Sitting of 3 May 1994

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

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act 1994.

Race Relations (Remedies) Act 1994.

Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act 1994.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Special Educational Needs
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to improve the resources available for children with special educational needs.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): It is for local education authorities and schools to determine how much money is allocated to special educational needs, within totals which are adequate for the provision of the education service as a whole. Part III of the Education Act 1993 and the draft code of practice, which the House is due to debate shortly, will help schools and local education authorities to manage their responsibilities for children with special educational needs more effectively.
    Dr. Jones: I welcome the draft code of practice on special educational needs, but not the dismissive attitude of the Minister, who belongs to a Government who fetter local authorities' discretion. Will the Minister give the commitment that adequate resources will be made available to allow children with special educational needs to receive their entitlement to obtain the education that they need in the time scale laid down by the code? In that regard, will he congratulate Birmingham city council, which has substantially increased its education budget under the new leadership so that it is now well in excess of the Government's standard spending assessment, and in particular the additional—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are getting off to a bad start today. I have cautioned both sides of the House that I want brisk questions. I am entitled to ask the Minister to answer only the first question if hon. Members continue in the same way as the hon. Lady.
    Dr. Jones: I was just getting to the point of the additional money—the £2,000 per school—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This will not do. I call the Minister.
    Mr. Forth: I am aware of no fettering of local education authorities' discretion. The hon. Lady seems to have ignored the 1992 report from the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate, which said nothing about more money but concentrated on the lack of clarity and responsibility shown by many local education authorities and schools, not least Birmingham, to which the hon. Lady referred. In answer to her question, if Birmingham is belatedly catching up after years of neglect of education, I welcome that.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many parents welcome the new rights contained in the Education Act 1993, in particular their new rights of appeal and the imposition of a time limit within which a child's needs have to be assessed by the local education authority?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that matter. It is an issue which concerned my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and me when we arrived at the Department two glorious years ago. The code of practice that the House will consider shortly states that the disgraceful time delay in providing statements on children will no longer be acceptable. I am convinced that, in raising the quality of response of everyone to that which already exists among the best, we shall be doing a service to children with special educational needs and their parents. That provision, backed by the tribunal, will make a dramatic change in the quality of special needs provision.

    Mature Students
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the treatment of the over-50s by the student maintenance funding system.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): My right hon. Friend has received a very small number of representations on this subject.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister aware that there are 5,400 students in further education over the age of 50 who are not entitled to loans, so cannot make up the 10 per cent. cuts in grant imposed since they started their courses? The cost involved would be a mere £2 million. Will the Minister allow grants for those 5,400 people so that they can carry on under the financial regime that they expected when they undertook their courses?
    Mr. Boswell: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who has written to me on the subject. No such measure was proposed or carried into effect when we made the shift from grants to include a provision of loans in 1990. If we had £2 million to spare, that might not be the best use of public funds. I refer those students in difficulties to the access funds for their universities and institutions that are designed precisely to meet such hardship.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be most interested to know of one of my constituents who was made unemployed and who decided, with his wife, that he could manage to see himself through university—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Please ask a question.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am asking my hon. Friend whether he is be pleased to know.
    Madam Speaker: I am sure that the Minister is delighted to know, but he should now hear a direct question that needs to be answered.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that my constituent managed to get £800 from the access fund and has been able to continue with his studies? He is delighted with the treatment that he has received.
    Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to hear that from my hon. Friend. It is an example of what can and has been done. We now have more mature students in higher education than ever before. The rate has been increasing faster than for more traditional students. We welcome that—we want it to continue.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that one of the biggest disincentives to mature students is the collapse of discretionary grants? Can he now tell the House clearly what action he intends to take against authorities, such as Conservative-controlled Trafford, that have abolished discretionary grants?
    Mr. Boswell: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has managed to mix up discretionary awards and discretionary grants and to bring what is primarily but not exclusively a further education consideration into a question about higher education and mandatory awards. We have studied, and we are continuing to study, the recent report of the Gulbenkian Foundation. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman blames Trafford. Perhaps he would also consider those Labour-controlled authorities that have withdrawn the discretionary grants as well. We shall look at the overall position. When we have reached our conclusions, we shall tell the House about them.

    Special Educational Needs
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of educational psychologists required by local education authorities to ensure that all statements for children with special educational needs are completed within six months.
    Mr. Forth: The draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, which the House is due to debate shortly, recognises the key role of educational psychologists, whose number has increased by over 30 per cent. in the past 10 years. Extensive consultation and the work of the Audit Commission shows that local education authorities should be able to make statements within six months within existing provision.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for his reply, but point out to him that of the 120 places available each year for educational psychologists, 52 retired from their job in 1992 and 70 places were unfilled last year. As it is children with special needs who suffer, could he tell the House exactly what he will do to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman raises a relevant and difficult matter, which we are monitoring closely. We are satisfied that support for educational psychologists'
    576
    training, which is running at about £3.5 million for the current year, is, and should be, sufficient to enable local education authorities to fulfil their statutory responsibilities in this sector. However, if anyone can come up with a satisfactory alternative approach to the matter, I will look at it closely. There is no overall agreement on the best way to tackle the problem. At present, I am satisfied that we have the best solution, but I am very much open to suggestions.
    Mr. Butler: I congratulate the Minister on the efforts that have been put into speeding up and completing statementing. However, is not what is important not only the completion of statementing on time but the completion of a statement with a specific recommendation? Will he join me in deploring the trend towards generic statementing—simply saying at the end that a pupil requires additional help within the classroom—rather than specific statementing, recommending a school and setting targets?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has correctly identified a problem that existed until now—that is, an extreme variability in both the content and value of the statements provided. The code of practice will bring a new uniformity and standardisation to the statements, which will be of great benefit. That, backed by the extensive powers that we are giving to the special educational needs tribunal, will give parents new rights, real rights and powerful rights to pursue the needs of their children. That will be a great advance.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: While the Minister has said some positive things in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) about being willing to seek advice elsewhere, may I remind him that the number of vacancies has increased from 42 at the end of 1991 to an estimated 70 last year, and that that is happening at a time when local education authorities are advertising for more educational psychologists to provide a better service to children with special educational needs? If he is willing to accept advice from that sphere, will he turn to local education authorities, to the Association of Educational Psychologists and to the British Psychological Society because I can assure the Minister that they want something better than the present system? Let us have it.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is always entitled to ask for something better, but I am not convinced that there is broad agreement, even among those whom he has mentioned, about what that something better may be. I do not think that the lack of money is a problem, since the take-up, or lack of it, shows that the money is simply not being spent. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere for the solution. I repeat that if anyone can come to me with an agreed, workable and practicable approach, I shall certainly look positively at it.

    Parenthood And Good Housekeeping
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on the teaching of parenthood and good housekeeping.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): Schools should reinforce parents in preparing pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Those are important topics. Aspects of

    577
    them are included in some national curriculum subjects and in sex education. Schools may also cover them in other programmes such as personal and social education.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among primary school teachers that they are increasingly experiencing difficulty in the classroom in coping with the products of bad parenthood and bad housekeeping? In the context of my right hon. Friend's reply, can he assure me that the new revised national curriculum for secondary schools addresses that situation?
    Mr. Patten: The national curriculum—for example, in science education—already looks at exactly that. One of the main aims of the revised national curriculum, details of which will be announced in a week or 10 days, is more time for teachers—up to about 20 per cent. a week more—to devote to personal and social education. It is wrong to try to load too much on the shoulders of teachers when the burden should rightly lie on the shoulders of parents.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Secretary of State agree that part of the teaching of good parenthood is good sex education? Can he explain the extraordinary implications of his view that children should be streamed for sex education? How does he propose that teachers should put individual pupils into different streams? Has he never heard of what goes on behind the bicycle shed?
    Mr. Patten: Those stories are without foundation. I am sure that from time to time all hon. Members read stories that deserve to be taken outside to the yard and shot. That story needs to be taken outside and put in front of a firing squad.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what goes on behind the bicycle shed is nothing new and that personal relationships and good housekeeping are best taught at the age of about 13 and 14? Does he further agree that sex education is not assisted when pupils are taught how to have sex as a means of discouraging them from having it? That false argument has been advanced by the Brooke Advisory Centres and others for too long and they have got away with it.
    Mr. Patten: Bicycle sheds may be matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but the second part of my hon. Friend's question is certainly for me. We wish to see good, sensible sex education that is taught with sensitivity by hard-working teachers. I am grateful to teachers for the way in which they carry out that task. The House will shortly have a chance to see the guidelines when they are published in the circular and will see that much of the speculation which seems to have run riot in the short, silly season that we have just had in the national media is completely without foundation.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Has the Secretary of State studied the evidence from other European countries which clearly shows that if our children are given good-quality sex education that is appropriate to their age and understanding, it is likely to help them in the long term, and will help them to avoid teenage pregnancies and early sexual activity? Why is the Secretary of State fanning silly season stories by ridiculous comments which ignore all the evidence?
    Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have been working closely together on
    578
    those issues for some months and the results will be seen when the circular is published. After all, the draft circular has been out for some months. It is important for me to tell the House, in answer to the hon. Lady's question, that we had about 400 responses to the draft sex education circular and, almost without exception, every respondent welcomed the fact that it set sex education in a firm framework of family values.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the value of schools teaching today's youngsters that the prime responsibility for the education of children lies with their parents and not with the state, because today's parents have forgotten that fact?
    Mr. Patten: I agree entirely. The prime responsibility for bringing up children lies with the parents of those children throughout their childhood.

    Educational Exports
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure he has of the value to the British economy of educational exports.
    Mr. Boswell: Educational exports include both visible exports, including books, equipment and construction, and invisible exports, such as consultancy fees and the fees and other expenditure of overseas students in the United Kingdom. It has been estimated that educational exports already contribute around 4 per cent. to British invisible earnings alone. We wish to develop further all kinds of educational exports.
    Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful for that reply. Next time my hon. Friend visits my constituency, will he accompany me to visit two schools in my constituency? Stoneyhurst college and Moorlands school are both fine institutions offering educational support to youngsters from all over the world. Does he agree that such support is important not just for its educational value to the youngsters and the financial gain to Britain but because many of those youngsters, when they return to their own countries, become involved in the higher echelons of business and the top echelons of Government?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely on the right point and I will do my best to accept his kind invitation to visit those schools. I agree that the investment that we make in importing students from overseas into our schools and higher and further educational institutions is of considerable value to us in terms of our future relations with the countries to which they return.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: On his recent visit to Malaysia and Singapore, did not the Secretary of State assist the Government of Singapore in reaching 80 per cent. of young people in higher education, while being complacent about the fact that only 30 per cent. of youngsters in Britain get the same opportunities?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for one thing: that he recognised my right hon. Friend's admirable and successful visit to Malaysia and Singapore, which was of great value in promoting British educational exports. However, he does us a characteristic disservice in suggesting that there is something wrong with the attainments of British higher education. If he were to look

    579
    at the details and compare like with like, he would find that the proportion of young people going into higher education as we know it in Singapore is very much smaller—in the order of a magnitude smaller. Malaysia and Singapore very much want to collaborate with us in improving their higher education delivery and spreading good British educational practice throughout the region.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate an excellent university in my county—Buckingham university—which won the Queen's award for export in the last round of awards? Not only is it our only independent university but it is doing sterling work in pioneering the two-year degree.
    Mr. Boswell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I have been aware of, and associated with, the university of Buckingham for many years, and while I must and do maintain a proper distinction between universities, I am aware of its achievement and the example that it has set in all the sectors of which she has reminded the House.

    Chemistry
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the standard of chemistry teaching in state schools.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
    Education (Mr. Robin Squire): Her Majesty's inspectors report that the quality of science teaching generally for pupils up to age 16 is satisfactory or better in 80 per cent. of lessons. Standards of chemistry teaching post-16 are satisfactory or better in 90 per cent. of lessons. Those are good standards, and science teachers are to be congratulated.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Parkside community college in Cambridge on winning the Royal Society of Chemistry's national award despite fierce competition from many public schools? Is he further aware that Parkside community college is a local education authority-maintained school which has positively chosen to stay with the LEA?
    Mr. Squire: On the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I have no reluctance at all in joining her, and I extend full congratulations to all schools that are doing so much to raise standards in this sphere. On the latter part, I hesitate to join her. I should be happier if at this stage the majority of schools had given parents the opportunity to vote.
    Mr. Whittingdale: On behalf of the Philip Morant school in Colchester, I thank my hon. Friend for the grant that his Department has given to finance the construction of the brand new chemistry laboratories which I opened on Friday. Does he agree that his announcement last week that the Philip Morant school is to become a technology college will allow that school to improve still further its already excellent reputation for chemistry and science?
    Mr. Squire: I am delighted to echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to that school. He is right also to highlight the fact that across, the country, the technology college initiative will transform the way in which science, maths
    580
    and technology are taught. It will improve the quality of education for so many of our pupils and it would be nice to see support for it coming from Opposition Members.

    School Discipline
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to assist teachers in maintaining an orderly environment in their schools.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to help improve levels of discipline in schools.
    Mr. Forth: Children will not be able to learn unless in a disciplined environment. Head teachers are responsible for maintaining discipline in their schools. To help them, my Department has prepared guidance on behaviour and discipline, issued for consultation in January. Revised guidance will be issued later this term. Children will not grow up to be good citizens unless they are taught self-discipline.
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome the Government's recent initiatives on truancy and the circular that the Minister has just mentioned, both of which emphasise that an orderly environment in school is crucial for high standards of education. Will my hon. Friend recognise the important work done by St. Paul's school in the middle of Birmingham, which takes disruptive pupils and which has now produced results which are among the highest of any school in Birmingham? Will he support its soon-to-be-announced application for grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Forth: Fortunately for me, it is not within my gift to consider such an application, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary, my hon. friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), has heard what my hon. Friend has had to say. However, my hon. Friend says something important that we must not forget or lose sight of, and that is that the best schools can demonstrate very well that, with the right management and policies and the right participation by governors, parents, heads and teachers, good discpline is perfectly achievable in today's schools even if they are in difficult areas and with potentially difficult pupils. It is precisely to assist in raising everybody to the standard of the best that we are issuing guidance and circulars, which we hope will be helpful to heads, governors and teachers.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend accept that, whatever proposals he or his Department may have, unless children are brought up to respect the rule of law and authority they will get nowhere, and that that respect will be gained partly by the example that they see set by their parents and teachers? Will he join me in condemning the fact that the National Union of Teachers has decided to flout the rule of the House yet again, and express amazement that the continuation of the boycott by the NUT has not been condemned by the Opposition?
    Mr. Forth: It was interesting that, recently, when the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was asked a direct question about that, she said that she neither supported nor condemned the action of the NUT, from which we shall all have to draw our own conclusions. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said something

    581
    quite different in the House last week. I shall leave it to them to sort out between themselves what the Labour party's policy is.
    My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. In the circular that I hope to issue shortly the section entitled "Partnership with Parents" states the self-evident—that parents have a powerful effect on children's behaviour. Without the active co-operation of parents, we cannot expect heads and teachers alone to do the vital job of bringing up young people properly to respect one another and to respect the law and society. Until we get that co-operation from parents, it will be an uphill struggle.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Minister agree that increasing disorder is being created in many schools by people intruding into the premises during the day or in the evening? I refer not just to headline cases of appalling tragedies but day-by-day intrusions by young or adult outsiders, which make the lives of schools a misery. What consultation has the Minister undertaken and what action will he take, perhaps in conjunction with the Home Secretary, to help schools in those circumstances?
    Mr. Forth: We are working closely with colleagues in the Home Office, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education hopes to issue guidance on liaison between police and schools, to cover exactly the points made by the hon. Gentleman. We are conscious of the difficulty to which he refers. We are giving schools as much support as possible, directly and through local education authorities, in providing enhanced security—particularly in out-of-school hours. We must all take our lead from the courageous and statesmanlike response by the chairman of governors and head teacher in the context of a recent tragedy, who emphasised that we cannot and must not make our schools fortresses or forbidding places. They must be places that welcome pupils, parents and those of good will. We are trying to encourage that.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is it not also important to maintain an orderly environment and discipline among Conservative Members—particularly the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)? I am happy for the Secretary of State to remain in the Cabinet until he is replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's endorsement.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend congratulate All Saints primary school in Chatham, which today celebrates its 100th anniversary? That Church of England school has made welcome children from many ethnic minorities based on a Christian ethic, and it maintains a remarkably high standard of discipline.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, typically, gives a positive example of that which can be achieved by a school adopting a positive attitude. Co-operation between the head teacher, governors, teaching staff, parents and society demonstrate how well things can be done in schools when everyone is pointed in the right direction. We are determined to support that.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many nursery places for three and four-year-olds are available in Nottinghamshire, the east midlands and England.
    Mr. Robin Squire: The Department does not collect information about the number of places available. The number of children in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England as at January 1993 was 339,914. The comparable figures for Nottinghamshire local education authority and for the east midlands were 13,498 and 32,721 respectively.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister congratulate Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire county council on providing more nursery places than any other county? Will he extend his congratulations to Labour-controlled cities such as Leeds and Birmingham? Will he also remind parents that children have three times more chance of a nursery place under a Labour council than under a Tory council?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense in trying to make a party political point out of nursery provision. If he wants to enter that debate, I can quote Conservative-controlled councils that also—
    Mr. Jamieson: Name just one.
    Mr. Squire: They have been quoted across the Chamber before. What is important is that all LEAs should take seriously their responsibilities for under-fives provision—not just nursery schools or classes but the whole range of likely provision. The Government are currently examining proposals to enhance that, as and when we have the resources.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware that by prudent financial management, Buckinghamshire county council is this year financing significant expansion of nursery education in Aylesbury and elsewhere, without piling up huge debts that local people would have to repay in the future? Does not that demonstrate again that local government in Buckinghamshire sets a standard of excellence that the rest of the country could do well to copy?
    Mr. Squire: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's comments about Buckinghamshire, which I endorse. There are other Conservative councils—Ealing and Wandsworth come to mind, both of which offer significant nursery provision.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister acknowledge that the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) quoted were based on answers to parliamentary questions that were given by Ministers in his Department, and that his Department's figures show that the children of parents who live in a Labour council area have three times the chance of a nursery place that they have if they live in a Conservative area? How does the Minister answer the leaflet that is produced by the Conservatives in Bromley—who provide only 2 per cent. of children with nursery education—and says that Bromley Conservative council will implement nursery education for all children when the Government release the necessary finance?
    Mr. Squire: Who would have guessed that elections were in the offing? Until the hon. Lady can clarify the Labour party's commitment, comparing what she says with what has been said by her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the Opposition Treasury spokesman—who said that there are no spending commitments at the present time—we do not have any lessons to learn from her on the provision of nursery places.
    Mr. Brandreth: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, over the past 15 years, there has been a remarkable growth in pre-school provision, so that, today, some 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds enjoy pre-school provision of some kind, ranging from nursery education to pre-school play groups? Will he particularly salute the recent 35 per cent. increase in the grant to the Pre-School Play Groups Association, which does such valuable work throughout the country and particularly in the city of Chester?
    Mr. Squire: I confirm all of my hon. Friend's figures. He underlines the fact that the biggest providers at the present time are play groups; and well-resourced play groups make a significant contribution to bringing up under-fives.

    Parent-Teacher Opinions
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of his time he has been able to devote this year to meeting parents and teachers in order to gauge their views on educational developments.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend and his ministerial team have visited 50 schools, and have received at least as many delegations, including a number from teachers, parents, and their representative associations.
    Mr. Mackinlay: When listening to parents, does the Secretary of State have regard to the legitimate expectation of parents that their children shall be taught by qualified school teachers? Will he review the decision to experiment with so-called "specialist teaching assistants", who are not qualified and simply do not have the skills to teach our children the key stage 1 basics of the national curriculum? Is not that education on the cheap and a great deception of parents?
    Mr. Forth: No. I cannot recall offhand any of the delegations whom I have met—or the teachers in the staff rooms that I have visited—raising that particular question. I can recall that parents show an interest in the educational outcomes of the education process. They are concerned that their pupils are taught well and in an appropriate environment, and in that we support them. Everything that I and my colleagues in the ministerial team do is aimed in that direction. The hon. Gentleman would do better to concentrate on the outcome of the education process rather than on its input.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the early 1960s, too much time has been spent listening to education theorists and not enough on listening to the views of parents? What parents want, particularly those who send their children to primary schools, is to ensure that their children get a good and firm grounding in the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.
    Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend reflects the anger and frustration that are often felt at the domination of education over the past two or three decades by boffins and egg-heads. When he stays, as I know that he will, to hear the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the Second Reading of the Education Bill, he will find that what he has to say is greatly to his satisfaction.
    Mr. Don Foster: Given the Minister's stress on the importance of links between parents and schools, is he aware of the recent National Consumer Council report on that matter which criticises the Government's market approach to education, saying that it
    "precludes concepts of partnership and co-operation between home and school"?
    Does he believe that it was the following of the Government's divisive approaches that led the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) to call for the sacking of his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Forth: The example that the hon. Gentleman gave pays tribute to the broadmindedness of the Government, who are prepared to fund that council with a considerable amount of taxpayers' money and give it the freedom to report in the way that it has. We will, of course, study its report with great care to see in what ways its conclusions are relevant and useful, and how—if at all—we can meet its requirements.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Minister aware that if he were to visit the county of Kent, he would discover that parents and teachers strongly support the Government's education policies, but give very little support to the policies of our county council, which is controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats and which seeks to destroy all choice in Kent?
    Mr. Forth: I suspect that my hon. Friend, with his deep and intimate knowledge of the wishes and desires of those in his constituency and in Kent as a whole, has put his finger on the degree of frustration felt in the county by those who voted in the way that they did last year for a certain set of reasons, and are now rather appalled at the outcome in terms of education. I hope that that has taught a lesson to many people up and down the country.
    Mr. Hardy: If people give the Government advice that the Government do not like, will the Minister ensure that a rather more gracious approach is adopted than that of the Minister of State? On learning the result of a vote on opting out in my area—80 per cent. voted in favour of good sense—the right hon. and noble Lady decided that Members of Parliament were responsible; she appeared to deplore our exercise of a democratic responsibility that we are rather more entitled to exercise than anyone in the other place.
    Mr. Forth: There are no known limits to the graciousness of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch.

    School Sports
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the provision of team and individual sports in schools.
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy concerning competitive sports in schools.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Competitive sports are an important part of a balanced physical education curriculum. With the PE national curriculum, for the first time, games are mandatory for all pupils aged five to 14, and an option for those aged 14 to 16. We shall be looking to strengthen further the position of sports in schools as part of the current review of the national curriculum.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to sport in schools. Is he aware that the decline of sport in our schools is largely due to teachers who regard sport, in the competitive sense, as elitist and demeaning to pupils? Does he agree that children benefit from competitive sport in learning the skills of leadership, discipline and loyalty?
    Mr. Squire: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that she, too, will agree that one of the reasons for the introduction of the PE national curriculum was the need to tackle the anti-competitive ethos that grew up during the 1970s. She may be interested to learn that, according to evidence from the Office for Standards in Education, games continue to dominate that curriculum: more than half the PE lessons in secondary schools last year were games lessons.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Can the Minister remember the days when he used to play cricket and rugby union, which are now losing out under his Government? May we please have more cash for more teachers and more competitive sport?
    Mr. Squire: I am shocked that the hon. Gentleman should overlook the fact that we currently lead the world with our women's cricket and rugby teams. He has written off half the population: I am very worried about that.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of improving sport in schools is to improve teacher training? Does he agree that one of the best ways of doing that is to ensure that student teachers spend more time training in the classroom? In short, should we not adopt the sort of measures that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will introduce later this afternoon?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, with his wide knowledge of education matters, has it exactly right. School-centred initial teacher training will be an important arm in raising the quality of teaching in our schools.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister recognise, however, that the decline in school sports has a great deal to do with successive Government policies—starting with the imposition of the 1,265-hour contract, and continuing through the imposition of an over-burdened and discredited national curriculum and the selling of school playing fields?
    Mr. Squire: I disagree. I think that the causes are many, but that the heart of the problem lies in teaching attitudes and a curriculum that we look forward to strengthening.

    Sixth Forms
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the Government's current policies with regard to the retention of sixth forms in schools.
    Mr. Patten: Wherever possible, we want young people to be able to choose whether to continue their studies in a school sixth form or a college. Where there is demand, therefore, I hope that grant-maintained—[Interruption.] It is clearly a popular policy, Madam Speaker. I hope that grant-maintained and voluntary schools and local education authorities will come forward with high-quality proposals in order to add to diversity in choice.
    Mr. Llwyd: Does the Minister agree that, welcome as they are, sixth form colleges are not the be all and end all? Where there are secondary schools without sixth forms should not they be allowed to develop them in order to enhance the level and standard of education and, very importantly, the calibre of teachers coming to those schools?
    Mr. Patten: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind at Bala in his constituency. My writ does not run over Offa's dyke, but I understand that the parents of students at that school will shortly begin a ballot about grant-maintained status. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and members of his party will be out there campaigning with the parents to make sure that that happens.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While congratulating Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk on the success of the recent elections, does the Prime Minister share with me praise for the South African people who, in the face of terrorism, came out in such numbers to exercise their vote with enthusiasm and good manners? Is not there a real lesson for any dissident group that it cannot, by terror, overthrow the will of a people dedicated to democratic practice, especially in this nation?
    The Prime Minister: I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman about that. I think that the democratic elections have been an enormous success for the people of South Africa, for Mr. Mandela and for Mr. de Klerk. I am delighted that we had so many British parliamentary observers there, of which I believe the hon. Gentleman was one. I am delighted also that British personnel and police were able to help with the elections.
    I spoke last evening to Mr. Mandela and assured him of our continuing help as his Government carry forward reform and change in South Africa. What has clearly happened in South Africa, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, is that the power of the ballot box has prevailed over force of arms. That should apply everywhere.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great support in the United Kingdom that there would be for the introduction of identity cards, particularly if the cards could incorporate a photograph and a driving licence?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have considerable sympathy with that view. Two examinations are under way at the moment: first, identity cards particularly in so far as social security is concerned; and, secondly, a wider look at the prospect of identity cards more generally. As I have said to the House before, there are some practical difficulties, but we are examining them to see whether they can be overcome.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is a quite extraordinary situation that, even before the local government election campaign is over, a senior member of the 1922 Committee should demand, on grounds of incompetence, the resignation of the chairman of the Conservative party and the Secretary of State responsible for local government?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have not faced senior members of my party emigrating to New Zealand.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Why? Because if you are here you must come to order, that is why; otherwise you can leave the Chamber.
    Mr. John Smith: But can the Prime Minister tell us why he presides over a Government in which one Cabinet Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, openly condemns Cabinet colleagues for plotting against his leadership? Was she right to do so?
    The Prime Minister: The whole Cabinet is completely determined to carry through the programme on which we were elected, and we propose to do so. That means low inflation, less regulation, low interest rates, strong defence, an active foreign policy and moving Europe in our direction. There is complete unity on that matter, much to the dismay of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. John Smith: If the whole Cabinet is united, does not the Prime Minister think that he should remind some members occasionally to demonstrate that fact in their public utterances? While Ministers are permitted by the Prime Minister to squabble and plot as they please, is he surprised that public confidence in his Government has almost completely broken down? If he cannot control his own Cabinet, is it any wonder that we doubt whether he can run the country?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought perhaps to look more closely at what is said by many members of his own shadow Cabinet and his own party from time to time. What we are in the process of doing is moving this country into a position of the most sustainable growth with low inflation that we have seen in this country for several decades. That will affect to the good the living standards of each and every person in this country and it will be as a result of the policies followed unitedly by this Cabinet.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent Wellcome Foundation report on sexual attitudes and behaviour revealed that 19 per cent. of Britain's teenagers under the age of 16 were sexually active? Under those circumstances, does he agree that, where such children have been prescribed contraceptives at the discretion of their GP, there might be cases where it is inappropriate to report that fact to the parents?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone condones that sort of activity by under-age children. I think that it is the responsibility not only of parents but of other people in responsible positions to try to put sexual activity in a proper context for young people.
    Mr. Beith: Does it remain Government policy that British participation in a single European currency is not ruled out but will be decided by Parliament at a later stage? If so, how can the Prime Minister have a senior Treasury Minister who believes and states that to join a single currency would involve giving up government of the United Kingdom? Have things gone so far that he cannot sack the young pretender?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has made it clear this morning that he fully supports our policy on a single currency, a policy agreed by the whole Cabinet of which he is a member. So that there need be no misunderstanding anywhere about it, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what that is. We shall retain the right, confirmed in the opt-out that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty, to make our own decision on whether to move to a single currency for Europe. That will be the subject of a separate decision by our Parliament here at Westminster if and when that decision needs to be taken, and it will be taken then in the light of our interests and needs. It will not be taken now. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made it clear that he subscribes wholly to this position.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the councils charging the highest council tax band-for-band are all controlled by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I had heard that, and I also hear the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) shouting at me, "Some £40 less." I am pleased that he shouts that out because in front of me I have a quote from the deputy director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies who said:
    "Labour figures are misleading. The average bill may be higher not because of higher charges but because the average house is worth more".
    Like for like, the Labour party is charging far more council tax than the Conservative party and so, although not quite so severely, is the Liberal party. However the hon. Member for Blackburn wriggles, that remains the case.
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Donohoe: Will the Prime Minister take a cursory glance at his own Front Bench and tell the House who he thinks Brutus will be?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has mistaken the time of year. We are past March.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, under the national health service,

    589
    all patients are treated according to clinical need, irrespective of age? Thus, for example, in Eastbourne the 25 per cent. of the population who are over 65 account for 64 per cent. of the total resources and bed days.
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to accept the figures used by my hon. Friend. I am in no doubt not only that people over retirement age are given excellent treatment by the national health service but that they are entitled to that treatment as of right. They are given the best possible treatment and, where appropriate, are referred to specialists to obtain it.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that during the current local election campaign he has had a great deal to say about the levels of council tax charged by various local authorities? Is he aware of the fact that if Westminster city council had received the same rate support grant per head of population as the borough of St. Helens it would have been forced to charge £1,079, instead of £245, for a band D property? Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents how a rate support grant system that throws up such huge disparities is not politically corrupt?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes his usual assertion without any real examination of the facts. If he looks at the local authorities that lost a lot of money under the standard spending assessment this year he will find towards the top of the list Wandsworth borough council, which he neglected to mention. If he wants to know why Westminster sets the lowest council tax in England I can tell him that it is because it has tendered out more services than other councils. It saved £11 million on compulsory competitive tendering—equivalent to £110 on the council tax. The tendering of street cleaning is saving £1.8 million per year, yet the council spends more on arts than any other London authority. Those are some of the reasons why Westminster is so efficient and some of the reasons why the council deserves to be re-elected.
    Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker; in view of the ineptness of that reply from the Prime Minister I wish to give notice of my intention to raise this issue on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the International Monetary Fund's recent assessment of the British economy as being one of the few economic bright spots in the world? Is not this in stark contrast to the days, in the 1970s, when the Labour Government had to go, cap in hand, to the IMF to bail them out? What a difference 15 years makes.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Not only do we have both inflation and interest rates at historically low levels, but we have exports running at record levels and growth this year running at twice the rate in any other significant European country. This is expected to continue next year. It is a result of the policies that the Conservative Government have followed.
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Salmond: May this Bench join in the general celebrations and best wishes for President-elect Mandela and the new South Africa?
    Do the Government intend to redeem the Prime Minister's clear pledge of three years ago that the Rosyth naval base would be sustained? Can Scotland have a yes or no answer to that question, and not more waffle?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear last year that the Rosyth dockyard has a programme of allocated work stretching—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for just a moment. It was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend that the Rosyth dockyard has a programme of allocated work stretching well into the next century. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman shuts up he will get his answer. So far as the naval base is concerned, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all defence bases are being examined as part of the defence cost study. Rosyth is being treated on the same basis as other naval bases. The study is continuing, and my right hon. and learned Friend has not yet received proposals.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that industrial disputes are at their lowest level for decades, does the Prime Minister agree that the reintroduction of sympathy strikes would cause a nightmare at the workplace?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that that is the case. Last year, the sum total of working days lost was about 600,000. In 1979, in one month alone—January, I think—more than 3 million days were lost. There is no doubt of the damage that sympathy strikes would do. Equally, there is no doubt of the damage that would be done if our trade union reforms were repealed, and people were again encouraged to take their disputes on to the streets rather than to some form of satisfactory agreement.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to endorse the remarks by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that water in Scotland will never be privatised? In addition, will he give an assurance that value added tax will never be levied on water and sewerage charges in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. His party has been running a campaign referring to the privatisation of water in Scotland, yet he has just admitted that water in Scotland has not been privatised. I hope that he will now withdraw everything that he and his colleagues have been saying in recent months. They have been misleading the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that Scottish Water is to be restructured into three new public water authorities. I hope that he will now go out and tell that to everyone in Scotland.

Employment Protection (Amendment)
3.31 pm
Mr. Tony Banks rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave quietly, please? I am sure that the hon. Member can project his voice.
Mr. Banks: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sure I can.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment against persons solely on grounds that they are overweight.
In historical terms, one of the most sympathetic supporters of such a Bill might have been Julius Caesar, because, according to Shakespeare, Caesar liked fat men. In act I, scene II of "Julius Caesar", Shakespeare has him say:
"Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o'nights;
Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."
The Prime Minister would do well to heed Caesar's words. Of course, his choice of Parliamentary Private Secretary follows the emperor's formula. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) has left the Chamber, but he is certainly fat and sleek-headed—and no one could accuse him of thinking too much. However, yond' right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has that lean and hungry look, and probably never stops thinking about leadership. Caesar would certainly have marked him out as a dangerous man—and I suspect that the Prime Minister would tend to agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) suggested during Prime Minister's questions that, if the Prime Minister could now identify which member of his Cabinet would play Brutus, he might yet avoid having his back turned into a knife rack come the ides of November.
Caesar may have preferred to surround himself with fat people, but many employers in this country are prejudiced against them. There are problems of definition as to what constitutes overweight. Measurement of appropriate size by reference to height lacks precision. At best, it provides only rough estimates. A person's body weight is determined by a number of factors, including genetics, metabolism and dieting history.
Appropriate—that is, attractive—size is usually decided in cultural terms, and women especially are subjected to impossible cultural pressures. If the ideal female shape is deemed to be that of a Naomi Campbell, a Kate Moss or a Stephanie Seymour, clearly the overwhelming majority of the female population will fail the test. Predictably, it is men who provide the definition, and women who are expected to conform to it.
The obsession with being thin, and thinness being equated with attractiveness, seems to be a western phenomenon, and one of fairly recent vintage. In many other societies, being fat is associated with desirability and status. In this country, and in the United States, fat people are often thought of as indisciplined, unappealing, lazy and probably suffering from some psychological problem.
With such pressures on people, is it any wonder that the diet industries on both sides of the Atlantic have become
592
multi-billion dollar businesses? What a con many of those diets are. Tomorrow, 4 May, is International No Diet Day, with a lobby of Parliament among many other activities in Britain and abroad. On such a day, it would be well worth reminding ourselves that about 95 to 98 per cent. of all diets fail over three years. The remarkable thing is that dieters blame themselves for the failure rather than the diet.
The truth is that people in the country are getting fatter, and shapes are changing. It is estimated that about half the male population are overweight, compared with 39 per cent. in 1980. The proportion of overweight women has increased from 32 to 40 per cent. The average Briton today is not only broader, but about 10 mm taller than his or her counterpart of a decade ago.
Some businesses are taking those challenges into account. London Transport has done just that with the design of the new Central line tubes, where seats have an average weight allowance per person of 74 kg, compared with 65 kg seven years ago. For more than a decade, aircraft weight has been calculated using an average of 78 kg for each male passenger and 68 kg for women. Now, British Airways is designing seats that will cope with the broader bottoms and longer legs.
Although airlines may use seat size as part of their positive advertising campaigns—they will say that they can seat larger passengers—it is a different story when it comes to the recruitment of their staff. As part of the background to the issue, I asked my American intern to call Virgin Airways to see what policy it had in respect of size. She told Virgin that she was 5 ft 8 in tall and that she weighed 11 stone, which is a normal size as far as I am concerned.
In response, she was told that, at 5 ft 8 in, she had to weigh in between 8 stone 9 lb and 10 stone 6 lb. When she asked why, the Virgin spokeswoman said that they at Virgin had an image to keep up and that they only liked to hire young, thin men and women. When my intern protested that she was very athletic and in good shape, she was told again that she would have to lose weight. Virgin informed her that, in any case, it only offered a certain size of uniform and that she would not fit into it—[Laughter.] It sounds like a laughing matter, but that excuse has been used before. For example, Berni Inns was taken to the Equal Opportunities Commission for adopting a similar stand by introducing a maximum uniform size. Berni Inns has dropped that policy, but such discriminatory practices are clearly in evidence in industry. There have been a number of other cases when jobs have been refused to people who are considered overweight, such as in the national health service and by British Rail. Another recent case occurred when a couple in South Glamorgan were rejected as foster parents because of their size.
Although employers rarely admit it, fat people are often passed over for more attractive, thinner people. Employers come up with a number of reasons why they should take thinner people. They say that it is because of the demands of the job or because it is a health matter. However, there is definitely a hidden agenda. Fat people are considered to be unattractive, and employers want to avoid employing them whenever they can.
While it is considered entirely appropriate to have legislation against discrimination on the grounds of race and sex, there are no laws dealing explicitly with the rights of employers to discriminate on the basis of looks. What protection there is comes under the anti-race, anti-sex

593
discrimination laws. Most jobs that lay down maximum size are wrong to do so and, in many cases, such size discrimination is entirely unjustified.
Of course, the trouble is that many of those who are discriminated against are loth to complain, which adds to the problem of there being no specific legislation on the statute book to protect them. My Bill would plug the gap. Personally, I like voluptuousness. Dawn French did a splendid programme on "The South Bank Show" recently, extolling the virtues of Rubenesque women. Most fat people I know are naturally jolly and kind, and are only made unhappy and guilty by what is considered the tyranny of thin people and fashion.
If the Prime Minister thinks about these matters for a bit, he could strike a blow for fat people and do himself a big favour into the bargain. Those he described recently and famously as bastards in his Cabinet—we take them as being the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Wales—are all thin and exceedingly mean men.
The Prime Minister should sack them instantly and promote the likes of the hon. Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is presently the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). He should then express his gratitude for the advice by allowing time on the Floor of the House for my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Diane Abbott and Mr. Harry Cohen.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are all thin.
Mr. Banks: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to join us. After all, she qualifies.

Employment Protection (Amendment)
  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment against persons solely on grounds that they are overweight: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 June, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

  Points of Order
  3.41 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I recently tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for Health. I asked her to provide an estimate of the number of children who are placed in unregistrable children's homes. The right hon. Lady's response was that such information was not separately identifiable in figures available centrally. In fact, the information is identifiable in those figures under code 98 of the returns that local authorities are asked to make to the Department of Health.
  I could understand the Secretary of State's response if she had included "easily" in her answer, but she merely used "not". The right hon. Lady's answer is a matter of some concern. Many hon. Members are concerned about the placement of children in unregistrable homes, and it is a sensitive issue. I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to request the Secretary of State to pass the relevant information to the House.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady will be aware that I am not responsible for answers given by Ministers. However, those on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Lady's point of order, and no doubt it will be passed on to the appropriate quarter.

Orders of the Day

  Education Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: It will not come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to hear that I have not selected the amendment standing in his name.
  3.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I approach this debate on the Bill, with its important provisions on teacher training and student affairs, with relish. I welcome every opportunity to take forward the Government's vital programme of education reforms. I particularly welcome this one, coming as it does on the day marking the 15th anniversary of Conservative government, and also the first day of the next 15 years of Conservative government.
  I offer Opposition Members a few moments to reflect on a few of their past campaigns, as they think about what to say in this debate. They have campaigned in the past against the national curriculum, local management of schools, performance tables, school tests, school inspections and now, of course, grant-maintained schools. They were all hard-fought battles over proposals which we were told were "unworkable", "unfair" or "unacceptable".
  What better evidence could we have of the lack of vision that pervades the Opposition Benches? All these reforms are now becoming accepted parts of the education scene; and there is every evidence that they are doing just what we intended—levering up standards for children in our schools, challenging schools to do better and working together to enlighten parents, pupils and teachers and raise their expectations of what our young can achieve. They help our children to do better and to work harder, as they are—hard work is good for children—helped by hard-working teachers, to whom all of us in the House should be grateful. I certainly am.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that many of Labour's campaigns in the past 15 years have been against the incompetence of successive Secretaries of State for Education? Will he confirm that the average tenure of office of each of those incumbents—all of whose photographs appear in the anteroom to the Secretary of State's offices—is two years? Does he agree that that suggests that our campaigns have been pretty successful in getting rid of Secretaries of State? Does he acknowledge that his time is up?
  Mr. Patten: There is a handsome run of photographs—both in black and white and in colour. When I eventually leave my post in a good number of years' time, I think that I shall have a sepia photograph.
  Most attitudes towards education were, until recently, essentially producer-driven.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that part of the educational scene to which he referred is the unremitting, relentless and consistent opposition of the National Union of Teachers to our
  596
  reforms? Is it not true that that opposition by the NUT has been consistently endorsed by the Opposition Front-Bench team?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as someone who has taken a formidable interest in education in the House since 1979. He had a most distinguished period as a noteworthy reforming Education Minister. He is absolutely right—the NUT has opposed at every twist and turn, and wherever it can, educational reform over the past 15 years.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has also been twisting and turning, and successive people have failed to get her to say publicly whether she is in favour or against present NUT action. She did so most notably a couple of weekends ago, when even Mr. Vincent Hanna, having done his best, could not persuade her to say more than the immortal words that she was neither supporting the NUT nor opposing the NUT.
  If the hon. Lady wants me to give way now so that she can explain, I shall do so. I do not think that she wants me to give way so that she can explain her position.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
  Mr. Patten: I am delighted to see that she does.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and am happy to help him to delay the start of our discussion of the tatty Bill that we are supposed to be discussing today.
  The Secretary of State knows that the NUT action is not the problem—the problem lies in the difficulties created by the Secretary of State with the national curriculum and testing arrangements that are still experimental. If only the Secretary of State would stop to listen and take notice of advisers, the education system in this country would not be in the position that it is in today.
  Mr. Patten: We are clearly in murky water. I always give way when my hon. Friends want me to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) introduced an important topic that is connected to the standards of teaching and teacher training in this country.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury quite properly declares her sponsorship by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which supports the present tests that are already being conducted in so many of our schools. All I can divine from what the hon. Lady said—trying to do so is a murky business—is that, despite the fact that the union that supports her in this place supports the tests, she supports the NUT's sporadic boycott of testing. If she wishes to contradict me, I shall give way; if she does not rise to do so, we can only accept that she supports the NUT's action. I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady. She does not seem to want me to do so.
  Most attitudes to education were, until recently, essentially producer-driven. They focused on the inputs of money, buildings and numbers of pupils into the education system. We now focus on the outputs—what is produced, and what pupils and teachers achieve in schools. We are establishing a new settlement around the reforms that will be just as lasting as the settlement achieved by the Butler reforms, whose 50th anniversary we are celebrating this week.
  There are four important ways in which our reforms have a direct and positive effect on the quality and outcomes of education in this country. First, they increase

  597
  the accountability of schools and colleges, vastly extending the information available to teachers, parents, students and others. Secondly, they encourage well-informed choice among a much greater diversity of institutions and courses. Thirdly, they are opening up wider participation in education beyond compulsory schooling.
  Finally, they are tackling quality and standards directly through the national curriculum, which gives pupils, parents and teachers clear national benchmarks for performance, and through regular tests of progress leading to rigorous and reliable qualifications at 16 and beyond. Apparently, that is not supported by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, although it is apparently supported by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). In a notable debate last Monday, I recall the hon. Gentleman saying that he was amazed by, and concerned about, what he heard at the NUT conference which he attended. He had every reason to be amazed and concerned. I salute his bravery, and his introduction of open government to the Labour Benches.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Surely the real test of the effectiveness of socialist education must lie in the fact that the 10 worst local education authorities in the country are all Labour-controlled, save for the Liberal Democrats who hold Tower Hamlets, and who are now rated third.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely and precisely right, as she always is. I know that she shares my views about teacher training.
  Part I of the Bill will help us to bring those four levers to bear in a vital area—improving teacher training. Our reforms—some have criticised us for not starting here 15 years ago—will be driven by the need for higher standards, informed by greater diversity and choice.
  In our drive for higher standards, we have always recognised the key role of the teacher. I quote:
  "In education, the role of the teacher is central. For every child, high standards of achievement depend on the skill and dedication of individual teachers. It is therefore essential to ensure a continuing supply of high quality entrants to the profession."
  I am quoting from the first paragraph of my proposals for the reform of teacher training, which we are considering in the Bill.
  Mr. Roy Beggs rose—
  Mr. Patten: I give way to my hon. Friend with pleasure.
  Mr. Beggs: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Does he recognise the increasing concern of parents, especially those with children who are perceived to require special education? Can he give an assurance that more teacher training will be directed at enabling teachers to cope better with children who are perceived to suffer from dyslexia?
  Mr. Patten: Special educational needs have come a long way with the assent of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I accept the good advice that we have received from both sides of the House since the hon. Gentleman and I first met in Larne when he was the mayor and I was the most junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. A lot has happened since those days in the mid-1980s to improve the lot of children, including those with dyslexia. It is fashionable to attack in this place. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman.
  598
  I also pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools who, over the past two years, has pioneered the most massive reform in special education and help for children with educational needs.
  The success of all our reforms depends on teachers working hard to put them into effect. Current pressures—from essential education reforms and wider social changes—challenge even the best teachers. It is because we care about the profession and its standards that we have brought forward the Bill—to set the seal on a whole raft of improvements now in hand, bringing to an end a programme of legislation that began in 1988, and putting in place the last vital piece of the jigsaw of educational reform.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers and lecturers who teach teachers to teach have been too far removed from the classroom for too long, and have failed intending teachers in a way that the Bill addresses centrally—by relating the training of teachers to those who are currently teaching successfully? Will the Bill not be useful in improving the educational performance of children in future years?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of someone who was a distinguished deputy headmaster for a considerable period. For a long time now, people have recognised that what my hon. Friend says is right. Indeed, in the best higher education institutions and universities, that has also been recognised for a long time, and they have been putting it into effect. To borrow a hackneyed phrase, we want to bring the rest up to the standards of the best. Over the past couple of years, much has already been achieved on teacher training.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State makes the important point that this is the last piece in the jigsaw, and that he does not intend any new legislation on education. Does he accept that many of us ale extremely concerned by the fact that all the preceding legislation has stripped so much power from local government and put it in his hands that he has no need for new legislation?
  Mr. Patten: Since 1988, we have been busily engaged in moving power and influence from the hub of the wheel in Whitehall to the rim of the wheel, giving power to parents, individuals, communities and businesses. In that, we have been much helped by teachers and by the new inspection system. I was sorry to learn in the press this morning that in East Anglia, of all places—in Cambridgeshire—the Liberal party is quoted as being totally against OFSTED and the new inspection regime. That was said in an interview, some footsteps of which reached me this morning. I am sure that that causes considerable concern in OFSTED.
  In the past two years, we have set out new and rigorous standards for the practice, knowledge and practical skills that all new teachers must have. During that period, we have also ensured that students will have to spend more time in the classroom and less time in the lecture hall. We are taking training closer to the chalk face and out of the ivory silo. New teachers must be ready from day one to meet the new challenges of the classroom.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: The Secretary of State has spoken several times about the changes to teacher training in the past two or three years. Does he not think

  599
  that it is time to reflect on those changes and see what their effect will be before introducing further legislation to make more changes?
  Mr. Patten: The network of changes made since 1988 have to be regarded as dependent on one another, and teacher training reform is the last part of that network of changes.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence to cast doubt on the competence of teachers when they leave training colleges? For example, what is their competence in teaching reading?
  Mr. Patten: We have laid down that primary teachers must spend more time learning to teach the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. OFSTED, the independent schools inspectorate, found that nearly half—46 per cent. to be precise—of all new primary teachers felt ill-prepared to teach reading. That was not an inspection judgment which could be open to dispute, but what new teachers themselves reported. They had spent four years doing a BEd degree or following similar courses and, alas, 46 per cent. of them felt unable to teach reading properly. That sort of thing must be put right urgently. It is not a matter of ideology or politics: we need much better quality control.
  We have also increased diversity of courses and providers, most notably by breaking up the old monopoly and allowing groups of schools themselves, if they wish, to take charge of postgraduate teacher training. I stress "postgraduate teacher training". There are now more than 200 postgraduate students on school-centred courses of that kind. Today I announced the approval of six more consortia. Needless to say, some are in Essex, and some are in London and in the midlands. That means that, next year, there will be about 450 students in 15 consortia involving more than 80 schools throughout the country—in inner-city areas as well as leafy suburbs.
  I applaud the willingness of schools facing other challenges to face this role. It was schools, such as some in Kent which are already undertaking this sort of postgraduate teacher training, that first persuaded me by sending representatives to tell me that they wanted to do that. That drove this change of policy, which came from the grass roots, from teachers themselves. It was not a bright idea from a think tank or one that was parachuted in from a Whitehall desk.
  Those schools do that because they are confident that their staff and pupils, as well as the profession as a whole, will benefit from bringing good professional practice and teacher training even closer together. That is what drives them.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend referred to the challenges that schools are facing. Among those challenges is the movement towards the integration of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream education. Does he accept that that development implies an ever higher degree of skill in relation to special needs on the part of all teachers?
  Does he correspondingly accept that it is most unlikely that individual schools will be able to devise adequate training programmes, and that it really should remain a
  600
  requirement that training in special educational needs should be carried out in conjunction with institutions of higher education? If that applies in relation to initial teacher training, it is more emphatically necessary where specialist training is concerned. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on that?
  Mr. Patten: Of course I will. My hon. Friend is yet another distinguished previous Under-Secretary of State for Education. He knows a great deal about these issues, and he speaks with notable authority, in his own constituency and elsewhere.
  It is absolutely right that we must make sure that young teachers and those of later years, such as those of our age who are entering the profession, get training in the skills they need, whether it is teaching children to read, or in the difficult area of special educational needs where so much has been achieved, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) generously recognised.
  The Teacher Training Agency will be in a position to accredit courses—that is, give permission for courses to be carried out, whether they are in a higher education institution or a school—only if they meet my published criteria—the criteria of the holder of my office, the Secretary of State for Education. Those criteria must include—this point will obviously be debated in Committee—proper attention to special educational needs.
  It is of interest to me to note that those schools or groups of schools which are already carrying out postgraduate teacher training are showing particular interest in the needs of children in that category. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said.
  Many of our very recent reforms in teacher education in the past two years have been welcomed. Indeed, their success has been used by some as an argument against any further action, rather as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) argued in her intervention.
  They fail to realise that the Bill will give us a streamlined framework to underpin those reforms. It will also give them added impetus, by bringing together activities now carried out by as many as four different bodies—the Department for Education, the Higher Education Funding Council, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and the teaching as a career unit. The last two of those bodies will be abolished under our reforms; there will therefore be a reduction in the number of public bodies involved.
  The Teacher Training Agency will be very much more than a funding body. [Interruption.] I give way to my new ally from Plaid Cymru, who wants to see grant-maintained schools in Wales.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: With friends like that, who needs enemies? I wanted to ask particularly about the unit concerned with the promotion of teaching as a career. Will its functions in Wales go to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales or to the Teacher Training Agency? I very much hope that it is to the former.
  Mr. Patten: To the best of my knowledge, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, as are all matters over Offa's Dyke, but, as far as I know, it will be going to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.
  The new teacher training authority will be very much more than a funding body. It will take forward policies

  601
  across the four areas I mentioned. It will increase accountability by ensuring good public information about all teacher training courses, and it will hold providers to account for their standards, whether they are higher education institutions for undergraduate training or higher education institutions and schools for postgraduate training.
  It will increase choice and diversity by funding a range of high-quality providers and courses. It will increase participation by promoting teaching as a career and encouraging new types of courses to attract good candidates from different backgrounds, in particular industry. I would like more men and woman of mature age who have industrial and commercial experience to move into teaching. That is why I welcome very much the approval of the CBI for the proposals in the Bill. It is right behind them, and I understand why.
  The teacher training authority will also increase quality in standards by using OFSTED advice to ensure that all courses meet national criteria and use evidence of quality to inform its funding decisions. The courses that produce the best teachers will have the first claim on resources. Therefore, the teacher training authority will be looking not only at whether the courses meet the Secretary of State's criteria, but at whether they represent good value for money, and quite right too. We want good, value-for-money, high-quality courses.
  Characteristically unable, as always since 1992, to mount an effective action on the intellectual arguments for the new agency, the Opposition have fallen back on their usual tactic of undisguised scaremongering.
  We value the contribution of high-quality higher education courses. The Opposition have attacked on that front, despite the clear assurances and clarifications of my noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch, in another place—clarification of our intention to limit schools to providing postgraduate courses only, and clarification that all teacher training courses will be at degree or postgraduate level, all of which we are happy to see on the face of the Bill.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: As the Teacher Training Agency will have such an important evaluation responsibility, will my right hon. Friend say a little more than has so far been said, in the other place anyhow, about who will be running it, if he can—or anyway, about how it will be run and what sort of people he thinks will be taking executive decisions?
  Mr. Patten: The distinguished chairman and members of the board will be supported by a chief executive and a small administrative staff. They will rely on the advice of the independent inspectorate, OFSTED, which has already commenced a rigorous examination of primary teacher training courses in a number of higher education institutions.
  I envisage that, when the Teacher Training Agency is set up and in action, we shall want to compose a domesday book of the standards, or not, of all the teacher training institutions around the country. I do not wish to see any teacher training institution accredited, according to my criteria, to offer teacher training unless it is offering high-quality training at affordable prices, giving good value for money. Therefore, we shall take the opportunity
  602
  to take a once-for-all look across the board at what is being done in higher education institutions, and I hope that that will be welcomed by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware—I hope he is—of the strong demand and support for the idea of a staff college for head teachers, deputy heads and other senior teachers. Would it be appropriate for such a college, when it is introduced—I hope that it will be—to be funded through the Teacher Training Agency?
  Mr. Patten: I am still considering with my right hon. and hon. Friends in my Department and elsewhere the possibilities of better management training for heads and deputy heads, and aspiring heads and deputy heads. That is important. Such training has not necessarily always been done well enough in the past and when the time is right we shall be making an announcement.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me any further this afternoon about that. However, he is welcome to press the hon. Member for Dewsbury. As I understand it, it is becoming fashionable for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen not to give way to interventions any more. They prefer not to, for fear they may say something that might be construed as a policy commitment that costs money.
  It used to be different in the days of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). We used to have real debates in those days, but not any more. Good luck to my hon. Friend in dealing with the hon. Member for Dewsbury later.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being so responsive to so many interventions and questions. Before he leaves the point on teacher training, can he give the House a fuller idea of the way in which he intends to strike a balance between too much training being done in institutions of higher education and too much training being done in schools?
  My right hon. Friend will be well aware that I have close connections with Kingston university, representatives of which went to see my noble Friend Baroness Blatch about higher education institutions being too much removed from training. That is one end of it. But the other end is that my right hon. Friend will be aware that parents may be alarmed at too many student teachers being brought into schools and children being subjected to too much teaching of teachers going on in front of them.
  Mr. Patten: That matter is ultimately for governors to resolve. [Hon Members: "Oh."] That is the fact in law. Both sides of the House must welcome the fact that student teachers of various sorts and at various levels get good practice in the classroom, invariably under the supervision of a master or mentor teacher. That is most important.
  It is a good thing for students to go into the lecture room from time to time. It may equally be a good thing for those who lecture to go into the classroom. I have been much impressed by one group of five schools in Kent that are already training postgraduate teachers. They have a good undertaking with the university of Cambridge, no less, to teach some of the things that student teachers must learn—but the university of Cambridge comes to Kent and students from Kent do not go to the university. That is probably a good idea.

  603
  We should not be hidebound by traditional forms of education if, and only if, standards are high enough. The agency will only accredit courses that meet those standards. I hope that my hon. Friend will convey to Kingston university and its distinguished head of the department of education—who happens to be a constituent of mine—my best wishes and those reassurances.
  Mr. David Jamieson: How does the Secretary of State envisage the Teacher Training Agency selecting those primary or secondary schools that are able and competent to undertake such training?
  Mr. Patten: Individual primary and secondary schools, often in groups, will come forward with proposals. They will be investigated by OFSTED, measured against the Secretary of State's and value-for-money criteria. Then, and only then, will the schools be accredited. Not every school or group of schools will be accredited, just as not every higher education institution will necessarily be accredited just because it is a higher education institution.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but thereafter I hope that I shall be able to plod on a bit faster. I have been giving way rather a lot.
  Mrs. Taylor: What are the Secretary of State's long-term aims and plans for school-based teacher education? He spoke about schools coming forward with ideas, but surely someone must make overall planning arrangements for the number of places in teacher education. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to abdicate that responsibility? Will he make no estimate of the number of teachers necessary? Will he leave everything to schools?
  Mr. Patten: That is a gauleiter approach to education—that there must be a master plan in Whitehall for absolutely everything. I do not believe in that; I believe in diversity and choice in an evolutionary framework—in exactly the same way that, over the past couple of years, we have seen a massive shift of attention from the lecture room to the classroom under reforms that we have already introduced.
  My vision for the future of teacher education is to attract as many high-quality entrants as possible and to retain them, and to provide the highest possible standard of teacher education. The Teacher Training Agency will be there to do that.
  I also value the role that schools can play. I want schools that wish to run courses—they will not be forced on any school—to be given that chance, so that postgraduate students can choose from a large number of different providers. Such choice and diversity will encourage high standards. Students will choose, and the agency will fund the best courses, wherever they are provided. No school or group of schools can be forced to do that. It will be a matter of freedom and choice.
  The Labour party, as ever, is uncomfortable with the idea of trusting schools or students with greater choice. That aversion to choice lay behind one Opposition
  604
  amendment that narrowly passed in another place. It certainly did not lead to clarification of the Bill—quite the reverse.
  Is it too much to hope that the Opposition will one day table an amendment that actually has the effect that they intended? I am fairly sure that the Opposition meant to provide in the amendments—wrong-headed as this would none the less have been—for a validating, not an accrediting, role for higher education. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury understands the difference.
  Accreditation secures the professional acceptability of a qualification. That is what the Teacher Training Agency will do in respect of higher education institutions, groups of schools and individual schools—satisfying itself that any body wishing to offer teacher training has the necessary commitment to the Secretary of State's criteria and the ability to deliver high quality. That is done by civil servants in my Department at present. There is no sensible way of interpreting a requirement that higher education institutions must accredit as well as being accredited at the same time. That is illogical nonsense, and it will not work in practice.
  The Opposition in another place seemed to take the view earlier that it would be a simple matter for the Government to tidy up what had been left so as to meet the intentions of the other place. But may I commend to those who like a good read the Official Report of the Bill's Third Reading in another place? It has all the makings of an excellent whodunnit—we are on tenterhooks to discover who will accredit whom throughout the debate.
  Arrangements favoured by the Opposition are absolutely blindingly unclear. There is no final page with the answer to that question. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury will give us an answer. But, whatever she does, she cannot cite the support of those in another place, who left no clear answer.
  This is not simply a matter for a harmless bit of mid-afternoon amusement at the Opposition's expense. As well as being defective and confused, the amendments are wrong in principle, because they reflect the concern of the Labour party to preserve the vested interests and producer interests at all costs all the way down the line.
  Groups of schools that want to work with higher education, and have their courses validated, must have the power to do so. The Bill provides for that. Most current school-based schemes have chosen that option, but the issue is whether we make that an absolute legal requirement.
  Although that will doubtless be debated in Committee, we are clear that schools should have the freedom to choose whether they work with higher education partners as long as they meet the necessary standards as judged by the Teacher Training Agency, which will monitor both the higher education institutions and the schools.
  Judging by the evidence of the other place, the Labour party—we shall hear what it has to say this afternoon—seems to want to keep schools firmly and for ever in the junior role, regardless of the quality of their courses and the new teachers they train. I will not accept such a restriction on choice, and therefore must tell the House that we will table amendments in Committee to overturn the amendments and consequential amendments to clauses 12 and 14, and thereby reintroduce the measure of choice, which, under our policies, schools and students are enjoying—not in some theoretical future, but in a real and

  605
  valuable present in Birmingham, Kent and other parts of the country. I am sure that no Conservative Member would wish to prevent schools from enjoying just that.
  I shall deal with student unions in part II of the Bill.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: On teacher training, it would seem that much of my right hon. Friend's argument, with which I agree, about the advisability of introducing the TTA is based on the idea that we are abolishing the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. I thoroughly applaud him for doing that, but can he convince me and the House how the new agency will perform better than CATE, because CATE's record left a lot to be desired?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend laboured in this vineyard for a while as a distinguished higher education Minister, and contributed a lot to the Department's thinking. CATE was an advisory body and, like all such bodies, its advice could sometimes be set aside by Ministers—I think it thought, sometimes wrongly.
  The advisory function of CATE will be rolled forward into the TTA with a statutory life, and with a substantial and independent role to advise Ministers. The TTA will continue to be able to seek the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate and OFSTED, and its sole criteria, which will be laid down by the Secretary of State, as they are laid down now, will be to judge whether a course should be put forward for student teachers to enter, enjoy and flourish in.
  All the best aspects of CATE will be rolled forward, and I pay tribute to it for what it has done, just as much as I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome for the reforms that we are introducing.
  Dr. Tony Wright: The Secretary of State described the new settlement that he is hoping to create. Having lost the arguments in the other place on this crucial part of the Bill, particularly in relation to the notion of partnership between schools and higher education institutions, does he really think that he is able to create a new settlement if the first thing that he does is use a whipped majority in this House to defeat votes that he lost in the other place?
  Mr. Patten: All the issues will be discussed in detail in Committee. The hon. Gentleman's description of the Government's single defeat was a little over-ripe; some of their Lordships thought that it was not cricket to call two votes so early in the afternoon.
  We are convinced on policy grounds that ours is the correct course. I am all in favour of partnerships between higher education institutions and schools, if those concerned want them: I have said that two or three times this afternoon, once in answer to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). I value the opportunities presented by good-quality higher education institutions; equally, I think that we should all value the opportunities that the Bill gives schools to provide a wider choice for students.
  The question of student unions, which is dealt with in part II, was the subject of some lively debate in another place. The Bill implements our undertakings to reform student unions. It puts into effect the principle of voluntary membership: for the first time, all students will be able to choose whether to belong to a union. It also lists a series of tough requirements to be observed in student unions, and provides for the new standards to be open for all to see.
  606
  Those are important reforms. It must be said that there have been abuses, and I think that it will be known where those abuses occurred. In one instance, a student club—a Conservative association, as it happens, but it could have been Liberal or Labour—dared to query union policy in an election broadsheet; the student union punished the club by imposing a substantial fine. That simply does not represent the free interplay of ideas that we should cherish in our seats of learning. Student unions that are substantially financed by the taxpayer to serve students should never be used as political platforms.
  In another recent case, a union resolved to campaign against aspects of Israeli policy on the West bank. Certainly students are entitled to hold opinions on such issues, but they must never spend taxpayers' money to prosecute their political views.
  In both those cases, the unions' policies were eventually reversed, although in one case the intervention of the courts was needed. Things should never have gone that far: it should never be necessary for a student to go single-handed to the High Court.
  I have not named the two institutions concerned; the point is that such abuses could have occurred anywhere, and that is what worries me as a legislator. At present, nothing in student union constitutions and practices prevents them from happening. They can be prevented only through the vigilance of ordinary students, who then have to go to court, which strikes me as wrong.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I whole-heartedly agree with my right hon. Friend, but he could go further. The case involving the university of Greenwich showed that student unions could not even use non-taxpayers' money for political purposes that contravened their charitable status.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has advertently named the second of the two cases to which I referred. Indeed, charity law is very strict in that regard, and the code of practice on the face of the Bill will ensure that the facts are drawn to the attention of students.
  Students should not be obliged to seek an injunction through the courts when they see something wrong. Our reforms ensure that the voice of the ordinary student can be heard more clearly. We should remember that—much to my pleasure—since last September the majority of new university students have been mature students rather than school leavers.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Patten: I was about to say no, but of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I remember the day when he made a statement in the House launching this aspect of the Bill. Does he accept, however, that students—through their organisations in our universities and colleges—have been at the forefront of trying to stop the infiltration of extremists peddling fascist and anti-semitic views? They have been at the forefront of seeking to end that nonsense and close the organisations involved, and for that they deserve all our thanks.
  Mr. Patten: As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, I deplore fascism and anti-semitism just as much as he does. I am happy to condemn out of hand any anti-semitic activities engaged in by any person.
  A key theme running through this part of the Bill is transparency. There is a code of practice, and the constraints that charity law imposes on student unions will be brought to student attention. The requirements of the 1986 legislation about freedom of speech—which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford played a notable part in introducing—will have to be drawn to the attention of every student. Affiliations must be subject to scrutiny, and the rules for distributing grants to clubs must be open.
  The Bill will also ensure that officers are elected properly—an issue which I know concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)— that financial reports are published, and that there is an accessible and independent complaints machinery.
  The Bill recognises the rights of students who are not union members. When students exercise their new freedom under the Bill, it is vital that they are not victimised over access to the services. University and college funds will not be affected by the Bill, and they will be expected to maintain services for students who are not union members.
  Despite some changes in another place, the principles driving our reform—choice, democracy and accountability —remain unchanged. I think that we have arrived at a pretty effective machinery for putting these principles into action. They give students the power of information, the power of choice and the power of the ballot box. In future, universities and colleges will also have to take proper responsibility for the conduct of their student unions. Many do that now, but not all, as my hon. Friends have recognised.
  I have spoken for some time, largely because I gave way to almost everyone who wished to intervene. The Bill is not large by the standards of education Bills in recent years —such as the Education Reform Act 1988 or the Education Act 1993, for that matter—but it is very important. We have already opened up much of education to the positive effects of greater choice and increased accountability. It is now time to put the last pieces of the jigsaw in place, as we do the same thing for teacher training and student unions.
  I do not ask the House to rally to the twin causes of choice and accountability for their own sake—although they are principles which, as a democrat, I hold dear, as do many hon. Members opposite. I ask the House to support the Bill because it is good for standards. It is good for the highest possible standards of teacher training. The Teacher Training Agency will bring together responsibility for quality, funding and information so that each reinforces the rest. I also think that it will be good for standards of probity and equity in the conduct of student unions, which will in future have to act under the spotlight of better information and no longer have a captive membership to command. In both respects, the Bill is necessary and overdue. I commend it to the House.
  4.26 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) was not present to hear the speech of the Secretary of State because I think that he would have felt vindicated in making his comments yesterday.
  608
  We have seen a typical performance from the Secretary of State today—one that we see on every occasion that he appears at the Dispatch Box. Time and time again he comes to the Dispatch Box to announce more chopping and changing and more experimentation in education—more change for change's sake—as if the whole education world were not already suffering from a great deal of fatigue owing to the weight and frequency of legislation in recent years.
  The Secretary of State began by mentioning some of the changes which have taken place in recent years. He mentioned several areas in which there was no party political disagreement on the principle of the changes—although he likes to pretend that there are differences of opinion. He mentioned the national curriculum, local management of schools and inspection. There was never a vote against them on principle in Committee when the legislation was passed in 1988.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady has something of a selective memory. I served on the Committee which examined those Bills, as did certain Opposition hon. Members, and I can well remember Opposition Members making impassioned speeches over and over again opposing the reforms.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman seems to have a very selective memory. If he checks Hansard—I suggest that the Secretary of State does so as well; although he does not like serving on Committees, he could perhaps do the House the courtesy of reading the Committee Hansard—he will see that on no occasion did we vote against the local management of schools, the national curriculum or inspection.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I was the Minister responsible in the main for taking through the Education Reform Act 1988 and the national curriculum proposals in particular. I remember that many Opposition Members disagreed fundamentally with the proposals for the national curriculum, and I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that fact.
  Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady seems to be confirming what I was saying. We did not vote against those ideas. We regard them in principle as changes for the better, but we were, and are, anxious to make them work properly in practice. Had Ministers listened to what my colleagues who served on that Committee suggested, and had they introduced the national curriculum and assessment arrangements after proper consultation, we should not have had the difficulties of a prescriptive national syllabus and inappropriate tests. Many of those who served on the Committee would recognise that that was the case.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Is the hon. Lady aware that a recent opinion poll revealed that some 77 per cent. of people are in favour of testing and of the publication of the results of tests? Will she make clear her position with regard to the National Union of Teachers' boycott of testing? Is she in favour of it or is she against it? It would be helpful if she were to make that clear.
  Mrs. Taylor: For my part, I am surprised that only 77 per cent. of parents want their children to be tested regularly. I should have thought that all parents and teachers recognised that testing and assessment were an

  609
  essential part of education. However, we want tests which are purposeful and useful and which give us as parents genuine information.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill was not the largest piece of education legislation, and that us so. However, I remind him of some of the similarities between his speech today and what he was saying more than 12 months ago. When he introduced the previous Bill, which became law less than 12 months ago, he said that it would be the last piece in the jigsaw. He used the same phrase today. I wonder what other changes he has in mind and whether he has any long-term concept of where education is going.
  The right hon. Gentleman then went on to insult the memory of Rab Butler by comparing his achievement in the previous Bill with that of 1944. History will judge, and its judgment of the Secretary of State may come rather sooner than he thinks.
  The Bill, like many of its predecessors, is the product of the collected ideas of a small group of apparently small-minded, right-wing advisers who seem to be the only people to have the ear of the Secretary of State. Rapid change in education is again being forced through by arrogant Ministers who pay lip service to consultation and take pride in insulting those who disagree with them, be they parents, teachers or education officers.
  The Secretary of State was recently reported in The Times as saying that change in education should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. That is a bit rich, even by the right hon. Gentleman's standards. He does not seem to know the meaning of the word "evolutionary" any more than he knows the meaning of the word "consultation". It is perhaps significant that he has not published the results of the consultation on the Bill. The representations have been so overwhelmingly against him that he is embarrassed to reveal the extent of the opposition before he forces through the measure.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Lady referred to The Times, but has she had the opportunity to read the leading article in today's edition of that newspaper which makes it perfectly clear in a non-partisan way why the Secretary of State's proposals should proceed?
  Mrs. Taylor: I have yet to see the Secretary of State do anything in a non-partisan way.
  This Bill is another example of unwarranted changes where advice given to Ministers has been ignored and where only the determination of Members of another place made the Government see sense and bow to the inevitable pressures by watering down their proposals.
  The first thing of which the House ought to be reminded —the Secretary of State was strangely reluctant to remind us of it—is that the Bill we are discussing today is not the one that the right hon. Gentleman published last November. The changes imposed by the House of Lords are very significant. However, they are not sufficient to make the Bill—especially part I—acceptable. To date, we have seen the success of a damage-limitation exercise only. But there is just so much improvement that can be made to a bad Bill.
  Before turning to the main content of the measure, which I regard as being the part dealing with teacher education, I want to say a word about part II, which deals with student unions. For the Secretary of State this must be the most humiliating aspect of the whole sorry saga. It
  610
  really is a climb-down of magnificent proportions, and it is a tribute to the responsible and very effective tactics of the National Union of Students and of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I—like other Members on both sides of the House, I am sure—recall the spirited but very inaccurate attacks on student unions that the Secretary of State made at the Conservative party conference last year and, indeed, at the previous year's conference.
  Mr. Patten: A very good speech.
  Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman says that it was a very good speech. It was high on hype about the evils of students unions and on how the right hon. Gentleman would smash them once and for all. I believe that it was the only occasion on which he received anything like a cheer at his party's conference.
  Following the climb-down on student unions and the humiliation of the withdrawal of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals—the climb-down was such that the Bill had to be delayed in the House of Lords for two months so that the new deal could be struck—it would be rather enjoyable to see the right hon. Gentleman try, at this year's party conference, to defend what he has done.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: He will not be there.
  Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, it does not look as if the right hon. Gentleman will be there. Thus we shall be denied the pleasure.
  Originally, the Secretary of State decided that he would divide student union services into core services, to be publicly funded, and non-core services, to be available by voluntary subscription. This distinction was derided as being unnecessary and unworkable, and the Government's proposals met a torrent of hostility from all quarters. Indeed, Members of another place, such as Lord Beloff, who could hardly be described as left-wing, said that the proposals had
  "united the entire university community from the most reactionary vice-chancellor to the most Left-wing"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 1993; Vol. 550, c. 839.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I must point out that it is not in order to quote except from the words of a Minister in the current Session.
  Mrs. Taylor: Having earlier advised one of my hon. Friends of exactly this rule, I am now myself getting carried away.
  As Lord Beloff pointed out, the Secretary of State has to his credit the remarkable achievement of uniting the most right-wing vice-chancellor—unnamed, of course—and the most left-wing and with-it students. That was a very considerable achievement, but it was a response resulting from the fact that the Secretary of State was so unwilling to listen to all the advice that he was getting, even from Conservative Members.
  I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) is in the Chamber as he has on other occasions pointed out that campus unions are not pre-entry closed shops in the usual sense of the term. The hon. Gentleman has gone on record as saying that the Government are getting things wrong in respect of student unions.
  Mr. Forman: As the hon. Lady is citing the record, I make clear to her and to the House my belief that the current compromise on student unions is sensible and will work.
  Mrs. Taylor: Yes, and it is a pity that the Secretary of State did not listen to the hon. Gentleman earlier. The whole student union movement, as well as the vice-chancellors, has welcomed the Government's climb-down on the Bill.
  The NUS has welcomed what it describes as a wave of common sense from the Government, saying that the new proposals closely monitor its ideas and suggestions. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is looking sceptically at me as I describe the NUS support for the Government's climb-down. He has been outspoken about the Government's proposals, and what they are doing with that part of the Bill. I hope that he, too, has accepted their climb-down, and that he and those few of his colleagues who may not be happy with the concessions will not try to change the Bill or to damage the new proposals, which are acceptable to most people outside the House.
  Lady Olga Maitland rose—
  Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: I had better give way to the hon. Member for Colne Valley.
  Mr. Riddick: I had indeed thought that I might make one or two helpful suggestions during the passage of the Bill—but I hope that the hon. Lady is not trying to sow dissent within the parliamentary Conservative party. I must deny any such suggestion.
  Mrs. Taylor: It is not my job to sow dissent in the parliamentary Conservative party when it has such experts on that subject within its own ranks.
  Now I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
  Lady Olga Maitland: I fail to understand what the hon. Lady said about student unions. Does she or does she not agree that there has been serious abuse of taxpayers' money by the NUS for political ends? And does she agree that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said that he regards the NUS as a useful training ground for Labour politicians, and therefore justified?
  Mrs. Taylor: To find examples of massive abuse of taxpayers' money, we have only to look at the budgets that the Government give their Departments for propaganda, and the way in which those have increased over recent years. Furthermore, as has been said already by a Conservative Member, and as has always been the case, charity law can take care of any abuse within the NUS. The fact that the NUS can welcome those provisions in the Bill more or less as they now stand proves that the Government have been forced to climb down.
  The most serious part of the Bill, and the part that concerns me most, is part I, on teacher education. Everyone must agree that there has been much rapid change in education over recent years, and that it has taken place at a rate that few professions have experienced. Yet it is the professionalism and dedication of teachers that have prevented the service from breaking down under the strain of all the changes.
  The impact on many teachers has been devastating, and
  612
  the overall impact has been demoralising. Unfortunately, many good teachers have left the profession because of the pace and direction of change. The Opposition are happy to give credit to the teachers who have had to cope with the massive changes. We are desperately worried that, rather than enhancing teacher education, the Bill will damage it and thereby threaten the quality of education in the classroom, which should be our first concern.
  It is worth stressing the simple truth that improving teacher education should have one ultimate goal—improving the quality of education for all our children. Teachers are at the heart of all the learning that takes place in our schools. They have a critical role. They should not be technicians, delivering the national syllabus. Yet at times that seems to be what Ministers want. Teachers are professionals, and should be treated as such.
  The education and training of teachers must be of the highest possible quality if our children are to get the best. Children are not objects on a conveyor belt, learning a block of facts.
  Mr. Brandreth: I think that most of us would agree with what the hon. Lady has just said—that it is the teachers who count. We respect and value teachers' professionalism. That is why we want new teachers to be trained with the best existing teachers within the school environment, in partnership and balance with professional education within the colleges. Surely the hon. Lady endorses the broad thrust of the Bill.
  Mrs. Taylor: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the Bill, because that is not the effect that it will have. Indeed, it will damage those objectives.
  We must make it clear that, although the curriculum matters, and school buildings matter, parents know that above all else the quality of teaching matters, and that there is no substitute for it. Unfortunately, regardless of whether the Government share the objectives that I have outlined, they have again sought confrontation rather than co-operation, on that as on so many other issues.
  It should be possible to reach agreement on constructive suggestions to improve teacher education, to build on the undoubted good practice that already exists, and to discuss issues such as a core curriculum for teacher education, possible means of improving the induction of new teachers and, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), the requirement for special needs awareness on the part of all teachers. Those are all important issues that we should be discussing calmly to secure improvements—but that is not Ministers' approach. Instead they have tried to impose their decisions, which is why they were defeated in the House of Lords. The Government have been forced to climb down because they have been so stubborn on so many of the fundamentals in the Bill.
  Some time ago the Government suggested that teaching should no longer be an all-graduate profession, and that a mums' army should come into the classroom. Fortunately, because of overwhelming pressure, they had to drop that barmy idea, but no one should be misled into thinking that the threat to the quality of teacher education has abated simply because that one idea has been dropped.
  In part I there is a serious threat to the quality of teacher education. That is why we oppose the Bill. We oppose the creation of yet another quango—the Teacher Training Agency—and especially the attempt to separate teacher

  613
  education from the rest of higher education. The Opposition have no hesitation in saying that we shall abolish the agency, because we believe that the existing framework for initial teacher training is far better than anything that the Government propose.
  We are not surprised that the Government are putting more powers into the hands of a quango.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady seems to be saying that the Opposition are satisfied with the present arrangements for teacher training. Does she not agree that the way in which teacher-training colleges today imbue their students with political indoctrination, which is passed on so that they can manipulate children, is an absolute scandal? We have to clear that out and get back to real standards.
  Mrs. Taylor: If the Government take seriously remarks such as those, it shows why they are running into such difficulty. I seem to recall that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said on a radio programme some time ago that she had not been to a department of teacher education. If that is still the case, I am not surprised that she makes such comments. As I have already said, a great deal concerning teacher education could be constructively discussed. We are not complacent about the quality of teacher education. I have already outlined half a dozen issues on which there could be and should be constructive discussions, but the Government are not interested in that. All they are interested in is imposing their will regardless of the realities.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Apart from the political issues that the hon. Lady has just mentioned, would she have some concern at least for a recent survey —of about two years ago—that showed that 84 per cent. of teachers surveyed did less than five hours training in teacher-training colleges on teaching children to learn to read? Does not she believe that that is something that needs rectification—and urgently? Does not she understand that the Bill will go a long way to ensuring that such a problem is solved?
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall make two points on that. The first is that the very teachers that the hon. Gentleman is criticising are those that the Government are going to entrust with the education of future teachers. The second is to point out that, yes, I am concerned if that statistic is correct; but what have the Government been doing about it for the past 15 years?
  The Bill extends the functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, which retains its central role in teacher education. There seems to be, therefore, no reason why the role should not be afforded to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. However, that is not the approach of Ministers. They are intent on splitting the teaching profession from higher education and that is dangerous and bureaucratic and will lead to many problems.
  In another place, issues such as the importance of research and its place in future were discussed and a compromise solution was suggested by many people. However, there can be no complete solution to issues such as where educational research should lie, as the problem exists simply because the whole concept behind the Bill is flawed—the concept of separating teacher education and higher education.
  614
  Much of the discussion that we shall want to have in Committee and, indeed, at later stages will centre on the proposal to promote wholly school-centred training. Those provisions are very difficult to justify and they undermine the partnership between the academic and professional components of teacher education. Indeed, on occasions, Ministers have praised that partnership and said how important it is. There is a need for partnership between higher education and schools if we are to get the best of both worlds for our teachers in future. I am worried about the burden of school-based training on schools and I am also worried because the Government are yet again making decisions before their own pilot schemes have been evaluated. That is not the way to proceed.
  The support for partnership between teacher education and higher education is well rehearsed and was concentrated on in the House of Lords. Many people have submitted evidence that that partnership is essential if we are to get the best education for our teachers in future. Michael McCrum, master of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, said:
  "We need to build on existing successful partnerships between universities and schools … We need more school-based training, but not so much as to threaten the quality of children's education."
  He went on to say:
  "We need to cut out bureaucracy, not extend it."
  Mr. Forman: With all the evidence to which the hon. Lady has just referred of support for voluntary partnership arrangements between higher education institutions and schools, why is she so afraid and why are her hon. Friends so afraid of the Bill? It does not make partnership compulsory, as she would seek to do. It merely leaves open the opportunity for partnership, which she says has been taken in the majority of cases.
  Mrs. Taylor: It is because I think—
  Mr. Patten: It is a 1960s attitude.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Secretary of State says that I have a 1960s attitude. I must repeat what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), that, if he is to put teacher education into the hands of today's teachers, he will be putting it into the hands of those who were trained in the 1960s, which would not seem to fulfil his objectives. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who supports the idea of partnership, does not want to enshrine the idea of partnership. Surely, if we are to build on best practice, we ought to be moving in that direction, rather than cutting off or allowing to be cut off those who will be responsible for teacher education in future.
  Mr. Forman: I can give the hon. Lady the answer to that question. I trust the schools and the heads and the governing bodies to make sensible decisions, and in the vast majority of cases they will want to opt for partnership with higher education institutions.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that the vast majority of schools would make sensible decisions. The question must be asked: what if they do not? What happens to the education of those children, which could go awry, if proper safeguards are not built in? We are trying to build in safeguards so that the essential component of higher education is there and so that the best possible partnership

  615
  deal is made between schools and higher education. I believe that that is the way to produce the best for the future.
  An OFSTED report, "The New Teacher", recommend-ed strong and effective partnerships between schools and higher education. As the Secretary of State is keen to quote OFSTED reports when it suits him, he ought to be taking account of what his own advisers tell him on that issue. I believe that all teacher-training courses should be validated by higher education institutions. That is not only right in principle, but it also reflects best practice. Higher education institutions and schools have extensive experience of working well together. The best partnerships are created when we are building on them and are not seeking to divide and to- destroy them.
  The second problem that I would put to the Government—
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady referred to OFSTED a moment ago. Does she recall the answer that the Secretary of State gave me to a question that I put to him about reading? He said that about 54 per cent. of students leaving training colleges did not feel sufficiently well equipped to teach reading. Given that statistic, does not she agree that there is a fundamental reason for reforming the way in which we teach and train our teachers?
  Mrs. Taylor: That is no reason for giving teacher education and training over to schools. I am concerned if that is the case, and, as I said earlier, there could be a constructive dialogue on such issues. The trouble is that the Government are not interested in anything like construc-tive dialogue to improve the situation. They are far more interested in confrontation and in making their own decisions regardless of evidence.
  The second problem that I want to put to Ministers is that the Government's proposals seem to ignore the impact of school-based teacher training on the schools themselves. The Secretary of State retreated from his predecessor's plans to make all post-graduate trainee secondary teachers spend 8 per cent. of their time in school. The Secretary of State said that he considered that 24 weeks out of 36 spent in school would be more appropriate. That implied that the Secretary of State had some awareness of what trainee teachers required.
  Unfortunately, that apparent awareness has not been reflected in the Bill. Many of those people who have been involved in school-based teacher education have commented on the difficulties that it can impose on a school. The head of St. Peter's high school in Gloucester said that the eight post-graduates in his school needed much support and advice from the staff and that an additional burden was placed upon teachers. Students who have been educated and trained in those circumstances have said things such as, "We want advice but we do not want to be a burden on teachers." We must balance the interests of children in schools and in so doing put their interests before the needs of trainee teachers.
  School-based training puts pressures on schools if there is insufficient time available for teachers to teach teachers as well as children. There are pressures on funding. Clearly, extra arrangements have to be made. Many schools welcome some trainee teachers to their schools each year, but many schools feel that it is not a good idea
  616
  to have student teachers in school every year. Some pupils might find that a high proportion of their lessons were being taught by students. If we are to get the best of both worlds, we should understand the pressures and take measures to ensure that they do not overwhelm the schools that are accepting students on the present partnership arrangement.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should warn the Secretary of State that the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Evans) appears to be roaming round the Government Back Benches. We are unaware whether he is promoting his campaign for the Secretary of State to be sacked—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is of no interest to the Chair.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) was of great interest to the Secretary of State. I am sure that even now names are being taken.
  Some significant changes were made to the Bill in the other place. Not least there was the Government's late acceptance of the principle that school-centred courses should be restricted to graduates only. That is important. Graduate status, however, does not automatically confer a sound understanding of child development. That is why the Labour party promoted in the other place the amendment to which the Secretary of State has referred.
  The Secretary of State has said that the amendment was technically deficient, but it was passed in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman may be right, but the principle enshrined in the amendment had the overwhelming support of the majority of those who spoke at all stages of the Bill's passage in the other place. Such is the antagonism to the concept of the Bill—that of separating teacher education from higher education—that the Bill would be in great difficulty if the Government tried to overturn that which ensued in the other place. The Opposition will certainly want to improve on the amendment passed in the other place if it is technically deficient. We believe that it is the key to minimising the dangers that the Bill could create. We believe also that the proposed partnership is fundamental.
  We have heard about pilot schemes. The Secretary of State will not even wait for the results of those schemes. He is so anxious to push through his legislation that he will not seek the advice of those who have been involved in pilot schemes to learn what is right, what is appropriate and what is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted the same approach to every piece of legislation with which he has been involved. The years following his appointment have been ones of turmoil. They are years that have been costly to the education of our children. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has learnt little.
  We agree that much needs to be done to improve teacher education. Unfortunately, that is not being suggested by the Secretary of State and the necessary provisions are not in the Bill. We are opposed to the Bill in principle, but in Committee we shall be concerned to lessen the damage that it could do to teacher education.
  We are concerned to defend the amendments that were won in the other place and, where appropriate, to improve

  617
  upon them. There are many other failings that should be discussed in Committee, such as the need for a general teaching council.
  There is great concern outside the House about the impact of the Bill. It may not be the largest or the greatest Bill that the Government have introduced, but it is certainly causing much concern. Those involved in higher education do not want the Bill. Similarly, it is not wanted by teachers. By and large, schools do not want it. The information that I have received from the National Association of Governors and Managers makes it clear that, from the governors' point of view, there are many significant problems. The governors stress that the primary function of schools is to educate their pupils. They state that teachers have not been trained to educate adults. 'They list a series of factors that suggest that it is irresponsible of the Secretary of State to place new tasks and responsibilities on schools when the chances of success are somewhat remote.
  The Secretary of State may continue with his bunker mentality. In other words, he may continue to refuse to listen. I am sorry that the House is wasting time on the Bill because it is not a constructive or purposeful measure in terms of improving education. It is a waste of parliamentary time when there are so many urgent issues that are in need of discussion. We could have used our time to discuss when the Government will do something about nursery education. When will the Government take on board the evidence that proves that, if all three and four-year-olds had access to nursery education, they would have a better start in education thereafter?
  Mr. Brandreth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No. I have already given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.
  I am always interested when Conservative Members feel that they are under pressure. Whenever we, the Opposition, mention nursery education and the record of Labour councils that provide places for three and four-year-olds—the record shows that parents living in Labour council areas have three times the chance of getting their children into nursery education than parents who live in Tory-controlled areas—Conservative Members feel ruffled and defensive about what is happening. We keep hearing about glorious initiatives, but it is clear that not one new nursery place—
  Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Lady is describing changes to nursery education, surely she should endeavour to put a cost on the changes that she is suggesting. Do you feel that that would be properly in order?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am concerned only with whether what is being said is relevant to the subject under consideration. I remind the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that we are dealing with the Bill's Second Reading. The matters that she raises must relate to that.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Bill is about teacher training, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that teachers would find teaching far easier if all children received nursery education. The explanatory memorandum includes phrases that relate to connected purposes. Few things are more connected and more relevant to the Bill than nursery education.
  I cannot understand why Conservative Members are unable to bring themselves to realise that we as a society
  618
  are facing vast costs because we do not have nursery education for three and four-year-olds. Nursery education gives youngsters the best start in education. They settle into jobs more easily later in life, are more likely to have jobs when they leave school, are less likely to truant and are less likely to be involved in juvenile crime. The advantages to society of nursery education are such that it should be a priority. If Conservative councils were providing the level of nursery education that Labour councils are offering, we should be well on our way to meeting the target.
  There are other subjects that should concern us. When will the Government do something about our crumbling schools? They have had 15 years in government and there is a £4,000 million backlog of repairs. Teachers should be teaching in decent circumstances. Instead, the Secretary of State spends his time on issues such as sex education, and not on important ones such as class size, which matters both to teachers and parents.
  Mr. Brandreth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice.
  I am sure that Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of the fact that the Audit Commission has said that class sizes are increasing, which is of great concern to parents, as is the quality of education of our teachers.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I do not wish to stretch out the debate—that is the last thing that I want to do—but the hon. Lady should know that there is a difference between the size of classes and teacher-pupil ratios. How classes are organised is a matter for the headmaster or mistress, but the teacher-pupil ratio is going down.
  Mrs. Taylor: I refer to the Audit Commission's report that states that class sizes are increasing because of the formula on the local management of schools. As teachers become more experienced, they command higher salaries, which leads to a rising claim on schools' budgets. That is not a Labour party report, but an Audit Commission report. The hon. Lady would do well to look at the evidence.
  Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister said that 15 per cent. of children in Britain received an education that was as good as education anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, he then went on to say that the rest did not. That is an incredible indictment of 15 years of Conservative government. The Bill will do nothing to improve education standards in this country and could even threaten them. We should be enhancing the quality of teaching by ensuring that all our teachers have the right level of experience.
  The Secretary of State may not be in his present position for very long, but if he is to learn anything from his tenure of office, he should by now have learned to consult and to listen. The fact that he has failed to do so is shown by the tatty Bill now before the House. We shall oppose it today. It is a suitable swansong for the Secretary of State that his legislative signing-off should come in the form of such a potentially damaging Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has learned nothing during his two years' tenure of office. We will oppose the Bill today, but we will still try to amend and improve it in Committee.
  5.12 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I support the Bill. Some of it will have to be amended and returned to the good health with which it started its life in the other place. The Bill is helpful to British education.
  Bit by bit the powers of the National Union of Students to influence politically youth and other people in the country have been wiped out and are probably coming to an end. In terms of politics, the NUS has done more to damage the image of students in this country than any other organisation over the past 30 years. The grant system would have been more generous if people throughout the country had felt that students were going to university not to become anarchists and Stalinist infiltrators—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And gay livers.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I would not say gay livers—sometimes they can be reformed better than others. The NUS has had a damaging influence on the students of this country, and the students' image will improve now that the NUS has less influence.
  Nobody should be compelled to be a member of a certain body, except by their citizenship—and it is even possible for people to emigrate if they want. I do not like closed shops and I welcome the end of the last closed shop.
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman as I am sure that he will support my views.
  Mr. Foster: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that, if passed, the legislation would enhance students' status and that the main reason why students had lost out in grant support was their low status, will he join us in the Lobby to try to increase financial support for students?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I must seek the defence of Madam Deputy Speaker, otherwise I shall have to make another speech. If I do that I shall talk too long and other hon. Members will not be able to contribute, which would make me unpopular in the House. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the subject with me at length on another occasion, I am sure that we can find a suitable time.
  I am most concerned about teacher training. The key to educational advance is to have good teachers in the classrooms teaching the right subjects with discipline. Unless we have good teachers, it does not matter what curriculums or tests we have, there will be no advantage to this country. I have a long experience of teaching and I want to concentrate on teacher training.
  Do we need training? It was not until recently that teachers undertook long training sessions. Does that training improve student teachers? Many public schools have been staffed by non-trained teachers and their pupils have won places at Oxford and Cambridge by sitting the same examinations as other students—and usually they play good rugby along the way. Sometimes, teachers return to university and take degrees later. I know many public school heads who have never done a day's training and who I would like to see at the head of any institution in this country.
  The idea that everyone has to be trained should be
  620
  challenged. The Labour party never challenges orthodoxy —the thought of doing so horrifies it, which is why it still retains clause 4.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall the reference made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to non-graduate teachers? Whatever the future may hold, with his experience of teaching, will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past many excellent teachers in the classroom did not hold professional university degrees? That is probably true of current teachers as well.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: That is correct. I employed such teachers in schools and they were particularly good—what mattered was what they could do inside the classroom. I trust that teacher training helps, but in many cases non-teacher trainees had better control of their classrooms than teachers with degrees and other qualifications behind them. Not so long ago anyone with a degree could be taken on as a secondary school teacher in the state sector. I think that there used to be a better intake of teachers then than there is now. Potential teachers tried teaching; they disappeared after a month or two if they could not cope.
  I have been told that the present calibre of potential teachers—judged by the percentage of those with lower-class degrees—is worse than in any other profession. I should like to check that statistic. That was certainly not the case in the past, when graduates with first-class honours degrees tried teaching to see whether they could do it—some of them obtained training after they had gained some experience of teaching. The idea that training has always been with us, which is why we have always had a good educational system, is wrong.
  Mr. Patten: I can help my right hon. Friend with his earlier question. It is a sad but true statistic that OFSTED, the independent inspectorate, recently reported that, in its view, about one in 10 of the output of teachers from teacher training higher education institutions were not fit to be teachers. That sad statistic must be put right, which is why we are introducing the reforms.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: That is why the Bill is before the House. I sometimes think that training for teachers—certainly at sixth form level—is a restrictive lower-middle class practice that should be considered by us at some stage.
  Some 20 per cent. of teachers do not need training. They are simply born to teach and are only spoilt when they go away to train. Whatever we do, some 20 per cent. of teachers will always remain at the bottom of the pile, unable to cope. They will have a riot with a dead rabbit whenever they enter a classroom. The 60 per cent. of teachers in the middle will show some degree of improvement along the way. I am an agnostic or even an atheist when it comes to the idea that we must worship training.
  If we are to have training, what do we do about it and where should it take place? I must put it on the record that I am trained as a teacher. I am trained to teach in primary schools, particularly in phonics. Originally, I was a specialist in reading, which few people in the country know. I trained under Professor Oliver, who was a great philosopher. I shall refer later to part of his philosophy that

  621
  was not very applicable in the classroom. It will be a treat for the House when I come to that near the end of my speech.
  The best teachers that I have ever met were trained in one of two ways. Many of them have now disappeared. The first were student teachers. They took the equivalent of the A levels and were then given free training in schools, and they then had free training after that. When I was a head, my first deputy head was trained in that way. He was a teacher to his fingertips in everything that he did. Student teachers were trained entirely in the school and they had to attend lectures outside. They were marvellous—they were some of the best teachers that we have ever had in this country.
  The second best group of teachers, of which there is no equivalent now, were the emergency trained teachers who were trained after the second world war when we were short of teachers. They were mature men and women who had served in the forces, many of them for six years. They came back and were trained in 13 months. How were they trained? That is what matters to us today. They were trained in emergency training colleges by heads and deputy heads who were on one and two-year secondments. They were taught by people who knew what was happening in the classroom. They were not taught highfalutin' theories which had no relation even to a rabbit hutch; they were taught how to get children under control and how to teach them reading and writing. They were the best. Without them, the school-leaving age would not have been raised. The age was raised during my first year of teaching. Schools were carried by emergency-trained teachers. Many people up to the age of 30 were trained by teachers.
  Trainee teachers should not be sent to higher education institutions—they could be ruined there. They would be bored stiff and be contaminated with the wrong ideas.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the finest teachers whom I ever met at one of our secondary schools was trained in precisely that way? Does he also accept that those who came after and who are now in our schools realise how much they depended on those who had the discipline of that sort of training and of serving in the forces?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: There should be teaching schools —that is, schools where teachers are trained totally inside them. Such schools would need special staffing. We need teaching schools like our teaching hospitals. Medics are not trained to be general practitioners by taking them miles away. Those who will be operating surgeons are trained by operating surgeons doing the job. That is the only way to train teachers. Doctors walk alongside the students and see the operations taking place. That is what we want. We want teaching schools like our teaching hospitals. It seems that Labour wants more higher education—or probably longer education. I sometimes doubt whether it is even higher education. Labour wants higher education, instead of doing something for the person who matters the most—the child in the classroom.
  I do not know the views of the Secretary of State, but there should be staff colleges like those in the services. Once again, people should not be brought in from universities and all that other crap. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you must excuse me—I got carried away
  622
  and I did not hear what I was saying. That is rare in the House. If it was an unparliamentary expression, it is one that none of us heard.
  Mr. Riddick: It was crafts.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend —it was crafts.
  I turn to the question of qualifications. The qualifications for teachers in this country are different from those elsewhere. In most of the continent, teachers are qualified to teach one or two subjects only in certain age groups—they cannot teach outside that. The odd thing is that, unlike the masters certificate in the merchant navy or a licence for driving, a British teaching certificate enables a teacher to teach anywhere. I gained from that.
  As I said, I trained for primary schools and I applied for jobs in primary schools. At that time, there was a surplus of teachers and I was not appointed. One day when I came out, the deputy education officer for Lancashire touched me on the shoulder and asked whether I would like to start tomorrow as a head of department in a secondary school. I said yes. That is what the Secretary of State should do with the Bill. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you must protect me from having conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
  The teaching certificate should say whether it is for primary or secondary, and the subjects to be taught. One of the worst aspects of British education is that timetables are often filled by people who have no interest or qualifications in a subject but no one else wants to teach it. Games, religious education and other subjects were ruined because of that. The subjects should be specified. If people think that training is so important, for goodness sake, training that is done in an institution must relate to what one does afterwards; otherwise, teaching by osmosis seems to be strange.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster referred to the calibre of teachers, but I must not bring her in again. What matters in schools is the calibre of teachers, not the number. More schools in the country would be better run by two thirds of the staff and the rest of the money should be used to increase their salaries. Unless we do that, we will not improve the calibre of teachers coming in. That is the important thing. We have one of the smallest teacher-pupil ratios in the world; it is half that of the Japanese and the Israelis. If the NUT campaigned for fewer teachers on higher salaries, that would do more for education than is being done at present.
  I shall move on quickly because I do not want to take too long. There is something wrong with standards. I know that we have been in office for 15 years and I know what happened before. One is glad to see signs of sensibility coming back to the Labour party. Obviously, it will take another 10 years before sensibility returns completely, but there is some coming in now. The national curriculum has been taken on board, as have other things. It is interesting that we have had to fight for every reform. People must know that they owe nothing to the Labour party for the reforms. Ten years later, Labour Members catch up. In 10 years' time, they will be advocating what I am saying now if we give them time. If we give them pep pills in between, the process may be quicker. People owe Labour nothing. In Committee, we fought for every reform—I was on Standing Committees for four years—and others here

  623
  fought in the House. Of course, it is all sweetness and light now. In another five or 10 years' time, Labour will be saying the same as we are saying now.
  There are two important things in teaching, apart from the natural calibre of teachers. One is proper training. That means watching a master teacher teach. It does not mean being in a group of 500 listening to a lecture from someone who has views on education which have never been put into practice—and never will be—inside a classroom. In my last headship, I had a head of remedial who was fantastic. I would not say that I am of the same calibre as him—I have never seen anyone like him. I used to put staff alongside him for three months before they went into the main school. They learnt things. To pay that man an extra £5,000 or £10,000 to train teachers, let us try that in our schools. The status of the profession would be raised if teachers trained themselves.
  I mentioned Professor Oliver. The school leaving age was raised in my first year of teaching. That reform was not greeted with enthusiasm by those who had to stay at school another year instead of getting a job, nor was it acclaimed by teachers who had to control those pupils in the classroom. The second raising of the school leaving age occurred in my last year of teaching.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I was there.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, and that is why the hon. Gentleman is here now. This is our escape. We must have a drink together afterwards.
  I was given class 3c because there was not a 3z. Those pupils, some of whom are still my friends, were the most awkward characters that I had ever met, and their big concern was to get out of school. The headmaster's job was similar to mine—to get them to a technical college three miles away driving there in the morning, returning in the afternoon. I was allowed a full curriculum, anything that I wanted as long as those pupils did not return to school. They nearly drove me out of teaching. After my first two months I decided that I could not control one of them.
  That year the first snow came in November to Ramsbottom, from where Albert came and was eaten by the lion. At that time, his was the only name on the honours board of that school. I had to teach the class in a laboratory and the gas and water taps added to the excitement. I blew the whistle for the class to come in but nobody appeared and when I went out the pupils were pointing not to the Archangel Gabriel, but to the second-floor roof on which was a boy whom I called "C", and he was the most difficult boy in the class. They said, "What are you going to do about him, sir?". Fortunately I had been trained in the navy and I climbed the drainpipe all the way. This is all public knowledge because I have written it up. I got hold of the boy and brought him down, kicking him as we came. There was no corporal punishment, of course. When we got to the bottom there was a great cheer and the class said, "Good old sir. That was good, sir." They ran in like a set of whippets and I had no more trouble with them. One must pay attention to great philosophy, but one must also be sure that one can climb the rigging.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Greg Pope: I am not sure that I can follow the exploits of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) who seems to be the Whacko of the current Parliament. When asked which is the best football team in the land, the right hon. Gentleman usually gives the right answer, but when asked about education policy, he seems to become more eccentric as the days go by. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that.
  I was intrigued by his idea that, if teaching standards are not high enough, the answer is to abolish teacher education. Of course, what the right hon. Gentleman says today the Secretary of State will say tomorrow, and no doubt in Committee the Minister will move amendments to that effect.
  Given the massive divergence between the Bill and the Secretary of State's original proposals, I am surprised that he is even prepared to give it a second glance, never mind a Second Reading. I hope that the Bill will fall, but I guess that it will arrive on the statute book at about the same time as an ungrateful Prime Minister dispatches the Secretary of State to the Back Benches. Even executive members of the 1922 Committee are on the BBC openly calling for the Secretary of State to be sacked. It is not often that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) speaks for the whole House, but on this occasion there will be no discord.
  The Bill is a massive humiliation for the Secretary of State. Throughout 1992 and 1993, we heard much about what became known as the mums' army—the idea that allowing under-qualified and under-trained people into our classrooms would in some way raise teaching standards. That is not in the Bill, because the Secretary of State finally discovered what everybody else in education knew in the first place—that the proposals were unworkable and unsound, and would lead to a lowering of teaching standards. Throughout that time, the Secretary of State managed to convey the impression that his vision of education amounted to advertisements which said, "Vacancy, teacher required, no experience necessary."
  Another damaging proposal, to divorce teacher training from higher education institutions, appeared in the Bill when it was published in November, but that was radically amended in the other place. I understand that the Government intend to overturn that amendment in Committee, and the Secretary of State said as much in his speech. I urge the Government to exercise caution on that. I hope that everyone agrees that teachers need a theoretical as well as a practical background. Information on issues such as special needs, child development and classroom management need to be imparted to potential teachers before they go in at the deep end in classrooms.
  Schools are under increasing pressure because of constant changes to the curriculum and on testing, and should not be expected to take the lead role in teacher education. Higher education institutions provide recognised qualifications for teachers with which all schools can identify, and it is unlikely that qualifications which are accredited by schools alone would carry quite the same weight.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Does he accept that it is for schools and their teachers and governors to decide whether to participate in school

  625
  teacher training? Secondly, does he accept that the accreditation of these courses would not be by schools alone but by the agency that would be established by the legislation?
  Mr. Pope: The problem is that, at almost every stage, the Government seek to abdicate responsibility. The questions that were asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) were not answered by the Secretary of State who will be responsible for determining the total number of teacher training places. What will happen if the schools that are given responsibility for teacher training do not come up to scratch? Such questions have not been answered. It seems that, as ever, the Government are saying, "It has nothing to do with us."
  If the Government had wanted to improve and enhance the professional standing of teachers, they could have used the Bill to create a general teaching council—a proposal that is supported by many people in education. The proposed Teacher Training Agency will be yet another quango. The Government suffer from that terrible affliction, quangomania. One glance at the Secretary of State's most recent quango creation, the Funding Agency for Schools, leads us to believe that the Teacher Training Agency would be packed with the Government's dwindling band of supporters. Teachers deserve better than that.
  Part II represents the Secretary of State's deepest humiliation. The original proposals, which were published last July in a consultation paper, suggested dividing student union activities between core and non-core services. The Secretary of State was told at the time—I was one of those who told him, as the Official Report will show —that the proposals were not just damaging, but half-baked and unworkable. They do not now appear in the Bill.
  The Secretary of State told the House that the proposals by the National Union of Students on opting out did not go far enough, and that he wanted students to have to opt in to student unions. He has been forced to back down on that as well. In its original form, the Bill contained sweeping powers that would have allowed the Secretary of State to intervene in the affairs of universities and academic institutions. The proposals were met in almost equal part with ridicule and outrage by the people involved in running those institutions. It is no surprise that the Government were forced to withdraw them during the Bill's passage through the other place.
  The Secretary of State told last year's Tory party conference that he would end the scandal of taxpayers' money being spent on political campaigns by student unions. At the Tory party conference he said, "Promises made, promises kept." How they must have cheered back in October, but a more apt description would have been: daft promises made, daft promises broken.
  Leaving aside the vast amounts of taxpayers' money that the Secretary of State wastes on political campaigns, such as the outrageous amount that was spent on propping up the failed policy of opted-out schools by taking out adverts in our national newspapers, the Secretary of State must have known when he made those comments that student unions spend less than 1 per cent. of their funds on campaigning.
  If he knew that when he made that speech to the Tory party conference, why did he say what he did, other than to get cheap applause at the conference itself? If he did not
  626
  know it, that is more serious. Why did he not know it? After all, those figures came from a survey commissioned by his own Department.
  The Secretary of State also said that he would end the National Union of Students' closed shop. There are times when it is hard to determine which the Secretary of State knows least about—student unions or employment law. They are not closed shops, and that has been accepted not only by the European Court of Human Rights but by previous Conservative Education Ministers.
  Back in June 1992, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who was then an Education Minister, told the House that student unions were not closed shops. He also said that the NUS differed from a closed shop in that individual unions themselves determine whether or not to affiliate. Students are not employees, and the NUS is not a trade union. Therefore, under previous employment legislation, it cannot operate a closed shop. By omitting any reference to the term "closed shop", the Bill tacitly accepts that.
  All that humiliation for the Secretary of State would have been avoidable and unnecessary if only he had listened—something that the Government seem incapable of doing. If, a year ago, the Secretary of State and his Ministers had listened to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals or to the National Union of Students instead of the more neanderthal elements on the Conservative Back Benches who are in their places this evening, he would not be in the sorry mess he is in today.
  Part II is now so watered down that it is effectively sunk. It bears little resemblance to the Bill as published in November, and even less to the original proposals published last July. Part II as it stands could almost be mistaken for the NUS proposals. Perhaps this is the Secretary of State's new image: the student unions' friend, the champion of the NUS in Parliament. I hope so, because the National Union of Students deserves a great deal of credit for the way in which it has opposed the more outlandish proposals contained in the consultation document and the original Bill.
  There are still concerns about part II of the Bill, in particular the procedures relating to the triggering of ballots on external affiliations. Particularly in small colleges, a tiny number of students could trigger a ballot year on year, even though those ballots produced overwhelming majorities in favour of continuing affiliation to external organisations such as the National Union of Students. The triggering of such ballots and the consequent expense is not a sensible use of public funds.
  There are also problems relating to provisions for non-members—those who choose to take up the conscience clause and opt out of NUS or local student union membership. There is still some work to be done on that. It is interesting that the NUS wishes to be constructive in helping the Government to implement the proposals. I hope that, in Committee, the Government take the NUS up on that offer, so that those who have opted out of NUS membership have access to union services.
  There is little to disagree with in part II, so complete has been the Secretary of State's humiliation. It is now an unnecessary piece of legislation. The same ends that now appear in part II could easily have been achieved through discussions with the interested bodies last year.
  The only reason why part II exists and we are debating it this afternoon is that it would have been one humiliation too far for the Secretary of State to withdraw it. It exists

  627
  only to save his face. How much did this farce cost? How much did the consultation procedure cost, and how much parliamentary time has been wasted debating something that could have been agreed without legislation?
  The Secretary of State, who is now back in his place, clearly will not be in office much longer. When he leaves office, I hope that he takes his Bill with him.
  5.45 pm
  Dame Angela Rumbold (Mitcham and Morden): The most disappointing speeches I have heard this afternoon were those by the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), both of whom have lived through the past few decades without moving one jot or tittle into the present time. It is a shame that ideology should govern the Opposition to such an extent.
  It is a great tribute to the current Secretary of State, who made such an excellent speech opening this debate, that he demonstrated a lack of dogma and ideology. He was saying that, having looked at what has happened over the past years and having studied what is happening in schools today, he recognises that it is absolutely right to look at this most important feature of our education system—the training of our teachers.
  I do not disagree with anything said this afternoon about the importance of having high-quality professional teachers in our classroom. Throughout my career, I have firmly believed that it was essential that those in our classrooms should be of the highest quality and the most professional. We witness that day in, day out, in many schools up and down the country. Many such people are working in our schools today.
  I greatly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). What he said about the training of teachers and its historical background is absolutely correct. It had occurred to me that only in the past 50 years or so have we become absolutely obsessed with the need to train people before they take up what is essentially a vocation—and sometimes, in the case of a profession such as teaching, a calling.
  He was absolutely right to point out that some people will be excellent teachers. They have a calling, and go into teaching because it is the one thing they want to do above all else. When they get in front of a class, they make it plain to the children that they are there to teach them and impart their knowledge. They are excellent people.
  At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who, when they are discussing the future with their careers masters and mistresses and thinking "What shall I do with my life?", then say, "I think that I will be a teacher." When they get into the classroom, somewhere, somehow, they have to discover that they are not able to be teachers. The sooner they find that out, the better it is, not only for the children, but, most importantly, for them. They will find themselves in a profession which will be a misery and a burden if they are not able to convince the children that they are capable of controlling them and giving them the education they need.
  The lengthy process of reforming Britain's education system has taken a long time because it was in such a deplorable mess when the Conservative party took office in 1979. Too much ideology had overtaken the teacher
  628
  training colleges, the universities, the people in place in our schools, and the schools themselves. We needed to take a clear look at what we were trying to do.
  Sadly, all too often, the people in the schools had forgotten what they were supposed to be doing. They had forgotten that they were supposed to be teaching single subjects, and that they were responsible for the good management of schools. They had forgotten exactly what they were there to do, which was to enthuse and to teach children so that they could go forth from school and into the world well trained, well educated and well disciplined. Sadly, none of those things was happening when we started seriously to think about how best to reform our education system.
  Those reforms have taken a long time. They were bound to take a long time, because so much needed to be done. I welcome the day today when we have got to the point when we can consider reforming our training of teachers. We are about to introduce into the House of Commons a serious and important measure, which I most sincerely welcome.
  I welcome the measure—not that I have any particular hang-ups about teacher training colleges. I emphasise that I have visited a considerable number of teacher training colleges and teacher training departments in universities, and, most importantly of all, an enormous number of schools. When I was in local government, for about nine months I looked at all the schools in the local authority where I was the chairman of the education committee.
  I sat at the back of classes listening and watching how the children, in primary and secondary schools, were being taught. That is the one memory that has remained with me all the way through my career in this place. That experience gave me all kinds of insights into what was happening in our schools. It certainly gave me the impetus to believe that at some stage we should reform the training of teachers.
  It is interesting that one can study 50 different primary schools, sitting at the back of classes watching what various teachers are doing. Groups of children of the same age in one small borough in Greater London varied from school to school. The quality of the teaching depended entirely on the gifts, intelligence and training of the people in front of those children.
  The teachers who had mastery of their subject and who understood small children were much more successful in the primary schools than those teachers who were poorly trained, and in some cases self-taught, in some of the subjects that they were trying to impart to the children and who, moreover, had spent far too much time studying child development and not nearly enough time understanding what children needed in order to learn.
  When one considered how children were being taught to read, one realised just what a muddle some of those poor creatures were in. I call them "poor creatures" because at that stage I really did think that it was pathetic that we had people in our classrooms who were so unable to teach children the simple basic subjects within our curriculum at primary school level.
  One thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said which really took my fancy concerned the old days—the good old days. Perhaps I am getting old as well. I willingly admit that, because I think that it is a good thing to look back to what happened in the old days, although I never recommend that we take anything more

  629
  than the lessons of history to apply to the future. I never want to go back in time. I always want to take those lessons and put them to good use for the future.
  What my right hon. Friend said struck a chord with me. He said that, in those days, people had to have mastery of one subject or of one or two subjects. One of the most confusing things that happened in the early days of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was that we tried to teach people everything to teach in primary schools. That was a mistake.
  We shall not reform our primary school education completely until we have tackled the conviction that young men and women can go into primary schools and teach the whole range of subjects, including maths, English, science, geography and history, equally well to children between the ages of five and 11. The truth of the matter is that they cannot.
  Children in those classes will quickly discern those subjects that the teachers really enjoy teaching and really know, and they will pick up on those subjects and do well too. But woe betide the child who is a mathematician but finds that the person teaching maths cannot keep up with the speed at which that child is going, because that child will find it difficult to maximise his potential during that one crucial year when that individual is there in front of him.
  What I am saying to the House, and what I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hear, is that, during the course of the teacher training changes that he is introducing, he should look further than simply at class-based training for the postgraduate teacher, at the quality of the bachelor of education degree, the major qualification these days for our primary school teachers, to see whether something can be done to strengthen the subject and the basis on which people in primary schools teach our children so that it is not simply dictated by a year, by the age of the children or by one class being taken by one person all the way through all the subjects.
  We need variety within our primary schools, and we need people who can take their interest, professionalism and grasp of their subject through into the classroom, even for five and six-year-olds. Those children are just as important as children aged 14, 15 and 16 who are entering their examination years. We tend in Britain not to take sufficient account of that.
  I welcome the notion that we can have the assistance within our classes of people who are mature, who understand children and who have a genuine interest in trying to improve their knowledge, so that they might be able to impart that knowledge to the children in our classrooms. All those moves are much to be welcomed. I believe more than ever before that the notion of asking young people who are to become teachers to spend their time in the classroom is a principle which we in the House must firm up and follow.
  I noticed when I was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science—it is almost inevitable when new legislation is introduced—the tendency of those charged with putting reforms into position to enjoy the proliferation of administrative paperwork. I ask my right hon. Friend to beware, because many will say that an idea is splendid but it needs this, that or the other by way of following up the accreditation, making sure that we administer the measure correctly, that we validate this or test that. All those processes, good as they might be, need to be resisted.
  There must be quality assurance, we must know and understand what is happening within classes, but we do not
  630
  need vast tomes of paper which people have to fill up in order to say whether they have done this, that or the other. I am convinced that systems can be devised which will be satisfactory in terms of quality and understanding what is happening in schools without burdening schools further with great wodges of paper.
  I say that because I know perfectly well that the system that we introduced for testing and the curriculum in the days when I was a Minister did burden teachers. I accept responsiblity for that, and always have done. I always knew that, at some stage, we would have to rectify some of those institutions. But in order to drive through the measures that were so important for Britain's schools, we accepted some of the defects that were bound to occur.
  In the same way, I am sure that the Bill will bring such huge benefits to the schools and to the teaching profession that we must ensure that we do not overburden people in the process. I am sure that we shall make some mistakes, but that does not matter, because the principle behind the Bill is fundamentally correct for Britain's teaching profession.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Don Foster (Bath): The speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) was particularly interesting, and certainly I agreed with a number of her remarks—for example, about the risk of increased bureaucracy and paperwork for schools. As the right hon. Lady well knows, that particularly concerns teachers in respect of much new legislation introduced by this Government.
  I agree also with the right hon. Lady that there is a growing need for primary teachers to spend more time specialising in particular subjects so that they can teach them with enthusiasm and excitement—but a problem follows from that in respect of the Bill. As the right hon. Lady hinted, if teacher training is all to be done in the classroom, where will teachers gain the subject expertise and enthusiasm that she says is so desperately needed? That is one of the Bill's major flaws, and I shall return to it later.
  The right hon. Lady said that parts of the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) took her fancy. Few parts of it took my fancy. I wondered how, in educational terms, the right hon. Gentleman would use the stick with the horse's head handle, and to whom—particularly in view of statements by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—the right hon. Gentleman was alluding in his frequent references to dead rabbits or to a dead rabbit.
  Remarkably, that brings me to the Secretary of State, whose illuminating speech began with a reference to two anniversaries. The first was 15 years of Conservative rule. The Secretary of State predicted the beginning of another 15 years of Tory rule. I will break the habit of a lifetime and bet the Secretary of State that he is wrong. If he is proved right, I am willing to do that which he promised in respect of other matters—to eat my hat, but garnished. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to have to eat his hat in respect of grant-maintained schools earlier than I will have to eat mine in respect of 15 more years of Tory rule.
  It was a pity that the Secretary of State referred also to the 50th anniversary of the Butler legislation—the Education Act 1944—because he personally has been

  631
  responsible for legislation that has, more than any other, torn up the partnership and co-operation that was the basis of the 1944 Act and which formed, until recent years, the basis of the education service.
  The Secretary of State's speech highlighted a number of inconsistencies in his beliefs and statements. He spoke, for example, of the ending of what he called the ivory silo. Not many people would know his meaning. I happen to know, and I am also able to point out that the right hon. Gentleman got his own quotation wrong. I should hate anyone to believe that I have copies of all the Secretary of State's speeches to hand, but I do have the speech that he gave just before Christmas to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, when he said:
  "In this new order, 'ivory towers' will be—indeed, already is —a misnomer. Quality, the 'ivory', will remain. But the isolated, if imposing, ivory towers will be replaced by architecture of all shapes and sizes, from ivory silo to ivory cottage".
  The Secretary of State was saying that we would see the birth of ivory silos; yet only a few months later he is saying that they have come to an end. That is typical of so much of the Secretary of State's legislation. Having only just introduced it, he makes significant changes—and that leads to major instability.
  It is worrying that the Secretary of State does not seem to understand his own legislative proposals, or even know the name of the new organisation that the Bill is intended to establish. One minute the right hon. Gentleman was telling the House about the formation of the Teacher Training Agency and the next about the establishment of the teacher training authority. In fact, he stressed to his hon. Friends the importance of that word "authority". Whether it be an authority or an agency, the right hon. Member for Brent, North described it as an empire.
  In view of the Secretary of State's speech at the Conservative party conference, there can be no question but that the U-turn that he was compelled to make over student unions was one of the most humiliating ever, following the debacle over the mums' army. It appears that common sense has broken out at least in that part of the Bill. Sadly, that is not true of part I, which is unnecessary, unworkable and highly undesirable. I say to the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that it will do nothing to repair the damage inflicted by the Government on teacher morale and the entire profession.
  The changes in part II are the result of the listening done by the Secretary of State and others. I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to listen in respect of other parts of the Bill. The important question asked time and again is what part II will do to raise the quality of teacher training. We have been given no answer.
  I believe that it is true to say that the Secretary of State has not been listening, because I do not know of one organisation that supports his proposals in respect of initial teacher training. I know of not one parent, governor, teacher, higher education college, university or teacher training organisation that supports any of the Bill's proposals.
  I ought to declare an interest, in that I spent many years teaching and being involved in curriculum development within schools. I spent 10 years as a teacher trainer at Bristol university, and the many changes that occurred
  632
  during that time brought about some of the improvements which the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said were needed, and which are still needed.
  Mr. Peter Butler: In the 10 years that the hon. Gentleman spent training teachers, did he ever go into school and do any teaching?
  Mr. Foster: The right hon. Member for Brent, North Implied that people involved in teacher training do not return to schools to gain further experience at the chalk face. Perhaps the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) is not aware that under the existing Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education there is a requirement that all involved in teacher training have recent and relevant experience. The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I had just that.
  Given my experience and my discussions with the organisations that I mentioned, why do I oppose the Bill's proposals for teacher training? I oppose the establishment of yet another quango. Opposition Members have already expressed their concerns about quangos and I am particularly worried about the appointment of yet another eight to 12 faceless men and women.
  Mr. Riddick: Two quangos are being abolished and replaced by just one.
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the status and powers of those two other bodies, he will see that the new body will be taking on considerably greater powers. As the Secretary of State said, one of those bodies has a purely advisory role while the other merely provides information and advice to those wishing to join the profession. There is a huge difference between bodies of that kind and the quango being set up by the Secretary of State. It is worrying that the Bill does not even make it clear what qualifications the chairman of the new quango must have. It is not a specific requirement that he must have had direct experience of teacher training, merely experience of teaching.
  I oppose the proposed legislation because I believe that it will create greater fragmentation and bureaucracy, the very thing that the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is concerned about, and will lead to increased instability. We have heard about the various changes that have taken place in the Government's legislation in recent years, and we should not forget that it was only the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 that set up the Higher Education Funding Council, which is now to be dismembered as a result of the proposals in the Bill.
  I oppose the proposed legislation because not a single reason has been given as to why it is so important in England when it does not appear to be necessary in Wales or Scotland. I cannot possibly support any new legislation which, at least on the face of it, is likely to establish a bureaucracy that will increase costs and therefore take money away from direct teacher training work at a time when, as we all admit, some improvements are needed. Perhaps most fundamentally, however, there is no evidence of any need for the changes.
  As I have acknowledged in recent years, there have been a number of changes to teacher education. Perhaps the two most notable changes have been the growing partnership that has developed between individual teacher training institutions and the schools with which they liaise. Those

  633
  partnerships are important. They are crucial to teacher training, they are already established and they are developing in a variety of interesting ways.
  As has been mentioned, there has been a growth in the amount of time that trainee teachers spend in schools. Hon. Members who are anxious to see even more time spent in schools should reflect on why the probationary year has been abolished. It provided postgraduate teacher training as a two-year course, and the whole of one year plus a large proportion of the first year was work in schools.
  Have those changes led to any real cause for concern? The answer is that they certainly have not, according to the Government's reports through OFSTED. Reference has been made to its report last year, "The New Teacher in School", which said that
  "the teaching of new teachers was satisfactory in almost three quarters of cases."
  One could ask, "What about the other quarter? Let us be concerned about that." And I am indeed concerned. But the report went on to say that
  "the proportion of very good lessons by new teachers was higher than that for teachers in general."
  That indicates to me that there have been improvements in recent years, and that if we make rapid and unnecessary changes now the improvements may be put in jeopardy. I suggest that the lesson to be learnt is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Yet the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden—for reasons that I do not fully understand, in view of her comments—seems keen on making change for the sake of change.
  There are many other reasons why we should oppose the proposed legislation. I am particularly concerned about the way that it will separate educational research from training for the profession, and teacher training from the rest of higher education. I particularly want to explore a specific concern—the amendment to clause 12 that was made in another place. Despite what the Secretary of State said, and while I accept what hon. Members on both Front Benches have said about the need to ensure that the wording is correct, I very much hope that this House will not overturn the principle behind that amendment.
  The original proposal for totally school-based teacher training is, in my view, completely daft. It looks almost as though it is the Secretary of State's latest contribution to the "back to basics" debate, and if hon. Members reflect on the appropriate novel they will see that it is a return to the form of teacher training that Nicholas Nickleby received. It is daft because there is no evidence to suggest that it is a good idea. The Government thought that it might be a good idea, so they introduced a trial—the so-called "school-centred initial teacher training". As we have heard, some 200 students are currently involved and, although the Secretary of State did not say so, the figures suggest that that number is likely to rise to some 700 before long. That is a small number compared with the 60,000 students who are training through more traditional and conventional means.
  Mr. Boswell: On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some two thirds of those undergoing teacher education in higher education institutions are doing bachelor of education courses, typically for four years, so the true comparison is with those doing postgraduate certificate of education courses, typically for a year, of which even those small figures would be a much higher proportion.
  Mr. Foster: I am happy to accept what the Minister says. He is, of course, quite right and I am happy to make that comparison. I am sure that he would still agree, however, that 200 is a small proportion.
  The main point of my argument is not so much the proportion involved as the fact that it was set out as a trial and that, so far, no evaluation whatever has been conducted on that new approach. There is thus no evidence on which to base the proposals in the Bill. It seems odd to conduct trials and then, before one has had any results of any evaluation, to go full steam ahead and announce that the proposal is to be extended far more widely. There is no evidence of support from schools wishing to move in that direction. The Minister will immediately intervene and say that he can name schools in Essex and one or two other places that have indicated interest and become involved in the pilot study, and of course that is right. However, there is no evidence whatever of any wider interest in that way forward.
  I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the survey carried out at the beginning of this year by the Standing Conference of Principals of Higher Education Colleges, which surveyed 1,500 primary head teachers. The vast majority said no to taking responsibility for student welfare, for the intellectual development of trainees, for improving students' subject knowledge, and for the selection of students. Only 1.7 per cent. of those head teachers wanted a major role in devising programmes or setting course objectives.
  One may ask why the head teachers said that. I thought that it was summed up very well by one head teacher, who said:
  "Teachers are not trained to train students. They are trained to teach children and there is a vast difference in the skills and knowledge required."
  The head teachers went on to express concerns about too many students spending too much time in their schools, causing problems in terms of space, disruption and even diminished standards of pupil behaviour.
  The proposal in the Bill will establish a two-tier system of teacher training and, notwithstanding the intervention by the Secretary of State, there will continue to be uncertainty about the nature of qualifications. I suggest to the Secretary of State and his Ministers that, if they are really keen to make genuine improvements in the profession, they could best do that by accepting the proposal from all quarters for the establishment of a general teaching council.
  I also ask Ministers to reflect on other aspects of the reports of their own inspectors—for instance, the importance of co-operation between schools and higher education institutions. HMI said in a recent report that the most successful training of articled teachers took place when course structures included
  "a substantial period of out-of-school training early in the course and then offered carefully staged introductions to key professional skills and curriculum knowledge."
  The report went on to say that training experience in and outside schools was
  "designed to inform and build upon each other."
  The problem is that the relevant part of the Bill is based on the false premise that we need more school-based teaching. What we need is much more school-focused teacher training; otherwise, we shall end up training people not to join the profession, but simply to teach in a particular school.

  635
  As I have said, there is much to oppose in the Bill, and my hon. Friends and I will oppose it as vigorously as we can. If we cannot persuade the Government to scrap it, we shall present our own amendments with the aim of at least lessening some of its worst excesses. We certainly hope to introduce a "sunset" clause, making the quango that will be established subject to parliamentary reapproval every few years.
  In case the Secretary of State and his colleagues will not listen to the arguments advanced by my party—sadly, I suspect that they will not—I refer them to what a former headmaster of Eton had to say in a recent article in The Independent:
  "John Major's strongly expressed aim to restore the status of teachers is suppported by all. Teachers' morale is low, their pay lower than it should be. Both need raising, but John Patten's proposals to overhaul initial teacher education under a free-standing teacher training agency, as set out in part I of the Education Bill now going through Parliament, will have the opposite effect. This new quango is as objectionable and unnecessary as it will prove impractical."
  Hear, hear!
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly, especially as I had many years' experience of teaching before becoming a Member of Parliament. It was interesting to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He and I have at least one thing in common, having both been science teachers. I believe that he taught chemistry—
  Mr. Don Foster: Physics.
  Mr. Thompson: In that case, we have two things in common: we were both science teachers and we were both teachers of physics.
  I began to have less in common with the hon. Gentleman, however, when he began to speak of bureaucracy, quangos and so forth. He referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). I strongly supported what she said about the need to avoid too much bureaucracy and paperwork in any new reforms. Much to my surprise, the hon. Member for Bath seemed to be accusing the Government of introducing more bureaucracy and quangos in the Bill. Whatever else may be said in favour of the Bill or against it, my understanding is that it will reduce bureaucracy rather than increasing it.
  In any event, it ill becomes a leading Liberal spokesman to talk of bureaucracy and quangos: I gather that his party's policy document "Excellence for All", published in 1992, proposed the creation of six or seven new quangos, pay review bodies and the like. Although we have much in common, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Bath on that point.
  I am one of the hon. Members who have pressed for a reform of teacher training for a long time. Many hon. Members—probably on both sides of the House—feel that the subject should have been considered earlier, perhaps before some of the other reforms introduced by the Government. I am glad that we are finally debating a Bill that will deal with it, and congratulate the Government on presenting that Bill.
  The hon. Member for Bath said that some improvements had been made in teacher training recently. I support
  636
  the Bill, and believe that reform is needed urgently along the lines that it suggests. However, I agree with Opposition Members who have drawn attention to recent improvements. I cannot go all the way with them, but I think it unfair to imply that there have been no improvements in the past 10 years. That flies in the face of the facts. I may part company with Opposition Members, however, when I say that there is still much that is wrong and that measures are still needed to reform teacher training.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) made an entertaining speech. I always enjoy listening to my right hon. Friend. As always, with his experience of teaching and running schools, he brought common sense to bear on the subject. How right he was to speak of the importance of good classroom teaching. I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to speak at length and in detail about the various clauses in the Bill, but I believe that the Government are right to place more emphasis on training in the classroom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North made that point very effectively.
  The hon. Member for Bath—perhaps it was someone else, but if so, the hon. Gentleman will correct me—said that it was not always best to learn from other teachers. I do not agree. Of course teacher trainees must listen to university lecturers and others outside the school system and of course their education must be much more broadly based than the simple learning of practical skills in the classroom. I do not think, however, that the classroom is the wrong place for them to learn. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North spoke of a brilliant special needs teacher in his school, saying that it was possible to learn a fantastic amount just by observing him, talking to him and helping him with his class. I do not go along with those who play down the importance of learning in the classroom, with good classroom teachers.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest what limits should be placed on the number of teachers who watch such brilliant, demonstrative people in the classroom at any one time and tell us how many teachers can take part in the lesson—learning and being taught at the same time?
  Mr. Thompson: I shall not yield to the temptation of answering that question, for two reasons. First, I made it plain that I did not wish to deal with the detail of the Bill, or the administrative implications, in my short speech. Secondly—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me here—I am strongly against excessive interference by those of us who are outside schools in what is done by head teachers, departmental heads and individual teachers. [Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that he will support me when I resist the temptation to start laying down the law. My point was much simpler: a student teacher—indeed, a qualified, experienced teacher —can learn from colleagues in the classroom. The Government are right to place more emphasis on classroom-based teaching, but no doubt that point can be debated further.
  Ms Estelle Morris: If the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of school-based teacher training, does he share with me a concern that we will not have good teachers if students gain experience at only one school during their teacher training? Is it not true that most other training courses which are based in universities have the advantage of allowing students to do training at a

  637
  minimum of two schools? Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on the implications for teacher training of the number of placements that a student may get?
  Mr. Thompson: My speech will be prolonged if I respond at length to that question. I said a few moments ago that I am very much in favour of young people coming into the profession having broad experience—I used those very words. I will not say that a teacher should train in only one school. Never mind what the Bill says, I am talking about teacher training as I believe it should be. I am in favour of school-based training. Opposition Members are supporting my general remarks, so I shall continue clown that path.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Thompson: I will make a little more progress with my speech and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. We have addressed this topic, but no doubt I will tempt the hon. Gentleman again in a moment and then he can make his point.
  With regard to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, my wife and I are interesting cases in point. I was a graduate teacher who did no teacher training. You look horrified at that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is true nevertheless. I do not advocate that people should not undertake teacher training but I make the point that as a graduate teacher, for one reason or another —as my right hon. Friend mentioned—I did not do teacher training. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will bear that fact in mind and therefore take with a pinch of salt anything I may say about teacher training.
  My wife, on the other hand, was an excellent teacher who was teacher trained but not a graduate. That is why I remarked in an intervention earlier that, whatever new system we may bring in, there are many excellent teachers in our schools who are not graduates. I think that it is right to pay tribute to them and I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden in paying tribute to the many good teachers in our classrooms.
  As a Member of Parliament, I receive many letters from teachers who say, "Why do the Government never praise good teachers?" I then send them quotations from the Secretary of State, his predecessors and his colleagues on the Front Bench, all of whom have praised teachers at one time or another—perhaps not as much as some teachers may like, but they have done it. The media and the press —there may be someone in the Press Gallery, but I very much doubt it at this time of the evening—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Gallery does not exist as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
  Mr. Thompson: I did remember, but it was too late. The media outside rarely pick up compliments that the Secretary of State and his colleagues pay to teachers or anyone else.
  I turn to the main point in what was originally intended to be a brief speech. There is a tension in the debate about the Bill, which will come through in the Committee as well, concerning the need to rid education of trendy nostrums—the ivory tower syndrome to which we referred earlier. Some hon. Members may feel that that has gone, but my attention was drawn only a few moments ago to a letter that Mr. Tom Cornish wrote to the recent newsletter
  638
  of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers—an organisation of which I was once a member, although it had a different name in those days. Mr. Cornish said:
  "on my PGCE course three years ago I quickly realised that the compulsory lectures delivered by uninspiring and politicised staff did not merit any note-taking at all. At the end of the course I copied sections out of ridiculous books for essays that I wrote with no conviction. All the useful training, reflection and sharing of experience took place within schools, and days at college were only valuable as a mental respite from the rigours of teaching practice."
  That is obviously an isolated case and I have said already that I do not want to attack teacher training institutions. I merely quote from the letter to ensure that people realise that a problem remains and that the Government are right to look at it. There is tension between those of us who say that there is a problem to be addressed in teacher training and those who, quite rightly, believe that there is a need for teachers to have high standards of academic training and status.
  That is where our institutions of higher education—our universities—have a role to play. In the debate about clause 12 and related clauses, members of the Standing Committee will try to address the problem: how can we get away from the ivory tower syndrome? Many young people whom I have taught have gone into teacher training and praised that training, but many others have come away from teacher training and said what a nonsense it was.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Thompson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Tension arises in addressing that problem —I think that the Government are correct to look at it—while recognising that teachers need to have high academic standards. By definition—I am sure that the Government accept that view—those standards can be met only through universities and colleges of higher education.
  Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am most intrigued by his reference to the ivory tower—or ivory silo, if it comes to that. What is an ivory tower in this context? What makes it self-evident that someone is living in an ivory tower? What are the nostrums that the hon. Gentleman talked about? How are they self-evident? What proof does he have that they are failing?
  Mr. Thompson: That sounds like the sort of intervention that my colleagues who will serve on the Standing Committee should address. I would be very unpopular with all hon. Members if I were to digress on the subject of ivory towers or ivory silos.
  In an earlier intervention, I referred to the leading article in The Times today, which gave strong support to the main purposes of the Bill. It also referred to a concept that has the support of both sides of the House. For a long time, I have advocated the establishment of a professional teachers council. Opposition Members have referred to the General Teaching Council and spoken of their support for that concept. However, I have a problem with that idea.
  The Government, quite rightly, see some of the recent proposals for a general teachers council as a kind of talking shop—a son of Burnham. Those of us who experienced the old Burnham process would shy away from anything that remotely resembled the gathering called the Burnham committee. I would certainly run a mile from such a process, and that was my view long before I became a Member of Parliament.

  639
  The idea has been advanced for a professional teachers body, although not necessarily the General Teaching Council. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education is listening, because I am trying to make a distinction between what I am advocating and the General Teaching Council. I believe that there should be some sort of professional teachers body. It should not be a talking shop and not necessarily be any of the proposals that have been advanced recently, but we need a council to formulate and enforce a code of conduct, to advise teachers on their terms of employment and methods of classroom assessment and so on.
  In the same way that other professions have their professional bodies, I put on record my general support for some sort of professional body for teachers. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, I believe that teachers' pay is important, but it is not the only thing that affects teachers' status. That is why I raise again the question of some sort of professional body for teachers.
  We need to ensure that teachers—whether school-based or college-based—are able to instruct their pupils in the basic skills to the very highest standards—the three Rs, or whatever one likes to call them. As an ex-physics teacher, I attach great importance to basic standards in English and mathematics. I also believe in high standards in academic subjects, for example, a language or a science. The Government have been right all along to speak out for high standards in the face of those who are always trying to "level down" and bring the mediocre into our schools. They have been right to strive for higher academic standards and higher standards generally and we also want teachers to teach vocational, technical and craft skills to the highest standards.
  I am arguing for rigour in teaching and teacher training because there is a risk of a lack of rigour. The hon. Member for Bath was a physics teacher and I am sure that he will agree that there is a tendency for pupils to go for the easier option, the soft subject. I have made myself unpopular by referring to some degree courses that I regard as soft subjects, but there are many.
  Mr. Butler: Name them.
  Mr. Thompson: What about social sciences for a start? I shall not go any further because I am taking a grave risk. I know that members of all parties share the view that there is a need for rigour in education. Again, I must be careful when I say that those of us who follow the media and read the newspapers—far be it from me to criticise them—know that there is a great deal of shallow thinking about. The only way to put that right is to increase rigour in education.
  I hope that the Bill will build on the Government's education reforms of the 1980s, which were a long-overdue revolution in the interests of children, parents and teachers. No doubt the wilder elements—I choose my words carefully—of the National Union of Teachers will continue to sing a lament for the trendy education nostrums, unstructured teaching and the low standards of attainment and discipline of the 1960s, but, fortunately, all that is now irrelevant. The task now is to build logically on what has been achieved since 1988. Evolution, not revolution, is the order of the day and the Bill must be part of that detailed evolutionary process. I hope that my
  640
  colleagues will listen carefully to responsible voices in the teaching profession who want them to get it right. I support the Bill.
  6.42 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: I was about to say that the speech made by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) was a measured one but that was before his comment about social science degrees. As someone with such a degree, I shall refrain from saying what I had intended to say.
  As the Secretary of State said, today is the 15th anniversary of the election of the 1979 Conservative Government. I had not woken up thinking about that this morning—it is not a date that I put in my diary—but it reminds me that tomorrow must be the 15th anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher's famous speech made on the steps of No. 10 Downing street when she said:
  "Where there is error, may we bring truth."
  The Bill, introduced 15 years after the election of a Conservative Government, does nothing to bring truth but simply perpetuates error in the Government's education policy.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) described some of the scenes that she saw in classrooms. She described students as pathetic creatures by virtue of the way in which they were being taught. I was left wondering why someone who had held ministerial office in the then Department of Education had not taken steps long ago to put right teacher training if she felt that it was that bad. I am inclined to believe that she was making a generalisation based on something that she had seen and of which she did not approve. The same fault can be attributed to a number of Conservative Members. Nothing is perfect is this life, and I am not the person to say that teacher training is perfect, but to take isolated examples and extrapolate from them a need for a new Bill is not worthy of Government.
  The Bill owes its existence more to the Department for Education's obsession with legislation than to any need to change initial teacher training drastically. There is no doubt that in the past two decades since I did my teacher training there have been steady and significant improvements. There is now closer integration with the rest of higher education, a proposal that I believe emanated from the days when Baroness Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education, and from the James report. We have witnessed the introduction of an all-graduate profession, and there is greater emphasis on teacher trainers themselves having teaching experience. We no longer recruit teachers from the ranks of those who failed to get graduate degree places, and teaching has been put firmly where it belongs—in the mainstream of higher education.
  In picking out the improvements that have been made to teacher training, I give credit to the measures introduced by the Conservative Government. Their actions, and those introduced by a Labour Government, have brought about a steadier improvement than we saw in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the Bill is a backward step. It reflects the historic notion that teaching can be learnt in the workplace—the old monitorial system—and not the reality, which is that teaching is a complex and changing business.
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), which many hon. Members found humorous, was sad. He offered us reminiscences through the history of education but, if he really believes that we

  641
  can draw on that history and learn lessons for the future of teaching, he is sadly mistaken. He told us a story about a group of children of whom he had charge and who were excluded from the curriculum and sent out of school every day. He told us about the antics that he had to perform —for example, climbing drainpipes—in order to get the respect of those children. If he believes that such things are still happening in schools and that it what we are training teachers for, he is sadly out of touch with education in the 1990s.
  Today, all children are part of the national curriculum. They should all be taking GCSEs and we have the highest expectations of every one of them. We want them to continue in education for as long as possible. There are no lessons to be learnt from the teachers of the 1950s and 1960s who were in the same position as the right, hon. Member for Brent, North. We do not want those lessons. We want a realisation that teaching needs to be innovative and that it is complex and demanding. We are discussing training for that job, not training for the job that the right hon. Member did two, three and four decades ago.
  The Bill's flaw is a serious misunderstanding of what is needed to make an effective teacher. Teaching is not only about a set of skills that one can practise until one has got it right. One cannot divide teaching into competencies that can be ticked when they have been mastered—one can or cannot hold the chalk, or one can or cannot write on the board. There is not a single body of knowledge that is the key to success. Most important, teaching is about understanding how children learn and how they succeed. It is about understanding that the way in which a school organises itself can affect whether a child can learn successfully, that what a child goes home to at night and what his family are like can affect whether he succeeds and that the environment and community in which his family live and in which the school operates determines whether he can be successful.
  Mr. Butler: All that the hon. Lady says is correct but does she really believe that it can be taught only in the lecture theatre rather than by experience in the classroom?
  Ms Morris: Of course not. Labour Members have been saying that such things are taught by a combination of theory and practice. Conservatives Members are saying that teacher training can be solely school-based and left to the charge of schools. It is they who are seeking to divorce theory from practice, not Opposition Members.
  Before that interruption, I was referring to matters that are grounded in educational theory. Successful teacher education combines theory and practice and sees one reflected in the other.
  Universities must work closely with schools. I am not in favour of isolating teachers in universities, but the Bill shifts the emphasis from universities to schools in a way that gets the relationship between the two wrong. The title of part I—"Teacher Training"—best sums up the misunderstanding of those who propose it. People cannot be trained to be teachers. Teachers are not technicians or apprentices learning a trade. They need to learn facts and processes. They have to be adaptable and innovative, but that will not be achieved if teacher education is divorced from the rest of higher education, as is being done here.
  During my years in teaching, one of the things that I wanted most but did not happen—it still does not happen —was a period out of the classroom to reflect on what I had
  642
  been doing. I wanted time out to reflect on the practice, to go back to the theory, the ideas—the ideology, if that is how some hon. Members want to think of it—and see how they mixed. I had such opportunities only when I was training to be a teacher. During the years of training, the opportunity to go into school and be the practitioner but also to talk, receive support and go over what one had done, adapting it and going back to the classroom and improving, was extremely valuable. We should be giving more teachers that opportunity, rather than taking it away from students who are training to be teachers.
  One aspect of the Bill is the arrogant assumption that schools want to be, and can be, bases for school-centred courses. A school is primarily a place to teach children, not a place to teach teachers. Teachers are not trained to teach teachers, although they have a valuable role to play. Most teachers are not trained even to teach adults. Why should our best teachers be taken away from the classroom to teach people who could be better taught elsewhere? If we are not to perpetuate the inadequacies that still exist in some schools, the people who teach teachers in schools must be the best practitioners. Otherwise we shall fossilise poor teaching and fail to improve things. My choice is to have the best teachers teaching the pupils, and not the teachers. The Bill will, of necessity, draw those people away from that important and fundamental task.
  Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene, rather than interrupt, for a second time. She is quite correct to say that the best teachers should be in the classroom. Should not those seeking to emulate them be able to watch them, as is proposed in the Bill?
  Ms Morris: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman was last in a school or last went to a teacher education course. In the teaching experience part of university courses, the first thing that one does is to sit in and watch teachers taking lessons. There is a great difference between that situation, in which the student remains the responsibility of the lecturer, and the student being the responsibility of the teacher. The latter puts on teachers an onus that is burdensome and prevents them from doing their work with the pupils.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady may have missed the point about the whole principle of a trainee teacher going into schools. For years, trainee teachers have been complaining that their courses are so bound up in theory that they never learn the art of classroom management. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are wrong. Trainee teachers complain bitterly that they have not been getting experience that they badly need. If Opposition Members want an example, let me refer them to a teacher called Maria Foster, who, at St. Peter's high school in Gloucester, was involved in one of these teacher-based courses. She gave great credit for the chance to be in the classroom, where she felt that she would benefit most.
  Ms Morris: It is quite clear—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady, from whom we have just had a very long intervention, should have the courtesy to listen to the answer. That is perhaps the best example of the fact that we still have error rather than truth. If the hon. Lady knows of one educational institution that trains teachers without putting them in the classroom, she ought to report it immediately to the Secretary of State for Education. Any institution doing so would be acting without the law. Being

  643
  in schools is experience of teaching. I do not know anyone who has followed a course accrediting him or her to be a teacher without having had practice in the classroom. If the hon. Lady does, she ought to do something about it.
  Mr. Jamieson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the "mums' army" proposal had not been thrown out, quite rightly, by the House of Lords, potential teachers could have found themselves being taught by people who were themselves barely qualified?
  Ms Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. Perhaps he ought to keep quiet about that. As it seems a good way of saving money, the Secretary of State might take it up.
  I want to return to what is wrong about putting the emphasis on placing teacher training in schools. Not only does that disrupt the work of schools and of good teachers, but—this is more important—schools may not be able to provide the necessary consistency and coherence. A recent OFSTED report on articled teachers—a school-based teacher training scheme—discovered
  "The degree of inconsistency was more evident than in conventional PGCE courses. Schools and teachers varied in the nature and quality of support they provided. Weaknesses also arose from poor school placements, badly designed courses and inefficient management."
  Those comments could well be the verdict on the school-based teacher education that might be introduced as a result of the Bill. At present, the Further Education Funding Council provides the quality control and assurance. The Bill will remove teacher education from that successful structure.
  The current link between higher education and schools is good not only for students but for schools. Students and teacher trainers bring to schools new ideas and materials. Indeed, the link between schools and higher education that is part of the current arrangements can contribute to a school's professional development.
  The Bill is so unnecessary that one must assume that there is more to it than meets the eye. An intervention by the hon. Member for—[Interruption.]—Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) confirmed my worst fears. For a moment I forgot what constituency the hon. Lady represents but was helped out by one of my hon. Friends. How I forgot I do not know. The Bill reflects the Government's deep prejudice against what they see as the educational establishment. We have heard from various Secretaries of State—most recently last week from the Home Secretary—expressions of suspicion that teachers educated in so-called left-wing trendy universities are responsible for lowering standards and corrupting our youth.
  Once again, having identified the wrong problem, the Government, through the Bill, have come up with the same old solution, much loved and readily grasped by them, "Let's give power to the Secretary of State and let's appoint a quango." The Govenrnment now suffer from a serious malady—"quangoitis" or what my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) called quango mania. The Secretary of State has given us two quangos in two years. In fact, he has more power to hand out jobs than do some jobcentres.
  The ranks of the Tory faithful must again be expectant at the prospect of even more appointments coming their
  644
  way by gift of the Secretary of State for Education. The right hon. Gentleman already controls what is taught and how it is assessed. Now he wants to control how the teachers are taught and which courses should be funded. Never has there been a Secretary of State for Education who has striven so successfully to achieve political correctness.
  No one is saying that initial teacher training is perfect. There are real difficulties. There are real problems to be overcome. There are difficulties in combining theory and practice effectively. For example, how can we teach young teachers to motivate children who come from homes that place little or no value on education, or to exert effective discipline over 40 small children? How can we constantly remind teachers to place firmly within their ideology the fact that their expectations of a child will be a crucial element in that child's success? Those difficulties must at the very least be described as a challenge for those who have to address the issue of teacher training.
  However, the Bill will not help to meet that challenge. By isolating student teachers from other graduates, by failing to realise that effective teachers master the process that links theory with practice and by placing a burden on schools that will detract from their main purpose, the Bill fails to meet the only criterion by which it can be judged —whether it will improve effective teaching and learning in our schools. The Bill makes no contribution to that task, which is the task of all of us. For those reasons, it does not deserve the support of the House.
  7 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I shall begin with a couple of comments about the two Front-Bench speeches.
  I was slightly concerned to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that the Bill represents the last piece of the jigsaw. I believe that there is still more work to be done. We need to complete the process of freeing educational institutions from the control of local education authorities. We started the process with the polytechnics —the universities already had their freedom—and we continued it with sixth form and further education colleges. It is now time that we did the same with all secondary schools.
  My right hon. Friend may remember—although he probably does not—that on Second Reading of the Education Bill of 1993 I argued that we should turn all secondary schools into grant-maintained schools.
  Mr. Patten: I remember.
  Mr. Riddick: My right hon. Friend kindly says that he remembers my speech; I am pleased to hear that.
  I believe that we should turn all secondary schools into grant-maintained schools, so that effectively they would compete as autonomous schools, albeit within the state sector. I think that education policy is going down that route anyway. The benefits to be obtained from grant-maintained status are now well known, and it will be difficult for the Labour party to argue at the next general election that it would abolish all grant-maintained schools.
  As for the speech delivered from the Opposition Front Bench, it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wriggling so tremendously when challenged about her position on the National Union of Teachers' boycott of tests. Now that Sir Ron Dearing has

  645
  made appropriate changes, I see no excuse for such behaviour by any of the teaching unions. Yet the hon. Member for Dewsbury refused to condemn the test boycotts proposed by the NUT. She should be ashamed of herself; her refusal to condemn the NUT was disgraceful. It is pathetic, and an indictment of the Labour party, that it feels unable to condemn a teaching union that recommends such disreputable action. It shows, I suppose, that the Labour party is still in the pocket of the trade unions.
  Most of the speeches in the debate so far have concentrated on the teacher-training aspects of the Bill, so I shall concentrate on the second part of the Bill, which relates to student unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surprise, surprise"] I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that. He may remember that I initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject in June 1992.
  Last December I had the pleasure of speaking to Conservative students at Hull university. Before the meeting I went into the student union shop to buy a newspaper, only to find that The Sun and The Daily Star were banned on the ground that they were sexist. [Interruption.] That censorship had been ordered by the student union executive, and Opposition Members may be interested to know that it was supported by the Labour students. Indeed, I heard one or two hon. Members shout, "Hear, hear," when I said that The Sun and The Daily Star had been banned for being sexist.
  Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the pictures displayed on page 3 of The Sun and The Daily Star are the sort of thing that we should put before our children? Or does he agree with the students that we should set a moral tone, and that such perversion should not be thrust into our homes?
  Mr. Riddick: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of censorship. I am not sure that students would be altogether pleased by his referring to them as children. I should have thought that once they are beyond the age of 18 they are old enough to decide for themselves whether to read those newspapers. Indeed, if they are offended by such pictures, they do not have to look at them. It is as easy as that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman never looks at the offending pictures, does he?
  Mr. Enright: I never look at those rags, not even wrapped round fish and chips.
  Mr. Butler: In view of the recent change in the editorial policy of The Sun, does my hon. Friend not agree that a ban on it throughout the country might be advantageous?
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but I do not believe in censorship, so I want to see The Sun on sale, despite any reservations that I may have about it now. Incidentally, my hon. Friends may be interested to know that at Hull university I would have been able to buy a copy of a rag called Socialist Worker, which was on sale at the entrance to the student union when I went in.
  I had also visited Hull students union the year before; my speech cannot have been all that bad, because I was invited back the following year to speak to the Conservative students again. The first year, I was threatened with physical violence because I had had the temerity to point out in my speech—I suppose it was a slightly provocative or controversial speech—that the implementation of socialism by the communists in eastern
  646
  Europe, China, Africa and Asia had caused more misery, poverty and death than the Nazis under Hitler ever managed to achieve. A small minority of left-wing students did not like my message, so they threatened me with violence. Such unrepresentative behaviour gives students as a whole a bad name, and that is most unfortunate.
  There are many examples of abuses perpetrated by student unions and the NUS. Innumerable left-wing causes have been supported, anti-abortionists have been victimised, and even the IRA has received support from within the student union movement.
  Mr. Pope: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman was threatened at Hull university—the university that I attended—but does he accept that he was threatened or intimidated, not by the student union itself, but by members of it? It is important to draw that distinction.
  Mr. Riddick: I accept that distinction, and I intend to deal with that aspect of the matter.
  My next example comes from somewhere not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Conservative association at Lancaster university was fined £400 by the students union there because it had the nerve to suggest that the student union's commercial activities could be organised in a more orderly and effective way.
  So far as I am concerned, individual students can say or do whatever they wish. However, I object when a small number of students do and say extreme or absurd things in the name of all students, and at the taxpayer's expense. I also object to the fact that young people who go to study in institutions of higher education find that they have to belong to the local student union. The fact that they have no choice is a shocking state of affairs. I do not suppose that it is a state of affairs about which Opposition Members care very much, but I think that it is a serious matter.
  Many students have complained to me about the student closed shop. More than 200 Members of Parliament signed an early-day motion calling for the student closed shop to be abolished, and 50 or so Members attended the Adjournment debate, which was an indication of the interest and concern felt in the House about abuses in the student union closed shop. Students should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they wish to belong to their local student union. We have abolished the trade union closed shop; it is time to abolish the student union closed shop as well. That is what the Bill, albeit in its truncated form, is intended to do.
  The Bills's original intention of splitting the political and campaigning activities from the provision of services was the right approach. It would have given individual students the right to opt into the political aspects of student union activities, while, at the same time, allowing all students to enjoy the benefits currently provided by student unions. It would certainly have maximised choice. Unfortunately, the dinosaur defenders of the status quo have managed to blunt the original intention.
  First, the officials in the Department for Education produced proposals, which, in my view, were too complicated and too bureaucratic. Of course, it is fair to point out that the officials in that same Department were also responsible for producing proposals in relation to the implementation of the national curriculum, which were too complicated and too bureaucratic. It is time that the officials in the Department learnt their lesson from that.

  647
  Secondly, the vice-chancellors and others in the House of Lords—
  Mr. Patten: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Riddick: Yes, of course.
  Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. His is one of the best speeches that I have heard all evening. It is only Ministers who decide and only Ministers who are responsible. So, if my hon. Friend has strictures, his lash must be aimed at my back or at the back of my predecessors and not at my splendid officials at the Department for Education.
  Mr. Riddick: I do not want to be one of those who is having a go at my right hon. Friend. I have—[Interruption.] I have a great deal of respect for him and I like him very much. I, for one, think that he is doing a jolly good job. [Laughter.] Perhaps improvements in the Bill concerning student unions could be made. None the less, I stand by what I have just said.
  I was talking about dinosaur defenders. The vice-chancellors and others in the House of Lords who represent the vested interests of the higher education establishment did their best to deny their students more choice. From their ivory towers, they were unable to recognise the important principle of freedom of association that was being made available to students. I regret that the protection of vested interests has become more important in the House of Lords in recent years than the offering of expert advice and opinion.
  The Bill, as amended, will in practice, I fear, change very little in the world of student unions, but at least it embodies the principle that students can choose whether they wish to belong to the student union. My understanding is that, with the Bill as it is drafted, those choosing not to join a student union will not be able to use the current facilities provided. Such students will not even have a proportion of fees paid on their behalf to the union returned to them. Making such a payment to individual students who opt out is something that should be considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and perhaps we could consider it in Committee.
  Students who opt out are likely to do so because they do not wish the student union to campaign or make political statements on their behalf. They may, however, wish to use the bar or the cafeteria or the student welfare facilities. At the moment, they will not necessarily be able to do so. Therefore, I believe that the Bill needs to be amended so that all students, regardless of membership of the union, have access to the facilities. Indeed, we should be considering how we can strip away the political and campaigning activities of student unions so that those students who wish to be involved in such activities have to take a positive decision to join the appropriate body, separate from the student union, and use their own money, not taxpayers' money. Theoretically, of course, the charitable status of student unions means that they should not be involved in political activity. In practice, many student unions are involved. Therefore, the Bill should stress the responsibility of governing bodies to ensure that the charity laws are complied with in general and that political activity is not permitted in particular.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what funds he believes that institutions of higher education should use to pay for their membership of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals?
  Mr. Riddick: I am not quite sure of the relevance of that point. It is—[Interruption.] I suppose that it is typical that one hears an intervention which is of no interest—[Laughter.]—which contributes nothing to the debate.
  Mr. Foster: It is of interest to this particular debate.
  Mr. Riddick: It is of no interest to this particular debate.
  Mr. Foster: It is of interest.
  Mr. Riddick: No, it is of no interest to this particular debate, but then the Liberals—
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Riddick: No. As we know, the Liberals—
  Mr. Enright: I want to help the hon Member.
  Mr. Riddick: If the hon. Gentleman wants to help me, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Enright: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall try to speak in simple words. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the position of the NUT and testing is more a part of the debate than he considered the subject on which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has just asked him a question to be part of the debate?
  Mr. Riddick: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may be interested to know that, in Yorkshire, there is a television programme that goes out on the BBC every Sunday afternoon called—I think—"North of Westminster". The hon. Gentleman was putting in his bid to get on that programme this Sunday. We all know that he is a hit of a smart Alec, but he is not being very smart in this case. I should have thought that he would recognise that I was making two very different points. At the beginning of my speech, I made reference to the point to which he has just referred, but the part of my speech that I am currently addressing relates to student unions. The hon. Member for Bath raised a completely separate issue, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was able to understand that point.
  We should be considering the possibility of establishing a student ombudsman. At the moment, when abuses occur, if charitable law is broken, concerned students have to go to the courts to put a stop to the abuse. It would be extremely useful for students to be able to appeal to an impartial individual who would not be in any way involved with the institution where abuses had occurred. We could set up a post for an individual along the lines of those of the commissioner for trade union rights. Alternatively, a more appropriate approach may be to ensure that an official in the Charity Commission is designated as responsible for student union issues.
  I wish to make a point concerning external organisations. We need to consider the donations and commercial payments that some student unions make to outside organisations, because some of them are often disguised affiliations to or means of support for political or other organisations. The NUS is certainly the most obvious example of that. We should not forget that at the last election the NUS targeted 70 marginal seats with the clear

  649
  intention of helping the Labour party. The NUS has announced its intention of becoming a charity. We have not heard much about that in recent months, and I look forward to hearing more about it. Indeed, I look forward to the day when the NUS is a charity.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Riddick: No. I shall bring my remarks to an end.
  I am pleased that we shall have the opportunity of debating the Bill in Committee. I am sorry that it is not as it was when it was presented to the other place, but as it provides for voluntary membership of student unions, I am happy to support it.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: In some respects, I am happy to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). Having read his biographical details, I understand that he was once a student at one of the universities at which I was a student. I do not know which department he was in at Warwick or what degree he obtained there, but it is clear that something bad happened to him there that left him with a festering discontent with higher education, the vice-chancellors and student unions—the whole lot. Something happened in the hon. Gentleman's past that led to his fetish about student unions.
  The Secretary of State said in an intervention that the hon. Gentleman's speech was the best contribution that he had heard to the debate. Nevertheless, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stand firm and support what has happened in the other place. The Bill is a compromise, and life is all about compromise. Progress is made only by compromise. I hope that we can all support the compromise that is before us. I think that most Conservative Members who have spoken would be of that opinion. The Secretary of State is right to take that view.
  All teachers these days have been students. Some members of student unions go on to teach. Why do they bother to train to teach? The answer lies in the spirit of education. A child—we have not talked too much about children this afternoon—who is deprived of even an adequate education will not stand a chance of succeeding in life. That matters a great deal to everyone, irrespective of whether he or she is a parent.
  We must ensure that teachers are trained. In turn, they must ensure that the children in their charge try hard at school. Teachers must make children work hard at school. It is crucial that children are pushed to the limit.
  We are told in the Bill that its enactment will lead to no net cost. Whenever I read that statement in a Bill, I am suspicious. There is a draft Bill in my name on an unrelated matter that contains the same statement. There are gross costs around somewhere, and I am sure that they will be found when the Bill's provisions are implemented.
  When it comes to education, there is no anti-tax mood among the British people, irrespective of the party to which they belong. Any party that sought to tap into such an anti-tax mood would be in for a nasty shock. I think that education is underfunded as a whole within the Government's expenditure programme. More resources should be put into it. Many take that view but, whether inside or outside the House, there is no unanimity when it comes to priorities.
  650
  My priorities would be smaller classes and increased pre-school provision before extra salaries for teachers, for trained teachers or better trained teachers. That is my personal view. I do not deny that higher salaries would lead to higher pupil achievement, but they would have to be tied to specific programmes and policies.
  We must attract the best graduates into teaching, and no doubt higher salaries would have a part in that. So would staff development, a properly funded mentor teaching programme, properly funded bilingual teacher training, and improved maths and science teacher training. Such developments would all cost money, but they are all part of the overall programme.
  We must acknowledge the importance of retaining experienced teachers in difficult or disadvantaged areas. There are good schools in such areas, but we would be naive not to realise that special help is needed to retain experienced staff and maintain a good level of specialist support in difficult schools in deprived areas. In other words, across-the-board pay increases would not do in a nation as diverse and unequal as ours in terms of education and social progress.
  It is vital that we create a good schools programme for teachers. Unfortunately, the Bill will not take us to that. Having succeeded in getting his hand on the legislative lever this year, the Secretary of State could have embarked on that course. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said, if the root of all evil in 1979 was perceived to be what had gone wrong with teachers in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, why are we only starting in 1994 to put things right? In that sense, the Bill is a missed opportunity.
  My response would have been different if the Secretary of State had produced a good schools programme and said, "We shall have a learning guarantee and ensure that teachers are trained to deliver it. We shall ensure that all our schools improve their performance every year in a measurable way because our teachers will be better trained. Better training will ensure that every school improves its performance in a measurable way each year."
  Having better trained teachers—intelligent people—would lead us to say that simplistic and inaccurate league tables are not the right approach. Instead, we would construct a system to measure the education distance travelled by pupils each year within a school. That is how the progress of a school should be measured.
  I would have no compunction in arguing that the distance travelled in those terms could trigger extra cash for a school. That could be used as a trigger mechanism. I make no bones about that. I could not say to better trained teachers that we would continue with simplistic and inaccurate league tables.
  Parents are extremely interested in these matters. Unlike national health service consultants' merit pay, a school's entire performance must be known to the entire community. It will get through to the Secretary of State one day that he has taken the wrong course. There is an alternative approach that could result in cross-party support and support from parents and teachers, and that means finding a way of measuring the distance travelled in education terms by pupils, and therefore by schools, over a year. People want the best for their community, for their school and above all, as individuals and families, the best for their children.
  I see no problem in advancing the cause of fixed-term, well-paid contracts for some head teachers, or all heads.

  651
  We should not rule out that approach in the search for policy progress. We must take education seriously, and search for the right motivators. I know that that may cause problems among some head teachers, but I would have no compunction about doing it. Ultimately, we rely on the head teachers to ensure that teachers perform.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley described so well, we rely on head teachers under the existing system. Judging by their existing input into teacher training, anyone would think that schools, heads and teachers were not involved in teacher training, but they are. It seems that the refusal of Ministers to admit that has led them to introduce this misguided Bill.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): As usual, the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and I do not want to interrupt his flow. I agree with him on the importance of measuring progress. I should like him to develop the issue a little further, although that means taking him back to where he was in his speech two minutes ago. Surely the only way that we can satisfactorily measure progress is by regular testing at appropriate ages. If we do not test, against what measurement and achievement can we measure the children—something that he and I agree that it is important to do?
  Mr. Rooker: I do not want to be diverted from the main subject. The issue raised by the Minister is for another day, but I do not want to run away from it. There is no dissension between my hon. Friends and me, or between Opposition and Conservative Members, but Conservative Members have chosen the wrong test—a narrow test.
  If we are to measure the distance that a child travels during the year or during his period at school, we must know where he originally started. We are not agreed on the way to do that. If we use only simple, narrow tests at one-off times, as under the Government arrangements, we shall not be able to measure the distance travelled by the child or the school. We can then look at output simply in terms of examinations, which pay no heed to the original state, which is crucial.
  I represent a part of Birmingham that is setting a target under its excellent new chief education officer. Every school has to measure progress during the year; every school has to do better. We have not set a target for the whole city, as that would be ludicrous for a city of 400 schools—it would be bad in a city of only 40 schools. The target must be that every school must make progress every year, and woe betide it if it does not. There must be sanctions; there must be a genuine investment of resources to enable the schools to achieve that progress.
  It comes down to the question how one measures the distance travelled. I am happy to debate that issue in greater detail with Ministers on another occasion. We shall see what happens in the city of Birmingham in the next 18 months.
  Professor Wragg, who is involved in teacher training, will return with his commission to measure what has happened in Birmingham since he wrote and published his report last year. He has put the city, the new education committee, the new leader of the council and the new chief education officer on trial. He presented his report and said that he would return to check on it in two years time.
  652
  His checks will involve looking at what has happened in schools and how they have gone about raising the performance of not only pupils, but teachers—the two go hand in hand. We can never have a good schools programme if everything is driven from the centre by the Department for Education. That was probably where our difficulties began.
  Mr. Butler: I hope to make a helpful intervention by taking the hon. Gentleman back to the issue of each school improving magnificently each year. That is fine, and I agree that we need to know, assess and improve the value-added element on each pupil every year. In the real world post-school, that pupil will have to be measured against other pupils who have emerged into the world. Ultimately, he must be measured against absolutes of achievement—what the hon. Gentleman describes as the output quota.
  Mr. Rooker: At the end of school life—not educational life, as no one should ever opt out of education—on the other side of the barrier that we have assembled, when we cross from secondary to further or to higher education, there will be points of measurement. But yardsticks exist —whether in the form of GCSEs, A-levels, results from the Business and Technician Education Council or the record of achievement—against which all pupils are measured on a "level playing field", a phrase that I hate to use. Our task is to bring pupils to that level.
  We stand a better chance of bringing all pupils nearer to the yardstick tests if we insist that every pupil is measured in terms of the distance they travel educationally, and demand that every school should improve every year. That would be better than the current wide system, under which we operate the carrot-and-stick approach, and nothing is measured at school. Such a system would be welcome, although not perfect. It would provide a better test for pupils than exists under the present arrangements.
  The last thing we want is teacher training to be organised and controlled by schools. Hon. Members have mentioned vested interests. Progress in any walk of life can be obtained only by challenging vested interests. We all have vested interests, no matter what sector we work in. People do not like change. Therefore, we must be aware of vested interests, which sometimes stare us in the face and we still fail to recognise them. Good, sweet arguments are made as to why no change is necessary, everything is fine and people can manage as they are. I do not accept that argument, whether it be made in terms of housing, industry or education—
  Mr. Pawsey: Trade unions?
  Mr. Rooker: I do not accept that argument in relation to trade unions. Massive progress has been made in trade unions in recent years, because members have challenged vested interests in them.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I should not give way, because the hon. Gentleman intervened from a sedentary position, but I shall do so as he is such a decent, one-nation Tory who supports the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall accept that, and any terms from the hon. Gentleman, because I can return the compliment. His integrity in the House is beyond all doubt. If he believes that the reform of the trade unions challenges vested

  653
  interests, why did he not support the legislation introduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends challenging the vested interests of those unions?
  Mr. Rooker: I am not going to be diverted, and I shall not be challenged on my ability to face up to vested interests in the House in any way, shape or form.
  Vested interests must be challenged. The Department for Education has a vested interest in education. Local authorities have a vested interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has made clear on other occasions, nothing in those organisations commands the confidence and trust of those working in education or those interested in the subject.
  We should check on the performance of the schools of education in our higher education institutions. For one moment earlier today, I thought that I was back in the mid-1970s, when I sat on the other side of the Chamber and listened to the then Shirley Williams talk about teacher training colleges. I do not know what a teacher training college is. Such colleges disappeared decades ago and do not exist in the form that hon. Members have described them.
  When discussing education, it is dangerous for any hon. Member or policy former to use his own experience as a pupil or a teacher, in higher or further education, 20 or 30 years ago, to form policy today. I cannot impress firmly enough on hon. Members the danger of doing that. It causes major problems because things have changed so much. It is highly dangerous, and damages the system, if we make quick visits to institutions or schools and then say that they are not as good as they were, so we must devise a new policy.
  We must be able to measure performance. There is a case for better performance checks in schools of education in the higher education institutions. By and large, Ministers have spent a good deal of their time denigrating teachers and educationists in the past few years. I know that there has been a slight amelioration of that today, but over a period more time has been spent denigrating educationists than applauding them. They are not the people to do it through the quango, because it will not command confidence. If there is scope for a standing commission or something for the advancement of education, it is certainly not the Department for Education.
  My hon. Friends realise that all is not well in education as it is structured at present. It is not right that education is as highly centralised and in the grasp of Ministers as it is at present. I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not want the powers that the Secretary of State has taken unto himself recently, because it is not the way in which education should be run.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman said that he does not believe in control from a distance. I suggest that, in a large number of schools, parents and governors are realising that the best way of running them is to do it themselves. That is why grant-maintained status has been so successful. The real problem is control by local education authorities, especially those run by the hon. Gentleman's party.
  Mr. Rooker: I will not go down that road, because the idea that local education authorities are controlling schools is a fallacy. Schools control at least 85 per cent. of their own financial resources. I am aware of the inability of local education authorities to act in some areas. I wish that LEAs
  654
  could act in some areas, but they say that they cannot do so because they do not have any control—it is down to the governors. Sometimes, governors are not fully seized of the responsibility that the House has thrust on them. A major change has taken place out there.
  I speak as a member of a further education corporation —I have been so for more than 20 years. I am aware of the extra responsibilities that incorporation has placed on it. However, in terms of schools, governors are only just becoming aware of the great responsibility that they have for what happens in their schools. In some areas, that is making it difficult to find replacement governors; people realise that they cannot give the time and effort to their duties and responsibilities. It is not all plain sailing and sweetness and light, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) imagines.
  If we are to take education seriously—I do not think that the Bill does—we must stop messing about with it. For example, if there is a superficially attractive case for hypothecated taxes for the national health service, there is an overwhelming case for a special tax for education, whether it be through income tax, value added tax or education bonds. The fact is that we must examine different ways of funding education, because education covers the whole gamut, whether it is teacher training, running schools or training teachers in higher education institutions.
  We need all the levers possible to ensure value for money. However, we should spend and raise what is required to do the job, because as a nation we cannot afford not to. That means to say yes. As a nation, we must assess what is needed to do the job in education, whether it be pre-school education, school education, further education or higher education. We must then make the resources available to do the job. That does not mean that we are not interested in value for money—I am as interested in that as any other hon. Member.
  I do not think that we as a generation have a right to restrict the educational advancement of a younger generation, but that is what we do by not making resources available. We have a moral duty to push that generation to work and study harder with the resources required to make it available. That includes teachers, trainee teachers and pupils of every age.
  I shall finish by referring briefly to a point made earlier. —indeed, the Secretary of State made the point in an intervention—about adults turning from industry to teaching, which they had never done. I applaud that. It is not easy for people to make that transition. People enter the higher education system to train as teachers. While I do not want to go down the road in detail, I do not think that we fund higher education properly. It is extremely difficult for people to move over. People may move over, having reassessed their lives. It may not be a conscious decision to leave the boardroom or the shop floor one day and to enter education. It does not happen like that. People have a period of reflection which usually comes about when they have moved from one job to another or when they have lost a job.
  People ask themselves whether they are doing the right thing. What do they want to do with the rest of their lives? What opportunities are available for them to make a contribution? How best can they use their previous experience to benefit themselves, their families and their communities? Such questions cause people to consider offering their experience to the world of education.

  655
  It is extremely difficult for people who have become unemployed and who are highly motivated to enter the world of education, simply because the way in which higher education is structured means that there are unfair distinctions between full-time and part-time. That distinction should be abolished. It would enable us to have a decent funding system, and it would enable more people to train to become teachers on a part-time or modular basis, rather than having to go the whole hog into a full-time position. Probably for the first time in their lives, they are applying for a mandatory grant, and they then find that they may lose free school meals for their children, housing benefits and all the other things that would keep them going while they are undertaking teacher training.
  Our present system does not allow for lifelong learning involvement or continuity in education. Recently, there has been a phenomenal expansion, which cannot be denied. I only wish that more people knew about it, because they would then ask serious, intelligent questions about funding, instead of resorting to one-liners about restoring grants or abolishing loans, which means either billions of pounds of public expenditure or a massive cut in existing student numbers. That is the consequence of such one-liners.
  Students should be decently funded. If Madam Speaker had selected my reasoned amendment—I make no criticism about that; in some ways, I would have been horrified if she had selected it—we could have raised some of the issues that I raised in it.
  Some of today's students, some of whom are training to be teachers, are queuing up for their refectory meals or collecting one meal and three plates to divide it by three because there is not enough money to go round. In some colleges, lecturers are sharing their lunch boxes with students, because the students do not have enough money to buy food to eat during the week.
  By and large, they are not the ones who may be getting the full grant and taking out the full loan; it is those who may not be getting the extra contributions that they should get from their parents, or it is the part-timers who are not being properly funded and assisted by the system. There is no problem with students putting something back into the kitty when they are doing well later, but it is certainly not possible under the present unfair system.
  It is sad that we have not got it right. We know that Ministers will claim that we have the best-funded student support system anywhere in Europe.
  Mr. Patten: Correct.
  Mr. Rooker: I am not denying that, when one looks at the global figure. But if it is so good, why do we have abject student poverty in pockets in every college and university in the country? At the same time, we are making money available, frankly, to those who do not need it. I pointed that out in my reasoned amendment, and I do not wish to go into that in further detail.
  Generally, education and social policies are synonymous with social justice. I do not think that we have social justice in education in Britain, either for trainee teachers or for anyone else, and the Bill will not bring it about. If the Secretary of State had come forward with a programme based on a good schools programme with equity funding, he would have found a great deal of support across the
  656
  House. He would probably have been astonished by the areas in which he found support. I am sad that he has not taken the opportunity to do that. I am gratified that he accepted the compromise reached in the House of Lords on part II.
  I was the first to respond to the Secretary of State's original statement on 1 July last year. He told me that I put the "R" back into "rant" when I pointed out that his programme and proposals for student unions would not work. If it was worth a rant, it worked, and for that I am grateful.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: May I at once declare an interest as an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers?
  I reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that to the best of my knowledge none of my right hon. or hon. Friends has ever attacked or denigrated teachers. They have gone out of their way on numerous occasions, all of which are on the record in Hansard, to applaud teachers and to thank them for their excellent work with the nation's children. Unlike the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I served on the Committee examining the education Bill to which she referred and I well recall the tone and language of Opposition Members in opposing some of our measures, which included the national curriculum and OFSTED.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: We supported the principle of the national curriculum and the principle of local management of schools, which many Labour authorities pioneered. We wanted a better inspection system and we said that the way in which the Government introduced those measures was wrong and that they were ahead of the pilot schemes. The whole of the Dearing review shows how much we were right and how much the Secretary of State was wrong.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman confirms that what I said was right. He says that the Government were wrong. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues opposed the Bill in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury failed to answer the question about the cost of nursery schools. I appreciate that I may be intruding on private grief but it would be helpful if the hon. Lady could bring herself to say that it will cost £500 million or £800 million or whatever the figure is. She must have some idea, and if she wishes to intervene I shall willingly give way.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I can tell the hon. Gentleman how much nursery education will cost if he can tell me how much progress Tory councils will make. How is it that Labour councils can manage to afford nursery places for 40 per cent. of their three and four-year-olds while Tory councils manage to find places for only 13 per cent.? If the Government made that a priority, they could find resources. I wrote to the Secretary of State some time ago about surplus places, requesting that before any such places were identified and taken out of the system the scope for developing nursery education in those areas should be examined. The Secretary of State has not even had the courtesy to reply.
  Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is able to say that in his view the cost of introducing universal nursery education would be about £800 million. If he can put a figure on it, why cannot the hon. Lady?
  Mrs. Taylor: It is because the Secretary of State has made many assumptions. I could assume that local authorities have sufficient money to fund nursery places at the Labour average rate. I cannot understand why Tory councils fail to make the provision that Labour councils are making.
  Mr. Pawsey: I understand the hon. Lady's clear reluctance to put a figure on it. I suspect that she has been hauled over the coals by her hon. Friends, who have successfully gagged her. Perhaps I could draw her on another matter. The hon. Lady opposes grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, the independent sector and city technology colleges. Do Her Majesty's principal Opposition have any discernible policy in education?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will eventually get to the Bill. Before he does, perhaps I may recommend Labour's Green Paper on education, "Opening Doors to a Learning Society," and suggest that our objective that the education of everyone really matters must be the way forward. I remind the hon. Gentleman that before Christmas the Prime Minister said that 15 per cent. of our children get an education that is as good as anywhere in the world. He went on to say that unfortunately the rest do not. Giving a decent education to 15 per cent. is inadequate. Britain has no future as a low-skill, low-wage economy, but that is the direction in which the Government are taking us. When more children passed examinations, as happened a couple of years ago with the GCSE, the Secretary of State complained that too many were passing —what an indictment that is.
  Mr. Pawsey: We have still not had a detailed exposition of what the Opposition would do if they came to office. My concern is shared by The Independent, which stated:
  "Mrs. Taylor has offered two bundles of rehashed reflection liberally laced with out of date waffle. Her papers are so palely green they are virtually translucent. Mrs. Taylor should be fired."
  I welcome the Bill and I welcome the Secretary of State's remark that this is the last piece in the education jigsaw. I share that view. A missing piece distorts and spoils the picture, but we can now visualise the scene when the jigsaw is complete. The Bill is the final step that is needed to transform education in British schools.
  I shall confine my speech to one aspect of the Bill—part I on teacher training. My concentration on part I should not be taken as a sign that I am disenchanted or in disagreement with part II. It is simply that I wish to concentrate on teaching and schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said, many hon. Members wish to speak about part II, which deals specifically with student unions.
  The Government's stated intention is to raise the standards of education for every child, and that prize is well within our grasp. For a long time I have believed that our nation has an almost infinite capacity to denigrate our institutions and achievements. That point was recently made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. We concentrate on the defects and seldom seem to lift our eyes to our general and genuine national achievements. The Government's education reforms, which started principally in 1988, are at last beginning to bear fruit. The national
  658
  curriculum and testing are increasingly accepted as a means of improving the quality and standard of state education by which the majority of the nation's children are educated.
  OFSTED is doing much to improve the nation's schools. So far, it has produced reports on more than 350 schools and, additionally, has undertaken more than 3,000 inspection visits. I was disappointed to hear the Secretary of State refer to what was taking place in East Anglia, where it appears that OFSTED is still being fought by the Liberals. I was dismayed because it shows that the Liberals have failed to grasp what OFSTED is about. The justification for OFSTED can be found in its substantial contribution, through those inspections, to raising standards. OFSTED is another of the Government's success stories. It is worth remembering that it was yet another reforming measure that was opposed by the short-sighted Opposition. On its introduction, it was derided by Labour and Liberal spokesmen. We were then told that it would be the end of education as we knew it.
  OFSTED has a particular relevance to the Bill and it would be helpful if I quote Professor Sutherland:
  "I was struck by the consistency with which inspections show how close, at all stages of education, is the statistical relationship between the standards and quality of learning, on the one hand, and the quality of teaching on the other".
  Here, then, is the justification for the Bill, which in part I sets out the method by which teacher training will be improved.
  The Bill will ensure that student teachers spend more time in schools learning from good practising teachers, and that teachers will be able to play a major part in designing the courses to be followed by the student.
  The training for primary teachers will include more time on maths, English and science, with greater emphasis on the basic skills of reading and arithmetic. The Bill will set up a new Teacher Training Agency, and I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). Although I was not surprised, as I know of his interest in these matters, it is always good to hear him speaking in support. The Bill will set up a new Teacher Training Agency which will bring together the various training strands, to the benefit of school children generally.
  Currently, the situation is complex because those involved with teacher training include the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, the Department for Education, and the teaching as a career unit. The Bill enables a new and independent body to be established, dedicated to teacher training. The importance of teacher training can scarcely be overstated. I was interested but not particularly surprised that, according to the Campaign for Real Education:
  "Teacher training institutions are the engine rooms of progressive education."
  I suspect that not many Conservative Members would disagree with that description, but the campaign is not alone in its view.
  The point was particularly well underlined by the leading article in The Sunday Times on 10 April this year. It referred to the National Union of Teachers conference in Scarborough:
  "A procession of militants trooped to the rostrum to proclaim the enduring validity of all the loony-left nostrums from the 1960s and 1970s that have done so much to condemn huge chunks of a generation to illiteracy and falling numeracy."
  It continued:

  659
  "Their main concern was to oppose the regular testing of pupils and the compilation of league tables based on such tests".
  It went on to refer to grant-maintained schools and said that they were bringing in higher standards
  "by opting out of the often dead hand of local authority control".
  That is one answer to the hon. Member for Perry Barr. So frequently the local education authority is a dead hand.
  The leader went on—I am not in total agreement with all this:
  "The barbarians are no longer at the gate; they are inside our classrooms."
  The Bill will certainly help to reduce the number of barbarians and should make life easier for the ordinary teachers who form the strong and splendid backbone of the teacher force in the United Kingdom.
  As I said earlier, the Bill completes the schools picture. It builds on what has gone before—the national curriculum and tests, local management of schools and grant-maintained schools. It consolidates OFSTED and emphasises the need for performance tables. Anyone who doubts that a success story in education is now emerging need only look for proof to advanced education, where student numbers have increased to well over 1 million.
  Mr. John Gunnell: I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's last phrase and I thank him for giving way. Is he aware that, in terms of graduate applicants to teacher training courses this year as compared with last year, there has been a 40 per cent. drop in physics graduates, a 23 per cent. drop in mathematics graduates and also falls in the numbers of other graduates—a significant percentage in chemistry and a smaller percentage in biology? There is an enormous shortfall in applications from science graduates in comparison with last year. If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that this is the last piece of the jigsaw, can he explain why, with all the other pieces in place, there is such a drop at the present time, and how he thinks that the Bill—which I consider irrelevant—will have anything to do with getting the numbers that we need to teach science effectively in our schools?
  Mr. Pawsey: I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. Perhaps he will agree with me that science graduates are not coming forward because of the greater employment opportunities that now exist. Unemployment is falling, thank God, and as it falls there is greater competition for the well-trained science graduates to whom the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Gunnell: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we can attract science graduates only when there is nothing else for them to do, is that not an indictment of the opportunities in teaching that we are offering if we cannot compete with the outside world?
  Mr. Pawsey: Let me give the hon. Gentleman an alternative view. If I were a science graduate and I saw what was taking place at Scarborough when the NUT was at the rostrum with the remarkable procession of teachers repeatedly attacking their own profession and what it seeks to do, I wonder whether I would choose to join their ranks. That, I suspect, is the real and direct answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: As a science graduate, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased for me to support
  660
  his argument. If we take measures to improve the professional status of teachers, as the Bill is designed to do, it will surely attract science graduates into the teaching profession, so the point is irrelevant to the Bill.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend speaks with his usual knowledge and wisdom. When we came to office in 1979, only one in eight of the target group was in advanced education; the figure is now one in three. That confirms at least two things: first, the additional funding has been made available to advanced education; secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is a growing number of young people sufficiently well educated in the nation's mainstream schools to take advantage of the new opportunities which now exist in our universities.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors, but particularly my right hon. Friend, can take pride in the Government's achievements, which are often denigrated by Opposition Members for nothing more than cheap political advantage. The Bill will do much to ensure that students have a much better grasp of what takes place within the classroom, with less time being spent on theory and more on the practicalities of teaching and the imparting of knowledge.
  Recently Peter Smith, the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, drew attention to the professionalism of teachers, and he was right to do so. I have said many times in the House over a considerable number of years that in my view the overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are dedicated both to their profession and to the children in their charge. The Bill will ensure that those dedicated teachers will be able to impart their own hard-won skills and knowledge to newcomers.
  I must emphasise that neither the Government nor the new Teacher Training Agency will force schools to accept additional responsibilities. It will be purely a voluntary step. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman).
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the measures proposed in the Bill will do exactly what he envisages, how does he reconcile that with the voluntary principle that he is now praising so highly?
  Mr. Pawsey: I reconcile it in the same way as I reconcile the voluntary principle for grant-maintained schools. Both are equally good. I look forward to schools taking up the challenge posed by the Bill, as I am sure that they will, in just the same way as I look forward to more and more schools receiving grant-maintained status.
  The Bill emphasises the importance of the teacher and the school. The Government have already acknowledged those two factors by substantially increasing average teachers' pay by some 46 per cent. in real terms, since 1979. The Government have acknowledged the importance of the school by increasing spending per pupil by some 47 per cent., again in real terms since 1979. The Government have made the funds available, but the extra funding has not been reflected in an equivalent increase in standards —hence the Bill and the emphasis that it places on the good training of teachers. I stress that the Government have not hestitated to make money available for education. Significantly, overall spending on education has risen by 50 per cent. since 1979.
  Mr. Dunn: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his support. He is a man well known for his expertise in education.
  Earlier, I referred to the new Teacher Training Agency and I found clause 13 to be of particular significance. Clearly, it will not be an unlucky number. It will give the new agency a statutory role in the accreditation of institutions. A new agency will ensure that those providing teacher training will be able to deliver quality courses, and all courses will be subject to inspection by OFSTED. Needless to say, the new agency will be able to withdraw accreditation if an institution fails to produce a course of sufficient quality.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the importance of the measure in the eyes of parents and governors? My hon. Friend will be aware that having campaigned for about 15 years for the reform of teacher training, long before I came to the House, I particularly welcome this part of the Bill. It is essential that parents and governors be given the confidence that teachers will be trained properly and that failing institutions will be disqualified from training teachers.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a formidable point and he is right to do so.
  It is worth while restating the fact that higher education will continue to provide teacher training and that teacher training will remain part of higher education, but the schools will rightly have a much greater part to play. One of the things that I find genuinely surprising is that in the past the very schools where teachers work have not been properly involved in the training of teachers. Clause 4 ensures that initial training will continue and enables funds to be made available to support in-service training. The agency will be able to fund existing schemes for licensed and overseas-trained teachers.
  Earlier, I referred to the NUT. The House will be interested in a recent article in The Daily Telegraph which said:
  "The NUT claims to oppose the national curriculum tests be cause they are 'educationally flawed'. This is rich coming from a union whose madly anti-learning philosophy has softened the brains of a generation. One 'flaw"'—
  according to the NUT—
  "is that the tests focus on real skills and real knowledge—in the case of English, for example, on comprehension, spelling and grammar…They see literacy as a tool of oppression and prefer to focus (in the words of Labour spokeswoman Ann Taylor) 'on how relationships develop in a school'."
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dewsbury is not in her place, but I remind her of a piece written by David Woodhead, the Independent Schools Information Service's national director, which, interestingly, was headed, "Taylor-made to depress." It said:
  "Mrs. Taylor gives an impression of impatience with the concept of parental choice. The consequence of this for the state and independent sectors if she became Education Secretary would be serious."
  I put it to my hon. Friends that that is an understatement.
  I come now to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the course of his remarks—
  Mr. Dunn: I apologise for not being here to listen to all my hon. Friend's speech, but given his knowledge of both Conservative and Opposition education policy, does he think that the Opposition parties have learnt anything about education in the 15 years that we have been in the House?
  662
  Or are they still committed to neighbourhood comprehensive schools, social engineering, NUT policies and all the things that we came into Government to stop?
  Mr. Pawsey: Sadly, I have naught for my hon. Friend's reassurance. As I understand the Labour party's policy, inasmuch as it has one, it seems to have learnt nothing. [Interruption.] Yes, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, it would continue with its policy of abolishing the grammar schools.
  Mr. James Clappison: Bourbons.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend refers to Opposition Members as Bourbons, and he is right. [Interruption.] No, not the biscuits—the other kind.
  I want teachers to reoccupy the place that they formerly held in a society in which they were once regarded in similar fashion to doctors. During the past 20 years, the profession has suffered a dramatic loss of public esteem. The teacher unions, especially the NUT, must accept their fair share of responsibility for the way in which the classroom teacher is now all too often regarded.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main difficulty has been that many of the unions, and the NUT in particular in this area, have pretended to be industrial, smokestack industry unions, which in itself has been damaging to the reputation of good teachers? The militant unions, especially the NUT, have dragged down the image of teachers. They have done the biggest disservice to education. Only when teachers stop playing at being militant trade unionists will they recover their respect.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend's point is a further answer to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell).
  The Bill improves teacher training, which in turn enhances the stature of the individual teacher. It will increase the esteem in which teachers are held. It helps to restore a true professionalism to what at times has been a desperately beleaguered group. I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I apologise for being absent for part of the debate, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for nevertheless giving me the opportunity to speak.
  I declare an interest. I am an adviser to the NUT and to UCAC, the National Union of Teachers of Wales—"national" meaning something different in both those titles.
  In discussing part I, I want to open on a positive note. During the past week I have spoken at some length to various people interested or involved in the kind of pilot partnership training schemes that have flowed from circular 9/92 and, in Wales, circular 35/92. I talked with two union officials, a headmaster, more than one member of staff at a university education department and the head of English at a comprehensive school. I emphasise that they all spoke positively about the principle of partnership and school-based training. I was most impressed by the enthusiasm that they showed for the active involvement of practising teachers in the training process. It is recognised that that is an entirely new approach and that something fresh is happening—that schools and teachers are sharing the training process so that it is not left entirely to

  663
  university staff, with schools simply providing them with facilities. Something new, valid and important is happening.
  There is recognition also of the enormous gain for students in being closely involved in the life of a teaching department and of a school. In the model that I examined, that involvement lasts 24 and one half weeks out of the total of 36 weeks for the school year. The teacher to whom I spoke told me of the satisfaction and stimulus that she derives from that involvement with students, who become part of an academic as well as a training process.
  The same teacher told me also that she is beginning to feel exploited. She spoke of the extra burden of work imposed, which meant that she and her colleagues must seriously reconsider whether to continue the partnership, and she said in effect that that would be conditional on her and her colleagues being given extra time as teachers or extra money.
  The burden is considerable. The responsibilities of that teacher, who is a general mentor, are defined so as to ensure that the students' school experience is broad, coherent and relevant; lead the team of subject mentors and co-ordinate work across subject areas to achieve that; introduce students to the school; assign students to shadow form teachers, to gain classroom experience; arrange for students to pay weekly visits to feeder primary schools; liaise with tutors from the department; meet students weekly for a training session focusing on different areas of competence; provide support, professional guidance and counselling to students; and assess and discuss progress and help to set goals. There is more to it than that. I could read a similar list of responsibilities in respect of subject mentors.
  The House does not need to be reminded that teachers are already overworked. That is having a significant negative effect on their morale, imposes strain and in some cases breakdowns, and causes people to leave the profession. That is the result of an overburdened national curriculum, the process of continuous assessment, recording achievement and so on—and constant changes in school curriculums.
  For that burden of extra work, that general mentor is allowed two additional free lessons, as we used to call them —two additional protected times. No wonder she spent most of her May day holiday at school, in preparation—as she does for much of her so-called holidays. Being a rather hard-boiled old nut who spent some years in the teaching profession, I find it astonishing that teachers are willing to participate in all that. If somebody had asked me four years ago to undertake that work in addition to my existing responsibilities as a head of English, I would have shown them the door. I might have felt guilty, and perhaps I would have telephoned the university education department to say that I would, after all, participate.
  It is a tribute to the commitment and professionalism of teachers that they are prepared, as are so many schools, to take on that extra burden and to extol the virtues of the new system to me—but at the same time they say that they are seriously overburdened. Theirs is a labour of love, no less.
  One senior member of the university department to whom I spoke explained that the partnership system is surviving because of the tremendous reserve of good will in terms of the dedication of teachers and their desire to be
  664
  part of the process of helping a new generation of educators. That is why the system works for now. But the same person told me that the system would not be sustainable in the long term. That bold statement perfectly mirrors the comments of the school teacher—that staff will not continue unless additional resources are provided for extra time.
  Accordingly, the university concerned agreed to increase the sum delegated to schools from £600 per student to £900 for the next year. At the same time, the transitional funding provided for the university education department is coming to an end, with the loss of £120,000 per year. As a result, the department is running the teacher-training course in deficit—it is not paying its way. It is subsidised by other aspects of the department's work, such as degrees and postgraduate work. Teacher training constitutes one third of the full-time equivalents in that particular education department.
  It may be thought that, if more work and funding are delegated to schools, less work will have to be done by universities, so that there will be a transfer of responsibilities, functions and funds. It does not work like that. The new model of teacher training, which has much merit, is a much more intensive process than used to be the case. It requires extra input from the school and university —not from one rather than the other, but from both. That corresponds with the teacher's comments.
  Mr. Gunnell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the financial deficit that he described is common to a large number of higher education institutions because their transitional funding has decreased while they have to pay money to schools? Does he agree also that, because schools are not coming forward in sufficient numbers, an inherently and fundamentally unstable situation is being created that will cause the initiative's eventual demise?
  Mr. Dafis: I was making exactly that point, but would prefer not to have to make it. The policy is unsustainable. The Government should have learned some lessons about unsustainable initiatives from the national curriculum. The same will be true of the new system.
  The teacher to whom I spoke confirmed the need for the university to maintain at least its current level of activity, rather than reduce it. She wanted more input from the university, not less. She referred me to the value of the theoretical and academic expertise that the university can provide—the theoretical backing to her work at a practical level in the school. That contradicts the dismissive and philistine comments of Conservative Members about trendy theorists and eggheads.
  Everything indicates that the initiative is underfunded and under-resourced. Leaving that aside for the moment, given proper resourcing, and if mentors were provided with substantial extra time to perform the extra work, we would have a useful model for teacher education. It has a sensible division of responsibilities between school and higher education institutions, and it is being created as a result of the combined expertise and enthusiasm of school and university staff in partnership. The word to emphasise is "partnership". The model has the particular advantage of creating a close, interactive relationship between academics, who are important people, and practising teachers, bringing developments in theory and innovative ideas to schools from the universities and feeding back the

  665
  day-to-day realities of teaching and learning to the universities. That, in turn, would have a significant potential effect on the quality and direction of research.
  Our concern should be how to make that fundamentally, good model sustainable in the long term; it is manifestly not so at present. It is currently, and will continue to be, increasingly difficult to get schools to participate. That should occupy our attention, as it does the schools and university in Dyfed. They are looking carefully at the quality of the work that is being done and are conducting seminars and conferences in doing so. Instead, the Government have what I can describe only as a hare-brained scheme to make schools into lead institutions.
  As I understand it, higher education institutions would be nothing more than contractors offering services to schools—in the market, of course—and have no more security or ability to plan for the future, no more ability to think long term in terms of innovation, research programmes and so on, than the market alone ever affords. This is part of a syndrome that people everywhere are worried about in relation to institutions of higher education and research generally.
  It is clear to me that the hidden agenda is to water down the intellectual, theoretical and educational content of teacher training. It is no accident that words such as theoretical and intellectual are being rubbished tonight. That is a disturbing tendency, and that kind of language and vocabulary is far too familiar from right-wing Governments and political movements. In effect, we are seeing a move towards the return of the pupil-teacher. My mother was an uncertificated pupil-teacher. I am sure that she was excellent, and if she were alive today she would be doing a degree, following a proper course in teacher training, and would be a far better teacher than she was in those days.
  All of this is utterly unacceptable in Wales. Surveys conducted in Gwynedd and Dyfed—in Gwynedd by Bangor normal college—have shown overwhelming opposition to the idea of school-led training among headmasters and headmistresses of schools. The enormous contribution of higher education institutions and the development of educational practice in Wales is well recognised. I could speak at length on my experience of the value of a theoretical approach, for example, to linguistics as backing for the way in which language is taught in schools, and the linkage of teaching language and using language to teach and learn. A whole area has sprung from a theoretical base in the work of people such as Douglas Barnes and shows perfectly how valuable and practically important a good, theoretical basis is for pedagogy, for proper teaching.
  In Wales, we wish to see continuation of the integration of academic and theoretical study, research and training for the practice of teaching. Let us have no misunderstanding that we wish to see accreditation remain a function of higher education institutions. We wish to see partnership develop and grow. I trust that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales will hear that message loud and clear. I hope that it will not see it as part of its business. One needs to understand that, praise the Lord, we will not have an independent and separate funding council in Wales. The Higher Education Funding Council will take charge, and I trust that it will not see the promotion of the idea of schools as the lead institutions for training as part of its functions, although the Government intend to give it that power.
  666
  I hope that the writ of the Teacher Training Agency will not run in Wales. I ask for confirmation of that, and refer to clause 17, which says that the Secretary of State will be able to
  "provide for the transfer to the Teacher Training Agency of the property, rights and liabilities … of the Teaching as a Career Unit."
  What will happen to the Wales office of the teaching career unit? It has done good work and I hope that it will not come under the aegis of the TTA, which we very much wish to see as an English institution. I would like to see the Bill amended to make it quite clear that it will not—[Interruption.] I can only offer my deepest sympathy to all those who will have to suffer the effects of the existence of such a body.
  Clause 16(2) provides:
  "The Secretary of State may by order confer or impose on the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales such functions supplementary to their functions as a funding agency as he thinks fit."
  All I want to know is which Secretary of State that is. Is it the Secretary of State for Education or the Secretary of State for Wales? It should be the latter, and I trust that even the existing Secretary of State for Wales will not wish to impose functions that are foreign to what we want to see in Wales.
  We are fortunate in Wales that the reality of Welsh nationhood and distinctness offers us some protection from the worst potential effects of the Bill. I welcome the intention, stated in the consultation document last September, to introduce different arrangements for certain aspects of teacher training in Wales. In Wales, what we need is not the inadequate protection of administrative devolution. Although that offers a degree of protection, as is the case here, we need more than that. We need the power through the democratic process in Wales to take our own initiatives, to carry through our own reforms, based on the principles that are dear to us of co-operation and partnership, and the sensible idea of pragmatism at the same time. I hope that it will not be too long before we can start that process.
  8.37 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: The debate has been extremely enlightening, because it seems that we have heard from the Opposition an endless stream of destructive dogma. I wonder whether they are seeking to skate over endless reasons why there cannot be a teachers training agency. When I look, for instance, at my notes of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) I see that she said that the Bill is not constructive or purposeful; that it is a waste of time; that it is a tatty Bill. Can those really be the remarks of a serious spokesperson on education who genuinely cares about the children in our schools? Perhaps she is trying to cover up the serious flaws of the Labour party and its record on education. For instance, I remind her that the worst 10 A-level results in 1993 were returned largely by Labour-controlled local education authorities. The only exception was Tower Hamlets. I remind her that the most damning indictment of Labour's local education policies is, perhaps, the high percentage of children in Labour areas who leave school with no examination passes at all.
  Mr. Enright: Would the hon. Lady care to cite the figures for the correlation between poverty and backwardness, while she is at it?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I am talking about education standards in schools. Let me list the worst 10: Rochdale, Lambeth, Manchester, Islington, Liverpool, Haringey, Tower Hamlets—again—Salford, Birmingham and Southwark.
  Mr. Gunnell: The hon. Lady is clearly concerned about standards in schools; she clearly believes that the Bill will help. Why is it better to impose a great deal of student teaching, rather than professional teaching, on schools? The Bill proposes to increase the number of classes taught by people who are learning the job. Can you explain how that will help children?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not answering the questions.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's remarks in due course. Let me say straight away that the whole purpose of enabling teachers to learn the job in schools is to allow them to learn from the experienced teachers who are already there, and to gain expertise in the task first hand.
  We have heard many disparaging remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can only say that I regard his tenure as an enormous success: he has produced many considerable achievements, and the Bill is another step along the road. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Do any of the hon. Members who are interrupting hope to catch my eye?
  Lady Olga Maitland: The Bill may well be scorned by Opposition Members, but it will be enormously welcome to parents who want their children to benefit from the very best teacher training that is available.
  Mr. Pickthall: If the hon. Lady is so sure that the majority of parents will welcome the Bill, will she tell us why the Department has published no evidence of parents' opinions?
  Lady Olga Maitland: We are still trying to collate evidence from the pilot schemes, but the evidence that we have obtained so far is extremely encouraging; otherwise, we would not have acted as we have.
  I welcome the Bill, because it fulfils a real need. Some 12 years ago, I launched my pro-NATO organisation Families for Defence. It was not directly related to education—save for the fact that I received evidence from school children about the pressures of heavy political indoctrination and bias imposed on them by teachers who had just left teacher training colleges. They were clearly interested not in education, but in manipulating young children. A paper to which I contributed—"Peace Studies in our Schools—Propaganda for Defencelessness", written by Dr. John Marks—revealed the depth of this serious problem.
  I found it particularly sad that the teachers who were undermining our young people were also undermining the dedicated work of good teachers who found it difficult to stand their ground. I pay tribute to the majority of teachers —decent-minded people who care only for the children. They care not a jot how many hours they must work; they do not watch the clock; they serve only to provide for future generations. They, however, have been undermined by weak, out-of-date, misguided teachers who have come
  668
  up through the system and are a long way from what I would describe as traditional standards in teaching—what we would associate with "Mr. Chalky".
  We must beware of the political mischief that can go on. We should look at the source from which teachers come, and ensure that we provide them with the training which has breadth, diversity and flexibility that will give them a chance to develop their talents unhindered by the dogma that has imbued teacher training colleges up and down the country. The time has come for us to focus on children's needs, and their right to learn unfettered by other issues. The teacher—the person in whom a child puts his faith and trust—will be the vehicle for that child's future, and it is therefore important to look seriously at how teachers are trained.
  There should be rigour in the classroom; we should concentrate on the national curriculum. I am delighted that even Labour now admits that the core curriculum has enormously benefited young children, having opposed it bitterly in the past.
  The fact is that all professions work within accepted boundaries, whether the profession involved happens to be medicine, law or, indeed, teaching. In setting out the boundaries for education, we should be quite clear about what we expect from our teachers. We expect rigour, and concentration on the basic skills that children need for the future—the ability to read smoothly and fluently at the right age, comprehending what they are reading; the ability to write correctly and fluently; the ability to spell; and the ability to punctuate their written work correctly. Unless teachers focus on those important skills, they will have under-served their pupils when they go out into the world of work.
  During last year's rows about teacher tests, I was saddened by my encounters with a number of English teachers who said that they did not approve of such tests. Spelling tests, they said, destroyed a child's love of literature. What nonsense! It is time for teachers to set standards, and I believe that they will do so much more readily and easily if they can develop their skills unfettered by what I would describe as the political masters in teacher training colleges.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Can the hon. Lady identify one of the teacher training colleges where all these awful things are happening? Let me offer a simpler challenge: can she identify a teacher training college?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I shall give examples a little later.
  We must look seriously at the crazy world of teacher training. Far too much time has been devoted to education theory; we must examine what is actually happening. Teachers coming out of training colleges tend to focus on racism, sexism and gender politics. What has that to do with children learning? The HMI report published on 7 December 1993 was scathing about the standard of teaching, revealing that in urban schools 40 per cent. of lessons were judged unsatisfactory and that, in some schools, two thirds were found to be poor or unsatisfactory. We cannot be complacent about that. The inspectors were highly critical of the low expectations that teachers had of children; overall, nearly 30 per cent. of lessons in primary schools were found to be unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Jamieson: There is a slight inconsistency in the hon. Lady's argument. She says that teachers are inadequate, yet the Bill hands over instruction of new teachers to those very people.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The schools in which teachers will train will not be the inadequate ones. We should, however, bear in mind that some teachers are performing poorly, and look at how they came to be trained. We should note, for instance, that
  "In the worst schools the inspectors criticised … the inadequate knowledge the teachers of older primary children had of their subject areas; the unacceptably low standard of work; the fact that many children were engaged in mundane tasks such as copying and colouring; the poor punctuality, persistent bad behaviour of pupils, unfinished homework, and the slow pace of lessons".
  We have so much to work on.
  Mr. O'Hara: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As the hon. Lady is referring to the HMI report, is she also aware that in paragraphs 110 to 112 of that report the inspectors are extremely complimentary about the quality of preparation of teachers in the departments? About 90 per cent. of courses are at least satisfactory. In the same paragraphs, they are critical of the support which is offered to these teachers from the schools during initial training and during induction. Yet the hon. Lady is proposing that the training responsibility be taken from the colleges and given to the schools. Where is the consistency in that?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but I will continue. He asked me earlier to give some examples of poor teacher training. I refer him to the South Bank university—or, as it used to be known, the South Bank polytechnic. The HMI inspectors, commenting on the university's two-year degree for mature students from ethnic minority backgrounds, said:
  "The quality of the students' writing is a cause for concern. Apart from the work of a few fluent writers, assignments display persistent formal problems—particularly with articles, suffixes, paragraphs and spelling … One student has such chronic difficulty with tense and number that she would make a poor model for pupils."
  That is simply looking at the way that students are performing, without taking into account the fact that in many other colleges, which I could draw to the attention of hon. Members, political dogma gets in the way of real learning.
  At the University of Brighton—or Brighton polytechnic, as it was known—on the first day of a course a student teacher was told that competition in sport was elitist and that the words "first", "second" and "third" should not be used to rank children. The students were told to use words such as "beetroot" and "turnip" instead.
  The student pointed out that he had marks deducted for using the word "his" when talking about an imaginary teacher in a presentation. The student was also told that using a word such as "caveman" instead of "cave person" would result in failure in the final examination. Finally —this is perhaps the most worrying point—the student was told that spelling and grammar were of secondary importance. These are the many reasons why we have to concentrate on building the base of teacher training.
  The Institute of Education in London does not encourage rote learning of mathematics tables, for instance. It prefers children to learn through games. A course at the College of Education in Scotland was explained by a student who said:
  670
  "The course … had turned out to be largely Left-wing sociology overlaid with Politically Correct discipline."
  These kinds of attitude are not helpful in preparing children for life.
  Ms Mildred Gordon: Does it not occur to the hon. Lady that the Institute of Education may be right and that children can learn spelling and tables very well through games—in fact, it may be a better way of learning than boring them to tears with learning by rote?
  Lady Olga Maitland: Over and over again, it has been found that learning by rote is an essential discipline for children through their school careers. There is no soft option in learning; it is very unfair to lead children to believe that they can somehow skate through their school careers without any pain. There is always pain; schooling is a preparation for later life.
  The way in which some colleges have become obsessed with their own ideologies is extremely worrying. I draw the attention of the House to Nene college in Northampton. Hon. Members may recall that in 1990 it twice rejected a Cambridge classics graduate for a teacher training course. When Mrs. Annis Garfield reapplied posing as a left-wing, Afro-Caribbean, animal rights activist and filled out her form with appalling spelling errors she was immediately invited for an interview. It is hardly surprising that we have to persist in this endeavour. I am also concerned that the correct rigour be applied to the education of young children.
  The curriculums in colleges are loaded with political ideology. They seek to demean religious education, for instance. They seek to undermine the teaching of Christianity, which is part of the ethos of our society. This society is a Christian society, no matter what multi-cultural mish-mash teachers choose to make of it.
  Last week, as a member of the Education Select Committee—the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) accompanied me on this occasion—I went to Bristol to look at inner-city education. The hon. Gentleman and I may well have different views about what we saw on our visit to some schools in deprived areas. I found it very worrying that, by and large, the male teachers were unfit to be what I call perfect role models, in the sense that they were scruffy and full of sociological jargon.
  At one school, only three out of seven male staff members wore shirts and ties; the rest wore jumpers. I do not feel that it is at all helpful for young people, who perhaps come from very broken and disturbed homes, to find that the one male figure in their lives whom they trust is hardly a fit person to look up to as a role model. At a primary school in Tower Hamlets a teacher had a pony tail as well as a woolly sweater. We are trying to give teachers a certain status so that they may be respected. How can they be respected if they undermine the very professionalism which the majority of their colleagues exhibit?
  I think that the whole purpose of teacher training colleges and the Teacher Training Agency should be to look at the methods by which children are taught. We examined examples of mixed ability teaching and that, combined with mixed topic teaching, to my mind was an absolute disaster.
  Mr. Dafis: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the Teacher Training Agency would prohibit young men with pony tails from teaching?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I would hope that, when people applied for teacher training, we would select only the most dedicated and those who meet the required standard.
  We are considering the opportunity for teachers to train on the spot, in schools where there are already the highest standards and where there is no mixed ability teaching which seems merely to confuse children and benefits neither the weaker nor the brighter child. We are also considering how we can enable new teachers to develop in what I call the halls, or schools, of excellence, where they can be taught and guided by a peer group which has years of training behind it, schools which already have the best possible results and which will therefore provide an example from which trainees can learn.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I like to think of myself as a courteous man and I have no wish to be ungallant, but I do not think that I have ever heard such a load of ignorant tripe as the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). It could have come only from someone who has never been near teacher training in her life. Indeed, I wonder whether she has ever been near teaching or schools with her eyes open.
  In an attempt to understand why the Government should persist with this pathetic mutilated Bill after its terrible mauling in another place, I read some of the ponderings of the Centre for Policy Studies on teacher training and, in particular, I re-read a pamphlet entitled "Teachers Mis-Taught" by Sheila Lawlor of the CPS, who seems to have been responsible for what passes as the thinking behind Conservative policy on teacher education. It is interesting that Lawlor's pamphlet appears to have provided the structure for the Library briefing on the subject, although the latter is mercifully free of Lawlor's dogma assertions and errors of fact.
  I read Lawlor's work and the Bill in the wake of 22 years' work at a former teacher training college. I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) was trying to tell the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam—there are no such things as teacher training colleges any more and there have not been any since the mid-1970s. The fact that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the Minister and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam repeatedly referred to teacher training colleges shows that they are stuck in a time warp. The hon. Lady said that the people coming out of those training colleges were responsible for some of the horrors that she described—for example, the evidence of pupils being indoctrinated—as having happened 10 years ago. The colleges did not exist by that time.
  I began my career in a training college which diversified into BA courses and other forms of work in the mid-1970s. It became fully diversified in the 1980s. I worked alongside many colleagues who were going through immense changes in their professional lives while fashions in education were dictated not by educationists but by politicians from Shirley Williams to Lord Callaghan, from Lady Thatcher, to Lord Joseph, to the present Secretary of State.
  The pamphlet to which I referred is extraordinary because of its mixture of lies and virulent prejudices masquerading as argument. On the very first page, it states:
  672
  "the present system demands that all teachers are trained to teach in the same way, irrespective of subject, pupil or teacher".
  That is simply untrue. It also states:
  "Teachers have imposed on them in training courses and later, a single method of teaching, often at the expense of the subject itself".
  That is also untrue.
  We heard from the Secretary of State today that, to his pleasure, he has discovered that some tutors from higher education institutions have been going into schools. I have news for him: I was going into schools as a tutor of teacher education 24 years ago, and so were all my colleagues. We were teaching there and learning. He and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth talked incessantly about the producer interest. The latter also said that schools are not involved in training. That is untrue.
  Ms Lawlor also said that, given subject mastery, the teacher will learn "how" to practise with "time and experience". Practise on what and whom and to what effect we are not told. There follow 45 splenetic pages dressed crudely as research but based on a hatred of theory, a word that is trotted out as though it came from Dennis Wheatley. She tells us that education students can undertake theory
  "so long as it is not linked with practice."
  I have never heard such nonsense—what theory is not linked with practice? The pamphlet evinces a hatred of special needs education, a hatred of anything multicultural, of anything to do with gender and of anything contemporary.
  Ms Lawlor's underlying desire, it seems, is the closure of the education departments of higher education institutions, which, coupled with the closure of local education authorities, as recommended by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), would leave schools and education in the hands of Government-appointed quangos stuffed with Tory ideologues.
  The Secretary of State says—no doubt it will be repeated—that the choice of whether to go into the new system will remain. Opposition Members do not believe him. What will be the outcome if, as is happening now and as the SCOP—Standing Conference of Principals—survey suggests, schools do not take up the option in sufficient numbers? Only 12 head teachers out of about 1,300—
  Mr. O'Hara: Out of 1,202.
  Mr. Pickthall: Only 12 head teachers out of 1,202 said that they were not interested in participating in the exercise. If schools do not come in in sufficiently large numbers they will be dragooned—first bribed, but then dragooned—in precisely the same way as we have seen happen in the case of grant-maintained status.
  I would not normally dignify this appalling piece by Ms Lawlor by referring to it in the House. However, I do so because it demonstrates clearly the paucity of thinking behind the Bill. When the Conservative Government consult, it appears that Ms Lawlor is the consultee. It is hard to find anybody else who agrees with the Government on the teacher education policies that are before us.
  As a relief from Lawlorism—if I may use that expression—it is appropriate that we should remind ourselves of what exactly a student teacher has to undergo. I intended to go into that matter at some length, but my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) has done so much more clearly and brilliantly than I could. First, the student has to acquire subject expertise,

  673
  either through the PGCE route, in which case he or she already has it, or in an integrated way through the BEd or the BA(QTS).
  Secondly, the student has to learn about the legal and social structure of schools and the education system, about health and safety regulations and practice, about child and adult psychology, about pastoral care, about the methodologies of teaching and about the functions of learning. He or she has to learn about what the curriculum is, what its component parts are and how to operate it, and a great deal more. All of that is what the Tories dismiss, with a simple sneer, as theory.
  Trainee teachers have to prepare for practice—I have spent many years helping students with this—in structuring a timetable for the first time and in structuring individual lessons and groups of lessons. The last of those is a difficult and time-consuming business—to be referred to these days as episodes, I suppose. That has to be done for a variety of talents and for a variety of levels. Then comes the practice, in which the students are supervised not only by the school teachers but by the tutors with whom they have been working for many weeks. After the practice comes the process of evaluation and debriefing —again an extensive process—in school and in the higher education department.
  Then the cycle starts again, ratcheted up a notch to a more sophisticated level. That is an immense and complex task. Given the stress that school teachers are under, particularly at present, it is impossible to imagine how they would cope with all that on top of their prime responsibility, which is to teach their pupils. Teaching, and not the training of students, is the job for which they are trained.
  Of course, students are not expected to cope. I believe that, under a system like this, they are expected to flounder on their way through a new system. I quote again from the introduction to Ms Lawlor's pamphlet, which refers to the need
  "to acquire experience of how to be a good teacher, often insensibly"—
  I repeat, "often insensibly". Many smaller primary schools do not even have proper staff rooms in which a student can be taken aside and talked to. Certainly there is no spare staff time in which to do any of this work. Clause 12 says virtually nothing about the implications for resources and nothing about staff time, although there are clear hints, in the "Review of Pay and Conditions", that teachers may be required in future to participate. I should like the Minister to clarify that point.
  In the circular of 23 November 1993 we were told that primary schools should take the lead responsibility for training—in this case, the training of class assistants—and for handling funds. There is nothing in the Bill about how even that task would be resourced. Even large secondary schools are squirming under the pressure caused by the increase in training weeks introduced by circulars 9/92 and 14/93. I know that from experience because my wife, who is the deputy head of a large comprehensive school and is responsible for that activity, tells me, in great detail, about it.
  The Lords amendments made sensible changes, but unfortunately the Lords could not ditch the Bill entirely. We shall have to ditch it, because of the recent growth in partnership, which other hon. Members have discussed at length, and because of the necessity to work out the complexity of the costings, which are still not clear even in
  674
  the existing partnerships. There is no doubt that they will present us with great difficulties. We should ditch it because it leaves no time to evaluate the recent pilot schemes. School-based initial teacher training is to be forced in without evidence, on the basis of dogma and an ignorant misunderstanding of what higher education and schools in partnership are trying to achieve.
  Mr. Butler rose—
  Mr. Pickthall: I shall not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I am not trying to be discourteous, but I know that a couple of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall finish as rapidly as I can.
  The partnerships achieved so far represent the response of institutions, students and schools to the perceived need for more class-based teaching. They are based on people's experience and day-to-day expertise. The Government seek to stop all that, and to impose the idiocy of Lawlorism, regardless of the consequences. Teacher education should be about partnerships and consortia, in which higher education must play a major part. Such partnerships have to grow and be negotiated—they cannot be forced.
  Legislation should be enabling and fostering, not destructive, as the Bill is. It should ensure higher status for newly qualified teachers, the best quality of subject acquisition, a variety of experience in different schools —my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) talked about that—access on a daily basis to research-quality libraries and to technology and collaboration with peers and tutors, as well as the maximum possible classroom experience. The Bill is designed to achieve only the last of those aims and it does so only for reasons of dogma.
  The Bill is based on a Grand Old Duke of York policy, for surely, having marched that nonsense up to the top of the hill, the Government, if they have the time, will have to march it back down again.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: What a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), who spoke so powerfully, with good sense based on experience. We have not heard much of that from Conservative Members.
  The Bill was conceived in prejudice, spawned in rhetoric at Tory party conferences, and born in ignorance. What a pity that it was only half strangled in the other place before it came to us. It has been driven by dogma masquerading as raising standards. So here we are, picking over the remains of the Bill after its mauling in another place. I hope that, despite what the Secretary of State said, some of the chunks bitten off it in another place will not be replaced by means of a whipped vote here.
  There is no question but that good teachers are a prerequisite for the good education of children. The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) took us on a stroll down memory lane—but my experience was somewhat different from his. He was right to say that some of the emergency trained teachers were excellent, but equally some of them were not very good. In my experience, some of the best people who have come into schools in recent years are those who have taken either a

  675
  university degree followed by a PGCE course or a four-year BEd course. Those are the people who have provided real quality in teaching in our schools.
  I shall limit my brief comments to part I, which deals with the training of postgraduate teachers. The Secretary of State talked about raising the standards of teachers, and I have no quarrel with that. If we can find ways of doing that, I shall agree with them. The Secretary of State then said that 46 per cent. of teachers are not able to teach reading properly when they leave college. If any of the new proposals were to address the task of putting some of those shortcomings right, we on the Labour Benches would be voting for them.
  The Bill contains a number of curious contradictions. It will remove the responsibility from those who know what they are doing and place it in the hands of those who do not know. It is little wonder that we are getting things wrong —or the Government, at least, are getting it wrong—if we consider the comments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is not in his place at the moment.
  The hon. Lady was talking about teacher training colleges that have not existed for almost 20 years. Asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) to name one college, she named two universities instead. It is small wonder that the Government are getting things wrong when Conservative Members do not understand the basics of the subject.
  The present system relies on a partnership between schools and higher education, and schools are currently very much involved in the process of teacher education. However, there are some strains on the present system, because there is sometimes a reluctance in schools to take on too many student teachers.
  Even in large schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West pointed out, there are sometimes pressures not to take more than three or four students at a time, because of the amount of energy that that consumes of the existing teachers in the school. The main fault of the present system is that the teacher mentor role has not been properly resourced or properly funded.
  We also need to consider the proposals in the context of the present situation. Schools are struggling to implement local management of schools. They are grappling with the constant change being brought about in the national curriculum. They are dealing with the testing and all the uncertainties that that has introduced, as well as with the new regime of inspection and, increasingly, they are dealing with children in schools who are challenging the authority of teachers. Many schools are barely coping with those things already, yet those very schools, which are now only just coping with all the so-called reforms that the Government are throwing at them, are being asked to do the job of training the teachers as well.
  What effect will all that have on our schools? What about those schools which will do the training? The governors make the decision to put the proposal to the Teacher Training Agency, which then hands over that responsibility. Can the Minister, if he is listening, answer the following questions? Will he tell us what consultation there will be with parents whose children attend those schools? The proposals will seriously affect the children in
  676
  those schools. If 10 or 15 student teachers are to be permanently taught at that school, what attention will be taken from the children there?
  The Bill will draw good teachers away from the job that they are doing in the classroom and put them into the job of teaching teachers instead. When the governors put their proposals to the Teacher Training Agency, will the Minister tell us what consultation there will be with teachers? Teachers will need to change their contracts of work. I shall ask the Minister again: who will train the teachers to teach the new teachers? Where will the funding come from? How will we release those teachers from their schools so that they may perform that task?
  There is another inconsistency in the Bill. Originally, before the House of Lords amended it and took out the proposal, it was suggested that five to seven-year-olds would be taught by people who were barely qualified at all —the so-called mums' army proposal. Yet part I proposes that those people, who barely have qualifications themselves, will be teaching the people who are to carry out the rest of the teaching in the school.
  That seems to be quite extraordinary and the Minister ought to address that issue. How many of those training students would the Minister expect there to be in any one school? I hear that the cost-effective number is in the region of 15, and I am trying to picture a small primary school coping with 15 students in the school, as well as all the other pupils and all the other tasks.
  Is the Bill not going to create a two-tier system of schools—those that are training teachers and those that are not? What will happen to those good schools which are presently working in co-operation with higher education institutions to train students?
  The Bill will not help the postgraduate education of students, who must have a combination of academic study and school experience, and time to reflect on that experience in a neutral place. The students must have a grounding in the art and practice of teaching, and the effective pedagogy that goes with it. They must he well prepared outside school for practice inside it.
  The Bill proves that there is a danger when fantasy becomes reality, when irrational remarks made to draw applause at the Tory party conference become real, when Sheila Lawlor's guide to solving Britain's education problems goes into print, and when the reader in the Conservative club sees last week's bird-brained idea from the inebriate on the corner bar stool turn into yesterday's leader in The Sun, and wakes up to find that it is today's Government policy.
  That is the road to destruction of education. The Bill represents the ascendency of prejudice over good sense. It puts teacher education in reverse, and does nothing to improve children's learning. That is why we shall oppose the Bill.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Bryan Davies: I have little to say that is good of the Bill, but at least it has given us the chance to engage in an interesting and, in some respects, stimulating debate about the fundamentals of education. It is a pleasure to take up the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and for Lancashire. West (Mr. Pickthall), which

  677
  were based on their experience in education, as opposed to some of the prejudices of Conservative Members that have been on display.
  What a desperate old nag the Secretary of State has entered into the legislative stakes this year. This old horse —the Bill—is running to placate the fierce right-wing challenge that the right hon. Gentleman always senses from within the Conservative party. Although he purports to come—some say that it is the reality—from a more liberal stable, his ministerial career largely belies it.
  So we have a legislative measure that is largely anti-student and anti-teacher. It is meant to be a brisk, no-nonsense populist measure that will bring the student unions, and especially the National Union of Students, to heel. It is designed to put teacher training and education into a straitjacket of classroom-based experience. If it is implemented, it will produce not educators but education technicians.
  Behind the Bill is a deeply flawed philosophy, if such a ragbag of prejudices can be called a philosophy. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport rightly identified the antecedents of the Bill. The Secretary of State is pandering to the elements in the Conservative party—they comprise a substantial number—that respond to the word "union" like the dogs responding to Pavlov's bell.
  The NUS and student unions generally are to get the same harsh and restrictive treatment that has been meted out to trade unions over the past decade. Does it not dawn on Conservative Members that student unions are not trade unions? They are very different. Their relationship to university life is integral. Universities are not teaching factories with operatives, workers and consumers. Instead, they are educational communities.
  I know that the Thatcherites on the Conservative Benches say that there is no such thing as society, so how can they understand the concept of a community? Let us remind them that, in a free society, universities, with a degree of self-government and some independence from the state, are important in our national life. It must be recognised that students are a part of that community—they do not simply attend university: they are part of it.
  The philosophy behind the Bill's approach to teacher education is also desperately flawed. Who, in any part of the House, doubts the significance of classroom experience? Who thinks that anyone was ever trained as a teacher without having classroom experience? But how can teachers teach without an understanding of their subject and the educational principles?
  There was an interesting minor debate among Conservative Members in the early part of the debate, when three Members—the right hon. Members for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)—wrestled with the issue of what teacher education should consist of.
  From what I could discern, the right hon. Member for Brent, North believed on the whole that no training was necessary, that most teachers received gifts from God, and that one could readily identify those who were not gifted and should be booted out.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, in a thoughtful speech, spoke of the problems related to teacher training. She recognised that it was important to consider how best to train teachers and argued for classroom experience.
  678
  The hon. Member for Norwich, North argued strongly and passionately for the careful training and education of teachers, but, for the life of me, I was unable to identify whether he thought that classroom, school-based teaching alone would be sufficient.
  With the Bill, the Secretary of State goes back to the 19th-century monitoring system. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, the Secretary of State has returned to the education of Nicholas Nickleby. Some Conservative Members think that they can identify that teacher education went badly wrong in the 1960s and produced degrees of incompetence in the literacy of our children today.
  When I first came to the House in 1974, I was privileged to join Christopher Price, who then represented Lewisham, West, and the late Gerald Fowler, a Minister of State, in order to obtain money for a literacy programme—a minor pump-priming exercise that I am glad to say has, over the years, born substantial fruit in the development of the adult literacy movement in this country. In 1974, we were wrestling with millions of functionally illiterate people. The Government suggestion that the old forms of training and skills, and the old schools, produced a literate and numerate society is hogwash.
  The Bill is a horse bred of populism and prejudice. The old nag is meant to chase around the parliamentary course once again. It has already been subject to some parliamentary scrutiny—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Secretary of State will listen. He has undoubtedly read the proceedings from the upper House and he must have realised what an appalling race the horse ran on that first outing. We all recall that, when it arrived at the starting gate in the other place, it had already lost a portion of its intended content. The mums' army proposal had already been jettisoned even before the Bill was published. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) said, the jettisoning of that proposal was a precursor to the Government backing down on other proposals in the House of Lords.
  But having then charged away on Second Reading in the upper House, the Bill ran into severe difficulties the moment that their Lordships began to consider the second part of the Bill relating to student unions and the National Union of Students. As Lord Beloff indicated, the Bill had succeeded in uniting the most reactionary vice-chancellor with the most radical student in opposition to what was being proposed.
  Not only was the NUS against the proposal; so were vice-chancellors and university teachers. There was also widespread opinion in the House of Lords, which was reflected among Tory Members on the Secretary of State's own Back Benches, who had already expressed their reservations about the proposal. The clause then had to be withdrawn. What we face is a compromise that is not entirely to the liking of my hon. Friends. However, we recognise gains from a largely obdurate Administration when they occur, and we intend to support the change.
  As for the Secretary of State, not even his most sympathetic colleague would refer to Lord Beloff as anything but a somewhat reluctant arrival in the Labour Lobby on that occasion. I can only assume that the Secretary of State must say that he can look after his enemies, but God protect him from his friends.
  The poor old Bill then staggered off into the country, and was lost from view for a couple of months while the Government scratched their heads to find out how they could make the poor horse run again at all. On the Bill's

  679
  return to the upper House, it was about to be somewhat knackered again, as certain aspects of it proved unacceptable to their Lordships.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) and for Lancashire, West said, the House of Lords accepted a Labour amendment. We recognise that the Government now define it as technically deficient, but nevertheless it contains the principle which the House of Lords made clear—it does not believe that the training of teachers should be separated from higher education. Indeed, there should be no such divorce. We should recognise that divorcing the training of teachers from higher education would have the same impact as all divorces: it would be the children who suffered.
  How easy will it be to organise such school-based courses? At present, the Government are proceeding with the legislation against the background of an experiment which is not even half-finished. An absolutely minuscule number of students are participating in the present scheme. Harrow school is involved in the scheme. I hope that I can quote Harrow school to Tory Members as having some authority in education. It has pulled out of a partnership arrangement with the Institute of London because of the strain on senior staff of coping with students. If one of the best-resourced schools in the country finds the strain of training the next generation of teachers extremely difficult, where will the Government find willing volunteers in the hard-pressed ranks of teachers in our state schools?
  Consideration in the Lords has conferred some advantages. At least the upper House recognised that the Teacher Training Agency, which we shall subject to intense scrutiny in Committee should the Bill get a Second Reading, is obliged to restrict its research to matters directly related to its work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, the success of students on any course, and certainly on courses concerned with teacher education and training, depends upon adequate resources, and for more than a decade the Government have set a record in impoverishing students.
  The Bill received a mauling in the upper House, and even the truncated version has won few friends. Predictably, the most radical criticism on the Government side came from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who told the Secretary of State that he will have a rough ride on the remaining stages of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman feels that the Bill does not go far enough, and he wants to revive what the Secretary of State now regards as quite impossible—the full-blown onslaught on the National Union of Students and student unions which the Secretary of State envisaged when he set about the Bill.
  Far from satisfying Conservative interests and completing a jigsaw of education, the Bill is creating a jigsaw of prejudice about the development of British education—perhaps I should say, English education, because substantial parts of the Bill do not relate to Wales or Scotland.
  The Secretary of State has not delivered what his party hoped and expected. Therefore, it is no surprise that the somewhat less than benevolent influence of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has been drifting around the Chamber, no doubt bent upon that restructuring of the parliamentary Conservative party which he alone thinks will enable it to survive.
  680
  This poor old exhausted Bill will not run well for the Secretary of State. Touchstone introduced his friend Audrey to the court in the Forest of Arden with the phrase, "A poor thing, but mine own." The Bill is a poor thing but the Secretary of State's own, but Touchstone, interesting character as he was in "As You Like It", was the fool.
  The Secretary of State may try to make the horse run again, but we think that he is guilty of cruelty, and that he should be relieved of his burden. His friends should put him out of his misery, and they can do that by joining us and voting against the Bill. That is the only humane way to ensure that the Bill disappears, and that the Secretary of State saves what little face he has left.
  9.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): With the greatest charity, my only comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) is that they never come back and even when they are reshod they are liable to slip a shoe and leave themselves trailing in the race.
  I am delighted to deliver the winding-up speech for personal reasons as well as those of policy. My wife trained as a teacher and many members of her family and quite a sprinkling from mine were teachers in their time. I therefore have an interest, as we all should have, in the vital subjects of teacher education and teacher training. In addition, exactly 30 years ago I was president of my own student junior common room, so I know something about these matters. We carried out a free and fair election and the beaten candidate is one of my constituents.
  I was for a moment persuaded of the possibility that there might be a measure of consensus in the House on the measure. I refer the House to the opening words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's blue paper on teacher training issued last autumn, from which the proposals are derived. The very first sentence stated:
  "In education, the role of the teacher is central."
  Indeed, it is essential. Most of us would accept that.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) almost surprised me by saying that she had one goal: to improve the quality of education. I cannot argue against her goal, although I find her means somewhat defective. She is still inexorably impaled on the crossover point of those twin searchlights which hold her fixed. One is ideological correctness and the other is vested interest. She cannot get out of it; she is not allowed to move because it would not be correct and in any case it would upset at least one of the teacher unions. So nothing comes out of the Opposition.
  Despite the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), we heard no clear answer on the hon. Lady's view of testing. She did not say yes, no or even "don't know". Equally, we had no condemnation from her of the remarkably stinging but entirely inappropriate if characteristic criticism from her clients—if such they be—the NUT, in relation to specialised teachers' assistants. We had nothing from the Opposition on that.
  I come to such debates with one clear purpose in mind. If I had any tendency to what the theologians call doubts, I would soon lose them when I got here. If I had any worries about the Bill before I started, the Opposition would put them out of my mind.
  If my hon. Friends think that the Labour party is static on these matters, the Liberal Democrats are still more so.

  681
  Neither made any attempt to address the present position. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of lessons delivered by new teachers are deemed unsatisfactory, 10 per cent. of new teachers are not up to the job and many new teachers themselves admit to unhappiness and uncertainty about their central role of delivering the essential educational attainment of reading. That cannot be right. Equally, when Opposition Members whinge or cackle about our proposals for the reform of student unions, can they honestly say that what has happened in the past has been entirely in order and desirable, when we all know that it has not?
  In this long and interesting debate, there has been a remarkable contrast between the speeches of Opposition Members and the contributions from my right hon. and hon. Friends, which without exception have been thoughtful and positive. I should also record that they have been supportive of the Government. They reflect the reality which I concede has been expressed on both sides of the House. I give way to a fellow classicist.
  Mr. Enright: While I accept that there is always party solidarity in these matters, is the Minister honestly telling the House that he agrees with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), whom I do not see in his place at the moment, let alone the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in his divisive speech?
  Mr. Boswell: If the hon. Gentleman sets up an Aunt Sally, it is not surprising when it is then knocked down. We are not a monolithic party and we do not have to agree with every last word. Unlike the Opposition, however, we are united in our determination to raise educational standards.
  When the hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was about to make the bipartisan point that both sides have admitted that teaching is a complex matter. As we are on the classics, it occurred to me during the debate that the most appropriate story that I could produce to the House was the one about the former professor of classics who took his turn on the golf course. He was not very good and his caddy became exasperated with his performance and eventually said, "Well, Latin and Greek are all very well, but when you come to this game you must have a head." That is precisely the point of these proposals. That man was placing a proper emphasis on moving from the academic grounding that was necessary or desirable to the practical execution which was essential in the task.
  I shall respond to the points made as far as I can and if I overlook any I will write to hon. Members. Once again, we had a vacuum in the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury. We had a policy-free zone. Spinning around in the vacuum only two points of interest were discernible. Yet again, we had the stale call for a general teaching council. A general teaching council as envisaged by the hon. Lady would be merely a talk shop. It would not achieve anything. Because of her ideological positioning, she is unable to suggest anything stronger than a little chat and a discussion—as though it might ever be possible to proceed by consensus in the teeth of vested interests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), in an extremely thoughtful speech, put a much more helpful spin on a general teaching council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always said that he would consider the possibility of the teaching profession bringing forward a professional body to concern itself with
  682
  standards in the form of a royal college of teaching, or something like that. That would be the right way to approach the matter, although I look forward to debating it again.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury, who is not paying attention at the moment, made much of one defeat by two votes that we suffered in the other place on a particular point when, frankly, their Lordships did not exactly conclude the matter, at a time when we defeated by a substantial majority in the other place an amendment seeking to establish a general teaching council. Yet again —the only other point that I want to select from the hon. Lady's remarks—we had the canard that schools would be forced to particpate in the teacher training proposals. I can assure the House that that is not the case.
  We then had a very interesting speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), in which he drew on his unmatched and unrivalled experience of running difficult schools with leadership. He taught us a few home truths and ran up a drainpipe to teach them to us.
  The hon. Member for Hindburn (Mr. Pope) made a number of points. It will be the responsibility of the Teacher Training Agency to consider teacher supply. It will continue to do so based on the advice of and the general steer from the Secretary of State. That matter will continue to be looked at just as it is now. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse that with structural changes in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), another distinguished former Minister, specifically rejected a return to the past, but drew on that valuable past experience to emphasise the importance of teaching and delivering.
  As for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he keeps on droning away and occasionally tries to sting us, but he does not often succeed. He talks occasionally about general teaching councils and that was about all that I made of his speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North not only mentioned the general teaching council in a much more positive way, he emphasised the importance of standards and rigour. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) spoke as ever with some passion on that. Out of a speech with which I did not substantially agree, I must take the hon. Lady up on one point. All participating schools will require their student teachers to go into more than one school. That will be an essential part of the scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made a characteristically trenchant and interesting speech. [HoN. MEMBERs:Where is he?"] My hon. Friend advised me of the reason for his absence from the Chamber now and apologised. However, his spirit is with us. I assure my hon. Friend, in his absence, that his arguments will be carefully considered. As ever, these are not simple matters—as the Committee will discover. I look forward to debating them in detail.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made a wide-ranging speech, although I had to be absent from the Chamber for part of it. Almost alone among Opposition Members, he is not frightened to confront the facts. I hope that that is not seen as an insult to him. The new proposals for the Open university to participate will provide some additional flexibility.

  683
  My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, spoke strongly about the Opposition's constant inability to come to terms with earlier reforms and their amazing propensity for claiming credit for reforms when they are in place. It is reform at one remove. My hon. Friend referred rather alarmingly to teacher training as having softened the brains of a generation, but it was not my hon. Friend's brains that were softened.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) spoke interestingly about the Welsh aspect. I will reflect on his comments and communicate them to my colleagues. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to determine the transfer of functions within Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) spoke with great passion and illumination about what goes on in some of the worst boroughs in the delivery of education, and of the political correctness of some colleges of education. Despite the jeers of Opposition Members, those are the plain facts. If Opposition Members cannot see the problem, I invite them to consider it.
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) was in teacher training for 22 years, which may have been a year or two longer than he might have been. He was not able to advance a substantive argument, so proceeded by proxy—by referring to an article by a Conservative academic that is not part of the Bill. Just as there is no requirement for schools to participate in school-centred training, neither is there any requirement for individual teachers to do so. Additional resources will be made available by the agency to help make the scheme more acceptable and practical for schools.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) was, as ever, strong on the rhetoric of which he accuses others. He referred to the implications for governors. It is entirely for them to bring forward their proposals on behalf of their schools. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) attacked proposals for the National Union of Students that we have now changed. He referred in extenso to our philosophy. That is rather like the argument about a hidden agenda. Every time somebody refers to a philosophy, I metaphorically reach for my revolver because I know that the Opposition cannot have read the Bill and followed the arguments. We have no hidden agenda for driving higher education out of teacher training. We do not wish to force schools to assume responsibilities that they do not want. If we had a hidden agenda, we would not have provided in the Bill that students on training courses must be on degree courses or already be graduates. Many of our teachers are not, but all new teachers will be—except for the specific exceptions of licensed and overseas teachers.
  At present, we approve every individual course of teacher training at every university and college of higher education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also approves and directly funds all school-centred courses. He can choose whatever rate he wants for that work. He has exactly adopted a level playing field between them. The hon. Member may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State currently has the power to pursue any agenda that he wants. In a mood of characteristic humility and self-denial, however, he
  684
  proposes to relinquish those sweeping powers in favour of a new and independent agency with an open and positive agenda. That agenda is set out in clause 1 of the Bill, and I invite the House to reflect on the agency's objectives: to raise the standards of teaching; to promote teaching as a career; to improve the quality and efficiency of all routes into teaching; and to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes for the initial training of school teachers.
  Are there any sinister motives in that? Are there any in the additional requirement that the agency should ensure that teachers are able to promote the aims of education set out in clause 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988? There are not. There is nothing in the Bill about driving out higher education or forcing schools to take on training.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree that one of the things that teachers find difficult in today's schools is the total lack of morale brought about by too many Government reforms? Does he feel that the Teacher Training Agency will do anything to improve that?
  Mr. Boswell: I urge the hon. Lady to visit some schools and ask them. There are some very positive attitudes. If there is any problem, it is with some of the disinformation that is flying around. I hope that what I put on the record will help to disabuse the hon. Lady of that.
  We believe in equal treatment of schools and higher education providers. We believe in a focused agency to take over—
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boswell: This will be the last intervention.
  Mr. Foster: On equality between schools and teacher training institutions, can the Minister give us an estimate of the number of students under the postgraduate certificate of education scheme who are likely to go into the school-based only system, and tell us whether he believes that the average unit cost for the two types of training will be the same, or will it be different?
  Mr. Boswell: I am not prepared to give an estimate of what may happen in the next year or two. That will depend on the readiness of schools to come forward. The agency is charged with securing both quality and value for money. I simply cannot see why the proposals should be seen as a threat.
  Equally, I cannot see why our proposals on student unions should be seen as a threat. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement last July, we believe in a firm foundation of principle for our reforms: choice, democracy and accountability, and the subordinate principle of the avoidance of victimisation. Those are now being debated in another place.
  Our measures will ensure that students have power over the union, rather than the other way round. Student unions can focus on their primary role, which is to look after students, and not to promote the political objectives and careers of a few committed individuals. I remind the House that the old Adam is still around in colleges of education and student unions. For example:
  "Within a psychosemiotic framework the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out … children need to learn to opposition themselves in three interlocking contexts".
  I thought that they were supposed to be learning to read and write.

  685
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to those who dared to use the word "caveman" being marked down for not using the term "caveperson". All the cavepersons are on the Opposition Benches. It is nearly as bad with student unions. I went to visit a university and was greeted thus: "Picket. Big mistake. We are going to insist that one or two hundred students are ready to great you."
  "Join the picket, get your face on the telly and have some fun! Demand,"—
  among other things—
  "the withdrawal of the threat of voluntary membership."
  What have they to be frightened of?
  The Bill is a further reforming measure, taking its place with pride and confidence alongside those great reforming measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State catalogued. We will establish a Teacher Training Agency. We will make student union membership voluntary. We will promote proper behaviour by student unions within a framework of democracy and accountability and within the bounds of charity law.
  I commend these reforms, and the Bill that takes them fore, ard, to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 244.

  Division No. 228]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clappison, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Ashby, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkins, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Congdon, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Couchman, James

  Bates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Beggs, Roy

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Booth, Hartley

  Dover, Den

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Andrew

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evennett, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butcher, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Butler, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  686

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Legg, Barry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Luff, Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  687

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Steen, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Stephen, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stern, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Allan

  Ward, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Watts, John

  Sykes, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

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

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tracey, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cousins, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cox, Tom

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Denham, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dobson, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Blair, Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blunkett, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Boateng, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Enright, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Etherington, Bill

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fraser, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garrett, John

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coffey, Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbett, Robin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Gunnell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hain, Peter

  688

  Hall, Mike

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Olner, William

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Parry, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoey, Kate

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pope, Greg

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ingram, Adam

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rendel, David

  Jamieson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ruddock, Joan

  Keen, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Simpson, Alan

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Stott, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mahon, Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Wallace, James

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Walley, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Maxton, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Meacher, Michael

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Milburn, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Winnick, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Worthington, Tony

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Alan Meade and

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Education Bill [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Bryan Davies: I should like to raise one or two points about the money resolution.
  We have the usual formula—that there are no net cost implications in the new Teacher Training Agency's assumption of certain functions exercised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Secretary of State and the teaching as a career unit. We are told also that other staffing needs should be offset in part by manpower savings at the Department for Education. I should like to know what is meant by the latter in circumstances in which substantial functions are being taken on by the Teacher Training Agency. Never before have we seen any savings, in terms of bureaucracy, under this magical terminology, but I suppose that there is always a first time. However, the House is entitled to some comment from the Minister about that aspect of the money implications of the Bill.
  My second question relates to a matter that I raised during the Second Reading debate. One significant school in the country—Harrow, a well-resourced public school of some repute—has withdrawn from its relationship with the Institute of Education in respect of the training of students. Does that mean that the costs that schools have to bear as a result of their participation in school-based teacher training will be greater than those incurred by Harrow in a partnership scheme? Harrow was unable to sustain the costs. If a school with such resources could not cope, what will be the implications for the generality of state schools in Britain when the Bill, if it is passed, comes into effect and the scheme begins to operate?
  If experienced teachers are to be freed so that they can train students as effectively as the Minister suggested, will they not have to be withdrawn from other classes to concentrate on the support that they give to the students under their tutelage? Will that not have profound cost implications for schools? I ask that question against a background in which, perforce, the Government say that the success of the whole operation depends on full co-operation by schools, and that governing bodies will be able to decide whether their schools participate.
  As we all know, under local management of schools the problem of costs has a continual impact on governors. One of the great anxieties besetting governing bodies in the discharge of the responsibilities recently placed upon them is how to balance their budgets. Yet the Secretary of State is introducing a Bill that will create additional burdens for schools in the training of teachers, while the Government apparently expect there to be no financial consequences.
  I ask the Minister to respond to these questions. Would not the creation of a general teaching council to oversee such arrangements, as is advocated by the Labour party, be a far more cost-effective and less burdensome way of organising and controlling teacher training? Would not that solution be cheaper as well as more effective and more acceptable? Will the Minister reconsider that matter?
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: Further to the points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about the money resolution. We have often been told that the Conservative party is the party of sound finance. Yet, as ever, the money resolution gives the Government a blank cheque. It is important to have some idea of the size of that cheque. The Bill tells us that there will be few or no net costs. If that is true, the Minister must tell us which Peter will be robbed to pay Paul, or if there is to be a net cost, what it will be.
  Unfortunately, on Second Reading we could not get answers that would have helped us to have some idea of the financial implications. During the Minister's summing up I asked him to estimate how many students were likely to be engaged in the entirely school-based teacher training that the Bill recommends. He told us that he was not prepared to make any estimate of the numbers. I also asked him to explain to the House whether there would be a cost differential between that form of teacher training and the more traditional form. We were given no answer to that question either. We need answers to both those questions if we are to have any idea what the costs may be.
  I shall illustrate why those questions are important by referring to a scheme already in place. The Minister will be aware that the articled teacher training scheme, in which about 80 per cent. of the training is carried out in schools, costs about £10,000 per student over two years. That is about three times the average cost of training a student under the ordinary PGCE route. Clearly, if many students follow the new route, at three times the cost of the present scheme, that will impose a significant financial burden.
  For example, if around 20 per cent. of PGCE students, of whom there are currently 16,500, operated under the new arrangements, it would mean that 3,300 students would follow the new route proposed in the Bill with what I predict will be significantly increased costs. To make that happen, there would have to be about 200 consortia and thousands of schools involved, and the increased costs would be significant. Significant amounts of money would have to be laid aside for giving teachers time off to do the additional work and to provide supply cover for them. Money would have to be spent on the assessment of the consortia to check for their suitability and, clearly, on the monitoring of quality in those consortia—something about which the Office for Standards in Education has already expressed concern in relation to the training of articled teachers.
  It seems pretty clear that increased costs will exist and we need to have an idea of what those costs will be if the legislation is to go ahead. If the Minister says that there will be no net cost, the clear implication of that, which he must acknowledge, is that money will be taken away from other more traditional forms of teacher training.
  One further question that I hope that the Minister will answer is what salary is intended to be paid to the chairman of the new Teacher Training Agency. We know that, recently, the appointment of the chairman to the funding agency of schools led to a salary of some £33,500 per annum for what is, apparently, a two-day-a-week job. I think that the House would very much like to know what sort of salary is envisaged for the chairman of the TTA and whether any salaries are intended to be paid to any of the other eight to 12 members of that agency.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): On balance, I am relieved that the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) chose to speak. I know that that pleasure is not shared by any of my hon. Friends, but it means that, after a long day, I have a chance to come to the Dispatch Box.
  The reforms provided for in the Bill will achieve greater effectiveness and accountability in the use of public funds. I shall, in a moment, deal with the points raised by hon. Members. Part II of the Bill, on the reform of student unions, creates no new charges on and no new recipients of public funds. We are not proposing to change either the way in which money is distributed or the amount, on account of the student union reforms. They therefore strictly lie outside the scope of this resolution.
  Part I of the Bill, as every hon. Member must now be aware, creates a Teacher Training Agency. It is for part I alone that we need the resolution. That is not because the agency will give rise to any increase in public expenditure. We have said clearly—I shall be happy to reaffirm it—that there will be no net cost. However, the agency will be a new recipient of public funds and it is right that that point should be covered by a money resolution.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Mr. Squire: May I get a little further down the line and then I shall give way, assuming that there is time? I am sure that there is.
  As hon. Members heard on Second Reading, the agency will draw together a number of important functions currently carried out, in effect, by four different bodies. It will naturally, therefore, draw together the relevant funding which those bodies have previously been allocated in respect of teacher training—part of the point that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised a moment ago. To remind the House, the four bodies are the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, which advises the Secretary of State on individual courses, teaching as a career unit—also known as TASC—which promotes teaching as a career, the Department for Education itself, which approves all courses of teacher training and funds school-centred training courses, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which funds all courses at higher education institutions.
  Dr. Godman: Does the agency have any role to play in the assessment of the training qualifications of teachers residing in other European Union member states who wish to teach here? If that is the case, what estimate has been made concerning the cost involved in such an assessment?
  Mr. Squire: My understanding of the position—I shall happily write to the hon. Gentleman if it is different—is that we are talking of initial teacher training and, above all, that those entering it must be graduates. Assuming that the person from another country had an accepted graduate qualification—subject to me verifying what I am about to say outside this place—I assume that he or she could come within the purview of the proposal.
  Dr. Godman: I do not want to delay our proceedings, but the Minister will know that if an English teacher seeks
  692
  to teach in a Scottish school, he or she has to be approved by the generai training council. Would that be the position with the proposed agency, where—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the money resolution.
  Mr. Squire: I am advised that I should ignore the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and the teaching as a career unit will close, if this is not obvious from my previous comments, when the agency is set up. The Department for Education will have reduced functions in this area.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton made arguably excessive mention of Harrow, the well-known independent school. It decided to withdraw from the scheme under which it was offered a sum by the Institute of Education to play a part in a school-centered training scheme. It was free to do that, as are schools free to go in or to go out of school training. Harrow's action means no more and no less than that.
  As for £4,000 per student, that is the same sum that higher education institutes receive. The moneys go directly to schools to use as they wish. It is for schools to decide whether the sum is enough, and a number have already done so. As hon. Members will be aware from the opening speeches this afternoon, from September about 450 students are expected to be trained by some 16 consortia. Other establishments have not yet so determined, and some may never do so. They have the freedom to take that course.
  The hon. Member for Bath asked whether I could estimate the number of students that the Government believe will come through school-centred training. It is impossible to give such an estimate at this stage. At present, out of about 60,000 would-be teachers, just over 20,000 are graduates and, therefore, are potentially within the area that could be affected by the Bill. As I have said, about 450 students are expected to be trained from September out of a total of about 23,000. The move from there will depend on how would-be teachers wish to train, the number of schools that come forward and the numbers of the consortia that are accepted as providing a reasonable level of training and value for money. Everything flows from that. Like anyone else, I cannot make predictions at this stage.
  The Bill does not contain a recommendation for school-centred training but it will allow it to take place alongside other training. It is neutral on school-centred training versus the more traditional route. The Teacher Training Agency will, however, fund all forms of post-graduate training in this respect.
  The greatest part of the agency's budget will be for the support of courses of initial teacher training. The majority of such courses are currently funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. To the extent that funding is going to the HEFCE for that purpose, there will be a transfer of the funding from the HEFCE to the TTA. That will pass to the agency during 1995, which will take over the relevant funds from the funding council, the budget of which will be reduced accordingly.
  Mr. Don Foster: Is it the Minister's estimate or intention that the cost per student for training through each of the two approaches will be the same or, as is the case for

  693
  articled teacher training, will the cost for more school-based training be higher? Will the Minister clarify the position?
  Mr. Squire: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because he raised a small point that I wanted to take up, and I shall do so now. The answer to his question is that the costs will be broadly similar. The Teacher Training Agency, apart from its quality objective, also has a value-for-money dimension built in. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the articled teacher scheme is being phased out, not least on the ground of the high cost, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  The financial provisions are straightforward and uncontentious, and hon. Members need have no concerns about the Bill's funding implications. We believe that the Bill and new funding arrangements will lead to significant improvements in the deployment of resources for initial teacher training and I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.

  Laboratory Furniture Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate a matter of some importance, not only to my constituents, but to those of a number of my hon. Friends whom I am pleased to see in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has a constituency interest. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who not only has a constituency interest, but is to reply to the debate in his capacity as Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  As my hon. Friend knows, in June 1996 the Ministry expects to open a new £60 million central science laboratory in Yorkshire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who has taken a great interest in the subject. I am pleased to see him present this evening. The contract for the supply of the building and the fittings in it has been awarded to a consortium of two well-known British contractors, John Laing Construction and Haden Young. John Laing Construction is now in a position to place an important contract approaching £2 million for the laboratory furniture for the new central science laboratory. It will be a prestigious contract and something of a showpiece when it is finished.
  When the specifications were originally being drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food it did not think that it could obtain the equipment in this country and the specification was based on a foreign supplier. John Laing Construction quoted for the contract on that basis. But after an exhaustive analysis, John Laing is now satisfied that it is possible to purchase the equipment in Britain from the firm Cygnet Laboratory Furniture, which has factories in Bolton and Blackpool. That company is the leading British supplier, employs more than 100 people and has many customers, a number of whom have had contracts of more than £1 million with the company. They include many Government Departments, the national health service, various universities and well-known British manufacturing companies such as ICI, Zeneca, Unilever, Wellcome, British Nuclear Fuels and Boots. Laing is currently carrying out a contract for Ciba-Geigy, which includes Cygnet's laboratory furniture. I have a letter from Mr. Woolf, the project manager at Ciba-Geigy, in which he says how delighted he is with the progress of the £1.2 million contract.
  In January this year there was a red letter day for the Cygnet business because the investors in the company decided to raise an additional £4 million of equity to help the company pursue its strategy. Some £1 million was raised by the Royal Bank of Scotland and £3 million was raised by S.G. Warburg Securities. I am delighted to see here tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), who so ably represents that company's interests in the House. That money was raised only after exhaustive analysis by analysts from the City who visited the company, looked carefully at its proposals and judged the new management who had been brought into the business the previous year.

  695
  The money was raised through the holding company, Sycamore Holdings—a business with an annual turnover of £20 million, focused on high quality office and laboratory furniture. Cygnet has a turnover of some £8 million a year, and was founded in Bolton in 1946. Its corporate mission now is to become Europe's leading laboratory furniture manufacturer. In that mission, it is much encouraged by the numerous statements that have been made that manufacturing lies at the heart of our economic recovery. Indeed, during Prime Minister's questions on 8 March, the Prime Minister said:
  "I am delighted that we are making … and selling more at home and … abroad."—[Official Report, 8 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 148.]
  On, 15 February, the Secretary of State for the Environment launched a Government-backed task force to reduce imports into the construction industry. I quote from the press release:
  "The substantial trade deficit in building materials has persisted throughout the recession. It must now be attacked."
  In fulfilling the Government's wish to reduce imports, John Laing Construction is delighted that it has been able to establish to its full satisfaction—it must be remembered that Laing's bear the full contractual responsibility for delivering to the Ministry's specification—that Cygnet would be the best supplier. It would have the best quality and the best on-site performance. What is more, it can offer a lower price than the product which is currently nominated. It can reduce the price to the Government by £70,000 in the initial contract. That would be followed by considerable after-sales economies through being able to supply as the customer requested to suit any requirements without the difficulty of purchasing from abroad at a higher price.
  So far, my hon. Friend and the Ministry have rejected the proposal that Cygnet Laboratory Furniture should supply because of three independent reports which were prepared last autumn before the company enjoyed the benefit of the new finance and the full benefit of the new management which came into the company last year. When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister, I received a letter on 28 March in which my right hon. Friend said:
  "Advice was taken from three sets of independent private sector consultants … MAFF's conclusion was that despite the apparent saving, the risk to quality standards was sufficiently great that it could not be guaranteed that the contract would deliver value for money."
  Both Cygnet Laboratory Furniture and Laing's dispute the findings of those three independent private sector consultants. I learnt today that one of them never visited the factory. Of the other two, one was a firm of architects and the other was a firm of construction project managers. Neither of them is an expert in manufacturing and therefore is hardly able to establish definitively whether the company was best able to produce.
  The reports are now obsolete. They were prepared before the refinancing by the company and before the current programme of completing quality assurance, with BS5750 audit arrangements being put in soon. In a letter to me, Laing's confirmed that it is satisfied that the quality assurance procedures can be established in good time for production to take place.
  What we need now is a proper independent consultant's report based on a firm that has expertise in manufacturing.
  696
  I would like to see such a report put forward. Indeed, at a meeting this afternoon with departmental officials, I said that I was resolved to commission such a report myself if that would help the Government to come to the right decision.
  There is a danger that the Ministry may be stuck in a time warp of last autumn's obsolete surveys without looking at the current position and the current improvements. The firm now has professional management with two directors who qualified at INSEAD—an institution which bears favourably on any worldwide analysis. I gained a management qualification from Harvard Business school and the Cranfield Institute of Technology in this country, and I know that INSEAD is an excellent establishment. This is a company with excellent management who are backed by the City after its analysts had looked closely at them. They and Laing's are satisfied that Cygnet will make a quality product that will more than meet the Department's specifications.
  A mock-up for the benefit of officials was constructed at Ryedale at the suggestion of Laing's, but I understand that officials were instructed not to go to see it. It has been re-erected at the factory in Blackpool and I have a picture of it here. It is an excellent example of the work that the firm can do and I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to look at it. It has convinced all those who are most closely involved and Laing's in particular that the firm makes a quality product and can offer savings.
  I ask the Minister to back the judgment of British investors and the contractual judgment of Laing's, which bears the responsibility for the matter, and to forget the obsolete consultants' reports which were prepared last year. I again refer the Minister to the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. At the press conference at which he launched the Government-backed task force to reduce construction imports he concluded:
  "I believe there is a growing recognition that the future of this industry lies in developing co-operative forms of working and turning away from both conflict and narrow sectional interests.
  But if the vision of a new co-operative future is to be made real, it will call for leadership. Who will provide that leadership? … This is sensitive territory but it should not be sacred."
  I will play my part. I am prepared to commission a report from independent manufacturing consultants which will show that the firm is perfectly capable of delivering to the Department's specifications on time and that it will fully meet all the customer's requirements. I ask the Minister to have another look at the matter, and to accept that there is a British supplier who can do the work.
  I should like to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South to contribute to the debate.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for allowing me to contribute to the debate.
  I am concerned on behalf of my many constituents who work for Cygnet whose factory site in Blackpool can be clearly seen from the end of the road in which I live. When I am at my constituency home every weekend, it is a constant reminder of the importance of the issue.
  One of the ironies of the debate is that it will be answered by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), whose constituency is next door to mine. Many

  697
  of his constituents also work for this company. It is helpful to note not only the involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, but the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), is also in the Chamber. I know that he shares my concern, and the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) are also concerned reinforces our anxiety about the matter.
  The Government, whom I strongly support, have a British supplier and many British jobs are at stake. The company can deliver at a saving of £70,000 of taxpayers' money a product that we all believe is as good as a German product. I should not like to think that the Government would risk awarding the contract to a German company and exporting the jobs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends abroad.
  I appreciate that there were problems in the company when the reports were prepared last autumn, but I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East that a fresh look is appropriate. All the original reports predate the 15 January refinancing which Warberg successfully arranged. The standards of analysis that had to be set for City institutions to take up the rights issue and involve themselves in that refinancing were extremely strict. They would not have agreed to put their money and that of their investors into that company if they had not felt that it had a good future and that its products were of a high quality.
  Subsequent to the refinancing and with the management which came into place last year, and which is now in full control of the company, there is every opportunity for independent consultants to look again at the matter. Perhaps the fact that one departmental official I know visited the company very shortly after that refinancing was little more than rubber stamping previous consultants' decisions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East rightly pointed out that the consultants who produced those previous reports were not experts in laboratory furniture. There is a strong case for a fresh report. I firmly believe that that report is likely to result in confirmation of the view that we all hold that the company is capable of delivering a very high quality product to MAFF's fullest specifications. I have been round the factory and I have seen the high standards there.
  We must also bear in mind what the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), said in a Government announcement about the balance of trade in the construction industry. That announcement postdated the company's refinancing. He pointed out that there was a negative balance of trade in the construction industry and that he wanted to see more construction work going to British companies.
  In this case, a major British construction contractor, Laing, wants to use another British company, Cygnet, and believes that Cygnet can deliver the required quality.
  Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend began his remarks by saying that whenever he is in his constituency he has a constant reminder of the Cygnet factory. The point he made about the quality of the laboratory equipment goes to the heart of the issue. We want the laboratory in Ryedale. We warmly welcome it. It will be the best agricultural science laboratory in Europe.
  698
  It must, as a consequence, have the best equipment of any laboratory of its kind in Europe. Many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people will visit that laboratory over the years, and it will not be as successful for Britain if it does not have British equipment in it.
  Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  In view of the time, I close my remarks by calling on my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the matter and to say that there are sufficient reasons for a fresh analysis to be made. In the interests of our constituents who work there, I strongly urge him to do so.
  10.52 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I realise that there has been considerable interest in the debate. I am interested to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) in attendance and my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). Such is the interest across the country that they have all attended the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate and my hon. Friend and near neighbour the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on his contribution.
  We have heard this evening some criticisms from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East about the way in which MAFF has acted on the contract. He will also know, however, that there has been no reluctance on our part to discuss the issue with him or with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South. Many of the points that I shall put to him today were aired at a meeting he had with my noble Friend Lord Howe on 24 February. Only today, he also had the benefit of discussing the contract with our permanent secretary, and with my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  Much has been made of the intense interest created in the project. Although my constituency adjoins Blackpool, South and much as I would dearly love to see a British company win the project, I shall be putting on record some of the reasons why we are in the present position.
  When a member of the company used a company employee as a way into my constituency advice bureau to lobby for the project, I realised then that there was a particular intensity in the way that the lobbying on a political level had been carried out for that particular project. Despite all that, even today we made the opportunity for our permanent secretary to speak with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East. He had also had the benefit of a letter on the matter from the Prime Minister, laying down his position and making clear his support for the project.
  My hon. Friend will know that at the heart of the matter is the Ryedale laboratory. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale pointed out, it is at the heart of MAFF's work in the vital areas of the safety and nutritional value of the food supply. It will also look at diseases and pests affecting crops and agricultural produce. The laboratory's work is highly specialised, dealing with analyses which can involve the identification of minute quantities of impurities at levels down to one part in billions. To achieve that degree of accuracy will require laboratory equipment and furniture of a high specification and proven track record.

  699
  In early 1991, it was Ministers who agreed the project in principle. Work began on its detailed specification as part of the competitive tendering process. The skilful completion of this task by MAFF officials and their advisers had already reduced what started out as a £75 million contract to one priced at £60 million, fulfilling in every way our wish to acheive the best value for money.
  Aspersions have been cast in this debate on the qualities of MAFF's advisers in the matter. I put on record that they have been involved, for example, in work on a Glaxo contract valued at some £500 million, of which £10 million was for laboratory furniture. In addition, our architects, RMJM, have designed and specified for 20 laboratories in the past five years. So they are no Johnny-come-latelys to this exacting area of activity.
  As I said, the skilful completion of the task had reduced the contract to £60 million. In June 1992 we went out to tender and the contract was won by Laing-Haden in December 1992. Every aspect of the project was the subject of detailed specification. From the outset the principal contractors would have known that it was they, not Ministers, who would be awarding contracts to suppliers for all the items involved in building and equipping the laboratory. They would also have known that MAFF and its advisers would have to be kept fully informed of who the project suppliers were to be and of the requirements involved, should they wish to propose a change in a supplier. Such a move would also require MAFF's approval.
  So what happened over the question of laboratory furniture? The specification written by the project's architects, RMJM, the project manager, Symonds, and the cost consultants, Turner and Townsend, all of whom, as I have said, are experts in this field, called for furniture with special surfaces which could be regularly deep cleaned. The units would also have to be interchangeable and easy to move, as well as being robust and durable. Finally, and most importantly, the architects advised that the laboratory furniture should come from a standard range so that the track record of the product could be clearly demonstrated. That bears tribute to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale in terms of the quality of the equipment in the laboratory. The specification would have to be higher than normal in laboratory terms.
  By any standards the order is large, valued at around £2 million, or the equivalent of some 3,000 units of furniture. As the main contractor, Laing-Haden, was also aware, the contract required it to name a number of key suppliers or sub-contractors, including the one for laboratory furniture. That was so that we could be sure of the track record of the proposed firm and we could reduce the openings for the main contractor to Dutch-auction packages after the main contract had been awarded. Sub-contractors' organisations regularly complain to the Government about that practice. In addition, we could prevent the main contractor from trying to substitute an inferior product at a later date. That is also a constant problem in the building world.
  Implicit in that arrangement was the Ministry's right to refuse any proposed sub-contractors or suppliers. Main contractors were also aware that under the contract they could ask for a named supplier to be changed, but that that would be allowed only if the contractor put forward a new firm which clearly offered substantial benefits over that
  700
  named, or if the named supplier could no longer fulfil the terms of the sub-contract. Those two criteria govern all proposals to change suppliers.
  So how did Laing-Haden react to those specification requirements? During the tender preparation stage in September 1992, Laing-Haden initially proposed a British laboratory furniture manufacturer for this section of the work, but our advisers recommended that that firm failed to meet the specified requirements by a wide margin. They told us that the company's standard range fell well short of the requirements and that its proposals to manufacture a custom-built range lacked credibility. Acting on the advice of its professional advisers, the Ministry rejected that firm. Laing-Haden accepted that, and its response was to research the market place again. As a result, Laing-Haden proposed Waldner MSA of Germany, one of the leading manufacturers of laboratory furniture in Europe. I repeat that Laing-Haden proposed Waldner MSA. At that stage, Laing-Haden could have proposed Cygnet Laboratory Furniture, but it did not choose to do so. Neither did it even mention Cygnet to our officials.
  Waldner's laboratory furniture was from its standard range, and it was assessed by the Ministry and its advisers as capable of meeting the specification for the project. The equipment offered differed in some minor aspects from the precise terms of the specification, but not so significantly as to affect its ability to meet the main requirements. In addition, Waldner had a proven track record and also had in place ISO 9000 quality assurance systems.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Jack: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make a little progress, because there is much that I want to say in response to the great deal of information that he gave the House.
  As a result, Laing-Haden wrote Waldner into the contract as the supplier of laboratory furniture. At that stage, the whole contract was signed and sealed by the Ministry and Laing-Haden on 22 December 1992. Design work started in January 1993 and construction began in earnest that summer. As far as the Ministry and its advisers were concerned, the supplier of the laboratory furniture was settled.
  While all that was going on, we learnt that, despite the fact that Laing-Haden had specified Waldner in the contract, during 1993 Laing-Haden circulated the requirement for the laboratory equipment to a number of alternative suppliers. We first became aware of that in October 1993, when Laing-Haden brought on to the site some examples of the standard range of furniture produced by Cygnet Laboratory Furniture Ltd.—nearly one year after Laing-Haden had written Waldner into the contract.
  Cygnet has a factory in Bolton and another in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way now?
  Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little more progress.
  Cygnet's samples did not meet the specification, and that was accepted without demur by Laing-Haden. In December last year, however, Laing-Haden brought on to the site prototypes of the laboratory furniture range that Cygnet claimed would meet the specification requirement. Three reasons were advanced for that suggested change in

  701
  supplier: Cygnet was nearer to the site than Waldner and thus should be able to offer a faster response; Laing-Haden offered the Ministry a £70,000 inducement under the contract to agree to the change to Cygnet; and Cygnet had already supplied laboratory furniture to a number of leading UK companies.
  Representatives of the Ministry—including the central science laboratory—project manager, architect and Laing-Haden visited Cygnet's factory at Blackpool at the beginning of January this year. They reported back serious doubts in the minds of the Ministry's advisers and officials about Cygnet's ability to complete that large order successfully. The prototypes were one-offs and not from a standard range, and as such had no track record to commend them. Our advisers also expressed the view that the factory's production layout and the work in progress there did not engender confidence. No quality control system was in place, the range of laboratory furniture proposed for the contract had no track record, and the firm had not completed a laboratory furniture contract anywhere near the size of that required for Ryedale. In addition, independent financial checks made on Cygnet and on Sycamore Holdings—the parent company—showed that the latter had a negative net worth, and guarantees were strongly advised in any dealings with it.
  In conclusion, the Ministry's three professional advisers were unanimous in their recommendation that the Ministry should not allow Laing-Haden to change the supplier of laboratory furniture from Waldner MSA—the firm named by Laing-Haden in the contract—to Cygnet.
  Mr. Thurnham: The advisers that my hon. Friend mentioned, who were involved in the project from the beginning, based the specification for the laboratory
  702
  furniture on the German company's own range. That is why it was difficult for Laing-Haden initially to put forward anything other than the Waldner product. It was only after a period of time that Laing-Haden was able to establish that the product could be satisfactorily made in this country. The three so-called independent consultants who visited Cygnet were the same consultants who originally specified the German equipment.
  Mr. Jack: I do not think that my hon. Friend was listening when I pointed out at the beginning that a British company was there. The specification was drawn up a long time before Waldner became involved. It was not specified around the Waldner range. It is interesting and ironic that, when Laing-Haden cast further doubt on Waldner in its own mind by trailing that project around, the alternative that it suggested was not Cygnet, but a Dutch company called Luntri—such is its interest in the matter. We have bent over backwards to try to accommodate—
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: I have given way to my hon. Friend, and I want to conclude my remarks.
  We have bent over backwards to try to take into account the representations made to us by the company, particularly with reference to its refinancing. As my hon. Friend knows, one of our officials recently visited the company to look again at the units. What he found, in effect, was that nothing—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986, through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For staff below grade 5 the Department has received one application through the business appointments system. The application was made in 1994 under(c) other employment, and was not referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. Information on staff at grade 5 and above could not be collected in the time available.

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the judicial functions of justices' clerks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although justices' clerks are not judges, they do, however, perform certain functions of justices which have been devolved to them by virtue of section 28(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. These functions are contained in the Justices' Clerks Rules 1970, as amended, the Magistrates' Courts (Attachment of Earnings) Rules 1971, the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991, and the Family Proceedings Courts (Matrimonial Proceedings etc.) Rules 1991.

  Court Cases
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) civil actions and (b) criminal prosecutions using the powers of (i) the Insolvency Acts, (ii) the Theft Acts and (iii) the Banking Acts in each of the last four years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) civil actions. This information is not available for the Insolvency Acts and Theft Acts and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of civil actions carried out by the Bank of England using the powers of the Banking Acts were as follows:

  Year to end of February

  Civil actions

  1991

  7

  1992

  5

  1993

  2

  1994

  1

  400
  (b) criminal prosecutions: Defendants proceeded against under the Insolvency Acts and Theft Acts will be prosecuted under the indictable offence categories of robbery, burglary, theft and handling stolen goods and fraud and forgery and the summary offence categories of stealing and unauthorised takings. Information on the number of prosecutions by type of offence is published annually in the Home Office publication "Criminal Statistics England and Wales Supplementary tables, Volume 1 Proceedings in Magistrates' Courts". Copies of the publication for 1989 to 1992—latest available—are held in the Library.

  The number of criminal prosecutions carried out by the Bank of England using the powers of the Banking Acts were as follows:

  Year to end of February

  Criminal prosecutions

  1991

  0

  1992

  2

  1993

  1

  1994

  2

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Terrace (Journalists' Access)
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when the minutes of the proceedings of his Committee dealing with access of journalists to the Terrace will be available.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The minutes of proceedings of the Administration Committee are produced periodically. The volume containing the decision taken up to the Easter recess is expected to be available on 9 May—HC 374-i to ix.

  Upper Waiting Hall (Exhibitions)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee in what circumstances applications of right hon. and hon. Members to use the Upper Waiting Hall for exhibitions are not decided by ballot: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Applications for exhibitions of a parliamentary nature to be exempted from the ballot are considered individually by the Administration Committee.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servant (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Howard
  The following table sets out the information requested.
  401

  Number of applications

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Number of applicants

  2

  12

  2

  3

  4

  2

  5

  7

  —

  Independent consultant

  Total

  —

  3

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  4

  —

  Reference to advisory committee

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Approved unconditionally

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  4

  —

  Approved with conditions

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Firm of consultants

  Total

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Reference to advisory committee

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unconditional

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Conditional

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Other employment

  Total

  2

  8

  1

  1

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Reference of advisory committee

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unconditional

  2

  5

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Conditional

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1 To 31 March.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost involved in appointing the prisons ombudsman since the post was readvertised in November 1993; and how this sum is broken down;

  (2) how prisoners will be informed of their rights to complain to the prisons ombudsman and of the procedures involved;

  (3) what will be the procedure to be followed by prisoners wishing to make complaints to the prisons ombudsman; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what budget is to be allocated to the office of the prisons ombudsman for the year 1994–95; and how this is broken down;

  (5) How many (a) men and (b) women applied for the post of prisons ombudsman, following its readvertisement in November 1993; how many (i) men and (ii) women were shortlisted; and how many (1) men and (2) women were interviewed for the post.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total cost of appointing the prisons ombudsman since the post was readvertised in November 1993 was £55,200. This sum consists of a £20,332 fee for the services of an executive search agency, £20,086 for the Civil Service Commission's Recruitment and Assessment Services and £14,781 for advertisements placed in the national press.

  Prisoners will be informed of their rights to complain to the prisons ombudsman through a revised Prison Service leaflet on requests and complaints, the next reissue of the prisoners' information pack and any means the prisons ombudsman may decide appropriate. The procedures to be followed by prisoners are set out in the document "The Prisons Ombudsman: A Note on Arrangements", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  For 1994–95 the allocated budgets are £462,000 for salaries, £15,000 for travel and subsistence, and £400,000 for the costs of establishing and operating the office.

  There were 352 male and 50 female applicants for the post of prison ombudsman. Six candidates, all male, were shortlisted and interviewed.

  Leon Paterson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a report from the Police Complaints Authority concerning the death of Leon Paterson in Stockport police station.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. Any report is entirely a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, the chief constable and the Police Complaints Authority.

  ANZAC Day
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the change in the arrangements this year for the use of Whitehall by vehicular traffic during the ANZAC day ceremony.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given to closing Whitehall to vehicular traffic during the ANZAC day ceremony on 25 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes were made in the arrangements for vehicular traffic in Whitehall during the Cenotaph ceremony on ANZAC day, 25 April, as compared with previous years; what consultations there were about the changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to a question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 28 April, at column 244–45.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; and how many were referred on to an agency chief executive.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of answers given to questions to my Department in the period November 1992 to March 1993 which the POLIS database has been able to identify as fitting the hon. Member's criteria is 72. During
  403
  the same period, the POLIS database has been able to identify seven questions to my Department where agency chief executives were asked to arrange for replies to be given.

  Prisons (Drug Abuse)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many different types of drugs have been found in each Her Majesty's prison, Her Majesty's remand centre and Her Majesty's detention centre in(a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside in each year since 1989;

  (2) how many visitors have been found in possession of illegal drugs at each Her Majesty's prison, Her Majesty's remand centre and Her Majesty's detention centre in (a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire, and (d) Humberside in each year since 1989; and what subsequent action was taken against them;

  (3) if he will list by Her Majesty's prison and Her Majesty's remand or detention centre in (a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside, how many incidents of drug abuse were discovered in each year since 1989 to date.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the number of different types of drugs found; the number of visitors who have been found in possession of illegal drugs and the number of incidents of drug abuse in each prison, remand centre and detention centre in (a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside in each year since 1989;
  Information about these incidents is readily available since 25 September 1990 only.
  The tables attached provide information on drug finds including drugs finds on visitors.
  Apart from the information given in the attached table and adjudications statistics, information about the number of incidents of drug abuse is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Different types of drugs found in each prison

  Establishment

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE

  Lindholme

  Cannabis

  11

  37

  36

  29

  Cannabis Plant

  1

  1

  5

  5

  Cocaine

  0

  2

  0

  0

  LSD

  0

  2

  3

  0

  Heroin

  0

  0

  3

  4

  Amphetamines

  0

  0

  2

  5

  Barbiturates

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Other

  0

  5

  8

  5

  Moorland

  Cannabis

  0

  21

  76

  101

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Cocaine

  0

  0

  3

  1

  LSD

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Amphetamines

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  5

  404

  Establishment

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Hatfield

  Cannabis

  1

  4

  4

  6

  NORTH YORKSHIRE

  Full Sutton

  Cannabis

  0

  6

  4

  16

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Cocaine

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Heroin

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Amphetamines

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Other

  0

  0

  2

  3

  Askham Grange

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Cocaine

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Amphetamines

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Other

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Northallerton

  Cannabis

  1

  2

  4

  4

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  0

  0

  1

  LSD

  0

  1

  0

  0

  WEST YORKSHIRE

  Northallerton

  Cannabis

  0

  8

  1

  3

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Heroin

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Other

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Thorp Arch

  Cannabis

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  Cannabis

  0

  7

  1

  3

  Leeds

  Cannabis

  2

  2

  2

  7

  Heroin

  0

  0

  1

  1

  New Hall

  Cannabis

  12

  5

  3

  3

  Cocaine

  0

  4

  0

  1

  LSD

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Heroin

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Wakefield

  Cannabis

  0

  6

  3

  10

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cocaine

  0

  0

  1

  0

  HUMBERSIDE

  Everthorpe

  Cannabis

  2

  5

  4

  4

  Heroin

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hull

  Cannabis

  9

  4

  13

  16

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Heroin

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Amphetamines

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Barbiturates

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  2

  0

  The Wolds

  Cannabis

  0

  0

  9

  51

  Cannabis Plant

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Heroin

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Amphetamines

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Other

  0

  0

  5

  3

  405

  Number of visitors found with, or suspected of possessing, illegal drugs

  Establishment

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  South Yorkshire

  Lindholme

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Moorland

  0

  0

  6

  3

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  Full Sutton

  0

  2

  2

  6

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  1

  0

  West Yorkshire

  Rudgate

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Thorp Arch

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  2

  0

  New Hall

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Humberside

  Everthorpe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hull

  4

  0

  3

  0

  The Wolds

  0

  0

  1

  13

  All cases were reported to the local police.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to allocate sniffer dogs to each prison to help combat the problem of illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure sniffer dogs inspect all prisons on a regular basis throughout the year to help combat the problem of illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 3 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about allocating sniffer dogs to each prison and ensuring sniffer dogs inspect prisons on a regular basis to help combat the problem of illegal drugs.
  There are no plans to allocate dogs trained to search out drugs to each prison. At present, 68 dogs (almost all of which are also guard dogs) in the Prison Service have been trained to detect illegal drugs. This figure will rise to 76 by mid-May when the current training course is completed. These dogs can be used at any prison where a Governor wants a drug search undertaken. It is for individual Governors to determine the extent to which drug trained dogs are used in their establishments. In the nine months from April to December establishments. In the nine months from April to December 1993, 459 drug searches were undertaken by the Prison Service drug dogs.
  In addition to these dogs, we have started to train other dogs for allocation to prisons that do not routinely have guard dogs. These dogs will work solely on drug searching and will be allocated to prisons where Governors have requested them.

  Humberside Police
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will refer back to the Local Government Commission proposals to split Humberside police with an instruction to consult the police, the police authority and the public.
  406
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 21 April, at columns 1021–22.

  Incident (Shaftesbury Avenue)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement in respect of the operation in which armed Metropolitan police officers were at the scene of an incident on 16 April at approximately 1015 hours, at the northern end of Shaftesbury avenue, London.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that the Metropolitan police have no record of any incident or police operation in Shaftesbury avenue on 16 April, and that no authority for the issue of firearms in the Metropolitan police district was given on that day.

  Operation Barnard
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations led to the title Operation Barnard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police that "Operation Barnard" was a name chosen by the local divisional commander.

  Passport Office
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to expand the network of United Kingdom passport offices, with particular reference to Scotland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the United Kingdom Passport Agency. I have asked the chief executive to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Hayzelden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 29 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about expanding the network of United Kingdom Passport Offices.
  As you may know, the UK Passport Agency has offices at Belfast, Glasgow, Liverpool, London, Newport and Peterborough. We plan to conduct a review of the number and location of Passport Offices later this year. In this review we shall give careful consideration to the position in Scotland.

TREASURY

  Taxation (Relief and Allowances)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of the relief and allowances against(a) inheritance tax and (b) capital gains tax in the current financial year.

  Mr. Nelson
  The cost of the inheritance tax nil rate band for transfers not exceeding £150,000 in 1994–95 is estimated to be £4.4 billion. This figure is particularly tentative and subject to a wide margin of error.

  Estimates of the costs of other reliefs and allowances against capital gains tax and inheritance tax for 1994–95

  407
  could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, estimates for 1993–94 were published in table 1.6 and in appendix B of an Inland Revenue publication "Inland Revenue Statistics 1993". A copy of this was placed in the Library. Updated figures for 1994–95 will be published later in the year.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were(a) the tax revenues received from, (b) the subsidy provided to and (c) the net cost or revenue of the nationalised industries in each of the five years to 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the total external financing provided for the nationalised industries in the years 1975–76 through to 1978–79 was as follows:

  Profits1 of privatised companies while in the public sector

  £ million

  Pre-tax profit prior to privatization

  Company

  Year of privatisation

  5 years prior

  4 years prior

  3 years prior

  2 years prior

  Final year in public sector

  British Aerospace

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  50.3

  52.8

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  —

  —

  59.4

  61.0

  64.1

  Amersham International

  1982

  —

  —

  6.0

  4.0

  4.8

  NFC

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.3

  Britoil

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  294.0

  423.1

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  —

  22.4

  11.5

  -10.3

  5.5

  International Aeradio

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13.3

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  283.2

  Jaguar

  1984

  —

  -47.3

  -31.7

  9.6

  50.0

  Sealink

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.8

  BT

  1984

  424.0

  570.0

  936.0

  1031.0

  990.0

  MacBrayne Haulage

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.1

  British Gas3

  1986

  430.0

  803.0

  918.0

  723.0

  800.0

  British Airways

  1987

  -108.0

  74.0

  185.0

  191.0

  195.0

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  26.0

  29.0

  Rolls-Royce

  1987

  —

  -115.0

  26.0

  81.0

  120.0

  BAA3

  1987

  —

  84.0

  104.0

  119.0

  122.0

  British Steel3

  1988

  -229.0

  -378.0

  42.0

  177.0

  419.0

  Harland and Wolff

  1989

  -35.8

  -37.1

  -75.6

  -25.1

  -28.8

  Short Brothers

  1989

  0.5

  -37.2

  -19.9

  -142.5

  -353.7

  Anglian Water

  1989

  21.1

  37.4

  52.2

  58.7

  73.4

  Northumbrian Water

  1989

  0.1

  3.0

  7.1

  10.8

  10.1

  North West Water

  1989

  -26.0

  -6.9

  8.9

  25.3

  44.3

  Severn Trent

  1989

  -17.8

  39.0

  52.0

  96.6

  97.5

  Southern Water

  1989

  22.0

  36.9

  47.3

  59.3

  65.1

  South West Water

  1989

  20.6

  23.9

  28.1

  33.5

  38.1

  Thames Water

  1989

  99.4

  144.1

  151.1

  180.7

  207.2

  Welsh Water

  1989

  -12.8

  -3.5

  11.9

  16.4

  24.9

  Wessex Water

  1989

  9.9

  15.0

  21.5

  25.0

  24.1

  Yorkshire Water

  1989

  18.4

  22.2

  37.0

  56.7

  55.7

  Eastern Electricity

  1990

  88.0

  100.5

  99.9

  119.0

  124.4

  East Midlands Electricity

  1990

  48.2

  70.9

  81.9

  87.0

  90.9

  London Electricity

  1990

  84.7

  95.6

  96.2

  112.7

  126.2

  Manweb

  1990

  26.9

  33.1

  28.5

  39.5

  37.7

  Midlands Electricity

  1990

  64.5

  68.2

  62.0

  76.6

  88.9

  Northern Electric

  1900

  48.1

  48.7

  47.1

  58.0

  66.1

  Norweb

  1990

  53.9

  59.5

  53.3

  65.8

  71.7

  Seeboard

  1990

  47.6

  57.7

  44.0

  58.0

  57.6

  Southern Electric

  1990

  69.2

  92.5

  79.4

  113.8

  128.2

  South Wales Electricity

  1990

  24.9

  31.6

  21.0

  30.8

  26.2

  South Western Electricity

  1990

  47.6

  45.6

  32.2

  55.8

  66.1

  Yorkshire Electricity

  1990

  55.3

  64.5

  71.8

  90.2

  109.5

  National Grid

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  428.6

  National Power

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  178.0

  PowerGen

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  233.6

  408

  Total external financing

  £ million1

  1975–76

  4,756

  1976–77

  3,275

  1977–78

  1,822

  1978–79

  2,367

  1 1980 survey prices.

  Taken as a whole, there was no net revenue from the nationalised industries in these years.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total profit made by formerly publicly-owned companies in the five years prior to their privatisation; and if he will provide a breakdown of this sum by company.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the profits made, or estimated to have been made, by privatised companies in the five years prior to privatisation where this information is held centrally and can be obtained without disproportionate cost.
  409

  Pre-tax profit prior to privatisation

  Company

  Year of privatisation

  5 years prior

  4 years prior

  3 years prior

  2 years prior

  Final year in public sector

  Scottish Hydro-Electric

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60.3

  Scottish Power

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  144.7

  Medway Ports

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.8

  Forth Ports

  1992

  —

  —

  5.7

  9.9

  8.2

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  1993

  —

  —

  40.1

  15.0

  64.1

  1 Historic Cost convention unless otherwise stated.

  2 Nine months' figures only.

  3 Current Cost convention.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much each valuation office received from the relevant regional health authorities for valuation of surplus NHS properties for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Valuation List
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average length of time between the receipt of a proposal to alter the valuation list and the decision on the proposal for each district valuation officer.

  Mr. Nelson
  This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many council tax cases were awaiting inspection and discussion at the Valuation Office at 1 April.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of appeals received during the initial banding period in England and Wales and outstanding as at 31 March 1994 was 614,000. The number awaiting inspection and discussion could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the total cost in 1994–95 of relief from inheritance tax for(a) agricultural property, (b) business property, (c) heritage property and maintenance funds and (d) exemption of transfers to charities on death.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: Provisional estimates for the total cost of reliefs and exemptions from inheritance tax for 1994–95 are:

  £ million

  Relief for agricultural property

  80

  Relief for business property

  60

  Relief for heritage property and maintenance funds

  901–2

  Exemption of transfers to charities on death

  2202

  1 The estimated annual cost of exemptions and reliefs from inheritance tax for heritage property shows significant fluctuations from year to year. The figure given here is the average annual cost over the past decade.

  2 These figures are particularly tentative and subject to a wide margin of error.

  Executive Share Option Schemes
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue approved executive share option schemes currently exist; what proportion are linked to approved savings-related share option schemes; and what are the respective values of both schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: Up to 31 March 1994, 5,680 discretionary—executive—share option schemes had been approved by the Inland Revenue; 3,981 of these schemes are believed to be currently in operation. In 1991–93, the latest year for which relevant figures are available, some 2 per cent. of discretionary schemes were granted options at a discount, under the linkage provisions introduced in the Finance Act 1991, because they also had an approved savings-related share option scheme. The total initial value of shares over which options were granted in 1992–93 under approved discretionary share option schemes was £1.6 billion; the corresponding figure for approved savings-related share option schemes is £1.88 billion.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on corporation tax receipts in 1994–95 and 1995–96 of the introduction of pay and file.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The introduction of pay and file is not expected to have a significant effect on total receipts of corporation tax in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many civil servants in his Departments applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1986 two applications have been received by the Crown Prosecution Service under the business appointments rules, one in 1990 and one in 1992. Neither related to an appointment as a consultant or with a firm of consultants. One of the applications required and obtained the approval of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The other application was approved by the Department. There have
  411
  been no such applications in the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department or the Serious Fraud Office.

PRIME MINISTER

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the UN about sanctions against Libya.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers and officials are in regular contact on the question of the Lockerbie bombing and sanctions against Libya, both with the United Nations secretariat and other members of the Security Council. I last discussed this matter with the United Nations Secretary-General during his visit to London in July 1992.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

  Sir Tim Bell
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if the contract to Sir Tim Bell to advise on the celebrations and commemorations of the D-day landings was awarded by means of a competitive tender.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes there have been since 28 November 1991 in the definition of executive duties carried out by chairmen or vice-chairmen of a political party which would disqualify that person from holding a similar role or office in any public body; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Expo '92
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 389, what were the final costs of his Department's contribution to Expo '92, including the costs of settlement with Joanna Bickerton Associates.

  Mr. Needham
  The final costs have yet to be settled. I will write to the hon. Member when they are.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the names of consultants employed in reviews of structure and organisation for each of his 412
  Department's laboratories and agencies since April 1992, the periods of the appointments and the date of their reports; and whether the reports have been placed in the Library, together with the total sums expended on the reviews of such laboratories and agencies in the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The position on the use of consultants in connection with the reviews of the DTI laboratories and other agencies is as follows:

  DTI LABORATORIES
  A study by KPMG of the National Physical Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and the Warren Spring Laboratory1 was commissioned in May 1993. KPMG's report was presented to the Department in December 1993. A summary of the Report was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 14 April 1994.
  1Warren Spring Laboratory was subsequently removed from the KPMG study. PA Consulting were then appointed to conduct a short review of the planned relocation of WSL from Stevenage to new premises at Welwyn Garden City. PA's report was presented to the Department in June 1993. A copy of the Report was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 7 July 1993.

  OTHER AGENCIES

  Accounts Services Agency
  A study by PA Consulting was commissioned in October 1993. The study was completed by January 1994 and an announcement in the form of Written Answer was made to the House on 11 February 1994, Official Report, column 505.
  PA's report has not been placed in the House as it contains commercially sensitive information, the publication of which could be damaging to the Agency.

  Companies House
  A study by SRU was commissioned in October 1992. The study was completed in August 1993.
  SRU's report has not been placed in the House as the future of Companies House remains under consideration.

  Insolvency Service
  Stoy Hayward were appointed in August 1993 to conduct a pre-feasibility study into the potential for making more use of the private sector in the work of the Official Receiver. Stoy Hayward's report was presented to the Department in October 1993. A summary of the Report was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 7 February 1994.
  Following the pre-feasibility study, a further more detailed feasibility study was commissioned from Stoy Hayward in March 1994. Stoy Hayward are due to complete this "second phase" study by the end of July 1994.

  Patent Office
  A study by Price Waterhouse was commissioned in July 1993. Price Waterhouse have completed the bulk of their work and a final report is due in the near future.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  As announced in a Written Answer on 22 March 1994, Official Report, column 216 the possibility of a greater role for the private sector in planning the radio spectrum and assigning frequencies, and the redefinition of the future role of the Radiocommunications Agency are matters on which comments are sought in the recently pulished consultative document, The Future Management of the Radio Spectrum", Accordingly, consultants have not so far been employed to review the structure or organisation of the Agency.
  The consultative document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Costs
  The sums expended on work by consultants in connection with the reviews of the laboratories and agencies in the last two complete financial years total £101,041 (including VAT) for 1992/93 and £935,359 (including VAT) for 1993/94.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individual export licences were awarded to cover the £6,000 million of defence exports in 1993, to which preference is made at paragraph 442 of the statement of the Defence Estimates 1944, Cm 2550.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The sum of £6,000 million refers to the value of contracts placed with the United Kingdom in 1993 and not to the value of exports.

  In 1993 there were issued 10,635 individual export licences in respect of all goods prefixed "ML"—munitions list—in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, as amended. Not all these licences relate to exports in 1993 as licences are valid for two years. The issue of a licence does not necessarily lead to an export being made.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent on 8 March,Official Report, column 204 and for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), of 31 March, Official Report, column 1012, if he will now make it his policy to organise the central record keeping of public interest immunity certificates.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have now made arrangements for a separate record to be kept in the Solicitor's Office of all public interest immunity certificates signed by or on behalf of myself or any of the other Ministers in the Department.

  Pirate Radio Stations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the number of pirate radio stations which currently broadcast on a regular basis in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of the impact of those illegal broadcasts on the future development of community radio.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is no regular pattern to pirate radio broadcasts, but the Department's Radiocommunications Agency made 611 raids on pirate stations in 1993. The agency will sustain its efforts against pirates so as to prevent radio interference and maintain fair competition for all legal broadcasters.

  Music Recording Industry
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the contribution of the music recording industry to the United Kingdom economy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom has a large and internationally important recorded music industry which makes a substantial contribution to the economy through both product sales and royalty earnings.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Fortress Study Group
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what help and assistance his Department is giving to the fortress study group in its "Defence of Britain" survey; and if he will make a statement.
  414
  Mr. Brooke
  My Department is currently considering an application from the Council for British Archaeology, on behalf of the fortress study group, for a contribution towards funding this project.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has concerning those FM frequencies which are to be reserved by the Radio Authority to provide for the future development of community radio.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is for the Radio Authority to determine how to use the new FM frequencies, in the band 105–108 MHz, which become available from the end of 1995. I understand no decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what plans he has to encourage the development of community radio; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the extent to which the Radio Authority is seeking to encourage franchise bids from community radio broadcasters.

  Mr. Brooke
  The priorities and procedures for developing the independent radio sector, including community radio, are determined by the Radio Authority; the Government do not seek to influence the authority's judgment.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received concerning community radio; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Following the publication of the Radio Authority's consultation document on the "Future Use of 105–108MHz", I have received a number of letters from both hon. Members and members of the public in support of community radio and other forms of radio services. I have explained that it is for the Radio Authority to determine how best to use the new frequencies for the development of independent radio.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Community Radio Association to discuss the future of community radio; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not met the association, but officials keep in touch with its representatives.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement setting out his policies for the future management of the radio spectrum; and if he will indicate specifically which elements of the spectrum will be utilised to facilitate the development of community radio.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government's policy is to increase diversity and choice for listeners and to promote competition in the provision of services.

  The Government are allocating further FM spectrum, from 105 MHz to 108 MHz, to the Radio Authority from the end of 1995, or earlier if possible. It is for the Radio Authority to decide the use of this spectrum and it has issued a consultation document to seek views on this.
  415
  The Government are also preparing for the introduction of digital audio broadcasting. The National DAB Forum brings together interested parties, including the Community Radio Association.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what information he has concerning the number of(a) hospital radio stations, (b) community radio groups, (c) student radio stations and (d) radio stations catering for the inmates of institutions for young offenders which currently broadcast in the United Kingdom; and what projections he has made of the growth of broadcasters in each of those categories over the next 10 years;

  (2) what information he has concerning the number of restricted service licences which have been awarded since 1990 by the Radio Authority for experimental broadcasts by community groups; and how many of those licensees have subsequently been granted full franchises to broadcast as community radio stations.

  Mr. Brooke
  I suggest the hon. Member asks the Radio Authority for this information, since it is responsible for licensing services.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) whether the proposal for the nationwide introduction of community radio contained in the 1987 Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities", Cm 92, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the indication in the Green Paper on "Radio: Choices and Opportunities", Cm 92, on the possible number of community radio stations remains the policy of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Green Paper was a consultative document. In the subsequent White Paper, and during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Government took the view that community radio did not need to be distinguished from other independent radio services. It is for the Radio Authority to determine its priorities and procedures for developing the independent radio sector in accordance with requirements of the Broadcasting Act.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many civil servants in his Department have applied through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many have been referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has been in existence only since April 1992. To date no civil servants in the Department have applied through the business appointments system to take up appointments outside the Department.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 388, what changes have been made in the timetable for the availability of figures for the actual attendance at national museums and galleries since April 1993; and if he will make a statement.
  416
  Mr. Sproat
  I provided provisional attendance figures for 1993–94 in my reply of 14 February at column 578. The actual attendance figures are now being collected on a financial year basis and we hope to make them available in July.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Narmada Dam
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the recent functioning of the Narmada dam in India and the consequences for international funding and the local people.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have seen reports about the recent closure of the sluice gates, but we are not aware of any consequences for international funding. We understand that the Indian authorities are examining the resettlement aspects connected with this action.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 615, what have been (a) the number and (b) the value of management consultancies awarded under the aid programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The number of contracts awarded to management consultants under the aid programme for 1992–93 was 38 and the total value £10,602,735. The consultants concerned have been engaged at the request of overseas Governments to provide a wide range of advice and expertise which cannot be funded from their own resources.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Government's response to the report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was reported to the House on 25 March 1993,Official Report, columns 653–54. A quinquennial review of CDC has also been completed. Copies of the review report have been placed in the Library of the House. The Government have endorsed its conclusions and recommendations.

  CDC makes an important and distinctive contribution to Britain's overseas development programme. Its primary role is to promote productive investment in the private sector and to support privatisation programmes. It will continue to concentrate its new investments on the poorest countries, where financial markets are undeveloped and private sector capital is still scarce. Its strong asset base and returns from previous investments now allow it to finance future growth in new investments at a lower cost to the British aid programme. In 1993, CDC's investments and commitments increased to over £1.6 billion; £217 million of gross new investments were made, an increase of 24 per cent. on 1992. Over the next five years, a rising level of

  417
  internally generated resources, and a limited programme of other borrowing on concessional terms, starting with a £25 million loan approved by the European Investment bank on 22 March 1994; is expected to allow further increases in the annual level of investment.

  As previously announced, the Government have decided to retain CDC in the public sector. As a consequence, no fundamental changes are proposed in CDC's capital structure at present. However, to allow for the planned expansion of activities the Government intend, subject to parliamentary time, to legislate to increase the ceiling on CDC's outstanding borrowing power. It is also proposed that new legislation should include powers to enable the Government to waive interest payable by CDC on aid programme loans. As an interim measure from 1 April 1994 the Government have reduced the interest rate on these loans to 0.75 per cent.

  The Government have agreed new targets with CDC. At least 70 per cent. of board approvals for new investments each year will be in the poorest countries. CDC will focus on countries which are important to Britain, and at least 80 per cent. of board approvals for new investments each year should be for private sector projects. CDC will aim to invest the remainder only in support of privatisation strategy. This continues the significant shift in emphasis from public to private sector investment which CDC has been pursuing for some years. The Government also intend to consider with CDC how best to associate its work more closely with other aspects of the British aid programme.

  By 1996, 25 per cent. of approvals should be in the form of equity or quasi-equity; and CDC's catalytic role in attracting additional private foreign investment and local capital should be enhanced.

  The target rate of return on capital employed will be 8 per cent. nominal for the next two to three years and will be reviewed thereafter. CDC's administrative efficiency, which is praised by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, will continue to be further improved. For 1994, the ratio of gross operating costs to year end investments and commitments will be 1.15 per cent. A review of this target for later years is to be completed before the end of 1994.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the annual total of maintenance payments resulting from assessments made by the Child Support Agency in the financial year 1993–94.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 29 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the latest estimate for the annual total of maintenance payments resulting from assessments made by the Child Support Agency in the financial year 1993–94.
  End year figures will be available in due course on the total amount of assessed maintenance. The Agency is unable to make an estimate in the light of recent policy changes.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.
  418
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will breakdown the building schemes included in the sums to be spent by the Child Support Agency in 1994–95 on minor new works on furniture and fittings as listed in the estimates, class XIII, vote 4, section F3(1) and (3);

  (2) if he will break down the sum spent on minor new works furniture and fittings, and £602,000 on major new works by the Child Support Agency in 1993–94 as listed in the estimates, class XIII, vote 4, section F3;

  (3) if he will list and give details of the expenditure by the Child Support Agency on (a) computer equipment, (b) telecommunications and (c) office machinery in the years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. George Mudie, dated 29 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the costs of works and equipment in the Child Support Agency (CSA).
  You have asked for a breakdown of the building schemes to be included in the estimates for the year 1994–95. These are shown in the attached annex. Additionally, in 1992–93, the CSA spent £368,000 on office machinery.
  Details of the CSA's expenditure on furniture and fittings, office machinery, and major and minor works carried out in the year 1993–94 are in the course of preparation.
  You have also asked for the expenditure on computer equipment and telecommunications. The CSA obtains computer services, including the provision of telecommunications equipment, via the Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA), another Agency of the DSS.
  As much of the information technology equipment, and many of the systems, are shared by the various Agencies of the Department, it is not possible to separately identify that which applies to the CSA. New charging arrangements throughout the Department will make this possible in future.
  In respect of the 1992–93 financial year, the planned capital expenditure by ITSA to provide the required services for CSA was £17.61 million on computers and £3.18 million on telecommunications. The planned capital expenditure by the ITSA in respect of CSA for 1993–94 was £3.85 million on computers and £1.2 million on telecommunications.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Annex

  Project

  Projected cost (£)

  Additional expenditure to create space in child support agency centres (CSACs)

  831,000

  Accommodation expenditure arising from increasing CSA activity

  1,595,000

  Maintenance of the estate

  850,000

  Maintenance of CSA HQ

  106,000

  Further adaptation of CSACs

  171,000

  Ongoing furniture requirements

  181,000

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure of the CSA in(a) 1992–93, when it was operating as a shadow agency and (b) 1993–94; and what is the estimated total expenditure in 1994–95.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  419
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. George Mudie, dated 29 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the expenditure of the Child Support Agency.
  During the year of the shadow Agency in 1992–93, the total expenditure was £146 million.
  For 1993–94, total expenditure has been estimated at £117 million.
  For 1994–95, total expenditure is estimated at £154 million.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the CSA business plan for the current year will be printed and made available to hon. Members.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. George Mudie, dated 29 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Business Plan of the Child Support Agency for 1994.
  The Agency aims to publish the Business Plan by the end of June 1994. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and distributed to all Members of Parliament.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the CSA to complete all straightforward assessments within the original target times of between six to 12 weeks.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. George Mudie,
  dated 29 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking when the Child Support Agency will be able to complete all straightforward assessments within 6 to 12 weeks.
  The aim of clearing such cases in 6 to 12 weeks was first expressed before the Agency had experience to live operation. In practice, the assessment process has turned out to be more complex and clearance times longer than was originally expected.
  At this stage it is still too early to predict what clearance times will be achieved in the longer term, although the Agency is working hard to ensure that all applications for maintenance are cleared as quickly as possible.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the Child Support Agency's target for benefit savings for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement;

  Year

  Applications

  Independent consultant

  Firm of consultants

  Other

  Referred to Committee

  1988

  10

  1

  2

  7

  9

  1989

  7

  0

  2

  5

  3

  1990

  3

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1991

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1992

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Note: No applications failed but restrictions were placed on activities in two cases.
  420
  (2) if the Child Support Agency achieved its target for benefit savings for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Targets for 1994–95, including the benefit savings target, are still being finalised, drawing on the experience of the first year of live running.

  The final figure for 1993–94 is not yet available, but it is not expected that the Child Support Agency will have achieved its benefit savings target.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what age children are no longer eligible for child support from the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Child support legislation applies to all children aged under 16. It also applies to those aged 16, 17 or 18 who are receiving full-time education up to GCE A-level or equivalent standard or are registered for work or youth training, providing they are not entitled to claim income support and have never married.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out for each year since 1991 for(a) Cleveland and (b) Great Britain (i) how many women aged over 60 years (1) claimed and (2) received unemployment benefit, (ii) how many women received the equivalent to the standard retirement pension, (iii) what was their average weekly award and (iv) how many men between the ages of 60 and 65 years (A) claimed and (B) received unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  The only information available on unemployed claimants aged over 60 and in receipt of unemployment benefit is in relation to Great Britain and is included in issues of the "Half Yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants", copies of which are in the Library.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since July 1988 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Hague
  Twenty-three applications have been made under the business appointment rules since 1988. The details are in the table:

  War Widows
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he or any of his ministerial colleagues have had from the War Widows' Assocation of Great Britain in regard to pensions paid to the widows of New Zealand service men; what reply was given; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  On 12 April, my noble Friend Lord Astor met a deputation from the War Widows Association of Great Britain. One of the subjects discussed was the level of war widows pension paid by the New Zealand Government to the widows of New Zealand service men. The association is seeking supplementation of the New Zealand pension to bring it up to the preferential level of pension awarded to United Kingdom war widows. The matter is under consideration.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in pound sterling terms the pensions paid to war widows in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Australia, (c) Canada, (d) Japan, (e) France and (f) Germany.

  Mr. Hague
  Comparisons of war widows pensions are complicated as the total pension may depend on factors such as the age of the widow, the rank of the deceased ex-service man, his level of disablement or earnings potential and whether means-testing applies.

  A summary of the information available is as follows —in the main, 1993 rates apply. Rates have been converted into sterling taking account of cost-of-living differences:—

  Country

  Weekly pension

  United Kingdom

  The basic weekly pension is £72.90. In addition most widows receive an age addition, and a special payment of £47.84 a week from the Ministry of Defence. A war widow aged 70 would receive a tax free weekly war widows pension totalling £136.84.

  Australia

  The weekly pension is £79.27. In addition a domestic allowance of £5.66 is payable. The total weekly pension is £84.93.

  Canada

  The maximum weekly pension is £138.43 (a lower pension would be received if the late husband's disability was assessed as less than 48 per cent.)

  Japan

  The basic weekly pension is £118.97.

  France

  The basic weekly pension is £67.99.

  Germany

  The weekly pension is £43.45. In addition, allowances may be received in respect of loss of earnings (maximum 1992 rate was £82.29), standard of living (maximum 1992 rate was £46.58 week) and for attendance (maximum 1992 rate was £19.26 week). The first two allowances are means-tested.

  Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the percentage which old age pension levels bear to average earnings and restore the link between the two.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no plans to do so.
  422
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the old age pensioners' organisations from which he has recently received representations regarding the present levels of pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  Since January this year, I have received representations on the level of pensions from the Craigmillar Heart to Heart Self Support Group; the Bedford Community Retirement Group; the Mid-Devon Tenants' Group Cullompton Area Committee; the Pensioners' Rights Campaign and United Pensioners.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with pensioners' groups regarding present levels of old age pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no such consultations recently.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the relationship between pensions and the cost of living; and what assessment he has made of the operation of the linkage between the two in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans for a review of this sort. Retirement pension has maintained its value against increases in the cost of living throughout this Government's term of office. This April, the retirement pension uprating included an additional element, above the increase in the retail prices index, for extra help with the cost of VAT on fuel.

  Pensioners (Water Charges)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals for further compensation for pensioners for the increases in water charges and value added tax.

  Mr. Hague
  The exceptional package of measures to help pensioners and others with VAT on domestic fuel will include further help from April 1995. Variations in the cost of other items in the household budget will be reflected in the indices on which the annual uprating of benefits is based.

  Disabled Living Allowance
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for disabled living allowance were referred to disability appeal tribunals in the year to 31 March; and how many have been allowed.

  Mr. Scott
  In the period specified, 32,427 disability living allowance claims were submitted to disability appeal tribunals. Of the 19,260 appeals decided during the year, 7,240 were allowed.
  Source: Disability Living Allowance management information system—100 per cent. count of cases.

  Benefits Agency
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of expanding the Benefits Agency medical service following the introduction of the incapacity for work benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. We estimate that the changes announced in the
  423
  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill will add some £40 million per year to the Department's administrative costs for 1995–96 and 1996–97 and £10 million per year from 1997–98.

  Incapacity for Work Benefit
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the members of the committee of 80 experts involved in drawing up the scoring system to be used in the assessment of claims for incapacity for work benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 20 January at column 802.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business employment system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:1986: (a) 0; (b) 0; (c) 18.
  Six applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and all were granted.
  1987: (a) 0; (b) 0; (c) 15.
  11 applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and all were granted.
  1988: (a) 1; (b) 0; (c) 21.
  18 applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and all were granted.
  1989: (a) 2; (b) 0; (c) 19.
  15 applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and all were granted.
  1990: (a) 1; (b) 1; (c) 0.
  Two applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and both were granted.
  1991: (a) 2; (b) 0; (c) 28.
  25 applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and all were granted.
  1992: (a) 2; (b) 0; (c) 20.
  15 applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and all were granted.
  1993: (a) 0; (b) 0; (c) 34.
  22 applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and all were granted.
  1994: (a) 0; (b) 0; (c) 2.
  Two applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and both have been granted.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what limitations the Greek Government have placed on the involvement of their land, sea and air forces in NATO activity in Bosnia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no NATO land operations in Bosnia. Greek ships participate in NATO operations in the Adriatic, except those in Serbian/ Montenegran territorial waters. The Greeks have withdrawn permission for the use of Prevlaka air base for AWACS operations over the former Yugoslavia, and have withdrawn their crews from these operations.

  Serif Avsar
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has received regarding the arrest of Serif Avsar by Turkish security forces on 22 April in Diyarbakir; what representations he has made to the Turkish Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are aware of reports of the detention of Serif Avsar. Our embassy in Ankara has asked the Turkish authorities for further information.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with disarmament and demobilisation in Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 April 1994, c. 122]: Our latest information is that 75 per cent of the Government forces have assembled in UN-monitored cantonment areas.

EMPLOYMENT

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 342, if he will supply the information about ESF funding and its inter-relationship with the funding of youth training and training for work schemes in the form that is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on 3 December 1993,Official Report, column 822.

  European Funding
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what agreement has been reached between his Department and the European Commission with regard to an objective 4 plan for the United Kingdom in the period 1994 to 1999.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following the EC Commission's announcement on 19 January 1994 that the Great Britain allocation under European social fund objectives 3 and 4 for 1994 to 1999 would be 3,377 million ecu, the Government decided that the entire allocation should be used for the foreseeable future on objective 3 to help the unemployed, as it had been agreed by Council and Commission that member states would be free to decide on the allocation of funding between the two objectives. The decision was announced on 25 January 1994 in a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald),Official Report, column 223. There is, therefore, no need for a plan for objective 4 for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the obstacles in the negotiations with the European Commission in the finalisation of the United Kingdom's objective 3 budget and operation for 1994 to 1999; and when he expects those difficulties to be overcome.
  425
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The United Kingdom objective 3 plan was submitted in early November 1993. The European Commission opened formal negotiations on 27 April 1994. It is too early to say what obstacles will emerge, or how soon the negotiations can be concluded, although the United Kingdom has consistently pressed for speedy progress and will continue to do so.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the workings of the payment by results contract for job clubs.

  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. John Spellar, dated 3 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobclub payment by results contracts.
  The payment by results approach to Jobclub contracting has shown that it represents good value for money. It encourages our contractors to think more about the results to be achieved and to improve their effectiveness at helping members to find jobs.
  Payment by results contracts are divided into two parts. There is a fixed payment element which usually represents 75% of the total contract price. The bonus element, which represents the remaining 25% of the contract price, is divided between the number of job placings agreed in the contract. Payment of both the fixed and bonus element of the contract is made monthly in arrears.
  It is explained to contractors that a bonus payment will only be made where a member has left to take up work and we have satisfactory written confirmation of their placing. Payments can be made in cases where a member leaves the Jobclub to take up temporary work. However, we will not pay a bonus for the same person more than twice during their membership. Part of our role in monitoring the programme is to check a percentage of all claims for bonus payments to ensure there is no abuse of the system.
  At the end of 1993/94 there were 782 payment by results Jobclub contracts in operation. This represents 54% of the total number of Jobclubs. Payment by results contracts are one way of making our programme contracting as efficient and effective as possible. We plan to introduce further measures into our programmes with the aim of ensuring the unemployed people who join them receive the best possible help.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Urban Policy Initiatives
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list every urban policy initiative that has been instituted or operated since 1979, the date that each scheme began operating, where appropriate the date that the scheme ceased operating and the funds available on an annual basis under each scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Employment Department assistance has since 1979 been targeted on unemployed people—especially long-term unemployed people—wherever they are. However, in 1989 inner-city compacts were established—an initiative which is now part of the single regeneration budget. Details are shown in the following table:426

  Inner city compacts—England

  Expenditure £ million

  Number of compacts

  Outturn

  1989–90

  3.0

  25

  1990–91

  5.5

  38

  1991–92

  5.5

  48

  1992–931

  4.85

  50

  Estimated outturn

  1993–941

  4.7

  50

  1 Figures exclude Compacts which were set up from 1992–93 outside inner cities.

  In addition, since the creation of the Employment Service as an executive agency in 1990 its annual performance agreement has included a target for a percentage of placings to be of unemployed inner city residents. To help meet this target the ES allocates additional staff resources—inner-city officers.

WALES

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table indicating for each local authority in Wales(a) the number of registered disabled people whom it employs, (b) the percentage this represents of its work force and (c) how many disabled people each authority should have employed to meet the quota established under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts of 1944 and 1958.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information about the quota position of individual employers is treated as confidential and is not disclosed without the agreement of the employers concerned. Local authorities in Wales are among a wide range of public sector employers who have agreed to specific information about their employment of registered disabled people being published in the Employment Gazette. The information which is published in accordance with this agreement is the number of registered disabled people employed and the percentage that this represents of the employer's total work force. The latest information, which relates to 1 June 1992, was published in the April 1993 Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Information relating to 1 June 1993 will be published as soon as possible.

  Air Pollution Monitors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations underlay the siting of environmental air pollution monitors in the pedestrianised area of Frederick street, Cardiff, to register kerb-side emission of diesel and lead from vehicles; what estimate he has made as to the suitability of this site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The monitoring station at Frederick street, Cardiff is part of the Government's enhanced urban air quality monitoring network. This was established to provide information on levels of urban air pollution to which large numbers of people are exposed and, hence, does not necessarily involve kerbside monitoring.
  427
  A copy of the siting criteria for the network, and which the Cardiff station meets, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  National Blood Transfusion Service (Wales)

  Usable blood collected

  Units of blood by group

  O POS

  A POS

  B POS

  AB POS

  O NEG

  A NEG

  B NEG

  AB NEG

  Total

  1993–94

  Issued to Welsh hospitals

  34,547

  31,091

  5,844

  1,161

  8,920

  7,468

  1,665

  465

  91,161

  Exported to other RTCs1

  2,254

  729

  136

  0

  525

  52

  0

  1

  3,697

  Time expired2

  4

  483

  1,621

  1,370

  15

  179

  34

  243

  3,949

  1992–93

  Issued to Welsh hospitals

  34,114

  30,701

  5,771

  1,146

  8,808

  7,374

  1,644

  459

  90,017

  Exported to other RTCs1

  2,064

  668

  125

  0

  481

  48

  0

  1

  3,387

  Time expired2

  2

  284

  952

  804

  9

  105

  20

  143

  2,319

  1991–92

  Issued to Welsh hospitals

  32,360

  29,919

  6,381

  1,519

  7,807

  6,757

  1,583

  542

  86,868

  Exported to other RTCs1

  1,253

  470

  109

  0

  642

  95

  0

  0

  2,569

  Time expired2

  2,445

  1,616

  890

  958

  377

  435

  36

  153

  6,910

  1990–91

  Issued to Welsh hospitals

  31,621

  28,208

  6,193

  2,088

  7,296

  6,510

  1,458

  562

  83,936

  Exported to other RTCs1

  2,811

  2,241

  0

  0

  306

  770

  0

  0

  6,128

  Time expired2

  6

  0

  2,804

  1,514

  24

  18

  18

  139

  4,523

  1989–90

  Issued to Welsh hospitals

  31,109

  27,752

  6,093

  2,054

  7,178

  6,405

  1,434

  553

  82,578

  Exported to other RTCs1

  485

  306

  20

  0

  146

  52

  20

  0

  1,029

  Time expired2

  1

  0

  465

  251

  4

  3

  3

  23

  750

  Blood Imports to Welsh hospitals

  1993–94

  105

  0

  0

  0

  138

  0

  10

  0

  253

  1992–93

  172

  0

  0

  0

  226

  0

  16

  0

  414

  1991–92

  150

  0

  0

  0

  85

  0

  0

  0

  235

  1990–91

  47

  0

  0

  0

  28

  0

  0

  0

  75

  1989–90

  690

  550

  0

  0

  75

  189

  0

  0

  1,504

  1 Regional Transfusion Centres.

  2 Time expired blood is destroyed.

  Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many training weeks were undertaken by each training and enterprise council in Wales in 1990–91.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Training weeks provided by TECs in Wales 1990–91

  TEC

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Total

  Gwent

  22,315

  13,898

  36,213

  Mid Glamorgan

  132,735

  67,795

  200,530

  North East Wales

  60,439

  22,981

  83,420

  Targed

  17,561

  9,211

  26,772

  Powys

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South Glamorgan

  11,446

  13,787

  25,233

  West Wales

  144,973

  128,644

  273,617

  Source: TEC Invoices.

  Note.—Powys TEC became operational on 1 April 1991.

  Blood
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent Wales has been self-sufficient in blood supplies in each of the past five years; and how any surplus has been used or any deficit been met, indicating in his answer the blood groups concerned.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information for the area covered by the Welsh National Blood Transfusion Service—south and mid Wales only—is set out in the following tables.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has in respect of trunk road agencies and passenger transport authorities after local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  I propose to appoint a maximum of eight agents on a geographical basis to manage the maintenance of the trunk road and motorway network. I would like transition committees to agree by 31 December 1994 which new unitary authority in each geographical area should be appointed. The geographical areas should be similar to but not necessarily the same as existing highway authority boundaries and should relate to boundaries of the new unitary authorities. I would consider proposals for fewer than eight agencies were they to be presented to me.

  In any area where it is not possible for agreement to be reached, I will decide which authority should be appointed, taking account of any representations I have received.

  On reorganisation each unitary authority would become responsible for the delivery of socially necessary public

  429
  transport services and local transport planning. These duties include the need to consult neighbouring authorities about policy and service delivery.

  I believe there is considerable scope for co-operation between authorities and that benefits are greatest when things are done on a voluntary basis. I do not see a need for the extra bureaucracy which statutory passenger transport authorities would create.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986, through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following statistics are available:

  Number of civil servants applying to take up outside appointments

  Year

  Independent consultants

  Consultancy firms

  Other

  1990

  —

  2

  2

  1991

  —

  1

  2

  1992

  —

  1

  1

  1993

  —

  1

  —

  1993 (to April)

  —

  1

  —

  None of these were referred to the Advisory Committee.

  Information covering the years 1986 to 1989 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Transitional Committees
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his office took legal advice before writing to local authorities on 14 April regarding the composition of transitional committees; if he will now withdraw the letter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The letter of 14 April set out my Department's understanding of the effect of clause 46 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill as it would apply to the composition of transition committees. It was issued in response to requests for clarification from authorities and, in accordance with the usual practice, was based on legal advice. The Standing Committee considering the Local Government (Wales) Bill will have the opportunity shortly to debate all issues relating to transition committees.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make it his policy to reinstate to levels prior to the recent cuts the hill livestock compensatory allowances in the less-favoured areas in Wales; what account he has taken of the effect on farmers' income of the recent adverse weather conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances are reviewed annually during the course of the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. Any effects on farm incomes caused by the weather will be taken into account in the review later this year.

  Lamb Losses
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue immediately the final instalment of the annual ewe premium to those sheep producers in Wales who have been affected by exceptional losses of lambs due to extreme weather during the 1994 lambing season; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: I am arranging for payments of the final instalment to be made as soon as possible.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Association of Community Health Councils with respect to the availability of services to the patients of general practitioner fundholders, including the availability of hospital consultants for out-patient appointments at health centres and general practitioners' surgeries, what consultations he has had in relation to the clinical evaluation of such services; what proposals he has to extend the availability of any such services as are deemed clinically worthwhile to the patients of non-fundholding general practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: I have not yet seen the paper prepared by the Association of Community Health Councils. When I have, I will consider what it has to say.

  It is for health authorities and GP fundholders to evaluate the costs and benefits of the services they secure for patients, including the initiatives that some of them have taken to improve access by arranging for a number of consultant clinics to be held in local health centres and GP surgeries.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) of 25 April,Official Report, column 4, what proportion of the 400 jobs corresponding to the £10 million new investment at TRW Steering Systems will be (a) new and (b) safeguarded.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The TRW steering systems project will safeguard 414 jobs in Resolven Neath. The investment itself will be a boost for local employers who supply and service the company.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) of 25 April,Official Report, column 4, (1) what proportion of the 14,000 jobs generated by inward investment arise from firms that are new to Wales; and how many are (a) new or (b) safeguarded;

  (2) if he will break down the totals for inward investment from (a) the rest of the United Kingdom, (b) northern America, (c) the far east and (d) rest of Europe as to (i) new and (ii) safeguarded jobs.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  431

  New Jobs

  Safeguarded Jobs

  United Kingdom

  4,207

  3,348

  North America

  560

  1,610

  Far East

  2,342

  241

  Rest of Europe

  972

  657

  Total

  8,081

  5,856

  Information on whether companies are new to Wales is not collected centrally. However, of the total jobs recorded in 1993–94, 27 per cent. related to new projects as opposed to expansions, acquisitions and joint ventures.

  The figures are based on information given by the relevant companies at the time of their decision to invest and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Wheelchair Repairs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 139, on what date the wheelchair repair contract eventually won by SERCO was advertised in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union; and what details it gave in relation to the provision of (i) direct services of repair and (ii) general facilities management.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The Welsh Health Common Services Authority advertised the wheelchair repair and maintenance contract in the United Kingdom on 8 July 1993 and in the European Journal on 6 July 1993.

  The advertisement invited interest from organisations to bid for the contract to repair and maintain wheelchairs with delivery into 37,000 users' homes in Wales. Firms which expressed an interest were sent a more detailed specification. I will write and send a copy to the hon. Member.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to introduce electronic mail or multi-fax for despatch at press releases, including the despatch of press releases to the Library simultaneously with their despatch to the press.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 April, at column 58. Distribution by both electronic mail and multi-fax is kept under review.

ENVIRONMENT

  Air Monitoring
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he ensures responsibility for coordinating air monitoring in respect of European directive EC 85/203 and World Health Organisation air safety levels; and at what cost, including equipment and staffing costs.

  Mr. Atkins
  The monitoring of nitrogen dioxide for the purposes of European directive EC 85/203 is undertaken by the National Environment Technology Centre on behalf 432
  of the Government, and the results are reported to the Commission. The results of monitoring at all Department of the Environment automatic air pollution monitoring sites, including the nitrogen dioxide directive sites, are published annually by the National Environment Technology Centre. The annual reports include an analysis of exceedences of European Community and World Health Organisation guidelines and standards.

  The annual running cost of a nitrogen dioxide directive monitoring site, which may include measurements of other pollutants, is in the order of £25,000. The capital cost of establishing an automatic nitrogen dioxide monitoring site is about £30,000.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he co-ordinates air monitoring with local authorities.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has a successful history of co-operation with local authorities on air pollution monitoring. For example, smoke and sulphur dioxide, using non-automatic techniques, are monitored at some 250 sites by 151 local authorities, with central Government providing the central co-ordination and quality assurance and quality control. The national nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube survey established in 1993, in which nitrogen dioxide is being monitored at more than 1,200 sites by some 300 local authorities, is run on similar lines.

  In order to build on this co-operation the Government recently published a consultation paper, "The Future of Air Quality Monitoring Networks in the United Kingdom", in which proposals were made to develop a framework which draws local and national automatic air quality monitoring together into a coherent quality assured network. The Government are currently considering responses to the proposals in that paper.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology entitled "Breathing in our Cities"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are fully aware of the growing links between air pollution and health, not least from its own advisory group. We have made clear our intention to publish proposals later this year for a strategy to improve the quality of air in the United Kingdom, after widespread consultation. To this end, the Government have issued a discussion paper entitled "Improving Air Quality" which discusses the options available and invites comment from all interested organisations and individuals. Copies of this paper have been placed in the Library.

  Vacant Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest estimates of housing property remaining vacant; how much of this is owned by(a) local authorities, (b) the private sector and (c) Government Departments for each local authority in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of their own dwellings that are vacant at 1 April on their annual HIP1 return. Details for individual local authorities are available from the "1993 HIP1 All
  433
  Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library; columns A71 and A76 gives figures for vacant dwellings inside and outside the authority's area, respectively.

  Housing associations report the numbers of their own dwellings vacant at 31 March on their annual HAR10/1 return. I have today placed in the Library a table giving the reported numbers of vacant housing association dwellings in each local authority area. The figures are incomplete as there are around 900 vacant dwellings—3 per cent. of vacant dwellings—for which an analysis by district is not available.

  In addition to providing information on those of their own dwellings that are vacant, local authorities are also asked to provide estimates of the number of private sector and other public sector vacant dwellings in their area on their annual housing investment programme returns. The reported information for each local authority is given in columns A74 and A73 respectively of the "1993 HIP1 All Items Print".

  There are doubts about the quality of some of the estimates provided by authorities. Information from the 1991 English house condition survey suggests that the England total for the private sector may be an over-estimate, and data from central Government Departments on their own vacant dwellings, for which no geographical breakdown is readily available, indicate that there is under-reporting of public sector vacant dwellings.

  House Building
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to revitalise the construction industry to ensure an increase in the permanent dwellings started in 1994 in(a) council housing, (b) housing association and (c) the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The construction industry will continue to benefit from the range of Government policies which are leading to a sustained economic recovery. These have brought about substantial falls in interest rates leading to more affordable home ownership. The industry also

  Total numbers of Black, Asian and female staff in the Government offices for the regions

  Region

  Total staff

  Female

  Percentage

  Black

  Percentage

  Asian

  Percentage

  NE

  310.0

  211

  58

  0

  0

  *

  less than 5

  NW

  460.4

  194

  42

  9

  2

  *

  less than 5

  Y and H

  315.5

  151

  48

  *

  less than 5

  7

  2

  M

  72.2

  53

  73

  0

  0

  0

  0

  WM

  364.9

  191

  52

  29

  8

  7

  2

  EM

  260.3

  127

  49

  *

  less than 5

  *

  less than 5

  E

  198.15

  88

  44

  *

  less than 5

  *

  less than 5

  L

  251.0

  95

  38

  29

  12

  28

  11

  SE

  295.2

  149

  50

  7

  2

  7

  2

  SW

  223.5

  99

  44

  *

  less than 5

  *

  less than 5

  Total

  2,751.2

  1,358

  49

  74

  approx. 24

  49

  approx. 18

  General notes:

  All figures calculated on a headcount basis.

  Figures exclude casual and industrial staff.

  Black and Asian staff figures include only those who responded to a voluntary survey and do not include other ethnic minorities.

  DOE, ED and DOT figures for Asian and Black staff are as at 1 October 1993.

  DTI figures for Black and Asian staff are as at January 1994.

  All figures for female staff are as at April 1994.

  Total staff figures are based on those of 1 October 1993.

  Following the code of practice on ethnic origin of individuals, where the totals are 5 or less, actual figures have been replaced by an asterisk.

  DTI notes:

  Figures for London region are included in those for the South East region.

  Merseyside figures are included in those for the North West.
  434
  benefits from our approach of bringing in private sector resources to increase the output from our social housing programmes.

  My Department's public expenditure plans for housing are contained in its 1994 annual report—Cm 2507.

  Aluminium Recycling Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the effect of imports on the aluminium recycling industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  United Kingdom imports of primary aluminium in 1992 and 1993 increased from 341,700 tonnes to 581,300 tonnes respectively. At the same time, the United Kingdom aluminium recycling industry increased its production from 251,800 to 274,400 tonnes. It is encouraging to note that increased imports of primary aluminium have not prevented an increase in the level of aluminium recycling in the United Kingdom.

  Latham Report
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Latham report to be published.

  Sir George Young
  Sir Michael Latham's final report of the joint Government/industry review of procurement and contracting arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry will be published on Monday 18 July this year. Copies of the report will be placed in the House Library. Publication of the report will be followed by a conference organised by the industry groups involved in the review on Monday 25 July 1994 at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre.

  Regional Office Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the staff in each of the integrated regional offices are(a) black people, (b) Asian and (c) female; and what percentages these are of the total.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: The information requested is as follows.
  435
  Employment Department notes:

  Merseyside figures are included in those for the North West.

  Due to reorganisation, figures for Merseyside are still being finalised. Gender breakdown of the 30 staff involved is not yet known.

  This breakdown by ethnicity and grade is a new retrieval for the ED system. This has reduced the ethnic origin figure by 3 staff who identified themselves as black.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people who have previously been housed by local authorities as homeless applicants are currently homeless.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many families rehoused last year by London boroughs had lost their homes as a result of repossessions by lenders;

  (2) what percentage of families who were made homeless last year through repossessions are currently living in temporary accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  Data provided by local authorities on the numbers of homeless households for which they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation include information on the reason for the loss of their last settled home. Some 1,730 households were accepted in London, and 8 per cent. of acceptances in England, in 1993 as a result of mortgage arrears; cases where the mortgage arrears led to repossession are not separately identified.

  These data do not provide information on the number of accepted households who were subsequently placed in temporary accommodation, or on the point when households are permanently rehoused.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of support provided to the long-term homeless after they are housed.

  Sir George Young
  Long-term homeless people who are rehoused under the homelessness legislation—part III of the Housing Act 1985–are entitled to the same social security benefits as other comparable members of the population.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families subsequently rehoused in housing association accommodation in the last available year had previously lost their houses as a result of repossession by lenders.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of families accepted as homeless in each year since 1990 have had members of their families subsequently taken into care.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available in the Department.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the economic causes of homelessness.
  436
  Sir George Young
  During the 12 months ending 31 December 1993, only about 10 per cent. of households accepted by English local authorities for rehousing under the homelessness legislation had lost their previous home for reasons of mortgage or rent arrears.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the ages of those currently living rough in London.

  Sir George Young
  Counts of people sleeping rough in central London are undertaken periodically by voluntary sector agencies and co-ordinated by Homeless Network. The latest count, on 18 November 1993, found 287 people sleeping rough. The breakdown by age is shown in the table:

  Age range

  Per cent.

  Under 18

  1

  18–25

  16

  26–49

  49

  50–59

  22

  Over 60

  12

  Total

  100

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost of keeping a family of four in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London for one year; and what is the comparable cost of housing a homeless family in a council-owned dwelling.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Simon Huges
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land set aside for public housing has been developed by the London Docklands development corporation in each of the last 10 years; and what amount was set aside for commercial development over the same period.

  Sir George Young
  The London Docklands development corporation does not set aside land for particular uses. Disposals of land over the last 10 years are as follows:

  Year

  Public housing (acres)

  Commercial (acres)

  1984

  3.1

  8.7

  1985

  2.9

  21.7

  1986

  9.5

  160.1

  1987

  6.8

  64.5

  1988

  3.8

  19.3

  1989

  17.0

  20.5

  1990

  26.1

  11.2

  1991

  13.4

  19.1

  1992

  5.0

  32.9

  1993

  12.9

  4.6

  Total

  100.5

  362.6

  437
  Mr. Simon Huges
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new units of housing in London docklands have been(a) given planning permission and (b) built, since the LDDC was formed; and how many people accepted by the London boroughs of Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets as homeless have been housed in these developments.

  Sir George Young
  (a) the number of new units given planning permission is 22,874; (b) the number of new units built since 1981 is 17,460.

  Nominations to new dwellings built within London docklands are subject to arrangements agreed between housing associations, local authorities and the Housing Corporation. The LDDC does not have access to information as to whether the lettings are to households accepted as homeless by the boroughs.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much LDDC land remains undeveloped; and what percentage of this undeveloped land is set aside for public housing in(a) Newham, (b) Southwark and (c) Tower Hamlets.

  Sir George Young
  A total of 465 acres of land remain undeveloped at 1 April 1994.

  It has not been the LDDC's practice to distinguish between land for public or private housing in setting aside land for residential purposes.

  Boat Dwellers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many registered boat dwellers there are in the United Kingdom(a) currently and (b) 10 years ago; and whether this figure is expected to increase.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward legislation to provide boat dwellers with long-term security of tenure.

  Sir George Young
  We have no plans to introduce legislation providing statutory security of tenure for houseboat dwellers. Their rights will depend on the terms of any agreement with the landlord of the mooring.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the tenants charter to boat dwellers.

  Sir George Young
  The tenants charter applies only to those resident in council-owned property. While we would encourage the development of good practice, it is for the owners and operators of moorings to consider whether to follow the Government's citizens charter route in developng their service standards for boat dwellers.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his ministerial counterpart in Norway concerning THORP; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Fire Precautions (Government Departments)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the results of the cost-benefit analysis his Department has carried out to assess the relative costs and benefits of central provision of advice and training to all Government Departments on fire precautions compared with employing consultants to provide comparable advice and training;

  (2) if it is his intention to end his Department's provision of free advice and training to other Departments on fire precautions and standards;

  (3) what consultation process was followed between his Department and other Government Departments over the intention to withdraw from them the advice and training at present provided by the Department of Environment fire branch.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department will continue to provide central guidance on fire protection standards for Government buildings and on procedures for the management of fire safety. But individual Departments are responsible for protecting the buildings which they occupy against fire hazards. They are best placed to decide on the most cost-effective means of obtaining advice about measures to be adopted in particular buildings and about training, whether from in-house staff or consultants. It is therefore appropriate that they should in future take on these responsibilities. Departments were advised on 25 April of the proposed changes; and invited to contribute their views to a review to be carried out on how best to provide my Department's continuing services.

  Water Pollution, Worcester
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the investigation and eventual reports into the pollution of water supplies in the Worcester area, now being conducted by the drinking water inspectorate, the National Rivers Authority, Severn-Trent Water plc, the West Midlands regional health authority and Worcester and district health authority.

  Mr. Atkins
  We shall ensure that, taking into account the investigations that the various bodies concerned have in hand, the incident is fully and thoroughly investigated.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the pollutants which reached consumers' water supplies in the Worcester area on 15 April.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 29 April, Severn Trent Water Ltd. in a communication to the drinking water inspectorate, reported the contaminants as 2-ethyl–4-methyl–1, 3-dioxolane and 2-ethyl–5, 5-dimethy1–1, 3-dioxane.

  The drinking water inspectorate, as part of its investigation, is requiring Severn Trent Water Ltd. to provide full data from its analysis of samples of drinking water supplies taken in association with the incident. The inspectorate will be checking the validity of the methods of analysis used.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the Director General of the Office of Water Supplies in relation to the water pollution incident at Worcester on 15 April; and if he will make a statement.
  439
  Mr. Atkins
  The director general has no role in the immediate investigation of the incident. He may, however, consider in conjunction with the customer service committee, whether the company responded adequately to the needs of its customers, particularly the elderly and the disabled, during the incident and whether appropriate levels of compensation have been offered.

  Vitalscheme Ltd
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the licensing procedures followed by Shropshire county council when they authorised the operation of Vitalscheme Ltd. in Wem, Shropshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  Shropshire county council granted a waste disposal licence under part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to Vitalscheme Ltd. on 28 February 1994. That Act and regulations made under it prescribe the procedures to be followed in granting such licences. Further information on the licence may be obtained from Shropshire county council.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the chlorine levels present in drinking water.

  Mr. Atkins
  Chlorine is used to disinfect drinking water, and to provide continuing protection in water distribution. There is no evidence that levels used by water companies in England and Wales are excessive, and my right hon. Friend has no plans to require reduced levels to be used.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration is given to quality and technical competence when contracts are being considered for former sections of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Curry
  Client departments are responsible for considering quality and technical competence standards when selecting contractors for tender lists in relation to any contract they let, whether or not one of the privatised PSAS businesses is involved.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many final reviews have been issued by his Local Government Commission to date; how many initial reports have been issued; how many are in course of preparation.

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission has published final reports on 10 shire counties, but has been asked to conduct further reviews of three of them. The commission will be publishing draft reports on these and the other 29 shire counties under review during the summer. Final reports on all areas are due to be with the Secretary of State by the end of 1994.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to implement the final reports of the Local Government Commission he has 440
  received so far; and if he will make a statement on the powers to be employed with particular reference to the extent to which proposals for different areas will be dealt with together.

  Mr. Curry
  Changes to local government structure will be implemented by statutory order, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. We have made an order establishing a unitary structure on the Isle of Wight from 1 April 1995. We expect that orders for other areas where there is to be change will be laid by summer 1995 and reorganisation will be completed by 1 April 1997. Orders may be laid and debated together, depending on progress; we shall decide on handling at the time, taking into account the pressure of parliamentary business.

  Housing (Green Paper)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses were received by his Department to the Green Paper on access to local authority and housing association tenancies; which representations have not been included in this total and for what reasons; and what was the previous highest number of responses to one of his Department's Green Papers.

  Sir George Young
  The total of all responses received is now over 9,500. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 12 April,Official Report, column 133, the Department has on occasion received substantially more representations on other matters of widespread interest.

  Water Charges
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a direction to the Director General of Water Services that he should invite views from national, regional and local consumers' organisations and from hon. Members in the course of the current review of water charging limits for water companies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The Secretary of State does not intend to issue such a direction.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the bodies and individuals whose views have been formally invited in the course of the current review of water charging limits for water companies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The Director General of Water Services, Mr. Ian Byatt, is responsible for the current periodic review of water charge limits. He began the process of consultation in July 1991 by publishing a consultation paper on the "Cost of Capital". Since then, Mr. Byatt has published a series of further papers in connection with the review, on which a wide range of bodies and individuals, including consumers' organisations and hon. Members, have been invited to express their views. The director general also asked all water companies to consult their customers widely through the publication of market plans.

  Birds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Countryside Councils for Wales, Scotland and Northern
  441
  Ireland and English Nature with respect to an agreed management plan United Kingdom-wide for the protection of the habitats of the redshank and dunlin; and if he will supply such a plan to the Environment Commissioner of the European Union.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 April, Official Report, column 39.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, columns 40–1, if he will list those organisations which favoured the changes to the bird registration system he has now proposed.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The following organisations fully or partly supported the proposed changes:

  Avian Incubation Research

  The Game Conservancy Trust

  Brent Lodge Bird and Wildlife Trust

  Hertfordshire Environmental Records Centre

  Birmingham City Council

  Wold Austringers' and Falconry Centre

  BCM Environmental Services Ltd

  The Hawk Board

  TRAFFIC International

  British Federation of Bird Importers

  New Forest Falconry Club

  Hawk and Owl Trust

  Bird Aid and Wildlife Rescue

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  National Association of Private Animal Keepers

  Raptor Breeders Association

  London Borough of Croydon

  Royal County of Berkshire

  London Borough of Hounslow

  The Borough of Oswestry

  International Wild Waterfowl Association

  Kilmarnock and Loudon District Council

  Reading Borough Council

  In earlier consultations, the following organisations had also supported the deregistration proposals:

  British School of Falconry

  National Council for Aviculture

  British Waterfowl Association

  Council Tax
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that council tax at the full rate be levied on all holiday homes.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to impose a requirement on water companies to improve water quality.

  Mr. Atkins
  Drinking water in the United Kingdom is of a very high quality. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to change the quality standards, which the water companies are required to achieve in advance of the forthcoming revision of the EC drinking water directive.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the letter of 13 April from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East and 442
  previous correspondence on the exemption of severely mentally impaired people from liability for payment of council tax; and if he will make a statement regarding the present position.

  Mr. Baldry
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 April informing him that this matter was still under discussion.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by each city challenge committee on administration and other non-regenerative expenses in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  Administrative costs defrayed by each round 1 city challenge partnership in 1992–93 and 1993–94 and each round 2 partnership in 1993–94 are as follows:

  Administrative costs

  (£000s)

  Partnership

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Round 1

  Middlesbrough

  295

  341

  Newcastle

  311

  322

  Manchester

  447

  418

  Liverpool

  340

  330

  Wirral

  330

  250

  Wolverhampton

  370

  257

  Nottingham

  179

  262

  Dearne Valley

  150

  150

  Bradford

  299

  316

  Lewisham

  281

  320

  Tower Hamlets

  336

  418

  TOTAL (Round 1)

  3,338

  3,384

  Round 2

  Hartlepool

  —

  316

  North Tyneside

  —

  300

  Stockton

  —

  290

  Sunderland

  —

  300

  Blackburn

  —

  250

  Bolton

  —

  300

  Wigan

  —

  246

  Sefton

  —

  300

  Birmingham

  —

  290

  Sandwell

  —

  355

  Walsall

  —

  317

  Derby

  —

  400

  Leicester

  —

  300

  Barnsley

  —

  370

  Kirklees

  —

  315

  Hackney

  —

  500

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  320

  Lambeth

  —

  550

  Newham

  —

  297

  Brent

  —

  445

  TOTAL (Round 2)

  —

  6,761

  TOTAL (Round 1 and 2)

  3,338

  10,145

  1 All figures for administrative costs in 1993–94 are provisional. Final figures will not be available until after the receipt of local authorities' final audited claims.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total budget that central Government have made available and (b) the amount that has been spent by the city challenge committee on regeneration projects for each city challenge area in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  City challenge partnerships have received a total funding allocation of £7.5 million per annum for
  443
  five years. Partnerships' expenditure limits were revised as appropriate in order to offset predicted underspends, as they became known, against opportunities to expedite spend elsewhere. These in-year changes do not affect the overall sum allocated to each partnership, which remains at £37.5 million for the five years.

  £ thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Partnership

  Final expenditure limit

  Outturn

  Final expenditure limit

  1Outturn

  Round 1

  Middlesbrough

  7,486

  7,492

  8,613

  8,400

  Newcastle

  7,500

  7,500

  7,675

  7,537

  Manchester

  7,828

  7,828

  9,376

  9,282

  Liverpool

  7,500

  7,384

  8,316

  8,304

  Wirral

  7,500

  7,461

  7,500

  7,500

  Wolverhampton

  8,250

  8,241

  8,090

  7,396

  Nottingham

  7,585

  7,574

  8,420

  8,368

  Dearne Valley

  7,100

  7,101

  7,150

  7,150

  Bradford

  7,430

  7,420

  6,700

  6,685

  Lewisham

  7,870

  7,828

  7,824

  7,822

  Tower Hamlets

  6,451

  6,320

  7,008

  6,938

  (TOTAL) (Round 1)

  82,500

  82,149

  86,672

  85,382

  1 All figures for outturn in 1993–94 are provisional. Final figures will not be available until after the receipt of local authorities' 1993–94 final audited claims.

  1993–94

  Partnership

  Final expenditure limit (£000s)

  Expenditure1 (£000s)

  Round 2

  Hartlepool

  7,500

  7,413

  North Tyneside

  7,500

  7,364

  Stockton

  7,500

  7,500

  Sunderland

  7,500

  7,499

  Blackburn

  7,200

  7,192

  Bolton

  7,500

  7,499

  Wigan

  7,791

  7,733

  Sefton

  6,684

  6,448

  Birmingham

  6,969

  6,679

  Sandwell

  7,500

  7,319

  Walsall

  7,500

  7,496

  Derby

  7,500

  7,500

  Leicester

  5,300

  5,300

  Barnsley

  7,500

  7,495

  Kirklees

  6,500

  6,445

  Hackney

  8,384

  8,384

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,000

  8,050

  Lambeth

  5,600

  5,592

  Newham

  8,400

  8,322

  Brent

  7,500

  7,381

  Total (round 2)

  145,829

  144,611

  Total (round 1 and 2)

  232,500

  229,993

  1 All figures for outturn in 1993–94 are provisional. Final figures will not be available until after the receipt of local authorities' 1993–94 final audited claims.

HEALTH

  Patient Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average daily cost per patient for all specialties in directly managed units and national health service trusts for each year since 1988–89;
  444
  Final expenditure limits and outturn, inclusive of administrative costs, against expenditure limits for each round 1 city challenge partnership in 1992–93 and 1993–94 and each round 2 partnership in 1993–94 are as follows:

  (2) what was the average daily cost per patient for surgical specialties in directly managed units and national health service trusts in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table. The first wave of national health service trusts was established in April 1991. Comparable data for previous years are not available.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Surgical Specialties

  NHS Trusts

  £227.64

  £226.76

  DMUs

  £228.34

  £246.74

  All Specialties

  NHS Trusts

  £175.38

  £164.33

  DMUs

  £155.61

  £167.80

  Source: Annual financial returns of regional, district and special health authorities and NHS trusts (1991–92 and 1992–93).

  Notes:

  1. Surgical specialties include general surgery, urology, trauma and orthopaedics, ENT, ophthalmology, gynaecology, dental specialties, neurosurgery, plastic surgery, cardiothoracic surgery and paediatric surgery.

  2. Figures are based on in-patients and day cases.

  3. Figures include overheads and capital charges.

  Ms Storrs
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the NHS executive has received legal advice in the matter of the £78,000 paid to Ms Storrs by the Wessex regional health authority; and what steps are being taken to recover this payment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Legal advice has been obtained by the regional health authority and we are discussing with them whether recovery action would be cost-effective.

  Health Literature Line
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the titles of leaflets sent out by the health literature line since April 1993 and the numbers of each distributed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on leaflet titles and numbers ordered have been placed in the Library. Copies of the publications that are currently available will be placed in the Library.

  Computer Reimbursement
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount was spent in primary care on computer reimbursement in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table based on quarterly returns from family health services authorities. The amount reimbursed in 1990–91, when the scheme was introduced, includes claims for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  17.5

  1991–92

  34.0

  1992–93

  40.2

  1993–94

  136.5

  1Provisional figure.

  Data Protection
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who holds the copyright on data in primary care(a) in written notes and (b) on computers; and what statute, regulations or guidance govern this matter.

  Mr. Sackville
  The physical records on which data about patients is recorded by general practitioners are owned by the family health services authority. The equitable copyright of that data is also vested in the FHSA under common law because the author of the record compiles it pursuant to an obligation to maintain records, his remuneration in part is based on his doing so and he does so in circumstances whereby he owes a duty of good faith and fidelity to the FHSA. The principles apply equally to manual and computerised records.

  Advertising
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what television advertisements her Department has paid for to promote Her Majesty's Government's health policy over the last two years; if she will consider running advertisements to educate the public about not calling out general practitioners unnecessarily at night; if she will examine the results of similar campaigns in Canada; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Television advertising campaigns for drug and solvent misuse and for organ donation have been carried out in each of the last two years at a total estimated cost of £5,509,156.

  We are, jointly with the medical profession, working on an extension of the "Help Us to Help You" campaign to inform patients about making best, and appropriate, use of general practitioner out-of-hours services. We have no plans to use television advertising in this campaign.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to ensure that health professionals receive training in good educational practice for the delivery of sex education in schools;

  (2) what plans she has to ensure that health professionals will be fully cognisant of their legal responsibilities in the delivery of sex education in schools;

  (3) what steps she is taking to ensure that the skills of health education professionals in her Department are co-ordinated with those of Department for Education professionals teaching sex education in schools.

  Mr. Sackville
  Arrangements to meet any sex education training needs of health professionals are a matter for local determination by health authorities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to set up an inter-departmental working group to share, develop and co-ordinate good practice in the delivery of sex education in schools.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The Department for Education's forthcoming circular on the provision of sex education in schools will give advice to education authorities on links with health authorities and the role of health professionals in providing sex education.

  Family Health Centres (North of England)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health centres per 1,000 population there are in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Family Health Services Authority

  Number of Health Centres

  Population in thousands

  Health Centres per 1,000

  Doncaster

  12

  293

  0.04

  Barnsley

  16

  225

  0.07

  Rotherham

  11

  255

  0.04

  Sheffield

  10

  531

  0.02

  Notes:

  The number of Health Centres is as at 1 October 1993.

  The Population data for family health services authorities comes from Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid 1992 estimates from the 1991 Census.

  Child Mortality Rate
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the national child mortality rate; and what are the rates in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  Child mortality1 rates in England and Wales, Doncaster, Barnsley, Rotherham and Sheffield County Districts for the combined years of 1990–1992.

  1990–1992 rate2

  Male

  Female

  England and Wales

  83

  64

  Doncaster

  90

  64

  Barnsley

  90

  67

  Rotherham

  92

  62

  Sheffield

  85

  78

  447
  1 0–14 years of age

  2 Rate per 100,000 population

  Note:

  The combined years of 1990–92 have been used to overcome the random fluctuations due to the small number of events in these areas.

  Good Hope Hospital, Birmingham
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will call for a report on the availability of the speech and language therapy facility at Good Hope hospital in Birmingham between 31 March and 1 July and explanations for the deficiencies in provision;

  (2) if she will call for a report on the procedures adopted for allocating the contract for speech and language therapy at Good Hope hospital up to 31 March.

  Mr. Sackville
  The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Doug Ellis, chairman of the trust, for details.

  DNase
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with which regional health authorities her Department has had discussions relating to the use of the drug DNase; if she has recommended its use to regional health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has been contacted by Bristol and District health authority about DNase, initially via the South West regional health authority. The

  Infant Mortality (Numbers and Rates2) for Birmingham DHAs 1983–92

  DHA

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Numbers

  East Birmingham

  35

  50

  33

  31

  37

  32

  30

  48

  36

  28

  North Birmingham

  23

  20

  21

  20

  17

  24

  15

  23

  19

  18

  West Birmingham

  46

  45

  49

  39

  33

  48

  39

  51

  49

  38

  South Birmingham

  32

  43

  38

  44

  35

  45

  41

  40

  65

  74

  Central Birmingham1

  37

  41

  35

  34

  27

  45

  36

  43

  —

  —

  Rates

  East Birmingham

  10.8

  15.4

  9.7

  9.1

  10.8

  9.3

  8.3

  12.7

  9.7

  7.5

  North Birmingham

  12.6

  10.2

  10.7

  9.9

  8.0

  11.3

  7.4

  10.9

  9.0

  9.0

  West Birmingham

  11.4

  11.3

  12.1

  10.0

  8.3

  12.3

  9.9

  12.8

  11.9

  9.9

  South Birmingham

  9.6

  12.1

  10.6

  12.3

  9.5

  12.4

  11.1

  10.7

  9.4

  11.5

  Central Birmingham1

  12.8

  14.2

  11.9

  11.3

  9.0

  15.0

  12.6

  14.2

  —

  —

  1 From 1991 Central Birmingham DHA and South Birmingham DHA merged, retaining the name South Birmingham.

  2 Rate per 1,000 live births.

  Data based on place of usual residence at death.

  Bioethics
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she proposes to respond to the report of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics "Genetic Screening: Ethical Issues", and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 22 February,Official Report, column 203.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to implement the Audit Commission report on NHS estate management and property maintenance; what further action she proposes to take to implement the report; and what additional funds have been allocated for property maintenance.
  448
  Department advises health authorities to purchase health care on the basis of the best available information about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions: it has issued no specific advice about DNase.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates and where she has held discussions with officers of community health councils in the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health Ministers have had a number of discussions with individual community health councils and their representative organisations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chief officer and vice chair of West Surrey and North East Hampshire CHC in January of last year. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) and I spoke at the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales annual conferences in 1992 and 1993 respectively.

  Infant Mortality
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of infant mortality in each of the past 10 years in each district health authority in Birmingham.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Audit Commission's report, which was published in 1991, has stimulated the following activities:

  (a) all provider units are required to produce estate management and development strategies including projections for auditors in backlog maintenance.

  (b) plans for the five year period to March 1997 indicate an intention to reduce backlog maintenance by 37 per cent. or £1.43 billion.

  (c) revised guidance on estate maintenance and property utilisation was issued to the National Health Service in October 1993.

  No separate funds are allocated for property maintenance. These are treated as normal revenue costs which provider units include in their prices.

  Asthma
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being conducted into the rate of increase in the incidence of asthma; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 14 February,Official Report, column 627, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 29 March, Official Report, column 684.

  Brighton Health Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure the dismissal of the chairman and chief executive of the Brighton health trust in relation to their policy statement on the treatment of people above a certain age.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by her Department.

  Department of Health—Business appointment applications

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Number of applicants

  11

  11

  10

  6

  13

  5

  Independent consultants

  1

  2

  3

  1

  5

  0

  Unconditional approval

  0

  1

  1

  1

  5

  0

  Conditional approval

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Consultant firm

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Unconditional approval

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Conditional approval

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  10

  9

  7

  5

  8

  4

  Unconditional approval

  9

  9

  6

  5

  8

  4

  Conditional approval

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Number referred to advisory committee

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Granted

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  NHS Trusts (Employees)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued to NHS trust employees about part-time employment as consultants in companies which might bid for contracts with NHS trusts; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance is contained in HSG (93)5, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Allergies
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list by region the national health service centres for treatments(a) for allergies in general and (b) for allergic reactions to steroid treatments;

  (2) what research her Department has commissioned into the links between serious allergic reactions and steroid treatments; and if she will publish the conclusions of the research.
  450
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not use private detective agencies but does use security companies to guard official premises where this provides best value for money.

  NHS Estates Agency
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the plans for 1994–95 for the NHS Estates executive agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am pleased to report that the national health services estates management and health building agency—NHS Estates—has had a successful year as an executive agency of this Department. I have agreed the agency's 1994–95 annual business plan, and have placed in the Library copies of its key tasks and targets for 1994–95.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants in her Department and its predecessor department applied in each year since 1986 through the business opportunities system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information from 1989 is shown in the table.

  Mr. Sackville
  A list of national health service allergy clinics is published by the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  The Department has no plans to carry out research into allergic reactions to steroid treatment. Allergic reactions to steroid treatment are extremely rare, and most frequently affect the skin, in which case treatment would be obtained in the dermatology clinic in the district hospital.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals she has for amendments to legislation concerning the regulation and inspection of residential care and nursing homes; when such proposals will be published; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals she has to issue new guidance or amend existing regulations concerning the regulation and inspection of residential care and nursing homes; when the proposals will be published; and if she will make a statement;
  451
  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is discussing those matters with regulatory and provider interests. We will consult more widely if, in due course, we have specific proposals for improving regulation and inspection processes while retaining safeguards for vulnerable residents.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps will be taken to ensure the suitability of the lay assessors proposed for the monitoring of residential care.

  Mr. Bowis
  The recruitment and selection of lay assessors, and the terms on which they are engaged, are matters in which authorities are free to use their discretion. However, the Department's policy guidance emphasises the need for authorities to satisfy themselves about the suitability of the people they engage. Copies of the guidance, LAC(94)16, will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent research has been undertaken into the operation of the Registered Homes Act 1984, as amended; and in what way this is being taken into account during her review of this Act.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are not aware of any such research.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to monitor and evaluate the cost of inspection and regulation of residential care and nursing homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities and health authorities provide information annually on their costs in registering and inspecting residential care homes and nursing homes respectively. Those costs are kept under review by the Department.

  "Home Life" Manual
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are currently being taken to review the provisions of her Department's "Home Life" manual.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are considering with respresentatives of the local authorities associations and other interested parties the need for a review of "Home Life".

  Orthopaedic Implants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the replacement of the "Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Orthopaedic Implants" by the

  NHS projects using private capital over £1 million approved since February 1993

  NHS partner

  Scheme

  Private sector partner

  Capital cost (£ million)

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Agency

  Lease of office accommodation

  Sun Alliance

  3.0

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Clinical waste incineration

  Yorkshire Water Enterprises

  6.0

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust (Conquest Hospital)

  Staff residences

  Croudace Homes and Orbit Housing

  1.4

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  Endoscopy unit

  Lister Bestcare

  1.0

  North Bedfordshire Health Authority (Steppingley and Biggleswade Hospitals)

  Residential accommodation

  Health and Care Services (UK) Ltd.

  1.4

  Bolton Health Authority

  Clinical waste incineration

  Yorkshire Water Enterprises

  2.6

  New River Health Authority

  Lease of office accommodation

  Markheath plc

  2.0

  Leicester Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Lease of new headquarters

  Raynsway Properties Ltd.

  1.6

  452
  "Quality Systems for Orthopaedic Implants-Good Manufacturing Practice" became effective; who was responsible for the replacement; what consultations she undertook in relation to the replacement of the former by the latter; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The "Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Orthopaedic Implants" was replaced with the "Quality Systems Document for Orthopaedic Implants" by the supplies technology division of the Department of Health with effect from 1 May 1991. The main reason for the change was to bring departmental standards in line with international standards for quality assurance, BS 5750 Part 1 1987 equivalent to ISO 9001. Relevant medical device trade associations were consulted in the drawing up of the revised document.

  Patients Over 70
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued in the NHS on whether patients aged 70 years and over admitted to hospitals with suspected heart attacks should be placed in coronary care units rather than general wards.

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions about the most appropriate admission and treatment are based upon the needs of the individual patient and should be taken by the clinicians in charge of the patient.

  Out-of-hours Work (Doctors)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the report by KPMG Peat Marwick about out-of-hours work by doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ministers are currently considering the report.

  NHS (Private Finance)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 293, if she will provide details of the value of private sector capital for each of the 20 schemes which have been approved centrally since February 1993 and the private sector companies involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  453

  NHS partner

  Scheme

  Private sector partner

  Capital cost (£ million)

  South East Kent Health Authority (William Harvey Hospital)

  Clinical waste incineration

  Dyvell Ltd.

  3.0

  Barnet Health Authority (Hendon Hospital)

  Residential accommodation

  Metropolitan Housing Trust and Servite Houses

  2.3

  Plymouth and Torbay Health Authority

  Clinical waste incineration

  South West Water plc

  2.0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority (Carlton Gate)

  Staff residences

  Higgs and Hill Ltd.

  2.5

  East Sussex Health Authority

  Residential accommodation

  Associated Nursing Sevices

  3.0

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority (Clamp Hill)

  Residential accommodation

  Community Health Services Ltd.

  2.1

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Clinical waste incineration

  Motherwell Bridge Envirotec

  2.7

  Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  Staff accommodation

  Bradford and Northern Housing Association and Wiltshier Construction (South) Ltd.

  3.3

  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust

  Combined heat and power plant

  Yorkshire Cogen Ltd.

  3.0

  Hertfordshire Health Agency

  Lease of office accommodation

  Brixton Estate Management Ltd.

  4.2

  Hillingdon Health Agency

  Lease of office accommodation

  Scottish Metropolitan

  1.7

  Urban Policies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list every urban policy that has been instituted or operated from 1979, the date that each scheme began operating, where appropriate when they ceased operating and the funds available on an annual basis at current prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  Economic, social and physical regeneration is supported through main programmes by several Government Departments and by targeted initiatives. My reply of 25 April 1994 to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)Official Report, columns 36–37, contained detailed information about the latter programmes, including spending from 1981–82. For the urban programme, which began in 1979, the additional figures sought are £83 million for 1979–80 and £112 million for 1980–81 in cash terms. All the programmes listed in the earlier reply have now been combined within the single regeneration Budget from 1 April 1994.

  While not included in the earlier reply, enterprise zones, also a targeted urban initiative were launched in 1981. They offer a range of incentives to industrial and commercial firms in designated areas. These have not involved any direct expenditure, but an estimated £1.7 billion has been forgone in rates and taxes.

EDUCATION

  Thamesmead Primary Schools
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to meet parents and staff of primary schools in Thamesmead.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what special help is available for schools suffering especially severe problems of vandalism.
  454
  Mr. Boswell
  Detailed security measures appropriate for a school suffering vandalism problems are best determined by the school governing body in consultation with the local police crime prevention officers.

  The Department has published comprehensive guidance for schools on measures commensurate with the risk they are facing.

  Liverpool Schools
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to make resources available to refurbish older and pre-war schools in Liverpool.

  Mr. Forth
  Capital support for maintained schools in the area of Liverpool local education authority, including voluntary aided and special agreement schools, amounts to over £7 million in 1994–95.

  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he next plans to meet the Home Secretary to discuss the effect of the cuts to the section 11 budget on equal access for pupils with an ethnic minority background to the curriculum in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have voted to opt out of local education authority control under the Government's present scheme; and what is the average revenue grant given by the Government to such schools in the first year of their direct grant-aided status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date parents at more than 1,100 schools in England have voted in favour of grant-maintained status.

  In addition to the recurrent grants which grant-maintained schools are eligible to receive each year, schools new to the sector receive a grant to help meet transitional costs in the first year. In 1994–95, schools with

  455
  less than two years' experience of managing a delegated budget will be eligible to receive a grant equivalent to £30,000 plus £30 per pupil. Other schools will be eligible to receive £20,000 plus £15 per pupil.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the number of primary schools opting for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, 445 primary schools have voted for grant-maintained status. The number of self-governing primary schools has more than trebled in the past year.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines he has issued to local education authorities as to what would be a reasonable percentage deduction for the provision of central support services prior to the allocation of funds to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parental ballots have taken place on the issue of grant-maintained status since September 1993; what were the results; and what were the figures for the previous 12 months.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since 1 September 1993, 217 ballots on grant-maintained status have closed, 137 of which resulted in votes in favour of self-government, and 80 in votes against. In the preceding 12 months, there were 703 ballots, 544 of which resulted in a yes vote and 159 in a no vote.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are his proposals for future spending on education in England.

  Mr. Forth
  Planned spending by central Government, subject to review in the public expenditure survey, rises from £10.4 billion in 1994–95 to £11.3 billion in 1996–97. The 1994–95 grant settlement allows for LEAs in England to spend £17.1 billion on education; the 1995–96 settlement will be announced later in the year.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the implementation of new contracts in further education colleges.

  Mr. Boswell
  In order to implement our policy to encourage flexibility by holdback, the Further Education Funding Council will be asking colleges to sign a declaration shortly about the introduction of new contracts. I understand that most colleges have introduced a new contract for newly appointed staff.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what correspondence he has received from students on the question of student loans in the last month.
  456
  Mr. Boswell
  During March 1994, the Department received about 270 letters about student support issues. It is not possible to separate letters about student loans from letters on the other student support matters.

  School Leaving Age
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to raise the school leaving age.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to provide suitable training for special educational needs co-ordinators in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs confirms the importance of training for special educational needs co-ordinators. Over £5.5 million is newly available to schools this year to help them develop special educational needs policies and train co-ordinators. This is on top of the support of nearly £10 million for training in special educational needs more generally. In addition, the Department is planning measures to disseminate the messages of the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, subject to parliamentary approval of the draft, to special educational needs co-ordinators and others.

  National Tests
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what further discussions he is planning with the education services concerning national tests this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have not received any further requests to discuss the 1994 national tests, and we have no plans to do so.

  Educational Exports
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage the growth in the export of British educational services.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to reach a decision on Bolton Institute of Higher Education's application for research degree availability powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The institute's application for research degree-awarding powers is currently under consideration and a decision will be reached as soon as possible.

  Specialist Subjects
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effect of local government reform on the work of local education authorities in relation to the provision of teaching in specialist subjects.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Any changes resulting from the review of local government will not affect schools' responsibilities for delivering the national curriculum. The Local Government Commission is required to consider the implications of reorganisation for all local authority services including education.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has further to extend nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short),Official Report, 29 March, column 738.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total amount of money allocated in the education budget for nursery and early year training and initiatives in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 1994–95 local authority grant settlement allows for local authorities in England to spend £17,087 million on education. It is for individual local authorities and schools to decide how much to spend on nursery and early years education, including staff training, in the light of their own particular circumstances.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice is given by his Department to

  Number of applications

  Number granted

  With whom

  Number referred to Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  1990

  23

  23

  4 — Independent consultants

  2

  2 — Consultants

  17 — Other employment

  1991

  16

  16

  5 — Independent consultants

  None

  11 — Other employment

  1992

  No applications recorded

  1993

  6

  6

  2 — Independent consultants

  2

  1 — Consultants

  3 — Other employment

  1994

  To date one application has been submitted which has been referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. Awaiting a decision.

  Education Support and Training
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the matter of reduction in grants for education support and training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In responding to the Department's letters indicating allocations for 1994–95, a number of local educational authorities have indicated that they would have preferred larger sums. The national reduction from £320
  458
  schools on the provision of resources for the training of nursery teachers and nursery nurses in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such advice has been given. The allocation of their resources for the training of staff is a matter for schools themselves.

  Single-sex Education
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make an official visit to the London borough of Havering to assess the adequacy of the provision of single-sex education in the area.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend sees no need for such a visit.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Boswell
  Detailed records of outside appointments taken up under the business appointments system have been maintained by the Department since 1990. The information required is given in the table.

  The great majority of applications in 1990 and 1991 came from former members of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.

  million in 1993–94 to £270 million in 1994–95 reflected the growing number of self-governing schools and overall pressures on public expenditure.

  Urban Policy Initiatives
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list every urban policy initiative that has been instituted or operated since 1979, the date that each scheme began operating, where appropriate the date that the scheme ceased operating and the funds available on an annual basis under each scheme.
  459
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has provided grant support over three years—1992 to 1995—for projects to raise standards in inner city schools through activity 19 of grants for education support and training. Total supported expenditure for each of the three years is given in the table.

  £ million

  1992–93

  6.6

  1993–94

  10.3

  1994–95

  8.0

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects all primary and secondary schools to have fully delegated powers under local management of schools.

  Mr. Forth
  All primary and secondary schools now have delegated budgets, except in a very small number of cases where deregulation has been withdrawn by LEAs.

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department makes no use of private detective agencies. In so far as security companies are concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 22 April 1994,Official Report, column 677.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list his responsibilities in relation to the organisation of city technology colleges.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend's responsibilities are laid down in section 105 of the Education Reform

  School

  1Pupil number

  Age range and character

  Applemore Technology School

  764

  11–16 non-selective mixed

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  925

  11–18 selective mixed

  Denefield School

  1,071

  11–18 non-selective mixed

  John Kelly Boys Community School

  511

  11–18 non-selective boys

  John Kelly Girls Community School

  739

  11–18 non-selective girls

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  876

  11–18 selective boys

  Mill Hill County High School

  1,199

  11–18 non-selective mixed

  The Philip Morant School

  1,257

  11–16 non-selective mixed

  Rastrick High School

  1,044

  11–18 non-selective mixed

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  983

  11–19 non-selective boys

  Sale Moor School

  644

  11–16 non-selective mixed

  Senacre Technology School

  920

  11–17 non-selective mixed

  Small Heath School

  978

  11–19 non-selective mixed

  1 Provisional at January 1994 as returned to the Department for Education and subject to validation.

  460
  Act 1988 and in the funding agreements drawn up under that section for each city technology college. Copies of the Act and the model funding agreement are available in the Library. CTCs are independent schools given the maximum discretion to manage their own affairs.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library a copy of the management plan of each of the 13 schools listed in his announcement of 26 April.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. Applications under the technology colleges initiative were prepared by individual schools and their sponsors for submission to the Department. Management plans were not necessarily prepared with any expectation that they would become public documents.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each of the 13 schools listed in his announcement of 26 April, the date when it will become a technology college, its current pupil roll and character, whether he has received an application for approval to a change in its admissions arrangements, how many sponsor governors are being appointed, what is the term of office of each sponsor governor and which of the sponsors are represented by a sponsor governor.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 13 schools announced on 26 April each plan to operate as technology colleges from 1 September 1994. None of the schools has applied to make a change in its admission arrangements constituting a change of character within the meaning of the Education Act 1993. Each school has confirmed its intention formally to apply to take on between one and four sponsor governors before September 1994. Which of the sponsors are represented by sponsor governors will be determined at that stage. The term of office for sponsor governors is required under the Education Act 1993 to be between five and seven years, with the exact term being specified in the instrument of government. The current pupil roll and character of each school is summarised in the table.

TRANSPORT

  Overseas Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the overseas consultancies undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory during the last five years, the value of each contract and the country it was dealing with.

  Mr. Key
  As the information requested by the hon. Member relates to operational matters of the Transport Research Laboratory I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Wotton to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 29 April 1994:
  PQ2035/93/94
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic has asked me to reply to your Question about the overseas consultancies undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL).
  I enclose a list of consultancies undertaken over the last five years. The list gives details of the nature of each consultancy, the total value of each contract and the country in which the consultancy work was carried out.

  Consultancy Topic Total of project

  £

  1989–90

  Sweden—Training

  1,400

  Tanzania—Highway Maintenance

  2,000

  Cyprus—Project Appraisal

  2,000

  Botswana—Road Materials

  3,000

  Zimbabwe—Pavement Design

  11,000

  Jamaica—Environmental Assessment

  12,500

  Botswana—Materials

  8,200

  1990–91

  Zimbabwe—Pavement Design

  55,000

  Sri Lanka—Institution Strengthening

  333,000

  Indonesia—Institution Strengthening

  846,000

  Thailand—Urban Transport Planning

  8,000

  Zimbabwe—Road Safety

  12,000

  Lesotho—Road Safety

  4,000

  Laos—Road failure Study

  22,000

  Oman—Pavement Engineering

  129,000

  Singapore—Pavement Evaluation

  37,000

  1991–92

  Cyprus—Training

  12,000

  Sri Lanka—Road Safety

  18,000

  Nigeria—Urban Transport

  7,000

  Tanzania—Pavement Evaluation

  15,000

  Botswana—Materials Study

  11,000

  Laos—Road Failure Study

  69,000

  Sudan—Economic Appraisal

  5,000

  Cyprus—Training

  4,000

  Nepal—Road Rehabilitation

  28,000

  1992–93

  Kenya—Road Maintenance

  4,000

  Zambia—Road Maintenance

  4,000

  Cyprus—Training

  3,000

  Botswana—Materials Study

  8,000

  Namibia—Materials Study

  7,000

  Nepal—Road Rehabilitation

  53,000

  Mauritius—Pavement Evaluation

  13,000

  Jordan—Pavement Evaluation

  169,000

  Tanzania—Pavement Evaluation

  4,000

  Korea—Training

  4,000

  Bangladesh—Appraisal

  34,000

  China—Urban Transport

  54,000

  462

  £

  Zimbabwe—Urban Transport

  30,000

  Malaysia—Road Safety

  8,000

  Seychelles—Road Safety

  24,000

  Malta—Pavement Evaluation

  22,000

  Malta—Pavement Evaluation

  15,000

  Holland—Traffic Study

  28,000

  Central Europe—Road Safety

  21,000

  Europe—DRIVE Raporteur

  36,000

  1993–94

  Mauritius—Traffic and Transport Study

  20,000

  Bahrain—Pavement Evaluation

  32,000

  China—Urban Transport

  10,000

  Mauritius—Pavement Evaluation

  7,000

  Yemen—Pavement Evaluation

  6,000

  Cyprus—Training

  5,000

  Zimbabwe—Feeder Road Study

  123,000

  Fiji—Road Safety

  38,000

  Malawi—Road Safety

  7,000

  China—Urban Transport

  12,000

  Vietnam—Appraisal

  10,000

  Argentina—Urban Transport

  15,000

  Zimbabwe—Feeder Road Study

  110,000

  Hong Kong—Airport Vibrations

  5,000

  Botswana—Pavement Evaluation

  40,000

  Europe—Tyre Noise Study

  11,000

  Europe—HGV Taxation

  12,000

  Vehicle Journeys
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the average daily numbers of(a) commercial transport vehicle journeys and (b) the number of private motor car journeys undertaken in each English region in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available. However, figures of the average daily flows of traffic, classified by vehicle type, in English regions, for 1991 and 1992, are published in "Road Traffic Statistics Great Britain" 1992 and 1993 respectively. Copies of these publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will define the role of Dewe Rogerson on behalf of his Department in relation to rail privatisation; and how much it has been paid to date.

  Mr. Freeman
  Dewe Rogerson were appointed in March 1993 as advisers on the appropriate marketing strategy for ensuring the successful implementation of the Government's rail privatisation policy.

  To date, Dewe Rogerson have been paid £520,000 excluding VAT for this advice.

  Trunk Roads Review
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what fresh advice or representations he received on the strategic importance of the proposed improvements to the A64, the A19 and the A1237 during his recent review of trunk roads in England.

  Mr. Key
  During the recent review of trunk roads, schemes in the existing programme were prioritised on the basis of route importance, economic benefits, and
  463
  environmental constraints. The case for the improvement of the A64 between York and Seamer has been accepted, but construction will be deferred until a later date. Similar considerations apply to the A 19 Thormanby bypass and the Shipton by Beningborough bypass. The Al237 York northern bypass improvement has been withdrawn because of local opposition on traffic and environmental grounds.

  Strensham Services
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange to amend the notice north of junction 15 on the M40 to show the correct distance to Strensham services on the M5.

  Mr. Key
  This is a matter for the Highways Agency and the chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 29 April 1994:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Transport, in a written PQ, if he would arrange to amend the notice north of junction 15 on the M40 to show the correct distance to Strensham Services on the M5. As this is the responsibility of the Highways Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply.
  The sign north of M40 junction 15 was recently amended as part of the West Midlands motorway box resigning. Unfortunately the distance to the Strensham Services on the M5 south had been incorrectly given as 17 miles instead of 45 miles. A cover plate giving the correct distance has now been made and you will be pleased to know that the sign was amended on 26 April.

  BR Landl (Trespass)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria are used in making a decision as to whether or not to prosecute for trespass on BR land, including railway lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions on prosecutions are made in accordance with the Attorney-General's guidelines.

  Mr. Robert Horton
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 333, on which three weekdays Mr. Robert Horton is expected to work for Railtrack; what hours are stipulated; and what are his holiday entitlements and principal fringe benefits.

  Mr. Freeman
  Mr. Horton works on the days of the week which meet the requirements of Railtrack. His holidays and benefits are negotiated between him and the company.

  Cherished Number Transfers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 82, on which visits the chief executive met administrative assistants or administrative officers.

  Mr. Key
  During his visits to the agency's local offices the chief executive tries to meet as many staff as possible of all grades.

  Departmental Transfers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of 4 February,Official Report, column 1004, if he will make a statement regarding the various departmental transfers; what they were; and how much cost was involved.

  Mr. Norris
  The various interdepartmental transfers were:

  (i) £500,000 from the Department of National Heritage to cover the cost of archaeology surveys and excavations;

  (ii) £30,000 from the Department of the Environment, £473,000 from Property Holdings and £247,000 from Defence Research Agency for hard charged repayment services; and

  (iii) £1,376,000 refunded from the Department of the Environment in respect of the discontinuance of the scheme to improve Lower Road, Southwark.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 81, if he will state, against each date listed, the purpose of the visit by the DVLA chief executive to his Department's headquarters.

  Mr. Key
  These visits all involved discussions with Ministers or senior officials on matters concerning the management of the agency.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on when the trail of automated first registration and licensing by DVLA began; where the trial is being conducted; and what are its terms of reference, objectives, the evaluation process of the trial, the definition of what will be a successful trial and details of the implementation timetable.

  Mr. Key
  The automated first registration and licensing project will speed up the registration process for new cars, make significant cost savings for the motor trade and improve the quality of the DVLA vehicle record, which is vital to the police in the fight against crime. A total of 6,500 car dealers and 16 motor manufacturers are expected progressively to take advantage of the new facility from later this year onwards.

  A two-stage pilot scheme has been developed to test two different methods of computer linkage between motor dealers and the DVLA system—direct connection and connection via the manufacturer's management system. The first phase will start on 23 May involving certain dealers in the Bristol area with the second scheduled for October.

  The terms of reference for the pilot are to prove the technical integrity of the new system and to ensure that it delivers the required benefits to the motoring public, dealers, manufacturers, and other interests. Live operations will be carefully monitored to ensure that the systems and procedures can be implemented without compromising security or existing procedures.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 4, if he will make a statement on how the senior management in DVLA was revised; how this had improved management of the agency; what advice and assistance was given by the consultants Price Waterhouse; and at what cost.
  465
  Mr. Key
  Following a review of its management structure and operations DVLA revised its organisation into more focused executive groups, plus other changes. This has helped sharpen decision-making and reduced costs. Price Waterhouse provided expertise and advice to the agency's management, drawing on its experience of other organisations in both the public and private sectors. Its fees and expenses totalled some £72,000.

  Receipts (Shortfall)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of 4 February,Official Report, column 1004, if he will make a statement regarding the shortfall of receipts from the recovery of administrative costs and various repayment services; how large the shortfall was; what the receipts were; what administrative costs were involved; and if he will list all the repayment services involved in the shortfall.

  Mr. Norris
  The shortfall in receipts on class VI, vote 2, was £4.2 million. It relates principally to payments made to the central Department for services provided to the Department's agencies. The agencies have been encouraged, in line with "next steps" principles, to assume direct responsibility for services such as personnel, finance and accounting, previously provided by the central Department. The lower receipts reflect their reduced demand for central services.

  Expenditure Increases
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of 4 February,Official Report, column 1004, if he will make a statement regarding the increases in expenditure; and what is the amount of the increased expenditure and its purposes.

  Mr. Norris
  The increases in expenditure are:

  (i) £3,513,000 for Eurocontrol arising from increased activity by Eurocontrol subsequent to the initial agreement on and preparation of 1993–94 provision;

  (ii) £1,750,000 in connection with the privatisation of the DVOIT; and

  (iii) £1,729,000 for capital expenditure mainly in connection with my Department's headquarters accommodation.

  School Transport
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education concerning the introduction of a requirement to provide a seat for each school child travelling on school journeys using minibuses, buses or coaches, and a seat belt for every seat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education as part of our review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in all minibuses and coaches.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the European directives which apply to the design and construction of minibus, bus and coach regulations; and what action he intends to take to enable future harmonisation for the installation of seat belts in school minibuses, buses and coaches.
  466
  Mr. Key
  A proposal for a draft directive on bus, coach and minibus construction is currently being discussed in a European Commission experts group. Other directives applying to these vehicles are set out in annex IV of directive 92/53/EEC, amending directive 70/156/EEC.

  The European Commission announced in February its strategy for improving bus and coach safety: their objective is to agree the technical requirements for fitting seat belts to all seats in vehicles which do not carry standing passengers.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the research he has commissioned relating to future installation of seat belts in school minibuses, buses and coaches used to transport school children; and what further research he intends to commission.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has conducted a good deal of research into the fitment of seat belts mainly in relation to cars. Much of this research has been published and can be used to inform policy on the fitment of seat belts in other vehicles. Further research projects into various aspects of bus and coach safety are planned for the near future, but contracts have not yet been let.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current regulations which exist to regulate the driving of public service vehicles, including their drivers, and from which buses, minibuses or coaches transporting school children, could be exempt.

  Mr. Key
  The driving licence arrangements for passenger-carrying vehicles are contained in the Motor Vehicle (Driving Licences) (Large Goods and Passenger-Carrying) Vehicles) Regulations 1990 SI 1990 No. 2612.

  Drivers of buses, minibuses or coaches transporting school children are only exempt from PCV licensing if they drive under the terms of permits granted under regulations made under section 19 of the Transport Act 1985. These are the Minibus and Other Section 19 Permit Buses Regulations 1987 SI 1987 No. 1230, the section 19 Minibus (Designated Bodies) Order 1987 SI 1987 No. 1229, and the Section 19 Minibus (Designated Bodies) (Amendment) Order 1990 SI 1990 No. 1708. But, in practice, most drivers of vehicles transporting school children do not make use of these permits as they are contracted-in from bus operators whose drivers hold full PCV entitlement.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit Strathclyde to discuss with Strathclyde council its reasons for banning the practice of seating three school children to a two-seater seat on buses and coaches used for school journeys.

  Mr. Key
  No. The Carrying Capacity Regulations permit three seated children under the age of 14 to share a double seat and count as two passengers. This is a concession and authorities and operators may take advantage of it as they think fit.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the research he has commissioned in respect of the retrospective fitting of seat belts to minibuses, buses and coaches used to transport school children.
  467
  Mr. Key
  The diversity of vehicle types used for school transport and the way in which they are constructed are such that research of this kind could not be undertaken economically.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the installation and enforcement of the wearing of seat belts in minibuses, buses and coaches used as school buses.

  Mr. Key
  I have received a great many representations on this subject.

  We are currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in all minibuses and coaches, not just those used as school buses.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the Belt Up School Kids organisation to discuss seat belt safety in buses, coaches and minibuses used for school journeys.

  Mr. Key
  Yes. I have agreed to meet representatives of the originating BUSK group.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what records he maintains of school buses checked and found not roadworthy; and if he will publish the results of such adverse tests(a) by local education authority area and (b) for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: There are no special arrangements for testing vehicles contracted to carry children to and from school. Like all coaches, buses and minibuses with more than eight passenger seats they must be tested one year after first being registered and annually thereafter. The arrangements for annual testing have not changed since 1985.

  In addition VI staff also conduct roadside spot checks on all vehicle types. In 1992–93, the last full year for which figures are available, the vehicle inspectorate carried out almost 25,000 roadside spot checks on public service vehicles and issued immediate prohibitions, for dangerous defects, in 5.2 per cent. of cases. About one third of the PSV fleet is checked in this way annually and there are no plans to change that figure.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how frequently his Department's inspectorate carries out tests on vehicles contracted to transport children to and from school; what changes have been made to the arrangements for such tests since 1985; what reports of adverse results from spot checks he has received in 1994; what changes he plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: This information is unavailable. School buses are not a separate class of vehicle. Consequently the vehicle inspectorate, which is responsible for roadworthiness enforcement, does not maintain a separate record on the roadworthiness of these vehicles.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to bring the United Kingdom into line with other EC member states in regulations relating to drivers' records and tachographs in relation to school buses and minibuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The United Kingdom applies the EC regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs in respect of school buses and minibuses. I have no plans to change the present position.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library details of the recent investigations undertaken by the traffic commissioners on the extent to which current public service vehicle regulations are being met.

  Mr. Key
  The annual reports of the traffic commissioners include commentary on investigations concerning public service vehicle operations. The latest set of reports covering the 1992–93 period were placed in the Library when published on 2 August last year.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Eurotunnel regarding the delay in opening the channel tunnel; and what are the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. Freeman
  Opening of the tunnel for commercial services is a matter for Eurotunnel subject to authorisation by the Intergovernmental Commission under the terms of the concession agreement. I understand from the IGC that Eurotunnel has yet to complete some testing and commissioning work before a service can be authorised.

  Lighthouses
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of personnel employed by(a) the Northern Lighthouse Board and (b) Trinity House on 1 January in (i) 1985, (ii) 1989, (iii) 1993 and (iv) 1994; and if he will indicate the distribution of employees between (1) headquarters administration, (2) lighthouse keeping and (3) providing logistical support for manned and automatic lighthouses, including service on lighthouse board vessels.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: The numbers are:

  Headquarters administration

  Lighthouse keepers (including light vessel personnel)

  Logistical support

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  1 January 1985

  58

  231

  225

  1 January 1989

  51

  202

  207

  1 January 1993

  44

  98

  172

  1 January 1994

  42.5

  87

  163

  Trinity House

  1 April 1985

  184

  438

  806

  1 April 1989

  30

  145

  517

  1 April 1993

  27

  117

  511

  1 April 1994

  28

  98

  485

DEFENCE

  AWE, Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the fires which occurred at the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston on 10 and 20 October 1993, listed as incident numbers 13390 and 14095 by Berkshire fire and rescue service.
  469
  Mr. Aitken
  AWE does not hold a record of the incident numbers used by the Berkshire fire and rescue service, but, on 10 October 1993, a glove in contact with a laboratory hot plate smouldered causing activation of an automatic fire detection system. On 20 October 1993, a small high voltage electrical unit split resulting in an oil fire. Both incidents were quickly dealt with by the AWE fire service. Berkshire fire and rescue service was informed as a matter of routine.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress being made in negotiations with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regarding the cleaning up of the north area ponds at AWE Aldermaston; and if he will place in the Library copies of the reports detailing the extent of contamination of these ponds.

  Mr. Aitken
  AWE holds regular discussions with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on a range of environmental issues. The development of engineering options for water management, as well as cleaning up the contamination in the North Ponds, form part of these discussions. AWE safety division has undertaken a detailed radiological survey of the ponds which details the nature and the extent of the contamination, which is not of radiological concern and exists only in an access-controlled location. This survey is one of many that AWE undertakes for its own management purposes. It is not appropriate to place a copy of this report in the Library.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of the AWE Aldermaston fire service towards providing reports of all fires that have occurred at the site to Berkshire fire and rescue service.

  Mr. Aitken
  The policy of the AWE Aldermaston fire service is to notify Berkshire fire and rescue service of all calls it receives. In addition to fires this will include automatic detection equipment false alarms and mistaken call-outs. Reports are provided to the Berkshire fire and rescue service where appropriate.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for carrying out and paying for all decommissioning works carried out at AWE Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The MoD is responsible for the costs of decommissioning works carried out at AWE Aldermaston. Management of the decommissioning task is performed by Hunting-BRAE plc on behalf of the MoD, and decommissioning activities may be undertaken either by Hunting-BRAE directly or by suitable sub-contractors.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to conduct negotiations to amend or renew the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States of America for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes, originally agreed on 3 July 1958, treaty series No. 41 (1958), Command 537; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Discussions over an amendment to extend the validity of those articles of the agreement which expire on 31 December 1994 are currently taking place between officials.

  Press Office, Plymouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the circumstances that led to the suspension from duty of Steven Wilmott and David Harris from his Department's press office in Plymouth.

  Mr. Aitken
  Messrs. Wilmott and Harris have been suspended on full pay following allegations and are now the subject of an internal departmental investigation.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the salary received and expenses claimed in 1992–93 and 1993–94 by Steven Wilmott and David Harris from his Department's press office in Plymouth.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not my Department's practice to reveal details of payments made to individuals.

  RAF Pilots (Leather Jackets)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the military value to RAF pilots of wearing leather jackets;

  (2) how many leather jackets have been provided for RAF pilots and aircrew in the past two years; and at what cost;

  (3) whether leather jackets are part of the uniform for RAF pilots and aircrew.

  Mr. Hanley
  Leather jackets are an optional item of dress and are of no direct military value to RAF pilots. They are not therefore provided at public expense.

  Detective Agencies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on contracts with private detective agencies since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am not aware of any expenditure by my Department on contracts with private detective agencies. I am aware, however, that the Treasury Solicitor's Department does sometimes employ inquiry agents when pursuing debtors of the MOD and other Government Departments. While such services are not paid for directly by my Department, they will be included in the final costs submitted by the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to make better known the work undertaken by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in maintaining the records, memorials and war graves of allied service people killed in two world wars.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible for arranging its own publicity. The MOD does, however, make a major financial contribution to the Commission's budget on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, which includes funds for publicity.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the British Government's
  471
  contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in 1993–94; and what he proposes it will be in 1994–95;

  (2) if he will set out the factors which led him to reduce the United Kingdom contribution to the funding of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission; and if he will now restore the money as part of the D-day commemoration.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission takes the form of a grant-in-aid, which is discussed annually between my Department and the CWGC. In 1993–94 the grant-in-aid to the CWGC was £21,390,295. Financial provision for 1994–95, which has been agreed with the commission, is £20,532,368. This will be supplemented by a substantial surplus of around £1,700,000 carried forward from the previous year.

  The commission's budget, and our contributions to it, have increased by 50 per cent. in cash terms over the last five years. We believe that the level of funding is realistic in the light of the commission's future requirements. The commission has confirmed that it has no plans to cut any projects or commitments as a result.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what countries are now represented on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission; and - what consultation he had with the Governments concerned before announcing to the commission his decision to cut its funding.

  Mr. Hanley
  The countries represented on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and South Africa. As well as being represented on the commission, all member countries are represented on its finance committee which discusses funding.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries which contain Commonwealth war graves and memorials which are maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence does not keep records of the nature requested, responsibility for which rests with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I will arrange for the Director-General of the commission to write to the hon. Member.

  Colonels in Chief
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what authority appointments of colonels in chief of Army regiments are made; what are the administrative arrangements for these appointments; what is the total cost of all aspects of the work of colonels in chief; what are the equivalent arrangements for the RAF and Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Appointments of colonels in chief of Army regiments and corps are made by Her Majesty the Queen from recommendations submitted by the Army Board. The appointments are not salaried and involve only minimal costs incurred when visiting units. Such costs are borne by the Army, but are not separately identified and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  472
  Similar arrangements apply in both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

  Airlines (Military Transport)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy in respect of the criteria to be used in determining which airline should carry military personnel abroad.

  Mr. Hanley
  Wherever possible, military personnel are carried on Royal Air Force transport aircraft.

  Where RAF aircraft are not available, or their use is not considered to be cost effective, movement may be carried out by commercial airlines. This can either take place under charter arrangements, as in the case of large numbers of passengers moving to a specific destination, such as Germany, or by use of specially negotiated fares with British, European and other airlines which are regularly monitored and renegotiated.

  In determining which airline to use, it is my Department's practice to engage in competitive tendering and best value-for-money negotiations, taking full account of Department of Transport guidelines and EC services directives, as appropriate.

  Friendly Fire
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures were enforced after the friendly fire incident in the Gulf war, in which a British Warrior armoured car was hit, to prevent a repetition of such errors; and whether these were in place when two American helicopters were shot down recently by friendy fire in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following the friendly fire incident in the Gulf conflict we have been working independently as well as in close consultation with the United States and our other NATO allies, on improvements to the management of combat indentification and the development of more advanced technology in support of this. The incident in northern Iraq on 14 April is the subject of a full United States inquiry in which the United Kingdom and other coalition partners are represented. The results of this inquiry will be reported to Parliament as soon as possible, and it is therefore inapopropriate at this point to attempt to draw parallels between the two incidents.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Aitken
  Business appointment records are not maintained in a format which enables applications to join firms of consultants to be identified separately. Such applications are included under "Other Employment".
  473

  Number of applications

  Independent consultants

  Other Employment

  Referred to ACBA

  Approved by ACBA

  1986

  357

  32

  325

  1

  1

  1987

  228

  6

  222

  8

  8

  1988

  256

  10

  246

  1

  1

  1989

  320

  5

  315

  2

  2

  1990

  181

  45

  136

  7

  7

  1991

  134

  36

  98

  7

  7

  1992

  219

  113

  106

  2

  2

  1993

  160

  109

  51

  3

  3

  Note: Only applications from officers at Grades 1 and 2 are referred to the Advisory Panel on Business Appointments, charied by Lord Carlisle.

  Sentries
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy relating to the deployment of service personnel on sentry duty who are under investigation regarding(a) possible crimes of violence and (b) possible drugs-related offences; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy relating to the provision of weapons for service personnel on sentry duty who are under investigation regarding (a) possible crimes of violence and (b) possible drugs-related offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Decisions on the deployment of service personnel on day-to-day duties, including sentry duty, are a matter for the commanding officer of the individual concerned. Where an individual is under investigation regarding crimes of violence or drug-related offences, the seriousness of the alleged offence will be taken into account when deciding whether the individual should continue to undertake sentry duty or other duties, armed or otherwise. It would be normal practice, however, for personnel under investigation for serious offences to be held under close arrest. Where a less serious offence is concerned it might be considered appropriate for an individual to continue normal duties, but under supervision.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people made an application in respect of community care grants and loans from the social fund system at each of the social security offices between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1994; of these how many were accepted; how much was paid out; how many were refused; and what were the reasons for refusal.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 28 April 1994:
  I have been asked o reply to your recent Parliamentary Question relating to Social Fund statistics.
  I am sorry I am unable to provide information in_the form you have requested as:
  information is not readily available in the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1990 and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost;
  474
  details for each Social Security Office can only be given for the 1990–91 year. As the Social Fund has been managed on a District basis from April 1991 information has been supplied accordingly;
  an individual can make more than one application to the Social Fund the figures shown therefore refer to the number of applications received rather than number of people making application;
  information on the number of refusals is only held as a percentage of decisions made;
  information is not held on the reasons for refusal of applications. The available information is set out in the tables, which are too long to be printed in the Official Report and arrangements will be made for a copy to be deposited in the Library. Statistics on Social Fund applications is also available in the Library under "Social Fund Data" and these figures are updated on a monthly basis.
  I hope that you will find this information helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is(a) the average time and (b) the range of times taken to process a review case for disability living allowance.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Eddie McCrady, dated 28 April 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the average and range of times taken to process a review case for Disability Living Allowance.
  I am sorry that information on the processing of Disability Living Allowance review cases is not held in the format that you have requested. The procedure is that each year I set targets for the time taken to clear review cases. For the 1993–94 year these were:
  60% of cases to be cleared in 55 days and 80% to be cleared in 75 days.
  Unfortunately the Agency has been unable to meet these targets. By the end of the 1993–94 year 22% of cases had been cleared within 55 days and 32% within 75 days. The reason for the failure to achieve the targets is that the number of requests for review far exceeded expectations and, by September 1993, there was a backlog of about 8,000 cases awaiting decision. Extra staff were recruited to deal with this and with the use of extensive overtime most of the outstanding cases were cleared by February 1994.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm

  475
  of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Civil servants applied to take up outside appointments in the followng years:

  Year

  Independent consultant

  Firm of consultants

  Other employment

  1986

  1

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  1

  1

  1989

  —

  1

  1

  1991

  1

  —

  2

  1992

  1

  —

  1

  1993

  —

  —

  1

  Three of the above applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. All of the above applications were granted.

  Energy Co-operation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met Ministers from(a) Scotland and (b) the Republic of Ireland to discuss co-operation in the provision and distribution of energy; and if he will make a statement about energy co-operation between Northern Ireland and both Scotland arid the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Regular discussions take place with Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues including energy. Energy matters, particularly electricity, have been discussed with Ministers from the Republic of Ireland from time to time. I continue to support any co-operation in energy matters which may bring benefit to Northern Ireland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food (Expenditure)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the net disposable income per person in pounds sterling; what was the expenditure on food(a) as a percentage of net disposable income arid (b) in pounds sterling in (i) each European Union country, (ii) Sweden, (iii) Norway, (iv) Austria, (v) Finland, (vi) the United States of America and (vii) Japan in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the table.

  The following comparable information is available for 1991:

  Household expenditure per person1(£)

  Expenditure on food2 per person (£)

  Expenditure on food as a percentage of household expenditure (per cent.)

  Belgium

  6,614

  1,062

  16

  Denmark

  7,368

  1,087

  15

  Germany

  7,397

  41,453

  20

  Greece

  2,780

  867

  31

  Spain

  4,795

  914

  19

  France

  7,187

  1,162

  16

  Ireland

  3,776

  805

  21

  Italy

  6,993

  1,250

  18

  476

  Household expenditure per person1(£)

  Expenditure on food2 per person (£)

  Expenditure on food as a percentage of household expenditure (per cent.)

  Netherlands

  6,529

  798

  12

  Portugal

  2,127

  n/a

  634

  United Kingdom

  6,207

  766

  12

  Sweden

  8,156

  1,291

  16

  Norway

  7,175

  1,406

  20

  Austria

  6,516

  1,106

  17

  Finland

  7,439

  1,186

  16

  USA

  38,423

  831

  10

  Japan

  8,555

  51,162

  14

  1 Final consumption expenditure of resident households.

  2 Within the household except where stated otherwise.

  3 Includes expenditure by private non profit making institutions.

  4 Includes alcoholic drink and meals out.

  5 Includes alcoholic drink and tobacco.

  6 1986.

  Sources: EUROSTAT National Accounts ESA 1970–91.

  OECD National Accounts 1979–91.

  Colorado Beetle
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent reports she received of Colorado beetle(a) unsolicited and (b) in response to requests for information; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received 25 reports so far this year of Colorado beetle in England, of which nine were as a result of inspections undertaken by the plant health and seeds inspectorate. This brings the total number of beetles found to 44.

  The United Kingdom is a protected zone under the EC single market arrangements for plant health, and Colorado beetle is accordingly a notifiable quarantine pest in the United Kingdom under the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993. Each year we launch a publicity campaign to heighten public awareness about the pest. This has led to a good response from processors, traders and members of the public in notifying findings.

  No breeding colony has been found in the United Kindom since one in 1976. The colony was successfully eradicated.

  Halal Meat Company, Birmingham
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) dead and (b) recumbent animals have been delivered to the Halal Meat Company in Birmingham in each of the last 12 months; what was the country of origin of those animals; and how many prosecutions are being brought in respect of those animals which were deemed unfit for transit.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures are indicative of the problems of handling this category of sheep. Prosecutions are a matter for the local authorities concerned; I understand that none is pending in respect of animals which were deemed unfit for transport.
  477

  Dead in transit and down in transit sheep Birmingham Halal slaughterhouses

  Month and origin

  Dead

  Recumbent

  1993 April—Local

  20

  38

  May—Wales and Local

  15

  30

  June—Wales and Local

  18

  28

  July—Wales and Local

  16

  20

  August—Wales, Scotland and Local

  10

  15

  September—Wales, Scotland and Local

  12

  18

  October—Wales, Scotland and Local

  16

  20

  November—Wales, Scotland and Local

  10

  21

  December—Wales and Scotland

  7

  19

  1994 January—Wales and Local

  12

  44

  February—Local

  11

  33

  March—2 Irish, 1 Polish, 2 Spanish, 30 Local

  13

  35

  1994 April to 26 April—Local

  18

  31

  Notes:

  1. Total annual throughput approximately 36,000 sheep.

  2. 'Dead in Transit' includes some that arrived alive but died overnight in lairage.

  3. 'Recumbent' includes some which walked off the lorry but collapsed overnight.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the protection against special access to the North sea in the accession arrangements extend to non-pressure stocks;

  (2) whether Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels will be allowed to fish in the North sea under article VII of the treaty of Rome after 1 January 1996;

  (3) to what extent the Spanish and Portuguese will be integrated into the common fisheries policy by 1 January 1996; and whether they will be able to fish in all European Union waters.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will give details of proposals of fisheries management agreed or tabled at the April European Union Council of Fisheries Ministers relating to(a) the possible replacement of the Irish box and (b) the restricted list of 300 Spanish fishing vessels; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will detail proposals agreed or tabled at the April European Union Council of Fisheries Ministers relating to access by Spanish fishing vessels into (a) the Irish sensitive zone, (b) west of Scotland fishing grounds, (c) International Council for the Exploration of the Seas area VII, (d) the North sea pressure stocks fishery and (e) the North sea non-pressure stocks fishery; and if she will make a statement.

  Exports of sheep and sheepmeat 1979 to 1993

  Metric tonnes

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Live sheep and lambs

  All countries

  17,261

  14,281

  8,026

  5,833

  4,348

  3,564

  2,990

  5,857

  12,767

  17,835

  22,451

  22,225

  33,040

  52,051

  30,712

  EC

  17,222

  14,273

  7,934

  5,810

  4,333

  3,555

  2,960

  5,785

  12,760

  17,809

  22,436

  22,217

  33,023

  51,993

  30,709

  Of which:

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1,429

  1,517

  2,689

  1,108

  993

  —

  655

  482

  70

  342

  981

  258

  1,568

  3,071

  3,572

  Germany2

  6,257

  6,770

  1,977

  1,136

  1,993

  1,111

  —

  161

  —

  132

  467

  —

  143

  1,830

  1,060

  Irish Republic

  9,377

  5,623

  907

  2,169

  1,326

  1,856

  1,662

  905

  1,921

  2,071

  2,909

  3,133

  3,704

  2,540

  10

  France

  —

  —

  2,297

  1,394

  —

  —

  —

  4,047

  10,701

  15,175

  17,645

  18,733

  26,943

  43,250

  24,193

  Non-EC

  39

  8

  92

  23

  15

  9

  30

  72

  7

  26

  15

  8

  17

  58

  3

  478
  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 13 April 1994,Official Report, columns 183–84.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurance she gave in Strasbourg to the British fishing industry about Spanish fishing rights in(a) the North sea and (b) the Irish box after January 1996.

  Mr. Jack
  Neither the Minister nor I have visited Strasbourg recently.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the United Kingdom vote in relation to granting a full concession of fishing rights to Spain under the common fisheries policy at the last Fisheries Council.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 25 April 1994,Official Report, column 79.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received from fishing industry representatives regarding the possibilities of a permit system for the Irish sensitive zone.

  Mr. Jack
  Officials are to meet representatives of the fishing industry shortly to discuss proposals which the Commission has made for a general system of fishing permits.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the declared policy position of each other European Union member state with regard to fisheries effort control in the Irish sensitive zone.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission is to make proposals for the zone, inter alia, by 1 June 1994. Consequently, the position of other member states is not yet known.

  Sheep and Lamb Exports
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of domestically reared lamb and sheep was exported for each year since 1979; to which countries; and in what form.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: Export data specifically referring to domestically reared lamb and sheep are not available. Total exports of lamb and sheep from the United Kingdom, by destination and form, for years 1979 to 1993, are shown in the following table.
  479

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Meat of sheep and lambs3—Fresh/chilled/frozen

  All countries

  40,922

  36,949

  37,531

  37,041

  43,317

  47,330

  48,701

  60,019

  71,188

  75,985

  89,160

  79,697

  79,960

  105,146

  95,059

  EC

  36,630

  33,304

  32,601

  34,676

  39,851

  44,239

  44,441

  57,134

  68,643

  73,689

  86,725

  77,371

  77,810

  103,173

  92,684

  Of which:

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  14,126

  13,704

  6,103

  5,584

  4,120

  4,053

  5,983

  7,016

  7,904

  8,068

  8,539

  8,936

  9,362

  9,615

  10,315

  Germany2

  13,593

  13,647

  5,138

  5,521

  4,529

  2,977

  2,453

  2,889

  2,544

  3,054

  3,662

  2,784

  2,118

  4,882

  4,174

  France

  5,107

  3,466

  19,797

  22,246

  29,953

  35,625

  34,550

  43,937

  53,865

  56,625

  66,402

  55,229

  53,383

  72,410

  65,147

  Italy

  2,361

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,262

  2,796

  2,359

  3,502

  4,477

  4,624

  3,849

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,822

  5,223

  1,565

  8,380

  5,838

  Non-EC

  4,292

  3,645

  4,930

  2,365

  3,466

  3,091

  4,260

  2,885

  2,545

  2,296

  2,435

  2,326

  2,150

  1,973

  2,375

  Of which:

  Switzerland

  1,630

  1,529

  1,508

  1,943

  2,271

  2,158

  2,560

  2,450

  2,170

  1,964

  2,177

  1,928

  1,882

  1,557

  1,845

  1 Data for 1993 are provisional and subject to revision.

  2 Data pre-1991 covers the Federal Republic only.

  3 Data pre-1988 also includes meat of goats.

  Sources:

  CSO/Department of Trade Annual Edition of Overseas Trade Statistics and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants ill her Department applied each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Table showing number of civil servants in MAFF who have applied, since 1986 through the Business Appointments Scheme to take up an outside appointment

  19861

  1987

  1988

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  Number of applications

  Number of approved

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  (a) as an independent consultant

  —

  —

  3

  3

  5

  5

  (b) in a firm of consultants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) other employment

  —

  —

  8

  8

  7(3)

  7(3)

  Total

  13

  13

  11

  11

  12(3)2

  12(3)2

  1 Information not immediately available with regard to (a),. (b) and (c).

  Non-executive director.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  (a) as an independent consultant

  3

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  (b) in a firm of consultants

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  (c) other employment

  5

  4

  9

  9

  6

  6

  Total

  9

  8

  12

  12

  10

  10

  1992

  1993

  19943

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  (a) as an independent consultant

  8

  8

  8

  8

  6

  6

  (b) in a firm of consultants

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (c) other employment

  6

  6

  9

  9

  2

  2

  Total

  15

  15

  18

  18

  8

  8

  3 Statistics as at 31 March 1994.

  Note:

  There have been 3 applications which have required referral to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments during the period 1986 to the present date and all were successful and are included in the figures relating to 1988 and 1990.
  480
  Mr. Jack
  The following is a table of statistics showing the number of civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who have applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments scheme to take up an outside appointment.

  There have not been any applications which have required referral to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments during the period 1986 to the present date.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European countries presently have cases of(a) foot and mouth disease, (b) African swine

  481
  fever, (c) classical swine fever, (d) swine vesicular disease and (e) Aujeszky's disease; when she last met and what consultations she has had with the east Yorkshire and national NFU over preventing these diseases from entering Britain; what measures she is taking to prevent these diseases entering the country; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  My right hon. Friend keeps in close touch with the President of

  Incidence of disease in Europe: 1994 to date

  Foot and Mouth disease

  African Swine fever

  Classical Swine fever

  Swine Vesicular disease

  Aujeszky's disease

  —

  Italy (Sardinia)

  Belgium

  Italy

  See note below

  Spain

  Bulgaria

  Netherlands

  Estonia

  Germany

  Italy

  Poland

  former Republic of Yugoslavia (including Macedonia)

  Slovak Republic

  Source: Office International des Epizooties (OIE).

  Note:

  Aujeszky's disease is not compulsorily notifiable in all EC Member States and information on its prevalence is not readily available. However, within the EC only Denmark, Great Britain and certain Departments in France are recognised as being free of Aujeszky's disease.

  Beef
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence she has for her statement that a promotion of Scotch whisky in a German chain of food shops was cancelled as a result of the stance of the German Government towards British beef.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: I have been informed by Food From Britain's overseas division in Germany that concerns over bovine spongiform encephalopathy have created general difficulties in arranging promotions of British products.

  EC Surplus Foods
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many(a) independent and (b) grant-maintained schools have received free surplus food products from the EC since April 1989; and what was its market value;

  (2) how many (a) independent and (b) grant-maintained schools have received free surplus stewing steak from the European Community since April 1993; and what was the total market value of the surplus stewing steak provided.

  Mr. Jack
  Independent and grant-maintained schools are not eligible for produce distributed under the EC surplus food scheme.

  Fisheries Management
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations(a) have-taken place and (b) are proposed with fishing industry representatives regarding a fisheries management regime for the Irish sensitive zone; and if she will make a statement.
  482
  current interest, including measures to help prevent the introduction and spread of disease by imported farm livestock. A number of such measures are set out in my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 1 December 1993, Official Report, column 590. Similar measures apply to pigs, including checking all imported pigs to keep out the threat of Aujeszky's disease. These measures are kept under constant review and the number of checks is intensified in the light of perceived disease risks.

  Mr. Jack
  I have maintained close contact with representatives of the fishing industry about all aspects of the review of Spanish and Portuguese accession arrangements and will continue to do so.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to improve the accuracy of the labelling of foods with particular reference to the list of contents.

  Mr. Soames
  Rules on ingredient listing on food labels are harmonised in the European Community. The United Kingdom has pressed for a review of the current exemptions and the Commission is considering this.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will require the labelling of meat which has already been thawed and then refrozen and ensure that the consumer is warned not to refreeze.

  Mr. Soames
  Such labelling is currently required. We are consulting interested parties about a proposal to amend this requirement, since the warning cannot be justified on safety grounds.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board's timetable for the comprehensive labelling of food produce.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board was established under the European Communities Act to administer and promote the EC ecolabelling scheme in the United Kingdom. The scheme does not apply to food and, therefore, the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board has no plans for labelling food produce.

SCOTLAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of which non-elected bodies whose membership in whole or in part is appointed by him in each case(a) meetings are open to the public, (b) there is scrutiny of financial procedures by independently appointed audit and (c) there are rules governing the declaration of interests.

  Mr. Lang
  Non-departmental public bodies are not required to hold meetings in public and do not normally do so. The Comptroller and Auditor General either audits the accounts of, or has inspection rights to, all executive non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible and which receive Government funding. Where he is not the auditor, the accounts of the body are audited in accordance with the statutory requirements of its constitution. I take into account the question of the interests of possible chairmen and members of the boards of executive NDPBs when I am considering appointments to a body. Arrangements for the declaration of interest of members on specific items under consideration by the body are normal practice; detailed arrangements vary depending on the body.

  The meetings of Scottish health boards and NHS trusts are open to the public. The Health Education Board for Scotland and the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland also hold public meetings. They are subject to audit by either the Scottish Office audit unit or external auditors appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Comptroller and Auditor General has a statutory requirement to examine, certify and report on summarised accounts of these bodies and can examine the accounts of individual bodies and any records relating to them. NHS authorities and trusts have rules governing the declaration of interests.

  Cost (£)

  Establishment

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total

  Cornton Vale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,818

  1,818

  Dumfries

  2,295

  5,762

  —

  —

  —

  8,057

  Glenochil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,550

  25,550

  Longriggend

  —

  —

  3,180

  —

  —

  3,180

  Low Moss

  —

  6,008

  —

  —

  —

  6,008

  Perth

  —

  —

  36,074

  —

  —

  36,074

  Shotts

  10,510

  44,825

  32,302

  4,865

  183,045

  275,547

  Total

  12,805

  56,595

  71,556

  4,865

  210,413

  356,234

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners in Scotland have been granted home leave in each of the past five years; and how many prisoners have absconded or committed crimes while on home leave from Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question

  Police Officers (Illness)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many days work have been lost by police officers due to illness in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of days lost due to illness

  1989

  175,409

  1990

  297,431

  1991

  172,501

  1992

  176,274

  1993

  170,693

  Prison Vandalism
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of repairing damage resulting from vandalism by prisoners in each Scottish prison for each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under the chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 3 May 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost of repairing damage resulting from vandalism by prisoners in each Scottish prison.
  Vandalism by prisoners ranges from minor incidents such as breaking light bulbs to serious riot damage. Damage of a minor nature caused by vandalism would normally be repaired as part of the on-going maintenance programme and the cost would not therefore be separately identified.
  The cost of prisoner damage from major incidents which have occurred in each of the past 5 years is set out in the table below.

  has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 3 May 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of prisoners in Scotland who have been granted home leave in each of the last 5 years; and how many prisoners have absconded or committed crimes whilst on home leave from Scottish Prisons.
  The information requested on the number of prisoners who have absconded while on home leave is published in the Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and is as follows:
  485

  Year

  Prisoners

  Young offenders

  1989–90

  29

  12

  1990–91

  49

  20

  1991–92

  52

  14

  1992–93

  54

  34

  1993–94

  40

  30

  The other information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Death Certificates
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the current cost of a death certificate in each hospital; and what guidelines have been issued on the amount charged;

  (2) by how much the charge for a death certificate has risen since April 1992;

  (3) what was the income to hospitals in 1993 from charges for death certificates;

  (4) what is the normal administrative cost of providing a death certificate.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 Apri11994]: Hospitals make no charge for providing a certificate of the cause of death. If a body is to be cremated, there is a statutory requirement for the cause of death independent doctors in order to guard against the possibility of concealment of crime. The completion of cremation certificates does not fall within the scope of services required from doctors under the National Health Service Acts and they are therefore entitled to charge a fee. Doctors are guided on the level of such fees by the British Medical Association. The recommended fee is currently £32 per certificate; the recommended fee in April 1992 was £30.

  Children (Principal Carers)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many children are the principal carers for sick or disabled parents or close relatives.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Nursery Places
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of children under five-years-old have a place in a local authority-provided facility.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: It is estimated that 57,600 children under five years had places in local authority education or day care establishments at 31 March 1992. This represents approximately 18 per cent. of children under five. Such places however are used mostly by three and four-year-olds. Many children under five have places in private or voluntary facilities.

  Homeless Children
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children were taken into care in Scotland because of homelessness, in each of the 10 years preceeding the implementation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
  486
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The Homeless Person's Act came into force on 1 April 1978. The available information about the numbers of children taken into care because of homelessness between 1969 —the earliest year for which information is available—and 1974 are as follows. Following reorganisation, the available figures for the years 1976–78 relate to children in care on census day who were admitted to care due to family homelessness.

  Number of children taken into care because of homelessness in calendar year

  Year

  Number

  11969

  526

  1970

  625

  1971

  756

  1972

  774

  1973

  670

  1974

  577

  1 Year to 30 November.

  Number of children in care on 31 March (census date)

  Year

  Number

  1976

  502

  1977

  493

  1978

  496

  Scottish Children's Hospice
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet Endell Laird, the editor in chief of the Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail to discuss the provisions of a Scottish children's hospice; what is his policy on such a meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend welcomes the support which the Daily Record has provided for the establishment of a children's hospice in Scotland, but has no plans at present to discuss this with Mr. Laird. I understand that the plans of the Children's Hospice Association Scotland for the establishment of a hospice serving the whole of Scotland are well advanced.

  Voluntary Organisation Grants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which voluntary organisations for deaf people have been awarded grants by his Department in each year since 1990; what commitments he has made for the financial year 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The following voluntary organisations have been awarded grants over the period 1990–91 to 1994–95.

  For 1994–95 I was particularly pleased to be able to offer funding to the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters and the Scottish Association for the Deaf on a three-year basis; to offer an additional grant to Sense Scotland towards the establishment of a day centre at Overbridge centre for children and young adults with multiple handicaps and to offer the Royal National Institute for Deaf People a three-year grant towards the development of a network of communication support units in Scotland. In addition to the organisations listed, funding

  487
  is also provided to a wide range of voluntary organisations for people with physical disabilities which also have regard to the needs of deaf people.
  Voluntary organisations for deaf people receiving grant

  1990–91

  Scottish Association of Sign Lanaguage Interpreters

  The Scottish Association for the Deaf

  Sense Scotland

  Donaldson's College for the Deaf

  1991–92

  Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters

  The Scottish Association for the Deaf

  Sense Scotland

  Donaldson's College for the Deaf

  1992–93

  Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters

  The Scottish Association for the Deaf

  Sense Scotland

  Donaldson's College for the Deaf

  British Deaf Association

  1993–94

  Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters

  The Scottish Association for the Deaf

  Sense Scotland

  Donaldson's College for the Deaf

  British Deaf Association

  Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People

  1994–95

  Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters

  The Scottish Association for the Deaf

  Sense Scotland

  Donaldson's College for the Deaf

  The Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what current NHS rules and practice enable the age of the patient to be taken into account by a general practitioner or a general practitioner practice, when determining whether to accept a new patient on to their lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: None. Guidance issued by the General Medical Council in May 1992 makes it clear to general practitioners that it is unacceptable to discriminate against groups of patients on grounds of their age, sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, religious belief, perceived economic worth or the amount of work they are likely to generate by virtue of their clinical condition.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide additional resources for the construction and development of sheltered housing in Paisley, Johnstone and Elderslie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: Renfrew district council has received substantial capital allocations of £18.5 million for investment in public sector housing in 1994–95. Scottish Homes plans to invest a further £20 million in Renfrew district. It is for the local authority and Scottish Homes to determine the amount of these resources to be spent on providing sheltered housing in accordance with their assessment of local needs.

  Royal Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he has visited the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley since its construction; when he next plans to visit it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not visited the Royal Alexandra hospital, and has no plans to do so.

  Aids to Sleep
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions are in place on advertising drugs available without prescription which are designed to aid sleep; what checks are carried out to ensure that addictive or potentially harmful drugs are not advertised for mass consumption; what health warnings should be given in such advertisements; in what ways regulations or guidelines on the advertisement of such drugs have been amended or relaxed within the past five years; what plans he has to introduce new legislation, statutory orders or guidelines to regulate the promotion of aids to sleep which are available without prescription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 Apri11994]: Licensed medicines may be advertised only under the stringent controls of the Medicines Act 1968 and supporting regulations. These ensure that the advertising is in accordance with the product licence and is not misleading. Products which are available without prescription may be advertised to the public, in compliance with the Medicines (Labelling and Advertising to the Public) Regulations 1978. These regulations prohibit the advertising of a treatment for sleeplessness or insomnia; advertising for the relief of temporary sleeplessness is not prohibited.

  Medicines which we consider to be addictive or potentially harmful when used without medical supervision are available only on prescription and may not be advertised to the public. Proposed legislation to amend the 1978 regulations in order to implement Council directive 92/28/EEC is currently under consideration.

  Hospitals (Administration)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of administration in hospitals in 1991, 1992 and 1993; and what is the forecast for 1994.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: In 1991–92 and 1992–93 hospital services administration costs were £173,769,000 and £204,885,000 respectively. The figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. It is not possible to forecast the figures for 1993–94 or 1994–95 as no data are held centrally.

  Two factors have largely contributed to the increase shown. As part of the NHS reforms, Scottish health boards have devolved many of their functions to directly managed units and NHS trusts. The figures also include an increasing number of senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to the general/senior managers' pay scales.

  Formaldehyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when checks were last carried out on the level of emission of formaldehyde from Strathclyde chemical works in Johnstone; how the checks compared to the current maximum legal levels; what assessment he has made of whether the current emission levels from the factory pose no short-term or long-term threat to the health and wellbeing of neighbours; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: Strathclyde Chemical Company Limited is registered with Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate in respect of the manufacture of formaldehyde at its premises in Johnstone. As the operator of a registerable process, the company is required to use the best practicable means for preventing the emission of formaldehyde and for rendering harmless and inoffensive any formaldehyde which may be emitted. In pursuance of that duty the company makes regular weekly measurements of formaldehyde emissions and such measurements are subject to scrutiny by the inspectorate. The results confirm that the quantities of formaldehyde emitted are small and of no significance in public health terms.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current regulations relating to the emission levels of formaldehyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: Processes involving the manufacture or use of formaldehyde are prescribed processes in terms of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 and are subject to the integrated pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Some existing processes which have not yet been brought within integrated pollution control remain subject to section 5 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as regards emissions into the atmosphere. Guidance on the emission limits for processes involving formaldehyde has been provided in the chief inspector's guidance note, IPR 4/3—"Processes for the Production or Use of Acetylene, Aldehydes etc"—copies of which are available from HMSO.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children had to be cared for other than in their own home following their mother's imprisonment, in the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information in respect of children whose mothers were imprisoned is not available centrally. During 1991, the latest full year for which information is available, 39 children were taken into the care of local authorities following the imprisonment of one or both of their parents.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of prisoners had dependent children living with them just before imprisonment; and of these what number and percentage are mothers.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  490
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number and percentage of prisoners and 17 to 20-year-old offenders who had been in care before they were 16 years.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information is not available centrally on which a reliable estimate of the number and percentage requested could be based.

  Mental Health (Children)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of children in Scotland with mental health problems.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available. However, research studies conducted elsewhere in the United Kingdom suggest that up to 10 per cent. of children suffer from a significant degree of emotional or behavioural disturbance during their childhood.

  Children
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of children in Scotland who go hungry every day.

  Mr. Stewart
  Such information about children in families is not available centrally. However, it is Government policy to target income support and other DSS benefits at those who are most in need, including low income families.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the percentage of children in Scotland who are overweight.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available.

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies currently exist for speech and language therapists in the national health service in Scotland; what was the average length of time taken, over the past 12 months, to fill vacancies; and what assessment he has made of whether these vacancies are the result of a shortfall of appropriately qualified personnel.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available from records held centrally.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what has been the annual turnover rate for(a) male and (b) female speech and language therapists in each health board in each year since 1980;

  (2) how many (a) male and (b) female speech and language therapists have been appointed by each health board for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested could be made available only at disproportionate cost. Figures relating to males plus females for some of the years sought are published in "Health Briefing No. 92/01/spth", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Hoax Calls
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions resulted from hoax calls to the fire services in Scotland for each of the past five years: and what percentage they constituted of the total number of call outs.
  491
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Relevant information for the four years 1989 to 1992 is as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Persons proceeded against under section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947.

  58

  49

  70

  61

  Persons with charge proved under section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947.

  55

  41

  64

  57

  Malicious false alarms attended by fire brigades.

  13,795

  15,241

  18,481

  22,485

  Total incidents attended by fire brigades.

  96,124

  98,763

  112,196

  113,102

  Malicious false alarms as a percentage of total incidents.

  14.35

  15.43

  16.47

  19.88

  Notes:

  1. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  2. Information on prosecutions for 1988 is not available on the same basis.

  Drug Offences
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of 14 to 17-year-olds cautioned, fined, or given custodial sentences for drug offences in each year since 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Cautioning offenders is not a disposal which is available to the police in Scotland.

  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of persons aged 14 to 17 years old with a charge proved for drug offences in Scottish courts by type of disposal

  Year

  Custody

  Fined

  Other

  Total

  1987

  12

  90

  20

  122

  1988

  11

  74

  32

  177

  1989

  6

  81

  28

  115

  1990

  10

  130

  65

  205

  1991

  14

  194

  81

  289

  1992

  18

  212

  88

  318

  Source: Home Office.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number and percentage of children in Scotland with asthma.

  Mr. Stewart
  Asthma can best be defined as a disease caused by variable narrowing of the bronchial airways as a result of inflammation. The condition covers a wide spectrum of severity, however, from a single wheeze to a life-threatening attack. Measure of prevalence is therefore difficult, as the precise definition used is of critical importance. The evidence from a number of recent United Kingdom epidemiological surveys suggests, however, that between 10 and 15 per cent. of children suffer from asthma at some point during their childhood.

  Neither the surveys nor routine statistics provide a sufficient basis for an estimate to be made of the number of children suffering from asthma at any given time. However, in Scotland in 1992—the latest year for which the information is available—the number of children aged under 16 with a principal diagnosis of asthma severe enough for them to be admitted to hospital was 3,548.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many working days were lost in Scotland because of asthma in the latest 12 months for which information is available.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available.

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of crimes in a year not reported to the police.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The best estimate we have is from the Scottish crime survey. The first results of the 1993 survey, which were published on 22 April, suggest that the proportion of incidents reported to the police in 1992 for those crimes covered by the survey, which comprise crimes against persons and their property, was 52 per cent. The corresponding figures for 1981 and 1987 were 38 per cent. and 44 per cent. respectively. These figures suggest that the amount of crime not reported to the police has diminished over the period covered by the surveys.

  Children (Accidents)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost in 1992 and 1993 to the national health service and the ambulance service in Scotland caused by accidents to children.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available.

  Respite Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of children with severe disabilities do not receive respite care.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Our White Paper "Scotland's Children"—Cm. 2286 —acknowledged the importance of well planned respite care tailored to the individual needs of children and their families. Respite care will feature in the new child care plans which local authorities will be required to prepare in collaboration with other relevant agencies, voluntary organisations and representatives of parents and carers.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the base locations of all accident and emergency ambulances in Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway; and which are(a) single manned or (b) double manned.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: The locations of ambulance stations are as follows:

  Ambulance Stations within Strathclyde

  Greenock

  Rothesay

  Dunoon

  493

  Tighnabruich

  Vale of Leven

  Arrochar

  Helensburgh

  Lochgilphead

  Tarbert

  Bowmore

  Campbeltown

  Gigha (Contractor)

  Oban

  Dalmally

  Inverary

  Mull

  Colonsay (Contractor)

  Tiree (Contractor)

  Ayr

  Dalmellington

  Girvan

  Kilbirnie

  Largs

  Millport

  Lamlash

  Irvine

  Kilmarnock

  Cumnock

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow South

  Glasgow East

  Glasgow West

  Kirkintilloch

  Law

  Shotts

  Biggar

  Douglas

  Ambulance Stations within Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries

  Thornhill

  Kirkconnel

  Annan

  Langholm

  Lockerbie

  Moffat

  Newcastleton

  Stranraer

  Newton Stewart

  Castle Douglas

  We are committed to the double-manning of accident and emergency ambulances. We have made £6 million available over the last four years towards the elimination of single-manning.

  Only those stations staffed by contractors are exclusively single-manned. At other stations the number of single-manned responses will depend on the level of "on-call" single-manned rostering and the incidence of short notice sickness absence. The percentage of single-manned responses across Scotland has fallen from 8.7 per cent. in 1990–91 to 1.75 per cent. in 1993–94. In Dumfries and Galloway during the same period there was a reduction from 28.97 per cent. to 6.14 per cent.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of accident and emergency ambulances achieved response times within the maximum in(a) Ayrshire and (b) Dumfries and Galloway in 1993 and for all available months in 1994.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: Target response times for ambulances vary according to population density. Ayrshire and Arran and Dumfries and Galloway health boards both cover areas of medium density and sparse density. The target response times which apply are:
  Medium density population (0.5–3 people per acre)–95 per cent. of calls responded to in 18 minutes
  Sparse density population (less than 0.5 people per acre)–95 per cent. of calls responded to in 21 minutes.
  494
  The information is as follows:

  Performance Ayrshire and Arran

  Performance Dumfries and Galloway

  Medium

  Sparse

  Medium

  Sparse

  January 1993

  91

  94

  95

  84

  February 1993

  92

  94

  88

  84

  March 1993

  92

  93

  89

  90

  April 1993

  94

  93

  89

  81

  May 1993

  93

  94

  95

  83

  June 1993

  93

  94

  88

  82

  July 1993

  91

  91

  86

  85

  August 1993

  91

  89

  87

  83

  September 1993

  91

  90

  87

  84

  October 1993

  92

  92

  89

  84

  November 1993

  91

  94

  92

  84

  December 1993

  89

  91

  90

  94

  January 1994

  90

  92

  90

  84

  February 1994

  92

  93

  88

  85

  March 1994

  91

  94

  92

  86

  Ravenspark Hospital
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the Scottish Office's refusal to give its approval to a contract agreed between Ayrshire and Arran health board and the company Burley for replacement care provision arising out of the planned closure of Ravenspark hospital;

  (2) if he will make a statement indicating when Ayrshire and Arran health board now expects Ravenspark hospital to close.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office has not refused to approve a contract between Ayrshire and Arran health board and Burley Health Care plc. The board has been asked to look at the future needs, size and location of services for the elderly mentally ill throughout Ayrshire, before completing a contract with Burley Health Care.

  Ayrshire and Arran health board has decided that Ravenspark hospital will close early in 1995 when suitable alternative care settings have been made available for the present residents. Hospital closures require public consultation and the approval of the Secretary of State.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, columns 949–50, when he will place in the Library a copy of the research report on "Accessibility to the Scottish Office".

  Mr. Lang
  The analysis of the data based on the results of the research into the effectiveness of the advertising campaign on accessibility to the Scottish Office is not yet completed.

  Hospital Staff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital house officers, senior house officers, registrars and senior registrars there are in Scottish hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The numbers of hospital doctors and dentists in whole time equivalent in each grade in post at 30 September 1993, the latest date for which information is available, are shown in the table:

  495

  WTE1

  TOTAL

  3,506.9

  House Officer

  620.0

  Senior House Officer

  1,862.8

  Registrar

  632.7

  Senior Registrar

  391.4

  1 Figures are provisional.

  Police force

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Central

  9

  18

  45

  69

  51

  52

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Fife

  —

  —

  3

  35

  30

  20

  Grampian

  4

  4

  9

  4

  20

  28

  Lothian and Borders

  89

  91

  178

  213

  184

  223

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  197

  236

  300

  254

  250

  205

  Tayside

  —

  27

  101

  103

  128

  193

  Scotland

  299

  376

  636

  678

  663

  726

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) male and (b) female speech and language therapists are currently employed in the national health service in Scotland in each health board area.

  NHS Speech Therapists in post at 30 September 1993 (whole time equivalent)

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Health board

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  42.1

  —

  1.2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  29.7

  —

  —

  Borders

  —

  13.4

  —

  0.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  18.3

  —

  0.5

  Fife

  0.5

  46.6

  —

  3.0

  Forth Valley

  —

  21.2

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  55.1

  —

  1.7

  Greater Glasgow

  1.0

  91.8

  —

  13.5

  Highland

  —

  25.3

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  53.0

  —

  —

  Lothian

  1.0

  69.1

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  2.5

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  2.0

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  40.4

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  5.7

  —

  0.5

  Scotland

  2.5

  516.2

  —

  20.9

  Fraud
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints of alleged fraud have been made to the serious fraud unit of the Crown Office in each year since 1986; and how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions have followed thereon.

  Mr. Lang
  The Crown Office fraud and specialist service unit is an integral part of the Crown Office and deals with all inquiries relating to fraud and related offences. A number of the more serious of these inquiries are investigated by the staff of the unit and others are referred to the procurator fiscal for attention, often with advice and assistance from the staff of the unit. Precise figures are not available to show how many complaints of fraud have been received in each year since 1986, although well in excess of 100 reports are considered annually. Of

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of reported racial incidents for each police force area in Scotland for each year since 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The total number of reported racial incidents for each police force area in Scotland from 1988 to 1993 is as follows:

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The latest information available is shown in the table.

  the cases considered by the staff of the unit, 56 cases have been prosecuted involving 94 persons resulting in 70 persons being convicted. An annual breakdown is provided as follows:

  Number of cases

  Number of persons accused

  Number of persons convicted

  1986

  6

  14

  12

  1987

  10

  20

  18

  1988

  7

  10

  6

  1989

  7

  7

  6

  1990

  6

  11

  5

  1991

  9

  16

  15

  1992

  3

  6

  3

  1993

  5

  6

  2

  1994

  3

  4

  3

  Total

  56

  94

  70

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a)

  As an independent consultant

  In a firm of consultants

  Other employment

  Number referred to advisory committee on business appointments

  Number approved

  1986

  1

  —

  5

  —

  6

  1987

  —

  1

  5

  —

  6

  1988

  —

  1

  4

  —

  5

  1989

  —

  2

  3

  —

  5

  1990

  —

  2

  7

  —

  9

  1991

  —

  2

  4

  —

  6

  1992

  —

  1

  4

  1

  5

  1993

  —

  1

  3

  —

  4

  1994

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases there have been in the past year of junior doctors not having at least(a) four hours rest within a duty period of 16 hours and (b) eight hours rest within a duty period of 32 hours.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he expects to meet the target of no contracts of more than 72 hours a week for junior hospital doctors by 31 December.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: The Government remain committed to this objective for junior doctors in hard-pressed posts.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many junior doctors are contracted for more than 72 hours per week; and how many have regularly worked more than 72 hours per week in the past year.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: At 30 September 1993, the number of junior doctors contracted for more than 72 hours duty per week was 1,630. Information on the hours actually worked by junior doctors is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many junior doctors are contracted for more than 83 hours per week; and how many have regularly worked more than 83 hours per week in the past year.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: At 30 September 1993, the number of junior doctors in
  498
  as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table:

  Scotland contracted for more than 83 hours duty per week was 30. Information on the hours actually worked by junior doctors is not held centrally.

  Cremations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest available annual figure for the number of people cremated.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: Data maintained by the Federation of British Cremation Authorities indicate that there were 35,558 cremations in Scotland in 1993.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he has any responsibility for the operation of the European social fund in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for the European social fund in areas in Scotland designatd as objective 1, 2 or 5b under the appropriate regulations. Responsibility in Great Britain for national schemes under objective 3 rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Free School Meals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children currently receive free school meals; and what percentage that forms of the total number of schoolchildren.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 24 November 1993,Official Report, columns 73–74, to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson).

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act,

Race Relations (Remedies) Act,

Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act.

Woodlands Management: Incentives
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider introducing tax incentives for the management of existing woodlands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, there are no plans to introduce such tax incentives. Since commercial woodlands were wholly removed from taxation in 1988, it would not be appropriate to introduce such incentives in isolation.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware of the CLA survey which shows that 40 per cent. of woodland faces reduced management or complete abandonment since the 1988 tax changes? Can he confirm that the forestry review group has recommended tax incentives, with appropriate safeguards against abuse, to encourage woodland management?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the CLA report. It showed that some 63 per cent. of the woodland surveyed was in active management, some 16 per cent. was unmanaged and, therefore, presumably some 21 per cent. was partially managed. Obviously, if those figures are correct they are somewhat worrying. That is why we set up the forestry review, which Ministers are now considering, to look at, among other things, current incentives for forestry. I should stress that there are already grants for management of forestry, but the forestry review will look at whether the grant regime provides appropriate incentives. Its remit does not include reviewing the tax position.
Lord Rees: My Lords, will my noble friend admit that forestry is not entirely removed from taxation as certain forestry operations are subject to VAT? Against
1004
that background will he explain why, of all commercial operations in this country, forestry should have inflicted on it a tax regime which denies any relief fin losses?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to mention VAT. Forestry was removed from mainstream taxation in 1988. I can inform the House that that is the only time that abolishing a tax has produced a net saving for the Treasury—a saving of some £10 million. The previous tax regime produced anomalies. Forestry was seen as something of a tax haven. That is why it was taken out of the tax net. I can inform my noble friend that there are no plans to introduce tax incentives. We believe that grants are a better way of providing the relief: they are available to everyone, irrespective of income.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, how do the Government believe that the level of investment in forestry should be determined? Would they rather it was left to the market? Do they have any view at all? If left to the market, should that investment be entirely free of artificial incentives and subsidies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we believe in encouraging forestry. We have a system of grants to encourage forestry, which is not so very different from other investments, because of the very long-term nature of investment in forestry. As I tried to make clear, we do not believe that tax incentives are the right way forward; we believe that grants probably are. That is also why we are reviewing the current regime of grants. That is one purpose of the forestry review.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the system of grants is entirely arbitrary and that some forests are considerably more expensive to plant and nurture than others? Is he aware that a good deal of anxiety was expressed about the: subject in 1988? Does he agree that those in the forestry business would much prefer to see it back in the tax bracket?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that we believe that tax incentives are much blunter instruments than grants. My noble friend implies that grants are also too blunt an instrument. I stress to my noble friend that there are different levels of grant according to the type of wood being planted and the size of the individual wood.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Government are opposed to tax incentives generally?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to deal with the question of tax incentives generally. I am saying that in this particular case they had a distorting effect and that it was therefore right to remove them.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that there will be adequate grants during the later stages of the growing of forestry, in particular hardwoods? Is he aware that without management those hardwoods are useless?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can inform my noble friend that there are different levels of grant according to whether the wood being planted is coniferous or broad-leaved. There are also management grants. Those management grants differ according to whether it is a coniferous or broad-leaved plantation. The grants for broad-leaved plantations are considerably higher than those for coniferous plantations.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Minister say what percentage of our timber requirements we import at present? What are the prospects of our being able to continue to import that percentage at a price we can afford?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lady exact details of the amount of timber we import. However, I can assure her that we import a great deal. That is one of the reasons why we should like to see a great deal more timber planted. It is one of the reasons why we provide grants to the private sector, and some £95 million to the Forestry Commission to encourage planting.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the Government have it in mind to give grants, aid or tax relief to such projects, are they aware that there are many more deserving millions in the country who do not own forests and thousands who have never even seen one?
Lord Henley: My Lords, forests are open for everyone to see. We provide some £95 million to the Forestry Commission to encourage planting. I believe that most people will agree that there is much to be said for planting trees, and for planting a great many more trees.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that some consistency will enter into the policy for forestry? Is he aware that the Government's changes of policy have destroyed millions of young trees and created a complete mess? From now on perhaps forestry growers and would-be forestry growers may know exactly what is to happen.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was not aware of any inconsistency in our policies. I am seeking to make clear that the forestry review group has now reported to Ministers. Ministers will consider its views and come to conclusions in due course. There will obviously be considerable consultation with parties concerned before they come to any conclusions.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are still considerable areas of woodland in south-east England which are badly in need of clearance six and a half years after the hurricane of 1987? It would be helpful if some assistance could be given to landowners, particularly of small areas, to achieve that badly needed clearance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot deal with the precise point that the noble Lord raises. I can say that
1006
there are grants both for new planting and for restocking. There are also grants available for the management of existing woodland.

Falklands War Crimes Investigation
2.46 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that no prosecution arising out of the Falklands war crimes investigation will be undertaken without the consent of the Attorney-General.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions has now received a report by the Metropolitan Police relating to its investigations. The possible offences to be considered are not the subject of any statutory requirement for the consent of a Law Officer. Any decision will be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in consultation with the Attorney-General under whose superintendence she acts.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that the issue raises matters of grave and vital public policy, including the ability of our forces to fight future wars and battles? Therefore the Attorney-General should be involved in any decision to prosecute.
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that many people believe that it is an insult to the memory of all those who died on Mount Longdon that their comrades in arms who are still living are in danger of being prosecuted for war crimes in the British courts—with their former enemies, no doubt with all expenses paid, giving evidence against them in British courts—while the real perpetrators of the war, the fascist junta of Galtieri, remain free and are probably laughing their heads off at the behaviour of the British Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on the first point that the noble Lord raises, as I have said, the Director of Public Prosecutions will take the decisions which are required of her in consultation with the Attorney-General under whose superintendence she acts. In view of what I have answered, there is no doubt that the first part of his supplementary question should be answered in the affirmative.
With regard to the second part of his question, I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House shares the sentiments that the noble Lord expressed with respect to the fascist junta. On the other hand, this country has international obligations under the Geneva Convention with which we must comply. The purpose of the investigation is to make sure that we are complying with those obligations. Such an investigation is by no means to be considered as an adverse reflection on our armed forces. I would suggest to your Lordships that we ought to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to come to a wise decision in the light of the information with which she has been provided.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I am sure that the House will look to the right honourable and learned gentleman

1007
the Attorney-General to put the whole unfortunate investigation into proper perspective. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Government owed it to the armed forces—who, at their behest, went 8,000 miles to fight with great gallantry and overall discipline and decency—to have cleared up the whole matter a long time ago?
Finally, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, if any benefit of the doubt is to be given over any of the alleged incidents—as there is bound to be, taking into account the lapse of 12 years and the circumstances of intense battle prevailing at the time—that benefit should be accorded to those who risked their lives in the national interest?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord well knows, the evidential burden in our criminal courts gives the full benefit of the doubt to any person accused. I am absolutely certain that, in considering the matter, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General will have it very much in their minds.
As regards the first part of the noble and gallant Lord's supplementary question, I am sure that all noble Lords, and certainly I on behalf of the Government, share his sentiments with regard to the gallantry and bravery of those who went 8,000 miles to the Falklands in difficult circumstances. I am sure that we all fully appreciate everything that they did. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the investigation carries no reflection whatever on our debt to our armed forces for their tremendous work on that great occasion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say why the matter has been allowed to drag on for so long? Can he give the House some assurance that it will be brought to a conclusion quickly and that the anxiety which it is causing among individuals in the armed forces will be brought to an end?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as has already been indicated, these are matters of some complexity and the events with which they are connected occurred a long time ago. My understanding is that the police report was delivered to the Crown Prosecution Service on 29th March this year. It is a complicated document. However, I have no doubt that a decision will be reached as soon as possible, having regard to the necessity to give proper consideration to all aspects of the matter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is particularly unhelpful of the Argentine Government to have launched an investigation of their own into the matter? Will he tell us what has happened to that investigation?
Further, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, although it is right that proper legal procedures should be observed, on the evidence available the investigation should never have been started in the first place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that it would be right for me to offer any comment on the last matter raised by the noble Lord. The Director of Public
1008
Prosecutions is at present considering a detailed report. The House has already heard from me how it came about that the police were involved.
My understanding from the press reports is that a commission of inquiry was set up in Argentina. Exactly what transpired in that connection I am not certain, except that it appears from the press reports that the inquiry has now been completed.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, why was the matter given to the Metropolitan Police to deal with? Why was it not dealt with in the traditional way whereby matters of that kind arising out of active service are dealt with by the Judge Advocate General, probably leading to a court of inquiry? To give it to the Metropolitan Police seems to be an unfair burden on them, as they are not equipped to deal with that kind of matter. It is not fair on them; nor is it fair on the servicemen who deserve better than that of their country.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding is that it would not have been appropriate for the Judge Advocate General to be involved in the matter. He has advised me that that is his view. This is a question of an investigation which was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Ministry of Defence and the investigation followed from that. The Metropolitan Police were invited, on behalf of the director, to undertake the investigation. I have no doubt that all the circumstances to which the noble Lord referred will properly be taken into account in reaching a proper decision on the report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that some of his replies are less than satisfactory? On 6th December he informed the House that the decision as to whether to prosecute would be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions,
"under the superintendence of the Attorney-General".—[Official Report, 6/12/93; col. 740.]
Does that mean, or does it not, that the assent of the Attorney-General must be secured under the War Crimes Act before any prosecution is launched?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that it is not remarkable that what I said today appears to correspond pretty closely to what I said on the previous occasion. Under the War Crimes Act 1991, the consent of the Attorney-General is required. Under any possible offence that might arise from this inquiry, as I said in my original Answer, the offences are not subject to any statutory requirement for the consent of a law officer. But because the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the superintendence of the Attorney-General, her decision will be taken in consultation with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is perfectly true and correct, that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it would not be proper for him to intervene with the Director of Public Prosecutions in her consideration of the matter. However, he can be in no doubt of the general feeling expressed in most quarters of the House as to what the House thinks of the prosecution. Will the noble and learned Lord undertake

1009
to draw the attention of the director to the exchanges that have taken place today in the House and make it perfectly clear to her that this House at least wishes the matter to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in answering these questions, I am speaking on behalf of the prosecuting authorities. Certainly, the Director of Public Prosecutions pays the closest attention both to my answers and to your Lordships' questions in these exchanges. Therefore, she will be in no doubt as to your Lordships' views on the matter. I am sure that noble Lords would like her to reach her decision on the evidence which has been put before her, in accordance with the relevant law.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that we should have two more questions and then we ought to move on.
Noble Lords: Move on!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think we ought to move on.

Nuclear Power: Review
2.58 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
When their review of future nuclear power production will be completed and whether the report will be published.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government will make an announcement about the terms of reference, the timetable and the format of the nuclear review as soon as possible. The conclusions will be made available to Parliament.
Lord Jay: My Lords, would it not have been better if the Government had carried out the review into the true costs of nuclear power production before and not after they had destroyed the coal industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the two issues are not linked at all. The nuclear review was originally announced by my noble friend the Leader of the House of Lords when he was Secretary of State for Energy, and the commitment was reaffirmed when we undertook the Coal Review in 1992. The Government will not be rushed into premature announcements of this very important review. I cannot of course prejudge the terms of reference.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance that in considering the terms of reference for this review the Government will include the future of the fossil fuel levy, which the nuclear industry believes it can now do without—to the benefit of course of all electricity consumers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend puts forward a very helpful suggestion. I shall feed it in to the team that is looking at the terms of reference, which we shall of course announce as soon as possible.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when I asked him on 30th January 1994 a Question very much like the one that we have just heard, the Answer was almost word for word the same as the one he has just given? I asked him to confirm that the review would indeed look at the use to which the nuclear levy is put since it appears to us that it is being used to subsidise current operations and he very kindly offered to feed my representations in to the review procedure. Is he aware that the Sussex University study is reported today as saying that the nuclear levy is indeed being used for other things and will hardly contribute to dismantling costs? May I ask him again: is that true, or is it not?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again, these are the kinds of issues that will be looked at very carefully when the review takes place. As I said in response to an earlier question this afternoon—and indeed to previous questions that have been put on previous days—we shall have to wait for the announcement of the review before that process can take place.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in replying to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, the Minister said that coal and nuclear had no connection. But of course they have. Indeed, all forms of energy have a connection. How would it be possible for the nuclear industry to be looked at in isolation? Can the noble Lord give us an assurance that it will be looked at in the context of general energy policy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was making was that somehow this was to do with the destruction of the coal industry. It was to that that I did not believe the Question should be related. I cannot prejudge the terms of reference. But no doubt those who are looking at the terms of reference will have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, from whom do the Government take evidence in these inquiries? For example, would I be allowed to air my views?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not suppose that anybody could stop the noble Earl from making his views known. Already the Government have received a number of representations about the review from Members of both Houses and other interested parties. There will be nothing to stop the noble Earl making his views known if he has not yet done so.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the costs of dismantling and dismembering the nuclear stations are estimated to be from very expensive to frantically and impossibly expensive? Will the Minister ensure that this matter is properly fed in to the committee? Quite clearly it is a very important factor which the committee will wish to consider very fully.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot be drawn on this now, and I cannot prejudge the terms of reference.
Lord Jay: My Lords, should the review show that the true cost of nuclear power production, including decommissioning, waste disposal and interest charges, exceeds that of coal-fired stations, what will the Government do then?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that of course is purely hypothetical. We shall have to see the results of the review.

Education Funding: Tower Hamlets
3.4 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the grants for education, support and training (GEST 19) funding for parents in the primary curriculum in Tower Hamlets has been removed.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, Tower Hamlets is receiving support for expenditure of over £528,000 for 1994–95 under the GEST 19 programme for raising standards in inner city schools. That is the fourth highest share out of 27 local education authorities and accounts for some 6.6 per cent. of the total moneys available. Tower Hamlets' allocation meets in full the local education authority's bid for an increase of £177,000 over its 1993–94 allocation for reading recovery.
Baroness David: My Lords, yes, I understand that. But can the Minister say why this particular funding was removed before 31st March 1995, when the City Lit had been asked to produce a development plan for the three years from March 1992 to March 1995? Does she realise how very successful this project has been; how much both the parents and children in the Bethnal Green City Challenge area were getting; and how very disappointed they are that it has been broken before the three years are up?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Tower Hamlets bid for over £½ million for reading recovery and, as I said in my initial Answer, received that amount in full. The project that the noble Baroness talks about is very important and is working well. The sum that was bid for was £79,000. We believe that we have the priority right, and that helping young people to raise the standard of literacy in Tower Hamlets—which was their own priority—was important. But it also has to be said that the total budget for Tower Hamlets is £248 million. That is 4.35 per cent. above 1993–94—an extra £10.4 million. If Tower Hamlets believes that £79,000, as against £248 million, is the difference between continuing the project and not continuing it, I believe that it is very much a matter for the authority to deem its own priority in this area.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that 56 per cent. of the pupils in Tower Hamlets are Bangladeshi, and in many schools it is 100 per cent.; and will she take my word for it that many of those that I have met are extremely intelligent, bright,
1012
competitive and ambitious—all qualities that we need in our commerce and industry? Does she further accept the importance of investing in these children, and thereby investing in the economy of this country in the future?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in what he has just said. That is precisely why we fund Tower Hamlets at 50 per cent. more than the average for any other pupil in the rest of the whole of the country. It is precisely because of the challenges that are faced by Tower Hamlets, as set out by the noble Lord, that we do that. As I said, Tower Hamlets has received 50 per cent. more per pupil to spend on the children there; and it had a higher increase over the past year, as I said, than almost any other LEA in the country.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is a good deal of evidence on this project that not only was there improved performance on the part of the children concerned—which was very significant—but that it was making a very important contribution to improved race relations and the integration of a significant ethnic minority? For those reasons, would she feel able, together with her officials, to look at this specific scheme again to see whether it can be protected?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to say that not only is Tower Hamlets funded at a higher rate than every other local education authority in the country, but it also received the lion's share of the grants for education, support and training moneys that were available. I said that it received over £½ million for one of its bids, which was met in full. We are talking here about £79,000. If Tower Hamlets wants to continue what is an important and successful project, it would seem reasonable that out of £248 million—10.4 million more over 1993–94 and an increase of 4.35 per cent. —if it regards the project as having that high a priority and given that it has been treated more favourably than most other local authorities, it should meet that cost itself.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do hope that the Minister might consider what my noble friend suggested and have a look at this project. It is the parents who ate so involved. It is helping the families. It is helping the families, the parents and the children. Would she consider going down to have a talk with them to see in fact what they are doing?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my department has done just that, and reports back that it is a good and successful project. But money is finite. We have to consider the whole of the country, and give just as much serious consideration to the rest of the country as we do to Tower Hamlets. The work in Tower Hamlets has been considered so important that it is funded, as I said, at 50 per cent. more than most other local authorities; and it has received in full its bid for a priority that is very important—namely, to aid the reading and writing skills of young people in that authority. Again, setting

1013
£79,000 against a budget of £248 million, I believe that it would be possible for Tower Hamlets to meet that cost itself.

Coal Industry Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: 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.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 52 [Opencast operations]:
[Amendment No. 73 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 47, line 46, leave out ("31st December 1999") and insert ("Royal Assent").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in support of the Coal Liaison Group, which comprises the CBI, the Coalfield Communities Campaign, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the CLA, the Association of County Councils, RICS, the British Property Federation, the Association of British Insurers, the Law Society and the NFU. Of those organisations I am a member of just one. I mention them to emphasise that the amendment is not just a concern of landowners.
So far as the layman is concerned, compulsory rights orders, which this amendment addresses, to all intents and purposes are compulsory purchase orders. In my opinion, they should not be used in a free society unless very clear and valid reasons can be given for having them. I hope to persuade the Committee that they should not be given in this Bill for a number of reasons.
First, we have an abundance of coal for our needs. Coal competes with other fuels, such as gas, and should be treated similarly. Secondly, compulsory rights orders will only compensate for economic loss and not for loss of amenity. Imagine losing your garden ! Thirdly, it is illogical to have a CRO for the interim period up to 1999, as the Government propose in the Bill, when that does not apply to other minerals and fuels. I should have thought that it would be much more sensible for them all to be treated equally now rather than for coal to be a one-off until 1999. Anyway, the Government have said that CROs are not justified in the long run and so, I think I am right in saying, did the Labour Government when they were imposed in 1958 and 1975.
It is far from right for one private person or an organisation, just because it is a coal company, to be able to threaten another private person or persons with a CRO and so obtain more favourable terms. That does not seem to me to be a very level playing field. Indeed, the coal developer might well be forced to go for a CRO to obtain a better deal as a duty to his shareholders.
1014
Worse still, private owners will be at a similar disadvantage when negotiating satisfactory terms, particularly perhaps for future liabilities, which is a matter that the Committee has discussed at length.
The amendment proposes that, as from Royal Assent, all negotiations between owners and coal operators should be freely negotiated between the parties, as for all minerals and other fuels under the 1966 Act. I must remind the Committee that it allows a coal developer, if the owner proves obstructive, to obtain a right to mine by applying to the courts.
For the moment I conclude because I am anxious to hear the views of the Committee and of my noble friend. But I cannot help reminding the Committee that this Government have always been in favour of free negotiation between parties—witness, for instance, in my own field, the Government's desire to have just that for agricultural tenancies. Yet in this Bill, by prolonging CROs, they are doing exactly the opposite. Talk about giving a bad example! I beg to move.
Earl Peel: In putting my name to the amendment, I very much support my noble friend. It seems to me quite clear that it is far from satisfactory to have conditions in the Bill allowing licensed operators to gain access to land through compulsory powers.
I should like to raise another point. The provision seems to grate against the principle, for which this Government stand and which I very much support, of operating a free market wherever possible. It seems to me quite wrong that one private operator should be disadvantaged in negotiations with another private operator through legislation. It seems equally wrong that a private landowner should be disadvantaged to the benefit of shareholders in newly formed privatised companies.
There is here a principle which worries me. I read with very great concern what the Country Landowners' Association wrote about the Bill. It said:
"The Coal Industry Bill is yet another example of a Conservative government confiscating the rights of private individuals".
I find that a very sad and worrying statement. I am sure that the Government should heed and take notice of it. There is little doubt that there is a feeling that there has been what I can only describe as an insidious move to undermine basic property rights by a government that I support and, quite frankly, would not expect to move in that direction.
When I consider the effects of compulsory rights orders and note that it is the intention that they should continue for five years after the passage of the Bill, it strikes me—I suspect that it strikes others as well—that perhaps the Government do not have the confidence in the licensed operators to make a success of their businesses. If that is the case, it has other ramifications with regard to the Bill —the question of environmental duties, for a start.
If the Government believe that the licensed operators may struggle, they should not attempt to subsidise them at the expense of owners of land and farm businesses. It should be done in a up-front manner which all can see and not through what I see as some form of back-door subsidy. This amendment would stop the compulsory

1015
transfer of rights in land to the private licensed operator and would ensure that the owner of the land could negotiate on equal terms, thus allowing the full development value to be taken into account and not simply existing use value. The amendment seems to me to be quite fair. I support it very warmly.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I speak as a member of the CLA and as a landowner who, at one time in history, on both sides of my family benefited very much from the coal industry. I believe that I have coal in places under my estate in Shropshire but it is not of a commercial nature.
Once again I come to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the matter of the infringement of property rights of landowners by a Government which seem to take the elementary view that, whenever they have a difficulty, there are more voters who are not landowners than voters who are landowners. Therefore they take the easy way out. It is as though they have taken literally that old army story that when you were sent abroad as a young officer you needed to know two phrases in the foreign language of the appropriate country. One was, "Bring me all your prettiest girls", and the other was, "My friend will pay".
Perhaps that view is one of the reasons that the Government insist on kicking landowners incessantly in the teeth. Another is the feeling that when planning permission is given for a landowner to exploit his property, for some reason or another the increased value which arises from it belongs in one way or other to the community. That was the principle which led to the land betterment levy. I suspect that if the Government insist on this measure there will be a massive resistance to planning permission ever being given for future exploitation of the ground for opencast mining of coal. After all, there is an absolute plethora of organisations in this country where one can obtain advice on resisting applications for planning permission. If that fails, there is always Europe.
The coal industry may well find itself in severe difficulties in trying to expand its business before 1999 whereas in a free market, as landowners, we are all prepared to tolerate the inconvenience of sandpits, gravel pits and so forth which make an intrusion into our landscape. We do so because it produces the money by which we are able to make our property survive. I therefore strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley.
Lord Gisborough: I too support the amendment. The present regime was introduced in 1958. The CRO regime was introduced in 1975 due to the energy crisis without which it would probably not have been retained. Conditions are now totally different. There is plenty of coal and no energy crisis. There is therefore no justification for the measure. I support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: Will the Minister kindly respond to a question I raised last Thursday? It may be the only opportunity before Report. The Minister may recall that I asked where one proceeds when one has been unable,
1016
after exhaustive inquiries, to identify the owner of the minerals below the surface of the land. If the minerals are coal there is no problem.
As a solicitor in South Wales I experience immense difficulties from time to time in identifying the owners of minerals other than coal. I mentioned earlier in Committee that in the 19th century, when the surface of the land was sold off by the large settled estates—Beaufort, Tredegar and others—they always reserved to themselves the right to gain the minerals other than coal. But from time to time the question arises as to who is today, in 1994, the owner of those minerals.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with that question. Whether it comes within the orbit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I am not sure. However, I did not receive a reply on Thursday and I am anxious to clear up the matter once and for all. I have known cases of urgency where, as solicitors, we have tried to establish the ownership of the minerals other than coal. We found that it could be devolved over 100 years to property companies and pension funds. However, to find out who is the precise owner today is extremely difficult. I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer my question.
The Earl of Lytton: As my name stands to the amendment I too express my support for it. The case outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is one that requires an answer. Of the bodies he referred to I can claim an involvement with three, so my card is duly marked. But the real problem is the long-term nature —running until 1999—of the uncertainties that attend these rights to compulsorily take the land of another. I agree that it is wrong for a private proprietor or company to have such rights where there is no overriding strategic national need. That point needs to be answered.
Beyond that, I remember distinctly when we were discussing the Planning and Compensation Bill that we amended the provisions so that there was no continual running on of compulsory rights in favour of local and other authorities. It fits ill with the principle in the Bill that we foreshortened the principles in that instance by indicating that if they had not been implemented they would lapse. Here, we have a situation where the rights apparently run on with great detriment to the weaker party, which is inevitably the party against whom compulsion will be exercised.
I feel that it is economically destabilising. We should look not so much on matters of ownership and rights of owners, but to those who made the investment in the land; those who had the duty placed on them with regard to its well-being and the business operation being carried on, often running back over centuries. That must be weighed in the balance with regard to the transfer of the rights. I support the amendment most strongly.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on these Benches find ourselves in sympathy with the amendment. Although the Bill will enable both deep-mine and opencast coal extraction to be licensed, it is the opencast sector that seems to receive the greatest assistance. The limit of 250,000 tonnes is to be lifted —and we shall return to that. The powers to make

1017
compulsory rights and other ancillary orders under the Opencast Coal Act 1958 are to remain until the end of 1999. Clearly, that is where the Government expect to make most profit from privatisation. The views of those unfortunate enough to live on or to own property neighbouring opencast sites seem to count for very little in comparison. I am reminded of the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, when he said at Second Reading,
"So far as one can see, the only real reason for it is that it enables some people to get rich more quickly. In itself, that does not seem to be a sufficient reason for maintaining something that is so hurtful to so many people while it is happening and indeed afterwards".—[Official Report, 11/4/94; col. 1316.1
That is true also in the context of this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to cancel the power to secure rights in land by compulsion for transfer to private sector mining companies. As we have been reminded, CROs were introduced during the 1970s in effect as a result of the oil crisis. In the post-privatisation climate of the 1990s they surely have no place. All such rights, by the Government's ideology and by simple natural justice, should be secured by negotiation in the open market of the new regime. We strongly support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate, particularly as so many of my noble friends used forceful language in favour of the amendment. I am grateful for the case made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. If matters were as simple as he made out, I would largely agree with him. However, they are not that simple; I do not entirely agree with him and I shall explain why.
I suspect that my noble friend was using a certain amount of poetic licence when he said that one's garden could be taken away. It is my understanding that it would be extremely difficult for a garden to be taken away if next to a dwelling house, as I dare say most gardens are. However, as I said, I suspect that my noble friend was using poetic licence.
What was not poetic licence, though, was the way my noble friend used the language of the CLA, an organisation which I have always respected for the careful way it does its research. However, this time it has fallen below the standards for which I have always held it in high regard. It has had numerous meetings with the Minister for Energy. Indeed, I have made an offer to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to meet the CLA with him. It is not true that this is about private individuals confiscating land. That is to put a gloss on the whole subject that is ridiculous and not true. What we are dealing with are quite technical and complicated operations which I should now like to explain.
Under the Opencast Coal Act 1958, British Coal may at present make an order, known as a compulsory rights order (or CRO), which gives it the power to enter onto land and carry out opencast operations. The effect of Clause 52 of the Bill would be to carry those powers forward for a transitional period of five years. As well as extracting coal, the CRO gives an operator the right to carry out activities incidental to coal extraction, such as
1018
land restoration. CROs only have an effect if confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment—or the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Wales, as appropriate. I should stress that a CRO in no way overrides the need for planning permission. A Secretary of State may only confirm a CRO if planning permission has been granted.
The availability of compulsory rights to land is not a special privilege of opencast coal operators. Any mineral operator, including a person extracting oil, gas, sand or gravel as well as coal, can apply to the High Court for compulsory rights under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts. The High Court may grant compulsory rights if it concludes that it would be expedient in the national interest to do so.
The principle of compulsory rights therefore is well established. What is at issue—here I agree entirely with my noble friends—is the procedures that should be followed and, crucially, the safeguards that should be in place when an operator seeks compulsory rights to land. British Coal has used CROs as powers of last resort, and the Government are determined that they should continue to be used in this way—as powers of last resort. To achieve this, we are adding extra safeguards to the CRO regime.
During the transitional period, the responsibility for making the orders will fall on the Coal Authority. In practice, we intend that the authority should not make a compulsory rights order or any of the ancillary orders unless it is satisfied that the applicant has made all reasonable efforts to secure the rights by agreement. But that has not been possible for one of three reasons: first, that the owners of the land are too numerous or cannot be identified; secondly, that the owners do not have the authority to negotiate access to the land—for example, if their title to the land is defective or partial; thirdly, that the owners have unreasonably refused to negotiate, or sought unreasonable terms. To come into force, the CRO must be confirmed, as I have said, by the Secretary of State. My right honourable friends will only confirm a CRO if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. In determining whether to confirm a CRO, they will have to have regard to any representations received from the land owner.
The private operators, unlike British Coal, will not themselves have the power to make CROs. They will have to apply to the Coal Authority, which it is intended will agree to making a CRO only if the operator has made every reasonable effort to obtain access by negotiation; and then the CRO cannot come into effect until it has been confirmed by the relevant Secretary of State. Furthermore, a CRO is not a compulsory purchase power. Its duration will depend on the time that is expected to be necessary to extract the coal and restore the site, which I understand on average is between five and seven years in the United Kingdom. Once working at an opencast is complete, the site will be returned to the previous occupier. The operator will be obliged, under the terms of his planning consent, to carry out appropriate restoration and aftercare. That will be enforced by planning authorities in the usual way.
In addition, the landowner may call upon the wide-ranging compensation code of the 1958 Act.

1019
While a CRO is in force, the landowner and tenant are entitled to compensation for any rent or profits forgone from the use to which they were putting the land. If any works are required to bring the land back to its previous condition once working has ceased, the landowner may claim any reasonable expenses from the operator. If the land in question has fallen in value as a result, or indeed any neighbouring land owned by the same person, the landowner can again claim compensation. This debate is not really about compensation because we shall come onto compensation later this afternoon. I hope it has not escaped the notice of my noble friends that I have put down amendments which greatly enhance the compensation regime vis-à-vis other minerals.
Perhaps I may turn to the issue of five years. My noble friend Lord Stanley said it was illogical to keep the powers until 1999. I agree with him up to a point. We accept that it would not be acceptable for the opencast industry to have access to special powers that are not themselves available to other mineral operators. The Minister for Energy announced on 2nd December a review of the compulsory access provisions of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts. We intend that the outcome of the review should be a common set of procedures which can apply to all minerals. That is the key. It is an issue which affects many interests, including those of landowners, farmers, tenants and the very diverse minerals industries. That is why we need the five-year transitional period. Of course, the date is a drop-dead date, which means that if the Government have not come forward with changes by 1999, the powers fall completely. We believe the powers for other minerals and the powers for coal should be the same once we have come to a view after we have had the consultation process.
As I have described, we shall expect CROs to be powers of last resort. The new safeguards will help to ensure that that is the case. I am satisfied that what remains is the absolute minimum necessary to prevent serious disruption for the industry in the meantime. While we shall expect opencast operators to make every effort to obtain access to surface land by negotiation, there may be times when the owner of the land is unable or unwilling to grant it, or seeks unreasonable terms. In those circumstances, and if it is felt to be in the public interest, the option of compulsory access must remain open.
Furthermore, I believe that it is necessary to preserve during the five-year transitional period the modified CRO regime that is set out in Clause 52 and Schedule 8 to the Bill. CRO procedures have been modified over the years to take account of the development of the planning system. The two sets of procedures now mesh very effectively. The general mineral procedures of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts, by contrast, are widely felt to be time-consuming and burdensome. We are reviewing those procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about identifying the owners of minerals other than coal. I agree that this can occasionally cause difficulty. As the noble Lord said, those will normally belong to the surface owner unless ownership has been transferred at some time in the past. As a practical matter, if it is
1020
difficult to establish ownership the 1958 Act requires that notices be affixed on the land; and if there are any owners who have not been identified, they can then come forward. What happens if they do not come forward, I am not entirely certain. Perhaps I may look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for that information. The problem arises where the owner has good reasons for not identifying himself.
Lord Strathclyde: As I said, I shall look further into the question. In his opening statement my noble friend Lord Peel said many things which are very important, but he said one thing which is particularly important. He said that it came as a surprise that the Government believed in operating in a free market wherever possible. The key to that sentence is "wherever possible". We believe in operating a free market, but there may be limited occasions when we must have the right checks and balances to allow a compulsory rights order to go forward. I hope that my noble friends accept that point.
It came as a great surprise to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, say that he believed in a free market and compensation at a free market price, because for decades successive Labour governments have nationalised people's belongings, with hardly any compensation whatever. I believe I am right in saying that they were even taken to the European. Court to make sure that money was paid over.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Would the Minister like to tell the Committee which industries were nationalised by a Labour government where no compensation at all was paid?
Lord Strathclyde: If I said "no compensation" then I apologise. There was very little compensation. I certainly do not believe that that compensation was made at the true market value, which was the impression the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was trying to give. If I were my noble friends receiving the support of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I would wish to consider my position again very carefully.
I know that I have taken some time in explaining this situation. I wanted to place on record exactly the position concerning the CROs. It is a very important issue to get right. I believe that the checks and balances that are in place are appropriate to ensure that we have a regime with the lightest possible touch.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, says what he wants to about his amendment, perhaps the Minister could clarify two or three points. I think I heard him say that from now on only the Coal Authority could apply for CROs. Can the Minister confirm that he said that and that, if the licensee wished to engage in opencast mining, the procedure would have to be via the Coal Authority and therefore the Coal Authority itself could say that it would not do it? Can the Minister explain that further to us?
I partly agree with the argument that, in a world with an excess supply of energy and with certainly no sign of energy becoming very scarce again, rules that applied in

1021
the past may well not apply to the present or in the future. What intrigued me is why the Government chose five years. What analysis did they carry out in order to say that the appropriate interim period was five years? The Minister has simply told us that it had to be a number greater than nought. It could as well be five minutes. Can the Minister say why five years represents the right interim period? I would like to know the answer to that.
Lord Strathclyde: I can confirm to the noble Lord that he is right; namely, that it is the Coal Authority which will agree to make a CRO, but will only do so once certain conditions have been met. It is not the private mining company itself that has the CRO up its sleeve. That is why I believe that it is a longstop reserve power which is important. The noble Lord also asked about the period of five years. There is no very good reason for that period, nor is there a very bad reason for five years; it is just five years. It seemed like a reasonable length of time when the Bill was being drafted, given that we are reviewing the situation and consulting with the industry to see what kind of regime should exist. If we come forward with proposals before five years, the regime under the Bill will be replaced. Five years is the longest possible time that these powers can remain in place.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord has indicated the ways and the care with which the CROs will be agreed by the Coal Authority. But an important aspect is how the opencast mining operation is conducted, whether with the benefit of a CRO or not. I need hardly remind the noble Lord that, under the National Coal Board and British Coal, opencast mining was subject to very careful rules and regulations. All the contractors were bound to observe those rules—that is to say, during the course of the opencast mining operation they had to have care to minimise the impact on the local community and restoration had to be up to the optimum standard. Is the Minister satisfied that in this Bill, when opencast mining operations occur for whatever reason, it will be up to those very high standards?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord himself pointed out that that situation applies whether or not there is a CRO. In that respect the CROs do not have power to impose those kind of provisions. They are imposed by planning permission. I join with the noble Lord when he says that these are measures which have been carried out extremely well by British Coal. I would expect planning authorities to impose the same conditions on future mining companies as they currently do on British Coal.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Members on this side of the Committee will be very pleased to hear that in his words this afternoon the Minister has effectively given approval to the principles and practices of nationalisation by the use CROs, or their equivalent, in the national interest. We can all accept that and the fact that the
1022
relevant Minister is the custodian of those rules. I shall be interested to know how the Minister will inform himself of that national interest.
In his remarks the Minister mentioned that, while the relevant Minister effectively would have to give approval for CROs, the landowners could make representations to the Minister. I am not sure how landowners could advise the Minister about the national interest. I can think of other bodies, organisations and people who could very effectively advise the Minister of the national interest. I am thinking in terms of academics, people with specialist knowledge and local authorities. Obviously, information to determine the national interest would have to be given in public so that everyone could see it. Therefore it would be amenable to the whole democratic process and also inform the process of democracy.
Can the Minister confirm that that will be the practice of the relevant Ministers when they try to determine the national interest vis-à-vis CROs; namely, that effectively there will be something like a public inquiry to take evidence from bodies such as local authorities?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is being silly when he compares what I said with any belief in nationalisation. It should be completely clear to him—it certainly is to his noble friends—that I am not a believer in anything like that.
As regards the public interest, it is intended that the relevant Secretary of State will confirm a CRO only when he is absolutely satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. In taking that decision, he will consider in every individual case whether or not there is broad public interest in allowing the coal to be worked which is sufficient to override the normal rights of a landowner to withhold consent for the development of his land. In other words, if the site were to go ahead, he will consider what benefits there will be for the public at large and not only for the opencast operator.
The decision to confirm a CRO is not one which any Secretary of State could take lightly. He would invite representations from all the interested parties and perhaps even from the academics whom the noble Lord mentioned. The decision could be taken only in the light of careful consideration of any representation which might be made in response.
Earl Peel: I wonder whether I may correct something that my noble friend said earlier. I think I am right in saying that when I quoted the press statement from the Country Landowners' Association my noble friend thought that I said that the CLA was accusing the Government of confiscating land. That is not the case and that is not what I said. What the CLA actually said was that this was another example of the confiscation of rights—a rather different thing. What we are taking about is the right to free negotiation. I am bound to say that from what I have heard from my noble friend I do not think that he has said anything to allay my fears on this matter. My noble friend quoted other mineral operators, but I do not think that that is any excuse. There is no national need—that case has been made on both sides of the Committee—and if there is no national need, it seems clear that the negotiations should take

1023
place above board, freely and openly, and subject to market conditions. I am very surprised and disappointed at what my noble friend has said.
Lord Strathclyde: I think I probably misheard my noble friend. I accept that he was talking about the removal of rights. However, it is only a question of the removal of rights after the system of free negotiation has broken down and the Secretary of State feels that it is in the public interest to confirm a compulsory rights order. What I had sought to indicate during my reply was that those powers would be used only in the most extreme cases. If those rights are removed, can my noble friend justify a position where one very small landowner (among a number of other landowners who have all agreed to sell their land to a coal operator) should be able to stop the whole development, which could well be in the public interest—indeed, in the national interest —and provide many jobs? That is what my noble friend has to justify. It is that kind of decision that the Secretary of State will take into account (and the Coal Authority will take into account) when he makes his decision. I have tried to make the point that we are talking about long-stop powers. They are not for everyday use. They are not threatening powers. They are to be used right at the very end of a very long process.
Earl Peel: Even if they are long-stop powers, we cannot get away from the fact that they exist. They are hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles and they will always have an effect on the ability of a private landowner to operate freely in such conditions. On the point about a landowner who may be obstructive and trying to prevent such a development taking place, I believe that that is his prerogative and that the negotiations must take place accordingly. That is what the free market is all about and that is what I believe we should have in this case.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Will the Minister accept from me that some of us are getting tired of hearing appeals from landowners? Is it not about time that some of the landowners began to look again at the question of the rights of landowners to examine how they acquired those rights and whether they should still have them?
Lord Prys-Davies: Further to the very valid point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, can the Minister give us further enlightenment? When an application is submitted to the Secretary of State for his decision, will notice be given to members of the public in the locality of the fact that the application is before the Secretary of State, and will they be invited to send representations to the Secretary of State?
Lord Strathclyde: Much will depend on what happened during the planning permission process, which, as the noble Lord knows, takes fully into account the needs and requirements of the local area, which is dealt with by the local authority and to which individuals can make their representations.
Lord Prys-Davies: But in reply to my noble friend, the Minister said that academics and others would be
1024
entitled to make their representations to the Secretary of State. How will the academics know when the matter is before the Secretary of State?
Lord Strathclyde: Once planning permission had been given, I am sure that it would become well known that a landowner presumably did not want to sell his land to a mining operator. I am sure that a recalcitrant landowner would make that absolutely plain. It is up to the Secretary of State to make sure that he hears the right representations. I can assure the noble Lord that all the Secretaries of State I have ever known take their responsibilities very seriously.
Lord Monkswell: There is a bit of difficulty here in that the Minister is talking about planning permission which, as I am sure he will know, is completely separate from the business of commercial undertakings. In fact, I do not think that the commercial nature of an operation can be taken into account under planning law. In addition, the ownership of land or property is not taken into account in determining planning applications. They are two separate elements in the determination of what goes on. Therefore, it is not strictly true to say that everything will be sorted out by the planning application and that everyone who has an interest will be advised. I should be happy if the Minister could assure the Committee that where a CRO is being contemplated, the public at large will be advised and will be asked to make any representations that they need to make on the basis of the CRO rather than on the planning application.
Lord Strathclyde: The public at large are notified and their views are taken during the planning process, as the noble Lord well knows.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am sure that the Minister is being as helpful as he can be, but in reply to my question he said that he was sure that the Secretary of State would listen to the right representations. Can the Minister give us an indication of the kind of representations that are included within the category of "right" representations and what representations fall within the category of "wrong" representations?
Lord Strathclyde: I feel that I have gone over this at some length already. There are two quite distinct issues. One is the question of the planning permission and the other is the question of the CRO. I said that when a Secretary of State confirmed a CRO he would necessarily invite representations from all interested parties. The decision could be taken only in the light of careful consideration of any representations which might be made in response. If that is not clear, I really do not know what is.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I must try to address a number of points. The first is that this question does not apply only to large landowners, as was intimated. A small householder, smallholder or anybody could be affected. Perhaps I may put on record that I am not a landowner—or rather of only about 20 acres. Secondly, my noble friend the Minister replied to my noble friend Lord Peel about the CRO being used only in extreme

1025
cases and said that there could be one awkward smallholder among a number. The 1966 Act would deal with that.
I really think that my noble friend has a fairly weak case. All that he can accuse me of—I am sure that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will excuse me of this—is using poetic language. The reason why I made that case was that a compulsory rights order does not compensate fully for amenity rights, and it seems to me that a garden is as good an amenity area as any other.
I come now to the difficulty of obtaining a CRO, of which my noble friend made great play. He said that it was enormously difficult, but it is not. My noble friend must know as well as I do how one gets a CRO, but if I recite the process it might also answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Someone can get a CRO where the owners of the land are numerous or cannot be identified. That is one way. Someone can get a CRO if the owners do not have the power to grant the rights sought. Lastly, someone can get a CRO where the owners have unreasonably refused to negotiate or have sought unreasonable terms. I do not know—no Member of the Committee knows—the meaning of "reasonable" or "unreasonable". We have argued that many times since I became a Member of your Lordships' House.
Finally, there are other reasons which make it easier to obtain an order. I have to say that nothing in the Opencast Coal Act has been changed. With regard to CROs, the Act refers to,
"facilitating the working of coal by opencast operations".
I take that to mean that when the Minister is asked whether he is going to grant a CRO, there is a bias in favour, because he has to facilitate. We have had similar arguments about bias in respect of the regulator in other privatisation Bills. I see the noble Lord, Lord Williams, nodding. The order is not difficult to obtain, and it will not be, as I tried to say earlier, a power of last resort. It will be cheaper to obtain a CRO. The shareholders may well drive the company to obtain a CRO because then it will not have to compensate so much.
I agree with a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Hamilton. At the back of my mind, I feel that there is an element of greed involved. The Government will be able to obtain a better price for the piece of land. I am therefore suspicious. I thought that the Conservative Party was in favour of free negotiation. I can help the noble Lord, Lord Morris, although I am sure he does not want any help. He said that he understood that that was what the Government stood for. Like me, he was rather surprised that they had suddenly changed.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the national interest and public interest. That is an issue at which we must look carefully, perhaps at a later stage, or we must have a better description of what is in the public interest. I am worried about that point. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why the period should be five years. He did not receive an answer. If I were to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that it should be five minutes, he might give me a good reason as to why it should not be five minutes. However, he did not give the noble Lord a good reason as to why it should be five years. I
1026
see my noble friend nodding and smiling. I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. British Coal's responsibility was great, and it had a great reputation. The worry in everyone's mind is that when one has a private individual—I fall into that category—I am out there to get what I can at the cheapest price. That is what I am driven by. I am selfish. I am sure that we are all selfish. That is what worries me when particular rights are given.
I promised my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend the Chief Whip that I would take nothing to a Division at this stage, not least because I wanted to listen to and think about what my noble friend the Minister had to say. If he wishes to take the amendment to a Division, I am content to let him try—perhaps he is happy to do that—bearing in mind the feeling of the Committee. However, I believe that it would be better if we waited and tried to hammer out something between us.
I have to say that if I am to reach a compromise, it must be a compromise in my favour. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has done that in court. I should be forced to insist upon that by the support that I have received from the Committee. I am a fair person, but I shall be forced to go for a hard compromise because of the support I have received from my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, in order to reach some agreement. Meanwhile, out of the kindness of my heart, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
[Amendment Nos. 76 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments of the Opencast Coal Act 1958]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 117, line 4, at end insert ("for the purposes of extracting coal, other minerals and for restoring the land but for no other purpose.".").
The noble Lord said: Once again I have to tell my noble friend the Minister that had he been wise enough to accept my amendment on CROs, the amendments in my name to Schedule 8, starting with this one, would have been less necessary. But while the Committee considers between now and Report stage what to do about CROs, I feel obliged to move my amendment to Schedule 8. If the Government are determined to resist it, so be it.
The amendment restricts the ability of the Coal Authority and the Secretary of State to extend compulsory rights to the import of material from outside the site to fill up the hole made by the extraction of coal. I am not against such an action; far from it. Of course, we want restitution, but if that action makes the site more valuable at the expense of one private party—we are back on the same thing—as against another private party, using compulsory powers, that cannot be just and is against, if I may say so, Tory party philosophy. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 77A, grouped with Amendment No. 77, the purpose of which is to prevent rights of compulsory acquisition being abused for purposes which are not connected with mining operations. It is a probing amendment to inquire of the Minister in what circumstances an operator might use compulsory acquisition powers for rights and operations which are purely incidental to mining operations and at a time when mining operations are not authorised. The times when that might be a useful right are, I suppose, in the preparation for mining activities, before a licence commences, and in restoration after the licence has ceased. But the subsection leaves open the possibility of an abuse of those rights at other times and for other activities. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that possibility.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that I can be helpful to my noble friend who knows that I always try hard to be so. I recognise the concerns behind the amendments. The problems have been raised with the Government by the CLA. Concern has been expressed about a situation in which a planning authority may ask an opencast operator to dispose of an adjacent coal tip into the void of his opencast site. At present, it is likely, depending on the circumstances, that that could be done within the scope of a CRO. Amendment No. 77 is designed to prevent any CRO authorising any such use of the land subject to the order.
The movement, storage and eventual disposal of large quantities of materials, either minerals or mine wastes, is of course central to the whole working of any opencast site. It might be necessary in some cases to move existing coal tips in order to get at underlying coal. It will commonly be necessary to build up what are pretty much new coal tips in the process of working the site, the contents of which will eventually be returned to some part of the overall excavation, although not necessarily exactly the same part of the site as that from which they came. It is perhaps stating the obvious to say that the extraction of the coal from an opencast site creates a void which must be filled somehow.
In the majority of cases the landowner will want to negotiate with the operator the extent to which such activity may be carried out. But if the case is such that a CRO has to be made, I do not see any reason to exclude the kind of situation that I have described. It seems to me that using opencast developments in such a way to bring about clearance of dereliction has definite advantages for the locality. It seems a very natural way, if the circumstances are suitable, to link a new development with what may have been a long-standing eyesore.
I now turn to Amendment No. 77A. The amendment would remove the proposed Section 4(1B) (b) of the 1958 Act. As it currently stands under the Bill, Section 4 provides that the Coal Authority may grant a CRO to a licensed operator. A CRO may be used for coal mining operations, as defined in Clause 63 of the Bill, or for any activities incidental to coal mining operations.
The reason for including incidental activities within the permitted scope of a CRO is that in order to carry out
1028
opencasting at a site an operator must carry cut a range of activities. Some of these will involve winning and working coal and will therefore be included in the definition of "coal mining operations". Others, while essential to the operation of the site, will not. The Government see it as desirable that an operator should have the flexibility to carry out these other activities under the CRO. I recognise the probing element of the amendment, but if it were to be accepted an operator would not be permitted to restore the site after he had finished extracting coal.
My noble friend's amendment would forbid a normal and wholly justifiable practice in the opencast industry. I hope that he understands why I say that, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will not move his amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My noble friend presented a vision of turning a coal tip into an opencast site in order to get rid of it. Would not that be a matter for the planning authority before it reached the Coal Authority? In an open market the issue would be one for the planners and the price would be determined in open market negotiations according to how much planning gain was attached to the planning consent.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is right. The situation that he mentioned could well be the case.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am not against making eyesores better. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that has been done extremely well by British Coal. As it became more experienced, the job was done even better. I am anxious that that should continue and to that extent my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and I are on the same side. If he is right, or entirely right, I shall concede the point and I shall not come back to it at the next stage. I shall reserve the right to look at what he said with a sympathetic eye and I might come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendrnent.
Amendment, by leave, 'withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77A not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 117, line 29, at end insert:
("(4) After section 4 there shall be inserted—
Basis of payment.
4A. The owner of arty interest in the land which is included in a compulsory rights order shall be entitled to payment on the basis of either—

(i) the consideration in respect of the exercise of the rights granted by the compulsory rights order as would have been fair and reasonable if the agreement had been made between a willing grantor and a willing grantee, or

(ii) the compensation assessed in accordance with sections 17 to 23 of this Act,

whichever is the higher."").
The noble Lord said: Once again, this amendment is necessary because of the compulsory element that is introduced by CROs. I am getting bored with repeating that but I must do so. I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that his Amendment, No. 79A, does not do what my amendment seeks to do. Therefore, I must give the Committee the reason for tabling my amendment.
Amendment No. 78 is essential in order to preserve the interests of all parties if compulsory rights orders remain. It provides the landowner or occupier with the ability to receive the higher rate of payment in line either with payments agreed between winning parties on the open market or with a payment to cover his direct losses. He cannot receive more than the right is worth, having regard to the open market settlements, unless it is so damaging to him that he incurs a greater extent loss.
In order to negotiate access with owners, British Coal has consistently paid more than the sums provided in the Act. Indeed, it leaves its offer open on the table to be accepted at any time, even after it has embarked on a CRO process. That has meant that few CROs have been exercised, although the process was initiated in respect of about one-third of the sites opened up between 1975 and 1991.
The Bill also gives smaller operators access to CROs for the first time. To date they have secured access through negotiation to operate licences up to £250,000. I understand that that has worked perfectly well. If CROs are to remain, the compensation formula must allow an owner who is subject to compulsion to be paid on a basis that is no worse than his neighbour's. For many reasons, the owner may be objecting to an opencast scheme. Concern for the local environment is a major factor, and I believe that it would be wrong for him to be penalised.
I conclude by reminding my noble friend that he has told the Committee that the main reason for the continuance of CROs is that it is the present practice of British Coal and so should be continued. As I have said already, I do not believe that is a good reason. This amendment does just that; it continues the present practice. On that basis, I cannot see how the Government can object to my amendment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am afraid that Amendment No. 79A does not satisfy me. I have nothing to add in respect of Amendment No. 80A. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We firmly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. We agree that although the Government's amendments are a move in the right direction, they do not go far enough. This part of the Bill has the effect of making the legal position easier than expected, and easier than heretofore, for potential bidders of opencast sites. Why did the Government find it necessary to do that? Why is the path being so smoothed for these potential bidders? Could it be that without such favourable terms, without such cast-iron assurances and being aware of the utterly unquantifiable nature of the liabilities which they would be required to take up, the number of such applicants might be embarrassingly small?
Earl Peel: I entirely agree with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I understand that smaller operators have operated for some time without the use
1030
of CROs. In many cases they have been successful. Why therefore suddenly do we have to have CROs being given to them in addition to other operators? It does not make sense.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 78 deals with Schedule 8 to the Bill, which amends the Opencast Coal Act 1958. These amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos. 79A, 80A and 80B, which stand in my name and also deal with the issue of compensation.
The 1958 Act provides British Coal with access to compulsory powers, where required, to take over land temporarily for opencasting of coal. The Government have begun a review of the general compulsory access procedures for all minerals. That was the point that I made in respect of Amendment No. 74.
Our intention is to preserve the power only for a transitional period. All existing entitlements to compensation of landowners and tenants will be retained. These are extensive. They cover any loss of income or profit from the land covered by a CRO; any reduction in the value of the land once opencasting has finished; and a wide range of disturbance payments.
My noble friend asked why we must preserve these powers as the coal industry goes into the private sector, whereas at present small licensed mining companies do not need them. The point is that, ideally, we should like to have the same regime for all minerals, including coal. We cannot have that because the existing regime for other minerals is flawed. We are consulting on that so that when we have come to a view we can have the same regime covering everyone. That is why we have the transitional period of five years. However, I shall be surprised if we need to use the full five-year period.
I do not believe that it would be sensible to prejudge the outcome of the review which is currently in train. Consultation is taking place with all the various bodies, and of course we shall be consulting the CLA, the NFU and dozens of other representative bodies.
I have some immediate sympathy with the argument that there should be some compensation for other minerals. That is why I tabled my Amendment No. 79A. I have the impression that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is not in favour of that amendment. I am quite happy to withdraw it but I thought that it would be of great benefit to many of my noble friends.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: It is not that I am against it. But it does not go as far as I would wish it to go. I am waiting to hear an explanation from my noble friend as to why his amendment is such a good amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 78 because it addresses the root issue of the compensation payable when a CRO is made. It proposes that compensation should be determined on the basis of what might be agreed between a willing grantor and a willing grantee.
My concern is that this would constitute a fundamental change to the Opencast Coal Act 1958. As I said, that is being addressed in the review that is currently under way and I do not want to prejudge that review.

1031
I also see practical difficulties with the amendment. I recognise that there are precedents for the use of the willing grantor/willing grantee test. However, there are few cases which have been determined by the courts under those precedents and it is far from obvious how those criteria would be interpreted in individual cases. I am concerned that that would lead to quite significant uncertainty within the industry about the exact basis for compensation when a CRO is made. I cannot believe that that would be in the interests of either my noble friend or the wider mining industry.
As regards Amendment No. 80, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy and I have listened carefully to the anxieties raised by the CLA on the issue of other minerals and, therefore, I have tabled amendments, which I am about to explain.
Amendment No. 79A deals with a feature of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 which has been argued—I believe rightly—to be unfair.
A compulsory rights order under the 1958 Act entitles an operator to extract any other minerals that are worked at the same time as the coal and provides that those minerals shall become his property. If the owner of the minerals is not an established minerals operator, he currently receives no consideration of their value, although he may receive terminal compensation if the freehold value of his land decreases as a result of the extraction of the minerals.
I should stress that the value of those minerals is usually quite low. The minerals most commonly extracted in any quantity together with opencast coal are sand, gravel and clay. In many cases, the coal operator may not consider it worth his while to find a market for them. Nevertheless, I accept the principle that the owner of the minerals should be entitled to compensation.
The effect of Amendment No. 79A would be to create a new entitlement to compensation. When any such minerals are worked, the owner would be entitled to compensation from the operator of an amount equal to one eighth—or 12.5 per cent.—of their market value. I am advised that that figure is consistent with the level of compensation that is generally paid in those cases where working rights agreements are negotiated. Amendment No. 80A provides that that compensation shall fall due at the end of the year during which the right in question was exercised. Amendment No. 80B is purely consequential on Amendment No. 80A.
The operator will be obliged at the end of each year to notify all owners of the minerals. He will have to describe what he has extracted and what estimate he has made of the market value. That will give the owners the necessary information to enable them to submit a claim for compensation. Any dispute over the entitlement to or level of compensation shall be referred to the Lands Tribunal, in common with other disputes over compensation under the 1958 Act.
These amendments were not included in the original draft of the Bill. I believe that the amendments demonstrate the worth of negotiation between interested parties and the Government. I hope that they will be welcomed by my noble friend because they demonstrate
1032
the seriousness with which the Government take those issues. When we reach them, I shall move the amendments formally.
Lord Peston: Will the Minister clarify one or two matters? He seemed to be arguing, in the case of his amendments, that they stand on their own and have a specific purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, seemed to argue that his Amendment No. 78 is an alternative to the government amendments. I must admit that, listening to the two arguments, it seemed to me that they were somewhat at cross purposes. The amendments are grouped together. Are we meant to view them as alternatives, which is certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, argued, although the Minister did not justify his amendments in those terms?
We are discussing overruling the free market. Certainly going back as far as Adam Smith, one normally overrules the voluntary principle in times of national emergency. I have not heard—and this goes back to our earlier debates—any case on energy put forward by the Government in relation to a national emergency. If we are overruling the free market in terms of some kind of other criterion in connection with a national emergency, it surely follows—and I have always argued this when I have lectured on the subject —that one then tries to mimic the voluntary principle by saying that the relevant compensation would be that which would be paid to a voluntary seller by a voluntary buyer or, in the case of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, between a willing grantor and a willing grantee.
That leads me to my question. In pressing for his view, and opposing the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, was the Minister trying to tell the Committee that he rejects that voluntary principle; that he does not believe that the correct principle for compensation should be that which one would calculate as being arrived at by a willing grantor and a willing grantee?
I ask that because the overwhelmingly compelling part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, was that aspect of it which provides that, if there are to be those infringements of property rights, then the outcome should be as in the case of what would happen in a voluntary state of affairs. I am partly wearing my academic hat but I am seeking to understand the argument. Will the Minister tell us whether in his judgment we are confronted with alternative amendments and, in particular, does he reject that aspect of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to which I have referred?
Lord Strathclyde: These are not either/or amendments and I believe that my noble friend would recognise that. My amendments deal with a small but important part of the issue which concerns him.
The main reason why I resist my noble friend's amendments has nothing to do with the principles. I resist them because they interfere very early on with a regime which we all agree needs to be changed. However, how that regime needs to be changed is under discussion. That is why we are consulting on that issue and that is why I reject my noble friend's amendments.

1033
My amendments deal with an aspect of the current law which I accept is probably unfair to landowners in general. That is why we have brought forward the principle that they should be compensated for other minerals. I am entirely in favour of the voluntary principle where possible, but we are inheriting a regime which has been in existence since 1958 and which presumably has worked reasonably well but is not now seen to be the kind of regime which will lead us into the 21st century. That is why we are reviewing it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I never thought that I should be in such agreement with or so grateful to an academic, having been a tenant of an academic institution for so many years. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for bringing out the differences between the two amendments and explaining them in such a crystal clear way. As the noble Lord said, the problem is that my amendment rests on the voluntary principle. I thought that that was rather a good principle. That is where we differ. I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister accuses me of being churlish. Of course—
Lord Strathclyde: I have never accused my noble friend of being churlish; indeed, I would not dream of doing so. He is most powerful when he moves such amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am glad to hear my noble friend say that. Perhaps I should put it more clearly. It is possible that my noble friend thought that I was being ungenerous in not accepting what was on the table. However, I am more than happy to accept it and I do so with complete grace. It is just that it has a different approach and we come back, yet again, to the wretched chicken and egg situation: we are waiting for the review; we cannot do anything until it is produced; and so here we are, in the meantime, with the egg and a rather unsatisfactory chicken.
I shall think on the matter between now and Report stage because we have had a very good discussion. As I said, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and to my noble friend the Minister for replying so fully to the problem. At least it is now clear in my mind what the Government are trying to achieve, whereas that was not the case at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 118, line 38, at end insert:
("(5D) The Coal Authority, or as the case may be the Secretary of State, may not make a transfer under subsection (5A) of this section unless the successor satisfies the Coal Authority that the owners of any interest in the relevant land has been given equivalent assurances to secure the performance of the obligations under the compulsory rights order."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment prevents a compulsory rights order being transferred to a new operator without adequate security being given for the performance of the obligations. I believe that my noble friend accepted the principle behind Amendment No.
1034
42, which was moved at an earlier stage by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The present amendment imposes a similar duty. The law on the transfer of the burden of obligations for the benefit of property rights is unclear. It is important that the authority ensures that those against whom CROs have been made are fully protected. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I fully understand the concerns expressed by my noble friend. As I understand it, the effects of his amendment are fully dealt with in the assurances given under the transfer of an operating licence that would come before any transfer of the CRO. Perhaps I may explain the position more fully. Under the amendment, the authority or the Secretary of State when transferring a CRO should be satisfied that the successor has made equivalent assurances to the landowner to secure the performance of the obligations under the CRO.
I should like to explain briefly the circumstances in which it may be necessary to transfer a CRO. There may be cases in which an operator licensed by the Coal Authority seeks to transfer his operating licence to someone else. Before it agreed to do so, the Coal Authority would have to be satisfied that the new operator met all of its licensing criteria. Specifically, it would have to ensure, in so far as practicable, that the new operator was financially sound and therefore able to discharge his obligations. It would be able to require appropriate financial security as necessary.
If, in those circumstances, the former operator also wished his CRO to be transferred to his successor, that would be a separate decision for the authority. The transfer of equivalent assurances would be covered under the transfer of an operating licence, as referred to above. There would be no need to place an additional duty on the authority in respect of its role in transferring a CRO.
I am saying that my noble friend's point is covered because, if you transfer the licence, you have to go through the process of providing necessary financial security. Therefore, that would provide the necessary security that the landowner would need if a CRO on his land were transferred to another operator. I can assure my noble friend that that point is absolutely covered in the Bill. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: Despite everything, the provision is to do, at least in part, with the rights of landowners. Whatever one may think about them, we do have landowners. As the law stands, they have rights. Moreover, as long as the law stays as it is, such rights must not be infringed. It seems to me that it is nothing to do with politics; it is to do with obeying the law.
If a licensee transfers the licence—and there is a whole part in the legislation to deal with such matters —will the transfer of the CRO be separate from the transfer of the licence? I believe that the Minister said that it would be and that there would be an additional procedure for the transfer of the CRO. However, would the landowner have any rights at all during the process of transfer? Alternatively, would the landowner be told,

1035
"Well, the CRO was given to the original licensee. It is now just a business proposition for him and nothing to do with you"?
The point is that the landowner may have a view about the new licensee; in other words, he might, at long last, have convinced himself that the original licensee was somehow acceptable. He may have doubts and just not like the new licensee. Indeed, it may not be a question of financial liability and could well be to do with many things as regards behaviour. Can the Minister tell us whether the Bill at present guarantees the rights of a landowner with respect to his or her land at least to be consulted if the CRO is in the process of being transferred?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord asks an important question about the rights of a landowner. Throughout the Bill I have been at pains to stress the degree of consultation that would take place among the Coal Authority, the new operators and landlords, and that no licence could be offered unless such consultation had taken place. Therefore, I would expect a landowner to be consulted. However, it would be the legal duty of the Coal Authority to satisfy itself that the new operator was able to discharge his obligations, including the new obligations that he took on as a result of buying out or having the CRO transferred to him, and that he would provide appropriate financial security if necessary. The financial security is to be tackled as a result of the licence transfer which, as the noble Lord correctly noticed, is separate from the CRO transfer.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am not absolutely certain that my noble friend answered the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, regarding the right or ability of a landowner to object to the new transferor or transferee. However, I shall leave that aspect for the moment. My concern is that, whenever something is transferred once or twice down the line, things become less clear. For example, the first operator may well have been examined very carefully as to whether he was financially sound,
"in so far as practicable"—
a phrase about which I still have doubts. I accept that the operator will be re-examined when the transfer takes place by the Coal Authority, but I am still concerned about the matter despite what my noble friend said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 79A;
Page 127, line 45, at end insert:
("Compensation in respect of disposals of minerals
21A.—(1) After section 31, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Compensation in respect of disposals of minerals.
31A.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where—

(a) any person ('the operator') exercises any right of his by virtue of a compulsory rights order and section 10(1) to this Act to get any minerals other than coal; and

(b) the land where the right is exercised was not comprised in that order in the circumstances specified in section 33(1) of this Act.

(2) The person who, apart from the compulsory rights order and section 10(1) of this Act, would have been entitled to the minerals shall be entitled (subject to the following provisions of this section) to compensation from the operator of an amount equal to 12.5 per cent. of the market value of the minerals at the time when the right is exercised.
(3) Compensation shall not be payable under this section in respect of any minerals in so far as (when they are got) they are not, and cannot reasonably be put, in a condition in which (if removed from the land comprised in the order) they would be capable of being sold by the operator.
(4) Where more than one person is entitled to compensation under this section, the amount of compensation mentioned in subsection (2) above shall be apportioned between them according to the values of the interests or rights in respect of which each of them would have been entitled to, or to a share of, the minerals.
(5) As soon as reasonably practicable, after the end of every period of twelve months during which any person has exercised such a right as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, that person shall give written notice under this subsection to every person appearing to him to be a person entitled to compensation under this section in respect of any exercise by him during that period of that right.
(6) A notice under subsection (5) above shall—

(a) describe the minerals in respect of which the entitlement to compensation of the person given the notice arises; and

(b) state the market value of those minerals as at the time when the right in question was exercised in relation to those minerals."

(2) This paragraph shall not apply where the right in question is exercisable by virtue of a compulsory rights order made before the restructuring date.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 80A and 80B:
Page 128, line 40, at end insert:
("(2A) After subsection (6) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(6A) Any compensation payable under section 31A of this Act shall accrue due at the end of the year in which the right in question is exercised."").

Page 128, line 42, at end insert (", and for "subsections (4) to (6)" there shall be substituted "subsections (4) to (6A)"").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Environmental duties in connection with planning]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 48, line 32, at end insert:

("( ) to the desirability of avoiding nuisance to nearby residents in the form of dust, noise, vibration, lorry traffic, visual intrusion or loss of amenity, and the need to respond to the expressed concerns of those residents regarding the proposed development; and")

The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 81A, 82 and 83B. The purpose of the amendment is to protect the environment and the "amenity" enjoyed by the residents living in the vicinity of coal mining operations. Here we enter into the great part of the debate on this Bill which is concerned with the environment.
The amendment is intended to ensure that opencast coal mining and its associated environmental impacts are fully and properly considered and discussed during

1037
the Bill's progress through Parliament. I say that because Standing Committee D of another place—whose proceedings I am sure your Lordships will have read in considerable detail—hurried this whole issue through on days 16 and 17 of its consideration and, in the view of many of us, gave it rather the fag end of its attention than the cream.
Of all methods of mining, opencast extraction of coal has the greatest impact on the environment. As deep mines have closed ahead of exhaustion over recent years, a considerable amount of coal at relatively shallow depths has been left in place. Largely as a consequence of local authority opposition, planning consents for opencast operations had declined from the 15.3 million tonne level of 1981 to 13.3 million tonnes by 1987. In 1988 the Department of the Environment issued a new mineral planning guidance note (MPG) on opencasting. This MPG3 significantly deregulated the opencast planning procedure by introducing national interest considerations and the commercial interests of prospective operators. I shall come back in a moment to the question of national interest.
Such criteria swung the balance against the planning authorities and the ability of local communities to do anything very much to prevent opencasting. At the same time, the extraction limit per site was raised to 250,000 tonnes, which had the effect of greatly increasing the size of opencast sites. They became very serious real blots on the environment. While opencast operations remain conditional on a minimum level of nuisance and environmental impact, even the best opencast sites give rise to public complaint. NIMBY—not in my back yard —applies.
Problems arising from opencast mining include, obviously, noise, dust, vibration from blasting, heavy lorry traffic, visual intrusion and the loss of long-established and valued landscape features. Take for a moment the question of heavy lorry traffic. This is not heavy lorry traffic trundling gaily down the M.1 or the M.4. These are great six, eight, 10, 12 and 14-wheelers going through small country villages. Believe me—I live in the middle of it in the Peak District—they are very rarely cognisant or observant of things like 30 mile-an-hour limits. Not only can they cause a great deal of noise and danger to small children, who, in villages, are not brought up to have the kind of streetwise appreciation of traffic that people in inner cities have, but they can also cause real structural damage where roads are narrow. The greater danger to children really needs to be taken into account. In some areas where opencast mining takes place there has also been increased incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases in the nearby populations. That has been measured.
The new MPG3, which was issued for consultation in December 1993, coincides with this particular Bill now before your Lordships' House by which British Coal will be privatised. Many planning authorities now fear that the privatisation of coal will be accompanied by a stampede in opencast applications, given that several provisions of the Bill will clearly further deregulate the opencast licensing system. The planning authorities
1038
think that for several reasons. First, the present 250,000 tonnes per site extraction limit is to be abolished with no alternative limit proposed. Secondly, the new draft MPG3 imposes an obligation on local authorities to draw up plans in advance that set out clear criteria against which individual proposals will be assessed and to indicate in detail those areas where provision is made for coal extraction. That clearly suggests that there will be a presumption in favour of opencast applications over and above other considerations set out in a local authority's statutory development plan.
Thirdly, in the event of a local authority adopting an anti-opencast policy as part of its development plan then the Secretary of State—I am coming to regard almost every Secretary of State as my natural enemy at the moment because whichever Bill I find myself concerned with the Secretary of State seems to be assuming more and greater powers at almost every stage of the game —could exercise his determination to overrule that part of the plan by invoking the national interest criteria of MPG3. I ask the Government what exactly is meant here by "national interest" for coal in the year of our Lord 1994?
To go back for a moment to something we were considering earlier, under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 I believe that I am right in saying that any mineral operator can apply to the courts for an ancillary rights order. The difference between that order and one granted under this Bill is primarily that to obtain an order under the 1966 Act, the coal extractor, like any other mineral company, has to satisfy the court that the grant of the order is expedient "in the national interest". That test is conspicuously absent from the Bill. But there it is, lurking quietly in MPG3. Why is it not trumpeted on the face of the Bill?
Fourthly, to revert to the planning authorities, the Coal Industry Bill also retains the powers of the Secretary of State to make compulsory rights orders in support of opencast applications at any time up to 31st December 1999. Combined with the provisions of the Bill for the proposed Coal Authority to issue extraction licences ahead of planning permission being granted, uncertainty and effective planning blight could and will affect many of the coalfield areas. We aired this matter last week and many of us retired sadly unsatisfied.
It is worth noting, too, that the problems extend well beyond the recently active coalfield areas. We are now looking, when we talk of opencast operations, at large areas of shire counties such as Avon, Gloucestershire, Hereford and Worcester, and even the county of Shropshire, beloved of P.G. Wodehouse—Blandings Castle country. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has drawn our attention to it. There are coal deposits there. They are known to lie there. Shropshire could be similarly blighted. We are not looking at Labour-controlled areas like South Wales, Durham or places like that. We are looking at sunny Shropshire, the county of A.E. Housman. The noble Lord will remember those wonderful lines which Housman wrote in A Shropshire Lad:
"In summertime on Bredon
The bells they sound so clear;

1039
Round both the shires they ring them
In steeples far and near,
A happy noise to hear".
I rewrote those lines last night:
"In summertime on Bredon
The JCBs are here;
Round both the shires they thunder
With opencasting gear,
A nasty noise to hear".
It is clear that the new MPG3 and its consultation processes have been delayed in order to make way for the Coal Industry Bill, which makes only a single specific reference to opencasting in Clause 52. Given the very real uncertainty regarding the operational standards of the new private regime, and the extent of opencasting and its regulatory framework, these matters deserve the fullest scrutiny by Parliament if the public interest is to be properly served.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 81A. We have put it forward with the purpose of ensuring that the test of reasonably practicable is objective and not subjective. Amendment No. 82 ensures that mining operations and restoration of land used for coal mining purposes are carried out in accordance with modern planning standards. Those who advise me have given me several pages citing occasions on which that has not occurred. They have also raised the question of the older permissions as distinct from the new ones. It is obviously of benefit to us all that proper environmental amenity and restoration safeguards should be applied to all opencast sites.
The Bill gives an ideal opportunity to provide for just such a measure and to give due notice to potential mine operators. It will also give a measure of reassurance to the public that their interests were being protected in the privatisation process. If the amendment which I put forward is not acceptable to the Government, perhaps I may ask the Minister to tell us what steps the Government propose to deal with those older mining consents.
Finally, Amendment No. 83B introduces a new clause after Clause 54 which makes it explicit that in the event of failure of a licensed operator, any environmental liabilities would revert to the Coal Authority. As drafted, the clause also covers subsidence liabilities. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not intend to say much about Amendments Nos. 81 and 81A on which the noble Lord concentrated except that they raise the issue regarding where responsibilities should lie and therefore carry the risk of some confusion. I suspect that that is an issue about which my noble friend will have more to say in due course.
However, this group also gives us another chance to clarify some important environmental issues and to point to a number of improvements that can still be made in drafting the Bill. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde has already gone some considerable way to removing my worst fears about the Bill. The statement he made (at cols. 539 to 542 of Hansard for 26th April) when dealing with Amendment No. 1, was extremely important. It deserves to be carefully studied by anyone interested in these issues, not least because of what he said about pumping and the treatment of abandoned
1040
mines. It is relevant to Amendment No. 83B which we now consider. I should be grateful if the Committee will allow me to quote three brief extracts from that statement.
My noble friend stated:
"The Coal Authority will, of course, be the owner of abandoned coal mines throughout Great Britain irrespective of when these may have been worked. The Government have set out in the … explanatory note that they envisage that the authority would set itself certain broad policy aims in respect of the management of property, including all the mines which are not licensed to the private sector. These include the aim, where reasonably practicable, of protecting and enhancing the environment".—[Official Report, 26/4/94; col. 541.]
Therefore we have that important statement that the Coal Authority will be the owner of abandoned mines.
At col. 542, my noble friend said:
"The authority will of course discharge all its legal obligations, and its funding will have to provide for that".
Later in the same column, when dealing with the question of abandonment, my noble friend stated:
"It will clearly be necessary for the operator to consult the appropriate regulatory body about the possible consequences for the water environment of abandoning the mine. Before agreeing to termination of the lease, the authority will expect him to institute any reasonable treatment measures and to make an appropriate payment for any continuing costs".
Lord Prys-Davies: I am very interested in Amendment No. 83A. Unless I have misunderstood, that amendment is not grouped with the amendment now before the Committee; or am I mistaken?
Lord Crickhowell: I refer to Amendment No. 83B. If I referred to Amendment No. 83A, it was a mistake. I refer to the clause about possible bankruptcy and what happens afterwards.
My noble friend concluded the section at col. 542, stating:
"Once the lease has come to an end the authority will be responsible for the mine as for any other abandoned coal mine".
It seems to me that that was an important statement. What my noble friend said was reinforced in a letter from Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and. Industry, to the Selby District Council, dated 25th April when he said:
"This means that should a license holder fail responsibility would automatically fall back on to the Coal Authority at the stage when the company was dissolved and ceased to be a legal person, assuming that it had not already done so".
That is a consequence of the fact that the Coal Authority is the ultimate holder of abandoned mines and of property.
All that seems to me to be most helpful. But while statements made in Parliament and letters from Ministers are helpful, long experience has taught us to be cautious. One would like to see such assurances, if not written into the Bill, at the very least in the department's licensing documents. I cannot find that that is so at present. I believe the fact that Amendment No. 83B has been spoken to gives an appropriate opportunity to probe that issue.
One reason for our anxiety on some of those questions is that I do not believe the Government have been as effective as they might in describing the very considerable extent to which outstanding liabilities fall on the Coal Authority. When considering the maps provided, for example, in the memorandum issued by N.M. Rothschild and Sons Limited on behalf of Her

1041
Majesty's Government, we see vast yellow areas stretching over a very large part of the country. We see a huge number of abandoned mines with potential for pollution and subsidence damage. But we are concerned with the much smaller number of mines which are likely to be operated in the future—to opencast mines and to disposal points. The areas are much smaller and the number of cases with which we are likely to be concerned are much fewer. It took me some time fully to appreciate that point because on reading the document to which I referred one gains the impression that licensed bidders will be bidding for the whole area and the workable coal within it rather than for the individual mines.
At the moment we are concerned with 16 operating mines and about the same number on care and maintenance. Thus we are dealing with a fairly tightly defined set of problems. It is important that we understand that. I hope I have got it right and that my noble friend will be able to confirm it.
We shall therefore seek, so far as we can, to draw a clear line of responsibility around the future action of licensees and the past action—or perhaps past failures —of British Coal and its predecessor bodies. I think that we are entitled still to be concerned, if licensees pick up the potentially large liabilities of the Coal Authority. I should still like a further attempt to be made to place the responsibility for future operations on licensees from the moment they take up the licence rather than to ask them to take over the previous responsibilities of the predecessor bodies. Then at least it would be open to them and third parties who might be affected to seek to establish that the cause of pollution lay with British Coal or the predecessor miner and that it therefore fell on the Coal Authority.
I know that the Government have looked at the matter and I suspect that they would like to do something like that but perhaps they thought the difficulties were too great. I hope that they will reconsider. Apart from anything else, it would remove the legitimate fears of potential bidders and I know that the Government will be anxious to do that, as well as look after the environmental issues.
In the meantime, Amendment No. 82 also gives us an opportunity to consider another matter which, interestingly enough, we have skirted around during debates on previous groups of amendments this afternoon. I confess that I was not here at the outset, but when I entered the Chamber I heard much about the moment at which the licences were issued and the transfer of licence responsibilities. The amendment picks up the same point and reminds us that there is a difference between the moment when the licence is granted and the moment when planning consent is given.
That point arose again last week on 28th April when my noble friend Lord Renton moved an amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. It was dealt with by the Minister in reply when he said essentially that we need not be worried —and by "we", in this case I mean the environmental regulator. Previously this afternoon we have been dealing with the landowner wanting to
1042
know what was happening when a licence was granted. On that occasion, we were dealing with the environmental regulator wanting to know what was happening when the licence was granted. They both have an interest and, as my noble friend pointed out on that occasion, it is not right to suggest that, after all, the whole matter was dealt with at the moment when the planning consent was considered and need not be looked at again.
On that occasion, my noble friend said:
"Our approach is based on the premise that bodies which have been given particular responsibilities should have the right duties and powers for the role that has been conferred on them. In this case, it means that the NRA and the corresponding Scottish bodies should have the powers to discharge their roles. I think they do".—[Official Report, 28/4/94; col. 883.]
They can only have the powers to discharge the roles if they have the information that enables them to do so. I am not satisfied that the planning procedures enable them to know exactly what is going on. Later, at col. 884, my noble friend said, referring to the point put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, of Easington:
"To turn to the noble Lord's primary point as to the NRA's role as a statutory consultee, that is its role in statute when planning permission is required. Since planning permission is required to undertake opencast coal mining, that is when the NRA will be involved in the decision whether to give planning permission".
Later, he said:
"I maintain that it should be at the planning permission stage rather than at the licensing stage".
The difficulty is that the moment you give a licence to a new operator, the new operator may decide entirely to change the basis on which the previous operator worked. The new operator may be mining in a totally different way. For example, his pumping procedures may be completely different, he may be operating on a different scale. The linkages between pits may be different in the new circumstances. The environmental regulator will have given a consent for a discharge at a particular point and for a given volume. But what we may see in this instance is, because of a change in mining techniques, a difference in the chemical content of the water which may now be much more polluting. For example, it may mean getting water from a connected mine which is no longer being mined.
So it seems to me that it is vitally important that not just landowners but also environmental regulators should be brought into the process at the moment when the licence is granted or varied. Therefore, they must be given the necessary information, just as they must be given information when the mine is to be abandoned.
My noble friend made helpful comments on the previous occasion about giving the Coal Authority plenty of notice at the moment of abandonment and consulting the NRA or the Scottish river purification board at that point. Once again, I should like to see the requirement written down in some other form, preferably in the Bill but at least in the licensing document, rather than simply in the Official Report of our debates.
Having made those points about things that need to be done, I conclude by reinforcing the point with which I opened. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that he wants to avoid confusion between the jobs of different bodies. I do not believe that it is the job of the

1043
Coal Authority to accept environmental responsibilities or to see that they are carried out. Some of the amendments with which we are dealing today are flawed for that reason. Nor do I wish to transfer liabilities after bankruptcy to the wrong body. If my noble friend approaches the matter on the basis that legislation should be drafted to keep the responsibilities clear, he will have my wholehearted support. But he will have to back that statement with an assurance that the environmental regulators will, at the appropriate moment—which is when the licence is issued or varied —be given the information that enables them to do their job.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend has made an important contribution this afternoon and I am grateful to him. I should like to ask him for some information, although I should know the answer to this question. He gave the impression that when an operator took over from another operator who had a discharge licence from the NRA, the first operator could change the composition of the discharge without letting the NRA know and that that would not be illegal. Is that correct?
Lord Crickhowell: Yes. The situation is normally that a discharge consent will specify where the discharge can take place. It will also specify the volume limits which will take place. But it would not, in normal circumstances, contain a chemical analysis or limits on what is in the discharge from a mine. We have already discovered in cases which we have debated previously that when a mine is closed there can be flows from one mine to another whose chemical content can change drastically. People may change their whole pumping regime underground, and I think that the environmental regulator should be given notice of that information, have the opportunity to comment on it and take measures to counteract it. I do not believe that those arrangements are sufficient at the present time. I hope as a result of what I said, perhaps before we come back at a later stage of this Bill, my noble friend will look at the matter again.
Lord Parry: My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, needs little support from me; nor does the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, need to have support offered from this side. I wish to comment on the fact that areas of the country that have lived long with coal, such as the Amman Valley in West Wales, where coal is almost in the blood of the indigenous population, nevertheless look with considerable horror on the extension of the opencast mining to which they are subjected. It is possible to see the great hole in the ground that is so important economically and makes such a vital contribution to the fuel of the country spreading out towards the back gardens of houses in Garnant, and almost threatening the peace and quiet of the people who live there.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, represented for 20 years —despite my seasonal attempts to unseat him —the lovely county of Pembroke in West Wales. It is a fact that under the green grass of Pembrokeshire lies some of the finest anthracite coal in the world. It is the
1044
western extension of the South Wales/West Wales anthracite coalfield. From time to time the Coal Board identified areas where they might like to look for the opencast mining of coal 'which lay very close to the surface, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris., pointed out. There was an occasion when a road was being driven between Saundersfoot and Tenby when a very rich seam of valuable anthracite coal was found literally on the surface. The decisions that were taken then by everyone concerned took into account that the conflict between the tourism benefits of the area and the easy bringing out of that coal had to be weighed in the balance. The local authorities have been long established there. But their powers have been whittled away. My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, talked about the local planning influences. Those influences are no longer nearly as strong as they used to be. It is quite possible that when the renewals come to be applied for the planning controls will be sited in placemen committees and in the Secretaries of State rather than where they once were at the beginning; namely, in the local authority.
I urge simply that it be recognised that in amending this Bill we make absolutely certain that we take into account the present pattern of local government and the present pattern of local controls on planning, and that we do not assume that what happened for the general good under the old system will necessarily come about under the new one.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I shall intervene very briefly. I do not wish to intervene in what appears to be a family dispute between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I rise only because the noble Lord mentioned my intervention, as the Minister win recall, on statutory consultees. I am not absolutely clear now, although I was clear at the time, so I shall have another attempt.
The Minister said that,
"Since planning permission is required to undertake opencast coal mining, that is when the NRA will be involved in the decision whether to give planning permission".
That is not the NRA. Surely it refers to the planning authority. The Minister went on:
"I maintain that that is exactly where it should be present. It should not be in the decision as to whether to grant a licence. That quite properly is a role for the Coal Authority". —[Official Report, 28/4/94; col. 884.]
That seems to me to be fairly clear. Is there any dispute between what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said and what the Minister said to me on that occasion?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that there is a great gulf of disagreement between my noble friend and myself on that particular issue. The NRA is a statutory consultee when it comes to getting planning permission. That is the key. It must be consulted. There is an obligation, particularly when dealing with issues of this importance where opencast or deep coal mining has an influence on the water environment. In England and Wales at any rate the NRA is the appropriate body that needs to be consulted. That is absolutely correct. I think that the Committee will—
Lord Prys-Davies: Before the Minister replies, there are issues that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, wants to raise. I should also like to raise one or two issues. I am of course in the Minister's hands.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry. I was going to reply to the substantive part of the debate. But if other Members of the Committee wish to speak, and I see that they do, I am sorry that I pre-empted them. I shall be delighted to hear them.
Lord Ezra: I am much obliged to the Minister. I wanted to comment on these amendments because I think that they are of great importance. I fully support Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. I shall start with Amendment No. 81 on
"the desirability of avoiding nuisance",
etc. I should have thought that that was a self-evident proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that we have to be careful not to confuse responsibilities. There is no question of confusion here. This relates to Clause 53(2), which refers to a planning authority. It states:
"Where a planning authority consider any coal-mining proposals, included in such an application, they shall have regard … to the desirability of the preservation of natural beauty"
etc. That is excellent. But people should also be a consideration. Amendment No. 81 relates to the nuisance to people. I referred in an earlier intervention to the great care with which British Coal carried out its opencast operations to minimise the disturbance to people. I hope that the Minister will find Amendment No. 81 self-evident, and that he will not argue against it at all. It is perhaps an unfortunate omission that it is not already in the Bill.
As to Amendment No. 82, the licence should include these considerations. Here again we are talking about protecting the environment and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Those are very essential considerations in relation to activities such as coal-mining. Whereas the National Coal Board was set up to mine coal, it was also set up with a public responsibility, which it took very seriously indeed. That sense of public responsibility in connection with coal-mining operations should be continued. I feel that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, do in fact do that. I hope that they will be regarded very sympathetically by the noble Lord when he replies.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like to speak very much in support of Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. I support the thrust of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. But I propose to reserve my problems on the serious problem caused by the escape of polluted waters from abandoned mines until we come to Amendment No. 83A, although I concede that they could well be brought under the terms of Amendment No. 83B.
I have one slight problem with Amendment No. 82. That is that it refers only to the restoration of the land, whereas in the mining communities a clear distinction has been drawn between the restoration and the aftercare of the site. There is no reference to the aftercare of the site, so far as I can see, in Amendment No. 82. Nor of
1046
course is there a reference to aftercare in Clause 53. Clause 53(1) merely covers restoration works. But the aftercare requirements are equally important. As I understand it, they may extend for a statutory period of up to five years thereafter. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the significance of the omission from Clause 53 of a reference to after-care.
In my experience in Mid Glamorgan, the main problem with opencast mining arises where the operator either is reluctant to carry out the restoration and after-care works which he had agreed with the planning authority or has become insolvent before the works have been undertaken. So, I ask the Minister, who, in those circumstances, carries the burden of restoration and after-care?
Three of the Welsh local authorities are empowered by Acts of Parliament, which they obtained, to require a restoration bond to be deposited by respective developers of an opencast mine as one of the conditions of consent. Experience shows that the local authorities are very wise to require a bond. In Mid Glamorgan—I do not believe that Mid Glamorgan is different from West Glamorgan or Dyfed—I understand that the local authority has had to rely on the bond in one case when the operator became insolvent and in three cases when the operator failed to carry out the necessary works. In five further cases the necessary works were undertaken by the operator after the council had threatened to invoke the bond. I believe that that experience of the Mid Glamorgan County Council demonstrates the value of the insurance bond. But there is no reference to the requirement to deposit an insurance bond in respect even of the restoration obligations.
As I read the document published by the Government, it is their preference that the exercise of opencast mining operations should be controlled by the terms of the planning consent rather than the terms of the licence. However, the role of the planning system in this particular situation is to preserve that careful balance between the ease of extraction on the one hand and the need to protect the environment on the other. But if the planning authority is to discharge that role, surely either in the Bill (preferably in the Bill) or in the mineral planning guidance, the planning authorities should be empowered to require a bond to be lodged to pay for restoration and after-care in the event of the licensee becoming insolvent or being in default.
If the operators are not required to lodge an effective financial security, the cost of restoration or after-care may fall on the local taxpayers and often on industry. If we arrive at such a situation, the planning system will have failed in its function of preserving the careful balance to which I referred. To help us by the time we come to Report stage, perhaps the Minister can confirm my understanding of the position; namely, that in the absence of a provision in the Bill and in the absence of a local Act of Parliament, the planning authority would be unable to demand a restoration bond.
It is of particular concern in South Wales that a valid planning consent which had been given to British Coal without the requirement of a bond will now be assigned or transferred to a private operator without a bond. As I understand it, in practice a bond was not required of

1047
British Coal when it applied for permission since it was felt that with its Treasury backing it would be unlikely to be unable to carry out the restoration works. The same is just not true of private operators. There is a residual concern and I should be grateful if the Minister would address it. If we are to meet that gap in the law, the Bill should empower the planning authority to require a bond to be deposited before the licence is transferred from British Coal to the operator. I shall welcome the Minister's response.
I have a last question for the Minister. I am sure that he can confirm my understanding of the position. When the Local Government (Wales) Bill was before the Chamber, I regret to say that we omitted to question the Minister about the position in which one of the three local authorities has obtained the power by Act of Parliament to require a bond. Will that power be transferred to the successor authority under the Local Government (Wales) Bill? I omitted to ask that question. It is not strictly a question for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but I should be grateful if he could confirm that those powers will be transferred to the new local authorities.
Lord Strathclyde: This has been a long debate. It is right that we should have a long debate on the subject because we are dealing with protection of the environment, which is very important. We dealt with that subject on the first clay of Committee and we are now dealing with it again. It is right that we should do so.
No doubt the Committee will be grateful if I do not follow the example set by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, as my poetry is far worse than his. But I should like to tell the noble Lord that if he sticks to poetry and keeps away from politics, I believe that he will be far more successful than he is being in pressing me to accept these amendments.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I said a little about Clause 53 and these amendments. The clause imposes an environmental duty on applicants for planning permission for a coal mining development. The duty is broadly equivalent to that which already applies to all applicants for planning permission for opencast coal and which in a slightly different form has applied to British Coal in respect of opencast proposals since 1958. When the duty was extended to licensed operators in 1990, the Government agreed in principle that it should be extended to deep mines when a suitable legislative opportunity arose. There could hardly be a more suitable opportunity than the present Bill. I am glad to be able to put this proposal to the Committee, extending to deep mines these well precedented duties.
The duty applies to the process of formulating proposals for any coal mining development. In future it will include proposals for deep mines as well as opencast mining. It requires anyone who proposes such a development, when drawing up his application for planning permission, to take account of the preservation of natural beauty and the other matters prescribed and to include in the proposals such measures as are reasonably
1048
practicable to mitigate any adverse effects that the proposed mining activities might have on natural beauty and the other matters.
There is a parallel duty on planning authorities, when considering the proposals put to them, to have regard to those principles and the extent to which the applicant has complied with his duties under this clause. That effectively links the duty into the planning system and provides such enforcement as is relevant.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly pointed out, Amendment No. 81 deals with planning authorities. The words of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell dealt with Amendment No. 83, to which I shall come in a moment. Amendment No. 81 would require planning authorities., when considering coal mining applications, to have regard to the desirability of avoiding nuisance to nearby residents in the form of dust, noise, vibration, lorry traffic, visual intrusion or loss of amenity, and the need to respond to the express concerns of those residents regarding the proposed development.
That is already provided for by the planning system. The planning authority, in arriving at its decision on any application, whatever the development may be, must take account of all material considerations. If there is a. case to be made in respect of some proposals that they might cause excessive or unacceptable nuisance to people living nearby, that would plainly be material and should be considered and given full weight by the planning authority. If there are any expressed concerns about a development, whether about these issues or any other, they too should be given proper consideration and full weight.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene to ask him to explain whether, under the present rules for granting planning permission, Clause 53(2) (a) applies. If we are to mention the desirability of the preservation of natural beauty, conservation of flora and so forth, the other points to which the amendment refers should also be mentioned. I was worried about the exclusion of one and the inclusion of the other. If neither had been included I would have been quite satisfied. But I did not see why there should be all that emphasis on natural beauty and none on personal amenity.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I can rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the same reason. If the Minister is saying that these are matters which are covered by mineral planning guidance, why cannot they be transferred into the Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: Clause 53 deals with the protection of the environment. I was discussing and the amendment deals with the effects on human beings, which are material considerations. Under planning law material considerations must be taken into account. That is why the clause that appears in the Bill is necessary and the clause proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Morris, is not.
Perhaps I can go on to explain the other safeguards that have been built in. We recognise that there are particular concerns about many of the questions as they arise in relation to opencast coal developments. That is

1049
why the guidance to planning authorities—MPG3— specifically advises the authorities to consider the issues of visual impact, noise, blasting, dust, water and transportation. A substantial part of the guidance note —Annex D to the draft document published for consultation last December—is wholly taken up with advice to planning authorities on the potential problems in those areas and how they can be addressed.
The concerns raised by the Members of the Committee in this debate are serious and proper concerns; I do not deny that. But they are already fully addressed through the principle and practice of the planning system and the amendments add nothing. They are therefore otiose. There is no reason why Members should have known what I said, but I hope that it gives them some assurance.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene again to ask him to confirm that the subject matter of Amendment No. 81 is included in the mineral planning guidance. However, the mineral planning guidance can be amended without parliamentary consent.
Lord Strathclyde: That is the position. Ministers decide on the kind of guidance but the guidance is always consulted upon and the guidance I mentioned is the kind of guidance I should have thought would have been welcome to the Committee.
I should like to speak briefly on the second amendment in this group, Amendment No. 81A, and the concerns that underlie it; that is, that the measures which might be thought reasonable for an applicant to include in his proposals should not be restrained by the particular financial circumstances of the applicant. In other words, the applicant should not be able to get away with environmental damage merely because he pleads poverty. It is a technical point, but I am advised that the reference to "that person" is designed to make the obligation more concrete, so that the measures that should be taken are those which are reasonable for that proposal and in all the circumstances relevant to it. There is no intention by the Government to provide an escape route or loophole; quite the contrary, we want to tighten up the situation.
Perhaps I can now deal with the third in this group of amendments which proposes a new clause. It would require the authority to impose further environmental or site restoration conditions on licences for developments which already have planning permission, in cases where the planning authority considers that the environmental protection offered by the existing permission is out of date. It might be helpful for me to turn to the words of my noble friend, Lord Crickhowell. I am grateful to him for his contribution this afternoon. I am delighted that he recognised the significance of the statement that I made in response to the first amendment that we dealt with in Committee last week. We return to the subject to some extent today. I am also delighted that he agrees with me that we should avoid confusing people as to which body has the proper role in dealing with these difficult and complicated issues. That is crucial.
1050
When we are trying to set up the Coal Authority we are not trying to get away from anything by not giving it the powers for environmental control. We are not giving it those powers because the NRA is already so important, particularly in dealing with the protection of water. My noble friend raised further issues which I shall not go into in detail now. I shall consider them further because they are extremely important.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I can interrupt the noble Lord. I appreciate he wants to get on. However, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, raised a matter which echoed a point I raised last Thursday; that is, the question of where liability does lie and should lie. The Minister and his noble friend Lord Goschen were at pains to point out that I did not understand the Bill. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, say that he too had had difficulty in understanding it. But I made the mistake, which the Minister was at pains to point out, that I assumed that we could distinguish between liability for the past and liability for the present; one would lie with the Coal Authority and the other with the new licensees. I was then told that I was completely mistaken; I did not understand the Bill. I interpreted that to mean that the Bill is sillier than even I could imagine.
The reason I raise the matter at this point is that the choice of words of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, led me to think—he clearly has more contact with the Government than I do—that the Government may well have thought that this rational distinction between the present and the past was worth considering or, even better, were still thinking about it. I am interrupting the Minister to ask him—I do not expect him to be as nasty to his noble friend as he was to me—to confirm that what he said to me (namely, that I did not understand the Bill and that the Government were not going to do it) he is about to say to his noble friend.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry if the noble Lord felt that I was being nasty to him. I was not. On these occasions I try to be as helpful as possible and, in dealing with these complicated issues, ensure that everybody understands what the Bill is trying to do.
What the noble Lord said gives me an opportunity to deal with the question of liabilities and where responsibilities lie. As well as one of our fundamental principles being that we should not give the Coal Authority powers which already exist elsewhere, through government agencies or local authorities, because that would confuse the issue, so with the question of liability we are trying to put the responsibility where it should lie. Those who are committing the liabilities will then know their responsibilities and should act responsibly when they are carrying out the activities which create the pollution. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, does not disagree with me on that.
Lord Peston: I understood the noble Lord to say last week that the Government would draw a circle around the pits—that was his analogy—and that the licensees would then be responsible for everything within that circle, including what had happened in the past. I took the opposite view. I took the view—because it sounded

1051
much more sensible to me —that the licensee would be responsible for everything that he then did in the future but that the taxpayer would be responsible for the past. That was my judgment of the rational way to approach the matter. I was then told that I did not understand the Bill. I do now understand it but I think that what is proposed is irrational, which is what I also thought the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was saying. Is there any hope of persuading the Government to abandon this irrationality so that the taxpayer would accept responsibility for what had been done in his name in the past and the licensees would be responsible only for what they would do in the future? That is why I raise the matter now. I was going to come back to it on Report but as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, raised it rather effectively, I decided not to let the Minister off the hook at this point.
Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted not to be let off the hook and I am quite happy to explain the point. I was about to launch into my explanation when the noble Lord interrupted me.
I shall try to deal with as many of the liabilities as I can because they are all important. The main concern that noble Lords have rightly expressed is on the whole question of water pollution and how it relates to mines that have already been abandoned, either recently or in the more distant past.
Lord Prys-Davies: Are we drawing a distinction between the responsibility for subsidence damage to the surface of the land and the damage caused by the pollution of the controlled waters through the escape of water from abandoned mines? They are two distinct situations and I do not want to blur the distinction between them.
Lord Strathclyde: How Members of the Committee opposite can possibly hope to understand what I am talking about when they continually interrupt me, I do not know. If I am allowed to finish my statement, I suspect that it will all become much clearer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as it did to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on Thursday night when we dealt with the question of subsidence.
Water pollution presents the main problem because it is most numerous and because it is the older workings which tend to be the shallowest and most likely to influence the surface, whereas modern underground mining is generally much deeper. Under the Bill, all these abandoned mines will automatically become the property of the Coal Authority and, as I explained in my statement of 26th April, the authority will take over British Coal's existing role as a responsible and environmentally aware public custodian. That applies, for instance, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is pleased to know, to all deep mines in the Durham area, where there are no continuing deep mines. It will apply in most other parts of the country. If continued pumping of minewaters is necessary in order to prevent serious pollution, then pumping will continue. That, I believe, is the assurance which most concerned people are seeking and which the Government are quite rightly giving.
1052
The Coal Authority will also own the freehold of the mines that are continuing in production and it will lease them on a long-term basis to the mining companies which will be operating them. It seems reasonable to the Government that those companies should accept responsibility for meeting the associated environmental obligations. That requirement is set out in the draft leases which are available to noble Lords. Under the Bill the Coal Authority has an obligation to vet the financial standing of those companies in relation to all the obligations that they will be taking on before it licenses them to mine. The leases also provide, in the longer term after mining has ceased, that the responsibility for the mine can be returned to the Coal Authority but only after the mining company has taken all reasonable steps to protect the authority from continuing liabilities. That is a plain and straightforward arrangement and that is. what most noble Lords would have expected.
Perhaps I may deal with the point made by my noble friend about the memorandum put out by Rothschild on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which is available in the Library. It shows the coalfields as divided into five geographical areas which are coloured yellow. That reflects my honourable friend's announcement that British Coal's business is to be offered for sale in five regional packages. Unfortunately, it has given some people the mistaken impression that the privatised companies will have mining rights and responsibilities right across these huge areas. That is absolutely not the case. What is being sold is simply the individual deep mines and specific opencast sites. Those cover only a minute proportion of the geographical area shown in the memorandum and do not include any of the derelict mines which, as I have said, are undoubtedly the main cause of anxiety. That is the misunderstanding which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned. I hope that I have clarified it.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, talked about present and past liabilities, particularly in respect of subsidence. The noble Lord said that what is proposed is irrational because the bidding mining company accepts all the past subsidence liabilities, including British Coal's. The rational argument as to why we have done that is that it may sometimes be difficult to divide past liabilities from present liabilities and therefore it is easier for the mining company to accept all liabilities for subsidence at whatever time it was initially caused and whether or not it was caused by that company's coal milling. I hope that that is a clear statement. The noble Lord may still think that it is irrational but at least he will understand the basis on which we are going forward on the question of privatisation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way on this point. I do not want to have my views represented to the Committee completely by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. However, we do have some common ground in our anxiety on this point. I have no difficulty with him. Indeed, I wholly agree with his view that the licensee should assume liabilities for his future operations and the normal environmental obligations which go with that work.

1053
I do not at this stage seek any amendment to the Water Act and the section about knowingly permitting discharges, but it is possible that British Coal might in the past have taken steps which caused pollution and that that pollution will flow on and, under the principle described by my noble friend, become the responsibility of the new licensee. I do not see any great difficulty in principle with saying that the new licensee is responsible for the future, but if he can establish, or a third party can establish, that that pollution was caused by the predecessor body—by British Coal—that liability should fall on the Coal Authority. It is a past liability; it may be a very substantial one; and my noble friend quite reasonably says that it may be very difficult to separate past and present liabilities.
However, if one simply imposes the new liabilities from the moment the licence is issued, that is a matter for the courts. It will be for the licensee or a third party to prove that the pollution was caused by the predecessor body, or to apportion that damage. I do not see anything in principle against that. My noble friend has decided not to go down that road but there is no reason in principle why he should not go down that road. I am bound to say that I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it would be a better way to proceed.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him to consider this point. In replying to the very first debate of the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Strathclyde very wisely said that continuity was one of the vital factors that we had to consider in the changes being made by the Bill. That would seem to support the view of my noble friend.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to my noble friend for that. I have another point which may appeal to my noble friend the Minister. It will make the privatisation easier. There can be no doubt that potential licensees are anxious about inheriting a very large liability—expenses already incurred by the predecessor body. They have expressed that view. I believe that this quite simple change would do something to alleviate that anxiety and make it a more successful privatisation.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend shares with me the desire to make the privatisation successful. To some extent we are guided by the advice which we are given by Rothschild on this question and of course by using our own common sense. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, does not believe that we have very much of that, but we are seeking to find the right solution. My noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely right. I used the word "continuity" in response during the debate we had on the first day of Committee. It was in that respect that I made the statement about the Coal Authority's responsibilities when it took over the assets of British Coal. That is a very important point.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell may well have brought forward something which we need to consider. Throughout the course of the Committee stage I have never been afraid of considering proposals which have been put forward by my noble friend, and we shall do so.
1054
But that is not if they are going to muddle or confuse. Privatisation is not the primary issue. The real primary issue is to make sure that the environment is protected as well as possible and that everyone knows what their responsibilities are. It is also to ensure that a potential environmental liability is not caused because people do not realise that they are responsible.
Lord Peston: Can I interrupt the noble Lord for the very last time? The reason that I intervened originally was precisely because I thought that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, led to a possible opening. I was not seeking to argue for him because he argues very effectively for himself. I believe that the Government's approach is not the most rational way forward and that is why my interpretation of the Bill was wrong. I had assumed that the Bill was more sensible than it is. In making his remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is the Minister saying that, if one can put up an argument about reliability, which I do not restrict to substance—it is a general question as to how we treat liability which has nothing to do with substance per se —it is not too late at this stage of the deliberations for one to seek to persuade the Government that perhaps this part of the Bill could be changed? That is the only reason I intervened in the first place. Have the Government any degree of open-mindedness on the question of where we should place liability or has Rothschild decided that for the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has misunderstood these aspects of the Bill in the past. I hope that he will not do so in future. However, I believe that I bear some responsibility for not making the Bill absolutely plain from the start. In considering what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, I bow in his general direction because he is chairman of the NRA and he knows what he is talking about. That is why I am delighted that he has accepted the principle behind my statement which I made on the first day of Committee.
I do not wish to leave the door ajar. There is perhaps a very minor chink through which some refining by my noble friend or some advice from him would be helpful. But we are not going to rewrite these provisions in the Bill because I believe in the correctness of our central concern, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the second day of Committee; namely, that there should be one person to claim against. There should be no confusion as to who has caused liability.
The noble Lord was using the point in a rather different argument because he said that the Coal Authority should be liable and therefore the taxpayer. I believe that the operator should be responsible. The more responsibility we put on the operator, the more likely he is going to behave in a way which minimises his liability. There is absolutely no confusion as to what his liability is because when he bids he accepts all the liability within his area of responsibility. That is a very important principle. It is one on which the noble Lord and I could spend a great deal of time in debate. It is not entirely appropriate for it to be debated with these amendments, so perhaps I should continue to talk about the amendments that we are dealing with and particularly the third group.

1055
There is clearly potential for concern where planning permissions are some decades old and may have been granted at a time when expectations as to environmental protection and site restoration were very different from those of today. This is, however, unlikely to be an issue as regards opencast sites. Because of the relatively short life of these developments, all the planning permissions are pretty modern. Only two operating British Coal sites have planning permission more than 10 years' old; and all these sites are subject to modern site restoration conditions. By contrast, a few operating deep mines have planning consents dating from the 1950s and 1960s; and a significant number of deep mines, having already been in use before 1948 when the modern planning regime was introduced, are at present subject to no site restoration conditions at all. We are certainly of the view that proper restoration conditions should be imposed on these mines before they are privatised. The Government's proposals on this matter are set out in Clause 54 which follows next.
As regards sites which do have a planning permission, I have not been persuaded that there are major concerns which need to be addressed in this way. The Government have already taken steps, notably in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to extend the powers of local authorities to deal with environmental nuisance, and that bites on coal mines as on any other kind of activity or undertaking. Also, the scope of the planning system to impose new conditions on longstanding minerals developments, particularly coal developments, has been significantly enlarged over the years. The Government have recently issued a consultation paper on the reform of old mineral commissions.
Ultimately, if a planning authority feels there is a strong case for them to impose further new conditions, the planning regime does provide the means for that, although such action could give rise to a requirement to pay compensation.
I believe it is clear that the updating of old commissions is an undertaking which is already far advanced by other means. I am not persuaded that there is a case for the measure proposed in the amendment. I have explained to the Committee in the context of earlier amendments that it is not our intention to make the authority an environmental regulator.
Amendment No. 83B, which is the last in this group, provides that responsibility for environmental liabilities, which have been caused by a licensee who has been wound up, is to fall on the Coal Authority. Environmental liabilities are specifically defined to include subsidence liabilities. Not only is this amendment unnecessary, but it does not go as far as the Bill in transferring these subsidence liabilities to the Coal Authority. It is unnecessary because Clause 43(3) (b) already provides that where there is no licence holder and therefore no area of responsibility—which is the case when the former licence holder has been wound up—subsidence liabilities are to fall to the authority.
I suggest to the Committee that these amendments are unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw them. I apologise for the fact that it has
1056
been rather a long debate, but we did deal with the very important environmental issue in the middle. I hope that the Committee will forgive me.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister said that, if we on this side of the Committee were patient and did not intervene, all would be revealed. I have one question to put to him which has not been asked. He said that my noble friend's amendment was otiose because it is contained in other legislation. Can the Minister tell us what that legislation is? If one is to have opencast coal mining, it is impossible to avoid nuisance to,
"nearby residents in the form of dust, noise, vibration, lorry traffic, visual intrusion or loss of amenity".
Anybody who has lived in an area where there is opencast mining knows that it is impossible to avoid such things.
Perhaps I may give the Minister one brief example. I think he will know that all lorries are supposed to be covered when passing through towns but it never happens—or perhaps in only about one in 10 lorryloads. I am not treating this matter lightly or facetiously. If the Minister could tell us what the magical precautions are that are already provided in other legislation, many of us would be delighted to hear them.
6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: It is not a case so much of other legislation but of the whole system of our planning regulations. They are designed specifically to deal with the kind of issues that have been raised in the amendment. The noble Lord says, "Ah well, the law is being broken", but it is the responsibility of the local authority to deal with that. There is a myriad of town and country planning legislation to deal with such issues either specifically in detail or in general, allowing the planning system, through the policy guidance system, to come up with the finer details. It is up to the local authority to impose its will once it has decided whether planning permission should be given and what conditions should apply to the giving of that planning permission.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether the Minister will be good enough to answer the specific question that I addressed to him: Where an old planning permission has been granted to the Coal Board without the need for a bond to cover the restoration liability, can the local authority require the transferee to lodge a bond before the licence is implemented?
Lord Strathclyde: The Coal Authority must make absolutely certain that the company is financially viable. That requirement seems to me to deal with the problem raised by the noble Lord. If the company then goes bankrupt and gives up its licences, as it would, and the mine becomes abandoned, the responsibility falls to the Coal Authority.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We have had a long and, I think, a very useful debate. It has lasted one hour and 23 minutes so far. It has been a better debate—if I may dare to say so—than most of us read as having taken place in another place. We have in particular teased out the matter of where responsibilities for

1057
environmental controls lie in a way which has brought a great deal to light which was previously hidden. We have explored the role of the NRA. We have dredged that river with enthusiasm and to considerable depth.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded us that considerations of natural beauty and the peaceful lives of living people should not and need not be incompatible. I am grateful to him for his wise and well informed support, as I am also for the support of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. He raised the question of after-care and asked why that word is absent from Amendment No. 82. He is quite right to draw our attention to that matter. The answer is quite simple. I forgot to put it in. I am grateful to my noble friend for his vigilance on that matter. As one leading statesman of the Labour Party said to me not so very long ago, "When it comes to command of detail, a Pontypridd solicitor has no rival on this earth".
The Minister said that Amendment No. 81 is not necessary because it is already provided for in the planning procedures. I am grateful for that. I shall need to consider it, but it would not cause the heavens to fall if, even if that is the case, it were to be repeated in this Bill. We seem, all of us, not to have noticed it so far and, goodness knows, there has been no obvious attempt to make the Bill brief, laconic or crisp. The Minister's reply to Amendment No. 81A was much more reassuring and I am grateful to him for that.
On Amendment No. 82, the Minister stressed the importance of the NRA and made, I think, a useful and helpful point, but so often the Minister's defence against the amendment was that it is all the responsibility of somebody else somewhere else or, "It is all there in the Act of 1888". We, I think, would like time and again to see the provisions here, in this Bill. It would make it easier for all those who have to deal with these matters after the Bill becomes an Act.
However, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part so enthusiastically and at such great length and, for the moment at least—although unquestionably we shall go on talking about this today and shall revisit it at Report stage—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81A not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Limitation on enforceability of conditions
No conditions attached to any planning permission for coal mining operations shall be enforceable against any person other than the licence holder for the relevant land, the Coal Authority or, where it retains an interest in the land, the Corporation.").
The noble Lord said: We stay on the thorny problem of liabilities, so I fear some repetition. My understanding of the problem is now much clearer since I studied the remarks made by my noble friend, in particular on Amendment No. 1 at col. 544 of Hansard. However, I still have the odd problem on which I seek
1058
clarification. I was fascinated by the discussion on the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and I shall study the report carefully when it comes out.
The purpose of Amendment No. 83 is to protect landowners and occupiers from enforcement action. Planning conditions bind the mine so that if the mining company defaults and the land reverts to the owner, the planning authority can enforce the restoration or other conditions against the owner. That could be very expensive and it is necessary for protection to be provided for landowners and agricultural occupiers against problems that might arise from mining activities. What I am trying to say is that the costs, the liabilities, come from mining activity, so I believe that the costs should be met by the mining companies or those who are responsible for the historic legacy. I suspect that this is in line with some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on the previous amendments.
I return to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, put to me during discussions on Amendment No. 20—not least because my noble friend Lord Strathclyde told your Lordships at col. 639 of Hansard that I should look at Clause 54 for the answer. My question was—and, indeed is—as follows: If an owner of land is sent a bill for pollution not covered by the 1991 Act—perhaps relating to methane or dust caused by a disused mine—to whom does he send the bill for payment? I think that it is either the Coal Authority or the last mining company, but the problem occurs if the company is no more or is insolvent. I think that my noble friend said at col. 44 of Hansard that it goes to the Coal Authority. I think, again, that in the great majority of cases the liability falls on the Coal Authority, but can my noble friend confirm that that is the case if the Coal Authority has disposed of its landowning rights and if operations have been transferred by the Secretary of State before the restructuring date or, indeed, direct to the private sector on the restructuring dates?
Like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I think it vitally important that the Committee should have clear answers to those questions to know how we can proceed. I interpret my noble friend's remarks as meaning that in all cases the bill that I will be sent as a residual landowner will be settled by the Coal Authority. I just want the simple answer "yes". I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that no intervention of mine will prevent my noble friend the Minister from giving the simple answer wished for by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I should like briefly to emphasise one or two points. First, we should acknowledge on the principle of continuity that the Government are providing that the present planning law, in general, including that relating to coal mining, shall continue. In Clause 54, to which we have just agreed, and other clauses, helpful and useful adjustments are made, in effect, to that planning law. But the amendment is valuable, because we must be left in no doubt as to who is to have responsibility for complying with planning

1059
conditions imposed upon British Coal on a mine which is no longer being mined but where the consequences of mining can continue indefinitely, or where coal is still being mined by British Coal and may be transferred under licence to an independent operator.
It would be sad if, in all our efforts to preserve continuity of responsibility, especially for environmental damage, we did not make it clear that the conditions granted in the past for planning permission were to be enforced against the licence holder, the new Coal Authority, or, where appropriate—it will not often be so—against British Coal. The key factor is one that my noble friend Lord Stanley has mentioned; that is, the passing of the ownership of the coal. He was right to say that we need an assurance that no assets will be transferred from British Coal before the restructuring date. On this question of the transfer of responsibilities, that is a key factor.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to raise another point in support of the amendment. A landowner might be approached about mining by a company. He would take legal advice. Unless the point is tied up, his lawyer might say that it is not safe to go ahead because any liability that might arise in the years ahead could devolve upon the owner. The owner might say that the risk of that liability is too great and that he will not go ahead, in which case he could be forced by a CRO to go ahead and then find himself with liabilities. That would be unfair. The matter must be tied up so that, if an agreement is to be made, a lawyer will advise that it is safe to do so.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: As my name is to the amendment, I shall speak briefly in support of it. It is the third instance in a litany of voices all saying, "Please not us", and not least the landowning, property-owning and occupiers' interests. The amendment rests upon the fact that landowners and property occupiers are the weak party, in the sense that they are unable to assess risk, at any rate not at any reasonable cost. They are faced ultimately with powers of compulsion. We have a changed situation in that we start off with British Coal and we end up with a Coal Authority, an operator, and various other individuals, all of whom in their own way, might have to shoulder some part of the liability that was formerly contained within the one entity.
We all fear falling between two stools. That is known in the trade as "risk management", I believe. My children know it as "pass the parcel", but they do it for different reasons. We do not know what sort of covenant the operators will he able to offer. So while I take the point, and see the logic in the Minister saying that the liabilities must, so far as possible, fall on those operators, it is only fair to say that it is an untried and untested entity. It may be a large, substantial PLC. We just do not know, but we would all feel much happier if, rather than have to sift through ancient and modern pieces of legislation and to tie in all sorts of regulations from planning law., environmental law and elsewhere, we could have some sort of statement.
1060
If it is too complex a matter for the Minister to give the answer today for which his noble friend Lord Stanley was asking, perhaps he could ask his right honourable friend whether there could be some sort of comprehensive statement on how the liabilities and duties will fall, including all the "what if" scenarios about which everyone is concerned. There is a proper balance to be struck here between commercial activities and the protection of individuals, the environment, and all the other things that beset commercial life.
As the Government are setting in place new commercial entities to take on the running of these mines and to accept the liabilities, I feel that that is where the commercial mainspring lies. It is from that angle, as promoter of the legislation, that it is reasonable to look to the Government for a clear statement setting out what they envisage in those circumstances.
Lord Strathclyde: I have spent a considerable part of this afternoon and time on previous occasions in Committee trying to explain where the liability lies. I believe that everything I have said is clear and consistent. I point the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to some of the statements that I have made. I shall not go through it all over again in reply to my noble friend Lord Stanley because that might well try the patience of the Committee. However, I want things to be as simple as possible inasmuch as dealing with some of the legal principles allows them to be simple. Of course I want to maintain the principle of continuity, which I have already outlined and which was mentioned again by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Let me make it clear that I understand the concerns behind the amendment and the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 83. I do not believe that it would be effective because, as many Members of the Committee will be aware, the basic premise of planning law is that the permission runs with the land. I do not believe that on its own the amendment would be able to defeat that basic principle. So while I understand the concerns, I believe that landowners will find more reassurance in the authority's duty to satisfy itself on the financial capacity of licence applicants.
The second amendment would provide that responsibility for environmental responsibilities.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Strathclyde: We are dealing with Amendments Nos. 83 and 83A. No we are not. We are dealing only with Amendment No. 83. So there is no second amendment and the question does not arise. I shall deal with that point next time.
My noble friend asked me to whom he should send the bill. I am not clear under what circumstances my noble friend is likely to receive a bill demanding money for pollution. The regulatory bodies are unlikely to pursue my noble friend unless he has some relevant responsibility. For the sake of argument, let us assume. that the pollution in question is the fault of a coal mine operator or is connected to his activities. in that case, my noble friend should send any such bill that he receives to the operator, who will deal with it.
What if the operator should be insolvent?
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend for giving way. What if the operator has gone bust?
Lord Strathclyde: That is precisely the question that I asked. What happens if the operator should be insolvent? In that case, my noble friend should send his bill to the receiver, who will take over the responsibilities of the operator. If the operator has been wound up and the lease terminated, my noble friend should send the bill to the Coal Authority, which will have responsibility for the mine as owner. The Bill makes that clear in the earlier clauses.
Lord Peston: I do not want to repeat the debate on liability. One of the many excellent features about the Minister's contributions is that they are always extremely clear. What worries us, however, is that when we understand the Bill we are more concerned than we were when it was obscure. But that is by the way. Essentially, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, had a single purpose. He asked whether the owner of the land, who might have been willingly or unwillingly involved, could ever become liable not for pollution but for restoration. The key word is "restoration".
The Minister was asked to give a straight answer; yes or no. I take it that the answer is no; that the owner of the land can never become the person who has to meet the costs of a restoration. Is that what the Minister said? I do not want to repeat the debate on liability because I do not regard this as one of the liability issues. The principle of the Bill is that the mining people are responsible. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, asked whether he could ever become responsible. Is the Minister able to tell him that he can never be responsible for restoration costs?
Lord Strathclyde: I understood my noble friend to ask who would pay if he received a bill for environmental responsibilities and he did not consider that he was responsible. I explained the process that should be gone through, which ended up with the Coal Authority.
Lord Renton: I am afraid that several doubts have been raised in the answers given by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Let us, first, take the case in which the operator goes bust. Alas, we all know that sometimes there are advantages in going into liquidation—to escape one's liabilities. If in those circumstances the liability will be passed to the surface owner, who had no responsibility and perhaps did not want the mining to take place below his land, that would be most unfair.
There are other issues but, first, I must ask my noble friend to answer a question that my noble friend Lord Stanley and I raised. What about the circumstances which continue indefinitely? Mining may have ceased some years ago but mining subsidence continues possibly for ever in one way or another. There are other unfortunate consequences of mining which was done by the British Coal Board but which has ceased and which we should be prepared to anticipate.
Clearly, it would be most unfair on the owner or occupier of the surface of the land to be made responsible under a previous ancient planning permission with conditions attached. Therefore, the
1062
amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Stanley, is of vital importance. I do not believe that the Minister has answered what I describe as a key factor. It may be legalistic to describe it as such, but in practice it is relevant. It is the date of the transfer of the ownership of the coal. Is that to be before or after restructuring? It would be helpful if my noble friend were able to answer that.
Lord Strathclyde: The first point that my noble friend made is important and we have returned to it time and time again. I agree that it would be unfair if the liabilities fell on the owners of the land. Quite clearly, they are the responsibilities of the Coal Authority which accepts all liabilities from all previous mining operations, whether carried out by British Coal or any other coal miner. Indeed, a Roman mine might be causing subsidence and the Coal Authority will accept responsibility for that.
As regards the date of transfer, I make no pretence that I do not fully understand the point made by my noble friend. However, there will be a vesting date on which the property assets and liabilities of British Coal will be transferred to the Coal Authority.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wish, first, to refer to the remark made by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I raised that point when I moved my Amendment No. 74, which dealt with CROs. The more I listen to Members of the Committee, the more I realise that CROs have many hidden problems and that we should be better off without them. I am sure that we must resolve that matter.
I refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The question I asked referred to liabilities, which included restorations. I do not quite know how to conclude, except to say that I feel I received from my noble friend the same answer as nearly 40 years ago I received from my wife when I asked her to marry me. I shall have to do the same with him; that is pursue him at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 83A:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Escape of polluted water
.—(1) In granting any licence for the exploration for or the mining of coal the Authority shall require the licensee to take such steps as shall be determined by the National Rivers Authority to prevent the escape of polluted water from the mine both during the operation of the mine and after its abandonment.
(2) In making any Scheme under section 12 of this Act in relation to the exploration for or the mining of coal the Secretary of State shall be subject to the same obligation under subsection (1) above as the Authority.").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee on all sides may consider that this is the time to go for a cup of tea or even for a pre-prandial aperitif because I propose to thank and to congratulate Members on the Benches opposite, starting with the noble Lord the Minister. That may be found to be extremely boring —except to him—and it may take some time.
Before moving Amendment No. 83A, I wish to record my grateful welcome of the Minister's

1063
announcement last Tuesday relating to the safeguards against the threat of water pollution from abandoned mines. That is what Amendment No. 83A is all about. At last we have a clear government recognition of this potentially appalling risk to the environment, and in particular to the woefully inadequate legal measures to prevent mine water pollution killing off vast tracts of this nation's rivers and streams. We welcome the Minister's commitment to maintain pumping in the Durham coal field. My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington will alert us to the particular problem of the Durham coal field.
Equally, I welcome the Minister's commitment to similar action in other cases where there is risk. I refer to what he said in col. 542 of the Official Report of 26th April. The problem is not confined to Durham; it exists in every area where coal is or has been mined. It is illustrated all too clearly in the recent report of the National Rivers Authority. I salute its chairman, my countryman, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on what can be described only as a most thorough and illuminating account of the problems that we must face from the massive round of mine closures that have taken place in recent years.
The NRA report states that there are significant water quality problems from coal mine discharges as far afield as the North West, Wales, Yorkshire, the South East, Northumbria and the Trent. Some 200 kilometres of rivers, streams and brooks are affected. The situation will get worse if pumping and other water treatment ceases at mines which have recently closed or are scheduled for closure.
I illustrate that point with an example which was brought to my attention only today. It concerns a local beauty spot, a popular museum and country park complex in South Yorkshire —Worsborough Reservoir near Barnsley. In October of last year, only seven months ago, the pumps in nearby mine workings were switched off. Now—and I repeat, only seven months later—the reservoir and nearby rivers are literally dying. Algae are proliferating and fish are being killed off almost completely.
British Coal, no doubt in good faith, relinquished its responsibility for that ecological disaster—for that is what it is turning out to be—last October when it switched off the pumps. That was an act which under the present crazy legal situation it was perfectly entitled to do. The problem was too hot for Yorkshire Water to handle. It could not be persuaded to take over the pumping, despite being offered the pumping facilities free of charge. It said that the liabilities were far too large to take any part in it.
There are also severe implications for the Worsborough Reservoir. The amount of water draining into it is much less and the quality of that water is, to say the least, pretty awful. If that was not enough, the lack of pumping will affect local water tables; it will lead to a change in landscape habitat; and will affect mature woodland within that area.
So what now? That valued asset of one of the hardest hit areas of the coalfield is left—if I may coin the phrase —high and dry. I mention that and give that illustration to underline the value and importance of the Minister's
1064
proposals on this issue. We look forward to the Department of the Environment's review of contaminated land and liabilities, the results of which are due later this year. Not only do I welcome the Minister's proposal to maintain pumping in Durham and elsewhere—and I hope that he will tell the Committee that he has requested the NRA to compile immediately a list of urgent cases—but I pay tribute also to his announcement that the Government will expect the new Coal Authority to go beyond the minimum environmental duties imposed upon it by the Bill.
Furthermore, I support fully the requirement that the Coal Authority and the new operators must consult the NRA about the consequences of abandoning mines in the future and about the preventive measures that they must take.
Amid that welter of congratulations, perhaps I may make a few additional suggestions. At present an informal agreement exists between British Coal and the NRA that British Coal will give 14 days' notice to the authority before switching off any pumps. I should like an assurance from the Minister that, with immediate effect, no pumps will be turned off by British Coal or after its dissolution by the Coal Authority or by private operators without the express authorisation of the NRA. That is the first point.
Secondly, I should welcome an assurance that the NRA will be asked to investigate all pumping operations that have ceased since October 1992. I select that date, the date of Mr. Heseltine's fateful pit closure announcement, not for political reasons but because it marked the start of the recent massive round of pit closures which, if I interpret the NRA report correctly, could well result in an equally massive round of environmental damage from mine water pollution.
Thirdly, where the NRA authorises a cessation of pumping, the pumping stations should be maintained in operational order and nearby waters regularly monitored until the NRA is satisfied that there is no future risk. The continued care and maintenance of pumping stations will incur modest costs at the very most. But prevention is better than cure and, what is more, prevention is cheaper than cure.
Fourthly, in his statement the Minister said that a specific budget for the purpose of dealing with the problem would be made available to the Coal Authority when it is appointed, whenever that may be. Again, that is to be welcomed. But what about the problem now? Will the Minister outline the resources which will now be made available to British Coal to maintain the present mechanisms and, indeed, to save the Worsborough reservoirs of our nation, because there are many examples of this nationwide? Abandoned mines, as we are coming to see after this afternoon's debate, are very unpredictable creatures. We should be optimistic if we expected them to adhere to any government timetable.
I realise that in those four requests I have given the Minister quite an extensive shopping list. Obviously, I do not expect an immediate response, certainly not across the Dispatch Box. However, I look forward to a

1065
reply from the Minister, either verbally at our convenience or in writing, if possible well before Report stage.
I leave the acute, specific problems in the Durham coalfield to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, although the Minister will not be surprised to learn that in the view of the Durham County Council his assurances fall far short of what is considered to be necessary to safeguard the environment.
That brings me smoothly to Amendment No. 83A, which I am moving. I am speaking also to Amendment No. 93. Amendment No. 83A is a new clause which provides that a comprehensive plan is prepared to deal with mine water before operations start; and that is important. That will include work during the operation of a mine and will allow for proper decommissioning after it has been worked. It will be comparable with the process of after-care agreements between opencast operators and local planning authorities. The provision for the complete restoration of the site, including the treatment of mine water where that is necessary, will be a necessary condition for the granting of planning permission. I wish to see it all signed, sealed, settled and delivered before operations start.
Although the NRA is currently consulted at the planning stage, if I understand the matter correctly, those consultations cover only the active life of the mine. They do not include the impact of either the operation or the abandonment of the mine on the water environment. Provisions in the local minerals plan could ensure that an abandonment plan is drawn up for each mine.
I believe that I am right to say that that change would be supported by the NRA, although the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will correct me if I am wrong, because it says in the report:
"Consideration must also be given to changes to the planning system with regard to the opening, or re-opening, of mines in order that full provision is made in advance for its aftercare with respect to groundwater rebound".
That is from the Abandoned Mines and the Water Environment 1994 report at page 42. With what I take to be a powerful supporting statement, I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I shall speak to Amendment No. 93, which is grouped with this amendment. I shall not repeat what I said about the County Durham position on Second Reading except to say that much of it was based on this splendid document called Coal Industry Bill Minewater Pollution which was produced by Durham County Council. I am glad to say that on the front it states:
"Briefing for the House of Lords".
Sometimes the House of Lords is not referred to on the briefs which we receive.
Perhaps I may return to the specific amendment. Amendments to the Water Resources Act 1991 are necessary to renew the exemptions for pollution arising from abandoned mines so far as they relate to British Coal and the Coal Authority. Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 created the offence of polluting controlled water; namely, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, groundwater and coastal waters.
1066
However, Section 89(3) provided an exemption by permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters. Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 gave the National Rivers Authority the power to carry out works to prevent or remedy pollution and recover the costs. However, Section 161(4) provided an exemption from the NRA's right to obtain reimbursement of costs by permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters. Those exemptions make the question of responsibility for mine water discharges unclear and should not apply to British Coal and the Coal Authority.
Ministers keep repeating, as, indeed, we heard again today, that British Coal's liabilities will transfer to the Coal Authority. But they deliberately ignore the fact that British Coal is exempted from liability for permitting —I emphasise the word "permitting"—pollution from abandoned mines. Causing pollution gives rise to liability. Therefore, it can be seen that there is immense scope for dispute and expensive litigation. British Coal has consistently denied liability, even when it has undertaken remedial works. Thus, the liability to be transferred is heavily circumscribed.
We cannot rely on British Coal's previous, so-called, "good neighbour" policy, because it will no longer have the resources, both in terms of policy and, more importantly, in terms of manpower, to take action. The Coal Authority is primarily a licensing body and is not involved in operations as British Coal has been. Therefore, the responsibility to take action cannot be left to the goodwill of those two bodies: they must be made legally liable for pollution from abandoned mines.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the NRA is the agency which has the responsibility to deal with pollution of controlled waters and that, as I said earlier, includes rivers, coastal waters and ground water. The NRA has just published a report entitled, Abandoned Mines and the Water Environment, to which my noble friend referred. It describes both the potential and actual environmental damage resulting from abandoned mines and the legal and practical difficulties which the NRA faces in its efforts to prevent and clean up associated pollution. In view of the widespread closing of pits, the Government must give the most urgent and serious consideration to that report.
In North-East England, the NRA is faced with 15 significant discharges and about 100 discharges in total. Those are the discharges from one area and there are 57 areas defined in the report. That gives an indication of the measure of the problem. It is crazy that an industry, when in operation, has its discharges strictly regulated and yet, when it comes to an end, leaves a legacy of poor water quality and has no legal responsibility for the damage that it causes.
I find it incredible that the Government are treating the matter with some indifference. The circumstances from every point of view cry out—and this is the important point—for specific legislative action. They say that the Coal Authority will take over British Coal's current responsibilities for dealing with the water discharges from coal mines, except where liability has been passed on to the private sector, including licensed operators.

1067
Does British Coal's current responsibility include that matter? It appears not, in so far as it has consistently said that it deals with the matter only on a "good neighbour" basis. Further, it is certain there will be massive responsibilities to be faced by the Coal Authority. In our Second Reading speeches, many of us said that it is by no means certain that the authority will have either the resources or the expertise to deal with such an important matter.
It is for that reason that I asked the Minister to clarify a statement he made in his speech on the first day of Committee on 26th April (at col. 541). I should say that he has most kindly and promptly agreed to do so. I share the welcome that was given to the statement; indeed, it has been welcomed by Members from ail sides of the Chamber. However, I should like to look at it in a little more detail before I put one specific question to the Minister. I should like to remind Members of the Committee that the Minister said:
"A high priority should be attached to tackling situations such as that in Durham. There, on the best advice at present available, it seems that continued pumping is required to prevent a serious pollution incident; or at all events to give assurance that such an incident can be avoided".
Some of us have been saying that for many months. The Minister went on to say:
"Whatever else might come out of the consideration of priorities, I am certain that it must include a commitment to maintain the pumping there for so long as it is needed in order to prevent the risk of serious pollution; and there may be other cases elsewhere where pumping should likewise be maintained".
I readily concur with what has been said. It is not just a North-East problem; it is something that is happening and which will happen in every coal field throughout the country. Those words were very important and most heartening. However, there is an immediate and vital question to be asked: who will pay for it and how long will it last? That has not been spelt out. That is why some of us are most concerned. It is the nub of the problem. If it is not answered, I am sorry to say that it will seem that the Government are simply skirting around the problem.
One purpose of my amendment is to try to clear up the doubt that surrounds the matter. The Bill is the obvious measure to deal with the uncertainty about which I have just spoken. I do not think that there will be any disagreement in that respect. I hope that the Government will accept my amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I intend to be very brief. I have a little problem in that I have a long-standing commitment this evening. However, I hope that I shall not have to leave the Chamber before my noble friend the Minister replies. But, if I do, I hope that both he and Members of the Committee will forgive me. What I have to say can be said quite briefly. My noble friend the Minister has been most helpful, both this afternoon and during the earlier stages; indeed, to quote words used just a short time ago he has been "clear, consistent" and, I should add, helpful.
The statement that my noble friend the Minister made last Tuesday has been frequently referred to; indeed, it has just been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I share the view that the statement made about the pumping, and in particular about the Durham
1068
coal field, was of great importance. In the light of that statement—which has really taken matters forward—it was somewhat cavalier a the noble Lord to say that the Government have not approached the matter with a sufficient sense of priority.
I believe that the Government have now shown that it is a very important matter and that they propose to deal with it. They have made it clear that it will be the responsibility of the Coal Authority to do so. My noble friend the Minister added that he would expect the Coal Authority to seek to meet its commitments in the most cost-effective way. No one can doubt that that is right. My noble friend has quite clearly given a commitment on behalf of the Government in that respect.
It is always rather nice to be the chairman of a public body when noble Lords suggest that all sorts of new powers should be given to it and that other authorities should be required to do things that one would like. I have to say that this is another occasion when I am able, at least to some extent, to support my noble friend. We do not want an obligation on the authority to require that the licensee shall take such steps as the NRA thinks necessary. I say that because once again we return to the position of confusing who is responsible. I want to be sure that the NRA is in a position to set appropriate conditions. That is the point I made earlier. I have explained to my noble friend why I do not believe that the NRA, or the river pollution boards in Scotland, will be in that position. I am not yet satisfied that they are involved in the right stage of the process. My noble friend has undertaken to look at that again. Subject to that proviso, I believe that the job should lie with the regulatory authority.
It is interesting that in the Environmental Protection Act there is a clause which states that for prescribed processes the enforcing authority—which is HMIP—shall not grant an authorisation if the National Rivers Authority certifies to the enforcing authority its opinion that the release will result in or contribute to a failure to achieve any water quality objective in force under Part III of the Water Act. The Act goes on to provide that any authorisation which is granted shall, as respects such releases, include such conditions as appear to the National Rivers Authority to be appropriate.
However, there is a fundamental difference there. HMIP, the environmental regulator, is the enforcing authority. Therefore, it is merely one environmental regulator in a position to put certain conditions into the authority for the operation of the particular process.
It is perhaps relevant that discharge from a mine is not a process controlled by the Environmental Protection Act. Perhaps at some future date we should consider whether it should be. I say at some future date because, again, while I understand and sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said, these issues are complex. In the NRA report which the noble Lord quoted we say that dealing with the combined problem of contamination from abandoned mines and from contaminated land is a major one and it should be viewed on a combined basis. The Government are undertaking a major review at present. I have said previously that I do not want a major change in environmental legislation covering a huge, complex and

1069
important issue written rather hurriedly into the Coal Bill. We have to return to the issue at the appropriate time.
I would have some sympathy for the argument proposed in Amendment No. 93 that we should do away, at least for the future and in relation to the lessees and licensees to be licensed under this Bill, with the exemptions contained in Sections 89 and 161 of the Water Act in relation to permitted discharges. Where I part company with Amendment No. 93 as drafted is that it seems to be retrospective. It seems to me to place on the Coal Authority liabilities which did not exist previously. That does not seem to be a right principle.
The ability remains—and I argued earlier this afternoon that it should not be transferred—to establish that pollution was caused by the Coal Authority. So while I have great sympathy with the view that we need to change the law and that we need to move on I am not sure that Amendment No. 93 provides the appropriate way forward.
However, we believe, and the NRA report states, that we should be in a position to ensure that when an abandonment plan comes forward the mine operator should prepare an abandonment programme which includes the perceived impact on water quality; that the NRA should be informed at least three months beforehand; and appropriate steps are put in place to ensure that an effective programme is carried forward. We should also like to see the planning system amended to ensure that when a mine is opened or reopened full provision is made in advance for its aftercare with respect to ground water rebound and water pollution.
That leads me to say what I have said again and again this afternoon. I do not want the wrong powers to be given to the wrong bodies. I want effective powers for the regulator. I do not believe that we have them at the moment because I am not sure that the NRA is given the information and put in a position to enable it to take the appropriate steps under the existing planning law. If that is put right, then I am, prepared to wait for a wider and more embracing measure after the current review is completed.
Lord Prys-Davies: I understand that hitherto the Government have said that the underlying problem is complex and that when the pumps are switched off after the closure of a pit and the water level resumes its natural level, many causes may join thereafter to produce pollution. The Government say that it is difficult to pin the responsibility on any one individual organisation.
I would be the first to accept that it is difficult and complex. To the best of my recollection we have been told since February 1992 that the Government are investigating the issue and the legislative framework that is necessary. Can the Minister give an indication when the investigation will be completed and when we may expect the report?
I have followed what the Minister has said. I should like him to confirm that he is saying that henceforth if the polluted water emanates even from a colliery for which the Coal Board has had no responsibility at any
1070
time, the Coal Authority will be responsible for the pollution. What is the authority for that statement, if that is the Government's position? Secondly, if that is the position, what is the sanction if the Coal Authority fails to abate the pollution? We are entitled to ask that question given the wording of the Water Resources Act 1991.
I am particularly mindful that there was a case before the Cardiff Crown Court on 2nd December last year against British Coal. The case failed. The prosecution arose out of the pollution of the River Rhymney after the pumps had been switched off after the closure of the Britannia and Pengam pits. The prosecution failed because it was unable to show that the polluting material had emanated from the Britannia and Pengam pits. In fact, it had emanated from pits higher up in the Mynydd Islwyn seam.
I should be grateful if the Minister would say when he anticipates sanctions will be available and amendments will be made to the Water Resources Act to enable prosecutions to be brought against the Coal Authority if it fails to abate the nuisance.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall deal with this point right away, because it is one that we have dealt with again and again. First, the Coal Authority will take over all the assets of British Coal. British Coal owns all the coal in the country and the Coal Authority becomes responsible for its liabilities. That is set out in subsection (3).
In relation to the review announced by my right honourable friend Mr. Atkins, he indicated that he expected the overall review of the issues relating to contaminated land and liabilities, including the question raised in Amendment No. 93, to be concluded later this year. That deals with that issue.
Amendment No. 83A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and Amendment No. 93 are similar to Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 49 and 55 which we debated last Thursday. The difference is that Amendment No. 83A requires that all licences should contain conditions enforcing the requirements of the NRA, whereas the earlier amendments dealt predominantly with consultation.
As regards the operational phase of a mine, there is absolutely no need for licence conditions to enable the NRA to enforce its requirements. It has its own proper powers to enforce its requirements. All that is necessary so far as Coal Authority licensing is concerned is that the licensing should not in any way obstruct the NRA's role, and I am confident that that is the case. As I have mentioned, Schedule 8 to the lease contains a covenant by the tenant, at his own expense, to execute all works and to provide and maintain all arrangements, whether affecting an owner, tenant or occupier, which are directed or required by any statute in force or by any competent authority.
I have also explained how we intend to deal with the abandonment of mines. The leases will contain appropriate conditions to secure that the operator will consult the appropriate regulatory body about the possible consequences for the water environment of abandoning the mine. Before agreeing to termination of the lease, the authority will expect the operator to

1071
institute any reasonable treatment measures and to make an appropriate payment for any continuing costs. Once the lease has come to an end, the authority will be responsible, as I have explained.
I think that this is the most effective way of securing that appropriate measures are taken to protect the environment in these circumstances. Therefore, I contend that Amendment No. 83A is unnecessary.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 93, deals with the question of statutory pollution offences in respect of discharges permitted rather than caused. It goes back to the statement that I made on the first day. Again it goes back to the consultation process by Robert Atkins. It deals with the question of who should be liable in the circumstances. Once we have the answers to that, we can set about changing the law, if that is required. That was the point that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made; he is absolutely right on this question. I wish we could agree that the statement that I made on Tuesday—it may not be a perfect statement; it may not go as far as noble Lords wish me to go—is as far as we can reasonably be expected to go because of the uncertainties regarding the future regime dealing with these quite specific liabilities. That would save a lot of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked two specific questions: who will pay; and how long will pumping go on? The answer to the first question is that the Coal Authority will pay for all of this, as I believe I have made clear in the past. As for how long the pumping of the mines will continue, it will continue for so long as it is needed to forestall serious pollution. The authority will be the owner of the abandoned mines. It is not a commitment that is limited in time. However, I emphasise that the period is only so long as is needed to prevent pollution.
I have explained the review process. I do not wish to go over old ground again. But I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the interim measures will not prejudice any new legal responsibilities which may fall on the Coal Authority as a result of the review. I believe that going further with the noble Lord's amendment would prejudge that review, which it is not worth doing.
I hope that in the light of that explanation—I have given valuable reassurance where that is required—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Because I was in close and intimate discussion behind the Woolsack on the crucial question of the Committee's dinner time, I regret that I was unable fully to follow the arguments put forward in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I apologise to him. I shall certainly read them carefully tomorrow. I think that he gave us at least qualified support and, if so, I welcome it; if not, I am sorry.
Lord Crickhowell: It was so qualified as not to be support for the specific amendments.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I shall read the speech tomorrow and see what crumbs of comfort I can
1072
extract from it. It sounded quite nice to me when the noble Lord said it. However, he alerted us to the complexity of the problem.
The Minister replied to me on Amendment No. 83A and to my noble friend on Amendment No. 93. He said that there was no need for such amendments because the NRA has all the powers necessary to achieve the thrust of the amendment without bothering anyone else. He also gave us reassurances on the powers of the lease. That may be so. I shall be obliged to take advice on his reply. Yet I must point out that, whenever I take advice, based on antecedent form my advisers tend to say, "Yes, that's all very well but", and produce another six factors which the Minister's reply leaves totally out of consideration, which would produce an entirely new set of problems. If the advisers do as they usually do, I shall return at Report stage with further amendments in this area. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83B not moved.]
Clause 55 [Health and safety regulations as to rescue service]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 51, line 12, at end insert ("provided that approval shall only be given to a scheme which maintains the same or a greater level of service as that in existence immediately before the restructuring date.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. We come back to the question of health and safety. While I support the broad thrust of Clause 55, we believe, as suggested in the amendment, that it should be strengthened and that at line 12 on page 51 should be inserted the words,
"provided that approval shall only be given to a scheme which maintains the same or a greater level of service as that in existence immediately before the restructuring date".
That emphasises what we have felt repeatedly as we have dealt with the question of safety: that under public ownership a culture of safety was established—the point was made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam—and that we should do everything possible to continue that culture. That is why we make the point that any approved scheme will be up to the standard of previous schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I support the amendment, although I wish it had gone further. I wish that it had begun, "There shall be a national rescue service". This clause is totally conditional upon a number of things happening. It is time that the provision was firmed up; and the noble Lord's amendment will help to do that.
I had intended merely to say, "Hear, hear", to those who spoke to the amendment. However, my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley, who would have spoken to the amendment, has had to leave. I wish therefore to take his place, however inadequate that may be, and to say a word about why I believe that the Government ought to go further on this matter and strengthen this very conditional clause, turning it into an affirmative provision.
There is no doubt that rescue at coal mines is a specialist function requiring workers who are specifically trained and equipped for that work. Two rescue

1073
stations have been closed down: one in Yorkshire and one at Dinas in South Wales. I believe that it is right that we should not have a dwindling of the necessary rescue stations. A policy should be announced and made clear on a vital matter—namely, the lives and safety of those who work in the pits. The training of the rescue workers is arduous, it demands full-time commitment and is dangerous. The regulations at the moment are quite strict—owners employing 10 or more workers underground are required to provide central rescue stations near to the mines and trained rescue workers.
There is no legal requirement for full-time brigadesmen, but on the other hand I believe that the Committee will be impressed when I say that British Coal found it useful—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, himself was responsible—to set up a full-time service. That in itself was an indication that part-time brigadesmen and a part-time service are not adequate for the purpose. The Health and Safety Executive, which has been advised by the National Advisory Committee on Rescue Work, has accepted that there is a need to strengthen the present regulations. The European Community also has an interest in the matter. It is important that existing standards of provision should be maintained. Whatever scheme is adopted by the Government, I trust that that principle will be observed.
It is also important that small and remote mines should have access to a full-time service. I am sure I am right in saying that in South Wales today there are anything up to 100 small mines, some in inaccessible places. Only a full-time cadre, a skeleton service can have knowledge of the South Wales valleys and the other areas where many of the pits are inaccessible, even almost unknown to people who live within 10 or 20 miles. It is important that there should be full-time workers capable of knowing where those pits are and I am sure I am not exaggerating when I say there are 100 pits which employ 10 men or quite a small number. That is an important consideration.
I am not particularly in favour of privatisation, as is well known, but there is a case for saying that, if the Bill is to go through, then a disproportionate burden should not be placed upon the shoulders of the private coal mines which would drive them out of existence. Common sense leads me to say that in those circumstances the service should be the responsibility of the new Coal Authority which will be set up. Before any scheme is agreed, we should have an understanding from the Government that they are willing to ensure that there is a service which will be properly financed, without undue burdens being put on those who are ill able to pay for them, in operating the pits.
I wish to make clear that there is an argument that full-time brigadesmen should be replaced with part-time rescue workers. I believe that the reason British Coal set up a full-time service was because, by their nature, volunteers are not always available. They may be working overtime, on holiday or whatever it is, but it has not proved thoroughly satisfactory to have them and the rewards for the part-time brigadesmen are small. I ask for an assurance from the Government on this: if they
1074
are not willing to put into the Bill—it should not be conditional, it should be absolute—that there shall be a national mines rescue service, will they be willing to give the assurance that they will not approve a scheme unless it is based on a national service, a core of rescue brigadesmen who are full-time professionals? Volunteers, although able and willing even after undertaking some training, have shown that they are not capable all the time of carrying out the skilled operations that are required.
Finally, I suggest to the Government that, if any scheme is adopted, it should not be left to the small mine owners, whoever they may be, but should be the responsibility of the Coal Authority or of the Government themselves. If I could be given some assurance from the Government on those matters, I know from my own correspondence that a great many anxieties would be relieved and my noble friend Lord Mason would be overjoyed.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Haslam: My thoughts are similar to those of the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Callaghan. Currently British Coal has the sole responsibility for the provision of the Mines Rescue Service, which also covers the small licensed mines. The service provided by British Coal far exceeds that which is required under the fire and rescue regulations because experience has shown that to meet the demands of the industry this higher standard is needed. It is essential, therefore, that the proposed rescue service be based as a minimum on that which is currently provided by British Coal and every new owner should be committed to it as a condition of operation.
We have heard criticism of the performance of the private owners of the coal industry prior to nationalisation. That certainly did not extend to mine rescue activities. During that period, as a young mining engineer, I served in the mine rescue team at Boothstown, where we had adequate training facilities. The station served the Lancashire coalfield and was well supported by the private owners. Problems primarily arose when a number of rescue brigades from other coal fields had to converge on a pit to deal with a major incident or explosion, the equipment and procedures of the various teams not always being compatible. I firmly believe, therefore, that the future rescue service should continue on a national full-time basis, ensuring that the same breathing apparatus and ancillary equipment are generally available and that the rescue brigadesmen across all the coalfields are trained in the same procedures. I fully support Amendment No. 84.
Lord Prys-Davies: I hope that the Minister will be receptive to the anxieties which have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Callaghan and the noble Lord, Lord Haslam. There is only one additional point that I wish to make, relying on my own experience. The rescue of injured miners trapped in a small mine accident presents many grave difficulties because small mines do not have trained rescue workers on hand. They do not have the rescue equipment and, therefore, if the best facilities are to be available to the men who are

1075
working in the mines, it seems to me that the national rescue team, with its specially trained rescue brigadesmen, who are on call 24 hours a day, should be available.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I hope it will be conceded that we on these Benches yield to none in the importance that we assign to safety in the mines. Clause 55 gives powers to the Secretary of State to approve financial arrangements to ensure the provision of mines rescue. So far, so good.
We are concerned that such funding might be inadequate; not that it might not be there, but that it might not be enough. We have noticed that before in the provision made for CISWO. The Government did not refuse to provide assistance for CISWO, but they pitched their assistance well short of the obvious requirement and said: "Make up the difference by yourselves in some other way. Exercise your wits, get economies of scale or something of that kind; cut back on the operation". In the case of CISWO that might just be possible; in the case of mines rescue it would be deadly. For example, as the number of pits falls, revenue will be reduced but we shall still need the same capability to respond to a major incident. Major incidents cost the same, so the Government must guarantee an adequate level of funding both by making it a condition of the licence and by making the maintenance of a rescue service the ultimate responsibility of the authority.
We can draw a parallel between that and the fire and other emergency services. The Mines Rescue Service also forms part of that reticulation. For example, both at Flixborough and Kegworth, where we had major disasters, the Mines Rescue Service played a key role. The emergency services cannot be seen as independent and separate; they all operate as one great rescue service.
We are also concerned that the Government might be seduced by some cut-price scheme based on part-time rescue workers rather than the specialist, full-time rescue corps who currently man British Coal rescue stations. A part-time service will not do—if for no other reason than that it would not be able to guarantee adequate response times in case of emergency. If you are lying below ground with a broken neck, a broken back or even a broken leg, response time is what matters to you in terms of your life expectancy.
It is also questionable whether private companies would be quite as prepared as British Coal has been to release their employees for the necessary training if a part-time scheme was ever to be considered. For those reasons we strongly support this amendment and hope that the Government will concede it.
Viscount Goschen: I should like to begin by saying that British Coal can be rightly proud of the high standards which have been established by the Mines Rescue Service, and which have been praised by all Members of your Lordships' Committee who spoke on the subject this evening. Indeed, the service is second to none.
I should also like to stress right at the start of my remarks that the Government's fundamental objective,
1076
in the light of the advice from the Health and Safety Commission, is the maintenance of a national mines rescue service.
The commission's clear advice to the Government is that arrangements for rescue are a statutory responsibility of the owner, and that it is essential that any new arrangements should continue to reflect that after privatisation. As the commission rightly says, if they were seen as imposed, as the amendment suggests, or controlled from elsewhere, they would undermine the owner's responsibility, and they would be unlikely to work effectively.
The Health and Safety Executive has conducted a detailed review of rescue, working closely with the industry through the National Advisory Committee on Rescue Work and Rescue Apparatus, which comprises the owners, the Health and Safety Executive and the unions, with a view to bringing forward proposals for new regulations which reflect modern circumstances and take account of the current structure and proposed privatisation of the industry. That review led to the conclusions set out in the commission's letter of 26th January to the Minister of State for Employment. That letter has been made available in the Library.
At the centre of the commission's proposals will be a requirement that every mine must have effective rescue arrangements suitable for that mine so that, first, two rescue teams can be at the mine within around one hour of an incident; and, secondly, for a major incident, where rescue work needs to continue around the clock—such as was described by the noble Lord, Lord Morris—enough rescue workers to continue work 24 hours a day are available.
The commission's objective in proposing these requirements is to maintain or improve on the standards currently met by British Coal under existing regulations. On that basis, the HSE is currently preparing the draft regulations setting out the necessary requirements in full consultation with the national advisory committee. These will also, of course, be the subject of full formal consultation.
The commission also advises that it will be essential for the coal mine owners to co-operate with each other to achieve these requirements. This co-operation will need to encompass arrangements for the ownership of the existing assets of the rescue service, the arrangements for training and availability of men, and the need for common standards.
Clause 55 of the Bill therefore extends the regulation-making powers under the Health and Safety at Work Act to enable the Secretary of State for Employment to make regulations obliging those carrying out coal-mining operations to participate in a mines rescue scheme. Such schemes will have to be approved by the Secretary of State for Employment who will consult the Health and Safety Commission and other interested parties before reaching his decision. The commission will need to be satisfied that the proposals meet the requirements of the proposed regulations and guarantee standards.
The commission has said that its objective in preparing for the privatisation is to ensure that standards of health and safety are maintained or improved. I can

1077
reassure the Committee that it is an objective which both the commission and the Government take very seriously indeed. In preparing the new regulations, the commission is charged by the Health and Safety at Work Act to ensure that the proposals be designed to maintain or improve standards. That will be a very powerful safeguard.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, asked about the question of training standards. Requirements will be covered in the package of revised regulations and guidance which is currently being prepared by the Health and Safety Executive. Those will indeed embody the current best practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, also raised the issue of full-time brigadesmen as opposed to part-time. That will be a matter for the new owners to decide—but in the light of the new regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, himself stated, the existing regulations can be complied with by the provision of either full-time or part-time men. Indeed, British Coal uses both. However, I agree that there is no doubt that full-time men will have to remain as the core of the rescue service.
The noble Lord also asked about the question of small mines and the problems that they would face. We fully agree that the rescue service must be available for small mines. That is one of the main reasons for requiring that the rescue scheme should be approved by the Secretary of State. He will ensure that the service is available to small mines and on reasonable terms. The noble Lord—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Will the noble Viscount confirm that "reasonable terms" include, for example, support from the Coal Authority? Or are the Government thinking along the lines of making the mine owners cover all the costs of the service?
Viscount Goschen: I have mentioned that the Secretary of State will have power to approve the terms for participation in a rescue scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was concerned that the provisions would be too onerous on the smaller firms. I agree that it is essential that the owners meet the costs of providing a service if it is to be properly and efficiently run; but that that cost will also reflect the need to use the service, and on that basis we would not expect the costs placed on small and remote mines to be excessive. Their contribution would be based on their need of the service.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, raised the broader question, again, of funding of the rescue scheme. The basic answer is that if a rescue scheme does not contain adequate proposals for funding, then the scheme will not be approved. It is as simple as that. The safeguards are very strong.
The proposed regulations will lay down the minimum standards for rescue provision in the modern industry that all mines participating in a scheme approved by the Secretary of State will have to meet. In line with the commission's advice, it is these standards, laid down in Health and Safety Executive regulations which will meet the concerns underlying Amendment No. 84.
1078
It is proposed that the new requirements governing rescue should be in place by the beginning of next year to coincide with the vesting of the industry in British Coal's successors. However, recognising the importance of effective rescue provision, and to allow the new owners time to organise themselves effectively to achieve the co-operation which will be required, we have agreed that, following restructuring, British Coal will continue to provide its rescue service to the new owners under contractual arrangements for a period of up to one year from the coming into force of the new regulations.
I can assure the Committee that the provision in the Bill, the proposed revised regulations on rescue and the existing powers of the Health and Safety Commission, will ensure that the existing very high standards of rescue, including a national rescue capability, will be maintained or improved on privatisation. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to have heard from the noble Viscount that the Government attach the same importance to the rescue service as have all those who spoke from all sides of the Committee. We are all pleased to hear that arrangements have been made for British Coal to continue to provide a service at least for one year. However, I cannot quite understand why the noble Viscount repeatedly said that the Government's intention was that when the schemes are finally approved the continuing rescue service will be at least at the standards presently achieved or better. As that is the purpose of the amendment, I am not quite sure why the amendment has been rejected. I wonder whether the noble Viscount could complete our pleasure in hearing what he has already said by saying that he also accepts the amendment. That is precisely what I thought that he was saying. Will he be prepared to accept it?
Viscount Goschen: No, we feel that it would be unnecessary. Through the very strict safeguards of the regulations, we set out how we perceived that the very important issue of mines rescue will operate. We have stated that we would seek the very best standards—which are already available under the British Coal scheme. But we have stressed that the operation of the rescue schemes must be linked to the responsibility of the operators themselves.
Lord Ezra: I hope that that last remark does not mean in any sense that such apparent flexibility represents any variation below the present standards and that the present standards will at least be maintained.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount did not accept our amendment. I believe that what he said was virtually exactly what the amendment proposed anyway. I feel that in those circumstances we should all like to study very carefully what he did say and perhaps—choosing his very words—come back at a later stage and put forward an amendment which confirms what he said to us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I should like to suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill should begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations 1994
7.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations 1994 be approved.
The improved maternity payments introduced by these regulations will benefit around 285,000 women a year. Some 90,000 women a year will be entitled to the higher rate of statutory maternity pay (90 per cent. of their earnings) for the first time. Women will have greater freedom about when to start their maternity leave. At the same time the scheme has been simplified to make it easier for employers to administer.
The regulations before the House amend the statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance schemes and comply with the maternity pay provisions of the European Community Council directive on the protection of pregnant women at work. That was adopted in October 1992 following negotiations between member states. The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 implements the directive's employment protection requirements, including the right to 14 weeks' statutory maternity leave.
The changes to the maternity schemes will be: the higher rate of statutory maternity pay will be payable to all women who qualify; the lower rate of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance for employees will be increased to £52.50 a week to equal the higher rate of statutory sick pay; there will be one simple employment test of 26 weeks for statutory maternity pay. The two-year and five-year employment tests for higher rate statutory maternity pay are abolished; the test period for maternity allowance will be increased from 52 to.66 weeks, giving more women the chance to qualify; women will now have the freedom to choose when their maternity leave and pay should start; the amount of statutory maternity pay reimbursed to employers will be reduced to 92 per cent. but full reimbursement will be retained for small businesses (approximately two thirds of all employers); the new provisions will be introduced at the same time as the new maternity leave and dismissal provisions and will apply to all women expecting a baby on or after 16th October 1994.
These affirmative regulations are made under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 and will amend the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to effect the changes needed. They will be followed shortly by a further set of negative regulations which will use the revised primary powers to make the more detailed changes.
We published a consultation paper in August 1993. It sought comments from all sectors of industry and other interested parties on changes to maternity pay and described the additional financial costs. More than 700 copies of the consultation document were sent out and nearly 130 responses were received. The majority of employers favoured a simple approach but were concerned that there should be a length of service test for statutory maternity pay. There was a general welcome for the greater freedom of choice over when maternity leave can start.
I am grateful to all those organisations and individuals who responded. Their replies were taken fully into account and proved very valuable in helping us reach our final decisions. For example, as a result of the responses the service test of 26 weeks is being retained.
I realise that some noble Lords are concerned about the contribution to be made by employers. The Government believe that it is only right that employers should meet a small part of the costs of maternity pay for their employees during a period of leave from work. Employers in this country will still be doing better than their counterparts in most other EC states who contribute at least 50 per cent. of the cost of maternity pay.
It is important to remember that employers' national insurance contributions have been reduced by £830 million. That is £125 million more than the combined cost of this change and the change in statutory sick pay. Overall, employers will be better off as a result of the changes.
The changes are good news for 285,000 women. We have chosen a simpler option for implementing the changes; so there will be administrative benefits for business. We believe that it is reasonable to ask employers to meet the extra cost, given that the state continues to pay the lion's share —92 per cent.—of maternity pay. We have not cut the level of state funding at all and small businesses, which, as I said, account for two thirds of all employers, will not pay a penny more. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out ("approved") and insert ("not proceeded with, and that this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations which do not have the effect of transferring to industry social costs which would otherwise fall on the taxpayer.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have no wish to obstruct the passage of these regulations. Indeed, the regulations are required under European law, since they

1081
implement the European Community pregnant workers directive. Under the European Communities Act 1972 we are bound to implement that directive. Since the directive has behind it the authority of an Act of Parliament, I do not see how any believer in parliamentary sovereignty can object to it.
On these Benches we do not always agree with what directives say, any more than we always agree with what Acts of Parliament say. In both cases we try and alter them in the appropriate forum. My objection is entirely to what the Government have done in the exercise of their own discretion in the course of implementing the directive. In fact, my objections are concentrated on Regulation 5, which is not part of what is required to implement the directive; it is a decision taken by the Government themselves. It is not based on any requirement of the European Community and the body of the regulations could stand perfectly easily were the Government to accept the invitation I am extending to them to withdraw Regulation 5 and proceed with the rest.
The use of the Motion to resolve, which invites the Government to amend subordinate legislation, is well understood. The closest parallel to the Motion I am moving today is one moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, on 22nd May 1989 on the Summer Time Order. He moved as an amendment that,
"this House declines to proceed further with the debate on the Motion for an humble Address for a Summer Time Order"— [Official Report, 22/5/89; col. 73.],
which is a rather stronger form of words than those I am using today.
I gave the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, notice that I intend to ask some questions about the vires of the regulations, or rather the vires of Regulation 5. I have no intention of challenging the vires. For the purposes of this House, though not of the courts, we normally take the verdict of the Joint Committee as final. But if these are correct vires then I should like to know what is their extent. What other action is the Government empowered to take under these vires? When have they been used before?
In the consultation paper to which the noble Viscount referred, the Government said that this change, if introduced, would require primary legislation. I was one of those who replied to that consultation paper. I said that, if the Government proceeded with that specific proposal, they might have some difficulty in passing the measure through this House. I have just heard that the views of everyone who wrote were taken into account. I wonder whether that remark was taken into account.
Again, on the Motion that the Bill do now pass on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill this year, the Government were warned by all parties that they might have difficulty securing passage of the measure through this House. It was after that that the Government made the timely discovery that it was possible to introduce these measures by regulation. That is done under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. So far as that relates to the actual implementation of the directive, there is no problem about it. The problem is in the use of the vires to extend the costs to employers. That is
1082
justified under Section 2(2) (b) of the Act, allowing the use of regulations for matters arising out of or relating to the European Community directive.
That is perhaps a rather wide use of those words. If that use is correct, what else could be done under it? In particular, what can be done in the way of imposing charges? It is common ground on the one hand that it is possible to use regulations to introduce changes under European law which impose costs on business. The precedents for that are so wide that there is no scope for argument about it. On the other hand, under Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act, regulations may not be used to introduce taxes. We have here a charge which is not under the employer's control; it does not relate to any duty of care. If that can be introduced by regulation, what else can be introduced by regulation under these powers? And when have they been used in a similar manner before?
As I must speak to the Minister's Motion as well as my own amendment, Ì join in the welcome to the shorter qualification for access to the higher rate of statutory maternity pay. I also join in the welcome to the greater flexibility for the date of starting maternity leave. But I regret that they have not ended the anomaly of the difference between the 18 weeks' maternity pay and the 14 weeks' maternity leave. If the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has more to say on that topic, she will probably be speaking for us both. I regret also the exclusion of women whose earnings are below the lower earnings limit of national insurance. I cannot see the ground in the directive for justifying that exclusion under European law. I am not a specialist in the matter. Has the Minister taken legal advice on whether that exclusion is within the spirit or the letter of the directive itself?
I also very much regret that the fixing of statutory maternity pay to a benefit which has itself not been uprated for a long time reminds me of the time when I was a boy when I rashly moored a boat with a short rope on a rising tide. I did not make that mistake again. I regret also the effect on the self-employed. If employers are to pay, who is to pay for the self-employed? But most specifically I am concerned with Regulation 5—the costs to the employer. Somebody must pay the costs. Under the directive it can only be the taxpayer or the employer. We need a great deal more discussion on the division of costs between industry and the taxpayer. As I see it, the true cost of labour should fall on industry, but social costs should not, especially if they do not relate to any duty of care by the employer, if they are not under the employer's control, and if they are uneven in their incidence. The basic point is that in any machinery like this we cannot deal with uneven levels of absence or uneven levels of maternity.
Some businesses employ many more women than others, and in particular more young women. The Minister told us that employers as a whole will not be worse off. But employers are not as a whole. No employer pays the wage bill of employers as a whole. They each pay their own, so some of them may be severely affected. I have often heard people complaining of the cost if their roof was damaged in the great

1083
gale. I have never heard anybody welcoming the saving because their roof was not damaged. So, equally, will be the reaction.
Employers cannot police the incidence of maternity, as the noble Viscount himself admitted on 11th April in this House. I cannot see that this change can be other than a disincentive to employ women. It may be argued from the precedence of the equal pay legislation that the increased cost of wages to women does not seem to have deterred people from employing them. But those cases are not on all fours. When employers were told to pay employees the same, a simplification of the payroll burden resulted, and that is something which is generally welcome.
If one listens to employers one hears over and over again that what they mind is the burden of paperwork. And., increasingly as academics have more dealings with this Government they sympathise. What we are given here is a greatly increased burden of paperwork involved in employing women. In fact, it will mean for many people increased cost in getting software, computer facilities and secretarial facilities. That, apart from the cost, is an increased burden arising from employing women. Again, I should like to know whether the Minister has taken legal advice on whether this is within European law and whether it is within the spirit and the letter of the directive itself.
It says in the preamble of the directive that measures to implement it should not treat women on the labour market unfavourably nor work to the detriment of directives concerning equal treatment for men and women. I wonder whether Regulation 5 meets that test. I am not a European lawyer but it seems to me that there is a real question to be asked here. If this burden is laid on employers, they may react unfavourably. They may dismiss women while pregnant. The noble Viscount may say that that is illegal. It is—and I thank the Government for strengthening measures in this area—but the last cases I read of this were in this month's Citizens Advice Bureaux bulletin which I was reading by chance about an hour ago.
Employers may fail to pay statutory maternity pay. The noble Viscount will recall a meeting he very generously gave us to discuss the risks of employers not paying statutory sick pay. He promised to monitor that situation. It is probably too early for him to report any results of that monitoring. If there are any, I should be very interested to hear them.
Nor do I know how all this will be policed. Whose job is it to ensure that employers pay statutory maternity pay? What will be done if they do not? How easy will it be without the fear of dismissal for employees to make the requisite complaint if they do not get it? What is to happen, for example, in the case discovered by the Maternity Alliance of a woman who wanted statutory maternity pay from her employer, who was a Harley Street dentist. He said, "Don't bother me. I am retiring. Go to the Department of Social Security". Or what is to happen in the case, still sadly too prevalent, of someone who works for an employer who becomes bankrupt? On whom do such people claim for their statutory maternity pay?
But, above all, it is time we accepted that employing women is the normal state of affairs. The report from the Institute of Management today which indicates a drop in the proportion of women in high management positions is bad news for our economic future. What is normally incident to women should be normally incident to employees. I see no more reason why employers should be asked to pay statutory maternity pay than why they should be asked to pay war pensions. Maternity pay is a social benefit. It is not a form of pay. And since many of the women concerned do not return to work, it seems unfair that the employer should bear the cost of a measure which enables them to do so if they wish, We all understand that the woman cannot ultimately know until after the child is born whether she is certain to want to return to work.
It is also the thin edge of a wedge. The noble Viscount will tell us, as he has done already, that employers as a whole—that mythical beast—are not worse off. However, he does remember what has happened with statutory sick pay. We were told that in 1991. But even if we accept totally the good faith of this Government, as I am sure with the noble Viscount we do, he understands that no Parliament can bind its successor. At some other time a hungry Chief Secretary will want to take a bite out of public spending. There is no reason at all now why he should not choose this. So we are getting here a privatisation of liability. Mr. Dewar, in a press release, said:
"This may not just be penny-pinching by the Treasury but a staging post to privatisation which would dump extra costs on employers".
We on these Benches agree with Mr. Dewar and we take it seriously. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out ("approved") and insert ("not proceeded with, and that this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations which do not have the effect of transferring to industry social costs which would otherwise fall on the taxpayer.")—(Earl Russell.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am in considerable sympathy with the Motion put forward—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I think that my noble friend Lord Reay is next and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is speaking further down the list.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the CBI, by which I am advised, has for some time been concerned that the Government were contemplating making industry pay the full cost for the increases in statutory maternity pay which are going to result from the implementation of the European directive on the protection of pregnant women at work. I myself expressed those anxieties in your Lordships' House during the Second Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill earlier this year and later at Third Reading.
The CBI could accept that there was a case—even a strong case—to be made for transferring the full responsibility for statutory sick pay on to industry in

1085
order to give an incentive for employers to monitor and control absence from work, for so long at least as this additional cost was more than fully offset by reductions in employers' national insurance contributions. But in the case of statutory maternity pay there was, and is, in the view of the CBI, no such justification. There are no bad habits in this field, so far as I am aware, which the Government need to use the influence of firms to correct. The Government do not wish firms to discourage pregnancy, or to take on fewer female employees of child-bearing age; or at least they have not declared their hand if they do. Maternity pay—I agree with the noble Earl—is a purely social cost which should be borne by government.
The Government argue that the cost to industry which will follow from the reduction in the statutory maternity pay reimbursement rate will be more than offset by the compensating reductions which the Government have introduced into employers' national insurance contributions. However, these reductions were introduced primarily to compensate industry for the costs of statutory sick pay. When the Secretary of State in another place in December last year introduced the Statutory Sick Pay Bill he made no mention of statutory maternity pay when he explained his reasons for reducing employers' national insurance contributions. And when he told the other place that employers would be some £160 million better off next year as a result of the combined changes which he was introducing, he plainly did not have statutory maternity pay in mind—because today the Government's figure, repeated again by my noble friend the Minister, for how much better off industry will be as a result of the combined changes has fallen to £125 million. The difference must be accounted for by a half-year's contribution by industry towards the cost of statutory maternity pay. It is to be hoped that the Government do not develop any further ideas for recouping what remains of the balance in industry's favour.
It must, of course, be emphasised that these calculations describe the effects for industry taken as a whole. In practice, some firms will lose out while others gain. As the noble Earl pointed out, in particular those employing larger numbers of women of child-bearing age will lose out. Do the Government wish to discourage the employment of women of child-bearing age?—for that must be the long-term effect of adding to their costs of employment. Already they are more expensive to employ than other categories. Fair pay legislation requires that they should be paid the same wage as anyone else. But the law also obliges firms to keep open the job of anyone on maternity leave for anything up to 40 weeks, depending on length of service, with the cost of recruiting and employing replacements falling on the firms themselves. Many firms now find this an onerous requirement, particularly as studies show that only a minority of women return to the jobs kept open for them.
Now for the first time the Government want firms to pay part of the cost of statutory maternity pay itself. Hitherto the Government have very meticulously seen to it that firms did not have to pay any of the costs of
1086
statutory maternity pay. Firms have been reimbursed 104 per cent. of the cost of benefit in order that they should also be compensated for the administrative costs of the scheme. So a principle of considerable importance is now being breached. And having once abandoned the principle, I fear that the Government will be less careful to ensure that the 92 per cent. reimbursement rate survives. After all, it took little more than three years, as the noble Earl pointed out, for the reimbursement rate for statutory sick pay to fall from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. and then to zero.
Industry's expenditure on statutory maternity pay will therefore be in double jeopardy from further falls in the reimbursement rate and from future increases in the employers' national insurance contributions, impelled perhaps by some future financial crisis. The Government are asking us to take a lot on trust.
My noble friend the Minister argued that British industry is being treated much more favourably than industry on the Continent, which in most countries has to pay more than 50 per cent. of maternity pay entitlement itself. But the heavy social costs which other member states impose on their industry was something I thought we wished to avoid, not to emulate. I thought that the Government wished to persuade those countries to align their policies with ours for the sake of the competitiveness of their industry and to reduce their unemployment, not to align our policy with theirs. I thought that that was the whole purpose and philosophy behind our refusal to sign the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. We wished to reduce, not add, to the costs on industry. One is entitled to ask oneself: What has happened to the Government's sense of consistency?
If these changes are persisted in, not only will our record for one of the highest rates of female participation in the labour force within the European Union be put at risk—which itself is not an accident but a product of our own more flexible system—but, more crucially, we will be undermining our own case in Brussels at a time when other members of the European Union were beginning to be swayed by our arguments about the damage such burdens can cause to competitiveness and employment.
I do not believe that the Government are being true to themselves. I urge them to think again, and if it is too late for that—I would not be happy to vote to overturn an order on a matter such as this involving direct expenditure and which had been passed through another place—then I beg the Government not to do this sort of thing again.
I should like to make one additional point on the subject of small business relief. I believe that it would be desirable and logical if the consultations which the Government are holding now with industry before deciding which system of small business relief to introduce for statutory sick pay—the system in the original Bill or the one embodied in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and accepted by the Government—were now extended to cover the question of what should be the appropriate system of small business relief for statutory maternity pay.

1087
There would be much to be said in favour of having the same system in both cases, possibly even combining the two reliefs so that a firm whose combined statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay exceeded the given percentage of monthly national insurance payments would be reimbursed. In the case of statutory sick pay the Government must report to Parliament by 1st December which system they intend to operate. I should like the Government to give an assurance that, even if this order is adopted, they will retain an open mind over what should be the eventual system of relief for statutory maternity pay as well as statutory sick pay until after they have completed their current round of consultations with industry. I should be grateful if my noble friend could reply to this point in his winding up; or failing that, as I have not been able to give him notice of the question, if he would write to me.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest. I am president of the Mechanical and Metal Trades Confederation which, through its members, represents some 5,000 companies (many of them very small) employing upwards of 350,000 people. The small companies with which I have contact in particular are concerned about the imposition of these additional burdens. Many of the arguments which my noble friend Lord Reay has deployed are sound and important. I hope my noble friend the Minister will take those into account as well as the consultation to which he has referred, before he comes to reply in a little while.
The effect of which I complain as my noble friend Lord Reay has pointed out, is the imposition of a further financial burden on companies by the reduction in the rate of reimbursement from 104.5 per cent., as I believe it has been hitherto, down to 92 per cent. That is a very significant additional cost on companies which is not welcome at this time when economic recovery is still so fragile.
Statutory maternity pay is not pay in the true sense of the word. I always thought that pay was payment for services rendered. Clearly, by definition, when a staff member is absent because she is pregnant then naturally she is not rendering the service. No, truthfully, this is a social security benefit. It has been long established that social security benefits are not paid by employers but by the Government as a result of the contributions which are made to them.
My noble friend has referred to the fact that other European countries ask their employers to make a substantial contribution to the cost of maternity pay. That may be so, but as my noble friend Lord Reay again pointed out, the fact of the matter is that we do not accept some of the less desirable aspects of the Maastricht Treaty and in particular of course the social chapter. We fought valiantly and effectively against the inclusion of that particular aspect of the Maastricht Treaty so far as concerns this country. This is very much a similar thing. I do not believe that we should be guided by the other members of the European Union when it suits us particularly in the context of social matters to which we have taken such exception in another context.
1088
I too have doubts about whether we should vote against this order tonight. This is a financial matter. It is in effect taxation. It may not be defined as such but clearly that is the effect of the order. It is very doubtful whether it would be right in this House to vote against the order tonight when the other place has made its views known and when in truth financial matters such as this are really for them and not for your Lordships. None the less, the effect of this order tonight is to impose additional burdens on companies at a time when that is the last thing we ought to be doing. I hope therefore that my noble friend will recognise the anxieties which have been expressed and offer some comfort to those of us, who feel worried by what he proposes.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am in considerable sympathy with the Motion tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I put down a Question in similar circumstances several weeks ago. I welcome improvements in arrangements for maternity pay. As we have been told, they have been introduced to conform with EC requirements. I do not believe that they go far enough. Indeed, during the passage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill several of us on this side of the House sought unsuccessfully to obtain improvements. As the Equal Opportunities Commission rightly says, the Government have missed an opportunity to introduce a simplified maternity rights scheme. In particular, there is the inconsistency in allowing for only 14 weeks' leave while the statutory maternity period lasts for 18 weeks. Furthermore, women who earn below the lower earnings limit—that is about 20 per cent. of pregnant employees——will continue to be excluded from the statutory pay scheme. Moreover, the higher rate statutory maternity pay (SMP) is payable for six weeks only. After that has expired, women will continue to rely on the flat rate SMP, worth only around 20 per cent. of women's average earnings.
Nevertheless, there are improvements—notably, the intention to reduce the length of service requirement for access to higher rate statutory maternity pay, 90 per cent. of earnings. The EOC says that that will benefit approximately one in five pregnant employees. Clearly, that is a step forward.
However, the noble Earl's amendment addresses the issue which we have raised in this House earlier, particularly in connection with statutory sick pay: the increasing tendency of government to load social costs on to employers. In the case of statutory sick pay, it was a gradual process, beginning simply with the arrangement that employers would administer the scheme but would be able to recover the whole amount. Then there was a reduction in the amount that employers could reclaim; and, finally, in the most recent Bill, the provision that employers could no longer reclaim anything, except in the case of very small employers.
The Government have claimed—the Minister claimed this again this evening—that it will cost employers no more because of the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. However,

1089
many see it as the thin end of the wedge, as the noble Earl said, and believe that at some future date the national insurance rate will be increased quietly and the employers will be left to pay the benefits involved but with no recompense.
Let me say at once that I believe that social costs —for which we all pay either via national insurance contributions or via taxation—should not be put on to employers. When that is done, there is always the risk, as the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux told us in regard to statutory sick pay, that some employees may not get their proper entitlement. It is no use saying that employees have a right which is enforceable by industrial tribunals. Many employees are ignorant of their rights anyway; and they are often, in days of high unemployment, too concerned about possible job loss to risk claiming them.
I must say that I find the Government's attitude in these matters surprisingly inconsistent. This is the Government who are always talking about "burdens on businesses". It is because the EC social chapter is supposed to represent "burdens on businesses" that we, of all EC countries, have opted out of it, as several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, have said this evening.
It is supposed to be a burden on business to insist that workers get at least a living wage. In pursuit of this philosophy, the Government last year abolished wages councils. There is no evidence at all that that action has led to an increase in the number of jobs on offer. There has been evidence, collected by the Low Pay Unit, that some employers have even tried to slash the wages of existing employees following the demise of the wages councils. The Government also argued that abolishing wages councils would not result in lower wage rates in the industries formerly covered. But that does not appear to be the case either. A survey conducted by the Low Pay Unit found that about one-fifth of jobs advertised in Jobcentres which had previously been covered by wages councils now pay below the old minimum rates. Workers reaching their 21st birthday who would formerly have been entitled to go onto higher wages council rates have found that their wages have not been improved to what would have been wages council levels. All in all, it appears that we are well on the way to the creation of "sweatshop Britain", which is what we who opposed the abolition of wages councils said would happen.
It seems astonishing therefore that this Government should come along with provisions which undoubtedly add to burdens on business—and this despite opposition from their erstwhile friends at the Institute of Directors and the CBI. The CBI points out that the costs will fall disproportionately on businesses which have employed more women—a curious way, it says, of recognising equal opportunities policies. Do the Government really want employers to discriminate against the employment of young women? Are they utilising this as a way of getting young males off the unemployment statistics and into low paid jobs that were formerly occupied by women? The EOC, in its Maternity Rights Agenda, put at the top of its list of 10 points the demand to,
1090
"Remove the proposal to make employers liable for the cost of change".
The Maternity Alliance takes a similar view. So, I accuse the Government of hypocrisy. A "burden on business" is anything which lays down minimum standards and which seeks to protect workers from exploitation; but it is not a "burden on business" if it relieves—even in part—the Government from meeting social costs which it is bound to meet within the terms of the UK's commitment as an EC member state. I think that is totally unacceptable.
It is in all our interests to have a satisfactory maternity rights scheme. At present, the cost of maternity is borne disproportionately by women and their families, and yet it is in all our interests that healthy children should be born and reared by women who are not under pressure to return to work at too early a stage after childbirth. It is now generally accepted that working women are playing a crucial role in the economy. Indeed, many of the new jobs which have been created are being done by women—often, I may say in passing, at too low a rate of pay. I believe therefore that the EOC is right to campaign for an increase in the length of leave to 18 weeks and progression towards full income replacement during the leave period.
But the possibility of achieving these desirable objectives is lessened by transferring part of the cost to employers, who will be wary, lest on past experience with statutory sick pay, they eventually find the total costs transferred without appropriate recompense. So I support the general thrust of the noble Earl's Motion. The amendment is not a Motion against the regulations as a whole. As I have said, the regulations contain improvements; and although I certainly wish that they had gone a little further, I would not wish to do anything that would hold up the improvements that have been stipulated in the regulations. As I understand the amendment, it simply asks the Government to amend the regulations in the terms suggested by the noble Earl. Therefore, I hope that in the light of the contributions that have been made to the debate, the Minister will agree to take the regulations away and rethink them in the terms suggested by the noble Earl.
8.17 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, accused the Government of hypocrisy and of putting a burden on business. I found that a surprising statement from the noble Baroness when one considers the Labour Party's reply to the consultation on maternity benefits. The Labour Party proposed a universal scheme with full replacement income during maternity leave. That would cost £500 million or £0.5 billion. Its proposals included giving maternity pay to women on low incomes. That alone would cost £50 million. However, the Labour Party did not actually say —it never does—who would pay, but stated rather confusingly: "Labour believes fundamentally in the partnership approach towards costs". That means costs to industry.
The changes required by the directive and the measures needed to meet the additional cost are being

1091
made by affirmative resolution under the EC Act rather than by a Bill which would have taken up unnecessary parliamentary time. Both Houses have an opportunity to debate the regulations. They were debated and accepted in another place on 20th April. I have explained that although there is a cost to the regulations, industry as a whole will not be worse off. I shall give your Lordships more specific examples of that.
Perhaps I may deal first with the noble Earl's point that the EC does not allow one to impose a tax. The new reimbursement rate has been set to cover only the additional costs of the improvements so it is cost-neutral as far as the taxpayer is concerned. In any case, employers are not paying a tax—rather they are now being asked to meet a small part of the cost of maternity pay for their employees. Reducing the reimbursement rate in this way falls within Section 2(2) of the EC Act as it is related to a community obligation.
The noble Earl asked what else the Government could do. I should make it clear that I am speaking to the regulations that are before the House tonight and not about what the Government could, might or will consider in the future. All the regulations have to be seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to ensure that they are correct. The committee has seen the regulations and it is content that it is a proper use of the powers. The directive allows us to have conditions of eligibility as laid down under—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point, but if I should not ask him for the scope of those vires, whom should I ask?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was coming to the vires. The directive allows us to have conditions of eligibility as laid down under national legislation and all governments have a principle of a lower earnings limit.
With regard to the extent of the vires of Regulation 5, Regulation 5 is related solely to the costs of implementing the directive's requirements. It does not give a power to reduce reimbursement further.
My noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Trefgarne are concerned about the costs to employers. The level at which employers are reimbursed for the money they pay out in statutory maternity pay is to be reduced to 92 per cent. It is to pay only for the costs of the directive. The extra costs to employers are small. On average they are about £230 a year, which is just under £15 a week for each pregnant employee. The Government believe that it is only right that employers should meet a small part of the cost of maternity pay for their employees during the period of leave from work. As I have said, the reductions in national insurance contributions more than compensate.
The increased costs of maternity pay for an individual employer will vary depending upon the employment profile of the female staff. An employer employing women who, on the whole, tend to remain in that employment for less than two years and who currently would qualify for the lower rate of statutory maternity pay throughout the 18-week period would have higher additional costs than an employer with a more experienced workforce. A good example is that of a large retail store chain which gave us some figures. It
1092
employs 72,000 staff, of which 71 per cent. are women. It expects about 1,500 employees to take maternity leave each year. It estimated the cost of improving statutory maternity pay at about £250,000—a cost per employee on maternity leave of £167. That is £3.50 per year for each employee or 6p per week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made much of the extra administrative work involved. The Government have simplified the scheme which in the long run will save on business administrative costs. The three previous service tests of five years, two years and 26 weeks have been reduced to one service test of 26 weeks. All women who qualify for statutory maternity pay will now receive the same level of benefit. I have explained about small employers. We have full reimbursement for 750,000 small employers (two-thirds of all businesses), and the definition of a small employer will be the same as for statutory sick pay —an employer who pays £20,000 or less in gross national insurance contributions. These measures have been widely welcomed by small employers.
My noble friend Lord Reay asked why could we not link a relief scheme to one similar to that for statutory sick pay proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and accepted by your Lordships. Small employers can recover currently all their statutory maternity pay costs. Large employers will still be able to recover 92 per cent. of their costs. The statutory sick pay scheme reimburses 100 per cent of a small employer's costs after four weeks of illness only. Employers receive nothing for the first four weeks. 'The amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkin proposed a scheme whereby employers would be protected against abnormal levels of sickness from day one. Statutory maternity pay is already reimbursed from day one of the period of entitlement. Therefore such an amendment would not be an improvement for small employers. The scheme will be simpler to operate and changes to computer software will not cost more. Software companies are paid an annual fee which will include such changes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that women earning under £57 per week are losing out. They are not losing out because they are already excluded. We do not believe that someone should draw an earnings related benefit when they have paid no tax and national insurance contributions. All governments have maintained that principle. Women with no other income can claim help from the income support scheme.
My noble friend Lord Reay said that we were undermining our position in Brussels. That is not the case. The Commission had originally proposed that pregnant women should receive full pay for 14 weeks, with no qualifying period. That would have cost this country about £500 million. The Government fully supported other member states in devising a more sensible proposal which was eventually adopted at a Council of Ministers in October 1992. We secured a number of improvements to protect employers. Of course the directive was agreed before the Maastricht Treaty, so I am sure that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne knows that an opt out from the Social Chapter does not apply.

1093
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked why maternity leave was left at only 14 weeks when maternity pay lasts for 18 weeks. The 14-week maternity leave period strikes the correct balance between increasing employees' rights and adding to the burdens on business. To extend the leave to 18 weeks would add another £50 million to employers' annual costs, which in the Government's views is unacceptable.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the benefit has not been uprated. The directive requires us to provide maternity pay at a figure at least equal to the amount of state benefit a woman would receive if she were off sick. The amounts do not have to be the same. The Secretary of State will continue to review the rate of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay each year. The Government's commitment to maternity benefits was underlined by an increase of £1 above the retail prices index given in 1991.
The noble Earl asked me who will ensure that statutory maternity pay is paid. It is a legal obligation upon the employer. The Contributions Agency enforces it and will follow up any complaints of non-payment. Of course, if the employer refuses to pay, the department will take over the payment. It is of course an offence not to pay statutory maternity pay.
I should make it clear that if the amendment were carried the regulations would fall. It is a wrecking amendment. The noble Earl should consider the advice given by my noble friend and others in your Lordships' House about whether that is a proper way to go. It is not a revising amendment; it is a wrecking amendment.
The Government's proposals for improved maternity payments, as I have said, will benefit 285,000 women. At the same time, the scheme has been simplified to make it easier for employers to operate. Women will also have more freedom to decide on the best time to stop work and have their baby. The EOC has welcomed some of the changes to the scheme, particularly the reduction in the length of service requirement, and is pleased that we have responded positively to the representations made by it to our consultation paper. The Maternity Alliance has also called the proposed changes good news, saying,
"they are more generous than we had anticipated".
It describes the introduction of the higher rate statutory maternity pay for all women entitled to statutory maternity pay as a "big breakthrough". We have kept the protection for small employers, who will remain eligible for the 100 per cent. reimbursement of their costs, and overall industry has still gained with the reduction in national insurance contributions. I commend the regulations to the House, and I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I cannot say that I was encouraged by it. He is not up to date with the Maternity Alliance which on 27th April said:
"The Maternity Alliance is opposed to any reduction in the rate of reimbursement to employers of the SMP they administer".
1094
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, regrets that he is unable to be here tonight. He and I would wish to be associated with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
I must answer the point about privilege which the noble Lord also made. This is a matter of qualified, not absolute, financial privilege. In those matters, it is well known that there is no objection to this House asking. Another place may reply as it sees fit. The noble Viscount's comment that this was a wrecking Motion illustrated the usual government rule that there are only two classes of amendment: the unnecessary and the wrecking. It would be perfectly easy for the Government to relay the first four regulations, leaving out regulation No. 5, and no one need be bothered save the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who today is possibly not the Cabinet's favourite member.
The noble Viscount said that a Bill would have taken up unnecessary parliamentary time. Unnecessary to whom? He said that Ole regulations have been through another place. Has he read the remarks that were made in another place by his honourable friends Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wilkinson and Mrs..Currie? As regards the vires, he has given us no answer. That is truly a stern reply. He said that the cost to employers was very small —so was the maid's baby but it had life. Like the maid's baby, this has the power of growth.
Above all, I do not see how this House can possibly carry out its function as a revising Chamber unless some generally acceptable way can be found to challenge matters in regulations. Whether I have found a way tonight is not for me to say and therefore I ask the opinion of the House.
8.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Lytton, E.

Bath, M.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Butterfield, L.

McNair, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Meston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Strafford, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Annaly, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor, V.

Burnham, L.

Boardman, L.

Cadman, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

1095

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lyell, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Chancellor.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Courtown, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cranborne, V.

Mountevans, L.

Crathorne, L.

Moyne, L.

Cross, V.

Newall, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dundonald, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hacking, L.

Stockton, E.

Harvington, L.

Strange, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E.

Holderness, L.

Torrington, V.

Holm Patrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Inchyra, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wakeham, L. (Lord Privy Seal.]

Kenyon, L.

Wise, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Industry Bill
8.40 p.m.
House again in Committee.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Designated mining museums
.—(1) The Big Pit Mining Museum in Wales, the Scottish Mining Museum and the Yorkshire Mining Museum shall each be a "designated mining museum" for the purposes of this section.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by Order made by statutory instrument, after consultation with the Authority, designate any other mining museum as a "designated mining museum" for the purposes of this section.
(3) Each designated mining museum which includes underground areas open to the public shall have available to it, free of charge, the services of a mines rescue service established under the provisions of section 55 of this Act.
(4) Any historic artefacts found, by a licensee under Part II of this Act, during the course of mining operations shall become the property of the Coal Authority, which shall offer any such artefact to a designated mining museum in the relevant area within one year of its becoming the property of the Authority.
(5) The Authority shall be required to provide or secure the necessary maintenance and other services to enable all designated mining museums to continue in operation, and, in pursuance of the discharge of this duty, may make it a condition of any licence granted under Part II of this Act that the licensee is required to provide maintenance and other necessary services to any mining museum designated under this section.
(6) The Authority shall make it a condition of any licence granted under Part II of this Act that the licensee shall be required to offer any mining equipment or other machinery, tools,
1096
artefacts, etc., as they become obsolete, to a designated mining museum in the area in which the mine at which they were used is located.
(7) The Authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants to any designated mining museum.
(8) Any Order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the mining museums, which seem to have been forgotten by the Government when they introduced this Bill. There are three—one in Wales, one in Scotland and one in Yorkshire. Two of them—the one in Wales and the one in Yorkshire—have underground sections. I shall speak mostly about the one in Yorkshire because that is the one that I know. I am sure that other Members of the Committee will speak about the museum in Wales and perhaps about the museum in Scotland too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening and sends her apologies, gave a detailed description of the Yorkshire Mining Museum on Second Reading on 11th April. She described it in depth, and that is reported at cols. 1330 to 1332 of Hansard. Therefore, I need not go into great detail about the history or give a description of the museum because any Member of the Committee who is interested will find all the details there.
As I said, it is an underground museum which is set out quite beautifully. One goes down in the cage and when one gets down there, one can walk around. I thought that I might have some trouble because I am not the smallest Member of your Lordships' Committee, but I moved around quite easily. There is laid out a series of tableaux depicting mining through the ages. They illustrate extremely well the great tradition that we have in this country. They illustrate coal mining, the Industrial Revolution and all that followed in our industrial prosperity.
The fact that mines are being closed and have been closed makes it all the more important that those exhibits should be there for parties of schoolchildren and other people to see. The fact that the museum is in an old disused coal mine makes it all the more difficult to ensure that safety is maintained. British Coal has done so much over the years not only by providing the expertise to ensure that safety standards are maintained but also by providing obsolete equipment. If that is no longer available, that may be fatal for the museums.
My noble friend may well say that in future it will be for private industry to maintain the museums and that it is not up to British Coal because it will no longer exist. It is true that British Coal will no longer exist, but I know that the director of the Yorkshire museum has had conversations with some of the representatives of the new independent companies. The museum has always had good relations with the independent companies as well as with British Coal. Those companies have said that there is no possibility that they will be able to provide the money to keep the museums going or, indeed, to provide the necessary expertise.
This afternoon we have been discussing opencast coal mining. It is important to bear in mind that the expertise will simply no longer be available to look after mine safety. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will

1097
commend itself to the Committee. I also hope that it will ensure that the mines are preserved so that schoolchildren, young people and, indeed, old people can see what the history of coal mining means to this nation. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I warmly support all that the noble Earl said when he moved the amendment. In fact, this matter is exciting a great deal of public interest. That was demonstrated by a letter —of which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, was a prime signatory, but which was also signed by other noble Lords—in The Times yesterday.
I have been approached more on the subject of museums than on any other single issue in connection with the Bill. So it has excited a great deal of interest. I believe that it has excited interest for two reasons. First, there is a feeling among people that the coal industry has been hard done by and that it would be (I do not like to say adding insult to injury) doing it even more harm if the memory of it were to disappear too.
Those three mining museums have preserved well not only the memory of the past in the mining industry but they also give some hope for the future because they demonstrate modern mining techniques. They have attracted the interest of a great many schoolchildren. The museums have a great educational value. Therefore, the museums do not merely sound the death knell of an industry; they record what has been achieved in the past and indicate what can still be achieved in the future.
I believe that the widespread support for those museums should cause the Government to think again about how they will deal with this matter. I have read carefully what they said in the fairly lengthy discussions on the subject in another place. In spite of considerable pressure from all sides, the Government's view at that stage—and I hope that it will be different now—was that this is a matter which must be left to the new private owners of the industry.
I cannot conceive that among the many matters with which those new owners will have to contend, supporting the mining museums will have very high priority. They will obviously all say, "Yes, they are highly desirable but let's get on with the job of organising ourselves. Let's cope with all the liabilities that we have. Let's get our safety measures in place. Let's get our coal out to market. Once we have established ourselves, perhaps we can think about the museums". Therefore, there is a very strong case for the Coal Authority to be empowered under the legislation to ensure that, at least for an interim period—and the letter sent by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, suggested a three-year interim period—the museums are maintained. During that period the museums would be able to look for other sources of funding and by then the new coal companies may be sufficiently established to be prepared to look seriously at providing whatever support is required.
I believe that the proposal inherent in the amendment is eminently reasonable. There were a number of achievements while the industry was under public
1098
ownership; and the establishment of those three very successful mining museums is just one of those achievements. We say that that achievement should be preserved.
Lord Saint Oswald: As the noble Earl has already said, with the progressive rundown of the deep mining sector of the coal industry, the need for national museums to safeguard and preserve the history of coal mining becomes increasingly significant.
Digging or excavating for coal has a very long history going back probably well over 1,000 years, certainly to the times when the monks from local priories and monasteries spent their working hours digging coal out of the hillsides.
My family was involved in the industry from 1699 to 1947, during 248 years of slow but continuous progress in the methods of mining for coal. Conditions under which miners had to work were appalling until the end of the last century. Since then, there has been a steady improvement in both conditions and pay. It is, in retrospect, horrifying to recall that right up to 1842 not only adults, men and women, were employed at the deepest levels of the coal pits, but boys as young as five years old—although seven was actually the minimum legal age—had to work eight-hour shifts under Stygian and airless conditions.
The main purpose of a mining museum is to ensure that members of the public can be made aware of the history that has gone into the making of the industry by exhibiting artefacts that contribute to the history and showing conditions under which miners had to work, but also they should exist to commemorate the courage and skill of miners throughout the centuries and be a memorial to all those who lost their lives, particularly in the terrible pit disasters which have occurred from time to time.
The West Yorkshire coal field which is one, like the noble Earl, that I know best, has had its share of such disasters. Perhaps I may recall three of the most poignant. First, there was the Hasker Colliery disaster in 1838, when 26 boys were drowned as a result of a flash flood in the pit. Secondly, in the Oakes Colliery disaster in 1868, 365 miners perished—the highest number of recorded deaths in any single disaster. Then, of course, much more recently, there was the Lofthouse Colliery disaster of 25th March 1973, from which only one body was recovered. The rest are still buried inside the mine workings.
Of course, there are many other aspects of the history of coal mining that are recorded and should be exhibited. The Bill is causing some concern about the future viability of the three existing museums and the advice from government sources as to alternative ways of replacing the invaluable benefits provided by British Coal seems to be seriously flawed. For example, it has been suggested that the local authority should assume the transfer of those additional burdens. However, local authorities are already—and, indeed, have been for many years—under pressure from government to cut spending and such an imposition could only be contrary to government policy.

1099
Another suggestion that has been made is that, in order to cut maintenance costs, the museums should construct mock-ups on the surface of the underground workings of a drift coal mine, thereby, presumably, abandoning the genuine ones to which the public now have access. I understand that such an experiment has been tried but that it was not effective. In fact, the museum that built the device has since gone into liquidation.
The fact is that a coal pit is a coal pit and facsimiles will not take its place. It is certainly not possible to simulate the sensation of walking or crawling along a deep mine drift gallery knowing that there are several thousands of feet of earth above. Those are the conditions under which miners have to work and that is what the public are interested in experiencing. It may not be everyone's wish to partake of such an experience, but I can tell Members of the Committee that, of the 80,000 men women and children who visit Caphouse Mining Museum every year, something like 90 per cent. take advantage of that facility. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept the importance of the proposed new clause and that, if nothing else, he will undertake to put forward proposals which will be of a more practical nature.
Lord Dainton: Although I was brought up in an area where coal mining was one of the staple industries and, therefore, I have always been aware of the peculiar characteristics and especially the social cohesion and traditions of the mining communities, my support for the amendment does not depend on that sentimental reason. Indeed, it derives from something very much more substantial, which is that coal mining is, and has been, a major element in the British economy over almost two millennia.
At one point in our debate, the Minister referred to the Romans. Of course, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Romans took coal and burnt it. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence in the mid-ninth century Saxon Chronicle, that coal was being developed, cut and used. Even more important, I suppose, is the fact that, from the 13th century, we had handed down to us the phrase "coals from Newcastle" with coal being shipped south to London as it was for many centuries thereafter.
However, in my view, the most important thing is simply that coal provides by combustion the heat required for the steam engine which transformed the position of the nation. It gave us motive power for engines which enormously augmented the feeble power of the individual workman and enabled us to be a great manufacturing nation. It also gave us, as the reducing agent for the iron oxide of our land, the means of making pig iron and, from that, steel—and, from that, steam engines, steel rails and a system of transport which was quite remarkable. I believe it is fair to say that, by the middle of the 19th century, Britain with the United States and Germany—both of which also had an ample store of coal—were the most prominent industrial nations. That is something that we should never forget. It seems to me that we can only remember it by going back to the prime cause and ensuring that our children
1100
and others are made aware of where coal comes from, how it was won and at what cost, and of everything else that is associated with it.
As a former Museums and Galleries Commissioner, I have no doubt that Britain should—indeed, I would say, must—have museums which preserve that part of our history. I am beginning to gain the feeling that that view is rather widely held in this Chamber. My experience on the Museums and Galleries Commission also tells me that, to be fully effective and fully evocative of the past, at least some mining museums must be working and must be partially underground.
I visited mining museums in Germany—notably in Bochum—where attempts lave been made to construct replicas of underground galleries above ground. I am bound to say that they completely lack conviction and that they are clearly seen as not the genuine article. That essential requirement to have at least one part of the museum below ground does add to the cost of maintaining a mining museum. Of course, there is another cost; namely, that of ensuring the safety of the visitors and the staff who work there.
In this country we are fortunate in having, in Wales and in Yorkshire, two such mines with underground galleries, both of which have already been referred to and which do the job admirably. In large measure, that has been possible because British Coal has given—and one cannot stress the point too strongly—much support in kind; for example, artefacts, including some very large pieces of machinery, and services such as essential monitoring, maintenance, repairs and so on. In the case of the Caphouse Museum, assistance has been given to the tune of £150,000 a year.
I share the concern of the Museums and Galleries Commission, and as expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that it is quite unrealistic to expect that the private firms which are to take over British Coal's present primary activities will at the outset of their ownership wish to burden the debit side of their annual balance sheets with such a sum. But, if underground workings are not properly maintained, they quickly become unusable and, in the long term, will not be recoverable unless vastly larger sums of money are spent.
In my view, the only sure way to guarantee that the Welsh and Yorkshire Museums survive is either for the Government to accept the amendment—which, as was evident from the debate which took place in another place on 22nd March, they will be reluctant to do—or, failing that, for them to underwrite those expenses which have hitherto been met by British Coal, subject to review after a period of, say, three years. That latter course would at least give the museums and the new mine owners some time to negotiate while those mine owners are finding their feet, not just in terms of working the pits but financially.
There is an adequate precedent for such an arrangement in the transitional funding which the Government provided in 1986 for those museums which had previously been funded by the metropolitan county councils, which, as the Committee will remember, were abolished in that year.

1101
The amendment as put forward seems to me to provide a better solution than those two suggestions that I have made in that it gives a secure and enduring method of providing the funding which the museums need. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee as a very necessary provision if an important part of our industrial heritage is to be properly preserved in the future. The amendment is also in the spirit of liability passing to the licensee, to which favourable reference was made by the Minister I notice, although in this case British Coal had no legal liability to provide support to the museums but did so voluntarily. Nevertheless, it is a precedent which I hope the Government will be prepared to follow.
9 p.m.
Baroness White: We have a strong team here in my noble friends who come from Wales. We are very glad to know that there is also a very strong team of those who come from Yorkshire. I am not sure whether the Minister is single-handed in representing Scotland—or at least there are not so many from Scotland —and in any case, the Scottish museum, admirable though I am sure it must be, is nothing like as important as the two deep mine museums in York and in Blaenavon.
Some Members of the Committee may not be familiar with Blaenavon, so I should tell the Committee the good news which was confided to me when I spent three hours at Big Pit —Pwll Mawr—on Sunday. Pwll Mawr is in Blaenavon and is the most important single exhibit there. I had been there before, of course; but I wanted to discuss the current situation with the people responsible. A very interesting piece of news appeared this very morning in our Welsh press:
"A Welsh industrial mining town is being hailed as a unique piece of world heritage. Blaenavon in Gwent is considered to be one of the 25 most important sites of industrial heritage in the world"—
I hope that the Minister will take that in—
"and one of the top six in the United Kingdom. The Royal Commission for Ancient And Historic Monuments in Wales has applied for world heritage status for the town and its local mining environment".
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and others have not exaggerated in saying that this is not merely a small domestic matter. It is extremely important that we should safeguard the heritage on the site, which has been remarkably protected and preserved.
It is very much appreciated by those involved in education. Between January and last weekend almost 20,000 school party members visited the site. Curiously enough, nearly one third were from France. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, and others that it is no good pretending that one can make do with videos in a theme park. One has to experience it. It is fatuous to say that one can just have something which the children can watch. That is entirely different from the experience of spending a couple of hours underground, accompanied by people who were themselves miners and who can answer the questions which the children or other visitors wish to put from their own experience. It is very important that we should try to protect these manifestations.
1102
The museum is important in archaeological, historical, scientific and technical terms. It has the most remarkable exhibits. It is not a charity. It pays Her Majesty's Treasury some £200,000 per annum in VAT and other taxes. It has no regular annual subsidies, but it has had considerable help from European Community funds and other public money as sources of capital expenditure. However, there is now anxiety about where it will find its regular running costs. In the past three years our Welsh museum has been drawing on reserves for its maintenance and it is expected that it will have to continue so to do.
I do not wish to weary the Committee with too many details. I am sure that some of my noble friends will wish to add something. However, it is stated that privatisation of the remaining collieries, especially losing their support services, will add a further £200,000 a year to the museum's net operating costs. That is quite a large sum added to other normal expenses. Because of pit closures in the districts, some areas have already been in difficulties before privatisation. The museum states that it has already had to strengthen its mechanical and engineering staff because the back-up facilities provided by British Coal via neighbouring pits in the past are no longer available. Net cost of additional appointments is approximately £42,000 per annum.
On equipment it states that it has previously been able to borrow specialist equipment, through British Coal from other mines, at no cost. It will now have to hire or purchase such equipment.
An example is given regarding an emergency winder for evacuating trapped personnel from a cage in the shaft. We are not certain how the demand for such safety mechanisms will be met in the future. If the museum had to buy the winder, it would cost about a quarter of a million pounds. It is a complicated piece of mechanism.
The museum authorities cite various other difficulties. They are now faced with a requirement to install monitoring equipment in the main shaft. Compliance will cost at least £30,000, possibly more, unless the museum can obtain most of the equipment from a closing colliery. No doubt it can obtain a good deal of equipment from closing collieries, but by no means will all the equipment which they require be in the state in which they need it.
Perhaps I may refer to the Yorkshire list. The net cost of the underground tour is nearly £70,000 per annum. The support towards the surface running of the museum is another £24,000, and so on. The day-to-day running costs are something over £150,000. The museum will have to meet these now in a way which they have not had to do hitherto.
I do not wish to labour the point but it is perfectly clear that if one is to maintain these extremely exciting manifestations, we have to think sensibly and carefully about the situation. Museums cannot rely on obtaining the equipment from the small licensed mines which will continue to grow over the next few years. It is therefore up to the Government to make certain that there is some other rational pattern of maintenance for those extremely exciting places and that we do everything we can to sustain them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. Of course, industrial archaeology is part of our responsibility and the recording of the industrial heritage. Hence I warmly support the clause.
I believe that it is vital to ensure that future generations can, through access to the mining museums, learn something of the dangers and difficulties which were faced by miners and of which the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, spoke so movingly at Second Reading. I shall long remember that speech.
The museums are an important part of our national heritage since our prosperity, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, reminded us, was founded on industry and particularly on coal. I believe, with the signatories to the amendment, that museums are a proper subject for national governmental support.
I intend to spare the Committee a lot of detail because your Lordships have already had many details from other people. British Coal has an honourable record of support not only in supplying and delivering items for the collection but also in providing a wide range of equipment and services free of charge as well as design work for the building and major repairs and conversions for existing buildings. The cost of services and equipment for the Yorkshire Mining Museum, for instance, one of the three mining museums, has been of the order of £100,000 per annum. The Government will presumably have to set aside fairly considerable sums to meet and continue British Coal's statutory responsibility for, for instance, subsidence and the effect of polluted water. Accepting the very minor continuing financial commitments to the museums, whether to the authority or in some other way, would surely be both right and acceptable, even if it has to be only for an interim period. I therefore support the amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give it sympathetic consideration.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I support the amendment. My noble friend Lady White has made the case for the Big Pit in South Wales and I need not repeat anything she said. However, I wish to echo her last comment about the infectious enthusiasm of children and other visitors when they visit this pit. It is a genuine pit; it finished being worked only in 1980. It has hardly been cleaned up, although at least one can get around it now. The conveyor belt works and the coal is on the belt. It is a joy to countless generations of children to see it. In addition, as my noble friend said, there are the overseas visitors, not only French but many of them American. It is a tourist attraction but it cannot support itself, and I hope the Minister will think again about the matter.
It is an important element in our national history and, after all, there were the days when South Wales was the largest coal exporter in the world and when no city in the world exported more coal than Cardiff. Our ships sailed throughout the world to remote coaling stations in the Pacific—to do what? To maintain the imperial grandeur of Britain. It is part of our national history.
My noble friend put the case of the miners and he was right. it shall always put the case of the miners because
1104
I am proud to say that, when the only national office in the Labour Party was that of the treasurer, who was nationally elected, it was the miners who first nominated me as treasurer of the Labour Party. I do not know whether I did any better at it than I did as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but at least the Labour Party survived. I have always had the deepest admiration for the miners but I do not put that case this evening. The case I put is that it is part of our imperial history and should be regarded as such. We have the National Maritime Museum and the Imperial War Museum, of which I am happy to be a supporter. We treasure those relics of our past because, unless we value our past, we shall have no call for the future. In the coal industry, 900,000 men were employed in hundreds of pits throughout the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, told us. To preserve that history is a national responsibility. We are throwing away part of our national heritage if we do not support it.
I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for putting down the amendment and even more grateful to him for giving up his dinner to move it this evening. I know that that affects him deeply. I was sorry to hear him say that he did not think that financial support would be forthcoming. I can understand that there may not be all that much profit in the new mining industry, but the museums must be safeguarded.
I say to the Minister in all earnestness that we ought to build up a head of steam on the subject, we have right on our side. After all, one of the most famous poems that John Masefield wrote was about the,
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days, With a cargo of Tyne coal".
Much of our greatness was founded on that when we were in the industrial 19th century. Do not let us forget our past; in my view the preservation of these museums —the Big Pit Mining Museum in Blaenafon, the pit in Yorkshire—is as important to us as the preservation of any of our other museums. If it is necessary to call on the Government for financial support, I believe that the Committee would support it overwhelmingly.
9.15 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: I shall be brief, as much has already been said from all sides of the Committee in support of mining museums. The Yorkshire Mining Museum Trust was set up in 1982 to convert Caphouse Colliery into the museum for the Yorkshire coalfields. Those coalfields are well known and I understand that the museum attracts many tourists, thus also creating jobs. The museum is one way in which the history and culture of a coal mining area such as the well known Yorkshire coal mines can be kept alive, especially where mines are closing.
I understand that the seam at Caphouse was specially constructed, but all the same it is vital to have safety arrangements in place if people are to be allowed underground. During the passage of the Bill through another place, the Government expressed the opinion that mining museums should develop links with the private mining sector. The Yorkshire Mining Museum has always had strong links with the private mining

1105
sector, but the help it can give is not sufficient to cover the mining museum's loss of British Coal's support once British Coal is privatised.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the museums have excited a great deal of interest. Do the Government agree that it would be a pity to lose what could be an interesting history lesson for children, particularly those who are at school near the mine, to have a little of their local history brought alive for them? Therefore, I support the amendment.
Baroness Brigstocke: Members of the Committee who have already spoken have made my point for me. Think how much we have learnt this evening. We have not only learnt about English literature through poetry but also history, including oral history, not to mention technology, engineering, physics, science and geology.
I do not know whether Members of the Committee realise that at the moment there is talk between the Department for Education and the Department of National Heritage on the subject of museum education. They are working together. I would, very humbly, as a current member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, ask whether the Department of Trade and Industry could also come in on those talks. The whole question of education through museums is very important indeed.
The mining museums contain national treasures. But they also contain priceless teaching aids. We have only to look at the history syllabus. The new history syllabus in the national curriculum emphasises the importance to pupils of access to primary sources, of handling real materials and of being in real situations as much as possible. I am not sure that I altogether approve of the word that is used, namely "empathy", but this way of teaching history is so much more vivid than many of the older methods. Here we have the mining museums, rich in history, in the story of the past, as we have just heard. They are such a strength to the schools in their area. The Department for Education rightly wants pupils and teachers—although for teachers it is not always quite so easy—to think across narrow subject barriers. Mining museums are an unbelievably rich source of material for all those subjects. I beg my noble friend the Minister to preserve these treasures for our children's sake by making sure that the Coal Authority has the responsibilities clearly set out in this amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should just like to add a few more points which perhaps have not been made. (So many have been mentioned.) I visited Caphouse a few weeks ago. The most important thing that I found was that it was a really genuine place. It was an exciting place and it catered for everybody. The facilities for disabled people had been especially well thought out. A disabled person in a wheelchair could go right down to the bottom in the cage and be taken round by a real miner. Everything was genuine. That was what was so important.
As we have heard, it is a very excellent place for history lessons. It took one right back to the beginning, to the time when the women wound down their children and wound them up again if they lived. It showed one
1106
how the Shaftesbury reforms took place. That is what is so important. It is interesting for children. If they see a thing they can remember it. It showed how miners had their baths and how they changed their clothes. It also showed the safety provision: how people had to wear torches and how they had to carry a coin. This is all part of learning.
The museums themselves are doing all that they can to earn money. They have restaurants and shops. Also, there are pit ponies and canaries. I do not think that they have forgotten anything. Then there is all the machinery. That is of course good for people with engineering interests. There is something for everybody. I ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has visited Caphouse, how he rates it out of 10. I rate it very highly. So much taxpayers' money is wasted. As a taxpayer this is something that I should like to see my taxes go on. I hope that the Minister will find ways to support these museums and keep them going for future generations.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to support the amendment. The Minister too should support it or react to it properly. He often singularly fails to react. But he should support the amendment in view of the widespread influence in this country among the signatories to the amendment. It is supported by his noble friend Lord Swinton, with whom I am in some sympathy because I too have certain difficulty in getting through small apertures. My noble friend Lady Lockwood also has her name to the amendment. It is supported by a cross-section of the Committee.
It is absolute nonsense that the Government should refuse to support the history of mining. The prosperity of the whole country, breaking out from agricultural poverty, depended on the miners, the deep pits and so on. It is absurd for the Government not to support these museums, even the one in Scotland, which I have not heard mentioned quite as often as the other two.
It is absolutely essential that even this Government should pay attention to the vital part that deep mining has played in the history of the development of this country. I hope that the Minister will depart from his usual obscurity when replying and give a definite answer in this case.
Lord Parry: It was a week ago that I received a letter which began:
"Greetings from the last deep mine in South Wales!".
The letter continued:
"Little did we think, back in 1978, that our innovative tourism project would ever acquire such significance. 40 pits and the best part of 30,000 mining jobs later, its a strap line we would happily have done without".
That letter came from Gareth Gregory, the director—he has been the director since its beginning—of Big Pit, Blaenafon.
Some 10 or 15 years ago, or perhaps more than that, say 22 or 23 years ago—it was before the Minister was born and I can understand his impatience (his gentle impatience) as he has been sitting for a long time on that Bench—when I was still teaching, I took a party of young children to the National Museum of Wales. This House is remarkable. At times it takes small issues and elevates them. We have had an interesting debate which

1107
is part of our history. As I said, with some teachers, I took a party of children to the National Museum of Wales. We were taken to the foundations of the building and we crawled through a cardboard mine. I agree that crawling through a cardboard imitation mine gives little idea of the experience of people like my father when, between the age of 19 and 29, he cut coal in coal mines in the Tredegar district. But it was a fascinating experience and it taught us a little about our history.
However, the man who was with me—who was called Peter Jones and who subsequently became the director of arts for the Arts Council in Wales—said, "This is useless. We should have a mine dedicated to this in Wales". In the way that such things go, some years later I found myself as chairman of the Wales Tourist Board. I was talking about that experience with a young man called Gareth Gregory, who was an in-house manager for the Wales Tourist Board. He said, "There is a plan". The plan was taken down off the shelf, dusted and Big Pit, Blaenafon began to proceed. It was the most amazing thing that I have ever been involved in. We all know the frustrations of public life, even for young Ministers. The frustrations come because you try and try but things become more difficult.
Because of the coalition of interests that we were able to bring to this very issue that has been illustrated tonight from all sections of the Chamber, the situation got easier as we went along. Suddenly, the Coal Board came and said, "Big Pit, Blaenafon seems to be ideal. It is running out of productivity. It will become available. It has a deep shaft and a safety walk-down and walk-up shaft. If we can only get this thing together we might be able to present a core activity of our heritage in the Blaenafon district.
I found out later that Big Pit, Blaenafon was not originally sunk as a coal pit but as an ironstone pit. In sinking it they found coal. It was the proximity of ironstone and that specific coal that made the Bessemer process possible. When they began the rudimentary experiments in the puddling of steel they found the juxtaposition of those two elements in steelmaking—the Minister must be patient; I have listened to him speak for many hours without interrupting—actually confirmed that it was possible to produce the Bessemer process. Incidentally, the company sold the process on to America, saved itself from bankruptcy and another part of our history was reassured.
That is all we are asking the Government to do. If I were asked to advise the Government—God forbid!— on how they should proceed to win back the confidence that they seem to be losing, I would advise them to appoint a Minister to sit on the Benches, one in this place and one in another place, to look for the good ideas. They would say, "My God, here is a good idea! It is dirt cheap. It is obviously popular. It commands the support of almost everybody in the House. Why do we not utilise it?" The Government should say to the Secretary of State, "We have got a good one. Here is something that commands the respect of the House; it is clearly of massive advantage to do it; all the arguments are for it. Why do we not fund it?"
1108
The amounts of money involved are tiny compared with the money running to earth every day in plans that do not work at all. These plans are approved. Therefore I say with all the friendship in the world to the young Ministers, do not be impatient of us; by all means be amused—that is the privilege of youth. But take away the positive in this amendment. Do not try to find arguments for persuading the Secretary of State that he was right all along. Tell him that here is a better idea. Take up the amendment and fund it.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: I want to say just a brief word in favour of the amendment and in favour of the Scottish pits which have already been mentioned. I was at school in the area and once went down a real mine. It was an unforgettable experience and one which I should like our children and our children's children to share. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will be very satisfied with the support he has received from the House for this important amendment. I am sure that the three mining museums will do everything possible to avoid closure. But if they fail to produce the' funds that are needed—I believe it is in the order of £300,000 per annum, which is not a large sum in terms of government expenditure—then they face closure.
What will the Government achieve if those three museums are closed? Or is that their intention? Is it their intention that the people of the mining communities should not be reminded of their heritage and their past? I find that difficult to believe. If it is, then it would be evidence of a depressing lack of vision.
The Government, through their policies, have closed the pits. I hope that they will not undermine the museums which record the history of mining over the ages. Having closed the pits, I hope that they will look again at the situation and see what funds they can make available to underpin the financial viability of the museums in the future.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may add another Scottish voice to the debate and apologise to the Committee for the fact that I have not taken part in the debate on the Coal Industry Bill until today. This for me is a sad occasion in the sense that we are debating museums dedicated to the mining industry rather than the preservation of the industry itself. Tonight is a watershed in the history of the mining industry. We are debating the preservation of the memory of the industry rather than the industry itself.
Over the years it has been my experience that if you speak about mining in this country you have, to place on the table your credentials. I speak from the background of my late father being 51 years a miner in the same pit in my native Fifeshire. Within two weeks of his retirement date on his 65th birthday the pit in which my late father was employed was closed down. I say with great respect to my socialist colleagues on these Benches that I never really noticed any great difference between the old private coal owners and those who managed the industry after nationalisation. I exclude my

1109
good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Instead of saying to my father, "Well, Willie, you have only two weeks to go. Take two more weeks for your retirement", they found a job for my late father to do in that last two weeks before his 65th birthday. That was after 51 years in the same pit. Two of my brothers were miners and so I speak from a background of knowledge of the mining industry.
I wish that what we were discussing tonight was the preservation of the industry rather than these museums, important though they are. I was very friendly with the late Lord Gormley. This is one of the evenings on which I wish Joe Gormley could join us in this debate, not to reminisce—we are all good at reminiscing; they say it is a sign of old age when you start reminiscing—but to talk about the need to preserve the coal industry in this country. However, the Government have waged a campaign over the past 15 years—indeed, yesterday was the 15th anniversary of this Government coming to power—and the coal industry has been decimated. I predict that we shall live to regret what has happened over the past 15 years.
Be that as it may, what we are discussing tonight is the preservation of a memorial to the coal industry in the shape of these three mining museums. Two of them are deep mining museums. One is in Scotland. With great respect to them, I doubt whether the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, even know where the Scottish museum is located. If they know, I am quite prepared to sit down and give way. It is located in Newtongrange in Midlothian. I thought I would impart that piece of knowledge. It is not the only Scottish mining museum. There is one in Carton Den in Fife which has been solely financed by a philanthropist, a man called Bill Braid, who was fortunate enough in life to become quite wealthy. He has solely financed the mining museum in Carton Den in Fife which is a tribute to the Fife coalfield. There is also a further mining museum in Fife in the shape of the Lahore Meadows Country Park, where Fife Regional Council invested substantial sums of public money in preserving what was then a colliery which is still there. It is a wonderful place to visit. You can have a day out not only with your family but with a whole host of other relatives. That is why this amendment is so important. How are these memorials to the mining industry to be preserved if the Government do not provide the finance? The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, unfortunately is not with us this evening. He is head of the consortium which is about to bid for the last deep mine in Scotland, the Longannet complex. The market is purely and simply the Longannet power station and there is no other market. How are these memorials to the mining industry in Scotland to continue if the Government are not to provide the finance?
I hope with all that has been said tonight that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is visibly very impatient to leap to the Dispatch Box, will tell us that he is prepared to accept this amendment. I am against privatisation and I make that absolutely clear. If privatisation is to go ahead I hope that the Minister is
1110
prepared to say that, as part of it and as part of the conditions on which the pits will be sold, those private coal owners and the private people who are coming to bid for the coal industry will have to give an undertaking to preserve the mining museums which have been the subject of this debate.
I finish with this: possibly I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who is an honorary member of an organisation called the Ancient Lodge of Free Colliers. Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I should say that that ancient lodge was the forerunner of the miners' union. The term "free colliers" meant that they were trying to buy the freedom of the men from the coal owners. The coal owners owned the pits, the shops, the houses in which the miners lived and, ipso facto, they owned the men as well. In the early 1800s this organisation was the forerunner to the National Union of Mineworkers. The Free Colliers organisation was set up to try to buy the freedom of the men from the coal owners. There is only one lodge left in the United Kingdom—in my old constituency of Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth. So I speak with some feeling on this matter. I have a family background in mining.
I leave with the Minister the slogan of the miners' union "The past we inherit; the future we build". We have inherited from the mining industry a wonderful past. It is for the Government to make sure that that past is not forgotten by building the future through the mining museums that are the subject of this amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The Committee is obviously grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for bringing forward this amendment, judging by the number of people who have spoken to it. I do not doubt that he is grateful for the support which he has received. His noble friend Lord Saint Oswald put his finger on the heart of the matter straight away when he used the word "memorial". One of the things which has excited your Lordships' passion this evening is the fact that these museums are memorials to the thousands who died underground just as those others who died on the field of battle. The feeling is very much the same.
I referred to the Big Pit at Blaenafon in the first words that I spoke in the Second Reading debate on this Bill in your Lordships' House. I was for some 15 years a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, in which a place was taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, who has spoken this evening. For the last five years, I was its chairman. We argued, we fought, to enable Big Pit, the Yorkshire Museum and Newtongrange in Scotland to be set up to tell the truth about coal mining to all generations so that it shall not be lost to our descendants. I would not now willingly see that work destroyed—and it has started. We have just lost one mining museum in the independent sector, Chatterley Whitfield, which has gone into receivership and its collection sold off.
So seriously is that situation regarded that the Museums and Galleries Commission has already commissioned Robert Shorland-Ball to produce a report, make a survey and produce some guidelines on

1111
the coal mining museums in this country to enable the commission to make representations to government. That should be available by the autumn.
We are not asking for all the coal mining museums in this country to be retained. There are plenty. There is the Woodhorn Colliery Museum at Ashington in Northumberland, which is not underground but which has a good collection. There is the Washington "F" Pit in 'Tyne and Wear; the Sunderland Museum; the Salford Mining Museum; the Leeds Industrial Museum; the Doncaster Museum; the Black Country Museum at Dudley, which has a wonderful collection; and the Snibston Discovery Park in Leicestershire. I think also of the North of England Open Air Museum, which has a wonderful underground display. Any Members of the Committee who are taken down there by some of the old miners (who go down doubled up into what is a drift mine) will realise that the Labour Party has no better recruiting sergeants than a few old miners in the North of England. I think also of Afon Argoed, the Welsh Miners' Museum at Cynonville near Port Talbot in South Wales. I think of the Summerlee Heritage Trust at Coatbridge in Scotland, which my noble friend Lord Ewing inadvertently forgot to mention.
There are plenty of such museums. They must take their chance. We are asking only that the three designated museums, the Yorkshire Mining Museum, the Big Pit Mining Museum at Blaenafon and the Scottish Mining Museum at Newtongrange, shall be kept and funded by government in whatever form they choose. That is the minimum that the nation needs and, in our view, the state must retain them. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, begged leave to move this amendment. I beg the Government, in the cause of historical truth and humanity, to get up and accept it. This Government, after all, have killed the coal mining industry in England, Scotland and Wales. In all decency and in all charity, the least that they can do is to pay up for these three excellent tombstones.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and I have pre-empted many other noble Lords who might have thought of contributing to this debate. The debate is no less interesting for its length. Indeed, it has been immensely interesting and, in some cases, moving also.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, started his speech very well, but he then went on to bring in politics and, in particular, the record of the past 15 years of Conservative government. The noble Lord should reflect rather more on the record of the last Labour Governments. He would perhaps then understand why the Conservative Government have been in power for the past 15 years. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to appear at any of our other deliberations on the Bill because his experience as a constituency Member of Parliament would have been useful. But I have a far more difficult job to do this evening, because I recognise the tremendous strength of feeling that has been demonstrated all around the Chamber; the strong sentiments; and the arguments that have been put forward.
1112
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, talked about the UK in the mid-19th century being at its most prominent, largely because of the wealth it created out of coal. The noble Baroness, Lady White, talked about an extremely exciting museum. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, spoke with infectious enthusiasm about the infectious enthusiasm of our museums. I join with them all. I join particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who talked about the Caphouse Colliery. As she knows, if visited the Yorkshire Mining Museum some years ago and was tremendously impressed by the quality of what it was offering. The underground experience was an excellent one. Like the noble Baroness, I met—if that is the right word—the pit ponies. I am convinced that many people would find that experience useful.
Another feature of the debate has been that many Members of the Committee have read what occurred in another place. There is not a great deal that I can acid to the debates that took place there. We naturally want to ensure that the privatised mining companies offer support on a voluntary basis similar to that which is currently offered by British Coal. It would be difficult to impose a requirement on the private sector. That leaves me in a difficult position, given what has happened this evening. To talk about funding in general, it is plain that many museums suffer financial problems because of the lack of support from local authorities. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, whose party is so much in favour of local democracy, not upholding the case that it should be local authorities rather than central government which should support the museums.
Lord Parry: Will the Minister give way on that point? If we followed that argument, one smallish local authority would be asked to bear the cost of the entire heritage collection of the Big Pit Mining Museum at Blaenafon. That is impossible.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not believe that it should just be the local authorities. There are many funding organisations which could club together to support the museums, because every Member of the Committee who has spoken has spoken about the importance and the excellence of the museums. That is the fundamental problem I have with the amendment. My noble friend Lord Swinton has clearly worked hard on the drafting of the amendment because he has covered almost every conceivable issue. But that is my difficulty, because the amendment allows no room for manoeuvre and no incentive for the museums to try to reduce their costs. It places an immediate burden upon the taxpayer; and many Members of the Committee would agree that that should be for the private sector.
Another suggestion has been that of the interim period. I cannot give any commitment. I came to the Committee this evening to listen to the views that were being put forward. I go away under no illusion as to the strength of feeling. If my noble friend were to withdraw his amendment, I could perhaps consider it with other departments, if that is what is required, to see whether there is a way around the problem. There may not be. I am not giving a commitment. But I believe that this is such an important issue that it would be wrong to decide

1113
it this evening. I shall obviously speak to my noble friend during the next few weeks before we reach Report stage to let him know whether we feel that there is anything to be gained from moving forward. I hope that that meets with the approval of the Committee. Perhaps it is not as much as Members would like but it is as far as I am able to go tonight.
The Earl of Swinton: I am extremely grateful. Indeed, I am flabbergasted by the amount of support that the amendment has received from all sides of the Committee. Members from far-flung parts of the British Isles have spoken in support. I thank them all, especially as they stayed here to do so. I know of several other Members of the Committee who would gladly have given their support and weight had they not had to go home. To all Members who have stayed, I am most grateful.
I shall not mention all the speakers because that will take too long. However, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that we must build up a head of steam on this. We have built that up—I felt the boilers going kerchunk, kerchunk, kerchunk! The steam was such that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde got the message.
I think that I bowled him with a googly. I was told that the danger with my amendment was that it was hybrid. I thought that that would be the first thing that he would say and that he would sink me without trace —collapse of stout party! He did not and instead most generously said that he would talk.
I am happy with that. There is a danger that the amendment is hybrid and I was not going to press it in any event. I am grateful for the way in which my noble friend has taken it and I am grateful for all the support that I have received. I assure my noble friend that, if we do not reach a fairly sensible compromise, the head of steam will blow him off his seat on the Front Bench. Therefore, it will be in his interests to talk and I look forward to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Public access to information held by the Authority]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 53, line 5, after ("above") insert ("to the information in the possession of the Corporation immediately before the restructuring date, which information the Authority shall take into its possession at the restructuring date,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 85A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85B to 85F. We are in the year 1797. William Thomas proposed an office in Newcastle for the collection and registration of local colliery plans and sections in order to prevent accidents caused by breaking into the old workings filled with water and noxious gas. It was the beginning of mining records on a systematic basis in this country. There were further moves with the Geological Survey of Great Britain authorised as part of the Ordnance Survey in 1835, Thomas Sopwith, the geologist, reading an important paper to the British Association in 1838, and so on.
After the 1830s activity became greater until now. We have a huge collection belonging to British Coal and we are left to secure its future. The corporation's collection of geological information comprises data derived under the 1946 Act from Home Office mines department records, Coal Commission records, by transfer after 1947 from the British Geological Survey, the Mining Records Office, the MRO public appeal and the NCB or BCC papers. In addition, in the course of the board's, the corporation's, normal activities it has accumulated geological information from its own deep mining and opencast exploration working, from Section 36 of the 1946 Act relating to licence geological information and plans, from the NCB appeal for plans of old workings and many, many more sources.
The collection must be maintained as a whole. It must be kept up to date (with information from Part II of the 1994 Bill relating to licensing activities) for reference and for ultimate incorporation into the National Geoscience Database, which is maintained by the British Geological Survey. To secure all that is the purpose of this amendment.
Until 1958, when Section 51(1) of the Coal Nationalisation Act was repealed, NCB records were public records. In practice, those records continued to be made freely available to inquirers until about 1992, when the regional collections were consolidated at Bretby in Derbyshire.
British Coal is still publicly owned and the records would seem to be public property. I should be interested to learn whether the noble Lord or the noble Viscount could inform me authoritatively whether they are in fact legally still public property. But their future and the future accessibility of those records, if privatisation plans go ahead, is a matter of vital public concern.
Provisions in this Bill and information documents circulated by the DTI would indicate that there would be a very limited access for individuals and researchers. I gather that a fee will be charged for the right of access to that data. We regard that as totally unacceptable in principle. If that is not to be the case, I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would assure the Committee categorically that that is not the case.
The national collection of geological information is vitally important in understanding the structure and statigraphy of the United Kingdom and its Continental Shelf. For maximum understanding of national resources, it should remain intact. It should not and must not be dispersed during restructuring.
However, it is not absolutely essential that the entire collection should be held centrally. Recent reorganisation of the holdings by the corporation has resulted in loss to the regions and some absurd anomalies; for example, the transfer of the Scottish oil shale workings records down to Bretby when they should be in Scotland. We shall not argue about exactly where they should be held. But those records must be preserved; public access to them must be given; and it must be free. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 85D in particular. I scratched my head and I have no great interest to declare in this matter except the interest of someone who has spent about 35 years working in extractive industries of one form or another.
We have had a very spirited debate on the subject of mining museums. Mining museums are the repository of the spirit and history of the mining industry. But the records to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred, are the real benefit to the nation which have come from the mining industry over 200 or 300 years.
In extractive industries, the information which comes from the successes and the failures of those who worked before is the lifeblood of the industry. In the oil industry, each dry hole, each well which does not discover oil, tells other people who come later where oil may be. Therefore, that information is a resource which should be made available as freely as possible to industries, to universities and to anybody who wishes to work in the field of the sub-surface structure of this country.
If, as has been the case in one or two instances of which I know in recent years, access to that information is made difficult by exorbitant fees being charged, it will make it impossible for people to follow up their ideas. The young geologist working in a mining company or an oil company cannot go to his boss and say, "Look, I have got this great idea. I need some information but the Coal Authority has told me that it will cost £Þ million". His boss will not be interested unless, as at the DTI, he can go and look free of charge at records of oil wells which are more than five years old.
We need access to this information in order for the nation to benefit from it in the future. It must not be a curiosity available only to a select few either with some special right of access or through a large bank account. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can give us some assurance that the reference to an appropriate fee in Clause 57 will mean a reasonable fee; that is, a fee, perhaps involved in the reproduction of information, which is not a ransom for such information.
Viscount Goschen: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for raising the important matter of information availability. It is an important function of the authority. The authority will take over a great deal of information from British Coal and will obtain further information as it carries out its functions. Clause 57 of the Bill places a specific duty on the authority to establish and maintain arrangements that it considers appropriate under which anyone would be entitled to be furnished with certain categories of information, to have access to certain of the authority's records and to be provided with copies of those records.
There are safeguards to protect information relating to individuals or companies where disclosure would seriously and prejudicially affect their interests, and information provided under a licence will be protected by the terms of the licence, although neither of those safeguards applies to the disclosure of any information relating to matters which may be relevant to safety.
1116
It is not desirable for the authority to take over all information held by British Coal on the restructuring date as sought by Amendment No. 85A. The corporation holds a vast amount of information covering a wide variety of subjects: for example, it holds information about its past and present employees; and it holds sales, marketing and financial information. None of that information is needed by the authority, but it will be needed by other bodies. I hope that Members of the Committee will recognise that some of British Coal's, information is not needed specifically by the Coal Authority but is genuinely needed by other bodies.
Amendment No. 85B would require the authority to hold geological and related information,
"in whatever form that information is kept".
Clause 57(1) already makes it clear that the arrangements that the authority is required to establish and maintain to make information available do apply to "any" of the relevant information which is for the time being in the authority's possession.
If the authority possesses, in whatever form, information that is caught by the requirements of Clause 57, it will have to make that information available. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to spell out that provision on the face of the Bill. Similarly, we do not believe that we should prescribe on the face of the Bill the precise details as to how the authority should fulfil its duty under Clause 57 as envisaged by Amendment No. 85C.
The authority will have a chairman and a board of members. They will be responsible for running the authority and, ultimately, for the authority's actions. They must be given the discretion as to how they manage information in the authority's possession; how and when they update it; and how they make it available to fulfil their duty under Clause 57.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that Clause 57(2) allows the authority to charge such fees as it thinks appropriate for making information available. Amendment No. 85D would prevent the authority from charging any fees whatever in that respect, as detailed by the noble Lord in his remarks.
Schedule I to the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to determine the authority's financial duties. The authority will have to take account of any determination in deciding the charges it will make to recover the costs of making information available. I believe that I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that, as we made clear in the Coal Industry explanatory note, it is envisaged that the authority will recover the full cost of establishing and maintaining its registers and providing access to information through fees payable by those to whom the information is provided.
The Government believe that it must be right that the authority has the power to charge for providing information. Its geological information could, for example, be of commercial value to potential licensees. It would not be right to give away such information without recovering the full cost of providing access to that information. I believe that the provisions in the Bill make certain that that would not be the exorbitant cost which has been suggested.

1117
Clause 57 contains two exceptions to the requirement on the authority to make information available. The exception to which this amendment relates is set out in Clause 57(3). This does not require or authorise the disclosure by the authority of any information (other than information contained in a register) relating to the affairs of an individual or a company if, in the opinion of the authority, disclosure would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or company.
"Seriously and prejudicially" is a very severe test. It was deliberately drafted to be so. Our intention is that information should be made available unless there are good reasons why it should not be made available. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck. We believe that the discretion we have given the authority to decide whether the disclosure of information would or might seriously and prejudicially affect someone's interests is the right balance. Indeed, it is worth considering whether it would be right for information to be disclosed if the authority believed it might seriously and prejudicially affect someone's interest.
Turning to Clause 58, this requires the authority to maintain arrangements for keeping confidential information that relates to the affairs of individuals and particular businesses. That requirement does not apply in the circumstances specified in the clause, including, at subsection (2) (b), where information is disclosed in pursuance of arrangements made under Clause 57.
It is widely recognised that research and education in the earth sciences is important. It is the categories of information specified in Clause 57(1) that are most likely to be of interest to earth scientists. As I have indicated, that information is not covered by Clause 58, which is in any case primarily aimed at the protection of business and personal information.
As I have indicated in a somewhat full and detailed reply to the noble Lord and my noble friend, there is a balance to be struck between "openness" and "privacy". We believe that we have struck the right balance in the Bill. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for a remarkably detailed reply at this hour of the night. It is something of a curate's egg so far as I am concerned. He gave with the left hand and took back with the right. I am not sure that I have fully and totally taken on board the purport of the noble Viscount's reply, but I shall take care to read it tomorrow.
My initial response is that I feel slightly grateful. I am moderately cheered. To a certain extent, and reserving the right to consider it tomorrow, I am a little reassured, certainly by one or two things that he said, although not all of them. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85B to 85E not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Information to be kept confidential by the Authority]:
[Amendment No. 85F not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 55, line 46, at end insert:

("(vi) the river purification authorities referred to in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 and for the time being specified in subsection (2) of section 17 of that Act").

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 86, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 87.
Clause 58 requires the Coal Authority to maintain arrangements for securing that certain information relating to individuals or particular businesses is kept confidential. The clause also specifies the circumstances in which the authority is not obliged to keep information confidential.
One case where that requirement does not apply is in relation to information relating to water pollution. In England and Wales that is already provided for by the inclusion in Clause 58(3) (e) (iii) of a reference to the National Rivers Authority. Amendment No. 86 is a technical amendment required to ensure that the same principle is extended, to Scotland, where the relevant authorities are the river purification authorities referred to in the amendment.
Amendment No. 87 is a similar technical amendment to Clause 58(4) required for Scotland, which permits disclosure of information in relation to civil proceedings under the legislation under which the river purification authorities operate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 56, line 2, at end insert:

("(ca) Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 56, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) this Act;").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the subsidence adviser can obtain all the necessary information to carry out his investigations. Under the present situation, compensation for planning blight can be claimed against British Coal in respect of land earmarked for coal production. Obviously compensation for blight will be more difficult to administer under a fragmented coal industry. Nevertheless, compulsory acquisition powers are being retained for up to five years and planning authorities are likely to be required under the forthcoming revised mineral planning guidance—we have referred to it before; it is now in draft—to earmark suitable sites for coal extraction in their development plans. The loss through planning blight to individuals will be no less and the right to compensation should in our view remain. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: Clause 58 requires the Coal Authority to keep confidential information that relates to the affairs of individuals and particular businesses.
That requirement does not apply in the circumstances specified in the clause, including where information is disclosed to Ministers and certain public bodies to enable them to carry out their functions under the relevant enactments. Clause 58(4) lists those relevant

1119
enactments. The amendment seeks to add the Bill to that list. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 58(2) (a) already provides for disclosure by the authority to carry out its functions under the Act and for its disclosure to the Secretary of State and the Treasury so that they may carry out their functions under the Act. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I thank the noble Viscount for what he said. I have elicited from him what I wished to elicit. The amendment is concerned with the confidentiality of certain parts of information. I wish to consider the matter. I may well return to it at Report stage. We are concerned about the limitations of confidentiality. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Interpretation]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 60, line 13, at end insert:

(""controlled" has the same meaning as in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and in the Water Resources Act 1991;").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 88B. The purpose of Amendment No. 88A is to ensure that the definition of the word "controlled" is consistent with that set out in all previous legislation.
The purpose of Amendment No. 88B is to ensure that "environment" has the same definition as set out in previous legislation. I should be grateful for confirmation of those two facts by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It is not often that I am not clear about the amendment moved by the noble Lord. I have to say that this amendment mystified us because it did not seem to make any sense.
It is a rare occurrence not to have understood the noble Lord's amendment. Now that he has explained it, perhaps I may consider the matter and let him know whether there is force underlying his argument. I therefore shall consider the points and respond to him before the Report stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that I have not caused him any mystification. It is a perfectly straightforward probing amendment in each case to make sure that the words used in these specific situations have exactly the same meaning as in previous legislation. Perhaps we may correspond about the matter between now and Report stage. In token of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88B not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 88C to 89 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 9 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 were to have been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but at his request and with his permission, I shall not move them.
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 156, leave out lines 47 to 51.
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 94, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 97. Clause 66 and Schedule 11 to the Bill currently provide for the repeal of the references to British Coal and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation (CISWO) in Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 from, respectively, the dissolution date and the appointed day. We believe that the records of both British Coal and CISWO, unless transferred to bodies not subject to the Public Records Act 1958, should retain their public records status. This can be done by removing the references to the repeals of British Coal and CISWO from the 1958 Act from Clause 66 and Schedule 11. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We have looked at Amendments Nos. 94 to 97 carefully and we are happy to give them a guarded welcome. They appear to allow more information to be made available than was formerly the case, but they cover a lot of ground and we shall need to check it all not only for possible subsidence but for unexpected land-mines which may lurk there.
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes".
We fear the Greeks when they come bearing gifts. We give the amendments a welcome but a guarded one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 159, leave out lines 27 to 30.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 96 and 97:
Page 65, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Page 65, line 11, leave out ("the Public Records Act 1958").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

  EUROPEAN UNION: WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
  EUROPEAN UNION: WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
  RWANDA: AID
  RWANDA: AID
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  PRESCRIPTION ACT 1832
  PRESCRIPTION ACT 1832
  RAF MEMORIAL CHAPEL, BIGGIN HILL
  RAF MEMORIAL CHAPEL, BIGGIN HILL
  PAEDOPHILE OFFENDERS ABROAD: UK JURISDICTION
  PAEDOPHILE OFFENDERS ABROAD: UK JURISDICTION
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES