth/Southwark

  95,730

  Netting Hill Housing Trust

  Private Sector Leasing Rent Deposit Fund

  Kensington and Chelsea

  228,000

  The Passage

  Passage Nightshelter

  Westminster

  190,000

  Providence Row

  47/49 Crispin St. hostel1

  City of London

  418,000

  50 Crispin St. hostel1

  City of London

  Ede House hostel1

  Hackney

  Resettlement Work

  City of London

  Resource Information Service

  Information gathering

  —

  3,180

  Riverpoint

  Management of PSL properties1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  241,622

  John Street winter shelter

  Camden

  St. Mungo Association

  Nevern Square hostel1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,205,005

  Bassett Road hostel

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Vartry Road hostel1

  Haringey

  Chichester Road hostel1

  Brent

  City Road hostel1

  Islington

  Hatton Gardens hostel

  Islington

  Siddons Buildings hostel

  Westminster

  Outreach/Resettlement Work

  Westminster/Lambeth/Camden

  Neville House winter shelter

  Westminster

  Salvation Army

  Outreach/Resettlement

  Hackney

  168,641

  Tudor Street winter shelter

  Camden

  SHAC

  Hostels Vacancy Information Project

  Westminster

  114,000

  Shaftesbury Society

  Lansdowne Centre hostel1

  Southwark

  171,000

  John Kirk Centre hostel1

  Southwark

  Aldershot Road hostel1

  Brent

  Short Term Leasing

  Management of PSL properties1

  Islington

  167,000

  South London Family HA

  Private Sector Leasing1

  Lambeth

  11,000

  Thames Reach

  Outreach/Resettlement Work

  Southwark

  59,000

  Lincoln's Inn Outreach Team

  Camden

  Threshold HA

  Private Sector Leasing1

  Wandsworth

  21,000

  West Hampstead HA

  Private Sector Leasing1

  Camden

  173,000

  1 These organisations also receive RSI revenue funding from the Housing Corporation.

  Use Classes Order
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed his review of the working of the use classes order in relation to houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environenmt if he will make a statement on the control of the change of use of hotels to hostels by planning authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  The review has now been completed. The Government are satisfied that there is a real and specific threat to the amenity of tourist areas from the establishment 460
  of such hostels in traditional hotel areas. It is investigating the feasibility of legislation to introduce a licensing system for the establishment of hostels.

  As a temporary measure pending the introduction of any such licensing scheme, an amending order being made today will amend the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 to require planning permission for the change of use from a hotel to a hostel.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the interdepartmental working group on derelict land to report; and if he will make a statement.
  461
  Mr. Atkins
  There is no interdepartmental working group on derelict land. If, however, the hon. Member is referring to the review of the arrangements for dealing with contaminated land, I refer him to the answer I gave on 8 March 1994,Official Report, column 110.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete the register of derelict land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  If the hon. Member is referring to registers of land subject to contaminative uses under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Government withdrew their proposals on 24 March 1993,Official Report, column 633.

  If the hon. Member is referring to the registers of vacant and underused public sector land, these are compiled each year by local authorities and other public bodies. My Department does not have a central register.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for changes to the area cost adjustment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The area cost adjustment was given extensive consideration during the 1993 review of standard spending assessments. We do, however, wish to look again at the way the adjustment works within the south-east region outside London. We shall be discussing shortly with the local authority associations the 1994 programme of technical work on SSAs.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that wind farms are not located in environmentally sensitive areas or in areas of natural beauty.

  Mr. Baldry
  Planning policy guidance note 22 gives advice on renewable energy projects which local planning authorities should take into account when they consider planning applications for wind farms. This guidance makes it clear that authorities must always weigh the desirability of exploiting a clean, renewable energy resource against the visual impact which the development may have on the landscape.

  The PPG also emphasises that particular care should be taken in assessing proposals for developing all renewable projects, including wind farms, in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Broads and sites of special scientific interest.

  Grand Island Gas Scheme
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much grant was paid to British Gas by Greater Manchester development corporation for the development of the Grand Island scheme;

  (2) what is the current situation concerning the grant dispute with British Gas for the Grand Island scheme in Manchester.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Central Manchester development corporation has paid grant of £4,464,940 to British Gas land division. CMDC is now taking steps to recover this grant.

  Development Grants
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what checks are made by his Department to ensure that grant levels paid for development purposes are appropriate.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department operates a range of grants. Grant schemes have a stipulated set of conditions including monitoring and appraisal requirements.

  City Grant
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning possible abuse of grants analogous to city grant which are offered by urban development corporations in their own areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Foleshill Gas Works
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether agreement has been reached with British Gas on the appropriate level of grant needed to ensure the development of the Foleshill gas works site in Coventry.

  Mr. Baldry
  English Partnerships has made a proposal to British Gas, the site owners, under which a grant could be offered for a first phase of development on the Foleshill site. English Partnerships has also suggested a possible joint venture for the development of a second phase.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spends on child care provision for the under-fives and out-of-school provision for children aged over five either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is thereby provided; how many places are thereby provided; and if he will make a statement on child care.

  Mr. Baldry
  The amount included in local authority standard spending assessments for 1994–95 in respect of the education of children under five is £935·2 million. The amount spent by local authorities on provision for child care, and the number of places thereby provided, are matters for individual authorities.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were made in the development of the single regeneration budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been extensive consultation on draft bidding guidance for the single regeneration budget, both centrally and at local level. Some 10,000 copies of the draft bidding guidance on the single regeneration budget have been distributed; 11 seminars organised by the Department have been held throughout England; and several hundred written responses have been received. The responses will be taken into account in finalising the bidding guidance which is expected to be issued in early April.

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what powers individual citizens have to force local authorities to control fouling by dogs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what powers local authorities have to control and deal with dog faeces; what representations he has received to increase those powers; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans he has to amend the law to classify dog mess as litter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the provisions of part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities have a duty to keep certain public areas, such as parks and highways, clear of dog faeces. Citizens can apply to a magistrates court for a litter abatement order if a local authority fails to carry out this duty.

  Local authorities in England and Wales can also adopt "poop-scoop" byelaws which make it an offence for owners not to clear up after their dogs in designated areas. It is however, for each local authority to decide whether or not to adopt such byelaws.

  The Tidy Britain Group and others have proposed replacement of poop-scoop byelaws with national legislation to make it an offence for any person to allow a dog to foul any area to which the public have access. 'The Department's advisory group on litter is currently considering this proposal as well as the suggestion that dog mess should be defined as litter. The advisory group's report is expected to be completed in the near future.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his office on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Prime Minister in 1990–91 and after 28 November 1990, 1991–92, 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94;

  (2) what was the (a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his office on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Prime Minister in 1990–91, after 28 November 1990, 1991–92, 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  The Prime Minister
  Disaggregated budget information is not available, nor is information for portions of financial years. The outturn for total travel and subsistence costs for domestic and overseas travel recorded in the financial years in question was as follows:

  Domestic travel £

  Overseas travel £

  1990–91

  617,943

  1991–92

  89,810

  860,307

  1992–93

  71,078

  1,190,087

  Information on spending in 1993–94 will be available after the end of the financial year.

  These figures relate to sums paid in the relevant financial years: in some cases payments may relate to travel in the previous financial year.

  No. 10 Downing Street (Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the budget for the running cost for the Prime Minister's residence at 10 Downing street for 1994–95; and what was the running cost of 10 Downing street over the last 14 years.

  The Prime Minister
  Figures on a consistent basis are not available. In 1980–81, recorded spending on 10 Downing street and Chequers on the votes of the Cabinet Office, OPSS, was £1·745 million. In 1981–82, charges were introduced for the use of Ministry of Defence aircraft. Including those charges, spending was £2·415 million in 1981–82 and £2·700 million in 1982–83. In 1983–84, charges were introduced by the Property Services Agency for buildings and services. Including those charges, spending was £3·026 million in 1983–84. In 1984–85, charges were introduced for use of the Government car service and for service personnel at Chequers. Including those charges, spending was £3·787 million in 1984–85 and £4·406 million in 1985–86. In 1986–87, the cost of office services was included in the No. 10 budget. Including those costs, spending since then has been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  4·963

  1987–88

  5·418

  1988–89

  6·554

  1989–90

  7·669

  1990–91

  8·226

  1991–92

  8·664

  1992–93

  9·866

  An outturn for 1993–94 will be available shortly; it is likely to be around the same level of spending as in 1992–93. The provisional budget for 1994–95 is £9·486 million.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 21 February,Official Report, column 849, what has been the total expenditure to date by the Government on the Government's "back to basics" policy; and how many departmental staff are currently working on the Government's "back to basics" policy.

  The Prime Minister
  As "back to basics" applies across a range of Government policies, the information which the hon. Gentleman requests could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  "Jimmy Young Programme"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the transcript of his interview of the "Jimmy Young Programme" on BBC Radio 2 broadcast on 7 March; and if he will make a statement on new policy positions announced in the interview.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The objectives of this Government remain unchanged.

  10 Downing Street (Jewellery)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister when the last independent audit of the 10 Downing street jewellery inventory took place; who carried out the audit; and what were the findings.
  465
  The Prime Minister
  There has been no such audit in recent years, although the items are and have been available for inspection by the auditors in the Cabinet Office or in the National Audit Office. I am satisfied that all the items concerned are in safe-keeping in Number 10.

  Ministers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of the number of Ministers in each Department with the numbers of Ministers in each corresponding Department in the period 1964 to 1970; and how the responsibilities of the respective Departments have altered.

  The Prime Minister
  Current information on the number of Ministers in each Department can be found in the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The responsibilities of Departments and the numbers of Ministers changed during the period 1964–1970. Tables of ministeral office holders were published regularly in Hansard.

  Cornwall
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on ministerial responsibility for Cornwall.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are collectively responsible for all regions of the United Kingdom.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 829–30, by how much United Kingdom output has fallen since the United Kingdom joined the EEC; and what have been the corresponding percentage changes since 1973 in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Changes in output between 1973 and 1983, as measured by the number of cars produced, were as follows:

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  -21

  Germany

  +3

  France

  -1

  Italy

  -39

  Belgium1

  -26

  Spain

  +113

  1 The comparision for Belgium is for the period from 1976 to 1992.

  Sources: "Motor Industry of Great Britain: World Automotive Statistics" and Motorstat Express, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 830, by what percentage employment in the United Kingdom vehicle and parts industry has fallen since 1973; and what have been the corresponding percentage changes in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain.
  466
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Between 1973 and 1993 the number of people employed in the United Kingdom motor vehicle and parts industry fell by 58 per cent.

  Figures for Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain are not available for the same period. But available figures show changes in people employed in the motor vehicles and parts industry were as follows:

  1976–1995 Per cent.

  1980–1992 Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  -52

  -45

  Germany

  +20

  +11

  France

  +35

  -32

  Italy

  -45

  -37

  Belgium

  n/a

  +3

  Spain

  n/a

  -6

  Source: Eurostat VISA database.

  Know-how Projects
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent his Department participates in the know-how projects to assist the development of enterprise in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has responsibility for the know-how fund scheme, on schemes to encourage enterprise in eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union. The Department is consulted on applications from United Kingdom companies for grants under the pre-investment feasibility scheme for potential investment projects in the region and for support under the training investment personnel scheme. My Department also provides advice as appropriate on projects to encourage the development of enterprise under the know-how fund country programmes and is consulted on aspects of the joint industrial company awards programme under which entrepreneurs from the region are seconded to United Kingdom companies in order to gain valuable commercial experience. Two officials from the Department have been seconded to the FCO to work on the know-how-fund programme.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the contribution of the university of Hertfordshire to the know-how-funded projects in Romania.

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

  The university of Hertfordshire has made an important contribution to the know-how fund's activities in Romania through its involvement in the successful launch of the Romanian centre for the improvement of management performance. The know-how fund will continue to support the university's work with the centre into the next financial year. It is planned that the centre will be financially self-sustainable in early 1995.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much office space, currently on lease to, or owned by, his Department, is not in current use.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to assist the countries of eastern Europe to benefit from the experience of the United Kingdom in respect of encouraging small businesses and the privatisation of state-owned industries.

  Mr. Needham
  The know-how fund, for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible, is the Government's principal programme to assist the countries of eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, to move to free market economies through the provision of advice and expertise. Two of the know-how fund key priority areas are assistance with the development of small and medium-sized enterprises and the encouragement of privatisation.

  United Kingdom imports of manufactures

  (£ million, current prices)

  Percentage change

  Annualised percentage change

  1970

  1992

  1993

  1970–92

  1970–93

  1970–92

  1970–93

  Irish Republic

  128

  3,249

  n/a

  2,432

  n/a

  16

  n/a

  Sweden

  236

  2,783

  3,006

  1,077

  1,171

  12

  12

  Norway

  118

  965

  1,048

  719

  789

  10

  10

  Denmark

  75

  1,305

  n/a

  1,642

  n/a

  14

  n/a

  Switzerland

  188

  3,823

  4,375

  1,935

  2,229

  15

  15

  Austria

  73

  922

  942

  1,157

  1,185

  12

  12

  Portugal

  56

  962

  n/a

  1,604

  n/a

  14

  n/a

  Note:

  n/a—1993 information on United Kingdom trade with EC member states is not available.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Proton cars were imported from Malaysia in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  The figures for imports by manufacturer are not available. Information on United Kingdom new registrations of Proton cars, all of which were imported from Malaysia, are published annually by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in "Motor Industry of Great Britain: World Automotive Statistics." The most recent data are published in "Monthly Statistical Review". Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Economic Development Agencies (North-west)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the number of economic development agencies in the north-west; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There is no agreed definition on the basis of which to identify bodies as economic development agencies.

  A number of organisations in the north-west are involved in assisting economic development, some independent, and some directly attached to existing bodies such as local authorities and chambers of commerce. The Government seek to promote a coherent and co-ordinated approach by all these bodies, for example through the business link initiative.
  468
  When Ministers from this Department visit the countries of eastern Europe, they use every opportunity to encourage the Governments concerned to continue on the path of economic reform including following policies which will promote the growth of a vibrant small firms sector and accelerate privatisation.

  Manufactures (Imports)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the increase in the United Kingdom of imports of manufactures by the Irish Republic, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal since 1970; and what was the forecast in the 1970 "Economic Assessment", Cm 4289.

  Mr. Needham
  Information concerning the increase in United Kingdom imports is given in the following table. Cm 4289 is available in the Library of the House.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list in order of pound sterling volumes the 10 principal product imports from Malaysia.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is provided in the following table.

  Top ten imports from Malaysia (£ million, current prices)

  Commodity

  Value

  Microprocessors with a processing capacity between 16 bits and 32 bits.

  208

  Motor vehicles of a cylinder capacity between 1000cc and 1500cc, new, assembled, other than station wagons and estate cars

  84

  Digital monolithic integrated units, other than memories, microprocessors, microcontrollers; other than gate arrays, standard cells, programmable logic devices; other than control circuits, interface circuits.

  51

  Data processing equipment, not elsewhere specified, other than peripheral units, punches, verifiers and calculators.

  29

  Microcontrollers with a processing capacity not exceeding 8 bits.

  25

  Plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each plynot exceeding 6mm thickness with at least one outer ply of: Dark Red Meranti, Light Red Meranti, White Lauan, Sipo, Limba, Okoume, Obeche, Acajou' Afrique, Sapelli, Baboen, Mahogany, Palissandre du Bresil or Bois de Rose Femelle.

  24

  Unwrought tin, not alloyed.

  23

  Wood of Dark, Red Meranti, Light Red Meranti and Meranti Bakau, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, of a thickness exceeding 6mm.

  23

  469

  Commodity

  Value

  Colour TV receivers with an integral tube, with a screeen width/height ratio less than 1·5, with a diagonal measurement of the screen between 32cm and 37cm.

  23

  Non-ditigal monolithic integrated units other than amplifiers, voltage and current regulators, control circuits, interface circuits.

  22

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  Vehicle Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of buses, coaches and mini-buses on British roads(a) in 1970, (b) 1979, (c) 1988 and (d) 1992; what was the proportion of imported vehicles in each year; and what factors underlie the trend in this proportion.

  Mr. Needham
  The available data are published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd. in the annual series of "Motor Industry of Great Britain, World Automotive Statistics". Data for the number of buses and coaches, excluding minibuses, in use can be found in table 40—Great Britain—and table 47—Northern Ireland. The number of vehicles with 10 or more seats imported by the United Kingdom can be found in table 91 of the aforementioned publication. Table numbers refer to the 1993 edition; there may be differences in earlier years. Figures for the proportion of imported vehicles in the total stock are not available.

  This publication is available in the Library of the House.

  EC Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of United Kingdom trade is with the EC; and what are his sources for the statistic.

  Mr. Needham
  The latest information on United Kingdom trade with EC and the rest of the world was published in the first release, balance of United Kingdom visible trade December 1993, CSO(94)47, by the Central Satatistical Office on 11 March 1994. The release is available in the Library of the House.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all regulatory and statutory changes which were designed to have, or had, the effect of benefiting persons who have been or remained members of syndicates of Lloyd's of London.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The regulation of Lloyd's is based mainly on the Lloyd's Act 1982 and the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Under the latter, the Secretary of State monitors the adequacy of Lloyd's solvency to ensure that its assets are sufficient to pay policyholders' valid claims rather than being designed to benefit members of Lloyd's. Regulation under the Lloyd's Act is a matter for the council of Lloyd's. Substantial changes to the taxation of individual members of Lloyd's were made by the Finance Act 1993. Further changes are proposed in the current Finance Bill; these reflect the admission of corporate members and also align the taxation of 470
  individual members with the self-assessment procedures introduced for individuals generally. Taken as a whole, the measures have no significant cost to the Exchequer, and therefore convey no benefit to members of Lloyd's.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trade figures between the United Kingdom and Iran since the restoration of relations in September 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the purpose and outcome of his visit to Indonesia in December 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did not visit Indonesia in December 1993.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with his Portuguese counterpart over EC and United Kingdom trade with Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have held such discussions, although when I visited Portugal recently I stressed the importance of increasing trade with far eastern markets generally.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which British firms have benefited from aid and trade provision assistance; by how much; and for what projects in Malaysia and Indonesia in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the topic was published annually in "Business Monitor MA20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" until 1992, and summary tables spanning 10 years are published in the "Annual Abstract of Statistics". Figures for 1993 are published in the December 1993 issue of "Business Monitor MM20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Community (Extra-EC Trade)". Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Design Council
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the Government's response to the review of the Design Council undertaken by Mr. John Sorrell.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am grateful to Mr. Sorrell for his review of the future of the Design Council, which he presented to my Department on 27 January. I shall place a copy of the review, together with the Government's response, in the Library of the House on 15 March.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 22, 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. Heseltine
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: This information is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the change in competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturing industry relative to France.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 9 March 1994]: Between 1973 and 1979, manufacturing productivity and unit wage costs for the United Kingdom and France were as follows:

  Annual average growth 1973–79

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  France

  Manufacturing production

  -0·96

  1·54

  Manufacturing productivity

  0·6

  3·7

  Manufacturing unit wage costs

  18·0

  11·2

  Source:OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  During the last economic cycle, 1979 to 1990, however, manufacturing output and productivity grew more rapidly in the United Kingdom than in France. More recently, the latest available quarterly figures shows that manufacturing unit wage costs have risen, since the same period last year, by 1 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 6 per cent. in France.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the legal rights of United Kingdom citizens in Zimbabwe when threatened with deportation to the United Kingdom;

  (2) on what legal basis, other than extradition, United Kingdom citizens may be deported from Zimbabwe to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  That is a matter for the Zimbabwe authorities.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the return from Zimbabwe to the United Kingdom of Nicholas Mullen in February 1989 and their legal basis.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that Mr. Mullen, who had an Irish passport, was deported on 6 February 1989 on the grounds of offences against Zimbabwe Immigration law. Our understanding is that the legal basis for deportations from Zimbabwe is contained in the Zimbabwe Immigration Act 18 of 1979.

  Kurds
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the treatment of the Kurds in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received a number of representations about the plight of the Kurdish community in Syria and elsewhere. We regularly raise our concerns about human rights issues with the Syrian authorities.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the treatment of the Kurdish community in Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received some representations on the treatment of Kurds in Iran. We are naturally sympathetic to the plight of the Kurdish people throughout the region and are following closely developments in this area, including Iranian action against the Kurdish democratic party of Iran on the Iran-Iraq border, about which we have made clear our concern to the Iranian authorities.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the treatment of the Kurds in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have received a number of letters from honourable Members about the treatment of Kurds in Iraq. Foreign Office officials are in regular contact with representatives of the Kurdish administration.

  We condemn Iraq's continued abuse of the human rights of all its citizens, including the Kurds. We urge Iraq to observe Security Council resolution 688, which calls on Iraq to cease repression of its civilians. We condemn the continued blockade of the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, and the cutting off of electricity to Dohuk governorate.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the number of deaths in the occupied territories following the Hebron massacre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that there were around 30 Palestinian deaths in disturbances in the occupied territories in the two weeks following the Hebron massacre on 25 February.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held at the United Nations or in the European Union on the issue of the establishment of safe havens in southern Sudan; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been no such discussions at the United Nations or within the European Union.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about Sudanese-backed terrorist infiltration into Eritrea.
  473
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Eritrean Government have informed the president of the United Nations Security Council of an incursion into Eritrean territory from Sudan by 20 agents of Eritrean Jihad on 16 December 1993. The Eritreans have subsequently informed the President that gunmen killed an Eritrean official in the Sudanese town of Kassala on 18 February.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he intends to urge upon the international community to maintain pressure upon the Sudanese Government to end the civil war and human rights abuses.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will continue to support the peace initiative of the Kenyan, Ugandan, Ethiopian and Eritrean Governments and to urge the parties to the conflict to respond positively. With our European Union partners we have decided to impose an arms embargo on Sudan as a further expression of our abhorrence of the continuing violence.

  On 10 March, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed by 35 votes to nine a further resolution, which we fully supported, highlighting continued human rights abuses in Sudan. We will continue to press bilaterally and with our European union partners for an end to such abuses. The resolution renewed the mandate of the special rapporteur.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has identified whose planes were recently shot down by NATO forces over Bosnia; and from where they were flying.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations investigations continue, but it is almost certain that the planes were flying from Udbina airfield in the Serb-held area of Croatia. It is not yet certain to whom these aircraft belonged.

  East Timor
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 20, if he will set out what Her Majesty's Government were told by the Indonesian authorities in response to the inquiries made about the death of Mr. Peters and Mr. Rennie in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The deaths occurred over seven weeks before the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

  Facts were difficult to establish in a territory for which Indonesia was not the administering authority. But the results of its inquiries, at our and Australia's request, led to the conclusion that Mr. Peters and Mr. Rennie, along with the other members of the Australian TV crew, had been killed in Balibo on 16 October 1975. Local reports at the time suggest that the House in which the crew were sheltering was caught in heavy crossfire between the forces of the three internal warring parties—UDT, APODETI and FRETILIN—and set on fire. There were no survivors.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the number of Timorese killed by arms exported from the United Kingdom; what representations Her Majesty's474
  Government have made to the United Nations Human Rights Commission concerning the actions of the Indonesian Government in East Timor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. We have no evidence that British-supplied defence equipment has ever been used against the people of East Timor. With our European Union partners we have welcomed Indonesian and Portuguese agreement to a consensus statement on East Timor at this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the supply of military hardware by British companies to Indonesia for use by Indonesian forces in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In accordance with our guidelines for considering export license applications, we have not supplied any military equipment to Indonesia which is likely to be used for repressive purposes against the civilian population in East Timor.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current situation regarding human rights in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Sri Lanka's human rights record continues to improve. The Sri Lankan Government committed themselves to a further programme of reform on 7 March at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the Government and the European Union to end Greece's unilateral blockade of Macedonia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have strongly urged the Greek Government to lift these unjustifiable measures. The Commission has written to the Greek Government questioning the legality of their action in respect of the European Community's customs union, the common commercial policy and the functioning of the internal market. It is for the Commission, as guardians of the treaty, to decide whether to institute infraction proceedings before the European Court of Justice.

  European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library all draft treaties and proposals relating to economic, monetary and political union as soon as they are received.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Yes. All published proposals emanating from Community institutions or from member states will be placed in the Library.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister or Ministers represent the United Kingdom at the European
  475
  Council's General Affairs meetings; how it is decided how the United Kingdom will be represented at the General Affairs Council; and what matters were discussed and decisions taken at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 7 and 8 March.

  Mr. Hurd
  I normally represent the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council and I am normally accompanied by a Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Where issues concerning other Departments feature on the Council agenda, a Minister from the relevant Department may also attend.

  I take the decision on who represents the United Kingdom at these meetings, in consultation with my colleagues.

  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 7–8 March accompanied by my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Minister for Trade, the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

  Association councils were held with Poland and Hungary. These were the first to take place under the terms of the European Community's association agreements with those countries.

  Ministers agreed a package of proposals to involve the six central and eastern Europe associate countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania—in the work of the CFSP pillar of the European Union. This builds on the initiative which Mr. Andreatta, the Italian Foreign Minister, and I launched in December 1993. The proposals will now be put to the six associate countries.

  Ministers discussed the practical arrangements for handling CFSP expenditure and instructed officials to undertake further work on the options.

  The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, presented a progress report on follow-up to the December European Council conclusions on the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. He highlighted four main areas of action: deepening the single market; taking forward the creation of trans-European networks; improving information infrastructures; and making labour markets more flexible.

  The Council discussed the own resources decision and reached agreement on most outstanding points. The budget discipline decision was also discussed, but no agreement was reached.

  The Commission reported to the Council on market access offers following the completion of the Uruguay round negotiations. The Council decided that the Presidency and the Commission should sign the final act embodying the results of the Uruguay round negotiations, and the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, on behalf of the Council on 15 April at Marrakesh. Signature will be subject to verification of the final text and completion of the necessary approval procedures. Representatives of the member states will also sign the final act and the WTO agreement at Marrakesh.

  The Council agreed a statement expressing concern at the recent announcement by the United States of its intention to resuscitate the Super 301 procedures of the Trade Act 1974. It requested the Commission to scrutinise
  476
  the legality and implementation of these provisions to ensure that the European Community's GATT rights are not violated.

  The Council heard a report from Sir Leon Brittan on the meeting of the EC-China joint commission in Peking on 28 February.

  The President of the European Commission introduced the Commission's communication on immigration and asylum. The communication will now be discussed in working groups within the justice and home affairs pillar. The Government will shortly provide the House with an explanatory memorandum in accordance with the usual scrutiny procedures.

  Ministers discussed latest developments in the former Yugoslavia. The Council agreed to extend for six months the Union's joint action to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to Bosnia.

  Ministers issued a declaration calling for the resumption of middle east peace negotiations and noting the Union's willingness to contribute to an international presence in the occupied territories, should this be agreed in the United Nations Security Council.

  The Council agreed in principle on the extension to the EFTA states, under the European Economic Area agreement, of some 300 single market measures passed between August 1991 and December 1993, the interim acquis. Ministers also discussed aspects of the EEA internal regulation.

  The Council discussed the negotiating mandates for voluntary restraint agreements on steel imports from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

  Members of the Council reconstituted themselves as a ministerial meeting in order to continue the accession negotiations in Norway. This followed the good progress made at the ministerial meeting held between 28 February and 1 March to negotiate the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland.

  By the time of the conclusion of a meeting on 8 March, agreement had been reached on the following main elements:

  A wide-ranging package of measures to enable the orderly integration of the four applicants into the common agriculture policy. Agriculture prices in all four countries will be aligned with EC prices on accession. But in Austria, Finland and Norway, it was agreed that, for a transitional period, digressive national aids to farmers should be authorised where support levels differ significantly.

  It was agreed that the Austrian region of Burgenland should be designated eligible for objective 1 status under the structural funds. In recognition of the unique problems of northern Scandinavia, it was also agreed to institute a new objective 6 for regions with a very low population density—less than eight inhabitants per sq km. A number of areas in Sweden, Finland and Norway were designated eligible for objective 6. Eligibility for objectives 2 to 5b will be determined before accession.

  All four applicants were granted a number of derogations in the fields of VAT and excise. Similar derogations are already enjoyed by a number of existing member states.

  The Union has agreed to fund, after accession, the applicants' commitments to the financial mechanism set up under the European Economic Area agreement. The operation of the mechanism, which benefits Northern Ireland, will remain unchanged.

  All four applicants will pay their full contribution to the EC budget from the date of accession. But in recognition of the shortfall in CAP receipts in the first year of membership, and the financial costs of bringing their agricultural policies into line with the CAP, the Union has agreed a temporary package of financial

  477
  assistance to the applicants, worth 2,966 mecu in 1995–98. The four applicants will, collectively, remain net contributors to the Community budget over this period.

  The European Union has assured Austria that the essential objectives of the 1992 EC/Austria bilateral transit agreement will be respected. The eco-points system for controlling transit traffic through Austria will continue for a transitional period after accession, if necessary until 2004. There will also be a progressive liberalisation of the arrangements for terminating traffic from accession, with complete liberalisation on 1 January 1997.

  All four applicants have been granted a five-year transitional period during which they can maintain national legislation on the purchase of second homes.

  Discussion of the institutional consequences of enlargement, and of Norwegian fisheries, are expected to resume on 15 March.

  World Summit on Social Development
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decision Her Majesty's Government have made on the establishment of a national committee on the World summit on social development; which Government Departments have been involved in discussions to formulate the United Kingdom Government's approach to the summit; and which Government Department will be leading co-ordination of United Kingdom activity in relation to the summit.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There has been no decision to establish a national committee for the World summit for social development. Consultations at official level have taken place with the participation of several Whitehall Departments. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Departments of Social Security, of Trade and Industry, of Employment, and of Health, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Overseas Development Administration. Other interested Departments have been made aware of preparations for the summit. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is co-ordinating the United Kingdom's approach to the summit.

  Haiti
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation Her Majesty's Government have in Haiti; what reports have been received concerning abuses of human rights in Haiti; and what representations have been made to the Haitian authorities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain is represented by Her Majesty's ambassador resident at Kingston, Jamaica, and a vice-consul in Port au Prince, Haiti, Reports of human rights abuses are compiled by a special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; by United Nations civilian observer in Port au Prince who also register complaints locally; and by non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International. We have supported United Nations resolutions expressing concern about human rights violations in Haiti. The European Union has also made several statements on this question.

  Algeria
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Algeria concerning the reasons citizens of Algeria seek asylum elsewhere.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Russia
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of reform and democracy in Russia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Russia has come a remarkably long way since the collapse of the Soviet Union two years ago. She now has a new constitution guaranteeing human rights and a democratically elected parliament. The way ahead will not be easy, not least in terms of economic reform; but President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin have both stressed their commitment to the reform process.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annualised level of reimbursement from(a) international and (b) other non-United Kingdom sources paid to the United Kingdom to defray the cost of British military operations associated with Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom can reclaim from the United Nations about 50 per cent. of the total Ministry of Defence extra costs for United Kingdom military participation in UNPROFOR, but the timing of actual reimbursement depends on the United Nations cash flow situation.

  UNPROFOR Croatia—UNPROFOR I—started operations in February 1992. UNPROFOR Bosnia Hercegovina command—UNPROFOR II—first deployed in September 1992, but was only brought on to United Nations assessed contribution funding from 1 April 1993. National costs were therefore non-reimbursable in financial year 1992–93. Reimbursement in financial year 1992–93, for the British contribution to UNPROFOR I totalled £191,663. Refunds for financial year 1993–94, UNPROFOR I and II, so far total £18·1 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Motability Scheme
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the number of people currently provided with vehicles under the motability scheme, the number of new people coming on to the scheme each year, the current annual cost of the scheme and the estimated annual profit to the motor industry from the scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 31 December 1993, 178,317 vehicles were being provided under the motability scheme. The number of vehicles provided under the scheme each year since 1983, the first year for which records are available, are in the table. Motability's annual administration cost during the last full accounting year, 1992–93, was £1·8 million. Details of estimated annual profit to the motor industry as a result of the scheme are not available.
  479

  Vehicles supplied since 1983

  Year

  HP (new)

  Contract Hire

  Total (new)

  HP (used)

  Total cars

  Total wheelchair

  Total vehicles

  1983

  4,656

  3,915

  8,571

  1,141

  9,712

  858

  10,570

  1984

  5,058

  4,217

  9,275

  1,354

  10,629

  821

  11,450

  1985

  5,509

  5,436

  10,945

  1,461

  12,406

  820

  13,226

  1986

  5,953

  11,693

  17,646

  1,183

  18,829

  712

  19,541

  1987

  5,885

  17,530

  23,415

  853

  24,268

  655

  24,923

  1988

  7,064

  21,357

  28,421

  646

  29,067

  807

  29,874

  1989

  4,692

  31,808

  36,500

  587

  37,087

  926

  38,013

  1990

  2,873

  40,299

  43,172

  685

  43,857

  900

  44,757

  1991

  2,324

  44,136

  46,460

  1,145

  47,605

  1,005

  48,610

  1992

  2,896

  57,898

  60,794

  1,587

  62,381

  1,364

  63,745

  1993

  4,542

  69,748

  74,290

  2,949

  77,239

  1,924

  79,163

  Grand total vehicles supplied (1978 to 31 December 1993)

  HP (new)

  Contract Hire

  Total (new)

  HP used

  Total cars

  Total wheelchair

  Total vehicles

  57,354

  320,375

  377,729

  14,461

  392,190

  11,641

  403,831

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what property, leased or owned for the purposes of his Department, is not currently occupied.

  Mr. Hague
  There are no properties currently unoccupied on the departmental estate. The provision and disposal of property leased for Government Departments is the responsibility of Property Holdings, Department of the Environment, which is replying on behalf of the common user estate.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each local authority(a) the total amount paid by his Department in housing benefit, (b) the number of council properties, (c) the political control of the authority, (d) the average claim per council property and (e) the average claim per claimant in respect of the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many child support cases have been referred to him by(a) hon. Members and (b) the general public.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Between 1 September 1993 and 10 March 1994 Ministers received 5,089 letters from hon. Members concerning child support issues. These included questions about both individual cases and general policy.

  The number of letters received from the general public about child support cases is not available.

  Savings Disregard
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the savings disregard of £3,000 would have to be increased to have the same value as when it was introduced in 1988.
  480
  Mr. Burt
  An increase of £960 would be required to restore the real value of the £3,000 disregard, at 1993–94 prices, to its level in 1988.

  Note: Calculation based on Rossi index, rounded to nearest £10.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of(a) his Department and (b) agencies established by him are on (i) individual contracts and (ii) performance-related pay; and what were the average salaries and bonuses paid to these people in (1) 1992–93 and (2) 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  There are currently five such employees in the Department's agencies, and one in the war pensions unit which will achieve agency status from April 1994. All have contracts which incorporate performance bonus arrangements. The average salary, including bonuses, paid to these employees in 1992–93 was £55,834. Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Savings Rule
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the basis for calculating the savings rule for people with between £3,000 and £8,000; and how this has changed since the rule was introduced.

  Mr. Burt
  A weekly deduction of £1 is made for each £250, or part of £250, of capital held between £3,000 and the upper capital limit, which was increased from £6,000 to £8,000 in 1990. This rule gives most help to those with the least savings. The formula is not linked to any particular rate of return that could be secured from investment and has not changed since the rule was introduced.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts Council
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many touring weeks have been lost as a result of the reductions made to the Arts Council's national touring allocation for drama.

  Mr. Brooke
  These are matters for the Arts Council.

  Film Exports
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what contribution the export of United Kingdom-produced films has made to the United Kingdom's annual balance of trade in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Brooke
  Over the past 10 years for which figures are available, United Kingdom-produced films have contributed the following amounts to the balance of trade:

  Year

  £ million at current prices

  1983

  99

  1984

  104

  1985

  131

  1986

  115

  1987

  147

  1988

  145

  1989

  158

  1990

  179

  1991

  182

  1992

  189

  These figures do not take account of earnings from overseas companies which pay for production services in the United Kingdom.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the range of rents paid for all accommodation at each of the occupied royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]: Rent paid by official employees of the Queen is presently set at 6 per cent. of after-tax salary wherever they are housed. This is equivalent to 7·5 per cent. of pre-tax salary—not 8·5 per cent. as stated on 9 February, Official Report, column 352. Pensioners allocated accommodation since 1 April 1991 and Crown Estate employees pay 8·5 per cent. of their gross pension or pensionable pay wherever housed.

  Rents paid by the Queen's private employees and by Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd. staff are equivalent to local authority rents in the area.

  Since my reply to the right hon. Member on 12 January, Official Report, column 201, about costs of accommodation borne by the Department it has been brought to my attention that in accordance with the memorandum of understanding the Department has been bearing the cost of furnishing apartments in the occupied royal palaces occupied by heads of department in the royal household.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya (Cereals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Kenya as to the possible purchase of surplus EC cereals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. The primary relief need in Kenya is for white maize which is not produced within the EC. We are supplying 15,000 tonnes of white maize bought from African regional sources and financed from our bilateral food aid funds.

  Philippines
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the level of aid to the Philippines(a) from the European Community and (b) from the British overseas aid programme, for each year since 1986; and what is (b) as a proportion of (a).

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  (a) European Community aid expenditure on the Philippines for each year since 1986 has been:

  Million ecu

  Sterling equivalent million1

  1986

  21·90

  16·31

  1987

  4·50

  3·35

  1988

  14·00

  10·43

  1989

  22·50

  16·76

  1990

  31·66

  23·90

  1991

  5·46

  4·07

  1992

  53·15

  39·59

  1993

  49·06

  36·54

  1 ecu—sterling exchange rate £1 = 1·3426.

  (b) British bilateral aid expenditure on the Philippines since 1986 has been:

  £'s million

  1986

  0·205

  1987

  0·262

  1987–88

  0·666

  1988–89

  1·003

  1989–90

  13·290

  1990–91

  4·042

  1991–92

  1·934

  1992–93

  9·038

  (C) As a proportion of (a), (b) is:

  Per cent.

  1986

  1·3

  1987

  7·8

  1987–88:1988

  6·4

  1988–89:1989

  5·9

  1989–90:1990

  55·6

  1990–91:1991

  99·3

  1991–92:1992

  4·9

  1992–93:1993

  24·7

  In respect of United Kingdom financial year 1989–90 the percentage figure is high because it coincided with payments, made under our aid and trade programme; in 1990–91, EC aid was, as will be seen from table (a), unusually low. Direct comparisons of this sort can be misleading, as is shown by the figures for these two financial years.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what medical assistance he had offered the Palestinians in the occupied territories following the Hebron massacre.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have provided £34,000 via Medical Aid for Palestinians, a non-governmental
  483
  organisation. This contributed to the expenses of a Jordanian specialist surgical team and associated medical supplies. We are discussing with MAP a donation of up to £40,000 in order to purchase additional life-saving equipment for two of the hospitals concerned in treating the victims.

  Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each country the financial amount of overseas aid received in 1993, five years ago and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is given in "British Aid Statistics", published annually, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Expenditure is now recorded on a financial year, rather than calendar year, basis.

  Health Projects
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the policy of the degree of priority to be afforded to future primary health projects in least developed countries within Her Majesty's Government's overseas aid programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our overall aid policy includes better health as an essential element in promoting human development which is one of our seven priority objectives. Programmes to implement this objective are settled at country level in the framework of establishing our overall pattern of assistance to the particular country. The countries we have selected for particular attention with regard to our health care and Children by Choice objectives include: Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, Uganda, Tanzania, the Gambia, Zambia and Malawi which are least developed countries.

  Our approach at country level focuses on assisting health sector reform, Children by Choice policies and better reproductive health and combating particularly significant problems with malaria, tuberculosis and HIV.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what evidence he has of the effects of the Chinese population control programme in creating an imbalance between the sexes in China;

  (2) what information he has regarding the incidence of female infanticide, abortion of female unborn children and female slavery as a result of the Chinese population control programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: Her Majesty's Government are aware of reports from China of female infanticide and abortion of female foetuses, and of an imbalance between the sexes. We have received no authoritative information which would lead to relating these reports to Chinese Government policies.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what meetings officials from his Department have had with the Chinese Family Planning Association to discuss the implementation of the Chinese population control programme since November 1992;
  484
  (2) what meetings officials from his Department have had with the Committee of Population and the Economy to discuss the implementation of the Chinese population control programme since November 1992;

  (3) what meetings officials from his Department have had with the Chinese state Family Planning Commission to discuss the implementation of the Chinese population control programme since November 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answers 11 March 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 November 1993, Official Report, columns 599–600. Staff of the British embassy in Beijing have also had contacts with the two other organisations to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has received since November 1992 from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities regarding human rights violations as a result of the implementation of the Chinese population control programme;

  (2) what information he has received from the International Planned Parenthood Federation regarding human rights violations as a result of the implementation of the Chinese population control programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answers 11 March 1994]: The United Nations Population Fund and International Planned Parenthood Federation have not provided authoritative information on such human rights violations. These organisations are encouraging the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Family Planning Association to establish mechanisms for reporting and dealing with any such violations.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from other Government Departments regarding the need to continue overseas aid provision to China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: By long-standing convention discussions of this sort between Departments are confidential.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what meetings officials from his Department have had with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities to discuss the implementation of the Chinese population control programme since November 1992;

  (2) what meetings officials from his Department have had with the International Planned Parenthood Federation to discuss the Chinese population control programme since November 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answers 11 March 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey to Lord Braine of Wheatley in another place on 20 January 1994, House of Lords Official Report, column 53.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings officials from his Department have had with the campaign Free Tibet to discuss the implementation of the Chinese population control programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: Officials of the Overseas Development Administration and

  485
  diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have had contacts with the campaign Free Tibet, including a meeting on 1 December 1993 at which human rights issues were discussed.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to differences between the implementation of the Chinese population control programme in China and Tibet.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: There are variations in the family planning programmes between individual provinces throughout China, including Tibet. An analysis of the regulations will be undertaken by the Chinese Family Planning Association during 1994.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has on trends in the level of breaches of human rights arising from the Chinese population control programme since November 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: Authoritative information is not available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by each of his private offices in 1993–94.

  The Attorney-General
  (a) none and (b) none.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of new furniture for the private offices in his Department during the year 1993–94.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost was £2,900.

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost was £1,300.

  Racial Hatred
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 he has authorised in each year since 1987; and on how many occasions the prosecution has been successful.

  The Solicitor-General
  In each of the years since 1987 consent has been given to prosecute the following numbers of persons for offences contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986:

  Number

  1987

  0

  1988

  2

  1989

  1

  1990

  2

  1991

  3

  1992

  3

  1993

  2

  1994

  1

  486
  Seven cases resulted in conviction and one in acquittal. In addition, one defendant was bound over, one died before trial and one case was discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service. Prosecutions have been started, but have not been concluded, in three cases. In one further case, although consent was originally granted, it was later withdrawn on public interest grounds.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the current standing of the 1983 guidance issued in respect of expenditure by student unions; how many complaints about breach of the guidance have been received; how many have been investigated; how many were substantiated; and with what results.

  The Attorney-General
  The guidance on expenditure by student unions, first issued in 1983, is still valid and applicable save that it refers to section 24 of the Charities Act 1960 which has been repealed and re-enacted in the same terms by section 29 of the Charities Act 1993.

  The guidance is intended to assist union officers who may find themselves called to account for their actions as trustees of charitable moneys in the discharge of their responsibilities for union funds.

  Complaints of breach of charity law made to me are referred to the Treasury Solicitor for investigation. No single continuous record is maintained, but a search of files shows that since the guidance was issued, 53 complaints have been referred to the Treasury Solicitor, all of which have been investigated.

  In one case there is now no record of the result and two other cases are current.

  Of the remaining cases, seven were found to be substantiated. The action taken in these cases is as follows:

  (a) in one case an injunction was obtained after one ultra vires payment to halt a proposed further payment,

  (b) in four cases repayments (in whole or in part) of ultra vires payments were secured,

  (c) in one case the union agreed not to make a proposed ultra vires payment and made arrangements to recover previous ultra vires payments, and

  (d) in one case the union agreed to discontinue ultra vires payments.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information Super Highways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he has taken to promote the development of information super highways in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information super highways are an emerging technology on which much interest has focused recently, particularly on the possible access to services for the citizen that such technology could offer. There are to date only a few pilots in operation globally, most notably in the United States.

  Clearly, these developments are being watched with interest. The Government are also working closely with other members of the European Union in considering the requirements for such networks within Europe. The CCTA—Government centre for information systems—has already begun work on a study to look in detail at the

  487
  possible development of information super highways within the United Kingdom It will be working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry in considering this issue.

  It is important that the roles of the private and public sector are taken into account. Full and thorough analysis of the global pilot projects will be needed to evaluate their benefits to the citizen and to the public and private sectors both within the United Kingdom and across Europe as a whole.

  National Science Week
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the proposed national science week; and what contribution he will make to it.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The national week of science, engineering and technology—"SET7"—will begin on Friday 18 March 1994. It is being organised, with Government funding, by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and will involve over 1,000 events taking place in some 230 towns and cities nationwide. SET7 will, I am confident, make a significant impact by promoting a better appreciation among the general public of the invaluable contribution that science, engineering and technology make to our well-being as a nation.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I will be doing our best to get to as many events as possible during SET7. Among other things, I will be opening the week at the natural history museum on the Friday morning; I will also deliver the Friday evening discourse at the Royal Institution; my family and I will be visiting the Bristol Exploratory on Saturday; on Monday, I will be opening the new science line telephone answering service at Channel 4's headquarters; on Wednesday, I shall be attending a Royal Society of Chemistry presentation ceremony at the House of Commons; and on Friday 25 March, I will be holding a breakfast briefing on the week in the House. I will also, of course, be doing a number of radio and television interviews.

  British Antarctic Survey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the Government have paid to the British Antarctic Survey in each of the past 10 years; and what grant is proposed for 1994–95.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government make money available to the research councils through the science budget. The amounts of such money allocated to the British Antarctic Survey from its parent body, the Natural Environment Research Council, are as follows:

  Capital £ million

  Recurrent £ million

  Total £ million

  1984–85

  1·435

  9·354

  10·789

  1985–86

  2·873

  9·375

  12·248

  1986–87

  2·458

  9·211

  11·669

  1987–88

  3·156

  10·898

  14·054

  1988–89

  12·032

  12·693

  24·725

  1989–90

  18·559

  14·064

  32·623

  1990–91

  30·023

  16·067

  46·090

  1991–92

  9·030

  17·064

  26·094

  1992–93

  4·010

  18·016

  22·026

  1993–94

  2·177

  19·491

  21·668

  488
  The proposed grant for 1994–95 is £24·31 million, including £2·15 million for capital expenditure.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, columns 899–900, if he will provide a list of known (a) Conservative and (b) Liberal Democrat supporters appointed to public bodies to which he referred.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The list I provided in my answer on 4 March was constructed by me for use in the Opposition Day debate on 24 February. I have no other list.

  HMSO
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pursuant to the answer of 2 March,Official Report, columns 767–68, what was the result of the response to each HMSO campaign listed.

  Mr. David Davis
  HMSO's revenue from the sale of publications and videos in 1993 increased by 5·6 per cent. over the previous year, while revenue from the sale of IT products increased by 37 per cent. Sales of BSI titles at HMSO bookshops over the first five months since becoming main agents totalled £146,000. The campaign to strengthen awareness in central and local government, the health service and public utilities took place more recently and it is too soon to assess the impact.

  Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many questions he has declined to answer on the grounds that to do so would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since my Department was established in May 1992 I have declined to answer six questions on a disproportionate cost basis. I have also declined to answer parts of 10 further questions on the same basis.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  CAP
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure she has for(a) the total value of moneys purloined from the common agricultural policy's export refund and price support schemes and (b) how much the common agricultural policy has lost through the evasion of customs duties and farm levies; and if she will estimate the proportion of defrauded funds that are recouped.

  Mr. Jack
  Cases reported by member states of iregularity, including details of the amounts recovered, under the EAGGF guarantee, fund, which includes CAP export refund and price support schemes, and cases of irregularity under the own resources regulation, which includes customs duties and farm levies under the CAP, are shown in table 1.1 of the annual report from the Commission on the Fight Against Fraud1, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Details of the value of own resources irregularities recovered are not separately identifiable.
  489
  Irregularity in this context encompasses all reported overpayments, whether caused by simply negligence or deliberate intent to defraud. Statistics on the number of irregularities should not therefore be interpreted as an indication of the extent of detected fraud within the Community.
  1 1992 Report, COM(93) Final of 20 April 1993—Table 1.1, cases of fraud or irregularity reported above deminimus level of 10,000 ecu Own Resources and 4,000 ecu Guarantee Fund.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of European Community expenditure will be necessary to sustain the current level of production.

  Mr. Jack
  Level of agricultural production is ultimately determined by the aggregate decisions of individual farmers, who when making these decisions will take into account forecast returns for each crop, including Community support payments to which they may be entitled.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will estimate by how much common agricultural prices have risen in weak currency countries as a direct result of the system of pegging farm prices to the deutschmark via the switchover system for each country.

  Mr. Jack
  Common agricultural policy support prices in all European Community member states are 20·75 per cent. higher in national currency terms than they would be without the application of the switchover coefficient. The effect of this coefficient has, however, been offset to some extent by associated reductions in the common ecu level of support prices: the net effect is that prices are just under 19 per cent. higher. However, support prices are set by the Council of Ministers in the annual price-fixing negotiations. It is not possible to say what prices would have been set had the switchover system not existed.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the common agricultural policy's budget is accounted for by(a) administrative costs, (b) storage costs, (c) disposal costs and (d) export restitutions in the current financial year.

  Mr. Jack
  The CAP budget for 1994 has been set at 36,465 mecu—£27,566 million. This does not cover expenditure incurred by either the Commission or the member states in the administration of the CAP, with the exception of some anti-fraud measures, which account for about 0·4 per cent. of the budget. Intervention storage, including depreciation costs and profits on sale, and export refunds account for 9 per cent and 20·8 per cent., respectively. With regard to disposal costs, surpluses are generally either exported on to world markets with the aid of export refunds, or purchased into intervention storage, from which they are eventually sold out again. Some perishable products, such as fruit and vegetables and fish, may be withdrawn from the market, and may, for example, be used for non-food purposes or be donated to charities. Some of this produce, because of its perishable nature, may be destroyed. Withdrawals and similar operations account for 2·6 per cent. of the 1994 budget.

  Beef
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy beef per tonne,
  490
  (b) what she estimates the price of beef per tonne would be in a free market without European Community price intervention, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of beef, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on beef subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the beef market.

  Mr. Jack
  The cattle reference price for the week commencing 17 February 1994 was £1,152·30 per tonne. However, 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 Community policy were to be changed.

  It is provisionally estimated that EC production of beef in 1993 was 7,980 thousand tonnes and EC consumption was 7,755 thousand tonnes.

  The level CAP expenditure on beef subsidies in the 1993 EC budget years was some £3,131 million and the Exchequer costs of CAP support for beef in the United Kingdom is estimated at £308 million for the 1993–94 financial year. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of beef support in other member states.

  Apples
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals are under consideration for introduction by the European Community in respect of grubbing grants for apple orchards; and what is her policy on this matter;

  (2) what proposals are under consideration for altering the intervention system for apples within the European Community; and what is her policy on this matter.

  Mr. Jack
  The Council of Ministers has asked the Commission to come forward with proposals to reform the EC regime in fruit and vegetables. Their proposals are awaited; our view is that the intervention system for apples, and other products, sustains over-production and distorts the market, to which the regime should pay more attention. Our view on grubbing grants, should those be included in the Commission's proposals, will depend on the shape of the package as a whole. Such schemes have been unsuccessful in the past when introduced in isolation.

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in her Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Jack
  The cost of receptions is included in the Department's overall administration costs which are published every year in the MAFF-IBEA departmental report.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of new furniture for her private office during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Jack
  The cost of such furniture is included in the Department's overall administration costs which are published every year in the MAFF-IBEA departmental report.

  Horses
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect of the introduction of maximum residue levels on the veterinary care of horses in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Under Council regulation 2377/90, maximum residue limits must be established by 1996 for active ingredients in veterinary medicines used in food producing species. The status of horses as food producing animals was established under directive 64/433/EEC relating to the sanitary conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat. The European Commission has now confirmed however that, in line with existing United Kingdom policy, if a horse is not destined for human consumption, maximum residue limits will not be required. In addition, the Commission has emphasised that it is not the intention of the regulatory authorities to deny veterinarians the possibility of treating any animals.

  In the United Kingdom, therefore, we shall continue to require that where no MRLs have been established, the medicinal product should be clearly marked as not to be used on any animal that might be intended for human consumption. This applies to all horses irrespective of value. I am satisfied this provides the necessary guarantees to consumers of the safety of food whilst safeguarding animal health and welfare. The introduction of MRLs should therefore have no effect on the veterinary care of horses in the United Kingdom.

  Cereals
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the United Kingdom did not apply for derogation on the moisture content of cereals in the 1993 harvest.

  Mr. Jack
  The state of interventionable grain at harvest did not justify the application of the moisture content derogation on this occasion.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which major cereal-producing countries in the EC obtained derogation on the moisture content of the 1993 cereal harvest.

  Mr. Jack
  Of the four largest cereal producers in the EC, France and Germany both obtained the moisture content derogation for the 1993 harvest. Italy and the United Kingdom did not apply.

  Fishing (Norway)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what species and quantitites of fish are caught by Norway in waters within the Fishery Limits Act 1976.

  Mr. Jack
  The Fishery Limits Act 1976 established British fishery limits extending to 200 miles from baselines or, where appropriate, to the median line. Since the establishment of the common fisheries policy in 1983 these waters, except for those out to 12 miles from baselines, are Community waters. Norway's entitlements to fish in Community waters are fixed annually under bilateral EC-Norway agreements in relation to specified ICES—International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—492
  zones. Listed in the table are the species and quantities of fish for 1994 which Norway is entitled to take in the Community waters around the United Kingdom:—

  ICES area

  Species

  Tonnage ('000)

  IV

  Cod

  8·8

  Haddock

  20

  IV and IIIa

  Saithe

  40

  IV

  Whiting

  10

  Plaice

  6

  IV and IIIa

  Mackerel

  63·79

  IV and VIId

  Herring

  50

  IV

  Norway pout

  20

  IV

  Sanded

  30

  II, IVa, VIa, VIb, VII

  Blue whiting

  205

  IV, Vb, VI, VII, IIa

  Blue ling

  1

  IV, Vb, VI, VII, IIa

  Ling

  10

  IV, Vb, VI, VII, IIa

  Tusk

  5

  Vb, VI, VII

  Combined quota1

  2

  IV, VI, VII

  Dogfish

  1·5

  IV, VI, VII

  Basking shark (liver)

  0·1

  IV, VI, VII

  Porbeagle

  0·2

  IV

  Shrimps

  0·1

  IV

  Horse mackerel

  5

  IV, IIa

  Others

  5

  VIa

  Herring

  6·2

  IV

  Sprat

  20

  IIa, VI

  Greenland halibut

  1·7

  1 Fishing with long lines for grenadiers, rat tails, mora mora and greater fork beard.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what species and quantities of fish were caught by(a) British, (b) German and (c) Spanish vessels within Norwegian fishing limits in (i) 1977, (ii) 1982, (iii) 1986, (iv) 1990 and (v) 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  The table details landings from Norwegian waters, by vessels of the three nationalities in question, in each of the years 1986, 1990 and 1993.

  Comparable data for the earlier two years are not available.

  Tonnes liveweight

  Nationality and species

  Year

  1986

  1990

  11993

  United Kingdom

  Cod

  6,572

  2,573

  9,667

  Haddock

  429

  320

  1,065

  Saithe

  48

  257

  384

  Redfish

  122

  129

  455

  Greenland Halibut

  2

  0

  0

  Other species

  1,702

  2,051

  7,974

  German

  Cod

  1,938

  649

  2,598

  Haddock

  880

  123

  426

  Saithe

  3,452

  1,050

  3,580

  Blue whiting

  0

  0

  2

  Mackerel

  0

  0

  17,760

  Redfish

  3,367

  1,118

  464

  Greenland Halibut

  9

  4

  4

  Other species

  772

  386

  374

  Spanish

  Cod

  0

  0

  203

  1 Provisional year-end data.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion and
  493
  quantity of Norwegian fish exports went to (a) the United Kingdom (b) Denmark, (c) the Netherlands and (d) France in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  Norwegian exports of fish and fish products to the European Union in 1992 totalled 411,808 tonnes, of which:

  Tonnes

  Per cent

  United Kingdom

  43,263

  11

  Denmark

  116,575

  28

  Netherlands

  25,772

  6

  France

  68,156

  17

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agency chief executives in her 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. Jack
  None.

  Cattle Transport
  Mr. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions she has had with(a) France and (b) other European Union countries regarding European Union restrictions on the transport of British cattle to Switzerland: and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  None. European Community animal health rules prevent the export from the United Kingdom to non-EC countries via other member states of live cattle, other than those of less than six months of age or which have been imported into the United Kingdom after 18 July 1988.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what buildings or open spaces, on lease or owned by her Department, are not in current use.

  Mr. Jack
  Storage depots at the following locations are closed and awaiting disposal.

  Abergavenny

  Adlington, Nr Macclesfield

  Alton, Hants

  Betchworth, Surrey

  Bishops Lydeard, Nr Taunton

  Brenchley, Nr Tonbridge

  Burscough, Nr Ormskirk

  Carmarthen

  Chobham, Surrey

  Dalston, Nr Carlisle

  Earl Shilton, Nr Leicester

  Glen Parva, Nr Leicester

  Grimsargh, Nr Preston

  Gunthorpe Lock, Nr Nottingham

  Honeybourne, Nr Evesham

  Humshaugh, Nr Hexham

  Hemel Hempstead, Herts

  Lanark

  Marden, Kent

  Newark, Notts

  Pollington, Nr Goole

  Rattlesden, Suffolk

  Redhill, Surrey

  494

  Ringmer, Nr Lewes

  Sevenhampton, Nr Swindon

  Sowerby, Nr Thirsk

  Strubby, Nr Alford, Lincs

  Sunbury on Thames

  Tring, Herts

  West Pennard, Nr Glastonbury

  Westerham, Kent

  In addition, 4 acres of agricultural land at Luddington, Warwickshire, 2 acres of agricultural land at Potton in Bedfordshire and 95 acres of agricultural land near Wickford in Essex are not being used by the Ministry pending disposal.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish the criteria for contractors taking on the disposal of BSE-infected carcases.

  Mr. Soames
  Contractors disposing of BSE-suspect carcases by incineration must first obtain relevant planning and pollution approval from the appropriate local authority.

  Contractors must also comply with contractural obligations drawn up by this Ministry to minimise the contamination of premises, prevent contamination of water and air and provide for safe handling of material by operators.

  Mr. Pickhall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many BSE-infected carcases were incinerated in each region in 1991–92, 1992–93 and thus far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of suspect BSE carcases slaughtered in each region and subsequently incinerated, from 1991 to 1994, is as follows. This information can be obtained only on a calendar year basis.

  Region

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Northern

  2,376

  4,457

  5,042

  392

  Midlands and West

  4,679

  9,164

  9,096

  726

  Eastern

  1,680

  2,557

  2,555

  235

  South East

  2,785

  3,975

  3,855

  343

  South West

  15,394

  16,860

  13,467

  1,063

  Wales

  2,570

  4,518

  4,043

  374

  South Scotland

  551

  1,281

  1,651

  124

  North Scotland

  271

  635

  816

  71

  Total

  30,306

  43,447

  40,525

  3,328

  1994 figures are as at 31 January.

  Integrated Administration and Control
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the 1994 forms and explanatory booklet relating to the integrated administration and control system will become available in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The material is now available and is being sent out to farmers. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much her Department spends on child care provision for the under-fives and out-of-school
  495
  provision for children aged over five either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is thereby provided; how many places are thereby provided; and if she will make a statement on child care.

  Mr. Jack
  In the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expenditure on child care is only for the benefit of Ministry staff and provision is subject to the need to establish a value-for-money case.

  Fish Landing Prices
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the European Commission in relation to minimum landing prices for fish.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: In recent discussions in the Council of Ministers, our representations on minimum import prices have been guided by the fact that we believe they have only a short-term role in exceptional circumstances. We will continue to oppose their permanent application. From a United Kingdom perspective, minimum import prices have the serious disadvantage of making our processing industry pay more for essential raw material which cannot be obtained from Community sources.

  Milk
  Dr. Strang
  : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity and value of milk and milk products formerly distributed under the school milk scheme have been redirected since 1 April 1993; and what have been their destinations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No definitive information is available on the quantity, value or use to which the milk and milk products no longer utilised under the school milk scheme have been put.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 874, if he will publish in the Official Report a substantive answer to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West for answer on 16 December 1993 concerning the administrative expenditure of his Department.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information which I provided the hon. Member in a letter dated 11 January was as follows:

  i. The provisional outturn from 1992–93 is £697 million.

  ii. The running costs limit for 1993–94 is £730 million (£707 million at 1992–93 prices). An estimated outturn will be published in the Spring in the "1994 Departmental Report and the Unified Budget Statement".

  The 1994 departmental report on expenditure plans and priorities which is available in the Library, gives updated information on these matters.

  Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to publish Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's first annual report as Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today arranged for copies of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's first annual report as Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres to be placed in the Library.

  I welcome the report, which contains a very comprehensive and detailed examination of the procedures governing the custody of detainees in the police offices.

  I am pleased to note that Sir Louis reports that he has
  "found absolutely nothing that might give anyone the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in the custody of uniformed officers of the RUC".

  It is most important that the police offices should permit the very necessary detention provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to be operated properly and effectively. The police must be able to take all proper measures to secure the information they need in the interests of justice, and suspects while in custody must be treated fairly and in accordance with all relevant statutory and administrative safeguards. The Independent Commissioner provides a valuable source of information and advice in that regard, and I am most grateful to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper for his work throughout the past year.

  I intend to give careful and detailed consideration to the report.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of such purchases is included in the entertainment expenditure for the Department, which is published in the departmental annual report.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  Such purchases are included within the Department's overall administration expenditure which is published every year in the departmental annual report.

  Lough Neagh
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to conserve fish stocks in Lough Neagh.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Fisheries Consolidated and Amendment Byelaws (NI) 1989 (1989 No. 483) as amended by the Fisheries Amendment Byelaws (NI) 1992 (1992 No. 483) contain measures to conserve fish stocks in Lough Neagh. The byelaws are available in the Library.

  The 1992 byelaws increased the minimum size of mesh which may be used in set nets or trammel nets for the taking of pollen, trout, perch, pike and beam respectively. They increased the minimum takeable size of pollen and trout respectively and introduced a minimum takeable size for perch. They also introduced an annual close season

  497
  —1 March to 31 May—and a weekend closure—0600 hours Saturday to 0600 hours Monday—in respect of commercial fishing for perch, bream and pike.

  These measures are enforced by the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated length of illegal nets confiscated on Lough Neagh in each of the last three years; and what action is being taken by the Fisheries Conservancy Board to control illegal netting on Lough Neagh.

  Mr. Ancram
  The length of illegal nets confiscated on Lough Neagh is set out in the table:

  Year

  Length of nets— metres

  1991

  15,340

  1992

  52,590

  1993

  38,185

  The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland controls illegal netting through regular patrols on the lough. The number of patrols has doubled since early 1993.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans to introduce quotas for fish harvested from Lough Neagh.

  Mr. Ancram
  No. There are no powers to impose quotas in respect of freshwater fish species and existing controls are considered to be adequate to conserve fish stocks in Lough Neagh.

  Constitutional Talks
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on further constitutional talks on the future of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend recently met the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties that have been engaged in private bilateral discussions with me. He showed them a document containing ideas for giving direction to the talks process based on earlier discussions and covering all the main relationships. I am holding further meetings with representatives from the parties to discuss these ideas. At the last intergovernmental conference on 10 March both Governments mandated further intensive work to provide a framework to carry the talks process forward.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of such receptions is included in the entertainment expenditure for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments which is published in the departmental annual report.

  Blood Donation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which of the Northern Ireland health board areas there is a surplus of donated blood; and in how many areas blood plasma is in short supply.
  498
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: The Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service is a regional service and figures are not collected on a board basis. Since April 1993 blood collection and needs for Northern Ireland have been in balance. There has been no shortage or surplus of either donated blood or blood plasma.

LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to facilitate representative actions on behalf of groups of victims in drug safety, consumer safety, safety at work and medical standards under legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board and others have suggested changes in the procedures surrounding multi-party actions which are being considered.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to improve procedures for the recovery of debts due as a result of court judgments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Both the Lord Chancellor and I are committed to improving the efficiency of the court system through simplifying and streamlining procedures, reducing paperwork and reducing the need to attend court. In my answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 18 February 1994, column 1006, I mentioned the changes to county court procedures made in recent years and the plans for the introduction of some minor amendments to debt recovery procedures later this year. In addition, work is currently being done to improve the oral examination procedure with a view to introducing the new system by the beginning of 1995. There are also plans to look at ways of simplifying and improving the garnishee and charging order procedures later this year. Any proposed changes will be subject to our usual wide-ranging public consultation and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to make a statement about these initiatives at this stage.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what were the numbers of road accidents(a) per police officer and (b) per 100,000 population for each year since 1979 and this year to date for (i) South Yorkshire, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) West Yorkshire and (iv) Humberside police authority areas.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is shown in the table. Information for 1993 and the year to date is not yet available.

  Injury accidents by police force area: 1979–1992

  Rate

  Rate per police officer

  Year of accident

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  Humberside

  1979

  2·4

  1·7

  1·8

  2·0

  1980

  2·4

  1·7

  1·7

  2·0

  1981

  2·4

  1·7

  1·6

  1·9

  499

  Rate per police officer

  Year of accident

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  Humberside

  1982

  2·4

  1·7

  1·7

  2·0

  1983

  2·3

  1·6

  1·6

  1·9

  1984

  2·3

  1·7

  1·6

  2·1

  1985

  2·2

  1·6

  1·5

  2·1

  1986

  2·4

  1·6

  1·6

  2·1

  1987

  2·3

  1·6

  1·4

  2·0

  1988

  2·5

  1·6

  1·5

  2·1

  1989

  2·6

  1·7

  1·7

  2·2

  1990

  2·5

  1·7

  1·6

  2·2

  1991

  2·3

  1·6

  1·4

  1·9

  1992

  2·2

  1·7

  1·5

  1·9

  Injury accidents by police force area: 1979–1992

  Rate

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Year of accident

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  Humberside

  1979

  484

  401

  354

  438

  1980

  480

  425

  370

  464

  1981

  477

  419

  360

  444

  1982

  482

  429

  381

  451

  1983

  450

  390

  344

  432

  1984

  441

  405

  345

  472

  1985

  439

  386

  336

  475

  1986

  468

  392

  344

  478

  1987

  451

  393

  321

  462

  1988

  488

  412

  348

  482

  1989

  509

  423

  379

  507

  1990

  476

  429

  375

  499

  1991

  440

  405

  333

  428

  1992

  422

  401

  338

  439

HOME DEPARTMENT

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

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

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

  Mr. Howard
  Such consumption is included in the entertainment expenditure for my Department which is published in the annual report.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  Exceptionally, where there has been a major incident, the Prison Service has set up a temporary 500
  free telephone number for the use of relatives of those affected. The expenditure is small and could be quantified only at disproportionate expense. Freepost facilities are not used.

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give his reasons for withdrawing core funding from the National Alliance of Women's Organisations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has never paid core funding to the National Alliance of Women's Organisations, so there is no question of its being withdrawn.

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

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

  Women's Voluntary Sector
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department gives to the women's voluntary sector.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office does not support work carried out by voluntary organisations exclusively on women's issues. Under the drugs prevention initiative funding has been provided for 20 separate drug prevention projects targeted specifically at women.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow asylum seekers in Britain to be joined by family members who have been given asylum in other European countries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Close family members are entitled to join refugees granted asylum in this country. The same arrangements would not be justified for asylum seekers before it has been established whether they qualify for refugee status and have a long-term future here.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time that asylum seekers are held in detention; and what are the figures for each year since 1990, including provisional figures for 1994 to date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who have been given exceptional leave to remain have not had their exceptional leave to remain status renewed in each year since 1991 and in 1994 to date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Precise figures are not available but, in each of the three years 1991–93, the number of asylum applications refused an extension of exceptional leave does not exceed a figure of the order of 15. Information for 1994 to date is not yet available.
  501
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 151 to show many of those asylum seekers held in detention who had applied (a) before 26 July 1993 and (b) after 26 July 1993 had been in detention for the whole of their stay in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 151, how many of the asylum seekers currently detained are being held in ordinary prisons; how many of these are being held with people convicted on criminal charges; and how many of these are being held with people awaiting trial.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 9 March 1994, 274 asylum seekers were detained in Prison Service establishments, including 82 at the Home Office holding centre, Haslar, which is used almost exclusively for immigration detainees.

  At Haslar there are 14 convicted prisoners who undertake tasks connected with the running of the centre which the detainees cannot be required to do. The further details requested are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The general policy is not, however, to hold immigration detainees together with convicted inmates unless the detainees are themselves convicted prisoners or strict segregation would be to their disadvantage by preventing them from having access to facilities enjoyed by others.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom were detained(a) in hostels or detention centres, (b) in police custody, in hostels or detention centres, (b) in police custody, (c) in prisons and (d) in other places on 1 January and on 1 October, 1 July and 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available.

  Young Offenders
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on whether future secure accommodation for young offenders should be sited in the grounds of adult prisons.

  Mr. Maclean
  The search for suitable sites on which to locate the new secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders has included an evaluation of Prison Service sites, both those which are redundant and those surplus to requirements. No final decisions have been taken, but if Prison Service sites are used for one or more of the centres, they will operate as self-contained and fully autonomous units.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the detailed accounts of the Sheehy inquiry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 2 December 1993, columns 665–66.

  Detainees (Access to Doctors)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what access people held in detention by the immigration service have to a doctor.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is our normal practice to ask port medical inspectors to examine those passengers who are detained upon their arrival in the United Kingdom. Those subsequently detained in immigration detention centres have access on a daily basis to either a resident or visiting doctor. The Prison Service is responsible for providing similar access to a doctor for those Immigration Act detainees accommodated in prisons, and the police for those held for short periods in police cells.

  Criminals (Payments)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make it a criminal offence to make payments to convicted criminals, their relatives, or agents for publishing, by any means, details of their criminal past or crimes.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. It would not be feasible to devise legal restraints sufficiently broad to prevent criminals, or their associates, from profiting from published accounts of their criminal activities, while at the same time avoiding unjustifiable restrictions on media reporting of matters of legitimate public interest. Enforcement could be particularly difficult since payment could be made indirectly, covertly or outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

  Video Evidence
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what equipment his Department is using to prepare video evidence for use in courts; and what assessment he has made of the quality.

  Mr. Maclean
  The procurement of equipment for the preparation of video evidence is a matter for chief officers of police but the Home Office has issued technical guidelines to assist them. Video playback equipment for viewing video evidence is now available in 71 Crown court centres. The Home Office has commissioned research into the new provisions for child witnesses in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which will include an assessment of the quality and acceptability of video taped statements. Also, an interdepartmental working group was reconvened in February 1994 to consider the effectiveness of current arrangements for the presentation of video-recorded evidence at court.

  Heroin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the findings of the reports "Trends in the Cost Effectiveness of Enforcement Activity in the Illicit Heroin Market 1979–1990", published by the centre for health economics at York university; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We shall be considering the report, which was published on 7 March 1994. Heroin trafficking is a clandestine activity and so, as the authors readily acknowledge, the report relies on many assumptions, estimates and crude measures of the effectiveness of
  503
  enforcement. It is also debatable whether conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of drug enforcement from assumptions about the market in one particular drug.

  In any case there have been significant developments in drug enforcement since the period covered by the report including improvements in the provision of drugs intelligence and the introduction by Customs of the new and successful flexible anti-smuggling teams.

  Drugs (Police Informants)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police informants involved in informing on drug-related crimes have been prosecuted for acting as agents provocateur in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on prosecutions of police informants is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of drug seizures made by the police and HM Customs and Excise were facilitated by police informants in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many police informants have been engaged by the police to provide information on drug-related crime in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the former Yugoslavia, by current republic, are(a) permanent residents, (b) students, (c) visitors, (d) asylum applicants and (e) refugees in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At 31 January 1994 an estimated 6,640 nationals of former Yugoslavia, excluding dependants, were awaiting a decision on their application for asylum in the United Kingdom. During the period 1 January 1985 to 31 January 1994 a total of nine nationals of the former Yugoslavia were granted asylum, and 114 were given exceptional leave. An analysis by republic of origin, and the other information requested for those in the United Kingdom, are not available.

  Algeria
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of Algeria are in Britain as(a) permanent residents, (b) students, (c) visitors, (d) asylum seekers and (e) refugees.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At 31 January 1994, an estimate of about 350 nationals of Algeria, excluding dependants, were awaiting a decision on their application for asylum in the United Kingdom. During the period 1 January 1985 to 31 January 1994 a total of 15 nationals of Algeria were granted asylum, and 31 were given exceptional leave. The other information requested for those in the United Kingdom is not available.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he or his officials have(a) requested or (b) received advice from the Attorney-General or his officials concerning the legality of the procedures by which he is seeking to reform the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
  504
  Mr. Maclean
  It is the convention neither to confirm nor deny having sought or received the advice of the Attorney-General on legal matters.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Attorney-General and if the legality of the procedures by which he is seeking to reform the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was discussed at that meeting.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Secretary and the Attorney-General meet regularly. Their last formal bilateral meeting was on 21 September 1993. It is not the practice to disclose what matters are discussed when they meet.

  Detention Centres
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people held in(a) Haslar and (b) other detention centres have refused food for more than one day in the past year; what discussions are held with such individuals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is as follows.

  In the 12 months ending 10 March 1994, 32 detainees have refused food for three days or more at the Home Office holding centre, Haslar.

  In the period 10 May 1993 to 10 March 1994 the numbers of detainees who have refused food for three days or more in Immigration Service detention centres are as follows:

  Number

  Campsfield House1

  21

  Harmondsworth

  7

  Queens Building, Heathrow

  1

  Total

  29

  1 Since its opening on 29 November 1993.

  Each case is handled on its merits, but it is made clear to detainees that they are not assisting their cases by taking such action.

  Sammy Davis
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the removal of Sammy Davis from Britain; what response he gave to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the hon. Member for Islington, North; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Representations about the deportation of Mr. Sammy Davis were received from a noble Lord, four hon. Members, eight Members of the European Parliament, 14 organisations and 20 members of the public. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend decided that in all the circumstances the decision to deport Mr. Davis was correct. The reasons for this decision were fully explained to the hon. Member and to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants before Mr. Davis left the United Kingdom on 8 March.

  Racial Attack Group
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the inter-departmental racial attack group last met; who is represented on the group; and when the group is next scheduled to meet.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has recently reconvened the racial attacks group. It had its first meeting on 25 February 1994 and next meets on 9 May 1994.

  The group is chaired by the Home Office and draws members from the Home Office, the Scottish Office, the Department of the Environment, the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Crown Prosecution Service, the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, and representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Metropolitan police and the Commission for Racial Equality. In addition, other groups and individuals will be invited to contribute to the working of the group as circumstances and subject matter dictate.

  Foreign National Flags
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what current regulations and restrictions there are for prohibiting the flying of a foreign national flag from a building other than the embassy which is the property of the country concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 permit the flying of the national flag of any country, provided it is on a single, vertical flagstaff and displays no advertisement or subject matter additional to the flag's design. If the flagstaff is not vertical, it may require planning permission. If any building to which the flagstaff is attached is statutorily "listed", it may require listed building consent.

  My right hon. Friend has no proposals to amend these provisions.

TRANSPORT

  Public/Private Partnerships
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those transport projects involving public/private partnerships, initiated since 1989 which(a) await parliamentary approval, (b) have been approved but are not yet to begin construction, (c) are under construction or (d) are completed or opened;

  (2) if he will list those transport projects involving public/private partnerships, initiated between 1979 and 1989 which (a) await parliamentary approval, (b) have been approved but are not yet to begin construction, (c) are under construction or (d) are completed or opened.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is as follows:

  1979–1989

  Since 1989

  (a) Awaiting parliamentary approval

  —

  Second Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  Crossrail

  Croydon Tramlink

  506

  1979–1989

  Since 1989

  (b) Awaiting construction

  —

  Birmingham Western Orbital Route

  West Coast Main Line

  (c) Under construction

  Jubilee Line Extension

  Ashford International Station

  Heathrow Express

  Bypasses
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses in the trunk roads programme are expected to be opened in the period 1992 to 1995; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Key
  I set out the bypasses completed in 1991–92 to 1993–94 and plans for 1994–95 to 1995–96:

  1991–92

  15 bypasses completed:

  A5 Chirk Bypass

  A6 Burton Latimer Bypass

  A6 Quorn-Mountsorrel Bypass

  A16 Louth Bypass

  A30 Zelah Bypass

  A35 Axminster Bypass

  A41 Whitchurch Bypass

  A43 Blisworth Bypass

  A47 Eye Bypass

  A65 Draughton Bypass

  A134 Fornham St. Martin Bypass

  A418 Leighton Linslade Bypass

  A516 Etwall Bypass

  A595 Hensingham Bypass

  A650 Drighlington Bypass

  1992–93

  14 bypasses completed:

  A3 Liphook-Petersfield Bypass

  A3 Milford Bypass

  A5 Little Brickhill Bypass

  A5 Telford-Shrewsbury Bypass

  A6 Market Harborough Bypass

  A16 Ludborough Bypass

  Al6 Stickford Bypass

  A27 Brighton and Hove Bypass (Patcham-Coldean)

  A47 East Dereham-North Tuddenham Bypass

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass (Contracts 1, 2, 3 and 4)

  A66 Bowes Bypass

  A523 Macclesfield Relief Road Bypass

  A420 Kingston Bagpuize and Southmoor Bypass

  A602 Little Wymondley Bypass

  1993–94

  8 bypasses completed:

  A27 Crossbush Bypass

  A27 Westhampnett Bypass

  A39 Wadebridge Bypass

  A41 Berkhamsted Bypass

  A41 Kingslangley Bypass

  A339 Basingstoke Northern Bypass (Stage 3)

  A595 Egremont Bypass

  A596 Wigton Bypass

  507
  1994–95

  5 bypasses planned to complete:

  A19 Easingwold Bypass

  A52 Ashbourne Relief Road Bypass

  A65 Burley in Wharfedale Bypass

  A564 Foston, Hatton, Hilton Bypass

  A568 Widnes Eastern Bypass (North)

  1995–961

  10 bypasses planned to complete:

  A5 Fazely—Two Gates Bypass

  A17 Leadenham Bypass

  A17 Wigtoft—Sutterton Bypass

  A27 Brighton & Hove Bypass (Kingston—Hangleton)

  A30/A39 Indian Queens—Fraddon Bypass

  A46 Leicester Western Bypass

  A249 M2—Iwade Bypass Improvement

  A417 Brockworth Bypass

  A428 Bedford Southern Bypass

  A435 Norton—Lenchwick Bypass

  1 subject to successful completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his current estimate of the cost of rail privatisation in the forthcoming financial year;

  (2) what is the current estimate for the costs of rail privatisation for the forthcoming financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Planned expenditure by my Department, the Office of the Rail Regulator, and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising for 1994–95 is £28·9 million. British Rail's and Railtrack's estimates of costs associated with reorganisation are a matter for them.

  The breakdown of this estimate is given in the following table:

  Expenditure on rail privatisation 1994–95

  Staff and internal costs (£ million)

  External consultants (£ million)

  Total (£ million)

  Department of Transport

  2·0

  12·0

  14·0

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  3·8

  1·6

  5·4

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  3·6

  5·9

  9·5

  28·9

  Aircraft (Smoke Hoods)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the fitting of smoke hoods in aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. It is for the authority to determine the requirements for passenger safety equipment. In the past five years my Department has received the following representations on the subject of smokehoods:

  Number

  Transport Select Committee Meetings

  3

  Early Day Motions

  3

  Parliamentary Questions

  17

  Letters from Members of Parliament

  23

  Letters from the public/smokehood manufacturers

  8

  Meetings between DOT Ministers and Interested parties

  2

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The total cost of furniture for my private office for the year 1993–94 was £1,149·15.

  British Rail
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, columns 244–45, whether the public service obligation grant to British Rail was taxed (a) in the year to 31 March 1992 and (b) in the year to 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  Although the revenue element of PSO grant is taxable, and is taken into account as income in calculating BR's liability for corporation tax, none has been payable for the last few years because BR has had a trading loss even after taking the grant payment into account. The capital element of PSO grant is also taxable, but is taken into account by reducing the amount of expenditure which would otherwise have qualified for tax depreciation allowances.

  Network SouthEast Stations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of all the stations under the Network SouthEast operational area indicating whether they are(a) staffed at all times when rail services are operating, (b) unstaffed at certain times of day, (c) unstaffed at weekend or (d) unstaffed at all times, and listing the number of (i) reported assaults, (ii) other reported crimes, (iii) other incidents, (iv) complaints relating to the availability of tickets and (v) other complaints that have occurred at each station over the past year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally and, therefore, is not available in the form requested.

  Within the operational area of Network SouthEast, which includes five stations belonging to InterCity, there is a total of 948 stations. Of these, as at June 1993, 191 were totally unstaffed, 104 were staffed at all times when rail services were operating, with the remaining 653 being staffed at certain times during the day. I am placing a list of staffed and unstaffed stations in the Library of the House.

  The British Transport police keep statistics of crimes by category rather than by station. The Network SouthEast operational area falls within two of the BTP's operational areas, London north and London south. The total reported crime for the London north area in 1993 was 14,680 and 17,826 for London south. There were a total of 645 reported assaults throughout Network SouthEast in 1993 together with 800 reported robberies.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.
  509
  Mr. Norris
  One. Mr. L. J. Haynes took up post on 14 February as chief executive designate of the Highways Agency. He was recruited from outside the civil service following an open competition.

  New Road Schemes
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which his proposed new procedures for expediting new road scheme approvals will be compatible with existing European Union rules.

  Mr. Key
  The proposed changes to the Highways Inquiries Procedure Rules 1976 and the Compulsory Purchase by Ministers Inquiry Procedure Rules 1967 are compatible with existing European Community rules.

  HGVs (Taxation)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the criteria for restricted HGV taxation class to exclude all vehicles with a plating certificate; what are the reasons for these plans; and if he will ensure that no amendments are made until the next licence renewal or the end of 1994 whichever is the later.

  Mr. Key
  The restricted HGV taxation class is for vehicles with no plated weight. After April 1994 and only when current licences expire, a small number of vehicles which have been issued with a plating certificate specifying a plated weight but which are currently exempt from plating and testing will, on legal advice, be excluded from the restricted HGV tax class.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to narrow the criteria for heavy and light locomotives and motor tractors, as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988, in relation to the equipment that may be carried, to qualify for showman's concessionary HGV licensing class; what are the reasons for these plans; and if he will allow a phasing in period to allow showmen and others to adapt their vehicles to meet the Department's new criteria.

  Mr. Key
  There are no plans to change the definitions of a heavy or light locomotive or a motor tractor in the Road Traffic Act 1988. For the purposes of the Road Traffic Act none of these vehicles, by definition, is designed itself to carry a load—though a crane, a dynamo or welding plant or other special appliance or apparatus which is an essentially permanent fixture, is not regarded as a load. Under the Vehicle Excise Act, if operated by a travelling showman, they should be licensed in the showman's haulage tax class, or else, if carrying any of the equipment mentioned above—which would, for vehicle excise purposes, be considered goods or burden—the showman's HGV tax class.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is being taken to avoid potential danger to the public through usage of under-strength bridges by coaches which exceed the current United Kingdom weight limit.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has a clear enforcement policy in respect of coaches and other vehicles which do not comply with current weight restrictions in the United Kingdom. The safety and protection of the public is fundamental to this policy.

  Railway Rolling Stock (Brakes)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has received from British Rail on the safety of freight wagon brakes.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate that freight wagon brakes are subject to planned preventative maintenance, visually examined at regular intervals, and tested at each change in the make-up of a train.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the safety of brakes on BR rolling stock;

  (2) if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the safety of simplified braking systems on freight wagons.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with the chairman during which various railway safety matters are discussed. I understand from the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate that it is continuing its discussions with British rail on these matters.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will forbid the introduction of European braking systems on British Rail rolling stock until they have received clearance from the Chief Inspecting Office of Railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate advise me on matters of railway safety. The inspectorate is continuing its inquiries into the proposed changes to a simplified brake testing system on certain freight wagons. It has requested both statistical and technical information from British Rail—Trainload Freight, in order to give detailed consideration to the proposal.

  Traffic Cones Hotline
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been received by the traffic cones hotline; how many have been followed up; how many have resulted in the removal of cones; and what publicity the hotline has been given.

  Mr. Key
  Some 2,500 calls have been answered by the cones hotline between its introduction in June 1992 and 9 March 1994. Of these, some 1,200 have been followed up as formal complaints or observations. In three cases inquiries have led directly to the removal of cones. The cones hotline telephone number is displayed at the end of each set of major roadworks on the motorway and trunk road network. It has also been registered with directory enquiries. A press notice about the hotline was issued by the Department on 1 March 1994.

  A1
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with representatives of public transport groups in Gateshead prior to his decision on the preferred route for the A1 western bypass through Gateshead.

  Mr. Key
  The Department met Tyne and Wear passenger transport executive and the local highway
  511
  authority Gateshead metropolitan borough council to discuss public transport issues as part of the consultation on the A1 Gateshead western bypass scheme.

  Specialist sub-consultants in transportation were appointed to carry out an appraisal of the public transport issues involved and their report was fully considered before a decision was made on the preferred route.

  A review of existing information regarding current public transport services and future proposals in Tyne and Wear was carried out. Consultations were held with the local authorities in the area including Gateshead MBC.

  The final report concluded that
  "the impact of public transport improvements on the A1 corridor is likely to be small, even with the best possible system".

  Further, the final conclusion indicated that
  "they (public transport improvements) are not an alternative to improving the road network at this particular location".

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in the programme to dual carriageway the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Two sections of dual carriageway have been completed and opened to traffic at Marshall Meadows and Brownieside. Two schemes to complete the dualling of the Alnwick bypass are in preparation. A scheme to complete the continuous dualling between Newcastle and north of Alnwick is in the road programme currently under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport expects to announce the results of the review shortly.

  In Scotland proposals have been published for dualling between Tranent and Haddington and two small schemes south of Dunbar. A further five dualling schemes are in preparation.

  Further progress on the upgrading of the A1 will depend upon potential schemes meeting environmental, economic and safety objectives, the overall availability of resources and the relative claims of potential schemes elsewhere in the country.

  Traffic, Hastings
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what weighting has been given in his Department's traffic projections for the bypasses along the A259 through Hastings and Rye, to the full and successful completion and operation of the Hastings shopping centre;

  (2) what weighting has been given in his Department's traffic projections for the bypasses along the A259 through Hastings and Rye, to the full production by current industry along the Rye Harbour road and to the successful and operating development of the industrial area along that road;

  (3) what weighting has been given in his Department's studies of the traffic along the A21 to the full and successful completion and operation of the Hastings shopping centre.

  Mr. Key
  The effects of existing and projected development and of a range of assumptions about economic growth have been fully taken into account in the forecasts of traffic which have been used for the A21 and A259 scheme appraisals.

  Entrance Project, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider his refusal to fund the Entrance project in Southampton.

  Mr. Key
  Not at this stage. We are considering the issues raised by this project with Hampshire county council.

  British Rail Pension Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the future of the British Rail pension fund.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been frequent detailed discussions on the future pension arrangements between officials from the Department, the BR board and the BR pension trustees. In addition, since the beginning of the year, I have met representatives from the three main railway trade unions and the British Transport Pensioners Federation.

  We expect to bring forward proposals shortly for the future of BR pensions funds.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by address all properties acquired by his Department along the line of the proposed east London river crossing and which are(a) occupied by tenants of his Department, (b) vacant but available for letting, (c) vacant but awaiting repair and renovation prior to letting, (d) vacant but unsuitable for letting and which could not be renovated at reasonable expense, (e) let or leased to the London borough of Greenwich and (f) let or leased to housing associations.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: I will write to the hon. Member to supply him with the addresses of the 158 properties along the original route of the east London river crossing acquired by the Department.

  The bare facts are that, of those, 133 are currently let, four are vacant but available for letting and 21 are vacant awaiting assessment for repairs and renovations. It is probable that some properties could not be renovated at reasonable expense and in such cases letting will not be possible.

  Of the 133 properties currently let, 49 are let to the London borough of Greenwich and 30 to housing associations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Commercial Organisations
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will list all commercial organisations that have been allocated space in the Palace of Westminster, giving in each case details of space allocated, rent and other charges paid per annum, the procedures that govern such arrangements and the dates on which they started.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Accommodation in the Palace has been allocated to commercial organisations as follows:
  513

  m2

  Press Gallery

  350

  Post Office

  150

  British Telecom/TRG Telecom

  150

  BBC

  130

  Press Association

  80

  Transport Office

  35

  Susan Hamilton Agency

  20

  Reuters

  20

  Rediffusion

  10

  Florist

  7·5

  The accommodation of these organisations within the Palace derives from long-standing agreements and decisions reached by the relevant authorities and Committees of both Houses. It is not possible to identify in any meaningful way the dates on which the respective agreements began. No revenue is received in respect of the provision of this accommodation.

  Divisions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours were spent on Divisions in each of the last five Sessions.

  Mr. Newton
  Because precise timings are not available for individual divisions, any figure must be an approximation. It may be assumed that divisions take, on average, 14 minutes each. On that assumption, the following shows, by Session, the number of divisions; the total hours taken; and, since the length of the Sessions veries widely, the average time per day in each Session.

  Number of Divisions

  Hours taken

  Per day

  1988–89

  409

  95·26

  0·33

  1989–90

  345

  80·30

  0·29

  1990–91

  233

  54·22

  0·20

  1991–92

  114

  26·36

  0·19

  1992–93

  402

  93·48

  0·23

  Register of Members' Interests
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the percentage changes between the most recent and the previous HMSO published editions of the Register of Members' Interests in respect of(a) number of pages, (b) cover price and (c) costs of printing and publishing.

  Mr. Newton
  The percentage increase between the most recent and the previous edition of the Register of Members' Interests, HC 205 (93–94) and HC 325 (92–93) respectively are:

  Percentage

  Page content

  1+47

  Price

  +30·5

  Estimated printing and publishing costs

  21·4

  1 Calculated on printed pages.

  2 Calculated per printed page.

  HMSO regrets that the estimate of printing and publishing costs included in HC 325 (92–93) was incorrect. The figure should be £15,009.

EMPLOYMENT

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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. Michael Forsyth
  There is no agency chief executive in this Department who is currently paid more than £82,925.

  Mines (Accidents)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of serious accidents and fatalities in(a) British Coal pits and (b) private licensed mines for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table shows the number of fatal and major injuries from that date:

  British Coal

  Licensed mines

  Year

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries

  1986–87

  15

  952

  3

  30

  1987–88

  9

  729

  3

  27

  1988–89

  18

  685

  2

  25

  1989–90

  18

  587

  1

  23

  1990–91

  11

  501

  1

  13

  1991–92

  10

  469

  2

  17

  1992–93

  3

  326

  3

  7

  Note: The introduction of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurences Regulations on 1 April 1986 further widened the coverage of the major accident category and therefore figures from 1986 onwards are not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of serious accidents and fatalities per 100 miners employed in(a) British Co-al pits and (b) private licensed mines for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member for to the answer I gave him on Monday 24 January,Official Report, column 13.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost of administering unemployment benefit in the Doncaster area in each of the past four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 14 March 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the cost of administering unemployment benefit in the Doncaster area over the last four years.
  It may be helpful if I explain that the Employment Service (ES) has responsibility for delivering a number of benefits in

  515
  addition to unemployment benefit, as well as a range of other services to people seeking employment and training opportunities. Since 1990 the ES has been pursuing a policy of bringing together Unemployment Benefit offices and Jobcentres, with the aim of providing a more efficient and effective service to our clients. Individual ES staff are responsible for all aspects of ES work and it is not possible to provide accurate or meaningful breakdowns of the costs of specific activities after 1990. Therefore, I have provided figures, for the most recent years, relating to the costs of delivering the full range of our services in Doncaster. But I have additionally provided an estimated breakdown of the cost of administering unemployment benefit for you, but I must stress this is an estimate and can only be used as a guide. The figures for 1990–91 are before the Doncaster Unemployment Benefit Offices and Jobcentre costs were merged, and are actual data.
  The figures also exclude fixed premises costs, ie the costs of leasing and purchasing premises and the associated running costs. The various methods of collecting this information over the years makes it time consuming and costly to trace those costs relating to the Doncaster offices.
  Given these provisions, the relevant costs, which include staff salary and other running costs, such as fuel and telecommunications, are in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Year

  Total cost (£)

  Administering unemployment benefit (£)

  1990–91

  1,596,296

  11,291,148

  1991–92

  2,226,527

  21,424,977

  1992–93

  2,543,453

  21,627,810

  1993–943

  2,754,376

  21,707,713

  1 Actual.

  2 Estimate.

  3 Projected.

  Job Club Contracts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the training companies which currently have job club contracts in the Doncaster area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 14 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobclub contracts in the Doncaster area.
  The attached table lists those organisations operating Jobclubs on behalf of the Employment Service as of 10 March 1994.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Organisations holding jobclub contracts in the Doncaster area March 1994

  Name of organisation

  Type

  Number of contracts

  Doncaster:

  Prospect Training (Yorkshire) Ltd.

  PR

  2

  Instant Muscle Ltd.

  CH

  2

  Roger Worth Training

  PR

  1

  Microcom

  PR

  1

  Thorne:1

  Prospect Training

  PR

  1

  Key PR—Private Provider.

  CH—Charity.

  1 The Doncaster area information includes Thorne as this forms part of Doncaster's travel to work area.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many females occupy senior officer positions in the Employment Service in Wales(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of all such posts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 14 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of women occupying senior officer positions in the Employment Service in Wales.
  There are nine posts at Grade 7 level and above in the Employment Service in Wales, one of which is filled by a woman. This represents 11 per cent of the total.
  You will wish to know the Employment Service in Wales, along with Employment Service nationally, aims to be an Equal Opportunities employer.
  We have produced an Equal Opportunities Policy, signed by my Director in Wales and the Trade Union Side, which has been copied to all my people in the Principality.
  There is, too, a five year equal opportunities action plan which sets out targets for disabled, ethnic minority and women representation at various grades.
  Particular attention is paid to the development of those who work part-time, the majority of whom are women, as it has been recognised that alternative working patterns are a key element in the retention and development of a valuable, fully trained workforce.
  I hope this is helpful.

DEFENCE

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

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of such receptions is included in the entertainment expenditure for my Department which is published in the supply estimates.

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

  Mr. Hanley
  Entertainment expenditure for my Department is published annually in the supply estimates.

  Jet Provost Aircraft
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jet Provost aircraft have been sold in the current financial year; and if he will list the associated equipment sold with the quantity and the price received for each item.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has contracted to sell 62 Jet Provost aircraft in the current financial year. In the same period 87 engines, six tip tanks and 10 trollyaccs have been sold. Prices are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the marks or categories of the Jet Provost
  517
  aircraft sold in the current financial year; what flying time was left to each aircraft under existing operational rules; and what price was received for each aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  Type 3A, type 4 and type 5A Jet Provost aircraft have been sold in the current year. Jet Provost aircraft are not lifed in hours but by a fatigue index factor which is based upon the operational conditions under which the aircraft are flown; and these will determine further flying life. The prices are commercial in confidence.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a)financial and (b) personnel contribution is made by the Federal Republic of Germany towards international activities in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  Germany pays 8·977 per cent. of costs, on the UN scale of assessment, towards peacekeeping operations. In 1993 its assessment for UNPROFOR was $489·8 million. Total humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia for the period January 1993 to 16 February 1994 donated by Germany to UN agencies, according to the latest UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs figures, is $25,318,046. There are no German military personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia. We do not have details of German civilian personnel.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annualised cost of British military operations associated with Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 4 March,Official Report, columns 942–43.

DEFENCE

  NATO
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of direct financial contributions to the NATO organisation by each of the member countries; and what is proposed for future years.

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Air Training Corps
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nearest available alternative to RAF Halton as a flying base for the Air Training Corps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The nearest available airfield which could be used as a flying base for the ATC is RAF Henlow. However, this would not necessarily be a practical alternative since the volunteer gliding schools are regional in character, and RAF Henlow is well outside the catchment area for the local ATC and combined cadet force units.

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) How many years RAF Halton has been used as an operational airfield; and if he will make a statement;
  518
  (2) for how many years the ATC has flown aircraft from RAF Halton.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military flying has taken place at Halton for 82 years. It was first used by the Army between 1912 and 1981; since then, it has been used for RAF operational flying. The ATC has flown aircraft from RAF Halton for 46 years.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give his Department's estimate in decibels of the noise nuisance caused to local residents of aircraft flying from RAF Halton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Over a two-week period last year, monitoring equipment positioned on the property of those complainants most affected by noise from flying at RAF Halton revealed that aircraft operations increased the average background noise by up to 8dB(A).

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel were tested for HIV/AIDS in each of the last four years; what factors he has taken into consideration for deciding whether such tests should be made compulsory and regular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the number of service personnel tested for HIV is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In accordance with stated Government policy, there is no compulsory HIV/AIDS testing of service personnel, but those who consider themselves to be at risk are encouraged to undergo voluntary testing.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Government policy on drug testing for military personnel.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is at present considering the introduction of compulsory random drug testing to supplement existing measures to deter service personnel from drug abuse; the Army conducted trials last year to examine the procedures involved.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Hanley
  Freephone facilities are not at present operated by my Department.

  A freepost address is used by the armed forces to enable potential recruits to respond to regular and reservist recruitment campaigns. The cost of this service could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The forces aerogramme can be posted free of charge to and from service personnel serving in designated operational areas and their next of kin. Since 1986, the

  519
  annual cost of this facility has been some £220,000. Earlier financial information is not available. During the Gulf crisis, this figure rose to £1,400,000. The most recent figure available, for the financial year 1992–93, is £262,000 reflecting increased usage as a result of operations in the former Yugoslavia.

  Pregnant Service Women
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women who formerly served with(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Air Force and who were dismissed from the service because they were pregnant have received compensation by way of industrial tribunals finding for them; what were the individual sums paid; what is the total sum paid so far to claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 8 March 1994, 1,790 women—350 Royal Navy, 686 Army, 754 RAF—who were dismissed from the services on the grounds of pregnancy had received compensation from the Ministry of Defence to the value of £7,575,912. Such payments have resulted from industrial tribunal awards but most payments followed acceptances by claimants of MOD offers of compensation. To identify individual sums paid could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Godman
  'To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of outstanding cases due to be heard by the industrial tribunals concerning claims for compensation by women who were dismissed from the service because they were pregnant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 2,000 cases concerning claims for compensation by women who were dismissed from the services on the grounds of pregnancy remain to be settled and some 1,200 of these are currently listed for hearing at industrial tribunals.

  Hunting
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions personnel from the Britannia royal naval college in Dartmouth have hunted with the Britannia Beagles Association during duty hours for each year since 1989;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the benefits to officers' training of hunting with dogs;

  (3) if he will list the number of officers of each rank who have hunted with the Britannia Beagles Association during duty hours, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Hunting with dogs, either on foot or on horseback, promotes physical fitness and good tactical ground appreciation, both of which are of great value to military training.

  Although beagliing, like all other recreational activities, is not part of the BRNC Dartmouth training curriculum, and is not therefore undertaken by personnel while on normal duty, members of the Britannia Beagle Association may, if they wish, run with the beagles during compulsory sports afternoons, which are aimed at developing character and promoting fitness, or during off-duty hours.

  Records are not maintained by my Department of the number of officers who have hunted with the Britannia Beagles Association, whether during compulsory sports afternoons or during off-duty hours.

  Beauforts Dyke Sea Dump
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the Beauforts Dyke sea dump situated between Larne and Stranraer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has received a number of inquiries about phosphorus objects which have been washed ashore in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man in recent years. Some of these suggested that the objects may originate from the former Beauforts Dyke explosives dumping site. Subsequent Ministry of Defence investigations have been unable to identify the origin or purpose of these objects except that our records show that no phosphorus objects were ever stored at Beauforts Dyke.

  Civilian Establishments
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 202, if he will list, from information publicly available, his Department's civilian establishments, their locations and the number of people they each employ.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 8 March,Official Report, column 202.

  Military Bases
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 202, if he will list, from information publicly available, the United Kingdom's home military bases, their locations and the number of service personnel based and civilians employed at each of them.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 8 March 1994,Official Report, column 202.

WALES

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the failure of parts of Colwyn borough to get approval for objective 5(b) status under the EU structural funds.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am disappointed that we secured a smaller than hoped for objective 5(b) coverage for Clwyd in spite of a long and hard struggle with the Commission. At a very late stage the Commission insisted on changes to the population basis on which the discussions were being conducted. As a result, reductions had to be made to the United Kingdom's proposals. Within Wales, Colwyn was considered by the Commission to present the weakest case for objective 5(b) status.

  Incomes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent to which the average income of workers in Wales is compatible with his economic strategy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend's strategy is based on improving standards of education and training;
  521
  improving access to markets; and ensuring a good supply of development land and facilities for industry and commerce. The continuing success of this strategy should enable average earnings in Wales to increase still further.

  Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given since April 1992 together with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ways of improving the system of government of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government keep under review ways of improving the system of government in the United Kingdom.

  Industry and Agriculture
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet German Government Ministers to discuss common concerns in industry and agriculture.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to meet German Federal Government Ministers.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent estimates of gross domestic product per capita for the people of(a) Wales and (b) Britain.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1992, the latest available, GDP per head was estimated at £7,515 in Wales and £8,813 in Great Britain in 1992.

  Satellite Communications
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to encourage high technology firms in the area of satellite communications to set up manufacturing plant in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Inward investment in this and other areas of the information technology sector is promoted actively through IT Wales, with encouraging results.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he will introduce to make quangos accountable to the people of Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Non-departmental public bodies in Wales are accountable to Parliament—as we have seen in recent months.

  I report to the House on money and policy, and the accounting officer on regularity.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to increase the total of civil service jobs in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Responsibility for assessing the advantages of relocating Government work rests with 522
  departmental Ministers. Within the framework of the guidelines covering relocations, every effort is made to attract civil service jobs to Wales.

  St. Dogmaels Landslip
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take in relation to the St. Dogmaels landslip.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My officials visited the site last week and have provided me with a full report on the situation. My officials and I stand ready to offer advice and assistance where possible.

  Gross National Product
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the gross national product per capita currently in Mid Glamorgan and in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Figures on GNP are not available below United Kingdom level. GDP however is available for 1991, which showed Mid Glamorgan at £5,883 compared with Wales £7,218. The estimates tend to understate output in areas where people commute elsewhere for their work.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of male unemployment in Wales at the latest available date; and what was the percentage unemployment rate.

  Mr. Redwood
  In January 1994, there were 100,500 male unemployed claimants in Wales, representing 13·7 per cent. of the work force.

  Rural Railways
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received during the last 12 months on the future of rural railway services.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a total of 36 representations.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to relieve the effects of pigmeat overproduction upon producers in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The problem in the pigmeat market is one of oversupply, largely from elsewhere in the European Union. Prices should recover once production has declined.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he transferred the funding of the disabled facilities grant from the supplementary credit allowance to the basic credit allowance.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Disabled facilities grants have been funded from local authorities' basic credit approvals since April 1992.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his
  523
  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. Redwood
  A total of £31,465 is expected to be spent on freephone and freepost facilities in 1993–94. This expenditure is related to citizens charter activities and the provision of information on the council tax arid on agriculture grant applications. Information on such expenditure in previous years is not readily available.

  Pupils (Costs)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the unit cost per pupil in each local education authority in Wales in 1992–93 for(a) nursery/primary and (b) secondary pupils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Provisional data on the net expenditure per pupil in maintained schools in each local education authority area in Wales for 1992–93 are given in the table.

  £ per pupil Nursery/Primary1

  £ per pupil Secondary1

  Clwyd

  1,486

  2,243

  Dyfed

  1,807

  2,164

  Gwent

  1,479

  2,226

  Gwynedd

  1,673

  2,430

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,476

  2,300

  Powys

  1,911

  2,088

  South Glamorgan

  1,494

  2,144

  West Glamorgan

  1,794

  2,403

  Wales

  1,590

  2,256

  1 LEA and grant-maintained schools.

  Schoolchildren (Vaccinations)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information is held by his Department on the number of schoolchildren who have been vaccinated in schools as part of the school health service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Complete information on the number of school children vaccinated as part of the school health service is not available centrally. However information on the number of children aged five to 15 vaccinated in any setting in Wales is given in the table. All information relates to the financial year 1992–93.

  Number of children aged five to 15 who:

  Vaccinated against

  Completed a primary course

  Received a booster/ reinforcing dose

  Diphtheria

  369

  5,591

  Tetanus

  455

  16,106

  Pertussis

  98

  1—

  Polio

  471

  16,622

  MMR2

  1,221

  1—

  BCG (tuberculosis)

  315,442

  1—

  Single antigen rubella4

  11,122

  1—

  1 Denotes not applicable.

  2 Measles, mumps and rubella.

  3 Includes children aged one to four.

  4 Females only, aged 15 and under.

  Tesco (Grant Aid)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total sum of grant aid to be made available to Tesco plc by his Department to assist with the building of 524
  its new distribution depot at Magor, Gwent; over what period the grant will be paid; and in how many instalments of what value;

  (2) what job creation or other criteria need to be met by Tesco plc at its new distribution depot at Magor, Gwent, in order to receive the grant offered to it by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I am unable to comment on the details of any specific application for grant assistance.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Redwood
  No agency chief executives in the Welsh Office are currently paid more than £82,925.

  Motorways
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of motorway are currently(a) open, (b) under construction and (c) planned in Wales either (i) as new motorway or (ii) as existing motorway being widened.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The mileages are:

  (a) Open—77 miles

  (b) Under construction—7½ miles

  (c) Planned—15 miles (new)

  12 miles (widening of existing).

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Trades Union Congress to discuss the consequences of the abolition of wages councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to meet the TUC to discuss this issue. The abolition of wages councils is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress made in Welsh local authorities towards the recycling of 25 per cent. of household waste.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information relating to the numbers of bottle banks and amounts of glass collected by local authorities has been published in the 1992 series of the "Environmental Digest for Wales". Definitive information on other aspects of recycling will not be available until all authorities finalise their recycling plans under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to allow supplementary credit approvals to be used for recycling investment.

  Mr. Redwood
  Local authorities may apply for grant and supplementary credit approvals for waste recycling facilities under the strategic development scheme.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which hospitals in Wales employ multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams for treating local patients who have suffered severe head injuries.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of the information requested are not held centrally. However, the major neurosurgical units at Morriston hospital and the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff, have multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams for neurosurgical conditions, including brain injury. These regional centres also treat local patients. Neurosurgical patients from north Wales go to Walton hospital, Liverpool. Post-acute rehabilitation may take place closer to patient's homes, in local hospitals or in the community, but information on local provision is not held centrally.

  M4
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce variable text signs to warn motorists of problems on the M4 on the approaches to the motorway in south Wales sited at places that would allow drivers to take alternative non-motorway routes.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The motorway network in south Wales has a system of variable message signs providing advanced warning for the Severn bridge. These signs will be upgraded in preparation for the completion of the second Severn crossing and additional variable message signs will be installed on the immediate approaches to the crossings. At present, the Welsh Office has no plans to extend this network.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to(a) appoint a road manager for the M4 and (b) introduce active traffic management measures to reduce congestion arising from accidents on the M4.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have no plans to appoint a road manager for the M4. The Welsh Office manages the M4 in conjunction with the county highway authorities as its agents.

  Traffic management measures already exist. These will be added to should circumstances indicate the need.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to section B, subhead B1 of vote 7 of his Department's spring supplementary estimates, if he will list each additional loan to NHS trusts, and the principal capital items for which they are required; and if he will list those trusts which have interest bearing loans outstanding.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Amount £

  Bridgend and District NHS trust Princess of Wales hospital, psychiatric unit

  4,703,000

  Carmarthen and District NHS trust West Wales hospital ward blocks

  2,345,000

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS trust North Road Development

  432,000

  Clwydian Community Care NHS trust Psychiatric unit, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  2,013,000

  526

  Amount £

  Glan Clwyd district general hospital NHS trust Upgrading of wards, paediatric unit

  1,515,000

  Glan Hafren NHS trust Reorganisation of acute service

  3,306,000

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust Community hospital developments

  3,000,000

  Llandough hospital NHS trust Barry neighbourhood hospital

  3,615,000

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS trust Minor capital schemes

  341,000

  Pembrokeshire NHS trust Minor capital schemes

  670,000

  Powys health care NHS trust Brecon war memorial

  2,545,000

  South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust Vehicle replacement

  600,000

  Swansea NHS trust Operating theatres

  1,097,000

  Wrexham Maelor hospital NHS trust Wrexham Maelor phase IIA

  3,723,000

  Total

  29,905,000

  All NHS trusts have a long-term loan established via their originating capital debt or new long-term loans agreed with the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to issue guidelines to trusts in the NHS in Wales on the refinement of the estimating procedure for the level of interest-bearing loans they will require.

  Mr. Redwood
  Through the process of setting, on an annual basis, the external financing limit for each trust, the element for new loans to fund capital developments is determined. Currently, there are no plans to issue further guidance but the position is kept under constant review via the monitoring regime applicable to trusts in Wales.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to establish a regional office of Milk Marque in Wales, to cover the whole of Wales as a single region.

  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions on where Milk Marque should locate its area offices is an operational matter for the Milk Marketing Board initially and for Milk Marque after vesting day.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spends on child care provision for the under-fives and out-of school provision for children aged over five either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is thereby provided; how many places are thereby provided; and if he will make a statement on child care.
  527
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office circular 13/93 stated that the Government see a continuing need for expansion in the range and scale of day care services available to parents and children. It referred to the duty on local authorities under the Children Act 1989 to review the level and pattern of such services, including those available through the medium of Welsh, and to the basis this would provide for planning future provision for their area.

  Tables 11.1 and 11.2 of "Activities of Social Services Departments: Year Ended 31 March 1992" show, for example, that numbers of places with registered childminders and in day nurseries have increased by 71. per cent. and 207 per cent. respectively since 1988. Nearly 70 per cent. of children aged three and four attend a maintained school. Detailed figures are contained in "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools No. 2 1994".

  Local authority resources provided under the local government revenue settlement are unhypothecated. It is for each local authority to decide in line with its statutory duties and local needs and priorities how much they provide for these services.

  No information is held centrally about expenditure on child care provision by the national health service in Wales.

  The Welsh Office has made available £153,000 in 1993–94 for after school and holiday care through the out-of-school grant initiative which the Chwarae Teg consortium is co-ordinating on behalf of the training and enterprise councils. No information is yet available on numbers of places provided. Grants in support of child and family services and for the promotion of the Welsh language, together amounting to some £1,180,000, have gone to voluntary organisations whose members provide day care service for children under eight.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those capital expenditure items that have given rise to The supplementary amount of £263,000 required by his Department under subhead A3 of vote 9 of the Welsh Office spring supplementary estimates.

  Mr. Redwood
  The increase for capital expenditure obtained under subhead A3 of class XV, vote 9 of the Welsh Office spring supplementary estimate was £283,000. This was covered by unspent resources within my Department's planned total of public expenditure, which was not therefore increased. The bulk of the expenditure is towards the costs, of relocating the training, education and enterprise department from Companies house, Cardiff to the Welsh Office's main building at Cathays park. This follows the release of floor space by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, it will lead to a substantial annual savings in accommodation costs, of around £250,000 per annum. The balance is being spent on (i) capital requirements—furniture and information technology—of the Advisory Committee on Staffing Matters in connection with local government reorganisation, £38,000, and (ii) Welsh Office information technology, £33,000, which represents take-up of entitlement to end-year flexibility following an underspend in 1992–93.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development agency in relation to the motions of no confidence in the board and in the executive directors passed by the UNISON WDA staff branch.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 March]:None.

  GPs (Gymnasiums)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to family health service authorities concerning the prescribing by general practitioners of sessions in a gymnasium for NHS patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: I understand that a growing number of GPs are making arrangements with their local leisure centres for vouchers which the doctors can give to patients whom they have assessed as likely to benefit from a suitable course of exercise. This is a matter for GPs' clinical judgment: these are local initiatives, I have no current plans to issue guidance on the subject.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will approve a proposed development, which he has rejected, for a local authority or voluntary-aided school upon educational grounds should the school become grant maintained.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend considers all statutory proposals relating to a significant change of character in grant-maintained and local education authority schools on their merits, and takes full account of all the circumstances.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the expenditure upon capital works which will be undertaken by grant-maintained schools in the current year and in 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Capital grant of £85·7 million was set aside for 1993–94 and £114·9 million is available for 1994–95 to grant maintained schools for expenditure on capital work, reflecting their increased numbers.

  Grant-maintained schools are also free to use annual maintenance grant and other funds available to them for capital expenditure.

  Cornish Language and Culture
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to restore the education and support training funding in Cornwall to assist the teaching of the Cornish language, Cornish history and culture.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. The Department funded this work for five years as a pilot project which the education support grant programme related to educational needs in a multi-ethnic society. It is for the local education authority to determine whether or not to continue the work as part of its mainstream provision.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the number of surplus places in each city technology college.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Some city technology colleges are still building up to full capacity. Total numbers will rise from about 12,000 pupils now to about 15,000 pupils in steady state. Recruitment at age 11, however, is in all cases oversubscribed; there are typically around three applications for every place.

  Schools (Surplus Places)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give, for each local education authority for which figures are available, the number of surplus places in(a) maintained primary schools and (b) maintained secondary schools in January 1992 and January 1993; and what percentage each is of the capacity of school places in each category.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department collected comprehensive information on surplus school places through a detailed survey in 1991. For the figures derived from that survey, I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 31 January 1994,Official Report, columns 517–21.

  We intend to make regulations later this year under section 21 of the Education Act 1993 requiring all LEAs and, where it has relevant responsibilities, the new Funding Agency for Schools, to submit information to the Secretary of State annually, beginning in 1994, on the numbers of surplus places in LEA-maintained and grant-maintained schools respectively.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department spends on child care provision for the under-fives and out-of-school provision for children aged over five either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is thereby provided; how many places are thereby provided; and if he will make a statement on child care.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1993–94, my Department has made grants totalling £1,004,000 to national organisations —including the Pre-School Playgroups Association, the British Association for Early Childhood Education and the National Children's Bureau—concerned with promoting good practice in educational provision for the under-fives. This Department does not currently fund out-of-school provision for children aged over five. Information on local education authority expenditure on under-fives is not held centrally. In 1992–93, local education authorities in England spent some £6,954 million on provision for all pupils in maintained nursery and primary schools. In 1993, 656,000 children aged under five attended maintained nursery and primary schools, and nearly 700,000 attended pre-school playgroups. Other forms of provision for children under five are matters primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the projected total cost, as identified by the 1993 Hunter building conditions survey, of repairing and restoring the colleges which are the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council to maintain.

  Mr. Boswell
  The survey commissioned from Hunter and Partners by the Further Education Funding Council estimated that the total cost of remedial works at colleges entering the further education sector was £839 million, of which £359 million was needed for urgent health and safety work. The maintenance of college premises is the responsibility of the colleges themselves; but the Further Education Funding Council is assisting them through capital grant with the costs of the necessary work.

  St. Patrick's School, Birkby
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what consultation processs occurred with the head teacher of St. Patrick's Catholic primary school, Birkby, Huddersfield, before his Department issued an instruction to the governors of the school to conduct a ballot on the question of grant-maintained status;

  (2) what consultation he had with the Bishop of Leeds before issuing instructions to the governors of St. Patrick's Catholic school, Birkby, Huddersfield with regard to grant-maintained status;

  (3) what reason he had for issuing a directive to the governors of St. Patrick's Catholic primary school, Birkby, Huddersfield, to carry out a ballot of parents on the issue of grant-maintained status;

  (4) what consultation he had with the chairman of governors of St. Patrick's Catholic school, Birkby, Huddersfield, before issuing instructions to the governors in relation to grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  On 31 August 1993, the governing body of St. Patrick's Catholic primary school received a parents petition in favour of the school holding a ballot on grant-maintained status. As that petition met the requirements of section 60(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988, the governing body were placed under a duty to hold a ballot.

  The Department wrote to the chairman of governors of the school on four occasions during October 1993 about this. The governing body having failed to initiate a ballot within the period required by the Act, the Department informed the chairman of governors on 2 December 1993 that the Secretary of State was minded to direct the governing body to hold a ballot.

  In the light of the chairman of governors' response to that letter, the Secretary of State directed the governing body to hold a ballot and to give notice in writing of that ballot to the local education authority and to the trustees of the school.

  Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Department has consulted the head teacher of the school or the Bishop of Leeds about this matter.

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

  Mr. Patten
  Nil.
  531
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Patten
  Information at this level of distillation is not readily available.

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

  Mr. Patten
  The cost of such receptions is included in the administration expenditure for my Department, which is published in the annual report.

  Schools, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary and (b) secondary local authority controlled schools in (i) London and (ii) Lewisham he has visited in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Patten
  I have visited four local authority secondary schools in London in the last 12 months. None of these schools is in Lewisham.

  Numbers of school leavers and students in further education attempting A levels

  (Thousands)

  Maths

  Physics

  Chemistry

  All science subjects1

  Any subject

  1980

  64·11

  46·67

  39·48

  196·37

  206·02

  1981

  65·69

  47·98

  41·51

  202·22

  206·75

  1982

  71·P08

  51·77

  44·48

  216·89

  219·21

  1983

  72·49

  50·10

  43·95

  218·54

  216·15

  1984

  73·46

  50·49

  43·86

  219·09

  227·67

  1985

  73·64

  48·21

  43·56

  215·13

  223·86

  1986

  72·40

  45·70

  42·58

  208·41

  221·87

  1987

  70·16

  42·56

  39·79

  201·53

  225·11

  1988

  69·42

  41·26

  39·47

  194·03

  220·50

  1989

  65·27

  40·14

  37·41

  183·09

  221·90

  1990

  64·02

  40·14

  40·25

  188·39

  238·54

  1991

  60·07

  36·86

  37·80

  176·37

  240·39

  1992

  60·44

  36·74

  37·86

  184·05

  244·18

  1993

  59·37

  36·76

  38·12

  184·93

  283·64

  Notes:

  1The "all science subjects" category contains the total number of students attempting mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology or other science. Students taking more than one science subject will therefore be counted more than once.

  Sources:

  From 1980 to 1991, figures come from the DFE School Examinations Survey and the FE113 survey. They relate to school leavers and students in FE instutions, of any age.

  From 1992, the figures come from the DFE database of information for the school performance tables. They relate to pupils of any age, and students in FE of any age.

  Grant-maintained Technology Colleges
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools, other than those 12 Departmental Property announced on 28 February, are at each stage of preparing an application to become grant-maintained technology colleges; and if he will name them.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are no separate formal stages in preparing an application to become a technology collage. Over 200 secondary schools have asked for information on the technology colleges initiative. We know that many of these are actively seeking to prepare applications, but we are not collecting centrally

  School Discipline
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the implications of the Children Act 1989 for discipline in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Schools, Gloucestershire
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the date on which all schools in Gloucestershire that have been transferred from grammar to comprehensive status in the last 20 years changed status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 8 March,Official Report, column 288.

  Undergraduates (Subjects)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table giving for every year since 1979 the total number of undergraduates in(a) mathematics, (b) physics, (c) chemistry, (d) all science subjects and (e) all subjects.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is shown in the table. All figures relate to England only.

  information on precisely which schools are doing so. Technology colleges will be either grant-maintained or voluntary-aided secondary schools.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what property, leased or owned for the purposes of his Department, is not in current use.

  Mr. Boswell
  All property currently leased to the Department for its central purposes is part of the Government's common used estate. The Department of the Environment—Property Holding—will be replying for the common user estate.

HEALTH

  NHS (Fraud)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 37, for what reasons her Department does not monitor the progress of fraud investigation in the national health service;

  (2) what conditions she considers need to change before she will institute routine monitoring of fraud in the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for taking action on suspected fraud lies with the health body concerned. Standing financial instructions of each body should set out responsibilities if fraud is suspected. The Department collects information on completed fraud investigations but it is not necessary or practicable continuously to monitor the status of each inquiry.

  Vacant Accommodation
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rooms, previously occupied as living accommodation by hospital and ancillary staff are currently vacant in each regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The results of a survey carried out in December 1992 estimated that there were 1,800 empty residential houses and flats and 11,400 vacant places in staff hostels; of these 150 and 1,019 respectively were identified as surplus, the balance were vacant between lettings. Separate figures for regional health authorities are not available.

  Guy's Hospital
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where each department of Guy's hospital will physically go if the hospital is closed; and how many of the jobs in each department will remain.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on 10 February, the Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust is working with the London implementation group and other key parties to work up detailed proposals for developing Guy's as a centre for local health services and for teaching and research. The future location of departments and staffing implications will depend on the outcome of this work, which will be subject to public consultation.

  Maternity Units
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most recent average length of stay in maternity units in London hospitals is; and what it was in 1984.

  Mr. Sackville
  a Figures for London could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Figures available for the average length of stay, ordinary admissions, non-psychiatric hospitals, by sector, national health service hospitals, England for 1984 and 1991–92 are:
  534

  Maternity

  1984

  1991–921

  Number of days

  4·8

  3·3

  1 (Provisional data for 1991–92).

  Source:

  Table 14 Department of Health statistical bulletin on hospital activity statistics 10/93, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any London hospitals require patients in maternity units to provide their own bedding for themselves and their new-born babies.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the hospitals themselves, although we are not aware of any such requirements.

  Primary Health Care Funding
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of her recently announced package of £85 million funding for primary health care is new money which has not hitherto been set aside for any health programme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The £85 million funding for primary health care in the London initiative zone in 1994–95 comprises £57 million from central funds and £28 million from funds specifically set aside for this purpose by health authorities in LIZ.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each primary care project within the London implementation zone, giving the amount of money already expended and the proposed date of completion of the project.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 18 January Official Report, column 525, for much of this information. This stated that detailed management and monitoring of development programmes is carried out by local health authorities. Expenditure details and proposed completion dates of individual projects are not held centrally.

  Financial Information Project Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who decided upon the rate of interest to be payable by FIP Ltd. on the unauthorised unsecured loan from West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  West Midlands regional health authority was responsible for calculating the interest payable on the loan to FIP Ltd.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action was taken about the unauthorised transfer of £300,000 to FIP Ltd. with a view to investigation of whether a criminal offence had been committed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to establish whether directors of FIP Ltd. have personally benefited from the £300,000 loaned to it.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Financial Information Project Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Management Trust, a registered charity, and has no directors.

  Birth Defects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been born with missing or defective limbs in(a) the Trent regional health authority and (b) the Yorkshire regional health authority in each year for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of children born with missing or deformed limbs (ICDs 755.0–755.9)1 notified to Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in each year 1983–1992 for the Trent and Yorkshire regional helth authorities

  Year

  Yorkshire RHA

  Trent RHA

  1983

  137

  209

  1984

  139

  177

  1985

  154

  183

  1986

  110

  200

  1987

  120

  189

  1988

  126

  184

  1989

  127

  206

  1990

  88

  166

  1991

  115

  164

  1992

  89

  127

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision.

  Note:

  Prior to 1990 all malformations, however minor, were reportable to OPCS. In January 1990 an exclusion list was introduced. As a result, minor malformations of the toe, coded to ICD 755.6 were no longer notifiable.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require all NHS health trusts to use NHS in their title.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The words "National Health Service" already appear in the full titles of all NHS trusts as recorded in their establishment orders.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Blunketlt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people were employed by South Yorkshire ambulance trust to work in the stations in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993–94;

  (2) how many paramedics are employed by South Yorkshire ambulance trust; and how many have been transferred to work in the station.

  Mr. Sackville
  The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Dr. B. M. Kingston, for details.

  Region

  1990–91 cases

  Cost£

  1991–92 cases

  Cost £

  Northern

  109

  1,612,542

  207

  3,310,101

  Yorkshire

  152

  4,604,209

  111

  3,302,305

  Trent

  73

  2,611,419

  119

  2,068,685

  East Anglian

  38

  1,359,416

  88

  1,736,907

  North West Thames

  89

  8,550,981

  221

  6,953,648

  North East Thames

  136

  8,463,955

  108

  5,888,020

  South East Thames

  n/k

  6,117,511

  106

  7,113,075

  South West Thames

  104

  3,233,021

  90

  4,663,394

  Wessex

  52

  1,525,320

  51

  918,639

  Oxford

  231

  2,257,063

  131

  3,338,657

  South Western

  56

  2,104,301

  83

  2,872,417

  West Midlands

  154

  3,157,255

  145

  2,572,646

  Mersey

  218

  1,420,924

  108

  1,002,181

  North Western

  183

  2,580,467

  145

  4,729,832

  SHAs

  23

  3,638,822

  38

  876,858

  n/k = Not known.

  Dog Faeces
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has commissioned on the health hazards posed by dog faeces in public places; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not commissioned any recent research in this area.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre monitors human infections including those which may be transmitted from dog to man through the inadvertent ingestion of faeces from infected dogs or soil, environment, food or water contaminated by the source. The CDSC and Central Veterinary Laboratory are currently undertaking a study into the transmission of campylobacter from puppies to humans. Also, a multidisciplinary group on human toxocara infections, initiated by CDSC, has been convened within the United Kingdom, the primary aim of which is to investigate cases of childhood toxocariasis.

  The Department takes the health risks posed by dog mess very seriously and strongly encourages adherence to basic hygiene procedures, such as wearing gloves when gardening and washing hands after gardening or, with children, when they have been playing in the garden or parks, et cetera, as well as responsible dog ownership.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical negligence claims involving the NHS were brought in each year since 1987–88 in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical negligence claims involving the NHS were settled in each year since 1987–88; and what were the costs involved in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Before the introduction of the national health service indemnity scheme in January 1990, no information was collected on the number of costs of medical negligence claims. For the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92, the information obtained from NHS bodies on the number of cases settled and the total costs of damages awarded and legal costs is shown in the table, though for the latter the returns are incomplete. For 1992–93, the information is not yet available.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the total expenditure within the NHS on independent private management consultants in the last 12 months; and how many have been employed;

  (2) what has been the total expenditure within the NHS on independent financial consultants in the last year; and how many have been employed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on financial and management consultants is included on the annual financial return under the category "external contract staffing and consultancy services", and cannot be separately identified. The figures could include non-clinical services provided by outside bodies in areas such as cleaning, accountancy and computer services.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholders overspent their budget in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1991–92, 49 of the 294 general practitioner fundholders overspent their budgets. Final audited information is not yet available for 1992–93.

  Public Relations
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total expenditure within the NHS on independent public relations companies in the last 12 months; and how many have been employed.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 16 February,Official Report, column 866.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much her Department spends on child care provision for the under-fives and out-of-school provision for children aged over five either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is thereby provided; how many places are thereby provided; and if she will make a statement on child care;

  (2) if she will make a statement about child care.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are committed to encouraging expansion of independent day care services. The pattern and levels should be determined at local level by local authorities, voluntary bodies, the private sector, employers and individuals—including parents, working together. The Children Act 1989 gives local authorities a strategic duty for day care, which ensures coherent and sensible expansion, building on the recent growth in day nurseries, numbers of childminders and other types of service.

  Information on local authority expenditure on child care is not available centrally by separate age group. Standard spending for children's services generally in 1993–94 is £1,723 million, 16 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1990–91.

  The latest statistics on day care provision are in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1992—England", a copy of which is in the Library.
  538
  Detailed information about the cost and level of nursery provision in the national health service is not available centrally. It is for individual NHS employers to provide for the child care needs of their staff in the light of local recruitment and retention needs.

  The Department has an active programme of grant aid to voluntary organisations to support the development of innovative services. During 1993–94 over £2·3 million has been made available to support 13 national voluntary organisations, including the National Childminding Association, the Pre-School Playgroups Association and the Kids' Club Network. The Department's out-of-school initiative, which involves national and local voluntary organisations in the management of projects, is pump priming expansion of day care for school age children. It complements the Department of Employment's child care grant to training and enterprise councils.

  Skin Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the last two years have(a) been diagnosed as having skin cancer and (b) have died from skin cancer; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables:

  Number of newly diagnosed cases of skin cancer 1(ICDs 172 and 173) in England and Wales 1987–88

  ICD

  172 (Malignant melanoma of skin)

  173 (Other malignant neoplasm of skin)

  Year

  1987

  3,139

  26,246

  1988

  3,882

  31,998

  Number of people who have died from skin cancer 1(ICDs 172 and 173) in England and Wales 1987–92

  ICD

  172 (Malignant melanoma of skin)

  173 (Other malignant neoplasm of skin)

  Year

  1987

  1,030

  441

  1988

  1,078

  430

  1989

  1,099

  447

  1990

  1,170

  436

  1991

  1,169

  465

  1992

  1,142

  486

  1 International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom on the causes of, and cure for, multiple sclerosis; and by how much the Government have grant aided the research institutions in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  The main agency through which the Government support medical and related biological research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from my Department. The MRC is an independent body

  539
  deciding what research to support in the light of its own judgment of priorities and the quality of research applications it receives. The council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications for research funding.

  The MRC supports a wide range of neurological research relevant to multiple sclerosis, in particular studies of the neuromuscular system. The 1992–93 funding in this area was a total of £13·3 million. The council's specific expenditure on multiple sclerosis in the period 1987–88 to 1992–93 was as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  1987–88

  297,000

  1988–89

  216,000

  1989–90

  181,000

  1990–91

  181,000

  1991–92

  80,000

  1992–93

  64,000

  In addition, the MRC's new initiative on the neurosciences approach to human health will help to promote several approaches which may be relevant to the disease.

  Besides MRC-funded work, there is also research being undertaken in various universities and NHS hospitals with public funding. However, information is not collected centrally on other Government-funded research on multiple sclerosis.

  Doctors (Management of Services)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is currently taking to encourage the involvement of doctors and other medical staff in the management of services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: Ensuring effective collaboration between clinicians and managers has been central to the reforms in national health service management.

  One of the basic elements of the resource management programme in the hospital and community health services was the encouragement of clinical staff to become involved in management. This led in many cases to the appointment of doctors and other health professionals as clinical directors. Most NHS trusts now have a medical director on their board, contributing to their strategic and operational management.

  The need for managers and clinicians to work closely together is essential to the success of contracting. Guidance has been issued to purchasers and providers requiring them to involve clinicians and other professionals in the contracting process. The need to involve doctors and nurses in the contracting process was also stressed in the second of my speeches on "Purchasing for Health" last year.

  Encouraging general practitioners to join the GP fundholding scheme brings them in to the heart of NHS management and patients have clearly benefited from the more sensitive management of NHS resources which this brings.

  Opportunities for specific training in aspects of management are available to doctors during their postgraduate training and are included in continuing education programmes.
  540
  The National Health Service Management Executive also supports, and partly funds, the British Association of Medical Managers, whose overall aim is to achieve the highest quality in health care management.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Numbers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what projections the Church Commissioners are using of future numbers of clergy and their pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I have just given to the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

  Stipends
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what advice the Church Commissioners have given to the diocese about the contribution to be made by the diocese towards stipends and pensions in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners have recently discussed with dioceses their projected support for stipends and expenditure on pensions up to 1997. In 1993, the commissioners met 37 per cent. of the total stipends bill, with the remaining 63 per cent. provided from parishes, fees and diocesan income. By 1997, that figure is likely to rise to 80 per cent. as a consequence of cuts in the commissioners support. The longer-term funding of pensions, which currently take up 44 per cent. of the commissioners' income, is being considered by the commissioners and pensions board in the light of actuarial advice and a range of possible options will be discussed with dioceses and others later this year.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what changes have occurred in the past three years in the funds available to the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Alison
  The Church Commissioners manage the Church's centralised historic assets; it is a "closed fund" with no new contributions coming in. The commissioners' assets were valued at £2·4 billion at 31 December 1990, £2·3 billion in 1991 and £2·2 billion in 1992; their investment income was £164·5 million, £169·5 million and £168 million respectively. 1993 figures are not yet available.

  Assets Committee (Investments)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners what procedural changes have been made in the reporting mechanism from the assets committee to the Church Commissioners on investment performance.

  Mr. Alison
  The Church Commissioners' board of governors has recently taken a number of steps to strengthen the commissioners' financial management and accountability. The board's actions come as a direct result of the recommendations of the Lambeth report and are part of an ongoing process to address all the issues raised in it.
  541
  The board has strengthened its relationship with the commissioners' assets committee through general rules under which the assets committee is to work. These provide for the assets committee:

  To review, at least annually with external professional advice, asset allocation and investment performance.

  To manage the Commissioners' assets with full regard to the commissioners' ethical policy approved by the Board on the recommendation of the assets committee.

  To seek the express approval of the board before any new borrowing.

  To report quarterly to the board.

  The rules are designed to offer direction and guidance to the assets committee and to reinforce the link between the two bodies.

  Theological Colleges
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church Commissioners are taking to ensure that theological colleges which receive their financial support comply with the law in respect of canon C7.

  Mr. Alison
  This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners. The cost of training is met from General Synod and other funds, not from the commissioners. The training of candidates for ordination is carried out under the direction of the House of Bishops, which is advised by the Advisory Board of Ministry.

  Pensions Board (Discretionary Help)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners what instructions the pensions board has been given for those applying for discretionary help under the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The pensions board has formulated internal guidelines, in consultation with the commissioners, for

  Health Board

  General Manager

  Address

  Constituencies covered

  Argyll and Clyde

  Mr. I. C. Smith

  Gilmour House

  Argyll and Bute

  Paisley

  Paisley North,

  PA1 1DU

  Paisley South,

  Dumbarton,

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mr. J. M. Eckford OBE

  PO Box 13

  Cunninghame North

  Seafield House

  Cunninghame South

  Doonfoot Road

  Ayr

  Ayr

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  KA7 4DW

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  Borders

  Mr. D. A. Peters OBE

  Huntleyburn

  Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Melrose

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  Roxburghshire

  TD6 9BP

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Mr. D. Banks

  Nithbank

  Dumfries

  Dumfries

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  DG1 2SD

  Fife

  Miss P. Frost

  Springfield House

  Dunfermline West

  Cupar

  Dunfermline East

  Fife

  Kirkcaldy

  KY15 5UP

  Central Fife

  North East Fife

  542
  handling applications for discretionary provision. The board will consider each case on an individual basis, having regard to those guidelines.

SCOTLAND

  Contracts
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the practice of United Kingdom companies imposing contracts on domestic consumers in Scotland which state that the governing law of the contract shall be English law.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An examination of records held by the Scottish Office has revealed no such representations.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures are used by Ayrshire and Arran health board to verify the credentials of individuals seeking employment with the health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  The procedures used by Ayrshire and Arran health board to verify the credentials of a potential candidate will depend on the qualifications requirement for the post in question. References are taken up in respect of all potential employees.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the parliamentary constituencies covered by each of Scotland's health boards; and if he will list the names of the general managers and chief executives and the correspondence addresses of each of the boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is contained in the table.
  543

  Health Board

  General Manager

  Address

  Constituencies covered

  Forth Valley

  Mr. D. Hird

  33 Spinal Street

  Clackmannan

  Stirling

  Stirling

  FK8 1DX

  Falkirk East

  Falkirk West

  Grampian

  Mr. F. Hartnett OBE

  Summerfield House

  Aberdeen North

  2 Eday Road

  Aberdeen South

  Aberdeen

  Kincardine and Deeside

  AB9 1RE

  Gordon

  Moray

  Banff and Buchan

  Greater Glasgow

  Mr. T. A. Divers (Acting)

  112 Ingram Street

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  Glasgow

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  G1 1ET

  Garscadden

  Maryhill

  Springburn

  Provan

  Shettleston

  Rutherglen

  Central

  Cathcart

  Eastwood

  Pollock

  Govan

  Hillhead

  Highland

  Dr. G. Stone

  Reay House

  Caithness and Sutherland

  17 Old Edinburgh

  Ross Cromarty and Skye

  Road

  Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  Inverness

  IV2 3HG

  Lanarkshire

  Prof. F. Clark CBE

  14 Beckford Street

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  Hamilton

  Monklands West

  ML3 OTA

  Monklands East

  Motherwell North

  Motherwell South

  Hamilton

  Clydesdale

  East Kilbride

  Lothian

  Mr. J. Lusby

  148 The Pleasance

  Edinburgh Central

  Edinburgh

  Edinburgh East

  EH8 9RR

  Edinburgh West

  Edinburgh South

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  Leith

  Linlithgow

  Livingston

  East Lothian

  Mid Lothian

  Orkney

  Mr. G. Jackson

  Balfour Hospital

  Orkney and Shetland

  New Scapa Road

  Kirkwall

  Orkney

  KW15 1BQ

  Shetland

  Mr. B. J. Atherton

  Brevik House

  Orkney and Shetland

  South Road

  Lerwick

  Shetland

  ZE1 ORB

  Tayside

  Miss L. Barrie

  PO Box 75

  Dundee East

  Vernonholme

  Dundee West

  Riverside Drive

  Perth and Kinross

  Dundee

  North Tayside

  DD1 9NL

  Angus East

  Western Isles

  Mr. R. Mullen

  37 South Beach Street

  Western Isles

  Stornoway

  Isle of Lewis

  PA87 2BN

  544

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the parliamentary constituencies and health board areas within which each of Scotland's NHS

  NHS Trust

  Health Board Area

  Chief Executive

  Trust Address

  Parliamentary constituency

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  Grampian

  Mr. J. Barbour OBE

  Foresterhill House

  Aberdeen North

  Ashgrove Road West

  Aberdeen

  AB9 1ZB

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mr. H. Sutherland

  1A Hunters Avenue

  Ayr

  Ayr

  KA8 9DW

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Highland

  Mr. G. Buchanan

  Caithness General Hospital

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Wick

  Caithness

  KW1 5LA

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  Tayside

  Mr. T. E. W. Brett

  Ninewells Hospital

  Dundee West

  Dundee

  DD1 9SY

  Grampian Healthcare

  Grampian

  Mr. J. Taylor

  Westholme

  Aberdeen North

  Woodend General Hospital

  Eday Road

  Aberdeen

  AB2 6LR

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  Lanarkshire

  Mr. J. Currie

  Monklands District

  Monklands East

  General Hospital

  Monks Court Avenue

  Airdrie

  ML6 OJS

  Moray Health Services

  Grampian

  Mrs. E. Hogg

  Maryhill House

  Moray

  317 High Street

  Elgin

  Moray

  IV30 1AJ

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mr. D. J. Fraser

  Crosshouse Hospital

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  Kilmarnock

  KA2 OBE

  Raigmore Hospital

  Highland

  Mr. K. G. Mackie

  Raigmore Hospital

  Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  Perth Road

  Inverness

  IV2 3UJ

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  Argyll and Clyde

  Mr. M. F. Hill

  Corsebar Road

  Paisley South

  Paisley

  PA2 9PN

  Royal Scottish National and Community

  Forth Valley

  Mr. D. Pollacchi

  Old Denny Road

  Falkirk West

  Larbert

  FK5 4SD

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mr. D. McNeil

  The Ayr Hospital

  Ayr

  Dalmellington Road

  Ayr

  KA6 6DX

  Southern General Hospital

  Greater Glasgow

  Mr. R. Calderwood

  Southern General Hospital

  Govan

  1345 Govan Road

  Glasgow

  G51 4TF

  546
  trusts lies; and if he will list the names of the general managers and chief executives and the correspondence addresses of each of the NHS trusts in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is contained in the following table.
  547

  NHS Trust

  Health Board Area

  Chief Executive

  Trust Address

  Parliamentary constituency

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  Forth Valley

  Mr. K. W. O. Thomson

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  Stirling

  Livilands

  Stirling

  FK8 2AU

  Victoria Infirmary

  Greater Glasgow

  Mr. J. G. Connaghan

  Queens Park House

  Glasgow Central

  Langside Road

  Glasgow

  G42 9TT

  West Lothian

  Lothian

  Mr. P. B. Taylor

  St. John's Hospital at Howden

  Livingston

  Livingston

  West Lothian

  EH54 6PP

  Yorkhill

  Greater Glasgow

  Mr. G. Marr

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  Hillhead

  Yorkhill

  Glasgow

  G3 8SJ

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 17 February,Official Report, column 961.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office does not have an integrated computer-aided facilities management system. Computers which also perform other functions provide some elements of such a system. Sun Hardware is used, which was acquired from Design Computer-Aids Ltd. Information about the cost of the facilities management elements, the time required to commission them and the savings resulting from their operation cannot be separately identified. No part of the system has been stolen.

  Forestry
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Forest Enterprise will co-operate with customers who wish to conduct inspections of its operations in order to satisfy consumer demands for independently certified timber.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]: Forest Enterprise is always willing to show its customers, and the general public, how it manages Forestry Commission woodland. However, there is no need to duplicate the inspections already carried out by the Forestry Authority arm of the Commission. Forest Enterprise is required to follow the environmental guidelines published by the authority and prepared in consultation with forestry industry and environmental organisations.

  Blood Supplies
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the price per unit of supplies of blood and plasma to Health Care International; and on what date this price was set;

  (2) if the price per unit of supplies of blood and plasma to private hospitals is the same for all; and how frequently the price per unit is reviewed;

  (3) what is the current minimum cost at which blood and plasma can be supplied to private hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: The charges for the supply of blood or blood products made by the Scottish Blood Transfusion Service are the same to all private hospitals including Health Care International. The current charges were fixed in October 1993 to come into effect from 1 April 1994 and are reviewed annually. There is no minimum as the charges reflect actual costs and are as follows:

  £

  Whole Blood

  64·00

  Red Cell Concentrate

  36·75

  Specialised (Washed) RCC

  66·75

  Specialised (Filtered) RCC

  61·75

  Specialised (Frozen) RCC

  166·75

  Platelet Concentrate (random donation)

  30·25

  Platelet Concentrate (apheresis donation)

  150·00

  Fresh Frozen Plasma (220 ml)

  29·50

  Cryoprecipitate

  27·50

  Stable Plasma Protein Solution (4·5 per cent.) (18g)

  30·00

  There are a number of other blood products which are derived from blood donations. These are not usually required by private hospitals but if they were and there was a surplus to NHS needs, the price would be calculated on application.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of total blood supplies was supplied to private hospitals over the last five years;

  (2) what percentage of total plasma supplies was supplied to private hospitals over the last five years;

  (3) what are the projected levels of demand for blood and plasma from private hospitals over the next five years.
  549
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  Total blood supplied

  Total plasma supplied

  1988–89

  0·97

  0·42

  1989–90

  0·94

  0·48

  1990–91

  0·90

  0·53

  1991–92

  0·79

  0·46

  1992–93

  0·89

  0·57

  No estimate of projected levels of demand from private hospitals has been made since the priority is to meet NHS demands and only surplus over-needs will be available to the private hospitals.

  Blood Transfusion Region

  Number of registered donors

  Number of donations of blood from 1 April 1993 to January 1994

  Number of issues of whole blood 1 March 1993 to 30 June 1993

  North of Scotland

  21,988

  13,067

  126

  Aberdeen and North East of Scotland

  35,762

  23,243

  294

  East of Scotland

  29,356

  22,309

  195

  Edinburgh and South East Scotland

  86,368

  60,332

  243

  Glasgow and West of Scotland

  219,264

  116,212

  15

  Total

  392,738

  235,163

  873

  Note 1

  The number of issues of blood to health bodies within Health Board areas is equal to their requirements. Regional Centres extract fresh blood components from donations and send the remaining plasma to the Protein Fractionation Centre for processing into blood products and which are then issued to hospital and other NHS users.

  The Regional Centres are self sufficeint in whole blood and all fresh blood and plasma products. Blood plasma is not in short supply in any area in Scotland.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many units of blood and plasma are to be supplied annually by the Scottish blood transfusion service to Health Care International; and what percentages these amounts will form of total blood and plasma supplies;

  (2) if there is an upper limit contained within the Transfusion Service's supply contract for the supply of blood to Health Care International;

  (3) what are the projected levels of demand for blood and plasma from Health Care International over the next five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: Under the contract, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service will supply the undernoted maximum number of units of fresh blood components and plasma annually, subject to NHS needs in Scotland being met first. The contract will be kept under continuous review and the level of demand over the next five years placed on the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service will relate to availability of supplies.

  Unit

  Quantity

  Red cell concentrate

  donation

  5,000

  Platelets—single donor

  procedure

  600

  —random

  donation x 5

  100

  Fresh frozen plasma

  donation

  800

  Cryoprecipitate

  donation

  56

  The SNBTS will also supply to Health Care International processed stable plasma protein solution made from plasma after other components have been
  550
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was(a) the number of blood donors, (b) the quantity of blood donated and (c) the amount of blood required for each health board for each month since April 1993;

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

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: Monthly figures for the regional centres could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The available information is as follows:

  removed and made into pharmaceutical products for use within the NHS. The maximum amount of SPPS to be supplied is as follows:

  Unit

  Quantity

  SSPS (18 gram)

  400 mls

  Up to a maximum of 4,000 units (if available)

  If the maximum units specified in the contract are supplied in response to clinical needs this will represent 2 per cent. of the total number of units supplied in Scotland.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the statutory safeguards which ensure blood and plasma supplies will only go to private hospitals if national health service needs are satisfied;

  (2) if he will publish the supply contract for blood and plasma between the Scottish blood transfusion service and Health Care International;

  (3) what powers the transfusion service has to recover supplies from Health Care International if faced with shortages of blood for the national health service in any part of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend has power under section 44 of the NHS (Scotland) Act 1978 where he has acquired supplies of human blood for the purpose of carrying out blood transfusion or supplies of other substances or preparations for the purposes of providing services under the 1978 Act, to make arrangements for making such supplies available to medical practitioners and other persons who require

  551
  them and he may make those available on such terms including terms as to payment of charges and on such conditions as he may determine.

  Under section 54 of the 1978 Act he is required to exercise the powers conferred on him under section 44 only to the extent that he is satisfied that anything which he purported to do or allow under that power—

  (a) will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance by him of any duty imposed on him by the 1978 Act to provide services of any kind, and

  (b) will not to a significant extent operate to the disadvantage of persons having access to services at Health Service hospitals otherwise than as private patients.

  My right hon. Friend has delegated his powers in relation to section 44 of the Common Services Agency of
  552
  which the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service is a division. The supply of blood and blood products to private hospitals is therefore subject to the obligation under section 54.

  Arrangements are being made for a copy of the contract with the Health Care International to be placed in the Library. The contract stipulates that in situations of extreme shortage the regional director or depute will have the right to retrieve products from the hospital in order to maintain supplies essential for the immediate and pressing requirements of NHS-funded patients. Responsibility for blood supplies in other parts of the United Kingdom is a matter for the appropriate Secretary of State.

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

Dependent Territories
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether annual reports are submitted to Parliament on the administration and progress of each of the dependent territories and, if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, since responsibility for their administration has been increasingly devolved to the dependent territories themselves, it is no longer necessary for Her Majesty's Government to produce such reports. Some territories produce their own reports; all are encouraged to do so. When available, these reports will be placed in the Library.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she think, in view of the quite large numbers of people who are the direct responsibility of this Parliament, however devolved the administration might be, that it would be a good thing if debatable reports were produced for Parliament at regular intervals?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have good reporting from the dependent territories. The Cayman Islands is one of the dependent territories which produces reports. If this House wishes for a debate on those islands, as took place on 9th February, it is perfectly possible to arrange that through the usual channels. But given the way that the self-determination
2
of the dependent territories is progressing, a formal report is not necessarily of interest. Reports on specific aspects of their work are from time to time requested, and are certainly used, both by the Foreign Office diplomatic wing and my own aid wing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, arising out of the last part of my noble friend's Answer, is it not the fact that any noble Lord or any Member of another place can table a Question relating to these countries if there is a matter worth raising? Is it not much better to leave it at that rather than produce a whole series of routine reports to which possibly very little attention is paid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. It is important to concentrate the reporting that is done on the specific needs of individual dependent territories so that we deal with the challenges that they face in partnership with them, but in a way which can be a better use of time than the generalised report.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, at what intervals are reports obliged to be made to the United Nations Committee on Decolonisation? Are those reports invariably placed in the Library of the House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, without checking I cannot be certain, but I believe that that is so.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, am I right in assuming that at the conference of dependent territories that was held a short time ago at Queen Elizabeth Hall, they were very keen to get our advice in a changing world in which more and more nations are becoming independent? With our experience, capacity and reputation throughout the world, having got peace and enjoyment in some of those territories in our association with them, does the Minister agree that it is a compliment that they asked us? Should we not try to come in on this matter and take advantage of it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The conference on the

3
dependent territories was indeed most useful; as we also find the dependent territories' regional secretariat in Bridgetown, which looks after the Caribbean dependent territories. What is important is that they all know that they have access to us when they need it, and that we respond to the individual needs that they have.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, whatever reports are ultimately published, will the Government bear in mind that it is quite unnecessary to have the glossy productions in colour? Normally speaking those reports cost between £4 and £5 each and in the case of those published by Her Majesty's Government represent a gross waste of money?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, at a time when it is sometimes difficult to attract the attention of the public to some of the affairs of government, making reports more readable and more understandable is quite important. Whereas the noble Lord and I may agree on some matters, I believe that the improvement in government printing is a means by which one can better explain what is going on in a way that the reader will take in, and perhaps even remember.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept what the Minister said earlier about self-determination, but will she reconsider her Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley? I received this morning in my post—perhaps fortuitously—a background brief on the dependent territories from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It seems to me to form the basis for a report on the dependent territories which could go in the Library. It covers them all; it is fairly short; it is not at all glossy; and it would not cost a great deal.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing to the House one of our regular pieces of information. The difficulty is that too many people, on seeing it, do not have her alert eye and put it straight in the wastepaper basket. I am delighted that she obviously finds it useful. I shall make sure that it is in the Library and that any other noble Lords who wish to have a copy of it will receive one.

NHS: Patient Statistics
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what data they base their claim that more people are being treated by the National Health Service since the introduction of the "internal market".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the data are based on information collected directly from the health service, including Körner data.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may ask her for a little more detail? Is she aware that many
4
people working in the health service and those using it find difficulty in understanding that the present system of arranging data for patients treated in the health service is based on the somewhat artificial concept of completed consultant episodes, in which people moving about the hospital or within the system are separately counted each time they move? Does that in fact support the Government's repeated assertion that more people are being treated? In the real world waiting lists have increased by some 29,000 in the past three months and there are now nearly 2 million people waiting in this country.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may take the waiting list figures first. In 1987 there were more than 200,000 people waiting over a year. The figures published in September 1993 show that just over 71,000 people were waiting. That is a drop from 200,000 to 71,000. In 1987, 90,000 people were waiting over two years. Today, nobody in the regions is waiting over two years. So we have seen tremendous progress with waiting lists.
With regard to the information that is collected, prior to using finished consultant episodes, the data used to be based on deaths and discharges. People in the health service found that very unhelpful because it was impossible to tell whether people were leaving by the front gates or the pearly gates. The information that we now collect shows what activity happens within the hospital. It also shows the workload of individual consultants, which the National Health Service is very eager to assess.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware—though there is no reason why she should be—that my wife was admitted to hospital five times in the past 12 months, so far as I know for different conditions? Can the Minister say whether my wife was counted as five people or one person? Secondly, we often hear stories of the increase in numbers being treated. Does she feel that it would be helpful to have statistics for the numbers of people treated in the health service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if five different consultants were involved, it would be counted as five finished consultant episodes. One of the difficulties is that people now come into hospital with a multiplicity of problems. Therefore it is important that we know exactly what happens to them when they are in the hospital and which consultants treat them. That is why we have adopted the new process of counting. The process has been in use since 1988 when for three years we used both systems so that we could measure the difference. The difference is about 3 per cent. When we say that 100 patients were treated in 1990–91 and last year 112 were treated, that is using the same baseline.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the figures that she has just given amply prove that the "internal market" is working very effectively?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, we know that more patients are treated year on year.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in order to help the House generally, will the Minister give us some indication of the number of nurses and doctors and how much money has been spent in the past 10 years on the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have those figures with me this afternoon, but I shall very gladly place them in the Library.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in the context of this Question, will the noble Baroness accept that such information about separate consultant episodes is misleading? Without straining too hard, I can think of someone who has had 11 admissions and related discharges. That patient has been in hospital 11 times. That is one patient, but according to your statistics she is counted as 11 patients. Does the Minister agree that that must cause confusion to people who are looking at the figures in the context of this Question?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the basis on which we compile our figures of more people being treated goes back to 1988 so we can make a direct comparison. We are using the same baseline for the number of people treated as for finished consultant episodes. On that basis we know that we are treating more people year on year not only as in-patients but as day-case patients as well. We are also improving the health of the nation. When we look at GP activity in surgeries and health centres, we see that general practitioners are also exceeding the targets they were set two or three years ago.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave the waiting list figures up to September 1993 First, does she have more up-to-date figures? Secondly, do the Government find it acceptable that a number of hospitals now say that they are not admitting any more patients to the waiting lists unless they happen to be patients of fund holders?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have any further validated information this afternoon beyond September last year. With regard to patients of GP fund holders being admitted, we have made it very clear to the National Health Service that there should be common waiting lists for urgent cases and that GP fund holder patients should not get priority treatment. When hospitals have completed the contract that has been set by the district health authority, we are seeing spare capacity being used quite properly by the patients of GP fund holders.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the health of the National Health Service is better described in terms of completed consultant episodes rather than waiting list figures? Waiting list figures will always be necessary because, regretfully, with the best will in the world from all sides, there will always be a need for the rationing of treatment in the health service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree. It is important that we look at the activity within the health service. It is not the numbers of people who are waiting
6
for treatment that matter; it is the time that they wait. We know that half of all admissions to hospital are immediate; of those admitted from waiting lists, almost half are admitted within five weeks, nearly three-quarters within three months and 98 per cent. within a year.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the fact that the Minister's department will do its best to deal with this serious problem, but will the noble Baroness be prepared to consider discussing these matters with, the British Medical Association and UNISON? They are waiting to be consulted because they believe that they can assist the department in trying to resolve this difficulty.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a problem in terms of the activity within the National Health Service. We are investing more; we are seeing more professional staff employed; we are seeing more people treated. That is a success, not a problem. We make a point of working with the professional organisations such as the BMA, the RCN and others. The guidelines drawn up with GP fund holders were the result of an agreement reached by the consultants working within the National Health Service.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the discussion this afternoon reveals that there is confusion around this complex method of adopting statistics on consultant episodes? Why is it not possible to reinstate the old system of deaths and discharges? Does the noble Baroness also agree that, on the validated statistics on waiting lists that were quoted, the number of those waiting for more than a year has risen by 30 per cent. in that period?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of going back to the old system of accounting. As I explained, the problem with deaths and discharges is that that system does not show us what is happening in the hospital. For the patient, the difference between death and discharge is considerable. It is not as great a problem as the noble Baroness implies, and the longer this system runs the easier it will be to make comparisons.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please reply to my question regarding the 30 per cent. increase in the number of people waiting for more than a year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we know that the number of people waiting over a year has markedly improved since 1987. There are of course fluctuations and at the moment we may be seeing an increase. However, we are still meeting the target of 18 months' wait for hip replacements, 18 months' wait for cataracts and nobody waiting for more than two years.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the waiting time quoted by the Minister include the time spent waiting to see a consultant or is it counted from the time the patient sees the consultant?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is counted from the time that the patient is referred by the general practitioner.

Laser Weapons
2.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are among the governments reported by the International Red Cross (IRC) to be developing a portable laser gun which permanently blinds its human target, and whether they will respond to the IRC's call that such weapons should be banned under the Geneva Convention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the United Kingdom currently has no plans to develop portable laser weapons for introduction into service in the Armed Forces, or any other laser weapon designed permanently to blind human targets. A conference has been called for 1995 to review the 1980 UN Weaponry Convention in which the UK will play a full part.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Can I assume that the Government will continue to have no plans or is the noble Viscount saying that they have no plans now but tomorrow may develop them? Can he assure us that, when they take part in the coming review, they will still have no plans and no intentions?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I cannot bind any successor government. All I can say is that we have no plans. If we have no plans, it is difficult to suggest that we can see a possibility that there will be plans in the future. After all, if we have no plans now and see no reason for them, there is no reason to second-guess ourselves.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any other government have such plans?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual my noble friend makes a good point. However, United Kingdom research is being carried out to design effective protection measures for the United Kingdom forces against laser weapons. Indeed, protective goggles issued to air crews for "Operation Granby" in the Gulf were a direct result of that research. The United Kingdom continues to maintain a lead in that technology.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his last answer suggests that this is a serious problem and that other countries are in fact planning weapons of this kind? Can he assure us that, when the conference takes place, the British Government will be striving for a convention to ban those weapons?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may be interested to know that the United Kingdom Government played a full part in the
8
preparation leading up to the 1995 conference. Indeed, the first session was held in Geneva from 28th February to 4th March this year. We look forward to considering other amendments or additions to the existing convention.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can go a little further. He will understand that many people in this country are a little suspicious of the phrase "have no plans". A week later someone comes up with a plan and it is suddenly announced. Can the Minister say, in answer to my noble friend's question, that the British Government are opposed to these weapons and will seek to promote a convention against them?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it would be unwise to rule out the development of all laser weapons for ever. It is possible that a laser weapon could be produced that produces a less serious effect than when somebody is shot. In fact, there could be a temporary rather than a permanent effect. If that were possible, I for one would welcome it. There would be fewer dead and maimed under those circumstances than under the present dispensation of weapons.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that, if there is to be a convention, it should be effective and verifiable? Is the United Kingdom conducting research not only to protect our own Armed Forces but also into how it can be verified that a country does not possess laser guns?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams; what he says is true. He will be aware, as I am, that research being conducted into chemical and biological technologies is directed against exactly the same eventuality in this country. I am sure that he, like myself, would support that objective.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, if the Government take the same view about these weapons as they have taken in regard to biological and chemical weapons, then the issue will be on the convention and that will be as satisfactory a response as one can get in these matters? Will the Minister say therefore that the Government's attitude will be the same as their attitude towards biological and chemical weapons?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not wish in any way to seem churlish. To find myself even half-way in agreement with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is a pleasure which I find rare in your Lordships' House and, with your Lordships' permission, I will savour it for some days to come.

Armed Forces: Welfare of Disabled
2.59 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider what steps can be taken to improve the co-ordination between

9
government departments in handling the problems of those disabled while serving with the Armed Forces of the Crown.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the Government keep under review the co-ordination between departments in handling the problems of those disabled while serving with the Armed Forces of the Crown. A detailed study into the welfare, rehabilitation and resettlement of servicemen and women on medical discharge from the services was conducted by the Ministry of Defence in 1991 and the work of the Services Medical Discharge Welfare Committee in particular, which was set up in 1990, was reviewed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that as time passes the burden of disability —the pain—becomes more serious? Does he also agree that as memories of major wars fade so there is at least a danger of a weakening of understanding and sympathy? Since there are no fewer than 17 departments handling the problems of the disabled, it would not be going too far to assume that there is room for better co-ordination and improved focus.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important question. He is absolutely right that the pain becomes more serious and indeed that the memories of past wars fade. The committee to which I referred in my original Answer meets every six months and brings together all those who have an input on the subject, including medical and personnel staff from the Ministry of Defence, the three services, representatives from the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health and, of course, from ex-service organisations. We are always looking at ways of improving that co-ordination. We are never perfect but we think that it is improving all the time.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I declare an interest as a war pensioner, as my father was before me, and I wish to pay tribute to the work that has been done in recent years. It is a good deal better than it used to be. There is no doubt about that. In the work that I do I come across people in the Royal Air Force who dived in their aircraft from 22,000 feet down to 5,000 feet and whose lungs increasingly get worse than they thought they were 10 or 15 years ago. Who co-ordinates the activity; who or what in government co-ordinates? It cannot be a committee meeting every six months.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the committee to which I referred is the overall co-ordinator. It delegates certain areas to departments concerned. I can perhaps help the noble Lord by instancing the War Pensions Directorate, in which he has already declared a direct interest, which formed in 1992 a body known as the Current Invaliding Group. It is a team based at Norcross which deals specifically with disabled claimants and liaises with other interested departments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will my noble friend issue an invitation, although it is quite difficult for him to do so, to take my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, up to the war pensions
10
department of the Department of Social Security in Blackpool for them to see exactly what is going on and how much better, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, the situation now is compared with 10 or even five years ago?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion, but I think that my noble friend in the department would feel it was rather impertinent of me to issue invitations to visit government departments for which he is responsible. However, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have heard what my noble friend said. Perhaps he and I can both encourage him to issue that invitation and perhaps I will be able to accompany noble Lords on that visit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, about disabilities that are worse than people thought they were apply also to the British nuclear test veterans? Is there a case for further review of their condition in the light of the onset of open government in Washington?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will be as well aware as I am that the National Radiological Protection Board has finally issued the report which many of your Lordships were so keen for it to issue somewhat earlier than it felt able to do. The contents of that report made it perfectly clear that there was no evidence to support the very broadly held contention that the nuclear test veterans suffered any greater incidence of cancer than the rest of the population.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a number of war widows whose husbands served with the New Zealand forces and as a result receive a substantially smaller pension than those widows whose husbands died with Her Majesty's forces from this country? Will my noble friend do something about it? These ladies are war widows. They lost their husbands serving the Crown and they live in this country.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to the plight of these ladies. I shall pass on his message to my noble friend who is responsible for these matters.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? Will he also bear in mind a group of very loyal ex-servicemen who were disabled in the service of the Crown by alleged negligence? They campaigned against Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act which denied them the right to sue for compensation. They were successful. But when that section was repealed the Ministry of Defence said that they would not benefit because there was no retrospective provision, even though there are many precedents for retrospective legislation. Those loyal men are deeply embittered. Will the Government look again at their claim ?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always listen to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, with the keenest of interest, but I think he knows as well as I do that it is not possible for us to look retrospectively at matters of this kind; just as it is not, for instance, for matters of pensions where much the same strictures apply. I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid I must answer no.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not the answer to the very pertinent question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, this: it is the duty of the chairman and of the secretary to the committee to chase problems which are outstanding. A committee cannot chase things but the chairman can, and should.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's experience in these matters is well known to your Lordships. Certainly I fully agree with him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Royal British Legion has to deal with 17 government departments and that we are all finding this somewhat difficult, would he please be prepared to talk with Colonel Creasy, the secretary-general of the Royal British Legion—I am proud to be the national vice-president—to see whether some other system can evolve to help British ex-servicemen?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's interest in these matters. We all admire him for it. Equally, I would certainly yield to no one in my admiration for the work of the Royal British Legion. However, I must say to the noble Lord that suggestions, for instance, for a department of veterans' affairs do not sit very well with me because I feel that in the end we are only talking about introducing another layer of bureaucracy, of which there is more than enough in government circles as it is.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for the understanding he has shown. I want to make only one point which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Too much faith in a committee could be misplaced. One really needs the edge which can be contributed only by an effective leader.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have already agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The chairman of the committee is in the end responsible for its actions.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Power of schools to provide courses of initial teacher training]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("teachers") to end of line 22 and insert ("in partnership with and accredited by an institution of higher education.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I hope it will be in order to say a few words about Amendment No. 68A as well. We see this as an essential amendment. Without it schools could well be able to design teacher education courses not accredited by higher education institution and even without a higher education input. In consequence, local certificates of education could emerge which would carry little weight beyond their local neighbourhood and which would fail to provide the guarantee of quality which parents and governors are entitled to expect and, similarly, which existing members of the teaching profession should be able to expect of those working beside them. In any case, it must surely be wrong for schools to become diverted from their main exacting responsibility of teaching pupils by dabbling in the training of teachers.
Teacher education could easily become highly parochial with individual schools choosing their students, training them, assessing them and awarding their qualifications. That would be an unhealthy, introspective system likely to diminish equality of opportunity in terms of entry to the profession and all too likely to result in a myopic recycling of a school's existing attitudes and practices. It certainly would not be a convincing way to stimulate open minded and creative newcomers into the profession.
Governing bodies are already shouldering considerable and extended responsibilities, frequently without a great deal of the necessary relevant experience and all that that entails. To encourage them to take on further responsibilities for initial teacher education is inevitably a high risk strategy. The future of our children and the quality of the teaching to which we entrust them is far too important to be played about with in this kind of way. Indeed, to my knowledge, staff at many schools already express concern and disappointment that members of their governing bodies apparently do not have sufficient time regularly to visit and to get to know the schools for which they are responsible in order to understand the implications of their policy-making role. Schools are complex, living organisms about life and people; they are not just about profit margins. Against that background it is not just questionable but, I suggest, clearly irresponsible to tempt governing bodies into taking a new, demanding responsibility for initial teacher education on top of everything else.
We on these Labour Benches are convinced that it is vital that teacher education retains a significant higher education input and that the qualifications obtained by trainee teachers are invariably of graduate status. This month, amidst all the upheavals in education, a 6 per cent. fall in applications for initial teacher education has been recorded. If the teacher qualification were no longer to have graduate status inevitably fewer people would apply for it because of its loss of transferability. Families who encourage their children to consider

13
teaching as a career want them to finish their studies with a degree and not with some tinpot local certificate only guaranteed by one school.
Primary head teachers in particular are already expressing strong concern and reluctance about playing a fuller part in initial teacher education. While they and their staff colleagues definitely want to contribute to teacher education and training, at no cost do they want still more distracting, administrative and bureaucratic duties when they are already understaffed and often short of expertise in these areas. At present, trainee teachers are usually expected to complete teaching practice in at least three schools. There can be very little confidence that that will be guaranteed under school-centred training. We fear that the tendency is that schools would less and less see their student teachers as supernumerary, but increasingly regard them as part of their own staffing establishment. If they did second them to other schools it might well frequently be to schools with which they had a cosy non-challenging relationship, thereby missing the opportunity to widen the perspective and appreciation of the students.
Of course, many schools would inevitably have their eyes on attracting what might be described as the "easy" student teachers for their courses. But how many schools would be Prepared to commit resources to back the development of the average student, and how many would support the struggling student who is valiantly endeavouring to make the grade and who, with the right backing and guidance, may yet turn out to be a fine teacher?
Teaching is not just a mechanical process by which the curriculum is delivered to pupils. It is absolutely essential that the teacher is reflective and creative; that he or she is master of the subject being taught and preferably with a passion for it. That will become even more essential with the pressures of the century ahead. To encourage thoughtful and creative pupils demands the same qualities of those who teach them; and in order to develop those qualities teachers need some theoretical framework within which to consider children's development, addressing their needs and making appropriate judgments about the curriculum.
It is our case on these Benches that the study and discussion of that theory and the development of reflective skills needs to be at graduate level, either as part of a Bachelor of Education degree or during a postgraduate teaching course. Even though—and I recognise this—the Minister has indicated that school-centred training should be restricted to graduates, it is vital to recognise that all (I repeat, all) student teachers need to complement their indispensable (and again I mean indispensable) and desperately important practical experience with theoretical study. The only feasible way that can be ensured is by schools working in partnership with higher education institutions and by being certain that all qualifications awarded at the end of courses are approved by the higher education institute as having involved study and discussion at graduate level and as having been assessed at graduate level or indeed at post-graduate level.
Teachers must have a background of the in-depth study of education. Without understanding what they
14
are doing in context they will be far more open to fashionable trends; to partisan, politically and ideologically transient movements, about which this Committee is rightly concerned and about which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke significantly last week.
Teachers in schools have a great deal of enviable experience and expertise to share, but that does not lie in the realm of assessment at graduate level or the moderation procedures used in higher education. It is therefore essential that our higher education institutions are involved to moderate any assessment of student teachers made by teachers in schools.
Higher education institutions and schools already have much good experience of working well together in the mutual interest, I might say, of school teachers and higher education teachers alike. The importance of the practical role of the schools cannot be over-emphasised, but it is the higher education institutions which can provide quality control for courses and for the qualifications awarded at the end of those courses.
In addition to all these arguments, it is sobering to consider that the removal of higher education involvement will almost certainly damage, and sometimes totally remove, access by students to good and appropriate libraries and other facilities. Indeed, without higher education involvement, who will mark the essays, dissertations and exams which are an essential part of assessing whether or not student teachers have understood the role and responsibility of teaching? I refer to the responsibility to pupils, parents and the wider community not just to the management of individual schools in which their training happens to be centred.
I conclude with just a few words about Amendment No. 68A. It is our view that whichever agency is given powers in relation to accreditation, be it the TTA as the Bill is drafted, or the HEFC as some of the amendments have proposed, we believe that the Secretary of State should accredit institutions and that ideally a general teaching council should advise the Secretary of State on accreditation matters. The role of any funding agency should be to ensure that school-centred courses are accredited by a higher education institution before they receive funds. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made clear, this amendment is concerned with the accreditation of courses and not the teachers. It is an extremely modest amendment. As far as I can see it is in line with a great deal of what the noble Baroness said on Thursday night. It is not opposed to the principle of school-centred courses; it is merely concerned to ensure that those courses, if they are put on, should be put on with adequate supervision, with adequate partnership with institutions of higher education; with knowledge and information and an ability to compare notes which come from being in the swim of academic contact.
If one tries to put on a course at a school without any ability to draw on courses outside the school and without any ability to use library facilities outside the school, one may find oneself suffering from resource

15
problems. In trying to hit the exact level at which to pitch the course, one may find that one is suffering from the lack of a standard of comparison. In trying to place the course within the subject matrix within which it must rest, one may experience some difficulty from not knowing the full history and background of the discipline in which one is operating.
We understand from what the Minister said on Thursday that school-centred training is not supposed to relate to the subject element of the teacher training, but it does not say so in the Bill. If the subject training is to take place within a school, a great many of us have very grave doubts indeed about whether the library facilities, the space and the range of expertise, especially in a small school, could possibly be equal to the task.
Above all, anything in higher education needs constant cross-checking. That cross-checking happens through talk with other people in the field, which is why the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, which I mentioned on Thursday, however good the staff that it appoints—and they are often very good—is always likely to be at a disadvantage. There are not many people with whom to compare notes in Fairbanks, Alaska. Similarly, schools in some of the more remote corners of the country may find that there are not very many people with whom to compare notes. There will be a good many little troubles in the teething stages of an initial school-based course about which one will badly need to compare notes.
Co-operation with an institute of higher education would provide us with all the opportunities for that to happen. It would confer companionship, advice, counselling and a degree of safety net. In fact, it would make the thing workable. It would be vital to the comfort of those who organise the course and, even more, I think that it would be vital to the public's esteem of the course once it is running. If the Government want their experiment to succeed, they must be concerned about the public's perception of the standard of the courses. I hope that the Minister will see her way to accepting the amendment.
Lord Beloff: I begin my support for this amendment with an apology to my noble friend the Minister for not having been present last week for her wind-up speech on Amendment No. 3 to which my name was affixed. I had rashly assumed that the debate on that amendment would continue after the dinner hour and that I would therefore be back from my engagement in time to hear her speech. That engagement was a piece of narcissism. I went to see the unveiling of a photograph of myself at the National Portrait Gallery—along with photographs of some other noble Lords. I had thought that I would be back at the House in time and able to hear my noble friend's speech. I have never voluntarily missed a reply. I apologise again to my noble friend. I also missed a Division. As it had been generally agreed that Amendment No. 3 was a probing amendment to seek clarification, I had no idea that there would be a Division. I regard the ambush that was laid on by the Government Whips with less than enthusiasm.
16
I have, of course, studied the report of the remaining proceedings. I came back and decided that my spirits were so lowered by the result of the amendment that I did not know whether I wanted to participate. However, I had another very good reason, which may or may not be fortified by today's proceedings. I remembered an adage which was drummed into me in my youth, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". There are Bills which are, in their essence, so corrupt that no number of amendments will improve them. I hope that by the end of today, particularly if the Government accept this very modest amendment, I may be driven slightly to revise that view. However, having read the exchanges on the very important matter of research in education, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and others, it seems to me that we ultimately come up against the fact that even on that aspect it is hard to see how any rational arrangements can be made within the general terms of the Bill.
Amendment No. 62 is, as has been said, very modest. It suggests only that if schools undertake the task of school-centred teacher training, they would be well advised —and this might therefore appear in the legislation—to do so only in co-operation with an institution of higher education for all the reasons that have already been given by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall not repeat them.
Therefore, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister only one question. Can she give the Committee any examples of schools or consortia of schools which have indicated to her department that they are willing to undertake the task of teacher training without any involvement with a higher education institution? My impression is that the schools do not want it. If the schools do not want it, what is the use of it?
Baroness Seear: I should have thought that this amendment would appeal to the Minister and the Government. I am sure that the Minister is very much of the opinion—as are a good many of us—that some teachers in some schools in the past have fallen for pretty dotty educational theories and that children have suffered quite considerably from people who have pursued those rather dotty educational theories.
If there is one thing that a link with higher education should give, it is a healthy scepticism about some kinds of theory which would not stand up to detailed investigation and challenge. If the Government want to see—I am sure that they do—a challenging approach to the theories of education and therefore the limiting of the more simple-minded enthusiasms for doctrines which do not work, they should welcome and not reject the idea of involving higher education. The higher education institutions exist in order to challenge conventional and simple-minded thinking. Surely that is what we want when developing educational theory and in the training of teachers.
Baroness Warnock: I wonder whether the Minister can answer a question for me. If there are consortia of schools which are accredited as fit to train teachers by the training authority alone and not in collaboration with a university or other institution of higher education, who

17
will actually validate the degree or certificate that is awarded at the end of the year's training? At the moment, when a course leading to a postgraduate certificate of education has been carried out in an institution of higher education, the award is validated by the university that is involved. I do not know whether thought has been given to the validation of the degree or certificate that is to be awarded at the end of the training, as opposed to the accreditation of the institution. If some teachers are in receipt of certificates or degrees that are university-validated and others are not, it seems to me that that will create two grades of teacher. Yet it would be difficult for a university to validate a degree or certificate if it had no part in the accreditation of the course or the consortium of schools. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that question.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My noble friend's reply will reveal whether Members of the Committee who support the amendment are speaking to what is proposed in the Bill, to what is proposed by the Government or to something else. There appear to be misapprehensions because the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to a "tinpot local certificate" guaranteed by only one school. I do not believe that that is what the Government have in mind. I imagine that the accredited school carries the authority of the accrediting body and that it will lose its accreditation if it does not provide a product and a training which is required by the accrediting body.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also referred to schools which are desperately understaffed. Neither the Government nor the Bill propose to impose this duty on schools but will allow the schools which wish to undertake it to do so. As a result of last week's debate, we are agreed that students who will attend such schools will have had three years of undergraduate-level teaching. They will bring with them the grants which will otherwise go to the institutions of higher education, with which it is proposed these functions should remain. Therefore, there will be no undue pressure on the staff or on the resources; indeed, it might be beneficial to both.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to some remote Canadian or American university somewhere in the tundra where there were few people with whom students could compare notes. It must be remembered that, although in a university where you are reading history you can talk to other history students, your opportunity to discuss your subject at its greatest intellectual depth is with the staff. However, at a training-oriented school—I do not know whether we yet have a name—which provides the kind of course about which we are speaking, all the staff will be practitioners of the subject that they are teaching. There is a question of balance—
Earl Russell: Does not the noble Lord understand that teacher education involves a little bit more than simply the training practice? It involves a more general knowledge of the subject, which is not always accessible in the staff room.
Lord Elton: I am not sure which subject the noble Earl is speaking about. Is he speaking about the subject of education or the subjects of geography, history, economics and so forth?
Earl Russell: Both.
Lord Elton: There is an answer to both. On the subject of teaching, which I was about to address, it is proposed that the accreditation process shall contain within it requirements as to the academic content of the courses to be taught. My noble friend will tell me whether I am right or wrong but this seems the logical way to go. If the school does not have within it the resources to teach the psychology of education or the development of concrete cognition by children, it will be for it, with the resources released by the scheme, to "buy it in", to use a commercial phrase, from exactly the sources which the noble Earl wants the students to be taught by entirely.
As I was saying when the noble Earl interrupted me, it is a question of balance. Generally speaking, the training of teachers is carried out by academic institutions. The balance of what they do is towards the theoretical. The alternative is to have some students trained in schools where the balance of what they are taught is towards the practical. We want a combination of both.
Under the present system, which provides students with teacher training practice in schools for a limited period, that balance is not right. There is a great deal to be said for putting students into the schools where the practice takes place and for providing the theoretical and academic context of that from outside rather than from within the institution.
That is not a revolutionary proposal. It may cause great upset in the institutions which are at present delivering these services, but it is not a cataclysmic threat to the students. It gives them a chance of attaining a new insight, which will be of benefit to this country. It is an experiment; there are very few pilot schemes. If it works, it will grow; if it fails, it will disappear. I hope that Members of the Committee will be brave and will resist the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he does not believe that the system can work without the ability of schools to obtain the expertise of higher education. I agree with that. Having been involved in the scene—although not in the English scene that we are discussing—I bear with him on that. However, the question relates to the way in which the aims are to be achieved. The amendment is important in helping us to look at that.
My picture of how the scheme will work is emerging only gradually. I can now see why the amendment is not the right way forward. As regards the criteria for the initial teacher training at both the primary and secondary stages, it is clear that, when consortia of schools are designing their courses and putting them forward for accreditation, they will have to decide how they will bring to the teachers on those courses all kinds of things that they are unlikely to be able to provide themselves. The schools may have people on the staff

19
who can provide them, but it is likely that they will have to go to higher education institutions of one kind or another to find such people. I am sure that they will do that.
The proposal in the amendments—that higher education institutions will control the courses because they will provide the accreditation—goes much further than that. I understand that accreditation can perfectly well be done by the new agency, which is a different way of doing it. The important question is that posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. She asked about the validating of the courses. Under the Bill, accreditation will be carried out by the institution, which can use any higher education institute or person to help. However, the validating of the course will be a step further for the qualification. There can be a qualification from an accredited course which is not validated and one from an accredited course which is validated. I should like my noble friend to explain to me and to the Committee the precise difference between a qualification that a teacher receives from a course that has been validated and one from a course which has not.
Secondly, let us suppose that a consortium of schools wants a course to be validated by a certain higher education institution. How will that institution know how to validate the course if it has not been involved in its construction? Higher education institutions want an answer to that question. I ask, not because I do not believe in having a go at carrying out the training in a different way. We all know that in a number of ways higher education institutions have not succeeded in providing teacher training which is good enough, and the proposal may be no bad thing in helping them to do that. However, we need to know where they are involved, what the effect will be and how they can be involved constructively. The amendment is not the right way but we need information. I hope that my noble friend can explain the position.
Baroness Lockwood: I am rather dismayed by some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about his interpretation of how the system will work under this Bill. If schools are to have to buy in specialisms in relation to the education element of teacher education, then a very real management problem will be placed on the schools. If they are to have to buy in, they will not be able to provide everything themselves. Therefore, they will have to look around and decide from which higher education institutions they wish to purchase the necessary expertise. Surely that will add to all the managerial problems which school governors are facing already and about which they are somewhat concerned. I should like the Minister to address that aspect of the matter when she replies.
Lord Elton: As the noble Baroness raised that point in my name, as it were, perhaps I may ask her what is the managerial difficulty caused by agreeing with a neighbouring university that someone shall come and give tutorials on certain occasions to groups of students in, for example, education psychology when they need it. It seems to me quite simple. Are we not straining at a gnat?
Baroness Lockwood: I do not believe that the matter is as simple as inviting somebody to give one or two lectures in relation to a course. That involves payment and there must be a balance. It must fit in to the overall syllabus. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, it may be that the school will need to purchase specialist expertise in more than one area in order to fulfil the whole of the curriculum.
Therefore, it is not merely a matter of inviting somebody along to give a couple of lectures. It will be necessary to look at the whole syllabus to find out where everything fits, the personnel needed and how much it will cost.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I sympathise with the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I understand what she is saying but I believe that we should step back and recognise that any consortium of schools which wished to offer a course of initial training would have to do a great deal of advanced planning in order to be accredited by the teacher training agency. That is the only accreditation which it needs to seek. It would have to devise a proper course which, crucially, met the Secretary of State's criteria for initial training. That would be published in a circular, following on from the circular which used to be operated by CATE, which formerly accredited courses. It would contain the elements which must be present in a course of training for it to lead to qualified teacher status; that is, professional accreditation describing what are the skills, knowledge and background which somebody must have in order to become a teacher. That is a major job.
Let us remember also that the new agency will be able to give the funding, which previously might have been given entirely to a higher education institution, to that consortium of schools. Therefore, it would have a considerable sum of money with which to undertake the planning and training of teachers and to run the courses. There is no doubt that somebody will have to be in charge of the administration and that person would have to build in, as part of the elements of the course, undoubtedly—I cannot imagine a course where it would not happen—an element of buying in higher education expertise, whether by sending students to a local university for part of the course or by bringing in someone from the local university. The criteria are worded in such a way that in my view it would be absolutely impossible for a school to run a course without bringing in outside academic expertise.
I do not believe that the amendment is wrong. I believe that the hearts of all Members of the Committee are with it. But it is unnecessary. The accreditation of the course guarantees its quality, based on the ability of the consortium of schools to deliver the criteria laid down, which include quite complex elements of educational psychology, child development, the theory of school management and organisation and so on. I am convinced that in order to meet those accreditation criteria, any consortium of schools would have to work in concert with local academic expertise.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dainton: As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, the sense of the Committee is clearly that we need to have a balance between theory and practice. Whoever provides the theory and the practice, only the practice can he provided in schools. Therefore, that may be the locus of the driving force of any of these new courses.
I believe we are all anxious that because a course which is entirely practical without theory is not satisfactory nor is one which is all theory without practice. We are all looking for a guarantee from the Minister that either of those two possibilities—I put it in that balanced way—is ruled out in practice.
Some of us feel that it is better from the outset to look for a partnership between the higher education institutions and the schools, rather than having the courses driven exclusively by one or the other. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that.
Viscount Eccles: I should like to go back to 1944 when we discussed the Butler Act in the other place. At that time, we were all aware of the fact that the teachers would be the one group of people who would decide whether or not the Act would be a success and that at that time, teachers were in danger of not having the training and so on which was necessary.
There was no equal pay for men and women teachers. I only got that on to the statute book 10 years later in 1954. I then discovered that the training of teachers was extremely poor and I wanted to find out in particular how to improve the teaching of mathematics, especially in primary schools. Therefore, I went to the universities. Every one except Southampton rejected me. They said that they had nothing to do with the schools and did not care about them. They told me that I must find some other way. I said, "But I want some research carried out into teaching methods and you are the people to do it". They would not do it then.
Later, they began to change their minds. I was then out of the Ministry so I could not encourage them but I was extremely glad to see that happening. When looking at legislation, one must always ask whether it will promote the professional status of the teachers and whether their recognition in society will be improved by the Bill. If the schools do not have a working partnership with the universities, with the universities being, so to speak, in charge where their part of education is the key education, then there will be no promotion of the status of teachers. So long as teachers are—and perhaps it is their fault but I am sure that it is not always so—considered to be beneath the other professions, we shall not get our education right.
I remember going to the Tory Party conference in Blackpool in the late 1950s. I asked the 2000 or 3000 beautifully-hatted ladies sitting in front of me, "Will any of you raise your hand if you have had your local teacher to tea?" About two hands were raised out of 3000. We must change that. It is changing but it will not change for the better if we put the Department for Education on top of the universities in every aspect of teacher training. It must be realised that education is an alliance between the schools, the local authorities and
22
the universities. A few parents may be brought into it but I am not sure that parents understand teacher training as well as they might do.
I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asks for greater certainty that the universities will remain a partner in teacher training. In that case, it is worth supporting it.
Baroness Blatch: Having listened to the debate, I am rather puzzled that so many Members of the Committee, for one reason or another, seem to believe that no school or group of schools is deemed capable of providing a course of postgraduate training which addresses all the needs of education and training necessary to equip a good teacher. At the outset, it is important for me to define two important words which have been used in the debate and which will no doubt be used in later debates today. It will help our discussions if we al I use those words with a degree of consistency and can, therefore, be sure what we mean when we use the words "validation" and "accreditation".
In the words of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education—whose Chairman Professor Malcolm Frazer has long experience of such matters —validation is,
"the approval by a provider or by an external body of a course of training for the purpose of making an academic award".
Accreditation, on the other hand, is,
"official recognition of a provider or course of study for purposes of professional qualification".
I believe that there is no disagreement between us on the need for all providers of initial teacher training to be accredited as meeting the necessary professional standards for high quality teaching. That process must be carried out in the same way, by the same body, applying the same standards, in the case of all providers throughout the country whether they are schools or universities and colleges. It must apply the same standards to entirely school-centred training as to that involving higher education.
It appears from amendments to a later clause that there is some disagreement about who should carry out that task. But it has never been suggested that accreditation in the way that I have just defined it should be the role of individual higher education institutions —although, having listened to at least one contribution today, I believe that there is some confusion in that. respect.
The question of whether all school-centred post-graduate courses must secure academic validation is a different point. It has been argued that school-centred courses need to be validated by higher education in order for the qualification that they offer to carry credibility in the schools to which their students will apply. That is pure speculation. We are content to allow schools to decide on that. I am confident that the quality of the students and their professional training will be such that trainees on school-centred courses will not have any difficulty in finding jobs.
Validation of a training course by a university has not for some time been a sufficient condition for the award of qualified teacher status. The course has had to pass the separate test of the Secretary of State's criteria, and prepare fully competent teachers. It is that test which is

23
both necessary and sufficient to secure that new entrants to the profession reach the national standard. All school-centred courses so far have been approved as meeting the criteria; all new providers will have to pass the same test. The qualified teacher status that they confer will have the same legal currency, and the same stamp of quality.
Amendment No. 62 goes even further than requiring validation in requiring higher education to be involved as partners in all courses of training. It has been suggested that we are inconsistent in allowing schools to run courses without higher education, but (through the criteria) not allowing higher education to offer courses except in partnership with schools.
A number of interesting points were made during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke almost entirely as though we were going to impose school-centred courses on schools. We need—and I keep having to repeat this—to make the distinction regarding the school-based experience as part of higher education controlled courses working in partnership with schools.
All primary school teachers under postgraduate training and during their Bachelor of Education Degree —and, indeed, secondary school teachers—will have to spend a minimum number of weeks in schools. There is some tension in schools about that fact. Good, bad and indifferent schools have to be used as training grounds for teachers. In the amendment, we are talking exclusively about school-centred training for postgraduate teachers. Therefore, as I said, no school will have to do it. The noble Lord said that he knows of many schools which are unhappy and which do not want to do it. If that is the case, they will not have to do it. The schools have to want to do it. Their governors and heads will have to apply to do it and they will have to stand the test of accreditation. Moreover, they will have to stand and be subject to inspection from Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
In fact, no graduate need apply. I met 18 graduates in a school-centred training course fairly recently. I asked each of them the question, "Why have you chosen to do school-centred training rather than go to a higher education institution?" Half of them had actually applied to higher education institutions and been accepted; but, in the end, they decided to use school-centred training. Every one of them said that they wanted to be closer to the management unit where they will actually do the job.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked a perfectly proper question about subject competence. Of course, it is almost impossible to say. Each of those graduates were assigned to the faculty for which they were teaching—mathematics, science, history or geography —in a consortia of six schools across a range of types of schools. However, each of those teachers were both enhancing and improving their knowledge of the subject at the same time as learning how to be good teachers. Indeed, all 18 of the graduates came together for half a day of every week and had other general education studies. Sometimes that involved higher education; sometimes it involved guest speakers; and sometimes it
24
involved members of the staff speaking with the trainees. I believe that they will prove to be thoroughly competent and equipped young teachers when they finish the course.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to recent press reports about application for places on teacher training courses starting in the autumn being down by 6 per cent. The noble Lord has taken a part-year figure. It refers to applications received earlier this term. The period for the receipt of applications still has a considerable time to run. We shall not know the figures as regards actual recruitment until nearer the end of the year. It will also be necessary to allow for recruitment to, for example, the new Open University course—which I have also visited—which is now in preparation for distance learning, postgraduate training and school-centred courses. The latter are expected to expand next year. I was enormously impressed with the preparations for the Open University course.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also mentioned the number of schools on school-centred courses. Such courses are run by groups of schools. The requirement for experience of a number of schools—a point to which the noble Lord referred—is included in the Secretary of State's criteria. It applies to all courses, whether they are in higher education institutions or in schools. Therefore, the relationship need be no more cosy than that between universities and their partner schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, asked about the question of validation. No one necessarily validates a school-centred course. No academic award with higher education validation is awarded. It is only if a consortium of schools invites validation from a higher education institution that they will be validated. Validated awards can be made, although that is not necessarily the case. The 18 young students to whom I referred had accepted the fact that they were already graduates. They undertake a postgraduate course in a school and at the end of the course they become qualified teachers. However, there is no validation for such courses.
There is no question of schools offering un validated degrees. Such young people are already graduates. The course that they are undertaking is a postgraduate course. If they complete it successfully, they will be qualified teachers. The inspection system will ensure that a proper assessment is made on whether such young people will be good teachers.
My noble friend Lord Beloff was worried about schools not wanting higher education involvement. All current courses run by schools have some involvement with higher education. However, as I said, they do not all involve academic validation. That is what the amendment would require. The difference between us is a slight one. We all want competent, educated and well-trained teachers. It is whether we make it an absolute requirement on them to work with higher education or whether they can make their own judgments as to whether they need higher education. Experience shows that some of them are doing so, but not always with validation.
I understand what my noble friend Lord Beloff said about not being present in the Chamber. However, I am

25
totally puzzled by what he said about Amendment No. 3 with which we dealt last week. If that was a probing amendment, I was deeply misinformed. It did not seem to me to be a probing amendment. It was discussed for three hours. I happen to know—perhaps to the discomfort of Members of the Committee opposite—that there was a three-line Whip as regards voting on that amendment. There was a splendid debate on that amendment. Even after rereading the debate, I believe that the argument was won by this side of the Chamber. It was important that at the end of that three hour debate the Committee should have taken a view on whether the amendment was acceptable. The Committee took the view that it was not acceptable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that some schools resorted to some pretty dotty theories of education. I would add that there are some teacher training colleges which have resorted to some pretty dotty theories of education. Wherever dotty theories in education reside, they should be rooted out because they do not serve young people well. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the important issue of access to libraries and subject study. I have already mentioned in passing how at least one consortium approaches that matter. The noble Earl overlooks the fact that schools will receive the full fee for a student and therefore they will have money to enhance their own library facilities —the Committee should remember we are talking about consortia of schools—and they can pool their library resources. Students will also have access, if necessary, to higher education institutions' libraries. As the students will already be graduates—that is, specialists in their own subjects—the emphasis will in any case be on subject application and not necessarily on subject study. In terms of the theory of education and reading round a subject, students will have access to libraries.
I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, was unnecessarily denigratory about schools' competence to do this work. She said in effect that higher education institutions are competent in terms of buying-in expertise but that somehow or other schools are not. I believe higher education institutions have to buy in schools' expertise. They cannot meet the conditions of the criteria unless they purchase expertise from schools. I see no reason at all why schools are not competent to judge what is required and to purchase expertise when they need it. My noble friend Lady Perry made an important point when she said that schools will not even be able to provide these courses unless they are accredited as suitable to do so. To apply to be accredited to provide courses, they will have to present a plan and ensure that they properly quantify and codify exactly how they intend to meet all the educational and training needs of teachers under training.
My noble friend Lord Eccles and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, emphasised the importance of partnerships. I need again to reiterate a small but fundamental point, and that is we are not arguing against partnership. Indeed, this Government have done their utmost to encourage partnerships between schools. We have made it a necessary component part of higher education. Up until recently too many young people spent far too much time in a higher education institution
26
and not enough time practising their craft in schools. What we are talking about here is an absolute requirement that they must spend time in schools as opposed to a school making proper judgments on where and when they need to purchase expertise from outside.
I do not think anyone really believes that higher education institutions could prepare teachers for their professional role without close involvement and partnership with schools, nor do we believe—I have said this a number of times in previous debates—that it is possible to have a competent teacher with no experience of higher education. I believe that some groups of good schools—they will have to be good schools to earn accreditation—are well able to offer a fourth professional training year building on three years of previous higher education without necessarily drawing on a higher education institution for help.
4 p.m.
Lord Judd: As usual we are grateful to the Minister for a full reply. I do not normally leap to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but, as regards post-mortems on three-line whips, there was an amendment in the name of the official Opposition. Our three-line whip concerned our own amendment. The amendment of which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke when he referred to an unseemly ambush was an amendment moved by Members of the Committee on the Cross-Benches with the support of the Minister's Back-Benchers.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord may disown this but I had a piece of paper which informed me that the three-line Whip was also mounted in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Lord Judd: I am quite certain that that piece of paper did not come from the Whip's Office of the official Opposition. The message on the paper must have been a deduction made inaccurately by some of the Minister's noble friends.
I now turn to more important matters. I believe that this debate this afternoon has been important and I find in it a reflection of the anxieties with which we were dealing late in the evening last Thursday. Whatever I may fault the Minister on, I cannot fault her on her candour as regards her own interpretation of and position on this matter. However, it is her interpretation and position which so profoundly disturb us.
During her remarks this afternoon the Minister referred to school-centred training. She may recall that, in an exchange which took place last Thursday, I put it to her that the whole basis of the difference between us was that we considered this matter to be about education of which training was a part and not about training into which some education was slotted. I believe that that is a profound difference of perspective and one which gives rise to a great deal of grief in this Chamber. In many ways we respect the Minister but she seems unable to grasp the significance of this issue.
I hope that the Minister will not feel when she reads Hansard that I am misquoting her or treating her unfairly. However, she likes to use analogies with industry. She talked about students whom she had met

27
who liked to be close to the unit of management where they had to do the job. None of us has anything but the utmost respect for industry and commerce and for the quality of work that is done in industry and commerce. None of us would be able to talk about education if surplus wealth were not being successfully generated in industry and commerce. That is extremely important. Anything that I may say does not seek to demean the invaluable service to the nation that is provided by industry and commerce. However, education is not a management unit and a school is not a management unit. A school is a centre of academic adventure where people are developing their personalities, ideals, perspectives and imaginations. Education is a totally different exercise. The very fact that the Minister has re-emphasised her perception of education in terms of industry is what makes us almost frightened for the future and frightened about what is entailed in this Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke passionately about his concept of the education of teachers. I can only say that I am at one with him. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, all I would say is that this is not a matter of either theory or practice but of a combination and a partnership (as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, put it) which are central to everything we are talking about. One cannot have one without the other.
In this context it strikes me that many people out there in the schools who are carrying the responsibility of education understand our concerns well. That is why the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is so important. As far as I am aware, no one of any significance—as the noble Lord said—in schools or centres of education around the country has asked for this Bill. The Bill has been dreamed up in some kind of partisan bunker somewhere in the depths of the Department for Education. It certainly has not come from the world of real education where the real challenges are being met and the real tasks being undertaken.
Of course, in this world there are all sorts of transient pressures. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is the flavour of the month, the fashion of the year, in terms of what will or will not be appropriate in education. In that connection the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is important. If the task is tackled with the right perspective, depth, knowledge and preparation, the teachers will be able to cope with such transient nonsense. I share the anxiety that has been expressed on all sides of the Chamber about the way teachers can be misled if they do not have the right backing and the opportunity to develop their critical faculties to evaluate those fashions as they occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, both dealt with accreditation. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, took exception to my reference to a tinpot certificate issued by any one school. He also suggested—as the Minister did in her reply—that there is no intention to impose on schools, that schools will be able to make their own choices, and that this should not, therefore, be an issue of shortage of staff.
We want to see a qualification which will be recognised as widely as possible so that there can be
28
flexibility and people in the profession are able to move around the country. People should not have to look up reference books to try to work out what it means to have a qualification from a particular school in a particular neighbourhood. That is a mad task to impose on people. There should be a broad understanding so that an award is broadly recognised and has status beyond the particular neighbourhood in which it was conceived. That is very important.
There is another important point in relation to the argument about accreditation and validation. I tried to understand what the Minister said, and it may be my fault that I did not grasp properly what she said. She seemed to suggest that the great point about accreditation was that a particular institution was accredited as following a proper course of professional preparation. Our point is that it is not merely a proper course of professional preparation, it is also a postgraduate qualification in education which has academic significance and is recognised academically. If it is to be recognised academically the question of validation becomes significant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, very rightly raised the issue of the additional burdens and strains placed on schools in having to buy in expertise which they do not have, and in deciding where they would go for that expertise and whether they have the knowledge to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others, and the Minister, do not appear to understand the management strains which teachers are suffering at present. I have talked to countless numbers who feel that the strains of management are distracting them from the task of teaching. This would give them more managerial anxieties when they should be getting on with the job of looking after the children in their care in the context of teaching those children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, tried to reassure us by speaking about the role of the TTA in this respect. The only point that I would make to the noble Baroness is to ask whether, with her experience in education, she really thinks that if the scheme took off one TTA operating centrally could possibly have all the sensitivity, understanding and detailed knowledge required for a successful relationship of the kind which higher education institutions have provided in the past.
In responding to the Minister I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said. This is a question of partnership.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he explain why higher education institutions have not been carrying out accreditation? Accreditation has been carried out by the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, which is a similar body of a similar size. Therefore, the point that the noble Lord has just made falls.
Lord Judd: I accept that my point might have been put better. I accept that admonishment from the Minister. In the relationship with centres of higher education the task has been made easier because it has

29
been fully understood that there has been a partnership in which a particular centre of higher education has played a key part.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is right to emphasise partnership. I moved to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, share his experiences. He told how he had been to universities and tried to persuade them to play their part in building up the quality of education and how he had persisted in his discussions. He said that at first the universities had been wary but had warmed to the task and begun to make an important contribution in the context of partnership. The noble Viscount is to be congratulated on that, as on many other things that he contributed to education in the past. I wish that he spoke more often in our education debates. Wisdom and insight of that kind cannot easily be rejected.
If I had had any doubts about my own position, when I heard the noble Viscount commend the amendment that we have put forward I took heart and felt that we must be on the right course. This matter is so central to the whole issue that we must pursue it to a Division.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falkland, V.

Addington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Adrian, L.

Flowers, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gallacher, L.

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Annan, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Avebury, L.

[Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Barnett, L.

Gregson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Beloff, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Blackstone, B.

Halsbury, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brimelow, L.

Basket, L.

Bristol. Bp.

Hayter, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Jay, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Judd, L.

Dainton, L.

Kinloss, Ly. Kintore, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kirkwood, L.

David. B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Desai, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of r isington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Eatwell, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

30

Nelson, E.

Stallard, L.

Nicol, B.

Stedman, B.

Ogmore, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Richard, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Richardson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ridley, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rochester, L.

Warnock, B.

Russell, E. [Teller]

White, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Wigoder, L.

Seear, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn. L.

Shepherd, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Sherfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hooper, B.

Addison, V.

Hothfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Huntly, M.

L Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor, V.

Killearn, L.

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish. L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L. [Lord

Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Manton, L.

Butterfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Morris, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Moyne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Onslow, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashboume, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Parkinson, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Rees, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rippon of Hexharm, L.

Elton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Kitmorack, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goold, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathrnore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

[Teller]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. L.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Haslam, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Teviot, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

31

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wolfson, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wynford, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) Courses of initial teacher training so provided shall be open only to persons holding a degree or equivalent qualification granted by a United Kingdom institution or an equivalent degree or other qualification granted by a foreign institution.
For this purpose a "United Kingdom institution" means an institution established in the United Kingdom, other than one which is, or is affiliated to or forms part of, an institution whose principal establishment is outside the United Kingdom; and a "foreign institution" means any institution other than a United Kingdom institution.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert ("save that the governing body shall not make charges in respect of the education or training provided to students undertaking such courses otherwise than in accordance with arrangements made by a funding agency.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and myself. It is a peg on which to hang a number of questions. I assure the Committee that it is a probing amendment.
The amendment arises from my desire to understand Clause 11 of the Bill. I have a series of questions which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. The word "may" appears in the second line of Clause 11. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has pointed out, the word "must" does not appear. However, "may" means may. Am I right in believing that Clause 11 means that the governing body of the schools mentioned may provide courses of initial training with no permission required from anyone else? To put the matter as simply as possible, can those schools on their own go into the teacher training business?
That question relates to an issue which puzzles me considerably. Subsection (5) of Clause 11 states:
"Any exercise by the governing body of a school of the powers conferred by this section"—
that is, the powers to engage in teacher training—
"shall not be treated·as being undertaken for the purposes of the school".
In other words, when a school undertakes teacher training it is not a "school". If we ask the question, "When is a school not a school?", the answer is, "When it is undertaking teacher training". That is my reading of subsection (5). Yet we have the logical paradox that teacher training cannot be school-based if the body undertaking it is not a school. I know that the noble Baroness's department will have hired the best lawyers it can lay its hands on who will tell the department that the subsection makes sense. I have to say that it makes no sense to me whatever.
The reason for pressing the amendment is as follows. One of the merits of the 1988 Act is that it endeavoured to clarify the question of when such a school might charge fees. At the time I considered that that legislation
32
took us some way forward in dealing with the fee-paying question with respect to non-public schools. We know that the solution provided by the 1988 Act was less than perfect but it was still a good effort. As I understand it—I hope for enlightenment —when a school is engaged in teacher training, and is not therefore a school for that purpose, there is nothing in Clause 11 to stop the school charging fees for teacher training. In other words, the Bill as drafted states that the school could receive its income from a funding agency, in which case it might require accreditation; or it could charge fees. It could go into the training business. To reiterate the point—I emphasise that I raise the issue as a question—the school would not require anyone's permission to do so. It could simply say: we are now in this business and we are going to do teacher training.
One might ask why a school would wish to provide such a course and to charge fees. It might do so because, once in the business, it would wish to look for customers. Presumably there would not be many customers in this country because they would only wish to pursue a teacher training course if it is accredited. Other noble Lords may fully understand what the position will be with regard to accreditation once the Bill becomes law, but I do not. At some stage someone may be able to explain to me how accreditation will work.
The point is that if one goes into the teacher training business, although accreditation for teachers might be needed in this country, it is not needed for teachers elsewhere. I have put that as a statement, but I can assure noble Lords that it is a question. As I understand the position, there is nothing to prevent a school from going into the teacher training business. For these purposes it would then not be a school but a teacher training business. It could charge fees and presumably could use those fees for whatever purposes it had in mind.
That is my reading of Clause 11 in the context of Part I of the Bill, but I hope that everything that I have said is wrong, that I will be told that they cannot charge fees and that all the things that I am worried about cannot happen. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: The amendment enjoys the full support of these Benches. The only reason why my name is not attached is that I spent Friday at my party conference.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord understands such things better than I do, being a professional educator. The Minister has stated over and over again that a group of schools which feel they can meet the criteria set out in the published circular can sit down and design a course and ask the teacher training agency for accreditation. If they get accreditation it is an accredited course and if they do not get it, they do not provide it.
Why has the noble Lord raised other matters? Is the situation not absolutely clear? If he does not understand, he ought not to have made the speech.
Lord Peston: If it is agreeable to noble Lords I should like to answer that question. I am looking at the Bill as it is drafted, which is what I believe we are

33
supposed to do. I look at the words on the bit of paper. The circular has nothing to do with the matter. It is what is in the Bill that matters.
I fully accept that a school or a group of schools could go down the route mentioned by the noble Baroness, and I think that that is precisely what the Government have in mind. However, perhaps stupidly, I have been reading the Bill. The Bill simply states that the governing body of the school may provide courses of initial training for school teachers. I have been searching for a part that mentions the requirement for accreditation, but that is not stated. The implication of the Bill is that if the schools want money from the funding agency, they must try and get accreditation, but that is a different matter. As I read the Bill, they do not have to do that.
I hope that the Minister will say that I do not understand, but the Bill appears to state that schools can go into the business of teacher training and try to finance it themselves by charging fees. One group that they might be able to approach would be potential customers from abroad.
I do not disagree with the interpretation of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, as to what she thinks the Government are up to. I think that my reading of the Bill is correct but I am waiting to be told that I am a typical example of an amateur who does not understand what brilliant lawyers dream up.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to deal with the definition of "may' in the Bill. That word confers upon the schools the power to provide teacher training but, nevertheless, in order to provide it they must receive accreditation. It is important that they should be accredited.
One of the safeg lards is found in subsection (5): they cannot use any of their own school moneys to provide teacher training for anybody; they must not draw on their own school fees; the money must come to them from the higher education institution. Accreditation is the other safeguard. I am advised that the accreditation power is in Clause 13, not in Clause 11.
It is one of the intentions of the Bill to allow us to put school-centred courses firmly on all fours, legally and financially, with courses provided by higher education institutions. That is why we are arranging for one funding body to fund both types of course, and in paragraphs 2 and 9 of Schedule 2 we are extending mandatory awards and student loans provisions to the courses so that student support arrangements can also be harmonised. Currently, the courses and their students are funded by the department, as the funding council does not have the necessary powers and awards and loans legislation does not apply. Course funding is based on the average unit of resource for equivalent courses in higher education institutions and students are given a bursary designed to replace the mandatory award and loan system. That is the interregnum arrangement until the provisions of the Bill come into play.
Once mandatory awards are given to students on school-centred courses, schools will be able to receive some of their income in the form of fees, which will be
34
met in practice by student awards. That replicates the current arrangements for other higher education institution courses. Schools' remaining income will come from the agency.
As noble Lords will be aware, there is no restriction on the fees which higher education institutions may charge for their teacher training, or any other, courses. I do not think it is right to impose greater control on schools in that respect. The level of the fees that schools charge is likely, as in the rest of higher education, to be determined in practice by the level at which it is reimbursed under the mandatory award. That level is a decision for my right honourable friend, subject to Parliament's scrutiny, and not for the agency.
There is no intention whatever to treat school-centred courses differently from higher education based courses. In spite of the fears of noble Lords, it is not our intention to give preferential treatment to school-centred courses, but neither do we want to disadvantage them. Higher education institutions have the power to set their own fees and we should give schools the same freedom.
Clause 11 makes clear that the total income from a school-centred course must meet its costs. There is to be no cross-subsidy from the general school budget. If the course makes a profit, that can be spent on any purpose chosen by the Governors. I would not expect that to be the case—the agency will certainly not be able to pay more than it feels is needed. However, if courses can secure additional income, they should be allowed to apply it for the benefit of the school. It is also worth saying that if they were charging students fees over and above and disproportionately to that of higher education, I am not sure that they would attract students.
Lord Peston: May I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. As I stated at the beginning, the more I listen the less I understand, and that applies even more now that she has answered. I do not read her remarks on Clause 5 as remotely corresponding to what Clause 5 states.
Baroness Blatch: I should have said subsection (5).
Lord Peston: That is closer to what I have in mind. The noble Baroness did not say a word about my remarks on making money from overseas students. That is what higher education institutions do, arid they do it to make as much money as they can. I think that my interpretation is correct, precisely for the reason stated by the noble Baroness. She wants to get the schools on all fours with higher education institutions. I understand that desire, but it will lead to an outcome that is not obvious and one that neither the Government nor the Opposition want; namely, that the schools will go into the business of providing teacher training—profit-maximising teacher training—to overseas students, with no accreditation. Nothing is stated about accreditation. Accreditation arises if funds are needed from the funding agency.
There are other matters in which Members of the Committee are much more interested than this one. So all I shall say to the noble Baroness is that I will certainly look at what she said with a view to coming back to the matter. My point is a serious one. It means that the Bill is flawed. I hope that the noble Baroness

35
will persuade her officials to look at what I have said, with a view perhaps to clarifying this matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 63B:
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("not").
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (4) of Clause 11 exempts the school setting up its own teacher training course from the procedures written into the Education Reform Act 1988 and Education Act 1993 for any school to apply for a change of character. Such changes of character usually apply to a school seeking to change its age intake of children, significantly to increase the size of the school or, of course, to change the selective entry.
For any school, in particular a small school, to provide school-centred courses is a major change to that school. The school governors could decide to run such a course, with all the workload that that implies, without the approval, etc., of the parents whose children will be subjected to the "on the job" training. The governors' and teachers' time will clearly be taken up by training to varying degrees. The impact will be considerable.
The amendment removes the Government's exemption and makes sure that rigorous procedures, including consultation with parents, are followed before school-centred teacher training courses are established in any school.
The key issue about "change of character" is that it allows parents to be involved in formal consultation on a change which affects the whole school. The fact that an individual child's class may not be affected by a change of character does not mean that the child is not affected by the overall arrangements and management of the school.
If a school takes on a school-centred course, there will be a significant number of unfamiliar adults around the school; students would be involved in a systematic way in teaching all or some classes. Parents would have a right to be assured that their children's educational progress would not be impaired. Teachers may be taken away from classes to instruct students on a systematic basis. They may not want to do that. That could trigger significant changes in teacher turnover.
A "change of character" notice would formalise the consultation and allow time for parents to reflect, discuss and, above all, be fully consulted on the proposal. Knowing the Government's enthusiasm for involving parents, it will, I hope, encourage them to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish very briefly to support this amendment. The noble Baroness has pointed out a matter which could be of considerable importance, as any change to having instruction of teachers in a classroom situation is bound to have at least the potential of significantly changing the terms under which children are educated.
Baroness Blatch: It is important that, where schools wish to provide such training with the approval of their
36
governors, and where they have been accredited as a suitable provider, they should be allowed to do so without any unnecessary inhibition.
This amendment would have a particular effect on county and controlled schools—as opposed to voluntary aided and grant-maintained ones. In the case of county schools, if there is to be a significant change of character it can be proposed only by the local education authority which maintains the school. Even if the governors, the staff and the parents of that school wish it, if the local authority is philosophically opposed - which indeed many are - that school would not be allowed to participate because it is wholly dependent upon the local authority to make the application. Therefore the local authority would have an absolute veto. The amendment would, as I have just said, give local authorities the right of veto over whether or not such schools were involved in school-centred schemes. We would be creating, disproportionately, a "second-class citizen" out of LEA-maintained schools. While I hope that local authorities will help and support their schools which are involved in school-centred schemes—a number are already doing so, and doing so very effectively—I would not want to give all authorities that significant right. The clause secures that local authorities' funds are not compromised in any way, in that the school's maintenance budget cannot be spent on school-centred training. Beyond that, it must be for the governors to determine whether or not their school should be involved.
Of course, governors will not take such a decision without considering the views of all concerned—those of the teaching staff and parents in particular. Both groups are of course represented on the governing body and will be well able to make their views known.
In the light of our wider reforms—namely, greater choice for parents and more public accountability of schools for their performance—I do not think that any school would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and in due course demonstrate to local parents that the effect was beneficial to their pupils. Schools already involved in the scheme have said how much the whole school has gained. In the words of one head teacher, it reaches the parts that normal in-service training cannot reach.
I said in a previous debate that Her Majesty's Inspectorate is evaluating these schemes, and its evaluations will be made public. To require the publication of statutory notices, a three-month wait and a reference to the Secretary of State for a decision, if there are statutory objections, is all far too cumbersome and unnecessary. I note that the noble Baroness does not propose the same procedures for schools involved in partnership with higher education. That seems to be untouched by these amendments, however much effort and time the school puts in. That is what makes me think that the amendment is really a further attack on school-centred training, like others that we have already debated. It would be quite wrong to give a veto over the wishes of governors, parents and staff at LEA-maintained schools.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness David: Can the Minister just tell me the answer to a question? How many schools are currently involved in school-centred training, as opposed to school-based training?
Baroness Blatch: There are at present something like half-a-dozen consortia arrangements. In any typical consortium there are about six schools which come together, agree together, plan together and make an application together. Then they receive accreditation to make the change. In each case it is the governing bodies, the heads and staff of the schools, after consultation with parents, who arrive at the decision to do that. They are LEA-maintained schools, grant-maintained schools and, indeed, even independent schools.
Baroness David: And are the higher education institutions not involved in those courses at the moment?
Baroness Blatch: That particular question has absolutely nothing to do with whether they apply for a change of character. There is at least one consortium that I know of which works voluntarily with Cambridge University, but it does not have validation rights. I know of another consortium which is actively working in participation with a higher education institution and which comes in for one half-day a week to work with the graduates there. But the point is wholly irrelevant to this particular amendment.
Baroness David: The point that I want to make is that if they are school-centred courses and are not involved with higher education institutions, that really is something new which I should have thought would involve a change in the character of the school. Of course it does not altogether surprise me that the Minister does not want the LEA to have that power, because the Government are not very keen on local education authorities. However, I would like to study what the Minister said and perhaps take further advice on how many school-centred courses there really are at the moment, how they are distributed about the country, and so on. I will find out more about this. In the meantime I will read what the Minister says and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Just before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I can be accurate in my answer to her question about how many schools are involved. It is six consortia. There are 40 schools involved. So far 200 schools in all have applied either for 1993–94 or for 1994–95.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 6, line 42, after ("school,") insert ("—

(a) to provide training for persons employed as teachers at the school, or

(b)").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment ensures that the provisions of Clause 11 do not have any untoward effects on the provision by schools of on the job training for licensed and overseas-trained teachers. Clause 11 is essentially about the provision of
38
school-centred initial teacher training courses—a new type of provision which we are now writing into statute. But there is teacher training activity in schools at present which we do not want or need to bring within scope of this clause. Subsection (6) currently secures that the clause does not apply to schools acting in partnership with higher education—this amendment ensures that initial training for licensed and overseas-trained teachers is similarly excluded.
It would be impossible to require the ring-fencing of budgets which this clause requires for such training; the teachers, as employees of the school, will in many cases be trained alongside their fellow staff members. Other restrictions in the clause—including as a result of the previous amendment the limitation to graduates, which is not a requirement for licensed teachers—would be similarly inappropriate.
The licensed and overseas trained teacher schemes make a small but valuable contribution to the supply of teachers, particularly from unconventional backgrounds. The amendment will preserve the current arrangements. I hope that it will meet with the endorsement of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: As this amendment preserves the current arrangements, I think that we can accept it on this side of the Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("General Teaching Council
—There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the General Teaching Council for England and Wales to advise the Secretary of State on the supply and education of teachers, to advise the Secretary of State on criteria for the accreditation of courses or institutions for the provision of initial teacher education and training, and to maintain a register of those persons qualified to teach in schools.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it was Khrushchev, in the heyday of the totalitarian Soviet Union, who once remarked that if he lived in Britain he would vote Conservative. When I see the antics of the present Secretary of State, with his obsessional desire to centralise and control everything, I begin to understand the significance of Khrushchev's remark. In a genuinely pluralist democracy the Secretary of State should not have the degree of direct control over initial teacher education that the Bill in effect proposes. The establishment of a general teaching council would help to ensure that the preparation of teachers was more appropriate to a democratic, open society.
The amendment is important because it allows just such a body to be established. Free from political interference, it would advise the Secretary of State on the supply and education of teachers as well as the criteria for the accreditation of courses or institutions for the provision of initial teacher education and training. The body would also maintain a register of those persons fit to teach in schools. It would not, however, control funds. That function would be left with the Higher Education Funding Council. The three cornered approach of Secretary of State, GTC and HEFC provides the appropriate checks and balances which the current Bill entirely undermines.

39
The GTC would have a broader representation than that proposed for the TTA and would not be subject to the same extent of direct political control by the Secretary of State. That would give the body and its policies and the implementation of those policies far greater stability, which would be of benefit to the teaching profession and the entire education service. It would not be subject to the whims of the Secretary of State nor to short-term trends in political education policy.
The proposal for a GTC has been given considerable parliamentary time in the past. The fact that it comes before the Chamber yet again is because the proposal for a GTC has such extensive and broad support among teachers, parents, governors and other organisations representing wider society. It is before this Chamber again because the Bill deals with the tasks which naturally would fall to a GTC and because a GTC would provide a remedy for raising the status and ensuring the quality of the teaching profession —objectives for which the time has surely come.
The amendment allows this Chamber to make now the moment to bring about a lasting improvement, of which the benefits have already been seen in Scotland. It is not an adequate substitute, as the Minister conceded during the debate on the 1993 Education Act, to suggest that teachers can set up their own royal college if they wish. The proposal for a GTC anticipates far wider membership than simply representatives of the teaching profession—for example, parents, governors, industrialists and professional people. It also requires a statutory basis if it is to take responsibility for the very important issues with which it would deal and in relation to which it should have powers. Without the responsibilities it would remain merely a talking shop, which is certainly not what most of the educational world seeks.
I notice in some briefing provided by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that attention has been drawn—I feel very relevantly—to the recent Dearing report on the national curriculum and its assessment. That report emphasised the importance of the professional judgment of teachers in the development of a more effective education system. Dearing said:
"As a nation we are, therefore, fortunate that our teachers are deeply committed to the well-being of their pupils. I believe that a policy which trusts more to teachers' professional judgment and which cuts back on administration to free time for teaching will, coupled with an acceptance that schools are accountable to parents and society for their stewardship, produce the results we need".
That is a very good philosophical backing for our proposition. The establishment of a GTC, possibly at a stroke, would repair the morale of the teaching profession and reverse the decline in the public perception of teachers which has been damaged by political interference in education during the past 14 years. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: We all need independent advice and most of us know it. If we do not know it, it means that we need independent advice desperately. That is why I believe that the Bill has provided a new occasion for
40
considering again the argument for a general teaching council and why it has made that argument a good deal stronger even than it was before.
The teacher training agency has yet to win its spurs. In winning its spurs, it is essential that it should establish a good public reputation in all quarters. Inevitably, rightly or wrongly—I am sure that the noble Baroness will tell us that it is wrongly—there is a suspicion that it is less independent of the Secretary of State than CATE has been, and that might be one reason for its appointment. That suspicion may be correct or incorrect. If it is incorrect, as I am sure we shall be told, it constitutes a very good reason for trying to dispel it, which is why we believe that there is a case here for a separation of powers, separating the provision of funding from the power of accreditation.
There is also a case for independent advice, as I said. That is part of a very long tradition in English political history of the need to take counsel, a tradition of which the origins of Parliament are themselves but a very small part. It was the classic mark of a ruler who was liable to run into trouble that he took advice from a very small body of people whose political judgment he found congenial.
There is also a strong argument in favour of a general teaching council in terms of the status of teachers. We heard from the Government Benches a good deal of concern about the standard of teachers. If one wants to raise standards, it may sometimes be worth using a little piece of the carrot as well as the stick. Encouraging and instilling a sense of professional pride may be one way of achieving that objective, perhaps with a great deal less fuss and bother than is created by some of the alternative methods. After all, most other professions have their independent professional body. One thinks, for example, of the General Medical Council. Those bodies do a great deal to keep up standards in the professions in which they operate.
The issues on which the amendment bears—giving the general teaching council power to give advice to the Secretary of State; the supply and education of teachers; and accreditation—are all questions on which one would like to think that the Secretary of State was getting independent advice. I believe that he needs it just as badly as I or anybody else needs it. I am happy to support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Beloff: I rise to support the amendment because it is an amendment with a long pedigree in Conservative thinking. I was the chairman of the group on the educational aspects of the 1983 Conservative election manifesto. The group contained many educationalists from various branches of the profession and unanimously recommended that the then government should include in their manifesto for the forthcoming election an undertaking to bring about the creation of a teacher training council.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps my noble friend will forgive my interrupting, but are we talking about a proposed teacher training council or a general teaching council?
Lord Beloff: Perhaps I misread the words in the amendment. I am referring to a general teaching council. The difficulty with all these abstractions is to keep them clear in one's mind and on one's tongue.
It is a pity that the recommendation was not accepted. On the whole I believe that a number of the problems which have preoccupied us in relation to the teaching profession and its conduct over the past decade—it is now 10 years—would not necessarily have been solved but would have been ameliorated if there had been a body, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, corresponding to those institutions in other professions which are looked to as guarantors of professional respectability.
It is an extraordinary anomaly for those who believe in the importance of teaching—I know my noble friend the Minister is among them—that in every other profession one can look to a central body. They may be differently constituted, such as the General Medical Council and the Bar Council. They are not identical bodies, but in each case one can say that it is a profession. There are aspects which they can control and other aspects on which they provide advice which is available also to Parliament and to Her Majesty's Government.
Teachers should feel that they are valid; Members of the Committee on all sides are keen that teachers should feel that they are valid. That can be achieved without any great expenditure, which should commend itself to the Government. D. is not like saying, "Double their salaries", which would certainly raise their self-esteem. It is a simple measure. The details of how it may be constituted can be discussed later. It would be a body to which teachers could look as their own guarantor of professional status and, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, to which the Secretary of State could look for professional advice. I hope that Members on this side of the Chamber will support what was originally a Conservative idea.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether there is a comparable body in the universities? Is it the CVCP or the AUT? I ask purely for information.
Lord Beloff: Universities, being separate corporate bodies, do not require a generalised institution. Rightly or wrongly Parliament, granters of Royal Charters and so forth, decide what should be in a university. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was foremost in desiring that they should maintain their independence. The parallel therefore is non-existent.
Lord Dainton: I well remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her winding up remarks at the Second Reading of the first Education Bill 1993, almost exactly a year ago—I believe she spoke after midnight—said words to the effect that there had been much talk about a general teaching council and that we must return to the subject. That is precisely what Amendment No. 65 does and I want to support it as strongly as I can so that England and Wales can enjoy, as others have
42
pointed out, the benefits which Scotland has been able to derive for nearly 30 years from the existence of its General Teaching Council.
In view of what has been said, I want to stress a single point which relates to the motivation of teachers in the classroom on which fundamentally the quality of the education delivered so crucially depends. I ask myself how those benefits arise. They come from the simple fact that professional people who have to give a service to others, whether they be doctors dealing with patients, lawyers dealing with clients or teachers with children, will give of their best only if they are invited—I use that verb advisedly—to accept a responsibility arid are then entrusted with a measure of discretion in its discharge; if they feel that they have some influence on who may be allowed to join their ranks and share their responsibilities; if they are permitted to establish a professional code of conduct; and if, out of their experience, they can formulate advice and proposals for improvement of the delivery of their service to which the Government would at least listen.
The best means for doing that in the case of school education is the general teaching council proposed by the amendment. Were such a council to be established it would generate among teachers an even greater enthusiasm and personal commitment in carrying out their task of delivering the national curriculum and in drawing out the latent talents of their pupils whom they see day by day in the classroom and in the more informal school settings.
That is the kind of professionalism to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, at an earlier stage of the debate, referred as being so important. Already there is in the profession a strong groundswell of opinion uniting many parts of the education world in favour of the idea. If the Government were to discuss and work with those promoting the idea of a general teaching council which would have the powers of the kind I mentioned and on which others have elaborated, then great benefits would accrue to education in our schools—benefits far outweighing those gains which are sought by detailed administrative fiat. It is a matter of making the teachers feel a sense of privilege, responsibility and autonomy.
One day I am sure that a general teaching council will come to England and Wales. In my view the sooner that happens the better. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to give careful consideration to the proposal in the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I support the amendment on the grounds that I have long been an advocate of the idea of a general teaching council. At this moment and in the context of the Bill it is particularly timely and important. I want to reinforce a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, regarding the separation of powers. It is important to separate the duties of a funding agency from those of an accrediting agency or an agency that will give advice with regard to accreditation.
An agency for funding must look at individual courses and make sure that they are good, that they are improving and that what is delivered is worth the money being spent on it. On the other hand, an accrediting agency should be able to help in setting up criteria of a

43
more general kind which will establish the kinds of courses and their content and the standards that the courses must live up to. There is a difference between monitoring individual applications on the one hand and setting up a series of criteria for satisfactory courses on the other. I believe that the general teaching council would be by far the best agency to carry out the latter, which would be a matter of advising the Secretary of State on what courses were to come into existence.
We have been told in earlier debates that a general teaching council would be fine as long as the teachers set it up for themselves so that it was something like a college and that there was no reason for it to be a statutory body. In the context of the Bill, on the other hand, there is an absolute reason for it to be a statutory body that will have this as its main task. There already is a non-statutory general teaching council, under Professor Tomlinson, which is flourishing and which is supported by a large number of teachers. It has a constitution and it is already, to its limited degree, working quite well.
I hope that an argument against the establishment of such a statutory body will not be that the teachers have behaved badly in the past. They have behaved badly in the past, or some of them have. I do not believe it could be an argument against the General Medical Council that there have been and still are rogue doctors. I also agree that the way to give teachers a reason not to behave badly in future, not to go on strike, not to neglect their pupils' interests and the way ahead is to give them a statutory stake in establishing criteria of good practice, a professional stake which is recognised by government, and a new role. The general arguments for establishing a statutory general teaching council are still as strong as they always were but within the context of this Bill they are peculiarly strong. Therefore, it would be a very great help to the acceptability of the Bill as a whole if the Minister were to agree to consider the establishment of such a council at this time.
Lord Elton: There certainly is a great need for teachers to win for themselves both greater self-esteem and greater public esteem. But this they have to win for themselves. It cannot be conferred upon them. I am a friend to the general proposition that there should be a general teaching council because I believe that is a means by which teachers could earn that change in self-regard and public regard. However, I am not particularly a friend to this amendment, in part because it is rather like "Let there be light"; there is no definition, or scarcely a definition, of what is intended. One can talk about a horse but this is no indication of whether it is a Shetland pony or a Suffolk punch. Indeed, noble Lords who have spoken in support of it appeared to think that it was either one or the other, according to taste.
The obviously attractive parallel which was quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was the General Medical Council. That has one characteristic which is a vital ingredient and which I have not so far seen anywhere as a bold statement as part of the objective of anyone who officially supports the idea of a general
44
teaching council. The General Medical Council makes the interests of the patient absolutely and without question paramount to the extent that we have long debates and Select Committees in your Lordships' House on the question of whether or not someone may take the plug out of a machine that keeps the bodily apparatus of someone we all think of as dead. The duty of a teacher to the child is not quite so immediately critical and does not affect his life so absolutely immediately as that of a doctor in the intensive care ward. But it has to be said that a teacher is the trustee of the future of a child and that where he withdraws his teaching or in any way acts contrary to the interests of that child he has done something which many of us regard as unethical as well as improper.
There is nothing in the amendment to suggest that that should be one of the criteria of the body to be put in place. I would be much more warmly disposed to an amendment which proposed a teaching council which should have nothing whatever to do with pay and rations and which should require of its members an undertaking that they would not do anything against the interests of their pupils. That would acquire much greater public respect and might be more attractive to the Government.
That is the principal point I want to make. It is probably not necessary to point out that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, both referred to the necessity of separating powers. Under the amendment the body would not set criteria for accreditation but merely advise the Secretary of State on them. The power rests with him. I think that is a side issue. The real issue is that we do need a body by which teachers can win back public and self-respect. It requires a measure of self-denial on their part which they have so far not declared themselves prepared to ordain. If they were able to do that we should be closer to an amendment which we could accept. I do not think we have it here.
Lord Dainton: I wonder whether I might put the noble Lord's mind at rest. In the general teaching initiative as it now exists, which is purely a group of people who come together in order to explore this idea and formulate it, it is absolutely clear that the question of pay and conditions of service of teachers is not its business. That has to be dealt with by other means.
Lord Elton: That is half the issue. But the second half of the issue is whether the withdrawal of services, striking, non co-operation, refusal to mark exam papers and so on is an ethical question or a pay and rations question. In my view, it is an ethical question and it belongs here. In the view of a number of people I have talked with, it appears to be a pay and rations question and it belongs with the trade unions. As long as the teaching council or the GTC—call it what you will—will not come out against that, I do not think it is in a position to be the kind of professional body that will win the esteem that the teaching profession deserves.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has widened the debate quite considerably. If he is getting into these questions, then some of us on this side of the

45
Committee might want to get into debate about independent review bodies not being overruled by the Government. That might keep us here all night. I do not think that is what the noble Lord wants.
Lord Elton: I do not want to be here all night but I do not want to vote for an amendment, or any noble Lord to vote for an amendment, which gives something which purports to be a means of winning public respect for teachers and actually becomes an instrument of the further unionisation of them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think it has become evident in discussing this issue that I am somewhat ambivalent about it. That is partly because of the experience in Scotland. I wish to make one point before I come to that. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has addressed the issue before and I always listen to him with enormous attention on this as other subjects. I am not sure whether it was last time but the main point he made about the need for a general teaching council was that a profession is not a profession unless it controls itself. I think I am right. The noble Lord is nodding his head. He made that point and I was very impressed by it.
This amendment does not go as far as that, It does not suggest, for example, that the general teaching council should be responsible for discipline within the profession, which should have thought was a very important point. I am not just criticising the detail of the amendment. I have believed for many years that we would never get right all the things that worry us about schools until the teaching profession really felt that it had the job of doing it, felt that it had the confidence to do it and felt that it had the professionalism to do it. All that needs raising. I'll there are a lot of people who have it already. They long for it to happen and try to see ways through which it should happen.
I am not keen to let down my native heath in the United Kingdom Parliament but the fact remains that the General Teaching Council in Scotland is too political within itself. Perhaps naturally, when the elections to membership take place, slates are produced. The membership is asked to vote for certain people and when they are elected they feel that they are delegated to take up a particular point of view. That has the effect of internal politicisation, sometimes with a small "p" and sometimes with a capital. That is probably natural. If we are going to look at this subject we want to find a way of reducing that. I understand that, up to a point, one will never get rid of politics with a small "p" in such a body, but a lot of time is spent in those activities. The press are told what is taking place. There is no great public esteem in Scotland for such a body or among the teachers, certainly among the ones I know. The organisation does not do the job that it is supposed to do.
This teachers' body did not prevent a strike which was more damaging even than the strike which occurred in this part of the world some years ago. The strike targeted the state schools at which Ministers' children attended and brought the teaching profession down in public esteem. I believe that teachers in Scotland know that now and regret it. That model is not completely satisfactory, but I do not know how to get round it.
46
I find myself addressing my remarks across the Chamber to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I do not know whether he has in mind how this situation can be prevented. I do not believe that just having a general teaching council with the powers outlined in this amendment would do very much for teachers' reputation in the public mind or for their self-esteem.
Whether it is possible for the teachers themselves to arrive at a solution and to propose how it is to be done, I do not know. If it can be done it would be better than Parliament saying, "Right, here is a structure and here are its powers. Use them responsibly and you will go up in public esteem". I doubt that that would work because that is not usually the way in which the world works. It would be nice if teachers could face this issue and persuade their unions to start behaving again like professional associations. What seems to he known as "pay and rations" appears to have taken over. If it were possible for the membership to persuade the teachers' unions to behave like teachers' organisations, I believe that everyone would get on better and the teaching profession would greatly welcome it.
Lord Butterworth: Perhaps I may make two points. First, there is no doubt that a body of this kind is a badge of a profession. A number have been mentioned this afternoon. To those might be added for the solicitors, the Law Society; for the engineers, the different institutes and for the nurses, the royal college. A body of this kind is a badge of the profession. Secondly, why should such a body spring out of this legislation and why should it be in this Bill?
A good reason is that there is no doubt that the proposal to create a teacher training agency is at the moment doing great damage in the teaching profession generally. Out in the country there is a very firmly held view that the result of the teacher training agency would be to reduce the quality of those attracted into teaching. Men and women now in teaching have to fight to get able people to enter the profession because there are now so many alternatives.
Out in the country there is the widespread fear that the very act of creating the teacher training agency will make it much more difficult to attract able young men and women into the profession. It looks as though we are creating an inferior stream in the universities, which is not the way in which to get the best recruits. Therefore, may not this provision be the way in which to restore belief in the profession by creating within this Bill an opportunity for a general teachers' council?
Lord Elton: I am not sure that my noble friend has made his point. Surely one does not give another person public respect by giving him a new suit of clothes. Public respect is gained by getting that person to behave in a way which earns public respect, whatever the way in which it is done?
Lord Butterworth: It may be that I mix more closely with teachers than my noble friend. There is widespread concern in the teaching profession that we are not going to get able young men and women into the profession. I am sure that one of the ways of doing so is to have a general teaching council. The question is

47
whether we take the initiative in this Bill or leave it to the teachers to do so for themselves. If we could start the general teaching council as a result of this Bill, we may do a great deal to repair the damage which we did last week.
Lord Glenamara: I apologise for missing the beginning of this debate. I spent most of the day sitting in a train on Durham station because the overhead lines were down. A general teaching council has been a goal and a dream of the teaching profession for very many years—in fact, from the beginning of the last century. In the early years of education in the last century when schools were provided by the two great national societies, a body called the College of Preceptors, was set up. It still exists. That was the first attempt to create a professional body for teachers.
Before the Second World War a body called the Royal Society of Teachers was established. It was a voluntary body. Teachers paid subscriptions and called themselves members of the Royal Society of Teachers. But that body never really caught on and when the Second World War started it was closed down. Incidentally, no one has ever been able to trace its funds. I tried when I was Secretary of State, but nobody knows where they are. They are somewhere in Whitehall. If the noble Baroness can find them she could use that money to start up a general teaching council.
In 1968–69 I set up the Weaver Committee to plan a general teaching council. Mr. Toby Weaver, as he was then, was the chairman. He was a senior civil servant. With great difficulty a scheme was hammered out in the face of tremendous opposition from the DES itself. However, agreement was reached. When that agreement was referred to the teachers' unions the National Union of Teachers, which supported it in the committee, then turned it down. So that attempt to set up a general teaching council failed.
But now, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, all the teachers' unions and the bodies interested in this council have come together and reached agreement. It can now be done. I have never known morale in the education system to be as low as it is at present. If the Government want to improve it they could begin by creating a general teaching council. I can assure the noble Baroness that it will do an enormous amount to raise morale in the teaching profession. Even if she cannot accept the amendment, I implore her to say that she will at some point produce some kind of plan for establishing a general teaching council.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I should like to raise just one point. Parallels have been drawn with the relevant councils in the health care professions. I must underline the point that has been made by one or two noble Lords that some of the key aspects of the roles and responsibilities of those councils relate to their overriding commitment to professional standards. In nursing, there is an overriding commitment to behaviour that will never at any time undermine the well-being of patients or those dependent
48
on the professional care that is given by the nursing profession. The same applies to the councils representing the other health care professions.
Turning to the amendment, I am not concerned about the question of professionalism in teaching because there are many good, qualified and dedicated teachers. However, at present many teachers are, I am afraid, participating in or recommending a boycott of the Government's proposals for assessment in the summer. Many teachers seem to put politics before professional service. What really worries me about the amendment is that, as far as I can see, there is virtually no reference in it to discipline, regulating the profession or addressing the situation where politics takes precedence over professionalism. The only way in which the teaching profession will get the status and recognition that it deserves—good teachers know this—is by indicating that it puts professionalism first.
I think that it is indicative that the amendment does not recognise the significance of having a self-regulating body with disciplinary codes and ethical standards. The ethics of teaching is of paramount concern to me. While the amendment is phrased as it is, it unfortunately bespeaks self-interest and professional status without the substance of professional standards. That is why I do not find it in any way convincing. I fear that, as it stands, it could set up a political rather than a professional body.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that I referred specifically to a professional code of conduct which would contain exactly the features that she wants. I agree that the amendment does not contain that and my support for it is conditional upon that fact.
Lord Annan: The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has put his finger on it and has reinforced what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. Although I am in favour of a general teaching council, I think that we need to have a draft constitution so that we can see what on earth such a council is to do and what its standards and criteria are. The way forward is for those who are in favour of such a proposal—I would willingly support them if I could see such a constitution—to introduce a Private Member's Bill either in another place or in your Lordships' House. The Government could then decide whether or not they were in agreement with such a proposal. At the moment, however, the Government are being asked to agree to something which contains too many loopholes.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: We really cannot spend half of our time denouncing the teaching unions and their members for irresponsibility and the other half of our time denying them any responsibility. What attracts me to the amendment is that it would strengthen within the teaching unions and the profession—and we are all calling it "a profession"—those who want to see separated what has been called "pay and rations" on the one hand from the establishment and enforcement of proper standards of conduct by members of the profession as professionals. The ability to distinguish between the two is embedded in the amendment.

49
I understand what has been said about uncertainty, generality and the need to put flesh on bones, but I am sure that offering members of the profession the opportunity to be involved in shaping their own future, establishing their own conditions and enforcing their own standards of conduct would be enormously helpful if we are to move in the direction favoured by Conservative Members.
Baroness Blatch: There is an important test to apply to the amendment. The first question to pose is whether it would, of itself, raise standards. Secondly, would it improve the outside world's perception of teachers? Thirdly, would it motivate and raise the professional standards of teachers in the classroom? Fourthly, would it deal with teachers who refuse to teach a child, mark tests or make the assessments that are required by statute? Fifthly, what would be achieved by establishing a register of all teachers, irrespective of their professionalism? Would the body that is proposed in the amendment meet all the issues that I have raised? As my noble friend Lord Butterworth asked, is this the right vehicle for effecting the changes that I believe we all want to see?
I have listened carefully to the support which a number of your Lordships have given to the idea of a general teaching council. Indeed, all that we can debate today is a very broad idea because all that we have is an amendment that deals with the issue in very broad terms. The amendment before us is in no sense a fully worked proposal. I have found myself wondering whether that idea has a single form and a single purpose—or whether the noble Lords who have spoken are not approaching the idea from rather different angles.
I know there are those who believe that the standing of the teaching profession would be enhanced by a general teaching council. I count myself among those who believe that we have many good teachers and that the standing of teachers in the community could and should be higher—as it once was.
But I fear that the standing of teachers will not improve simply by creating a body called a "general teaching council". We must consider who would actually serve on such a body. Will it not inevitably be the same teachers' representatives who already have at least one national platform for their views? If it is to be the decent, hardworking classroom teacher, how is that person to achieve election, when he or she will be campaigning against candidates backed by national publicity campaigns? If one takes the Scottish example, one sees that there is a slate for membership of the General Teaching Council in Scotland.
There is considerable merit in the idea of a forum—detached from issues of pay and conditions—within which teachers could consider professional matters. If such a professional body was to limit its membership to those who subscribed to clear codes of conduct to which they worked, that would have even more effect. Such codes would need to make clear that the interests of children in their charge were always a teacher's first priority, just as patients come first for doctors and clients come first for lawyers.
50
It would be welcomed if teachers themselves were to organise under such a banner and establish a body which gave a genuine professional boost to those admitted to membership, like the royal colleges of medicine which have already been mentioned. Schools and parents would know that a member of such a body was a truly professional teacher, who could be discharged if he or she fell below the standards of codified professionalism. But I do not detect such an agenda behind the arguments coming from the supporters of the amendment. Not only the membership but the role of the GTC under the amendment would be very different. It would be to advise the Secretary of State on a host of things about. which teachers and others already offer advice.
Last Thursday we received a clear endorsement of our proposals for a teacher training agency. We shall have a new body focusing on teacher training and bringing together a range of relevant statutory functions. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said during the debate last week, there has sometimes been confusion about how responsibilities for funding, scrutiny and accreditation have been shared out, and people have been shunted from acronym to acronym. How right my noble friend was, and how much better things will be when we have the agency—one body taking care of such things.
Future statutory responsibilities for executive action are now clear. We know who will forecast the demand for teachers, who will organise their supply, who will set the criteria and who will apply them.
I hope that those carrying out such responsibilities will seek advice from as wide a range of relevant and knowledgeable people as possible. Indeed, the GTC Initiative is now a valuable contributor of advice to my right honourable friend. That range of people would include any professional body set up by teachers. As I have said, it now includes the GTC Initiative, which is consulted by the department on teacher issues. If teachers' bodies were to defer to an independent professional body in dealing with the Government on these matters, that would be a valuable development, but we do not need legislation to allow for that.
The only function specified in the amendment which non-statutory bodies cannot perform at present is to maintain a register of qualified teachers. This role, which is a purely administrative function, has in previous proposals usually included responsibility for dealing with cases of misconduct. The two certainly go sensibly together. There is no suggestion that the registration and misconduct responsibilities, which have been administered by the department for many years, have not worked well and do not enjoy public confidence.
We debated amendments seeking the establishment of a general teaching council for England and Wales during the Committee and Report stages of last year's Education Bill. We also heard further arguments at Second Reading of this Bill and during the debate on education initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on 2nd February this year. In addition, I had an interesting and very valuable exchange of views with my noble friend Lord Elton and Professor Tomlinson on

51
17th February, and heard something about the discussions at the symposium held at Windsor in January.
As I said previously, there is nothing between us on the need for a high quality teaching profession. We endorse the emphasis given to this objective by the National Commission on Education in its recent report. It is what Part I of this Bill is about.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy made reference to the Scottish system and I wish to reinforce something that was said. The General Teaching Council in Scotland was established in the 1960s to address the specific problem brought about by teacher shortages. There were large numbers of uncertificated teachers working in Scottish schools and generating considerable disquiet about deteriorating standards. There is no such background in England and Wales. However, it is interesting that polling in elections to the council has fallen since its early days. Only 26 per cent. of secondary school teachers and 36 per cent. of primary school teachers eligible to vote chose to do so in 1990. That does not suggest widespread enthusiasm among teachers for a body of this kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, also asked whether it impacts on the motivation of teachers in the classroom. He asked what there is in the proposal that will impact on the teachers in the classroom. That is a good question. Supplied education will not impact on the professionalism and standards in the classroom, nor will advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State; nor will accreditation necessarily; and certainly nor will registration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was anxious about the separation of funding and accreditation. We have made an argument for keeping accreditation and funding together. We believe that those who are funding must make sure that money follows quality in terms of those who are approved to provide training and to have a view about the outputs. But there is no proposal before us about the professional code of behaviour of teachers. There is no reference to what a general teaching council would do about teachers who go on strike. When I posed that question to Professor Tomlinson, asking him what view a general teaching council would take about unprofessional behaviour in the classroom—that is, whether a teacher takes an action which impacts disadvantageously on the education of a child—the answer was, "That is for the unions. We wish to keep off their territory". But that goes to the heart of the professionalism of teachers.
A comparison was made with the General Medical Council. In some ways it is hard to refute that, except I would pose this situation: if a doctor refuses to treat a patient that is a serious breach of professional conduct; but if a teacher refuses to teach a child, somehow that happens to be industrial action or the whim of a teacher but it is not territory upon which a general teaching council wishes to become involved. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, posed a question which related to the professionalism of those in higher and further education. If it is not appropriate for them to have
52
control over their own professional body, what is the distinctive case for a legal, statutory body to do so over teachers in schools?
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the independence of the advice that would come from such a general teaching council. The Teaching Training Agency will have a clear statutory role and remit. It will if anything be much more independent than the present Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. It is important that that is understood. The general teaching council proposal gives powers to the teaching council to give advice to the Secretary of State; but that is precisely the power that is replicated for the teacher training agency.
At last I have an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, about the funds of the Royal Society of Teachers. I have been battling to find out the information. I understand that only £100 lies in the account of the society. I also understand that when it was wound up in 1949 it was left in trust. The only question is whether the Charity Commissioners will tell us exactly what the state of the fund and the trust is.
My noble friend Lady Cox raised an important question which goes to the heart of the matter. What can be done, what can we do, how can we, as a Committee and a body responsible for legislation, do to promote the professionalism of our best teachers? The noble Lord, Lord Murray, rightly spoke of the distinction in the roles of the general teaching council and the unions. The unions will not give up the right to any body, call it what one might, to instruct their members to take a particular form of action which they have voted upon, balloted upon and been mandated by their members to do. They will not give up the right to another body which will take a view that that is not its territory. It must remain—or so they say. Members of the Committee have put down an important challenge to me as a Minister in this Committee; that if there is a proposal to hand across that kind of territory to a general teaching council there may well be a great deal of unanimity around the Committee, and we ought to be talking properly about professional codes of standards as they relate to the individual teacher in the classroom—
5.45 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems is the absence of any kind of agreement among teachers on the circumstances in which it is proper to take what she has called "industrial action"? I am sure that she does not press too strongly the claimed analogy between doctors and teachers. There are limited circumstances in which I would defend the right of teachers. Does the Minister agree that via a general teaching council the establishment of a set of standards, a set of criteria or a code of conduct will enormously strengthen the ability of the people arguing for common sense within teaching unions to define and enforce the narrow area within which it is proper for teachers to exercise that particular power?
Baroness Blatch: That is an interesting question and I remain open minded. If the teacher unions are signed up to membership of a general teaching council—as

53
indeed they are—and come forward and subordinate their right to invite any teacher in any of our schools to take the kind of action that would put a child's education at a disadvantage, we would have to be open minded and consider that proposal. But there is nothing in a general teaching council as proposed by this amendment that will of itself raise standards. There is nothing in a general teaching council as proposed by this amendment that will raise or improve the perception that people have of teachers. That will come only from the conduct of teachers. There is nothing in a general teaching council as proposed in the amendment that will raise the standards of conduct and professionalism because every teacher will be on the register. Therefore, there is no mechanism for dealing with a variable performance of professionalism.
The standard of qualifications for entry to initial teacher training is not an issue. That is dealt with by the Secretary of State's criteria. For school-provided courses, the minimum standard is that students must have degrees. There is no gap here to be filled by a general teaching council. There is, however, as I said previously, scope for a general teaching council-type body which could establish a standard of entry to its ranks, set standards for professional conduct and be prepared to expel a member who failed to live up to these standards. In this way the impact on the reputation of teachers would be positive. The currency of membership would enhance the standing and recruitment prospects of teachers, and the Government would be more than ready to listen to such a body, which would be a positive and welcome addition to the voice of the teacher unions. A general teaching council run in this way must of course spring from professional teachers themselves and not be spawned by government.
Lord Judd: If the charge is that we are putting forward an amendment to bring into being a body that will contribute to the future of sound educational policy in this country—and that will be its principal remit—without hesitation I plead guilty. That is our concern. I have said it several times before; I have said it today but I shall never cease saying it. I endorse totally the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that there is no area of life in our country in which it is more important to build positive consensus than in the whole realm of our approach to education. The Minister seems determined —I do not believe that she is a disciple of this philosophy but she i s a loyal practitioner of it—to resist the principle of consensus building. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, shakes his head. He is a gentle and nice man.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that banter across the Dispatch Box is the stuff of politics but I will not sit here and have attributed to me words which are completely untrue. I believe that there is enormous consensus across the Committee. We all wish to enable the best of our teachers to be valued properly and for that to be seen to be so. The difference between us is that I believe that that organisation should spring from the good teachers in the system rather than through an organisation with
54
powers which miss out totally on the professional conduct of individual teachers and which does nothing whatever to raise the standard of professionalism.
Lord Judd: The point that I was going to make was that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as well as the Minister, was shaking his head. I merely wish to say that he is a gentle and decent man. I wish that on this issue he would have the strength of his natural inclinations and convictions.
Lord Elton: The pressure on me is to row along with the noble Lord's amendment because I am in favour of a general teaching council. But I am not in favour of this amendment, and I have the courage to say so.
Lord Judd: If the Minister is so passionately in favour of the consensus of which she spoke a few moments ago, she should not ignore the fact—as none of us should—that the organisation which has been doing such valiant work in the realm of building up the concept of the general teaching council was able to report in July 1992 that there was,
"unanimity and strength of support now evident among teachers' associations and other organisations directly concerned with the education service. The Forum created in 1988 now has in membership thirty-two organisations including not only all the school teachers' associations but also those from further education and the university sector".
It is the overwhelming wish of all those involved to be part of a general teaching council, contributing responsibly to the evolution of policy together with the Government. As has been said by many Members of the Committee, I cannot think of anything more to strengthen morale. Conversely, I cannot think of anything more damaging to morale than for the Government to remain obdurate this evening. I have no alternative but to push the amendment to a vote.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 65) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Adrian, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Airedale, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington. L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Eatwell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Barnett, L.

Falkender, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Beloff, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blake, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Glenamara, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gould of Potternewton. B.

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bridges, L.

Brimelow, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grey, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Guildford, Bp.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carter, L.

Hamwee, B

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Haskel, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Henderson of Brompion, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

55

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Howell, L.

Rochester, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jay, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

Judd, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Sherfield, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thurlow, L.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mulley, L.

Warnock, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Wigoder, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Addison, V.

Goold, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Annaly, L

Greenway, L.

Annan, L.

Gridley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Harrowby, E.

Astor, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Balfour, E.

Henley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hesketh, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Blyth, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hothfield, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Howe, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Huntly, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Burnham, L.

Killearn, L.

Cadman, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Leigh, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lucas, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Manton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Middleton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V.

Milverton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moyne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Norrie, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Finsberg, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Pender, L.

56

Perry of Southwark, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Reay, L.

Sudeley, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Swinfer, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renwick, L.

Torrington, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Trumpington, B

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodney, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Romney, E.

Westbuty, L.

Seccombe, B.

Whitelaw, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Wise, L

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Clause 12 [Grants for teacher training]:
[Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Qualification of teachers, &c.]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 7, line 25, after ("Agency") insert ("or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71. Government Amendments Nos. 68 and 71 will bring together the funding and accreditation in Wales that the Bill secures for England. In the case of Wales, for reasons of scale it will be under the auspices of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales that those responsibilities will be combined. The Bill was drafted before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales was able to consider the full results of his consultation exercise and conclude, as we already had for England, that the duty of accreditation was better placed with the funding body. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 7, line 26, at end insert ("to ensure that all courses which involve schools in the initial training of school teachers shall he accredited by an appropriate institution of Higher Education.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): The Question is, That Amendment No. 68A be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion shall say, "Content", to the contrary "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not content!
Lord Judd: There is a serious issue here. Amendment No. 62 was grouped with the above amendment at the Government's request. When I spoke to Amendment No. 62, I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking also to Amendment No. 68A. Therefore, as I understand it, the normal procedure in the Chamber is that the Government should accept the outcome of the vote on the first amendment.
Baroness Blatch: There does not have to be an absolute rubber-stamping of other amendments which are consequent upon it. A vote has been taken on Amendment No. 62. It is my wish that we oppose the second amendment.
Lord Judd: With the greatest respect, it seems to me that the point is quite clear. The Government proposed certain groupings to us today. With one or two minor adjustments about which the Government were most co-operative, we accepted the proposal on groupings. When we came to the current group, I made it explicitly clear in what I said that I was speaking to both amendments. Therefore, according to precedent, the Government should accept the outcome of the vote on the first amendment.
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may say a few words. I am bound to say that I am somewhat surprised by the attitude taken by the Minister. As I understand it, the grouping was suggested by the Government. It was accepted by us and, indeed, by the whole Committee. A debate took place on Amendments Nos. 62 and 68A. However, in the light of the defeat that the Government suffered earlier, they now seem to be trying to disentangle themselves from the grouping that they requested. Whether or not it is possible to do so technically is a matter for the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I believe that the Minister should think very hard before she takes such action. Morally speaking, there is no doubt whatever that Amendment No. 68A should follow the result of Amendment No. 62.
Baroness Blatch: It was my desire to put the amendment to the vote. However, I am advised that I should withdraw my opposition to the amendment, and I do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 7, line 29, after ("person") insert ("is a graduate of a university in England and Wales or holds a comparable academic qualification and").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to secure the present position in relation to the graduate status of the teaching profession, especially in primary schools. As it stands, the Bill would permit the new teacher training agency to set up and approve courses of initial training for teachers who were not graduates and who were not taking courses which would lead to graduation. The amendment would ensure that teaching remained an all-graduate profession.
It would be ironical if, at a time when approaching 30 per cent. of each cohort of 18 year-olds is likely to graduate, graduate status was no longer required of those entering the teaching profession. It would certainly be unacceptable for the new agency to have conferred on it powers to move in such a retrograde manner. I am not saying that the agency would move in such a manner, but the Bill as it stands would allow it to do so.
I believe that I am right in claiming that it is now generally agreed that all teachers must have a high degree of knowledge and understanding of their chosen subject; and, indeed, some enthusiasm for it. I believe that the Bill requires amending to ensure that all teachers entering the profession are of graduate or equivalent status, as was largely the case in the 1980s.
58
It would provide an important guarantee of the intellectual quality of teachers who have responsibility for the next generation.
I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that, at a time when it is generally accepted that standards in schools need to rise, it would be something of an error to reduce the entry requirements for the teaching profession. Again, I am not saying that the Government intend to do so; indeed, I am sure that the Minister will tell us in a moment that they have no intention of so doing. However, I am asking that that should be written on the face of the Bill to ensure that there is no tampering with the graduate status of our teachers. After all, it was only recently that considerable debate took place on the whole question of the graduate status of the teaching profession, with attempts by the Secretary of State to introduce a one-year route into primary teaching for non-graduates which, perhaps unfairly, became tagged by the media as the "mums" "army" route into teaching.
Graduate status for the teaching profession is not secured by this legislation as it stands. Criteria determined by the Secretary of State and the Education (Teachers) Regulations are the basis for determining the level of a teacher's academic qualifications, which may therefore be revoked and amended at any time.
As it stands, Clause 13(2) appears to be an alternative to paragraph 2(1) of the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993 which define a qualified teacher as a person who has,
"successfully completed a course at an institution or university in England or Wales which—
(a) is for the degree of Bachelor of Education, the Certificate in Education, the Post-graduate Certificate in Education or a comparable academic award".
Perhaps when the Minister replies she will confirm that Clause 13(2) is a replacement for these regulations. As it stands, Clause 13(2) must raise some doubts as to whether accredited institutions might not be able to determine all aspects of a teacher's education, even when this includes what are currently regarded as undergraduate studies leading to a degree. I repeat that the purpose of this amendment is to fully maintain the graduate status of the teaching profession. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Where do Scotland and Northern Ireland stand in relation to this measure? It seems to me quite extraordinary for a party which claims to have an enormous majority in Scotland not to have included the whole of the United Kingdom in this measure. I do not particularly wish to tease the noble Baroness but is there a serious point here, or is it simply that the amendment contains an omission? For example, something like half of the undergraduates of the University of St. Andrew's come from England and will probably seek teacher training south of the 'Border. Is the noble Baroness omitting them from the measure or is that simply a mistake?
Baroness Blackstone: No, this Bill is largely about England and Wales. The reference to England and Wales is to enable the amendment to tie in with other parts of the Bill, including later references in this clause. In any case, the amendment states,

59
"a graduate of a university in England and Wales or holds a comparable academic qualification".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If I may say so, that is where the insult lies. It is quite extraordinary to refer to a degree from the University of St. Andrew's as a "comparable academic qualification". I believe the noble Baroness should acknowledge that she may have made a small mistake here.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry to say this, but I believe the noble Baroness totally misunderstands this Bill. If she reads the rest of the clause in the Bill she will see references to England and Wales. Perhaps she should address her questions to the Minister.
Lord Addington: I am a graduate of a Scottish university and when I first read this amendment I felt my hackles rise. However I believe the amendment is correct when considered in the context of the Bill. Possibly lowering the standards of the Scottish universities to help out the English and Welsh will not cause too much harm.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I share the sentiments behind this amendment. Indeed, I am gratified to know that a number of persons on this side of the Committee do too. When we discussed Amendment No. 50 on Thursday, Amendment No. 63 was also discussed. As I understand it, my noble friend the Minister signified her general assent to the principle; namely, that we are talking about graduates. I am happy to support the amendment to that extent but it seems to me that, as so often happens, there is an element of inconsistency. Amendment No. 63 indicated that,
"Courses of initial teacher training so provided shall be open only to persons holding a degree or equivalent qualification".
That is one pathway. On the other hand, in the amendment we are discussing there seems to be a dual condition that persons should have a degree—that is what the amendment is about—and should also have completed a course of initial teacher training. It has to be one or the other. Either it is a condition of initial teacher training that one has a degree, or it is a requirement that one has both. However, in logic, one cannot have it both ways. This is a small inconsistency but it is an inconsistency between Amendment No. 63 and Amendment No. 69. This is the kind of thing that must be sorted out or it will create a great deal of confusion. I am a little uneasy about that detail although I certainly support the principal point about graduates. Therefore, I support the sentiment of the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I refer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in connection with the education regulations. The additional words added to the regulations are a replacement for those which the noble Baroness quoted. As the Committee is aware from what I said on Second Reading, and from the fact that I accepted Amendment No. 63 of my noble friend Lady Perry, I have no difficulty whatsoever with the aim of this amendment. It is exactly in line with the Government's intentions and if it reassures the
60
Committee to have those intentions spelt out clearly on the face of the Bill, I am happy to accept that judgment. I hope the noble Baroness will understand if I point out —I reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew—that there is a drafting deficiency here and that the amendment should be in line with that of my noble friend Lady Perry, which we have already accepted. If the two amendments were brought into line that would help to ensure consistency in the legislation. If the Committee is agreeable, I will bring back an amendment on Report which I hope the Chamber will then agree should appear on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: I am enormously grateful to the Minister. Of course I accept that these amendments must be brought into line so that they are consistent with each other. When this amendment was first tabled I believe the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, had not yet been tabled. I am grateful for the Minister's comments and I look forward to seeing a revised amendment at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should have said that we will do what we can to give Scotland and Northern Ireland comparability with the other countries of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Blackstone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 7, line 33, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Higher Education Funding Council for Wales").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Duty to provide information, &c.]:
[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 8, line 4, after ("require") insert ("in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine;").
The noble Lord said: We are moving at such a pace that I am rather surprised that we have arrived at where we have. My amendment is addressed at a narrow but, I think, significant point. It directs the attention of the Committee to line 4 of page 8 of the Bill. Clause 14(1) (a) states that the teacher training agency,
"shall provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice … as he may from time to time require"
or, under paragraph (b),
"may provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice … as they think fit".
In paragraph (b) the agency may provide the Secretary of State with information which it thinks the Secretary of State ought to have but for which he has not asked. Both those provisions are subject to the requirement of the final two lines of subsection (1) which state,
"the information and advice shall be provided in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".

61
I can quite understand why the Secretary of State may wish to determine the manner in which the advice he has asked for is presented to him. That seems to me quite proper. However, it appears inexplicable that he should be in a position to tell the training agency how to present the information he has not asked for. If the agency has an idea about the number of teachers at present being prepared to teach geography and the Secretary of State has not asked for that information, I do not see why he should be required to be told that he is about to be given that information and then say how it should be presented.
Therefore, I have suggested that the words which qualify paragraphs (a) and (b) should be moved into paragraph (a) and qualify only that paragraph, which would then read:
"The Teacher Training Agency—
(a) shall provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice relating to matters for which they are responsible as he may from time to time require in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".
Paragraph (b) is then left without that qualification because Amendment No. 76 removes the qualification in the last two lines.
The Front Bench opposite has a different proposal which I consider to be less good, but it is for Members of the Committee opposite to argue their case. I beg to move.
Lord Dainton: I support Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He has put his finger on the issue. It is reasonable for the Secretary of State, in seeking advice, to specify the form in which it should be submitted. But it is not merely inexplicable that when advice is proffered to him he should set those conditions, because until he receives it he cannot know what it contains and therefore is incapable of setting those conditions. Therefore, that qualification must be removed; otherwise it presents the Secretary of State with another problem which he will find it impossible to solve.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said and also to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, which says very much the same. I hope that the Minister can give a satisfactory answer. If the Secretary of State can choose which segment of advice he wants, there is no point in advice being offered in the first place.
Baroness Blateh: The Committee is right to be concerned that the teacher training agency should be free to give the Secretary of State independent, objective advice. We fully share that view. The availability of accurate information is also a prerequisite for the workings of good government. But I must assure the Committee that the clause as drafted does not prevent the agency from proffering independent and objective advice.
There are sound reasons why the Secretary of State should be able to determine the manner in which information and advice he has requested from the teacher training agency is provided. First, it will ensure
62
that clear and orderly channels of communication will be established. That is important for the efficient transaction of business.
Secondly, there will be times when confidentiality will be required. For example, the teacher training agency may wish to alert the Secretary of State to the position at a particular institution. Depending on the circumstances, it may be unfair to that institution if confidentiality is not preserved. The Secretary of State must be the arbiter of that. That would defend the agency from external pressure to release information that should properly be kept confidential.
Thirdly, there is no evidence that the parallel provisions in existing legislation, such as in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in relation to the further and higher education funding councils, have in any way resulted in those bodies being unduly restricted in providing information or advice. On the contrary, I believe that the existing arrangements ensure that full and candid information can be passed without reservation to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State would be unable to ensure that such information as he requires to evaluate the effect of his policies among other matters would have clarity and completeness. He would be unable even to commission advice on such matters as the financial viability of institutions if he wished to guarantee its confidentiality.
There would be an adverse effect on public accountability. Currently, the Secretary of State commissions from the Higher Education Funding Council an annual appraisal of the financial position and requirements of institutions which it funds. This is essential for accountability in the use of public funds and is of necessity confidential, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate. That would not be possible under the noble Earl's amendment.
I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, could lead to a breakdown in communications between the Government and the agency and a loss of accountability on the part of the agency. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
The amendment of my noble friend, Lord Elton, does not go as far as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. His amendment seeks to remove the Secretary of State's control over the form only of information and advice which the agency itself wishes to send to the Secretary of State.
It is fair to say that the amendment would expose the agency to some pressure—pressure which the Higher Education Funding Council does not have to fear because it is covered by provisions identical to the Bill as drafted. In 1992 this Chamber considered an amendment which would have left the council free to determine the manner of its advice but decided that it was better for the council to be able to defer to a general direction on confidentiality rather than have to defend itself against pressure to publish all its advice.
There is enormous force in the argument put forward by my noble friend in support of his amendment in relation to information which is proffered independently and objectively by the agency. The only reason for not

63
accepting that argument is the question of confidentiality. If there were no requirement on the agency to retain confidentiality when imparting information it could proffer information to the Secretary of State and make it public at the same time.
If the Committee agrees, I should like to go away and think about the matter to see whether there is any way of making sure that there is some protection against that particular scenario. The last thing we want to do is to put any kind of muzzle on information and independent advice proffered by the agency to my right honourable friend. But there is this fine point of confidentiality and the possibility of exposing information about what may be an unfortunate set of circumstances relating to an individual institution to the public domain at a very sensitive time.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may just make a point. I am very glad that the Minister is going to have another look at this question. Clause 14(1) seems to be an extremely clumsy way of putting anything. It seems to me to be slightly odd that there is such a worry about confidentiality. If it comes into existence, the teacher training agency will surely be a very responsible body and I should not have thought that the worry about confidentiality would be very great.
Lord Dainton: In five years as chairman of the University Grants Committee I would have found such a restriction on proffering advice to Secretaries of State quite difficult. However, it should not arise in this case because, as the noble Baroness will recall, at all times the teacher training agency will have in attendance a representative from the department—who I assume would be of Deputy Secretary rank. It would be natural that he should advise that a particular matter should be confidential. In any event, in those days, when I had matters to take to Secretaries of State, my own judgment was quite as good a guide to our behaviour as the advice that we obtained from the Deputy Secretary then in charge of higher education. I hope that that mechanism will apply because there is a flavour to this provision which could, on important occasions, prevent the TTA from bringing to the attention of the Secretary of State matters of some importance.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for his intervention. It illuminates for me how the Secretary of State will know what advice he is going to receive so that he can therefore give a direction about it.
To give the Secretary of State a blanket power—as the clause does—which could be applied to all the advice that was initiated by the TTA, would be more than the Government require and therefore more than we need accord to the Secretary of State. When she is considering the matter between now and the next stage, I wonder whether my noble friend will consider, instead of the wording of my amendment:
"in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine",
that the clause might read:
"in such manner relating to confidentiality as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".
64
That at least would be a start in limiting the power, which I am sure my noble friend does not want to be too great.
Baroness Blatch: That is a very helpful suggestion. Without taking advice from learned counsel I would not dare to say whether that would be an acceptable form of words. However, I accept the principle behind what my noble friend says.
I should not like to give the Committee the impression that I believe that the provision in respect of information required and requested by my right honourable friend should not allow him the power to specify the manner in which he would like to receive that information. I make the distinction between the two types of information—that requested by my right honourable friend and that proffered by the agency independently and objectively. Therefore, I should like to think further about the form of words suggested by my noble friend.
Lord Elton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 8, line 6, at end insert ("and
(c) shall publish an annual report (to be laid before Parliament) on the past year's financial and other activities in matters for which they are responsible.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the name of my noble friends Lord Judd and Lady David. It is at the other extreme from the anxieties that we have just discussed. With regard to those earlier concerns, I believe that the Secretary of State is right to consider questions of confidentiality at all times and should not be so constrained that he can never say, "I do not wish this information to be in the public domain". I wish to go to the other extreme and ask about what ought absolutely to be in the public domain.
The new teacher training agency is a public body spending an enormous amount of public money. It is accountable to Parliament and to the Secretary of State. I am not an expert on these matters. For all I know, any such agency of any kind must always publish an annual report. There may be more blanket legislation which states that such bodies must do so; but I am not aware of it. If there is no general requirement, then we need an amendment which states that those bodies must publish an annual report.
Clause 14 relates to the provision of information to the Secretary of State, to the two agencies together, and so on. On the simplest terms of open government or of the Citizen's Charter, the one body which is really interested in what is going on is the public at large, including Members of this Chamber. On occasions they also welcome the opportunity to debate what is going on.
It is a probing amendment. It is possible that the noble Baroness will simply say, "Of course those bodies will publish an annual report and we do not need to argue about it". That would be an end of the matter. However, if she remotely suggests that there is a doubt about it, then we ought to have such a provision on the

65
face of the Bill. I hope that she will simply state that there is no problem and that there will be an annual report.
Baroness Blatch: It is certainly our intention that the agency should produce the standard range of publications which secure accountability and openness in the work of our public bodies, including a corporate plan setting out the way in which it intends to pursue its statutory objectives, and an annual report about what has been achieved. That is the case with the Higher Education Funding Council, and that was secured without specific reference in legislation. However, I accept that there is a distinction to be drawn. The agency will have a very special and focused role, as we have said, and a unique oversight of the teacher training system. I am therefore happy to accept the proposal for a statutory requirement for an annual report in this case.
If it does not risk damaging the relationship between myself and the noble Lord, I should like to accept the principle underlying the amendment but should like to look again at the drafting and bring forward an amendment to the House addressing the point at the next stage. I hope that is acceptable.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that there is never any danger of our relationship being damaged by anything said across the Floor of this Chamber. As a matter of principle, I always prefer an amendment to be drafted by the Government because I can then rely on it rather better than on my own drafting. Naturally, I accept the noble Baroness's offer and look forward to her form of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 76 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 77.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 79 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Additional, supplementary and ancillary functions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 81.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 8, line 19, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 80 seeks to delete from the Bill the clause which allows the Secretary of State by order to confer on the teacher training agency such additional functions as he considers it may appropriately discharge having regard to its general objectives.
My first objective in putting down the amendment was to find out roughly what additional functions were envisaged. It may be that I can save the Committee's time by listening to what the noble Baroness says on Amendment No. 83. However, I wish to ask her one specific question before doing so. Amendment No. 83 is to be placed at line 24 of page eight of the Bill. Will the noble Baroness indicate whether her amendment covers only subsection (2) of Clause 15 or does it relate also to
66
subsection (1)? When I have that answer, I may be able to find out whether I need to take up any more of the Committee's time. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 83. The amendment has been introduced to specify that the Secretary of State can ask the funding council to undertake supplementary functions only if the Secretary of State has power to undertake those functions himself. Without the amendment, "supplementary" has no meaning in the context of the clause. The wording mirrors that provided in Section 69(6) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
Earl Russell: I am grateful for that reply, which goes a long way to reassure me. I have one further question. Does Amendment No. 83 relate to subsection (1) as well as to subsection (2)? If so, my anxieties are at an end.
Viscount St. Davids: Amendment No. 83 relates only to subsection (2).
Earl Russell: I am grateful for that reply. In that case, what functions are being conferred by subsection (1)? At first sight it appears a rather large power. Before I can agree to the provision, I should like to know exactly what is being envisaged. If subsection (1) is not covered by the amendment, it might mean anything.
Viscount St. Davids: I can give an example. The agency might help to arrange admissions.
Earl Russell: I am afraid that that does not reassure me. It was the range of missions which might be involved which caused me concern. I had a suspicion that I might be buying a pig in a poke. Perhaps we should all take some advice and return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before the noble Lord moves Amendment No. 82, I have to say to the Committee that if Amendment No. 82 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 83. Is the noble Lord moving it, or not moving it?
Lord Dainton: I wish to move the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have called the amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to make his speech. Is the noble Lord moving the amendment formally?
Lord Dainton: Is the position that I cannot make a speech?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to move Amendment No. 82 and to make a speech on it. All I had to say to the Committee was that if the Committee should accept the amendment, Amendment No. 83 will fall. Perhaps the noble Lord would rather not move Amendment No. 82?
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether it would be helpful if I intervened to say that I believe the

67
amendment was consequential upon Amendment No. 3, which stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I understand that the amendment has already been debated. The normal convention—I am the last person to talk about normal conventions today—is that it should not be moved.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask whether that is right. When I considered the amendment this morning, I decided that it was not consequential. Therefore there seemed every reason why the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, should move it.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 8, line 22, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 82 only to make the position absolutely clear. It seems to me that subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 15 are superfluous. If one considers Clause I carefully, it already gives the Secretary of State the right to impose on the teacher training agency any additional functions appropriate to the TTA's capacity to achieve its general objectives. That includes any activities that are ancillary to their function, as referred to in subsection (3), and functions supplementary to their functions in subsection (2). Those subsections confuse the matter, whereas if subsection (1) is left as it stands, it is perfectly clear. I am open to correction but it seems to me that those two subsections are unnecessary.
Lord Elton: Subsection (2) relates to the Education Funding Council for Wales and subsection (1) refers to the teacher training agency.
Lord Dainton: I am anxious to point out the redundancy of those two clauses. I am content to leave the matter having drawn it to the attention of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 3 in a previous debate. As I stated, I am rather sheepishly reminding noble Lords about conventions, but it is the convention of the House that as the amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 3, it should not be moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am bound to call every amendment. It is not for me to decide whether or not Members of the Committee wish to speak to it.
Lord Dainton: I beg leave, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert:
("For the purposes of this subsection a function is a supplementary function in relation to the Council if it is exercisable for the purposes of—

(a) the exercise by the Secretary of State of functions of his under any enactment, or

(b) the doing by the Secretary of State of anything he has power to do apart from any enactment,

and it relates to, or to the activities of, an eligible institution.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 83A:
68
Page 8, line 27, at end insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall consult with appropriate persons and shall consider any representations made to him by them about any order or direction under this section.").
The noble Lord said: As with other parts of the legislation we feel that the maximum degree of consultation will strengthen what is subsequently done because it will not just be governed by diktat but government having taken into account the views of those who will be affected and those with valid observations to make. In that context we hope that the Government are able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 83A may in one sense go too far and in another it may not go far enough. I should like to consider further whether it is sensible for ancillary functions to be caught by the provisions. It may be a step too far. Ancillary functions are by definition functions of a technical nature that do not require Parliamentary scrutiny, and a requirement to consult may be heavy handed. On the other hand, the amendment does not define appropriate persons and that is an important deficiency.
If the noble Lord would agree to withdraw the amendment I should like to undertaken further consideration between now and Report.
Lord Judd: This is one of those rare moments that I treasure. How could I possibly spurn it? I totally accept the assurance that has been given and look forward to seeing what the noble Baroness brings back.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("order").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment concerns a purely technical change to correct an error in the Bill. Clause 17(1) (a) makes a cross reference to Clause 4(3). In doing so, it should have referred to an order but instead refers to regulations. The amendment corrects that situation and I hope that noble Lords will accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 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.

Road Traffic Regulations (Special Events) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Trade Marks Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the Disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Absolute grounds for refusal of registration]:
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert:
("Provided also that a certification trade mark should not be refused by virtue of paragraph (c) above.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are three amendments in my name and the rest are consequential. The last amendment concerns a matter of drafting. The second one is a matter of principle but the first one is a matter of substance.
Noble Lords will be aware that a certification trade mark is not the same as a trade mark or a collective trade mark. A certification trade mark is something which has not been known or practised entirely, but by the majority of other members of the community.
In Clause 3(1) (c) certain elements of the bans on the usage of the ordinary trade mark do not apply in logic to certification trade marks. At Report stage the Minister stated:
"My noble friend mentioned certification marks. Certification marks such as, for example, "Sheffield", "Stilton" and the "Woolmark" would all qualify for registration under the Bill in the same way as they did under the present Trade Mark Act". —[Official Report, 24/2/94; col. 730.]
With great respect to my noble friend, I do not think that that statement is correct. If he looks carefully at the clause that we are discussing he will find that where there is a reference to "kind" in Clause 3(1) (c) the word "Woolmark", for example, would be banned.
The Minister stated that we have to comply with the Community regulations, but the Community regulations have no experience of and do not recognise certification marks. Therefore, in my submission we are totally in order in excluding certification marks from the banning that they would affect under the clause.
I suggest to the Minister that his two arguments are incorrect and it is not desirable to outlaw certification marks under this clause when they can be useful. If the Woolmark was an issue in front of the registrar at present it would be banned as the Bill stands. I do not believe that that is a desirable or necessary situation. What I am suggesting is in no way in conflict with Community law. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I am grateful
70
for the way in which my noble friend introduced his amendment. I know that he has been particularly concerned about the position of certification marks under the Bill. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion between ourselves about the desirability of what my noble friend intends. There is disagreement about what the Bill says. I would like to repeat my assurance that there is nothing in this clause, or in subsection (1) (c), which will make it difficult to register a certification mark.
At Report my noble friend observed that if the Woolmark, a very well-known and widely used certification mark, were to come up afresh, it would be banned under the terms of the Bill. I can assure him that that is not the case. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the registration of the Woolmark as a certification mark. In any event Clause 3(1) represents a directive obligation which must apply to all applications for registration and we cannot change it.
Amendment No. 16 would delete the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which again takes up a directive provision. In this case it is an optional provision which allows us to register certification marks—such as Stilton or Sheffield—which designate the geographic origin of the goods. Given that my noble friend's Amendment No. 1 is unacceptable because the directive does not allow it, this one is equally unacceptable because it deletes the only exception which the directive allows when it comes to registering certification marks which are geographic words.
I know that my noble friend has spent a great deal of time examining this issue. I can only tell him that the resources of the department have been concentrated on making sure that the departmental view is the correct one. I hope, therefore, that on this further assurance my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment and take some comfort in doing so.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's remarks. I cannot, however, see the logic of his argument in that the phrase "the kind" under Clause 3(1) (c) seems to me exactly what the Woolmark is. Nevertheless, the Minister has enormous resources behind him in his department, and I have only my own amateurish brain-power. I hope that in another place the argument will be examined. Of course, I accept my noble friend's word; I also accept his judgment. I am not convinced, but I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Raising of relative grounds in case of honest concurrent use
(".—(1) This section applies where on an application for the registration of a trade mark it appears to the registrar—

(a) that there is an earlier trade mark in relation to which the conditions set out in section 5(1), (2) or (3) obtain, or

(b) that there is an earlier right in relation to which the condition set out in section 5(4) is satisfied,

but the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the registrar that there has been honest concurrent use of the trade mark for which registration is sought.

71
(2) In that case the registrar shall not refuse the application by reason of the earlier trade mark or other earlier right unless objection on that ground is raised in opposition proceedings by the proprietor of that earlier trade mark or other earlier right.
(3) For the purposes of this section "honest concurrent use" means such use in the United Kingdom, by the applicant or with his consent, as would formerly have amounted to honest concurrent use for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1938.
(4) Nothing in this section affects—

(a) the refusal of registration on the grounds mentioned in section 3 (absolute grounds for refusal), or

(b) the making of an application for a declaration of invalidity under section 43(2) (application on relative grounds where no consent to registration).

(5) This section does not apply when there is an order in force under section 7 below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Peston, moved an amendment which would have had the effect that a mark is not to be refused registration where honest concurrent use has been made of it, notwithstanding that there is already an identical or similar mark on the register. That would have preserved the effect of Section 12(2) of the existing law. I said that I was doubtful if that could be reconciled with the directive, since it provides that a mark shall be excluded from the register where it conflicts with an earlier mark. I promised, however, to give the matter further consideration.
The amendment before the House provides a procedural mechanism whereby the burden of raising objections on relative grounds falls to the owner of the earlier mark rather than on the registrar. It will mean that, where the registrar raises an objection based on an earlier mark, he will not maintain the objection if the applicant is able to satisfy him that his mark has been the subject of honest concurrent use. Instead, he will accept the application, and advertise it.
So far, that is the same as the position under the existing law. Under the new law, however, if there is opposition from the owner of the earlier mark, the registrar will have to decide whether the grounds for refusal are made out. If they are based on subsection (1) of Clause 5—that is, the marks are identical, and so are the goods or services concerned—then the application will have to be refused. The fact of honest concurrent use will not be sufficient to defeat the opposition. If, however, the opposition is based on subsection (2) of Clause 5, it is necessary to show a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. In such a case the fact that the two marks have been concurrently used may well make it more difficult to establish that such a likelihood exists. Likewise, if the ground of opposition is that the later mark would take undue advantage of the earlier mark's reputation, the fact that the two have co-existed in the market place may have a bearing on the outcome.
If there is no opposition, the mark applied for will in due course be registered. The owner of an earlier mark will still be able to challenge the registration. After five years however, the provisions on acquiescence will take over, and such a challenge will no longer be possible.
While this provision may not fully preserve the effect of the honest concurrent use provisions of the existing law, it is as far as we feel able to go, given the terms of
72
the directive. The Government believe that it will nonetheless be of value to trade mark owners, particularly bearing in mind the remarks that I have made about how it may be expected to operate in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the efforts that he has made on this matter. I know that it has been very difficult to reconcile the existing law with the directive. He has worked extremely hard, together with his colleagues, to go as far as he can. The point, as I understand it, is that there is no examination system in the rest of the European Union. Therefore de facto the problem does not arise there in the same way as it does here.
I presume that our position—the noble Lord did not state it, but I take it that he would agree—is that in due course we shall be giving up examination anyway; then, our position will be exactly the same as it is in the rest of the Union. In the meantime, it seems to me, although I accept that the noble Lord has done the best that he can, that the law in this country will still be slightly tougher than it is in the rest of Europe on this matter. It may well be that honourable gentlemen in the other place will find that this is a topic that interests them. I simply want to say how pleased I am at what the noble Lord has done. I strongly welcome the amendment that he has introduced.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to require that relative grounds be raised in opposition proceedings].
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 4, line 37, after ("that") insert ("in any case").
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("any of the grounds") and insert ("a ground").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Infringement of registered trade mark].
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("But") and insert ("Provided that").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Airedale may have been taken by surprise by the House resuming a little earlier than expected. Perhaps I may move the amendment in his name and explain why he put it down.
During an earlier stage of the Bill I whispered to my noble friend that I wondered whether it was appropriate for a sentence which is in subsection (6) of Clause 9 to start with the word "But". My noble friend appears to have taken that on as something of a challenge. He remarked that it is not only a sentence but indeed a paragraph which starts with the word "But". Not wishing to set a bad example in legislation that is passed by this House and recommended to another place, my noble friend feels that we should use more conventional language and not the rather more informal language that is now coming into everyday use. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved her noble friend's amendment in a most excellent way. Perhaps I can so reply on behalf of the Government.

73
The point here is that there are 141 occurrences of the word "But" beginning a sentence in current statutes, most of those being a subsection. These range from Chapter 46 of the Commons Act 1235 and Section 17 of the Ecclesiastical Licenses Act 1533, right up to the present. There are, I understand, an average of 12 examples each year. Therefore the use of the word "But" in the second sentence of Clause 9(6) is neither novel nor unusual.
I understand perfectly well why the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have taken an interest in the matter. I am delighted that they have done so. I believe that our use of "But" has a respectable legal and grammatical pedigree, and that "provided that" would, in this context, be wrong. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the amendment and perhaps the noble Baroness, or the noble Lord, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: But, my Lords, is it desirable?
Baroness Hamwee: And, my Lords, I think it is sad that we have example No. 142. But I thank the Minister for his explanation and his officials for the hard work that they must have put in. I hope that computers were of some use in tracking down previous examples. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Clause 12 [Registration subject to disclaimer or limitation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Where a trade. mark contains an element which is not distinctive, and where the inclusion of such element in a registered trade mark could give rise to doubts as to the scope of protection of the registered trade mark, the registrar may require as a condition of registration of the trade mark that the applicant makes a disclaimer in accordance with section 12(1).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the issue of a compulsory disclaimer, which your Lordships may feel, as I did when the matter was first brought to my attention, is something of a contradiction in terms. However, it is an important point. Under the current law, the registrar has the power to enter a compulsory disclaimer to make it clear that part of a registration is non-distinctive and that no rights attach to that part of the registration. This Bill does not provide that power.
The view of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, which brought the matter to my attention, is that the absence of the provision will lead to uncertainty of the rights given by the registration and possible additional expense and indeed unnecessary litigation. The retention of a compulsory disclaimer—that is, a disclaimer required by the registrar—will keep the law in the United Kingdom in line with the Community trade mark regulations. Given that the rest of the European Union will be affected by compulsory disclaimers as directed by the Community Trade Mark Office, it seems sensible to have the same provision in this country. If the Bill is not amended, some trade marks which are enforceable through the British courts will be subject to compulsory disclaimers and others will not.
74
The Trade Marks Act 1938, Section 14, gives the registrar the power to decide whether a proprietor should have to disclaim any right to the exclusive use of part of a mark as a condition of its registration. Disclaimers imposed by the registrar mean that it is possible to determine by a simple inspection of the register the scope of a given registration. That allows third parties to carry out a search to know whether they can adopt a certain mark without fear of infringing a registered proprietor's rights. That is an advantage to small potential users and applicants for whom the expense of challenging the scope of a registration would be very great. We have said on a number of occasions during the course of the Bill that we must bear in mind the interests of the consumer.
An applicant is unlikely voluntarily to enter on the public record an admission that part or parts of the mark lack distinctiveness or otherwise would fall within the public domain. If compulsory disclaimers do not continue with this Bill, large companies may attempt to obtain a substantial number of registrations which, on the face of it, would give them the right to stop third parties from using expressions which are common in the English language or indeed ordinary English words. That might mean that large organisations will assert rights against third parties to which in fact they are not entitled. With a system of disclaimers imposed by the registrar on the other hand, there are bound to be a number of situations in which a smaller company will not know whether a threat of infringement has any substance.
The point may be made that disclaimers are misleading in that they suggest that no rights exist in the disclaimed matter when in fact there are common law rights. But that is a defect which I am advised can be remedied by appropriate rewording of the standard form of disclaimer. Let me give your Lordships one example: the mark "Kodak Colourprint". The word "Colourprint" would be disclaimed to show the public that no legal rights are given by that word.
I hope that that somewhat technical provision will commend itself to your Lordships as having some real importance. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, we discussed during Committee whether the registrar should be able to require an applicant to disclaim any exclusive use of an element in a trade mark which he does not consider distinctive. That is a provision which exists in the Trade Mark Act 1938, which this Bill replaces.
The consensus is that such a provision is out of date and the majority of those consulted through the White Paper, and later on the Bill, welcomed the end of compulsory disclaimers. Experience under the present law shows that, not only can negotiations between an applicant and the registrar be protracted, and therefore add significantly to the fees charged by trade mark agents (about which the noble Baroness expressed concern during the debate that we had on Second Reading), but also the results are often overtaken by events. What might be considered non-distinctive today can become distinctive through use.

75
The House will be interested to know that the Australian Government, having consulted users about their registration system, have also just issued a draft trade marks Bill. Like the Bill before your Lordships today, it provides only for voluntary disclaimers, repealing the registrar's ability to require disclaimers. I think that illustrates that what we are doing is in line not only with what our users want but with what is happening internationally.
Therefore, I do not believe that it is in the interest of the users of the trade mark registry to change the Bill. In the Government's view, it is clear that registration does not confer any exclusive rights in matter forming only part of the registered trade mark.
That is an important statement and indeed the definitive statement. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I might ask him two questions arising from the explanation that he has just given. He referred to the consensus as part of the consultation process among different sectors of industry and the trade mark community. I wonder who in that community made up that consensus. In other words, are we talking about those who are likely to be applicants for trade marks who might well have an interest in there not being a provision for compulsory disclaimer, or the professionals?
Secondly, the noble Lord, quoting the Australian example, said that to have no such provision would mean that we are in line with other international provisions. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the rest of the European Union does have the compulsory disclaimer provision and that we have made great efforts to keep this Bill in line with the rest of Europe.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are trying to harmonise under the terms of the directive, but nothing here goes against what the terms of the directive have set up for the European harmonisation. Other countries may well have disclaimer systems within their own individual systems. We have consulted as widely as possible with all sides of the relevant interests in this area to see whether or not there could be some form of consensus. We consulted professionals and those in industry on the Standing Advisory Committee. We tried to make sure that we would not include anything in this Bill that hitherto had been in the Trade Mark Act 1938 which would be difficult to work under present conditions. I believe that we have done that.
Clearly, in reaching a consensus, there may well be those who believe that our changes have gone too far. I suspect that that is the point that the noble Baroness makes. But I hope that she at least agrees with the case that I have made and that possibly we have made the right decision in this Bill and it should now be approved.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the amplification that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Trusts and equities]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 1, leave out from ("equities") to ("a") in line 2 and insert ("(in Scotland, rights) in respect or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. The House may recall that I moved an amendment at Report to clarify the wording of this clause so that its effect in Scotland is the same as that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That amendment took account of the fact that the term "equities" is not used in Scottish law. However, on further reflection we feel that the present amendment better clarifies further the position regarding the enforcement of rights in respect of a registered trade mark in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("or in relation to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Licensing of registered trade mark]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) Use by a licensee in accordance with the terms of a subsisting licence in relation to goods or services for which the trade mark is registered shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and at common law to be use by the proprietor in relation to those goods or services, and references to the goods or services of the proprietor shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 is identical to an amendment which I tabled in Committee. It concerns the question of whether the use by a licensee is considered to accrue to the benefit of the proprietor.
I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments that arise on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, welcomed the discussion and said that he would take the matter away and consider it further. I gather that he may not be able to accept the amendment but he may be able to make a few remarks of a clarifying and reassuring nature. That is the reason I retabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in Committee I said that I was satisfied that it was quite clear that use by the licensee was use with the proprietor's consent, and that that applied regardless of the type of licence involved —exclusive, sub-licence or whatever. However, I agreed to consider the matter and I have done so.
The noble Lord's anxiety was that because these provisions were drafted differently from those in Section 28 of the 1938 Act, they would have a different effect on the reputation of the mark. He felt that the reputation of the mark would become fragmented because of its use by the licensee. Having considered the matter further, I am satisfied that that will not be the case. The different style of drafting stems solely from the fact that the whole concept surrounding the registrar of trade marks involvement with licensing is now different. In 1938 licensing of trade marks was relatively new, but now it is an everyday event. However, the basic idea remains; all use of the mark by

77
the proprietor or with his consent is genuine use, and I am satisfied that there is no need to spell that out in Clause 24.
The all-embracing statement in Clause 42(1) (a) applies throughout the Bill, but appears where it really matters when dealing with revocation. That is, after all, the time when what constitutes use is important. I know the noble Lord is concerned about common law rights, but I would remind him that those are not affected by the Bill (as can be seen from Clause 2(2)); and accordingly, with that explanation and reassurance, I hope he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that statement and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Revocation of registration]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 20, line 10, after ("person") insert ("with a bona fide interest").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 relates to Clause 42 of the Bill which deals with the revocation of a registration. It is to stress to your Lordships that an application for revocation should be limited to a person under subsection (4) who has a bona fide interest in the matter and not merely "any" person.
It may be that without that qualification—that the applicant for revocation has a bona fide interest—a large number of applications for cancellation would be filed on a speculative basis, putting proprietors to a good deal of cost and inconvenience. Indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of imagination that a competitor may arrange for cancellation attacks against the whole or a large part of a trade mark portfolio of an applicant.
The clause will provide for proceedings in the registry being brought by a nominee with the identity of the real party being kept secret. That could also cause problems unless the applicant for revocation has such an interest. Indeed, the use of the application for revocation could be used to force the settlement of a real and more genuine issue. On the other hand, an application for registration under Clause 28(3) requires a bona fide intention for the mark to be used if it is not currently being used. I believe that that provision should be replicated in the clause dealing with revocation. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. The amendment covers a point which is new to the debate on the Bill but which I believe I can deal with in this way. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, and most recently in reply to the previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness, a wide spectrum of user interest groups were consulted through the White Paper and the Bill on all aspects of the trade mark system. The majority of those supported the provisions set out in subsection (4) of Clause 42 which will enable any person to make an application to the court or the registrar for the revocation of a trade mark. Under the Trade Mark Act 1938 only persons aggrieved could do so.
78
On that basis the amendment would be restrictive. In particular, anyone should be free to seek revocation of a trade mark which has become the common name in the trade for the goods or services for which it is registered. There is no such restriction in the regulation on the Community trade mark. Therefore, having explained the point in that regard, it is probably better to leave the clause as it stands rather than to add the words "bona fide" as suggested by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am aware that the wording in the current Act is of a person aggrieved. It is because the words "bona fide" were used elsewhere in the Bill that I used them here.
The matter may be worth a little further consideration as the Bill continues its progress. The fact that the matter did not arise in consultation, good as that consultation was, does not necessarily mean that it is not worthy of consideration. I know that the Minister takes these points seriously; he has shown that throughout the course of the Bill in your Lordships' House. In the hope that having made the point it will lodge in the minds of those who have the responsibility to take the Bill forward, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Unfair competition: Article 10 bis
—(1) Where any goods of the proprietor of a trade mark bearing the trade mark are associated in the course of trade with any label, packaging or container having an overall appearance of a distinctive character it shall be an act of unfair competition actionable as such for any person in the course of trade to supply or offer to supply any such goods with or in any label packaging or container which is similar in overall appearance, whether by reason of name, shape, colour, design or any combination thereof or otherwise, to the overall appearance of that of the proprietor's goods if the use of the label, packaging or container either—

(a) is likely to cause confusion, which includes a likelihood of association with the proprietor or the proprietor's goods; or

(b) without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the appearance of the proprietor's goods or trade mark.

(2) In an action for unfair competition under this section all such relief by way of damages, injunctions, accounts or other wise is available to the plaintiff (in Scotland, pursuer) as is available in respect of infringement of a registered trade mark or other property right.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.11 is identical to the amendment on "look-alikes" which I tabled at Report stage and which I withdrew after my noble friend the Minister made some encouraging noises.
The amendment seeks to deal with the growing incidence of large retailers offering for sale their own brand products in packaging deliberately designed to resemble that of a famous brand and thereby taking advantage of the consumer loyalty established and maintained for those brands at great expense by their manufacturers.
This is a manifestly unfair form of competition for which no adequate remedy is provided either by current British law or by the Bill as it stands, although remedies commonly exist in the laws of other countries. I spelt out the difficulty at Report stage and do riot wish to repeat the arguments now. The amendment is based on

79
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Article 10 his, which relates to unfair competition. The Bill has been used to give effect to other articles of the convention and its Long Title explains that that is one of its purposes.
The Bill therefore provides a perfect opportunity to fill the gap which exists in our competition law. The amendment is supported by a group of major consumer goods manufacturers, most of them household names and to one of which I am an adviser. I should perhaps repeat that declaration of interest.
At Report stage, as noble Lords present then will remember, the amendment enjoyed overwhelming support from this side of the House. Of my noble friends who spoke, no fewer than seven supported the amendment while only one spoke against it. My noble friend the Minister acknowledged the strength both of the case and of the support for the amendment, but he said that the Government would find it difficult to support the introduction of a new cause of action of unfair competition, such as this amendment would provide, unless there was a clear majority in favour of it. He said, fairly enough, that there are two sides to the issue and that before taking any action the Government must seek the view of industry generally.
I have tabled the amendment again, although I believe it has defects, in order that my noble friend should have an opportunity to explain to the House what steps he has since taken to seek the views of industry and what effect, if any, those views have had on government thinking. In particular, I should like to know whether the Government now agree that action is essential to deal with the abuses covered by the amendment and whether they have come round to the view that this Bill provides a suitable opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I want to speak against the amendment. In doing so I declare two interests; first, as a non-executive director of Tesco, and secondly, as a consumer. This amendment smacks of restrictive practice. It is an attempt to limit competition. Even more importantly, it is an attempt to limit consumer choice and to deprive the consumer of products which are competitively priced. It is an attack on own labels. Own labels are seen by the consumer as good value where the definition of good value is a balance between quality and price. The amendment is wide and all embracing.
In the time available to me I should like to make five short points. First, on the containers and packaging, there are only a limited number of package types. Those are dictated by shelves, by fridge space, by fridge size, by weight, and sometimes, indeed, by the European Union. The European Union has dictated the packaging for washing powders. There is E5 or E10. What about carrying all these different types of packages? In effect the modern supermarket has something like 30,000 different lines. There cannot be 30,000 different types of packaging. That is not possible.
Secondly, if someone develops a package which has evolved due to consumer complaint, can the consumer
80
only benefit from the new packaging if he or she buys from that particular manufacturer? I cite here the case of an ordinary milk carton. I do not know about other noble Lords but for years I have struggled with milk cartons. I have broken nails, I have had milk on the floor and I have actually managed to get milk on the ceiling. Marks & Spencer has now developed a package and I go down on my knees and thank the company for it. It has a ring-pull plastic top which comes out as a spout and means that there is no spillage. You can close it again and the milk does not go off in the fridge. Marks & Spencer stores are not open on all the days of the week, as we know from the Sunday Trading Bill. They are not universal—would that they were. Does it mean that when I want to save my nails, save my floor and save my ceiling I have to go to Marks & Spencer only or else do without milk?
Thirdly, does the current situation confuse the consumer? For example, a yellow washing up liquid bottle is known by the consumer as containing washing up liquid which has a lemon fragrance. The consumer is not confused if there is Fairy in a yellow washing up liquid bottle or some own brand in a yellow washing up liquid bottle. I think that the amendment is slightly patronising in suggesting that the consumer is not intelligent enough. The normal consumer has her head about her, if she is female; I am not so sure about the other side. Perhaps that is making a cheap point.
Fourthly, this is seen to be hurting the manufacturers, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said. I look at the bottom line and at profits. I look at the percentage of turnover of the major supermarkets. I am not talking about Tesco. The figure is something in the range of between 4 and 8 per cent. The profits of Procter Gamble are in the range of 11 and 13 per cent. I do not think they are being hurt. Incidentally, we talk about competition. Procter & Gamble and Unilever have between them some 80 per cent. of the detergent market in this country. The other 20 per cent. is own label.
Fifthly, the Consumers' Association has come out strongly against the amendment. Noble Lords on all sides of the House admire the Consumers' Association for the work it has done over many years.
Finally, I should like to make an observation. A government who have strongly supported deregulation and less legislation cannot support the introduction of new legislation which is unnecessary and frankly militates against the consumer.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am pleased again to have the opportunity of supporting the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I was able to put my name to this amendment at the previous stage of the Bill and have done so again. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a confused consumer; a female confused consumer indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the amendment as being an attack on own labels. That is precisely what it is not. It is an attempt to defend the packaging, the labels and the work of the brand manufacturers whose packaging is copied almost precisely, but not absolutely precisely, by those who wish to take advantage of their work. The noble Baroness said that the choice of packaging was dictated

81
by a number of factors. One must accept that there are standard sizes. EC legislation provides for that and so on. However, it is surely not necessary that the same colour of container or the same shape of container is applied to two products, one of which is a brand product and the other of which is an own supermarket product. This concerns not only the colour but the combination of colours—a bottle of one colour with a cap of another colour.
The noble Baroness referred to milk containers. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a quite different matter. Square containers with particular forms of opening, however good or bad they may be, are square containers. They have on the material with which they are made full details of their contents. One does not confuse the contents of one container of a particular shape and with a particular spout with another.
One of the disbenefits of your Lordships' procedure is that one cannot use visual aids. I wish that we could. Perhaps I may describe, for instance, two bottles of shampoo. One bottle called Head and Shoulders has a shape reminiscent of shoulders. The other bottle which has the term "Head" in its name but does not refer to shoulders is very similar but not quite identical. It is the same colour and the label contains almost the same combination of colours. I suggest that it is not necessary for that bottle to imitate so nearly the shape and the devices of the original bottle.
We have been told that it is perfectly fair for consumers to have the advantage of a certain type of packaging becoming known. We have also been told that, if retailers had to alter the appearance of their products, prices would rise. But the packaging does alter. That is what makes it so suspect. A manufacturer alters his packaging, as happens as a matter of normal commercial practice as styles change and so on, and five minutes later the own brand packaging has changed as well. The noble Baroness told us that the Consumers' Association is against the amendment. Unhappily, it has not succeeded in disseminating its views perhaps quite as well on that point as some of the other interest groups which have been concerned with the issue. I would have been glad to have heard from them, but I have not: so I have not heard the detail of their argument.
Twice within the past few days I have had the experience of discussing this issue with journalists. In neither case have I been able to get very far because it has sparked so much recognition in them. They have told me of their own experiences and confusion and immediately identified very closely with the issue and the problem.
Finally, in supporting this amendment, if retailers cannot win customers and keep them by their own quality and price —it is very often the case that own-brand retailers have prices which are slightly lower than those of the brand manufacturers—and cannot use those advantages, I, do not believe that they should use someone else's "get-up" in order to win over customers. I do not believe it is a coincidence that the packaging of the various sets of items is so similar. I believe that it is a case of deliberately riding on the back of a manufacturer's reputation.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have discussed this issue at previous stages of the Bill and at each point I have made a plea on behalf of consumers in order to ensure that there should be no constraint on consumer choice if any amendment of this type were agreed to. Nevertheless, some of the examples quoted today by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and quoted right and left in your Lordships' House on Report by a number of confused Peers, mean that some of them are unnecessarily close.
I rise at this moment in the spirit of inquiry. My noble friend Lord Reay said that manufacturers in this situation had no legal recourse. I assume he means no statutory legal recourse because, as I understand it, they do of course have a right of recourse to the courts in passing off in common law.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yet again it has been a useful and interesting debate, and this is the third time that we have had it. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Reay has given me the opportunity of at least explaining where the Government are in examining the whole issue.
As I explained on Report, the amendment aims to prevent someone from using packaging, or a label, or a container with an overall appearance which resembles packaging, which is associated with a trade mark belonging to a competitor. The trade mark does not even have to be registered; it could be an unregistered mark which the trader, caught by this new offence, is totally unaware of.
I also explained that, even if the directive does not prevent us from introducing unfair competition as a general cause of action, I do not think that we could do this under the Bill since it is all about trade marks. Therefore, as I said earlier, the Government could not support the introduction of a new cause of action of unfair competition without careful study and full consultation.
Following Report stage, my department initiated the process of seeking views from the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property which is made up of organisations representative of the patent, trade mark and legal professions, industry and commerce, consumers, the academic world, and those specialising in licensing intellectual property rights. For example, papers received from the British Producers and Brand Owners' Group, who support the amendment, and from bodies opposed to the amendment have already been circulated to the member organisations of the standing advisory committee. Other submissions, or comments on such submissions, will be circulated to the committee as and when they are received. The House may recall that the committee was consulted on both the White Paper and the Bill.
Even if the consultation shows general support for a change, I cannot promise that we will be able to solve the problem in this Bill. As I said earlier., there are considerable difficulties in formulating a suitable provision and one which would be consistent with the directive. Indeed, our mini-debate today shows just how much disagreement there is with both my noble friend

83
Lady Hooper and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, speaking for the consumer. It is important that we have a definitive view either from the Consumers' Association or from the National Consumer Council over the role that they feel the consumer should have in making his or her own purchasing decisions when they go to the supermarket.
Perhaps after Report stage, when so many noble Lords from all around the House expressed their concern and confusion whenever they went shopping, the only sadness which I have about the whole debate is that we did not have the benefit of the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who I know, as a new man, takes a great deal of interest in the quality of his supermarket shopping. On this issue I ask my noble friend Lord Reay if he can leave it not only to another day but also to another place in order to deal with what is an extremely complicated issue, fraught with all kinds of problems, which the Government are taking very seriously having committed themselves to consulting widely.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that statement which I shall study carefully. Plainly, the Government are taking seriously their statement that they will consult widely. I am grateful for what my noble friend said. Perhaps I may take up a point which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, raised. She represented the amendment as being an attack on own-brand products. I wish to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in saying that the amendment is not an attack on own-brand products; it is directed at own-brands dressed up to look like other brands which themselves have well established reputations. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. On the contrary, I am certain that it is a deliberate and unfair attempt to trade off the back of the reputation of famous brands.
My noble friend Lady Hooper asked what I meant when I referred to the fact that the current law is inadequate in providing a remedy. My reason for saying that is that passing off has not been found to provide a satisfactory remedy because manufacturers are required to produce evidence of confusion among customers and it is extremely difficult to collect such evidence. Those endeavouring to do so are ejected from premises. Judges are extremely difficult to persuade that there has been such confusion. As a result, the chances of success in bringing an action are small.
I am happy to agree with my noble friend that this matter has to be left for another day and another place but, unlike him, not for another Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 [Power of Secretary of State to make rules]:
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 30, line 38, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 13. Those Members of your Lordships' House who
84
were Members of the Committee will recollect my raising the subject of principle of open-ended cheques. Clause 74(1) states:
"There shall be paid in respect of applications and registration and other matters under this Act such fees as may be prescribed".
I have had lengthy correspondence and discussions with my noble friend's officers and so forth. It has been explained to me that "prescribed" means something specific and not what I understand the word to mean. That is fine, but there is still an open-ended cheque. The reason for that is because, when my noble friend says that there are conventions, they lie in the prescription which is that,
"The Secretary of State may make rules"
as stated in Clause 73(1). "May" is the operative word; he does not have to. It is still an open-ended cheque until he has to make rules about pay. I do not doubt for a moment that he will or that he will be sensible, but the circumstances may not be the same in 20 or 50 years' time. It is now almost 50 years since the previous legislation on trade marks was enacted. A lot can happen in that time.
I do not believe that we should leave on the statute book open-ended options for any individual, however responsible, by which that person can charge whatever he likes without some form of legislative curtailment. I think that it is wrong that the Bill leaves totally optional that which an unnamed person can do. That is why I am moving an amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State "shall" make rules—the rules will then have to be made—and that they "shall" be as prescribed, not "may" be as prescribed. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I notice that subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may make rules".
Subsection (3) states:
"Rules under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument".
One would think that subsection (2), sandwiched between them, would state that "rules"
"may, in particular, be made",
in certain circumstances and for certain purposes, but, in fact, it states:
"Provision may, in particular, be made,"
for certain purposes. If subsection (2) is meant to be operated by rules—I imagine that it is—it would be clearer if the legislation actually stated that instead of, "Provision may … be made". There might be confusion, so I offer that suggestion.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that was a nice suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; but I do not think that there is any confusion. I do not think that anybody will be confused by the wording as drafted.
It is standard drafting practice for a statute to empower the making of rules, rather than to require them to be made. That is a point that I make to my noble friend. That was, for example, the case in Section 40 of the Trade Marks Act 1938, which this Bill replaces. Therefore, we are not going into uncharted waters with this provision.
Moreover, the fact that the Bill authorises something to be prescribed does not mean that this has to be prescribed. In the case of Clause 74, for example, it may be decided that there are no circumstances in which a

85
single fee should cover two or more matters. Perhaps I should stress that the fact that a provision says that the Secretary of State "may" prescribe something by rules does not mean that he can prescribe it by some other route if he is so minded. He can either prescribe it by rules, or not at all. This in particular applies to the fees to be changed by the Patent Office in this Bill. As I explained to the House at Report, the reference to such fees having to be prescribed means that they must be determined by statutory instrument. This means that the fees have to be approved by a Minister before he makes the rules, and the instrument then has to be laid before Parliament, where it can be prayed against in either House. I know that my noble friend's anxiety is that we could see a spiralling of costs, but that could occur only when an order had been laid, and a noble Lord is entitled to pray against an order.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that this matter will receive some attention in its next stage in another place. That is the main reason I tabled the amendment. I do not believe that the present position is satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Clause 87 [Delivery up of offending goods, material or articles]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 36, line 37, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("( ) Where infringing goods, material or articles are seized from any person, application may be made to the Court by the party which made the seizure for an Order that the goods, material or articles in question be delivered up to such person as the Court may direct, whether or not the person from whom the infringing goods, material or articles were seized is prosecuted or convicted of an offence under section 86.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have given notice to the Minister's Private Office and his officials about the purpose of this amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Haskel. I shall await the Minister's reply with interest.
The essential purpose of the amendment is to deal with a mischief that can and does create considerable and unnecessary prejudice to trade mark owners. As I understand it, the present law is that if a person is convicted of an offence under Section 58 paragraph (b) of the Trade Marks Act, the court may order the goods or materials which are seized by the authorities to be delivered up to such persons as the court may direct. However, where goods are seized and no prosecution ensues—or no successful prosecution ensues—no application for delivery up can be entertained by the court under Section 58 paragraph (b). Furthermore, if the person in receipt of the goods refuses to disclaim them, the prosecuting authorities are obliged to return the goods to that person with the consequential risk that they may find their way back on to the market unless the trade mark owner obtains a High Court injunction to prevent that from happening, which of course puts him to considerable time, effort and money. Meanwhile—perhaps even more seriously—further injury may be sustained by the public.
86
I am in a position - I shall not be tempted by it—to illustrate the point by reference to a number of factual cases which have been drawn to my attention in which authorities have seized goods which were suspected to be counterfeit. Although the trade mark owner, following inspection, confirmed that view and confirmed the view that the goods were undeniably and noticeably inferior, prosecutions either have not taken place, have been withdrawn or have been unsuccessful. In those circumstances, no application could be entertained by the court that the goods in question should be destroyed or that the infringing trade mark should be obliterated before the goods are returned to the person from whom they were seized with the ensuing prejudice to the trade mark owner and potential prejudice to the public.
In the case of which I am thinking, the trade mark owner was unable to secure a disclaimer from the persons from whom the goods were seized. Therefore, the only remedy available was to sue such persons. The difficulty there is that frequently, by the very nature of their operations, such persons are people of straw—uncontactable or untraceable. The only interest that the trade mark owner would have in those circumstances would lie in seeking to eliminate the goods from the market by destroying them.
There is a substantial case to be made for this amendment. I do not know whether we have dealt with the matter sufficiently within the terms of the amendment; but I invite the Minister to comment on the principle. I hope that the Minister will be nice to me because I am relinquishing my virginity so far as concerns the Bill, and I know that the Minister is always charming, pleasant and helpful. Perhaps he will be so on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, relinquishes his virginity most capably. I am delighted at the way in which he has offered us this amendment and welcome him to our deliberations on the Bill. If he had spent more time on it, he would have discovered that its passage through this House has been extremely smooth. I hope that we shall not have a hiccup with this amendment.
On the face of it, the amendment seems a case of finding somebody guilty although they have been found not guilty by a court. On taking a second look at it, I can understand the point that the noble Lord was making. As a government, we are well aware of the damage that is caused to the economy by counterfeit goods. However, if a person prosecuted for trade mark counterfeit is acquitted, the court cannot simply go ahead and treat the goods in the same way as if that person had been convicted. It may be that the defendant has not argued that the goods are genuine. He may even have admitted that they were fake, but has convinced the court that he is not guilty of an offence concerning them. In such a case, it is still possible for the trade mark owner to bring a civil action under Clause 15 where it is not necessary to point the finger at a particular offender and where the burden of proof will not be the same as in a criminal

87
charge. In such an action he can ask the court to order that the goods be delivered up to him, for example, for destruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised questions which go to the root of our policy on counterfeiting. They may require further re-examination and therefore I cannot accept the amendment that he has put before the House. However, I offer him the commitment that between now and the Bill being introduced in another place we shall examine the matter carefully. If there is a loophole and a way of closing it, we shall seek to do so. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my expectations of the Minister have been wholly fulfilled. He is charming, nice and flexible on some occasions and tonight is no exception. I am grateful for his commitment and cannot expect him to go further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and shall write to the Minister giving further details than I have been able to expound tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 97 [Offences committed by partnerships and bodies corporate]:
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 41, line 25, leave out ("proceeded against and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment has received considerable discussion on previous occasions and I am grateful to my noble friend for writing to me about it. The trouble arises as a result of the drafting; that is the English. In excuse it is said to be standard phraseology. The fact that a phrase has been used previously does not excuse bad English in legislation. The provision reads:
"is also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly".
I am not a lawyer but I do not understand how one can be proceeded against if one has already been found guilty.
My noble friend wrote to me using the phrase "double liability". I do not know whether that is legal terminology. I suspect that it is not and that it is something that has come out of his great intelligence. Nevertheless, I strongly object to using a phrase which does not make sense, which is bad English and being told that it has been used previously. For that reason I table the amendment, which I hope will receive attention from those who are more able to make a case of this nature. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I support the amendment. I join the noble Earl in trying to avoid the perpetuation of a piece of nonsense. To say,
"is also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against",
is nonsense, because if he is guilty of the offence he will have been proceeded against. The Bill puts the cart before the horse. It is like the King's messenger in Alice in Wonderland who was going to be hanged tomorrow. Alice said, "What has he done?". She was told, "Well, the offence isn't until next week". Alice said, "Supposing that he does not commit the offence?". "Well", she is told, "that will be all the best, silly child".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is the third occasion on which my noble friend has raised the issue and therefore I safely assume that I have not convinced him of the correctness of the Government's case. Perhaps the slight problem is that the phrase is a standard formulation which appears in other statutes which have to deal with offences committed by partnerships. No doubt it would be possible to express it differently; perhaps in a more logical way. However, in seeking to clarify we could perpetuate or even create further confusion. It might be argued that if we had adopted a wording different from what is found in other measures Parliament must have intended it to have a different effect from those other measures. We are not intending that at all.
I believe that the provision is clear. In my defence I say that the phrase is clearly understood by those who have to use it. Partnerships, lawyers and the courts can all understand what has been said in the past and therefore will clearly understand what is said in this particular cause. If the partnership is guilty so is each of the partners, unless shown to have been ignorant of the offence or to have tried to prevent it. The partner is therefore liable to be punished accordingly. However, before he can be so punished he must be proceeded against.
I do not wish to continue the debate unduly. I accept, as does my noble friend, that essentially this is a matter of drafting. Perhaps on that basis we can agree to differ and he will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and I agree to differ. I am grateful to him for the trouble that he has taken and for giving the time that I have demanded from him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Certification marks]:
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 48, leave out lines 2 to 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again I thank the Minister. I hope that the comments that I made in respect of the previous amendment will not be regarded as ungracious. They were not meant to be because I have great admiration for my noble friend. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 49, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments deal with infringement concerning certification trade marks. The House will recall that at Report we completely re-cast the clauses of the Bill which deal with the licensing of trade marks. This included those provisions of Schedule 2 which would have placed an authorised user of a certification mark in the same position as a licensee under an ordinary trade mark. In particular, it would have allowed such an authorised user to take infringement proceedings.
This is not the case under the present law and, on reflection, the Government have decided that it would

89
not be appropriate to make such a change. This is because, given the nature of the certification marks, it is the proprietor who should be responsible for protecting it and not an authorised user. For example, the duty to protect the 'Woolmark' must be on the shoulders of the International Wool Secretariat and not an individual producer of woollen garments (who would also add his own trade mark to the label). A licensee, on the other hand, is in a totally different position since he may be the only user of the mark; the proprietor may not be using it himself.
It is not possible for a licensee to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill, which give him his rights and remedies in relation to infringement unless he has recorded the fact that he has a licence on the trade marks register. This is reasonable when it comes to licensees, since they have always been entered on the trade marks register and anyone can go and look to see who they are. However, when it comes to authorised users of certification trade marks, these are not recorded on the trade marks register. Only the proprietor of the certification trade mark knows who they are. It is not therefore appropriate to place them in the same position when it comes to taking action for infringement.
Nevertheless, the provisions of paragraph 14 of Schedule 2, which allow the court to take account of any loss suffered by authorised users of certification marks when, for example, assessing damages in an infringement action, will remain after this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 52, line 1, leave out from ("Act") to ("applies") in line 2 and insert ("(court to take into account loss suffered by authorised users, &c.)").
On Question amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. As noble Lords will have realised, the Trade Marks Bill is technical and complex. It was also the first Bill for a number of years that your Lordships agreed should be considered by a Public Bill Committee off the Floor of your Lordships' House. That was a wise decision and I believe that the result has fully demonstrated the value of such a procedure in considering a Bill of this nature.
Voltaire said:
"No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking".
The spirit of co-operation and the positive contributions during discussion of the Bill in the Committee bore that out. Although not all noble Lords' interests could be accommodated, there were lively discussions on a range of issues and a number of proposals made for amendment to the Bill. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their thoughtful approach and suggestions for ways in which the Bill might be improved or clarified.
The Trade Marks Bill, though, as I have said, both technical and complex, is of considerable importance to
90
industry and commerce which wish to register and protect their trade marks. The Bill implements an EC directive and in doing so will make it easier for a trade mark to qualify for registration and provide wider infringement rights. It will also enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Madrid Protocol and deregulate procedures. All of those will make it simpler and cheaper for industry and commerce to protect their marks in the United Kingdom and overseas. The wider infringement rights will also ensure that business does not have to resort to expensive common law action for passing off to protect trade marks. At the same time the Bill will also strengthen the measures available to deal with counterfeiting.
As a result of your Lordships' deliberations, a number of improvements have been made to the Bill. Within the framework of the EC directive and in line with the aims of the Bill, we have been able to take account of a number of points and amend the Bill for the positive benefit of users of the trade mark registration system. Some examples of these are: recasting the provisions on counterfeiting to ensure that the innocent infringer is not caught by the criminal offence of making or selling goods bearing, without permission, someone else's trade mark; revision of the licensing provisions of the Bill to ensure that they fully reflect what happens in the market place and the needs of business; providing for the acceptance by the registrar of applications for registration of trade marks which conflict with existing registrations but where the applicant can show honest concurrent use of their mark; and the amended definition of "use" which broadens the protection given to a registered mark so that non-graphic use of a trade mark may be actionable for infringement.
The Trade Marks Bill is an example of the Government's commitment to help industry and commerce compete for business at home and overseas. The Bill will help companies to exploit their goods and services based upon valid, secure and protected trade mark registrations on the same basis as their competitors. Administrative procedures will be simpler and costs reduced thus helping to foster support and innovation.
I thank the Bill team for the enormous amount of work that it has done within the department to make sure that we could deal with all the points raised. I thank the authorities of your Lordships' House which made Committee stage and, indeed, all stages, simple. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is a pleasant albeit rare occasion when I can say that I agree with every word that the Minister has just said. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in all stages of this Bill. I believe that we have seen your Lordships' House at its very best. I must congratulate the Minister and his officials for all that they have done. It has been an excellent performance and much appreciated. I thank my own advisers, especially Mrs. Lane who is a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary and Westfield College.

91
This Bill has been a model of how our business should be conducted. I hope that other Bills will be tackled in that way. I would go further. It would improve our efficiency if interested Peers could sit in the form of a committee to take technical advice jointly rather than what has been done; namely, the same people have told each of us separately the same things and then we all get together and retail it across the Floor of the House. It would be much better if we could take the evidence jointly; but that is for the future.
For the present, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I believe that we have made a useful though minor contribution to the efficiency of British industry. I look forward to the enactment of the Bill into our law with very little delay.
Lord Reay: My Lords, like my noble friend, I believe that committing the Bill to a Public Bill Committee off the Floor of the House has worked well. I believe that it was a good choice of Bill for such an experiment. I am sure that time on the Floor of the House has been saved.
At all stages, the passage of the Bill has been characterised by a constructive and co-operative attitude, both from the leadership of the parties opposite and from the Government. I pay tribute to all of them. The Government have been very responsive. They have met satisfactorily a large number of the anxieties expressed to them and I wish to convey the appreciation of the CBI in particular for the way in which the Government have listened to the views of industry.
At all times my noble friend and his officials have remained accessible. I thank them for their open-mindedness and helpfulness, which has ensured that the Bill leaves this House better than when it came here.
The views of the CBI have not always prevailed. The CBI is not the enthusiast for comparative advertising which, rather surprisingly, the Government have emerged to be. The Government have leapt into an area which the European directive did not oblige them to leap into. They chose to enter that, following the impulse of their own philosophy. I believe that they should have waited until the European directive on comparative advertising—now once again imminent—had first been agreed. They have jumped the gun and may well pay a penalty for having done so.
I keenly await the outcome of the look-alike issue, where I hope that the just cause prevails. Otherwise, I support the Bill. It is a constructive and overdue measure which updates antiquated law and which fulfils some of our Community obligations. I wish it well.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he has helped to guide the rest of us—perhaps I should not apply my own position to the rest of your Lordships—through a very complicated Bill. Some of your Lordships may have felt, as I did, that we have had an opportunity to concentrate on particular issues which have interested and concerned us, and we have had the confidence that the technicalities in the background have been dealt with competently.
I must confess that, to that extent, I have found it a slightly frustrating experience in that after every stage of
92
the Bill I have wondered whether I have missed some wrinkle which should have been ironed out. Your Lordships have said that the Bill protects the interests of industry, manufacturers, and so on. I hope that we have also made it a better Bill for the consumer.
In addition to the experience of taking the Bill through a Public Bill Committee, it has benefited also from the considerable amount of preparatory work that was done—the consultation with the committee—to which noble Lords have referred at a number of stages. I take this opportunity to mention one matter which, on a future occasion, may be dealt with even more helpfully; that is, the question of seeing the precise wording of a draft Bill at a very early stage.
I understand the question of parliamentary privilege but it seems to have been overcome as regards the proposed Sunday trading legislation, where the draft Bill was annexed to the White Paper. It would have been even more helpful had the precise draft Bill been made available at a similarly early stage for all those who have given so much of their time from outside the House to improve the Bill during its passage.
I thank the Minister. He has had many difficult and sometimes, I suspect, rather surprising points bowled at him and he has dealt with them clearly and helpfully.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend said, the Bill is an important one. As one who pressed the Government—though perhaps in a small way—to bring forward legislation in order to up date our trade mark law to comply with the European directive, and indeed to implement the Madrid Protocol, I am very happy to be present at this stage of the proceedings. We now have a Bill which benefits manufacturers, consumers and practitioners in the field.
I should also like to thank the Government for having produced the legislation and for the wide consultation that went on before it was produced which enabled it to pass through your Lordships' House so smoothly, albeit with a few small additions and amendments. I should also like to express my thanks to my noble friend the Minister and his team for the way in which they dealt with all our queries and amendments. They did so in such a competent and cheerful manner, both behind the scenes as well as on the Floor of the House.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I am the only one of your Lordships who is likely to strike a moderate note of discord. I told my noble friend the Minister that I would strike such a note. However, that does not in any way detract from my thanks to him for the manner in which he conducted the Government's business, and indeed attended to those questions which I raised with him both outside the Chamber as well as during the Committee stage. The amendment that I tabled was dealt with on Report by my noble friend Lady Hooper in my unavoidable absence.
Retailers have been left outside the scope of the Bill. While my noble friend the Minister had some sympathy for the cause of retailers to register "retail services" in the terms of the Bill, I do not believe that his enthusiasm was shared by officials in the Patent Office. It is all very well to talk about interpreting or translating the Community directive; but it is in the interests of our

93
retailers that we find a way to deal with a European Community directive that benefits us and which does not put our retailers at a disadvantage. That is the note of discord—indeed, the mark of disappointment—that I have so far as concerns the Bill.
Nevertheless, I believe that we have made great progress since the matter was last dealt with about 50 years ago. It has been much fun to deal with the Bill off the Floor of the House. That process was most useful for dealing with such a specialist Bill. I hope that the other place will deal with the Bill as sympathetically and with as much dispatch as we have and that we will find it on the statute book before many weeks have passed.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to take up a few minutes of your Lordships' time in order to commend the draftsman of the Bill. I wish to commend him for including Clause 100. The clause is an index of "defined expressions". If noble Lords look at the clause, they will see that the left-hand column contains 47 words and expressions which have a special definition in the Bill. The right-hand column tells the reader exactly which section to refer to in order to see what the word or expression means.
Clause 100 is an immense time saver. It saves the reader of a Bill having to find out, laboriously pouring over the different clauses, whether a particular word or expression is defined and where to find its meaning. That practice was first applied in 1975. I do not believe that there was an earlier use of an index of defined expressions. There have been approximately 1,000 Acts of Parliament since that date, but only about 20 of them have included an index of defined expressions. Of course, such an index is not of any use in a very short Bill; but, in a long Bill—such as the Companies Act 1985 which did not have such an index—it is extremely useful. In fact, the practice was found so useful that when the Companies Act 1989 came to amend the Companies Act 1985, an index of defined expressions was introduced into the latter.
I have discussed such a device—if I may call it that— with several noble Lords. I am authorised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to say that he entirely agrees with the inclusion of such a clause into this type of Bill. So also said my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Moreover, I also took up the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He wrote to me to say that he finds such an index to be very helpful and that he hopes the practice will spread, at any rate, for longer Bills.
As I said, the draftsman should be commended. I hope that his attention will be drawn by the Minister to my commendation, and perhaps that of other noble Lords.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I should just like to say that I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I should like to add my layman's voice to the commendation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightrnan, on the value of Clause 100 in the Bill. Such a clause which rehearses the definitions of expressions used in the Bill is, as the noble and learned Lord said, immensely time saving and very helpful to the unlearned reader. I should like to echo the noble and learned Lord's wish that that habit of drafting will spread.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Lucas is still unhappy with what we decided upon as regards retail services. The House will no doubt recall the force with which he spoke during Second Reading and in Committee. We considered very carefully whether we should agree to defining in the Bill the services for which a trade mark might be registered as including "retail services". However, we came to the conclusion that such a definition would be putting an unacceptable gloss on the meaning of the directive.
Nevertheless, it is possible that, at some future date, a court—perhaps even the European Court of Justice —may decide that the expression "services" in the directive in fact includes the activity of retail trade in goods. If so, nothing in the Bill would prevent the registration of such marks. However, we did not feel that we could do so in the present Bill.
I am overwhelmed by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris who all congratulated the parliamentary draftsman. I entirely agree with the words expressed. Indeed, the clause deals with definitions in a sensible and efficient manner. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsman will note and very much appreciate the comments made. In anticipation of that, I hope that the House will now agree that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [HI.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  LOCAL PRISONS: POPULATION AND ACCOMMODATION
  LOCAL PRISONS: POPULATION AND ACCOMMODATION
  APPOINTMENTS BY THE HOME SECRETARY
  APPOINTMENTS BY THE HOME SECRETARY
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER REQUESTS
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER REQUESTS
  INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
  INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
  UK CIVIL SERVANTS IN BOSNIA
  UK CIVIL SERVANTS IN BOSNIA
  EC LAW: IMPOSITION
  EC LAW: IMPOSITION
  ALBANIA: EUROPEAN OPEN SKIES TREATY
  ALBANIA: EUROPEAN OPEN SKIES TREATY
  PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
  PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
  EUROPEAN WEAPONS SYSTEMS: DISPOSAL
  EUROPEAN WEAPONS SYSTEMS: DISPOSAL
  ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR TESTING: US-UK CO-OPERATION
  ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR TESTING: US-UK CO-OPERATION