Sitting of 9 May 1994

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

    Railway Safety
    Mr.Gunnel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in operational practice on matters affecting railway safety have taken place since 1 April as a result of the Railways Act 1993.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Railtrack has operational responsibility for a new safety regime which will ensure that the already high standard of safety on the railways is maintained and improved.
    Mr. Gunnell: Have not there already been changes? Before privatisation, drivers went to a training school and the central fund that provided that training has now been abolished. Before privatisation, when an incident occurred, the focus of the investigation was on finding the cause of the accident and learning from it. Trade union observers were present. Now the focus of the inquiry will be on how to apportion blame and costs among the different companies involved—Railtrack, the station owners and the operating companies. Is not it inevitable that increased bureaucracy will lead to less safety?
    Mr. Freeman: Absolutely not. The safety of the railways, which has been the pre-eminent concern of the British Railways Board in recent years, will continue. A privatised railway will be as safe as, if not safer than, a publicly owned railway. As for the investigation of accidents, there will be no change. Her Majesty's inspectorate will continue to focus on the cause of each accident, not initially on seeking to apportion blame.
    Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my rail-travelling constituents will expect nothing less than that the interests of safety will be paramount in the new arrangements of British Rail? Can he assure me and my constituents that sufficient provision will be made for infrastructure investment in British Rail once Railtrack is really operational? It is important that we deal with the problems of signal failure and the like in a manner that enables people to travel to and from work reliably.
    Mr. Freeman: As a result of the reforms, Railtrack's investment budget, which will be higher this year than for comparable types of investment last year by British Rail, will be protected by its own depreciation flow. Therefore, it will generate sufficient funds to maintain a high level of investment in the infrastructure. We expect that to be £500 million in the existing railway this year, £600 million next year and £750 million the year after.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that Opposition Members welcome hearing his Back Benchers already begging for mercy from the implications of rail privatisation, which, of course, played a significant part in the humilation of the Tory party last Thursday? Does he accept that the biggest threat to rail safety is the wanton breaking up of experienced teams of railway personnel? How does he defend the fact that £303 million of taxpayers' money—almost half the amount needed for the refurbishment of the entire west coast main line—has been spent not on railways but on redundancy and early retirement payments to more than 13,000 railway workers? Instead of breaking up, contractorising and fragmenting the railways, will the Minister put that kind of money into

    3
    investment in the railways, which is threatened and undermined by the procedure that he is going through at the moment?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has never understood the difference between the wisdom of investing in infrastructure and improving the productivity of the railways. The reduction of 13,000 in the staff of British Railways, with no effect at all on the operational efficiency of the railways, is a good investment.

    Air Agreement
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the United States/United Kingdom bilateral air agreements relating to the separation of negotiations for routes into London Heathrow and regional gateways.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I have received representations on a number of issues relating to the bilateral negotiations and continue to try to get the talks restarted.
    Mr. Banks: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his patience—never mind his tenacity—in the difficult negotiations between the two countries, may I ask him to assure the House that, given the environmental and other reasons why it will be difficult to find many extra take-off and landing slots at London's Heathrow airport, he will set about trying to agree an open skies policy with the United States Government to allow more flights across the Atlantic to regional airports in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am keen to get the talks restarted—it was not us who broke them off. I agree that there are real constraints at Heathrow. We are trying to persuade the United States Government—with increasing success, because the arguments are being recognised—that there is not unlimited access to Heathrow. I am also keen to encourage the expansion of regional airports and that is why last December we proposed to the United States Government opening all our regional airports at the first stage.
    Mr. Olner: The Secretary of State's record seems to have stuck. I remember that question being asked time and again at Question Time. It is of vital importance to the regional airports, such as Birmingham, that more transatlantic routes to America are provided. Will he please take action quickly and stop stalling on Heathrow and Gatwick, because they are the main reason why the talks, which are very important for regional airports, are being blocked?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not stuck and I am not just repeating the arguments. I am trying to get the talks restarted and have been seeking a number of ways to do so. I made further proposals to the United States Government in relation to the recent Delta-Virgin code-sharing arrangement, suggesting that we should take advantage of that deal to have some interim agreements to get the talks going again and I included proposals for the regional airports.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Even if my right hon. Friend made his offer of unrestricted access to the regional airports and Stansted unconditional, has he any cause for believing that the United States Administration would accept that offer?
    Mr. MacGergor: The problem is the United States Government have not accepted our offers in relation to Stansted and the regional airports, as my hon. Friend knows. It is important that all interests—the airlines and the airports—are involved in the negotiations. We would not fulfil our liberal objectives if we agreed to a deal that would allow United States airlines to exploit their unfair competitive advantage, while giving United Kingdom airlines nothing in return and driving them out of the market. That is the problem and that is why I wanted a balanced deal. I assure my hon. Friend that that deal very much includes giving open access to the regional airports and Stansted as quickly as we can get a positive and constructive response from the other side.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's commitment to diversification through regional airports and the fact that Belfast international airport was one of those that recently got an add-on licence from America, through to Riga. May we urge the right hon. Gentleman to continue his efforts—we will back him—to ensure that British companies have the same rights as American companies?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to have the hon. Gentleman's support.

    Escalators (London Underground)
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the recommendation of the Fennell inquiry to replace all the wooden escalators on the London underground to be implemented.
    The minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): London Underground has replaced the timber skirtings, balustrades and advertisement panels on all its escalators with non-combustible materials. Its programme for replacing wooden treads and risers is still in progress and, with the support of the fire authority, London Underground has asked the Home Secretary to amend the relevant regulations in order to permit fire authorities to grant exemptions in respect of wooden treads and risers beyond 1 January 1996.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that, given that the Fennell inquiry found out that a lit cigarette on a wooden escalator started the King's Cross fire and recommended that wooden treads be urgently removed, the Government's attitude is one of utter complacency towards the travelling public in London?
    Mr. Norris: No. The installation of sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment and improved escalator cleaning and inspection procedures are the important elements in ensuring that a tragedy like King's Cross does not recur. I stress that the relevant fire authorities have supported London Underground in its application to the Home Office to ensure that the programme is carried out, but in an appropriate time scale.
    Mr. John Marshall: How much has London Underground spent on safety since the publication of the Fennell report? How many recommendations were in that report and how many of them have been implemented by London Underground since the report was published?
    Mr. Norris: London Underground has spent £250 million on safety since King's Cross. There were 127 recommendations in the Fennell report, of which 114 have already been implemented.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that London transport is the subject which most exercises Londoners—according to replies sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment—and given that Ministers share the concern to maximise investment, the number of users, and safety, will the Minister seriously consider consulting the using public of London before fixing the amount of money to be raised next year, so that choices about investment can be made by the people rather than just by the Government?
    Mr. Norris: No. It is appropriate that the investment priorities for the underground should be determined by London Underground in consultation with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the money that has been spent on safety. Indeed, together with my hon. Friend I have been to see the safety measures implemented at Greenford station and elsewhere. We are grateful for them. Will my hon. Friend consider a down escalator—no, I mean an up escalator—at Greenford station, as that is greatly needed?
    Mr. Norris: Up or down, I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that 38 escalators still have wooden treads and risers? Does he recall that one of the important recommendations in the Fennell report was that replacement of wooden risers should be urgently sought because of the discovery of the trench effect? Did not the former Secretary of State for Transport promise in November 1988 that London Transport had been asked to implement that recommendation urgently? Why, five and a half years later, is the Department trying to renege on that undertaking? Is not it purely because the Government have cut London Transport's investment programme by £1 billion compared with what was promised at the last election? When will the Government recognise that they cannot jeopardise public safety in order to make cuts in London Transport's funding?
    Mr. Norris: That is not good enough. First, the rate of replacement for escalators should be about six a year. If the rate were increased, it would impose intolerable congestion on the whole system—not something which would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, independent analysis has concluded that replacing the treads and risers in advance of their normal replacement would be very bad value for money and would offer very little compared with the other items that I mentioned, such as sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment, better inspection under escalators and so on. That is the way to do these things. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to try to spread fear and alarm where there is absolutely no cause for them.

    A12
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is intending to take to improve safety on the A12.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): Work will start on the Witham bypass section at the end of June. I have asked the Highways Agency to bring forward work on the Feering to Marks Tey safety fence improvements, which will now start this year.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that it is now nine months since my constituent, Cheryl Franklin, a 27-year-old bride on her way to her honeymoon, was killed as a result of her car crossing the central reservation? Does he accept that it is essential that that work should go ahead as soon as possible if we are to avoid similar tragedies?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I am aware of that case due to the diligence of my hon. Friend, who has made representations to me, the campaign of the Colchester Evening Gazette and the letter sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from Her Majesty's coroner for the county of Essex. It has taken a number of months to commission work from our agents, Essex county council. It has completed its work, which had to be evaluated, and, as I have just announced, we are proceeding with all speed.
    Ms. Walley: When will the Government realise that if they talk about safety, they must talk about safety with integrity? We have just heard the Government's response to the Fennell report and now we have heard the Government's response to road safety, exactly at the same time as they are privatising the Transport Research Laboratory. Where is the Government's long-term vision and when—
    Madem Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is on the wrong question, but it appears that the Minister is able to give a reply.
    Mr. Key: In relation to safety on the A12 and safety policy, we do not count the pennies when it comes to safety. That is exactly why our road safety scheme budget was effectively ring-fenced in this financial year, so there was no reduction in it. That, too, is why we shall continue to improve road safety by engineering better roads.

    Roads Programme
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his priorities in the roads programme for the west midlands.
    Mr. MacGregor: The priorities are outlined in "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review", which I announced to the House on 30 March.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread opposition not only in north Warwickshire but throughout Staffordshire to the proposed Birmingham northern relief road? It is regarded as unnecessary, because it will not cure the congestion problems on the M6, and environmentally destructive because such orbital roads generate more traffic, which further damage the environment. That is why the proposal is opposed by large sections of the community throughout my area.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views. The forthcoming public inquiry will allow all representations to be heard by an independent inspector. That is the way to proceed with the scheme. The hon.

    7
    Gentleman will also know that a comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed scheme is described in the environmental statement.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I recognise the importance of prioritising the road programme, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern that has been expressed in my constituency, in particular about the decision to make the Kidderminster-Blakedown and Hagley bypass one of the lowest priorities? Is he aware that it is supported by the local district councils and the chambers of commerce? Is he also aware that my constituents would like him to reconsider his decision and give that scheme the priority that it deserves?
    Mr. MacGregor: Contrary to what Opposition Members may say, I know that there is a great demand for our road programme and that is why we are continuing with a major programme. Alas, there are so many requests from around the country that it is necessary to prioritise. Despite the high level of road building in which we are engaged, it is not possible to build all the roads at once or even within the next five or six years. That is why it has been necessary to say that some schemes will be delayed. The scheme to which my hon. Friend referred is connected with the western orbital route. I assure him that all schemes in the longer-term programme are secure and will go ahead as we continue to complete the schemes ahead of them.

    Rail Reforms
    Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what opportunity for non-transport industries will be created by the rail reforms.
    Mr. Freeman: A wide spectrum of opportunities for non-transport industries will be created by the Government's rail reforms, including, for example, bidding for the infrastructure service units and British Rail Telecoms and developing the commercial potential at some of our larger stations.
    Mr. Stephen: As my hon. Friend knows, I have had the good fortune to be a Industry and Parliament Trust fellow with British Rail for the past year. Will he accept from me that a positive attitude exists throughout the industry to the introduction of private sector capital and management techniques, not least among the men and women who maintain the track and signal infrastructure? Can he give a suggestion of the timetable for the restructuring of British Rail infrastructure services?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is a widespread enthusiasm among the staff of British Rail—[Interruption.] There is a widespread enthusiasm for our reforms among those people who look forward positively to developing a better rail system. If hon. Gentlemen are not aware of that, I will introduce them to some of the management of British Rail. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend.
    On the infrastructure units, I expect that the process of sale will commence at the beginning of the next financial year and will be concluded by Easter 1996.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that there is every reason why private consultants should be delighted with the opportunities offered by British Rail, because they are costing the taxpayer £344 million and not one single
    8
    penny is going to improving either the rail structure or jobs? What is happening with those people who are flying round in helicopters, and how can we obtain some value for money from those people who are publishing articles calling it a "gravy train"?
    Mr. Freeman: On privatisation costs, the Government do not recognise the type of figures that the Opposition have been speaking about—£300 million, £400 million, £500 million and £600 million. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been including the cost of redundancies of more than £300 million. That would have occurred anyway and improved the efficiency of British railways.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunities provided by the rail reforms will be enormously enhanced by the success of the channel tunnel, which he, the Secretary of State and many other Conservative colleagues enjoyed, which was built as a result of the success of private sector finance, and which would never have been built had we followed the transport policies of the Labour party?
    Mr. Freeman: It was the Labour party which cancelled the channel tunnel project in the 1970s. It is under the present Government that private sector capital has brought off a major engineering feat.
    Mr. Dobson: Is not the Minister being a trifle modest in his list of non-transport industries that have benefited from rail privatisation? Has not between £250 million and £300 million of taxpayers' and passengers' money been paid out by his Department or British Rail to merchant bankers, management consultants, lawyers, accountants, public relations advisers and even—God help us—parliamentary consultants?
    Mr. Freeman: The truth is that British Rail and Railtrack, the Department of Transport, the Office of Rail Passenger Franchising and the regulator have spent money well on preparing the railway industry for privatisation. Last year, British Rail and Railtrack spent about £50 million together. That is 1.5 per cent, of the turnover of British Rail and it is money well spent.

    A66
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade the A66.
    Mr. Key: There are nine schemes in the road programme to improve the A66, with an estimated value of £40 million.
    Mr. Devlin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and also for the replies to my written questions showing that more than half the movements along the A66 are those of commercial traffic. Is he aware of the high priority that is attached to the modernisation and improvement of the A66 trans-Pennine route by the Teesside chamber of commerce and other commercial organisations in the north-east of England, which regard it as one of the components of enormous economic expansion in the future? In that light, will he give the further improvement of the road his greater consideration in the future?
    Mr. Key: I am second to none in my admiration for the progress on Teesside and my hon. Friend has kept me well

    9
    informed of that and lobbied hard on behalf of the business community in his constituency. There is, however, another side to the argument. From my position, with a national perspective, I have also to bear in mind the pressures from elsewhere in the north—for example, to upgrade the A69.

    Traffic Calming
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that traffic-calming schemes have reduced accidents in urban areas.
    Mr. Key: Traffic calming has reduced accidents in 20 mph zones by as much as 70 per cent, and has been particularly effective in reducing accidents to child pedestrians and cyclists.
    Mr. Garnier: The most effective and popular traffic-calming scheme in Market Harborough is the completion of the A1-M1 link, but the benefits of the traffic-calming scheme currently being undertaken within Market Harborough are not widely understood. Will my hon. Friend use all his powers to ensure that the disadvantages of the scheme are fully mitigated by its benefits?
    Mr. Key: Yes. I shall also bear in mind the fact that work starts today on a traffic-calming scheme on a length of wide road—Fairfield road—in my hon. Friend's constituency. Vociferous opposition has been expressed in respect of work in zone 3—Fairfield road, Logan street—so we have modified the scheme in consultation with the local highway authority. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the best future for traffic calming in Market Harborough lies in the completion of the A14—the A1-M1 link—which will be opened next month, and in the successful completion of the bypass demonstration project. Market Harborough is one of only six towns that have been part of an experiment to ensure that, when towns are bypassed and traffic flows reduced by up to 70 per cent., the towns' centres return to the life that they knew in the past, and that wide, unattractive roads do not go through the middle of our cities.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that, precisely when he was praising sleeping policemen, the Minister for Transport in London was busy denigrating them? Will he hold a referendum on the matter?
    Mr. Key: No. I have no intention of having a referendum on that matter. Good heavens, if we had a referendum those in favour of road improvement might win the argument!
    Mr. Dunn: Does the Minister agree that, in addition to traffic-calming measures, the proper working and maintenance of motor cars is essential? Does he agree that many of our constituents could not afford to maintain their motor cars if they faced a 50p increase in the price of petrol as suggested by the Liberal Democrats?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The management of our roads includes creating, as far as possible, a pollution-free environment. That is being achieved because motor cars are becoming much cleaner and because of our commitment to the Rio arrangements and increasing the price of fuel. Given that cars will be much more efficient, that need not bear down on less-affluent members of the community.
    Mr. Pike: I recognise the impact on accidents to which the Minister referred in his original response, and the fact that most traffic-calming schemes cost relatively little. But why does not the Minister provide local authorities such as Lancashire with enough resources to carry out all the traffic-calming schemes that they wish to introduce this year?
    Mr. Key: We have maintained the money for traffic-calming schemes at £50 million and it is entirely open to local authorities to prioritise spending in these areas. This year, we have introduced for the first time a package approach to local authority joint funding with the Department of Transport. That means that local authorities have much more flexibility to design overall transport packages including road, rail, bus, cycle, and pedestrianisation features. That is a sensible and practical way forward.

    Airlines (Competition)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to improve competition among airlines operating (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) within Europe; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Government strongly support a liberal market in aviation. The United Kingdom led the way in developing a competitive domestic market and in the creation of the European Union single market and open skies in Europe policy. I hope that that will be extended to the full European Economic Area later this year.
    Mr. Steen: I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking on Air France and winning for British airlines in Orly. Will he now correct the balance for the few remaining scheduled British airlines so that they do not go the way of British Caledonian, Dan Air, Brymon, Birmingham Executive and British Island Airways, which have either gone to the wall or have been taken over by British Airways? Although British Airways has a successful track record, privatisation has given the company an over-dominant position in this country and Europe.
    Mr. MacGregor: If the latter part of my hon. Friend's question refers to anti-competitive behaviour, the Office of Fair Trading has powers to investigate such allegations. I am grateful to him for his opening remarks. The outcome of the Commission's deliberations on the London to Paris, Orly air route was crucial because it was one of the first tests of the implementation of the single market. Another is that air fares are coming down. I am pleased about the Commission's response and grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the part that I played in pressing for that. It will help other airlines and will be a great help to British Midland. My hon. Friend will have noted that, from next Monday, Air UK will operate six flights a day from Stansted to Orly.
    Mr. Tony Banks: If the Secretary of State really wants to take on Air France, should not he do so in respect of its monopoly on flights to Strasbourg? The present position is clearly thoroughly unsatisfactory: the airline charges enormous fares because it knows that most people who go to Strasbourg will not be paying their own fares.

    11
    As for fares coming down, when can we expect to pay fares in Europe that are comparable with those in the United States?
    Mr. MacGregor: Some fares in the European Union are coming down as a result of the single aviation package. In fact, British airlines have led the way in bringing those fares down and others have had to follow suit. The important thing is to have competition on individual routes to ensure that that happens. We are pursuing that objective as well—which is why the question of the London to Orly route is important, as is that of flights from Orly to Toulouse and Marseilles. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get in touch with me about Strasbourg, I will certainly ensure that it is examined; but I do not think that it has yet been drawn to the Commission's attention.

    Northern Line
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has to report on measures to improve the service offered by the Northern line.
    Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 March that London Underground would be holding a competition for the supply of privately financed rolling stock for the Northern line. This competition is now under way, and should be completed by the autumn.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will know of the pressure put on the Government by hon. Members on both sides of the House for an improvement in the Northern line. My constituency contains the Morden depot and two stations. I welcome the initiative for private sector involvement in the line. Will my hon. Friend give me some idea of the timing of the tenders and assure me that our constituents can look forward to a Northern line that can provide a service that is appropriate to the next century?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my right hon. Friend's initiative. I hope that we may be in a position to look at the tenders before the end of the year. The initiative will significantly increase the rate at which improvements in the line can be made. As my hon. Friend implied, the station improvements in his constituency are a separate item in the budget; those stations will undergo a thorough refurbishment in the next two years.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that it is the possibility of losing a competition that causes my constituents concern—not least in the light of a recent incident at Hampstead tube station, when the elevator had to be manually winched 181 ft to the surface? Will he consider sympathetically the call for a safety inquiry from my constituent Mrs. Jenny Woodley, whose son—as he knows—was tragically lost in an accident on the underground? That is desirable not least because manning levels throughout the system seem to be falling.
    Mr. Norris: I am very ready to consider any representation from the hon. Lady in regard to an individual constituency case, and I will happily do so in this instance.
    I found the hon. Lady's original question rather confusing. Is she saying that she does not welcome an initiative that is likely to deliver modern, safe and reliable
    12
    Northern line trains several years earlier than they would otherwise be available? I believe that the vast majority of her constituents will welcome this imaginative initiative which is designed to accelerate a pace of investment that is already four times as great under the present Government as it was at any time under the stewardship of her party.

    Resignalling
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the resignalling of the Liverpool Street to Chelmsford line to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: Resignalling is expected to be completed as far as Chelmsford by late 1995, and Colchester by Easter 1997.
    Mr. Burns: That announcement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, because the dates are earlier than was originally anticipated. Given that it comes on top of the complete rebuilding of Chelmsford station over the past eight years, the introduction of new rolling stock on the line and the improved journey times, will not the resignalling ensure a better, more consistent service for my constituents who travel to work each day via Liverpool street?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend might find it interesting to know that punctuality on the Great Eastern line has been 91.3 per cent. over the past four weeks, which compares with the standard set by the passengers charter of 88 per cent.—a creditable performance by British Rail.

    East London Line
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expedite the development of the options for the southern extension to the East London line.
    Mr. Norris: Responsibility for assessing the options for the southern extension to the East London line, and the time scale for that assessment, rest with London Underground Ltd.
    Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he liaise with his officials to ensure that London Underground examines all the options for the extension of the East London line, beyond the modest proposal to go to East Dulwich? In particular, will they examine the London borough of Lewisham's proposal for a circular route involving track sharing with Railtrack, through Crystal Palace and back to New Cross Gate—not only to secure the future of New Cross Gate but to bring to a part of south London that is wholly deprived of an underground service a much-needed facility?
    Mr. Norris: I am happy to arrange for any examination that is not already being done to take place, because I agree that there is scope, in the southern works on the East London line extension, for a real enhancement of the system at relatively modest cost.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Research Funding
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will pay an official visit to the research councils in Swindon to discuss future funding.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I held a meeting last week with chairmen and the chief executives of the research councils and I expect to visit Swindon in July.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in general principle and as far as possible, resources should be concentrated on scientific research at the sharp end? Is he happy with the fact that as much as £3.5 million a year is being withheld by his Office for centralised activities such as the technology foresight programme?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can reassure my hon. Friend. First, the cost of the foresight exercise is about £2 million. Secondly, the costs will come from the running costs of my Department, not from the science base, which is protected. I agree that the money should go to science, which is why the new Director General of Research Councils recently gained £7.5 million in efficiency savings from the research councils to plough back into front-line science.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor aware of the danger of the erosion of support for the science base because of the need to support teaching that should be done at undergraduate level and financed by the Higher Education Funding Council and the Department for Education?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. As he knows, we have put out a consultation paper about potential changes in postgraduate teaching. There is a growth of four-year courses in some of our science and engineering schools; some of that growth is welcome, but it needs close analysis to compare its output with that of other routes.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met his counterparts in the European Union to discuss initiatives to reduce the number of civil servants across the Union.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): I shall resist the temptation to guess who the counterparts of the Duchy of Lancaster in the European Union are, but I have not discussed with them initiatives to reduce the number of civil servants in the Union.
    Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no way that the numbers of civil servants will be decreased in the European Community as long as there emerge from Brussels daft and expensive directives such as the one being enforced in the Palace of Westminster, under which all filing cabinets will be scrapped this summer because they do not contain anti-tilt mechanisms? What will the cost to the nation be if all our filing cabinets have to be scrapped? Is not that a crazy example of these daft directives?
    Mr. Davis: I shall also resist the idea of a European anti-tilt mechanism. The European Commission produced a report on subsidiarity which proposed a reduction of 25 per cent. in the quantity of legislation and regulation emerging from Europe. The directive to which my hon. Friend referred may be a good candidate for that.
    Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the number of civil servants in the European Union be reduced if every man and his dog, in the Tory Government and on the Tory Back Benches alike, is calling for God knows how many different varieties of referendum? And while we are about it, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to tell us where he stands on the issue?
    Mr. Davis: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is no, I certainly shall not, but I have no doubt where he stands on the issue of a referendum.

    Public Services
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives his Department has launched to obtain the best value for money from public services.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My Department co-ordinates a range of initiatives under the banner of the citizens charter that help to improve value for money in the delivery of public services. These include the "Competing for Quality" programme and "next steps", as well as the charter initiative itself. As the citizens charter second report announced, £135 million of savings have been achieved under the "Competing for Quality" programme.
    Mr. Devlin: In evaluating the value-for-money initiatives that he is taking, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the home civil service has an unenviable reputation throughout the world for its objectivity and lack of corruption? Will he ensure that those values are enshrined in any "next steps" agencies that he establishes?
    Mr. Enright: Unenviable?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend meant to say an enviable record, in which case all hon. Members would agree with him that that is so. My hon. Friend is right that the maintenance of those standards, which are envied worldwide, is a central objective of policy in the changes that we are making and have made in the civil service in the past 10 years.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not it clear that this Government provide the worst possible value for money? Did not the electorate make it clear last week that they considered that the Government were totally discredited and divided and that the sooner they went, the better?
    Mr. Waldegrave: In the time that I have been here—since 1979—I have heard the hon. Gentleman make similar remarks, usually about two years before elections that we win.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Should not we ensure in the European parliamentary elections that the socialists are defeated so that the European Parliament can work with this Government to ensure that we maintain good public services and the minimum number of civil servants?
    Mr. Waldegrave: All the efficiency gains made in both British Government and British industry would be lost as a result of the centralising tendencies that both Opposition parties would reinforce in the European Community.
    Mr. Meacher: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that market testing of public services is his flagship project; as he has estimated, although he has never substantiated it, that it achieves savings of £100 million a year; and as the Cabinet Office efficiency unit has officially estimated the cost of consultancies at £565 million last year, with savings of a mere £10 million, should not he do what any chief executive would do if his pet project turned into a field day for waste and corruption—namely, resign—or is the pay-back to the Tory party from those jobs for the boys such that even he can cling to office, like the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, the hon. Member has completely confused himself, but he will not confuse the House. Savings of about £135 million have been achieved by market testing. The annualised cost of consultants is probably about £1 million. The total cost of consultants is about £10 million. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is a distinguished management consultant and used to work for Inbucon, so perhaps he will be able to put his hon. Friend right on some of these matters.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessments have been made of the extent of the changes in efficiency and quality of public services as a result of the application of the citizens charter.
    Mr. David Davis: The citizens charter second report, published in March, reported fully on improvements in efficiency and quality in public services since the launch of the citizens charter. Individual services also assess improvements and publish their performance results.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the total cost of the citizens charter programme amounts to less than 2p per family per week? Does he agree that that represents excellent value, given the improvement in services and the pressure for improvement in public services? Is not that the reason why overseas countries are now using our citizen charters as an example of the way in which they may exert pressure for an improvement in public services?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. More than 30 countries—France, North America and many others—have come to see or have considered our experiences in this matter. He is right to say that there has been a considerable improvement in services. One example that leaps to mind arose from the league tables for schools, which led to significant improvements for a number of schools in the past few years.
    Mr. Barnes: What changes are there in efficiency and quality as a result of the scrapping of the charterline experiment in the east midlands? How much did that wasteful experiment cost and should not the money have been used for other purposes, such as supply to local authorities in the area to enable them to inform people of the services that they provide?
    Mr. Davis: As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, the majority of the money that was spent on charterline went into the development and research phase. That was used to create a database and to provide information for a number of other services. For example, the Royal Mail is producing a directory of all homes and services in the country at no cost to the taxpayer; the BBC will have a telephone helpline; and directories such as the British Telecom and Thomson directories will also use the information. That is all for the benefit of the taxpayer.

    Departmental Information
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the House will receive information about decisions on appeals against a Department's refusal to make information available.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The parliamentary ombudsman will keep the House informed of his findings when investigating complaints under the code of practice.
    Mr. Bottomley: The House and the country will understand that using the parliamentary ombudsman as a method of appeal is a far more practical and speedy way to get information than trying to use a freedom of information Bill or Act. Will the parliamentary ombudsman have sufficient resources, and will the House have an opportunity to consider a range of reports when enough experience has been gathered?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend because I think that the system will be cheaper, quicker and more easily accessible to the citizen. We have doubled the resources that are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner to make sure that he can do the work swiftly and with the competence that we always associate with his work.
    Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister confirm that the multitude of exclusions and exemptions from his code of practice on open government means that there will be no official disclosures on, for example, the arms-to-Iraq affair, about which he will no doubt be pleased, or the Pergau dam affair? Will he also confirm that there will be no disclosures of policy analysis or of any information that the Government do not consider reliable? Is not the truth of the matter that the code of practice is just a sham?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. The exclusions from the code of practice are those that are found in most freedom of information legislation abroad. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that the system will work to achieve the objectives, which I share, of those who campaigned for greater freedom of information and that it will do so at much less cost and with much greater ease of access for the citizen.

    Contracts
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in contractorisation in the public service.
    Mr. David Davis: In the period from April 1992 to December 1993, decisions to contract £855 million—worth of work to the private sector were reported under the "Competing for Quality" programme.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that ghastly word "contractorisation" masks an admirable concept. Does he further agree that its implementation sometimes threatens the career structure of people in the system? I shall give an example. Technical recruitment to the Ministry of Defence may be inhibited if people do not have a proper career structure. Will he assure me that he will liaise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that that potential problem is addressed?
    Mr. Davis: As my hon. Friend says, market testing and contracting out are designed wholly to improve value for money and the quality of service that the public services, including the Ministry of Defence, provide. In specifying projects, the Ministers who are involved in making decisions obviously take into account matters such as recruitment, which my hon. Friend mentions. I will, of course, speak to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on that matter if my hon. Friend so wishes.
    Mr. Flynn: What does the Minister conclude from the contractorisation of the fireworks safety campaign from civil servants to a private company, which resulted in a doubling of the cost, in the production of useless information and in a record number of firework accidents? When will the Government realise that our civil servants are still the most efficient, the least corrupt and the least politicised in the world and stop handing over their jobs to cowboys?
    Mr. Davis: One part of the hon. Gentleman's question was correct—our civil service is entirely commendable. But that is not to say that some of the things that it does cannot be done better, as has been demonstrated by the market-testing programme. The in-house team won the bid in 60 per cent. of market tests, and in practically all those cases significant savings, sometimes down to about 25 per cent., were made.

    Research Laboratories
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny report into the Government research laboratories.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The efficiency scrutiny team will make its recommendations shortly. I intend to publish the report and to consult widely before reaching decisions on the way forward.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 90 days represents a ludicrously short time scale for the scrutiny of the efficiency of 53 Government research laboratories? Is not it likely that the scrutiny team will produce simplistic rationalisations and cuts, which could only damage the Government's research base?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not believe so. We will all see the report when it is published, and then we shall consult carefully. There is no reason why the Government should not examine carefully research overhead costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) says, we want the money to go to science. If we can find ways to save money by dispensing with unnecessary overheads, we should do so.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that the Government have no money of their own—only taxpayers's money? Should not we review research laboratories sensibly and regularly so that money spent on behalf of taxpayers is applied efficiently and effectively?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend must be right when he suggests that it is the duty of any Minister to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent as efficiently as possible. We shall do that through the study and we shall do it right across the board.
    Mr. Dafis: When considering the report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that a recent parliamentary answer that I received showed that research funding for Wales is absolutely disgraceful? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy discuss that matter with the Secretary of State for Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and other organisations involved in scientific research in Wales? Will he consider also devolving to Wales—to the Welsh Office—the function of research councils, together with at least 5 per cent. of funding?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It would be a bad idea to devolve research council funding to Wales or to Scotland. Vice-chancellors and most of the research community—in Scotland, at any rate—are strong supporters of maintaining a national system. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales recently took steps to reinforce research excellence in Wales, which will enable research contracts to be won on merit more freely, perhaps, than in the past.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Government research laboratories should enjoy state-of-the-art management and organisational structures and should apply their resources as effectively as possible? Is not it essential that the review is carefully considered?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As we are supporting through the Economic and Social Research Council good research into organisational theory and proper management, it would be paradoxical not to apply them to the science base itself.

    Secrecy
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made in reducing secrecy in Government.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's new code of practice on access to Government information came into force at the beginning of April. I am confident that it will prove to be a significant advance.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is not it the case that the code, which came into effect on 4 April, will not allow the public to become fully aware of the growth of scandals such as Pergau and Matrix Churchill? Until we have a Government who are prepared to be open with the electorate about the way in which they run their affairs, scandals such as Pergau and Matrix Churchill will continue and the Government cannot claim to be open or to seek an end to secrecy.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) asked the same question, word for word, a few minutes ago, I suspect that it was written out

    19
    and handed to the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that the code's exemptions are just about exactly the same as those in freedom of information legislation around the world. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested, he will discover that the new code of practice policed by the ombudsman will be a major step forward.
    Lady Olga Maitland: On behalf of amateur and professional historians, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on persuading his colleagues to release confidential Government information? Does he agree that that is a step forward in open government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I was grateful for the thanks that were delivered to the Government the other day by the Institute for Contemporary History. We have made major steps forward: I commend to the House for example the Farm Hall transcripts and many other things that have been released in the past year, from which the institute might learn something.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the results of introducing the citizens charter.
    Mr. David Davis: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) earlier, the citizens charter second report is just such an assessment.
    Mr. Enright: But does the Minister agree that the citizens charter is totally incapable of stopping Departments throwing away taxpayers' money? For example, how could it possibly get back the £200,000 that was lent to Unicorn Heritage plc and a gang of failed business men? How does it help that?
    Mr. Davis: That is a disgraceful use of parliamentary questions. The "Competing for Quality" initiative, of which the charter is a part, achieves an enormous amount of improvement in value for money—as has already been said, £135 million gross in this year alone.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House for a question to be tabled on a Friday for answer on the following Monday when the issue is not an emergency? I refer to question 1167 on today's Order Paper, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), in which he asks the President of the Board of Trade
"when he expects to be able to publish the consultative document on the opening up of the domestic gas market; and if he will make a statement."
The issue is of vital importance to the millions of gas consumers, particularly those on low incomes, who are not likely to benefit, and those living in remote areas, whose charges will almost certainly rise. The issue has been the subject of great interest and controversy since last September, when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission first made its recommendation in a report on the domestic gas industry—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House. He knows that he cannot make a speech on a point of order. Will he now come to his point of order for me?
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. May I make the point—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the Government's first response was made on 21 December, after the House had risen? Thereafter, we expected a full statement to the House. Instead, the Government are hiding behind a written answer two days after the by-election defeats. It was delayed to avoid the elections, and has now been hidden from the gaze of the House and questioning by that technique. Is that in order?
Madam Speaker: To answer the last question first, it is perfectly in order. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I have made the point that he is a long-standing Member of the House—it is for Ministers, not the Speaker, to determine whether statements should be made by means of an answer to a written question or by an oral statement at the Dispatch Box. I have no authority in such matters.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise an important matter, and it is very much a genuine point of order.
Madam Speaker: I thought that the last one was quite an important matter, too.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure, but this is an important matter.
Last Friday, the House considered the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. After the debate was concluded, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who tabled a question to Ministers about help with the drafting of amendments, received an answer from the Leader of the House saying that amendments tabled on Tuesday 3 May 1994 were drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. That means that all the amendments on paper No. 1295, Consideration of Bill, by four hon. Members—the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Sutton and
22
Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Bristol North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—were tabled by parliamentary counsel.
That raises two very important issues for the House. First, in future will all hon. Members have access to parliamentary counsel when they wish to draft amendments? As I understand it, we are all equal in this House, and you, Madam Speaker, adjudicate on these matters. I want to know whether I and all my hon. Friends have that right.
Secondly, in light of the statement made by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in reply to an intervention of mine, when I asked him
"Have he or his Department been in any way involved in the drafting of any of the amendments or the new clause tabled by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam",
the Minister said:
"No part whatever in the drafting of any of the amendments and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department has been involved in the drafting of any amendments in this area."—[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 991.]
That clearly suggests to the House that, if the Minister was not responsible for giving the instruction to parliamentary counsel to draft those amendments, and civil servants were not involved, four Members of this House must have extra-special control and influence over parliamentary counsel in their decision to proceed with the drafting of those amendments.
I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, would establish who gave that instruction. Was it a Minister? At least then we will be able to establish where there is consistency in the answer given by the Minister, when I asked him about the arrangements relating to the drafting of those amendments.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the previous point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Well, it does, yes, but it relates to a slightly different point as well. As you will know, Madam Speaker, a week last Friday, the House carried unanimously a decision calling on the Government to give more parliamentary time to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Government seem to have totally ignored that decision. The Minister was completely wrong in his summing up in relation to that resolution. The point about the Standing Order should be drawn to the Minister's attention.
On the Friday in question, the motion that was passed called on the Government to give the Bill time. However, the Minister told us that the reason why the Standing Order was changed was to prevent the Government from giving time. That is totally wrong. The Standing Order was drawn up to stop motions being transferred into Bills and the House sitting over a weekend.
I therefore submit that, on that count as well, the Minister went beyond the Standing Order. That is why I am absolutely convinced that this matter should be brought before the House again.
Ms Liz Lynne: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No, I think that I understand the feeling of the House on this matter. The hon. Member for

23
Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised on Friday a point of order which was barely a point of order, and I answered him then.
However, in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I believe that he is mistaken in some respects. Amendments were not tabled by parliamentary counsel. Amendments are tabled by hon. Members. [Interruption.] Just a moment. Hon. Members are, of course, free to ask Ministers for assistance in drafting amendments to Bills. However, if the hon. Member for Workington would allow me to consider precisely what he has said, I should like to look further into it.
Ms Lynne rose—
Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I have dealt with that matter. We will now move on to the Orders of the Day. [Interruption.] Just a moment. I have dealt with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Workington, which I think deals with a number of issues, and I want to look at it.
Lady Olga Maitland rose—
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to that point, or is it quite different?
Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to make it abundantly clear that I raise my own amendments. I sought consultation, but it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source. It seems that disabled people are being used as a political football for political purposes by the Labour party.
Madam Speaker: When I am very tolerant and sympathetic, the House runs into these problems. The hon. Lady has given an explanation. That is not a point of order. I think that we had better move on.
Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
Madam Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman have a point of order that I can deal with, and not an explanation?
Mr. Morris: Madam Speaker, as you know, I very rarely raise points of order. What concerns me is that it may be necessary, before the outcome of your inquiry, which all of us welcome and appreciate, for a right hon. Member, and perhaps at least one hon. Member, to come to the House to apologise for having made what seem to many of us to have been misleading statements here last Friday.
They purported to make it absolutely clear that they drafted the amendments. We now have it from the Leader of the House of Commons that all 80 amendments that appeared on the Order Paper last Wednesday were drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. They were drafted on Tuesday and tabled on Wednesday in the names of five Conservative Members.
Madam Speaker: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, I will look into the matter.

Orders of the Day

  Special Educational Needs
  3.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
  That the draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.
  The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs has been eagerly awaited in this House and, indeed, in the other place, and by local education authorities, schools, voluntary bodies and all concerned with children with special educational needs—not least parents. If the code is approved by Parliament, it will set the framework for special educational provision for many years to come.
  The code of practice springs from the Education Act 1993. Part III of that Act builds on the principles of the Education Act 1981, covering the same sort of matters. It seeks to ensure their more effective application in practice, to the benefit of all children with special educational needs and their parents. There was a clear need to review and revise the 1991 legislative framework—that was agreed by all—and the 1993 Act was the result. Regulations made under the Act and laid before Parliament at the same time as the code embody the detail of the new system.
  The code of practice which we are now considering provides guidance to all concerned on the exercise of their duties under the Act and the regulations. Schools and LEAs, health services and social services must have regard to that guidance. The code seeks to create a purposive partnership among those bodies and between them, voluntary organisations and parents on behalf of all children with special educational needs.
  Section 157 of the 1993 Act requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice. Section 158 requires him to consult upon a draft and to bring a revised draft to Parliament for approval under the affirmative procedure, which is what we are now doing.
  The draft before us today contains six sections. Part 1 sets out the main principles which inform the code as a whole. Part 2 offers guidance to schools as to how they might fulfil their duties towards pupils with special needs who do not require statements, and lays a particular emphasis on partnership between all concerned. Part 3 deals with statutory assessments—in particular, the time limits for making such assessments, guidance as to when such assessments should be made, and how such assessments should be conducted.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just had passed down the Bench a letter from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—in which he repudiates much of what he said last week, and now gives a completely new interpretation of events. In the light of what has happened, I wonder whether you should consider this correspondence, which was literally handed down the Bench moments after you gave your ruling, from the Leader of the House of Commons.
  Madam Speaker: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman lets me have the correspondence, I shall look at it, together with the point of order that he raised earlier.
  Mr. Forth: Part IV deals with statements of special educational needs, including the form and content of statements and choosing the right school. Part V covers children under five with special educational needs, and part VI deals with the annual review of statements and transition to adult life. At the end of the draft code, there is an appendix covering transitional arrangements from the 1981 Act to the 1993 Act, a full glossary of terms and an index.
  The code itself, as presented to Parliament, is bound between a foreword and a copy of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994, neither of which is part of the code itself. The foreword aims to explain the status of the code, and other matters which I shall touch on in a moment. The regulations, together with regulations governing the information that schools must publish, have been formally laid before Parliament alongside the code.
  One of the main purposes of the code is to promote partnership. In earnest of that intention, the draft code itself has been developed in partnership. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to all those who helped us to produce the consultative draft and the draft before us today.
  Throughout the process, we have been most fortunate in being able to draw on the help of expert individuals from the voluntary world. We have discussed successive drafts with representatives of the local authority associations and the Society of Education Officers. Senior academics and administrators, teachers and governors have given us their time in commenting on drafts. While I readily take full responsibility for the code and its contents, the production of the code has been a co-operative effort, designed to promote co-operation on behalf of children with special educational needs. I am most grateful to the many individuals and organisations who have helped us.
  On a personal note, Madam Speaker, I am happy to acknowledge, pay tribute to and thank my officials in the Department for Education, who have worked tirelessly with dedication and sensitivity to bring the code to fruition and to the House today. Without their work, it would not have been possible.
  The revised draft is also the result of extensive consultation. We issued over 30,000 copies of the consultative draft. We attended meetings of teachers, parents, governors, the health services and social services across the country. We received over 1,000 written responses and analysed them closely. I hope that those who took much time and trouble to contribute will consider that their efforts are reflected in the revised draft which is before the House today.
  The consultation process revealed a general welcome for the principle of issuing such a code and for the main principles of the draft, including the emphasis on the role of parents, the emphasis on pupils who have special needs but who do not require statements, the guidance on when assessments and statements should be made, the emphasis on clear, thorough statements, and the stress on partnership among all agencies.
  The consultation also revealed areas of concern. There were calls for greater clarity about the status of the code, about what it means to have regard to the code, and about what will be expected of schools and others when it comes into effect. There were concerns about schools' capacity to
  26
  follow the guidance of the draft code and about the implications for professional development and in-service training. There were important concerns about the draft's coverage of co-operation between the services involved, and about the sources of advice and information available to parents. The revised draft code, read together with the draft foreword, is designed to meet those concerns, and I am confident that it does so.
  The new draft foreword explains the code's status. Local education authorities and schools, when fulfilling their functions under part III of the 1993 Act, must have regard to the code. So must any bodies that help them perform those functions—for example, the health services and social services.
  The code itself offers wide-ranging guidance. It recommends, for example, that LEAs and schools should adopt a staged approach, matching action to each child's needs, but it is up to the LEAs and schools to decide exactly how they should apply the code's guidance. It is not a prescriptive straitjacket: it is there to help schools and LEAs, and help children with special educational needs. But whenever they, the health services and social services take action on behalf of such children, they must consider what the code says.
  It is our intention that the code should come into effect on 1 September this year, but we do not expect that all schools will have systems in place at that time which will all match the code's aspirations. We do expect all schools to have regard to the code from that date, and we do expect the effect of their having regard to the code to develop over time. As I shall explain, we shall be monitoring their progress closely.
  During the consultation process, we listened very carefully to what schools had to say. We recognised that they were worried that the code, while admirable in principle, might not be realisable in practice. We recognised, too, that they were worried about pressures on their time, and about bureaucratic burdens.
  We have revised the code accordingly. We have made it clear that the way in which schools react to the code will vary in the light of their particular circumstances. We have set out as guidance an example of a staged approach, which we have kept to basic principles and which emphasises the importance of gathering information at stage 1, developing individual education plans at stage 2 and consulting outside experts at stage 3. I hope that schools will welcome these changes, and that the code now represents an effective and feasible way forward.
  We recognise, too, that schools and LEAs will need to think carefully, in the light of the code, about how they manage money to secure maximum benefit for pupils with special educational needs. Substantial sums are already available, and I believe that the code will ensure that they are put to best use.
  LEAs, for example, will wish to give careful thought to how the funding allocated to them is distributed to schools. That is a matter for the LEAs themselves, but the code should help those who wish to do so to introduce moderated audit schemes reflecting the numbers of pupils with special educational needs in schools.
  Schools themselves will wish to think hard about how they use the money they receive, whether allocated by audit schemes or by proxy measures. Schools' SEN policies must set out the principles by which funds are

  27
  allocated to and amongst pupils with special educational needs, and their annual reports must tell parents how the money has been used.
  The consultative draft emphasised partnership. I hope that the revised draft reinforces that message. Part II contains new material on the way in which the health services should be organised to help children with special educational needs. Nowhere is partnership more important than in providing help for children with speech and language difficulties.
  To help to develop that partnership further, my Department and the Department of Health will jointly make available £50,000 in this financial year to back a development project designed to maximise the use of speech therapists' time. The results will be widely disseminated.
  There is new material, too, on SEN support services. The development of the role of the named person, who can help parents in all their dealings with LEAs, is also a new incentive for voluntary organisations to become directly involved in the process.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the resources available to the speech therapy service be related to the number of children whose special needs have been formally recorded?
  Mr. Forth: Not in the direct sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests, or requests. Given the way in which speech therapy is delivered and the way in which the needs of children, for example, are identified, I do not believe that one can make that direct comparison.
  Obviously, the Department for Education and those responsible for speech therapy services—my colleagues in the Department of Health and their agencies—will want always to be satisfied that the number of speech therapists is adequate to the need. I think that I am right in saying that, given the increase in the number of speech therapists nationally in the past few years, we can have some confidence that that will be the case. It is one of the things that will be monitored. I should like to come back to that point later. My remarks might help to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Partnership with parents is a vital aspect of each part of the code. We have placed in the Library a draft of the guide for parents, which we intend to issue and distribute very widely alongside the code. We are backing our commitment to partnership by making some £3.5 million support available through grants for education, support and training for LEAs to develop parent partnership schemes. I am delighted to say that every LEA has bid for and received funding for such schemes this financial year.
  I have outlined just some of the changes that we have made in the light of the consultative process. We recognise, of course, that more is needed if the code is to effect change. If its messages are to have a real impact, training and professional development, energetic dissemination, and careful monitoring will be essential.
  Paragraph 2:26 of the code recognises the importance of in-service training. References are made to the training needs of all teaching staff, non-teaching staff, SEN co-ordinators and governors. Under the new special educational needs information regulations, a school's SEN
  28
  policy must describe the school's training plans. Funding of almost £10 million in 1994–95 will be available for this purpose through grant for education support and training.
  GEST funding will also be available for the development of schools' SEN policies, for the professional development of SEN co-ordinators and for governor training. In February, I announced a £2 million increase in the support available in 1994–95 through the wholly new GEST grant 23—giving a total of some £5.6 million. With separate financial support from my Department, the Council for Disabled Children and the university of London institute of education are preparing a distance learning pack to help schools develop policies. That pack should be available early in the autumn.
  Subject to Parliament's approval, the code will be published next month. It will be distributed promptly to all schools and other interested parties. With the help of the Council for Disabled Children and the National Children's Bureau, we shall then launch a major dissemination exercise at conferences that we have arranged up and down the country.
  I am delighted to report that the local authority associations and the Society for Education Officers will join us in that exercise. Other organisations such as the National Association for Special Educational Needs have taken their own most welcome initiatives in arranging conferences to get the message across.
  I now turn to monitoring. Registered inspectors will carefully examine schools' SEN policies and their implementation in the light of the code. The Office for Standards in Education's special educational needs team will devote particular attention to the code. It will look, for example, at the impact of special educational needs support services.
  The Audit Commission, which already monitors LEAs' performance in making assessments and statements, will have its vital role to play. There may well be a role, as appropriate, for the research community. We will draw all this information together and, of course, keep Parliament fully informed.
  The issue of the code of practice represents a major step forward for special education. The code reflects and builds on the principles of the report of the Committee chaired by Baroness Warnock, the Education Act 1981 and the many positive developments in the field since that Act came into effect.
  Importantly, the code also reflects good practice in schools and LEAs across the country. It is challenging, but it is realistic. I hope that it will receive the support not only of the House but of all concerned with special educational needs throughout the country. I hope that it will represent a quantum leap forward in the provision for special educational needs.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: First, I reiterate what the Minister has heard me say before—we welcome the code of practice. We only wish that the Government had introduced other major pieces of legislation in a similar way. From the beginning, when they were challenged in Committee about how the new processes would work, Ministers were heard to say, "That will be a matter for the code of practice," or, "That is too difficult to answer now, but we will look into it when we draw up the code of practice."

  29
  In all fairness, great efforts have been made behind the scenes to ensure that, by and large, the code meets the problems and concerns raised in Committee. It is also obvious that, having issued the draft code, the Government listened to representations they received during consultation as changes have been made and have further improved the code.
  I therefore hope that, despite the fact that I shall concentrate on remaining matters for concern and potential problems, some of which could be fundamental, the House will not doubt that we welcome the code as a significant and important step forward in dealing with children's special educational needs.
  The code is the most recent in a long line of decisions taken by Ministers, starting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who instituted the Warnock committee which brought about the Education Act 1991. The code of practice is another landmark decision.
  I hope that the Government will accept that I am raising concerns that many organisations have pointed out to me, and other matters about which I am worried.
  My first concern is about training, which is at the heart of whether the code will be successful. The Government have already listened to concerns about the role of the special educational needs co-ordinator and the fact that we should not place so much responsibility on that person or persons in any school.
  We also welcome the funding that is made available through grants for education support and training—GEST—and the fact that the Government have been careful to ensure that provision will be made for the training of special educational needs co-ordinators and all staff, whether teaching or non-teaching, and governors.
  Some aspects still worry me, however. For example, the Minister referred to paragraph 2:26 of the code, which is found on page 12, but its description of what might happen is the wrong way round. The end of the paragraph states:
  "A school contemplating a particular special educational needs in-service training programme may wish to inform itself of the LEA's in-service training policy and may also wish to consult other schools in the area with a view to securing economies of scale and sharing expertise."
  It should not be an option. Each local education authority, in concert with all the schools, should draw up the necessary in-service training plans. Training should not be optional: it should be something that all schools and the LEAs are involved in from the beginning.
  Over the years, the actual requirement for teachers to have expertise in and knowledge of special education has diminished. I believe that the current Education Bill, which will be considered in Committee from tomorrow, will cause further problems, because it will be difficult to ensure that new teachers receive the range of expertise during school-based teacher training that will be required if the code is to be implemented successfully. The code demands that all teachers should be special education teachers.
  I welcome the money that the Government are making available for training, developing partnerships with parents and ensuring that governors are aware of their responsibilities. What about the special needs co-ordinator? In most schools, the person undertaking that job will be performing a new specific, additional role. That person must be rewarded for that.
  30
  In the early years of the working of the code, I can envisage that, in some large comprehensive schools, it might be necessary to appoint several special needs co-cordinators. In the short term, as the code begins to operate effectively and picks up children with special needs and ensures that those needs are met, more money must be made available for that purpose.
  The Government have said that, in the next few years, they expect that more children will be statemented. In the short term, therefore, significant additional funds will be required to ensure that the code is introduce effectively and the needs of children are properly met. In the long term, however, as those needs are picked up earlier, as should happen under the code, I am sure that number of statements made will fall.
  On page 10 of code, paragraph 2.15 refers to the work of the special needs co-ordinator and what schools might need to do to ensure that that job is done properly. It is worrying to note that that requirement is considered in the context of the resources available to schools. That is one of the issues that has bedevilled the provision of special needs since 1981. Very often, parents and local educational authorities have been involved in a battle royal over provision because of fears about costs. I fear that that could happen again, even though the code has been introduced.
  When the Minister appeared before the Select Committee on Education, he was questioned about the monitoring of the code. He believed that such monitoring would be carried out by parents, governors, LEA inspectors, OFSTED and the special educational needs tribunal. Governors and LEAs might, however, become more concerned with keeping spending within limits rather than the effective implementation of the code. OFSTED inspectors will usually visit schools in a four-year cycle, which is hardly sufficient for monitoring that code. That means that monitoring will be left to parents and the SEN tribunal. It is clear that parents will need help.
  The Department for Education has given OFSTED a monitoring remit to offer advice in the run-in period, but I believe that it should be given a further remit to carry out monitoring beyond the scope for which it has the resources at the moment. In other words, OFSTED should have a stronger remit than the four-yearly assessment of schools, in connection with the implementation of the code of practice in its early years. The Government have said that they intend to review what local education authorities are doing—considering how long statements take to be made and so on—and I should be interested to hear more about the precise way in which that will work.
  There is a danger of disputes arising between schools and LEAs, because, although the Government are making, and have made, great efforts to develop partnerships between parents and schools and schools and LEAs, there could be disputes between the school and the LEA about the five-stage system and the criteria for assessment.
  For example, if the schools and the LEAs have not agreed on the respective means for operating the five-stage system—which, I am pleased to say, does not have to be mechanically followed—there can be an agreement between the two, but there is a danger of an LEA saying to a school: "We are not happy with the way in which you have gone through the stages, or your adaptation of the stages, before coming to us and requesting an assessment." I hope that that danger can be tackled.
  In addition, there could be a grey area between what the school is expected to provide from its resources and what

  31
  the LEA is expected to provide on the basis of the needs stipulated in the statement. The draft of the code before us puts a stronger emphasis on the role of the LEA in that respect. I hope that such disputes will not take place, and that the Government will be prepared to issue further advice and guidance if questions arise.
  The code has made great efforts to improve liaison between local education authorities, health authorities, health trusts and social services departments. Many of the problems of providing a statement in six months have often occurred with agencies over which the LEA has no control. The code attempts to ensure that everyone keeps in step in meeting the timings that are required; nevertheless, I know that LEAs are still fearful that, especially at the final stage, there may not be sufficient time for them to properly complete the statement, and that therefore they could have recourse to the several provisions in paragraph 3.43 to enable them to take a little longer.
  I am especially worried about speech and language therapy, because I am not happy that, by the provisions in paragraphs 4.34 to 4.36 of the code on page 82, the Government have cleared up who should pay for that therapy and in what circumstances. I do not understand why the Government did not opt for the procedure that is followed in Scotland, where it would appear that the service is being provided in a way that is welcomed by health authorities, LEAs, parents and schools.
  Better provision is made in the code for under-fives. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a case for improving such provision. There should be specific provision for special educational need co-cordinators to be provided in nursery schools or for local education authorities to make specific peripatetic provision to cover nursery schools, nursery classes and playgroups, in all of which there will be a need to ensure that the special educational needs of children are picked up as soon as possible.
  I hope that the Government will consider provision beyond the age of 14 in more detail. They have instituted a system for children from the age of 14 onwards, which will be better for those children who previously had statements. Nevertheless, it leaves children with learning difficulties but without statements in a position where they will not necessarily get the help they require once they leave school. Will the Government consider extending the operation of the code to 19-year-olds?
  I have received many representations on the need to mention autism in the code of practice. I have spoken about that issue to people working in the health service and schools, and to parents. It is reckoned that some 30,000 children may be affected by difficulties associated with the autistic continuum. There is now strong evidence that autism is under-identified and therefore under-provided for by local education authorities.
  The Departments for Education and for Health are undertaking research, with the good offices of Professor Elizabeth Newson, director of the child development research unit at Nottingham university. An interim report has been published, but I understand that a complete report expected last September has not yet been published. I hope that the Government will respond positively to that research if it becomes apparent that a stronger and more specific reference to autism needs to be made.
  32
  The "named person" is also a welcome improvement, but have the Government considered the difficulties that may arise for parents whose children have emotional or behavioural problems? Over a wide spectrum of special needs, many voluntary organisations work in that area, but help may not be so forthcoming for emotional and behavioural problems. I should welcome a response from the Minister on that issue.
  Have the Government compiled, or are they in the process of compiling, a list of lay members with expertise in special needs and local government to serve on the tribunals?
  Mr. Forth indicated assent.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to see the Minister nod.
  Paragraph 6:12 on page 100 refers to people who should attend the special annual review but makes no compulsion. A local education authority should be obliged to have a representative at the annual review, because, under the code of practice, schools now play a much greater role than previously. Schools should be properly resourced for that work.
  My last specific point concerns a matter that appeared in the original document but does not appear in this draft—the requirement for schools to specify the special educational experience and qualifications of members of staff. While much is said about what schools must do in terms of providing information about training, nothing is said about the experience and qualifications of staff. Why were those matters dropped from the code? It is valuable information, which parents should have.
  On the framework in which the code will operate, a recent Court of Appeal decision will allow parents to sue local education authorities if they believe that the authorities have failed to provide appropriate special education for their children. It is important that the code of practice is seen to work properly.
  Then there are the pressures on learning support services caused by other Government policies. There is much evidence that such services are under great pressure; there must be concern about whether there will be enough support at the centre to ensure that schools have access to them in developing their own policies and practice, and identifying and meeting special educational needs.
  A survey conducted by the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, for example, reveals a decline in the number of such teachers. Let me give just one example: in the midlands region, between 1991 and 1993, there were 380 more children with hearing impairments, but 16 fewer teachers of the deaf to deal with them. In the same period, the number of vacancies for educational psychologists increased from 42 to 70. If the code is to work properly, however, extra responsibilities will be imposed on such people—especially at stage 2—as they must help with preventive work in schools.
  Another survey, carried out in a Merseyside authority, showed a loss of 28 special needs support teachers in 28 schools, at a time when the number of pupils with special needs had increased in more than 50 per cent. of those schools. I am worried about the ability of local education authorities to provide for schools.
  In that context, too, the local government reforms pose a problem. My education authority, Mid Glamorgan, currently employs either three or four educational psychologists; when the county is divided into four or even

  33
  five separate education authorities, there will not be enough psychologists even for one to be employed in each authority. Local authorities in both Wales and England must be brought together to ensure that they provide such services.
  The problem is that the Government seem to see schools as self-sufficient units, to be judged principally on their examination results, and the meeting of special education needs is not considered as important as it should be. The increase in the number of exclusions is very worrying; I know that the Government are trying to deal with the problem, but—although the code has tremendous possibilities and is very welcome—I am concerned about potential problems that could damage its implementation if they were not prepared to monitor it carefully and perhaps, in its third year of existence, conduct a major, far-reaching and independent review.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I should, perhaps, declare my interests, as both the parent of a child with a statement and a parliamentary adviser—unpaid—to the National Association for Special Educational Needs.
  I welcome the code of practice. I welcome it in principle: it offers an amplification of the Government's objectives and recommendations. It is not rigidly prescriptive in regard to method and leaves proper scope for professional judgment and discretion. At the same time, it has authority and legal standing derived from the Education Act 1993 and from the requirement for the tribunal to have regard to the code in forming its judgments. That authority is reinforced by the intention—mentioned in the foreword—for registered inspectors and the Office for Standards in Education to monitor the code's implementation.
  I think that the Government have struck the right balance, leaving scope for independence of judgment while making it clear that they attach great importance to the implementation of best practice on the model set out in the code. I applaud the substance of the code. It strikes me as a fully considered, imaginative exposition, setting out and underpinning best practice in schools and local education authorities. I may differ from the Government over one or two points of detail in the code, but most of the document I find admirable.
  The document valuably clarifies the responsibilities of all concerned. In their document "Getting in on the Act", the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate called for clearer definitions of objectives and responsibilities and for improved accountability. We could not possibly ask for those requirements to be better met than they have been in the code.
  Promulgation of the code will also, I believe, mitigate some of the difficulties that I had feared would arise from the absence of a planning framework. I spoke about that during proceedings on the Education Bill last year, on 2 March. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, with colleagues, I met the Secretary of State to pursue a discussion on that last summer. The code is a positive and constructive response in that regard.
  For instance, I am interested in, and welcome, the proposal that there should be moderating groups, as set out in paragraph 4.7, although I should have liked the tone of that section to be rather less tentative. It is a good idea and it should be pursued vigorously. Similarly, I welcome the
  34
  recommendation that standard formats for record keeping should be used. Again, I should have liked paragraph 2.25 on this subject to be rather firmer in tone. Standard formats should be used nationally, not just within a local education authority. In that way, we can help to promote equity and to minimise discontinuity. The discrepancies and gaps between primary and secondary phases, between different schools in an authority's area and between different education authorities have been a justifiable source of discontent. I want pressure to be maintained in the direction of more equity and consistency of provision.
  Some have said that consultation on the document was somewhat too restricted, but it seems clear to me from the revision that we are debating today that Ministers and officials have listened and have responded to proposals put to them in consultation. Certainly, they have significantly redrafted the document.
  I greatly welcome the inclusion of the foreword. I was pleased to note that even the rather dauntingly legalistic notice to parents, which is fairly intractable material to make user-friendly, had been rewritten and is now fractionally less forbidding.
  I know that the National Association for Special Educational Needs is grateful for the constructive consideration given to its representations. I also know that the British Dyslexia Association has welcomed the passage in the revised code on the criteria for achieving multi-professional assessments of dyslexia and the new section on resolving parental complaints at school level.
  I offer my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) my warmest congratulations on his achievement. I believe that it marks a most valuable advance for parents, children, teachers and all practitioners in this field.
  The time scale held out for implementation seems sensible and realistic. The foreword in which the regulations are explained makes it clear that it is not expected that the systems will instantly come into being and emerge fully fledged by 1 September. At the same time, it is made equally clear that schools and LEAs are expected to get down to their task and to develop systems to put them in a position to publish information on their special educational needs policies by 1 August 1995, and thereafter to keep them up to date and to make them clear in prospectuses and annual reports. That is reasonable.
  I do not underestimate the demands that the code will make on the teaching profession and indeed on all the relevant professions, but the right balance has been struck in the time scale that the Government envisage.
  I welcome what the Minister said about his plans to explain the code and to encourage and to build confidence on the part of all who will have to operate it, by means of a series of conferences and training events. I am pleased that he welcomes the partnership with voluntary organisations and that he at least does not regard pressure groups as subversive of all that is best in our national life.
  It will not be enough just to distribute the document, although it is important to distribute it as rapidly as possible to all schools and voluntary organisations at local and national levels. We still need to overcome some apprehension and misapprehension among teachers. At the weekend, I spoke to an experienced and dedicated special educational needs teacher who was teaching seriously disabled children in a difficult inner-city area. She had not had the opportunity to read the draft code, which I do not think was distributed to all schools, and she was fearful of

  35
  what it might mean. She had heard about the five-stage model and she was worried that it was one more bureaucratic incubus from the Department. She was even apprehensive that teachers might boycott the code.
  Teachers need not have any such fears. In paragraph 7 of the foreword, Ministers sensibly and helpfully explain that the detail of what schools decide to do
  "may vary according to the size, organisation, location and pupil population of the school."
  Paragraph 12 states:
  "In practice, the precise definition of the stages and the number of stages adopted are matters for schools and LEAs to decide, consulting each other, in the light of the Code."
  That is sensible and, when understood, should allay any fears. It will be important to explain and reassure as soon as possible.
  Implementation of the code will entail taking a clear view of resources. There is no question but that the proper implementation of the code will cost money, but no one should exaggerate what it will cost and no one should exploit the fact that it will place a new set of demands on the system. Everyone should seek best value for money.
  Some unavoidable costs will arise—for example, the appointment of the special educational needs co-ordinator, who should be properly rewarded for the demanding task that he or she will have to undertake. Other teachers may well have to take over some of the former responsibilities of the SENCO—the special educational needs co-ordinator. Consider the activities to be undertaken not only by the SENCO, but perhaps by all colleagues.
  They will involve developing overall school procedures, assembling information about individual children, recording, consulting parents, ascertaining the wishes of the child, co-ordinating with other services, generating letters and holding meetings, assessing, planning and reviewing. That will involve far from insignificant resources in stages 1 and 2 and stage 3 will involve the cost of outside specialist services. Account has also to be taken of the cost of training, which, if properly done, could be the biggest cost.
  The identification of budgetary resources applied to special educational needs school by school will be essential in the interests of accountability and so that we can know whether resourcing will be adequate. It is natural for people to say that resources will not be sufficient—people will always say that schools do not have enough—but we should at least be clear what resources they have. I am glad that paragraph 2:7 of the revised draft emphasises the obligation on the governing body to establish the appropriate funding arrangements.
  Paragraph 2:11 places an obligation to include in the annual report information on
  "how resources have been allocated to and amongst children with special educational needs over the year".
  Local management of schools formulae have varied significantly in relation to special education needs across the country. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would comment on the evolution that he foresees of the LMS methodology. It is important to ensure not only transparency but the maximum fairness and consistency between authorities. Arbitrary variations between one local education authority and another of resources applied to special needs have been a source of puzzlement, and all too often people have felt a sense of unfairness and disappointment.
  36
  In another place last year, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State at the Department for Education, made a helpful and important comment. During proceedings on the Education Bill, Lady Faithfull, who knows a thing or two about local authorities, asked whether there might be a risk that a local authority treasurer might say that it was too expensive to provide a statement. My noble Friend said unequivocally:
  "The child is diagnosed as having special educational needs. Those needs are set out in a statement and then the education provision consistent with those needs must be found. It is reasonable for the treasurer to say to those involved in making that professional judgment that they must look for the most cost-effective solution. But the cost-effective solution they come up with must be wholly consistent with the statement, whatever the cost."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 1993; Vol.545, c.562—63.]
  I do not know whether my noble Friend was then upbraided by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I have not been able to find any such unequivocal and sonorous statement in the code. Perhaps the Minister will reaffirm that resources must be found to match the statement and that that will be put into the final code.
  Mr. Forth: I shall try to answer that important question now in case we run out of time. There are two important aspects. One is in the interesting current variation in the number of statements provided by different local authorities—for example, fewer than 2 per cent. of pupils in some authorities to nearly 4 per cent. in others. That shows that most authorities can find the money if they can justify it and support the mechanism.
  The other crucial new factor in the equation is that for the first time, the special educational needs tribunal will have powers to bind local education authorities on the statementing process and will do so quite impartially. Those two factors lead me to suppose that the money will be found where it is necessary under the constraints of the new standardised, but more rigorous, approach.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he well understands the great importance of this issue. If his intentions in the code are to be truly fulfilled, we must not slide back to resource-led statements with all the evasions, the frustrations, the sadness and the waste of children's potential that they have involved.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I welcome what the Minister has said, but why was it necessary in paragraph 2.15 on page 10 of the code to say:
  "Governing bodies and head teachers may need to give careful thought to the SEN co-ordinator's timetable in the light of this Code and in the context of resources available to the school"?
  Surely the SEN co-ordinator's role should be developed and resources should be found to make sure that the co-ordinator is able to do his or her job properly.
  Mr. Howarth: It is not for me to answer that question but I think that all hon. Members, and those on the Front Benches, agree that the necessary resources must be found. Of course that applies not only at school level but, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) suggested in his speech, what the noble Baroness Blatch said has an important bearing on LEA resourcing. There are legitimate concerns about the contraction of special educational needs support services in LEAs. If we are to make the code's aspirations a reality the support services at LEA level should be sufficiently resourced.

  37
  The principle of integration of children with special needs into mainstream education and the requirements of the code carry, massive implications for initial teacher training, in-service education and training and for specialist training in the special educational needs field. Training is the ghost at the feast in the code. I note what is said in paragraph 2.26 and I noted what the Minister said.
  Although I welcome the Department's support for the development of distance learning packages, relatively little about training is explicit in the code, while there is much that is implicit. The code assumes a formidable range and depth of expertise. Every school will have a so-called responsible person. There are implications in the document for the training of heads and deputies and of governors, whose responsibilities will be enormous, special educational needs co-ordinators and all teachers in all schools.
  Training will be the fountainhead of success or failure. The code rightly raises expectations and sets better standards. We understand, for example, that some 300,000 schoolchildren have dyslexia. The code has important and constructive points to make about their entitlement. Teachers in all schools will need to know how to identify and respond to specific learning difficulties. The development of that competence will need to be embedded in initial teacher training and reinforced in INSET—in-service training—through the GEST—grants for education support and training—programme.
  I welcome the fact that GEST funding for special educational needs training is due to rise from £6.6 million in 1991–92 to £9.7 million in 1994–95. I am not sure how many schools the country has now but in my time in the Department, they were thought to number 27,000. On my reckoning, that amounts to £360 per school and the LEA must provide an additional 40 per cent. Given that standard spending assessments are tight, how confident is my hon. Friend the Minister that the necessary training will be sufficiently resourced? There must be enough good training and sufficient resources must be provided. Training must draw on the latest and best practice in schools nationally and internationally.
  I welcome the requirement that one member of the Teacher Training Agency should have knowledge of special educational needs. I hope more than one member will do so and that that experience and knowledge will be fully up to date.
  I am concerned that the Government envisage that initial teacher training could be offered by schools without collaborating with higher education. Although some schools have highly developed expertise in special educational needs, all too many do not, and no school can reasonably be expected to keep absolutely up to date with latest developments.
  How can the generality of schools, which have considerable leeway to make up, take responsibility for developing the content of training, to provide their own teachers and prospective teachers with the knowledge and skills demanded by the code? My hon. Friend the Minister may say that the criteria for the accreditation of courses will provide a safeguard, but what if schools fail to satisfy those criteria? Where will training come from then?
  I understand that my hon. Friend does not envisage schools running specialist training on their own without input from higher education, but the Education Bill does not preclude it either. Special education is, by definition, special. Teachers of children with special educational needs must provide teaching that is additional, to and
  38
  different from, ordinary education. Their training must correspondingly inculcate special knowledge and skills. I should be most concerned if training in special educational needs were cut off from access to national and international developments.
  A recent conference on integration organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed that special educational needs are a rapidly developing field in many countries. We must not deprive ourselves of the ability to learn from international experience. Rather, we should ensure that, where appropriate, it is rapidly translated into the practice in our schools. Schools alone cannot possibly achieve that.
  There is a shortfall of available specialist teachers. The number completing courses in teaching pupils with severe learning difficulties fell from 200 in 1989 to 80 in 1993. The number of teachers of hearing-impaired children qualifying has fallen from 150 to 110. The British Association of Teachers of the Deaf reports an average age of more than 40 for new trainees and a serious fall-off in younger teachers. Special schools and support services are having difficulty in filling appointments with qualified people. If there is to be further doubt about the viability of specialist training courses in institutions of higher education, I fear that numbers will fall even further. Yet the code, for example, in paragraphs 3:78 and 3:79 on the assessment of children with hearing difficulties, makes assumptions and, indeed, explicit requirements that imply considerable specialist expertise.
  We must ensure that we will the means as well as the ends. A great deal of training is needed. It must be adequately resourced, and the processes of training must not be cut off from the centres of expertise in higher education—for example, the university of London institute of education and the education department of the university of Manchester, which have a great deal to offer, as we all know.
  Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be willing to ensure that the Education Bill will require, training for special educational needs to be carried out in collaboration with institutions of higher education. I welcomed his undertaking on Second Reading, in response to an intervention from me, to reflect further on that. If we fail to ensure appropriate training, the volume of appeals will ineluctably soar and, after all, we do not want the tribunal to be busy. We must not see the aspirations of the code turn to bitter disappointment on account of failure in training.
  The code and the legislation will be helpful in achieving better collaboration between services, but, like the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I have some worries in that regard. I am concerned that delays in the processes of assessment and statementing might be generated from agencies other than local education authorities—particularly from health authorities.
  I remain dissatisfied with paragraphs 4:34 to 4:36 on speech and language therapy, which simply recapitulate the existing unsatisfactory status quo at law. I would add that they look at the existing pattern of provision somewhat through rose-tinted spectacles. The availability of speech therapy remains deficient in too many health authorities. In the gap between what is described as
  "educational and non-educational provision"
  and what is referred to as "prime" and "ultimate"

  39
  responsibility, a great deal of time can be lost—precious, irrecoverable time—for children, whose development every week and month is crucial.
  The case law has helped to clarify responsibilities, but as the wording of the code demonstrates, they are still not nearly clear-cut enough. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools last year asking him whether he would use the opportunity provided by the Education Bill to define beyond doubt where responsibility lay. I believe that the duty to provide speech and language therapy in schools should rest clearly and inescapably with the local education authority, which should buy in the professional services it needs from the health authority, or where ever. Will my hon. Friend therefore look for an opportunity to act on that and at least strengthen his expression of expectation in the code?
  I want to end on a positive note. I believe that the tone and style of the code are exactly what are needed. It is written in plain English—it should be submitted for a prize for that. It is humane in spirit. It is undogmatic. It makes it clear that its provisions are not set in tablets of stone and that it will evolve as a living document. The emphasis on partnership—with both parents and children—to which my hon. Friend drew attention, is right and necessary. All that is humane and sensible.
  Throughout the code, there is a sensitive recognition of the stress, anguish and even depression that parents of children with special needs can experience. In the past, the processes of assessment and statementing have, all too typically, been antagonistic and dragged out. I welcome, for example, the provision in paragraph 3:11 for a "named person" to be a friend to parents when the assessment and statementing process is being carried forward. I welcome also the desire, expressed in paragraph 3:12, to avoid confrontation.
  The code contains imaginative touches, such as the recommendation that the letter telling parents that a local education authority intends to undertake an assessment should be delivered personally. The code requires that parents should be treated with respect and dignity. They are entitled to receive all the reports and are encouraged to express their own preferences for the school at which their child should be placed. I was pleased to note that they were not discouraged from expressing a preference for a non-maintained special school.
  The requirements for targets for progress and for time scales to be observed will be exceptionally valuable for children and their parents who, all too frequently in the past, had to face the prospect of almost endless struggle to achieve what they ought to have. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend can assure me that OFSTED and the Department will be vigilant to ensure that stages 1 to 3 do not become excessively prolonged as the stages preliminary to assessment and statement. I know that that is a concern of the British Dyslexia Association.
  I welcome the tribunal. That was an idea that was under consideration during my time at the Department. I am very glad that my successors have carried it forward. It should mean an end to local education authorities being judge and jury in their own case on appeals and to the protracted and bitterly legalistic and antagonistic process of appeals to the Secretary of State.
  40
  If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can ensure sufficient resources and if we have sensible arrangements for training, with the code, the interests and prospects of children with special educational needs will be enormously enhanced.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: When The Times made its recent appeal for donations to help AFASIC—the association that represents children and young people with speech and language impairments and their families—the outcome was not only one of much-needed financial help for a voluntary organisation whose achievements are held in admiration on both sides of the House: the appeal also made hundreds of thousands of people much better informed of the extent of unmet need for speech and language therapy among children and young people in this country.
  It is about AFASIC's reaction to the code of practice that I want to speak in this debate. I do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) recalled, as the former Minister for the Disabled who, in the 1970s, was principally involved in the setting up of the Warnock committee. As the House knows, my interest in the debate arises also from my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the first ever statute specifically to legislate for children with dyslexia and autism, as well as those with the devastating dual handicap of blindness and deafness.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said that he was ending his speech on a positive note. It is on a positive note that I begin my speech. Let me make it clear at once that AFASIC welcomes many aspects of the code, not least its recognition of the importance of early identification, assessment and provision. The association also welcomes the code's emphasis on partnership between schools, parents, the local education authority, other agencies and the children and young people themselves; its clarity in establishing stages of assessment and provision and the identification of responsibilities at each stage; and its time limits for the assessment and statementing process.
  AFASIC's concerns about issues raised by the code of practice include the onerous responsibilities placed on the individual special needs co-ordinator within the school. The association is concerned also about whether special needs co-ordinators will be given training, more especially as there appears to be no money in the 1994–95 grants for education support and training—GEST—budget; the need for a Government lead in regard to the training of teachers, therapists and other professionals in order to ensure effective implementation of the code; and the worrying assumption that measures detailed in the code can be implemented with no adjustment to the level of resources available.
  The issue of resources is made all the more important by wider public understanding now both of the extent of the need for speech and language therapy intervention in the school-age population and of the pace at which need is growing. Nearly a quarter of a million children today have some speech and language impairment or disorder. Of those, 6,000 or 7,000 have severe, long-term difficulties. Some 10 per cent. of all pre-school and school-age children have difficulties which could interfere with their

  41
  educational progress at some time; and 5 per cent. of all children enter school with noticeable speech and language difficulties.
  In England and Wales, responsibility for ensuring that there is provision for speech and language therapy is currently divided between local education authorities and district health authorities, with the result that many children do not receive the therapy they need, or (10 so only as a result of strong parental persistence. Many parents, of course, are sadly in no position to exert such pressure.
  The code fails to clarify who is responsible for ensuring that therapy is purchased for those children—an issue of increasing concern to public representatives, voluntary groups like AFASIC, professionals and families. Again, the distinction in the code between "prime" and "ultimate" responsibility is of little help to purchasers, providers or parents.
  The Council of Local Education Authorities—CLEA—recently compiled a dossier of evidence from LEAs of shortfall and confusion in the provision of speech and language therapy to children who are acknowledged to need this help in order to progress with their education. I give the House two sample quotations from that dossier. The first is:
  "One of our health districts, covering a school population of approximately 20,000, provides no service to children in mainstream schools over the age of eight, whether statemented or not. Our special school for children with autism/communication disorders is underfunded to the tune of one full-time equivalent speech therapist. Our six moderate learning disorders—MLD—schools require an additional two full-time equivalent speech therapists to meet the needs of children placed there. The provision of speech and language therapy is (apart from dyslexia) the issue which chronically prevents the LEA from developing reasonably harmonious relationships with parents."
  My second quotation is about differing levels of therapy services. It shows that, in effect, the level and availability of therapy services depend not on the urgency or extent of need, but on where one lives. I quote again from the dossier:
  "We liaise with six different health authorities which offer widely varying levels of therapy services. Achieving coherent delivery of this service is therefore particularly difficult and has been further exacerbated by the developing purchaser/provider split in the health authorities themselves. Agreements with the purchasers do not necessarily hold with the provider … the DHA is placing children on ever-lengthening waiting lists and there is increasing evidence of disagreement over whether cases are educational or medical in origin. A recent joint LEA/DHA working group showed that a disproportionate amount of speech therapy time is devoted to adults."
  That is the background, some might think sombre background, to the Minister's statement today that it has always been the Government's policy to match speech therapy provision for children to their needs.
  Confusion over who is responsible for ensuring the purchase of speech and language therapy is exacerbated by shortages among the providers. Figures to demonstrate this shortfall are scarce. That is due in part, AFASIC believes, to fear on the part of purchasers and providers of identifying needs they are unable to meet. No such fear was shown, however, by the Greenwich healthcare speech and language therapy service. In a survey last June, it identified a shortfall of 5.8 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists for children in mainstream schools and a shortfall of 5.6 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists for children in special schools.
  Mr. Forth: If I do not have an opportunity to reply formally to the debate, as I want my colleagues to have an opportunity to speak, I will write to everyone who has participated in it.
  However, with regard to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), against the background of the general increase in the amount being spent on speech therapy over the past few years, I hope that he will acknowledge that, for the first time, in the Education Act 1993, we made provision for a much more explicit and formal co-operation and co-ordination between local education authorities and local health authorities. I hope that that will be helpful.
  Later this year, my Department will have further discussions with AFASIC and others to determine the nature of any continuing and on-going problems and the best way to resolve them. We have not by any means seen or heard the last word on this matter. We will consider very carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
  Mr. Morris: I am very grateful to the Minister. I wish him luck with the Treasury in securing more resources for the very needful children about whom we are concerned in this debate. I hope that the debate itself will arm the Minister with compelling arguments for more resources for these children.
  I was referring to the Greenwich healthcare speech and language therapy service. Its disturbing findings were made at a time when there were also 417 pre-school children among the service's case load and a further 213 children awaiting an assessment.
  In a survey carried out in September 1992, the Canterbury and Thanet service identified a shortfall of 4.1 full-time equivalent speech and language therapists for statemented children in mainstream schools. At the time of that survey, 288 children in Canterbury and Thanet mainstream schools had no speech and language therapy provision, despite demonstrating a need for it.
  I turn now to the performance of health authorities in helping speech-impaired children and young people. Unlike education authorities, health authorities have only a general duty to provide services. They have no specific duty to individual children; indeed, there is evidence that some health authorities, such as Stafford, are refusing to provide any speech and language therapy at all to children over the age of eight.
  As the Minister knows, the "NHS Efficiency Index" encourages health authorities to spend on health care items which will most obviously demonstrate a return. That urges DHAs towards provision of acute services and discourages them from investing in community services such as paediatric speech and language therapy. Health authorities know that LEAs are the providers of last resort and thus have little incentive to provide services themselves. Fundholding general practitioners are also purchasers of speech and language therapy, a role for which many will have been inadequately prepared.
  AFASIC can find no other instance in which a health authority is responsible for meeting specified educational needs and, on the association's behalf, I now ask the Government to clarify beyond doubt who is responsible for ensuring the provision of speech and language therapy services to children of school age.
  In Scotland the education authorities have been allocated funds in the local authority settlement to purchase therapy from the health boards. The Government

  43
  have indicated that this is working well and I believe that it could serve as a useful model for England and Wales. I suspect that the Minister, who has been very generous in responding to points that have been raised in the debate, is rather envious of the arrangements in Scotland and would like, as many of us would, to see them repeated here. I ask the Government also to commit themselves, first, to monitoring the implementation of the code of practice with particular reference to speech and language therapy; and secondly, to revisit the code no later than 1996 to put into place any amendments which may have been shown by the monitoring process to be necessary.
  Not to give speech-impaired children the right help, in the right place and at the right time is to endanger their future. In some cases, it can lead to a lifetime of preventable handicap and dependency for children whose claim to the attention of the House ought not to need emphasising to Ministers. If they want to make certain that the code of practice succeeds in safeguarding such children, they can do no better than to keep in close and continuing rapport with AFASIC about its implementation and to respond positively now to the association's concerns.
  5 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the code of practice. I do not want to reiterate everything that hon. Members have already said, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take it from me that I warmly welcome the code. I know that much consultation has gone into the document. As we are under pressure of time, I shall simply go quickly through one or two matters which are of concern to me and which I hope my hon. Friend will monitor as the code is implemented.
  Many hon. Members mentioned the question of speech therapy. I shall repeat what a speech therapist in my constituency told me in my surgery: because of the introduction of care in the community, the peripatetic speech therapists who work primarily under the umbrella of health find that they are spending a lot more time travelling to people's homes to assist stroke victims who necessarily need help early after they are discharged from hospital. That is taking up a lot of their time—time which must often be shared with children who need speech therapy. Although I welcome the increased number of hours that speech therapists are giving nationally, I suspect that they are being asked to cover a much broader area. That area must be examined.
  I certainly welcome the partnership with parents. I hope that my hon. Friend will monitor carefully circumstances where parents elect the person alongside them, especially at the appeal stage, perhaps to have knowledge of a particular disability. That has often been a problem. In the statementing process, there has often been a conflict between educational psychologists and clinical psychologists. Often, the clinical psychologist has a much greater knowledge of a specific disability, especially if it is clinically based. I hope that the presence of psychologists, if necessary, will be recognised when they stand alongside parents and represent them.
  Many hon. Members mentioned resources, especially with regard to disabilities. As autism has been mentioned
  44
  by Labour Members, I should perhaps declare an interest as an unpaid special counsellor to the National Autistic Society. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have been in correspondence with him on several aspects of the subject.
  When we consider resources and the anticipated number of children with special educational needs, including that segment of children who require statements of need, we are still working on the excellent report of Baroness Warnock in the 1970s, which was put into statute in the Education Act 1981. Although Baroness Warnock mentioned autism and dyslexia in her report—I have made this point to my hon. Friend before—those two disabilities were not in the final list at the back of the report where she identifies areas where statements of need may be necessary.
  Hon. Members mentioned the figures relating to both disabilities. I do not think that resources have increased because there are more people with dyslexia or autism; I simply think that our awareness of the two conditions is much more enhanced now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. In terms of resourcing and meeting the need, it is likely that Baroness Warnock's figures need reappraisal in the 1990s in terms of the scale of the problem.
  I recognise that for local education authorities, the Government and even schools, it is something of a Pandora's box to take the lid off and say that the area of need is much greater than the figure on which we have been working since the 1970s. In aggregating statistics as a result of the much more strictly run statementing and special needs process, I hope that we will be able to identify the scale of need of all the categories of children.
  Mr. Forth: I do not think that we should attempt to put things in boxes in that way at this stage—we have rightly resisted that temptation. However, I recognise the desire of people from specific needs groups to have their requirements identified and recognised.
  First, I simply ask my hon. Friend to accept that the Audit Commission, in its excellent report about two years ago, did not identify a shortfall of money; it identified the fact that the money was not always efficiently used, and the code will be a major step forward in that direction. Secondly, we should recognise the variation in existing LEA practice and existing special needs provision. There is no indication that there is a lack of money; there is an indication of an unacceptable variation in the way in which the money is brought to bear.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall make two final points. The first relates to the money side. We must be careful when using the Warnock statistics, because LEAs which reach a 2 per cent. target of statementing of special needs feel that they have reached the target. I suggest that that is a somewhat artificial level and that other children below that 2 per cent. may need statementing. As the process is now being speeded up because of the six-month rule, there may be a tendency in some areas not to statement children who otherwise deserve it.
  My final point relates to teacher training. Recently, I met many dyslexic children and I was horrified when they told me that teachers in their school referred to them as thick. When it comes to in-house training for existing teachers, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we have a long way to go in spreading throughout the

  45
  education establishment the message that dyslexic children are not thick, and that existing teachers require training in special needs as much as new teachers.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: This is an important debate. As time is short, I intend to keep my remarks brief. I join hon. Members who have already spoken in welcoming the code of practice, and pay a warm tribute to all the organisations that took part in the consultation exercise.
  Perhaps unusually from the Opposition Benches, I pay a warm tribute to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools because I believe that his personal interest and involvement in the issue led to the code of practice being a model of clarity that has achieved considerable support across the political spectrum and from all those involved in the world of education.
  As the Minister admitted, the code of practice is long awaited, arising, as it does, out of the Warnock report and the Education Acts 1981 and 1983. Nevertheless, it is now with us and, as I said, has received a great deal of praise from many people because it distils the highest aspirations of local education authorities and includes many examples of best practice as regards special educational needs work up and down the country. The code rightly stresses the issue of the continuum of need, and for the first time clearly delineates the responsibilities as between individual schools and local education authorities. That will go some way at least towards resolving some of the problems that local education authorities face with regard to the pressures of statementing.
  The code of practice is welcomed by governors, head teachers, teachers and local education authorities; I suspect that that renders it almost unique among documents produced by the Government over the past 15 years, certainly in the field of education. I welcome it for that reason, and I hope that it will be the first of many such documents.
  Perhaps the main reason why the code has been so successful is that the Minister and the Government listened to the views of different professionals; that is especially true of the way in which they have adopted the concept of special educational needs as a whole school issue and accepted the case for a five-stage model. The Government have rightly incorporated throughout the document the theme of partnership and parental involvement. They have also, perhaps for the first time, recognised the importance of listening to the views of pupils.
  I said that I would be brief and I shall not rehearse many of the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber because it is important that the Minister has an opportunity to respond. I shall merely pick up briefly two or three points that I do not think hon. Members have touched on.
  Mention has been made of the concern about the four-year period between one OFSTED report and another. The Minister may wish to comment on the suggestion that, while there is a requirement for governors to refer in their annual reports to their special educational needs policies and to the allocation of resources, a clear statement should be incorporated within those reports of what action has been taken each year following an OFSTED report to move towards meeting any criticisms that may have been raised.
  Mr. Forth: In a sense, I can do better than that. We anticipate that OFSTED will prepare a first interim report
  46
  on the operation of the code in respect of a limited sample of schools as early as March 1995 and will follow that with a more extensive report in December 1995. We will not have to wait for the four-year cycle. In addition, OFSTED will be concerned with giving overviews about the effectiveness of the code early on, and will do so more regularly than on a four-year cycle.
  Mr. Foster: I am sure that many people will welcome what the Minister has said, but I do not think that it takes away from my point about the way in which individual schools meet the best practice and guidance contained within the code.
  There is one respect in which the Minister will not give the House the satisfaction which I, for one, would like. The importance of early identification of special educational needs has been quite rightly included within the code; reference has been made to dyslexia, autism and other aspects of special educational need. I say gently to the Minister that one new practice that the Government could introduce that would help dramatically in the early identification of special educational needs is the widespread provision of nursery education. I shall leave the Minister to ponder that.
  Let me make a brief point about speech therapists. In addition to the points that other hon. Members have raised about who is responsible for identifying which speech therapist should provide assistance to whom, and from where the money should come—the point about the shortage of speech therapists was made forcefully by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others—there exists the further concern that the move towards the establishment of more and more national health service trusts is fragmenting the speech therapy service and is beginning to remove any notion of a career structure within speech therapy. That in turn may have implications for the recruitment of speech therapists in the future.
  My final point concerns the crucial issue of resources. The Minister has said that there is no indication of a lack of money. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said that it was absolutely crucial that the necessary resources must be there. There is a mismatch between those two statements. All the evidence that I have seen, when visiting many schools and talking to many people, suggests that there are not sufficient resources currently available to meet the special educational needs of pupils in this country. I am influenced by the evidence provided by local authority associations, which suggest that the implementation of the code in all its aspects may cost an additional £100 million.
  The Minister has said that some new money will be found, and I am grateful for his statement about those amounts. However, if I have added the figures up correctly—perhaps the Minister will give a summary of the various amounts in his winding-up speech—the total amount of new money, or at least money which will go to special educational needs which is not going to them at present, is less than £20 million.
  We need to hear what the real figure is and whether we are talking about new money or money taken from elsewhere. Although the code is very welcome, it represents only one half of the solution: without sufficient resources to back it up, those aspirations will never be met.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Butler: My intention is not only to be brief, which is relatively easy, but to be succinct, which is more of a challenge.
  I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the code of practice, which is clearly and successfully the result of an extremely wide consultation. It is an example of a case in which those consulted have taken the opportunity to exploit the consultation, and that does not always happen.
  My interest in special education goes back to my involvement in the founding of a school for what were then termed maladjusted children, who are now known as emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. I gained a postgraduate teaching qualification and was involved in the running of that school for some 17 years, until two years ago. On the basis of that experience, I give great credit to all who are involved at every level of special education, which is one of most challenging ways imaginable of earning a living.
  I have been concerned about three aspects of statementing over the past few years. My first concern is about the delay in starting the process: from my observation of one particular school, I can say that the average age for statementing—and therefore the average age of placement—has risen by three or four years during the past few years. Frankly, that means that children are statemented and placed almost too late to benefit from the proper effects of special education. I am pleased to see that that matter is covered by the trigger arrangements for stage 1, and I welcome that. I remain concerned, however, about a situation in which a parental expression of concern does not lead to an assessment, which leaves the parent with little recourse.
  My second concern is about the length of time that is spent in the process of preparing the statement. I congratulate the Minister on that matter, as it has been fully covered by the code.
  My third area of concern is the recent growth of non-specific or generic statementing. A simple conclusion that a child needs additional help in the classroom is almost a futile exercise and gives no reassurance to parents, little guidance to teachers and little hope to the child. I am pleased to note that the draft statement, and the lay-out of parts 3 and 4 of the former statement which is attached as the appendix to the draft code, deals extremely thoroughly with that question. I welcome that without any reservations.
  Despite the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), I do not perceive an even-handed approach to maintained or non-maintained schools. I see a clear desire for children to be placed within a maintained school—whether it is maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special—rather than in a non-maintained or independent school. I greatly regret that. The document seems to assume that a non-maintained or independent placement will arise only from a successful representation made by an unusually well-informed and persistent parent.The notice to parents confirms that in its wording on the right to make such representations, which is included in paragraph 5. It is not even mentioned in paragraph 3.38 of the draft code, which says only that, on receipt of a proposed statement, parents have a right to
  48
  state their preference for the maintained school that their child should attend, and to make representations to and hold meetings with the LEA.
  Although the ability to suggest that the school should be independent or non-maintained is buried within the draft notice to parents, it is not brought out within the draft code of practice itself.
  Mr. Forth: The debate was conducted at some length in 1993 in the confines of the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, as it then was. For better or worse, we took a decision about the relative merits of the maintained and non-maintained sectors, the position of parents and so on. The code reflects faithfully what is in the Act—and, since it is now in the Act, it is difficult for it not to do so. We must now hope that parents will take the clues and hints given in both the code and the Act and make the best possible use of them. I am confident that they will be able to do so.
  Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. Of course, the method of funding of the school is irrelevant. The only question is whether the school can help, and possibly where the school is geographically situated. That is particularly important because, even with a specific learning disadvantage or disability, the need to recognise, for example, the effect of the peer group within which the child would be educated if he was accepted at that school is vital to the achievement of success. That is recognised in paragraph 4:41, which says:
  "The placement must be appropriate to the child's needs, while also compatible with the interests of other children already in the school and"—
  the final part is slightly worrying—
  "with the efficient use of the LEA's resources."
  Many of us saw during the 1980s what were termed "out-to-in" policies. As well as not being placed, children were removed from independent non-maintained schools out of county and placed in maintained schools within county. That was often based on imaginative accounting to demonstrate that the in-county school was cheaper, and therefore represented a more efficient use of LEA resources. I am concerned that that practice should not be repeated or continued in future. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the suggestion, which I think I read in his response to me, that the matter will be watched carefully.
  I rose to make a small but important point and to give an overall welcome for an excellent draft code.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I declare an interest in so far as I am the father of a small child with Down's syndrome. I hope that, in an essentially English and Welsh debate, I can make some comments which reflect the Scottish experience and offer comments that are relevant to the whole of Britain. I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the much more authoritative speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler).
  Before my son was born a little more than three years ago, the impression had been borne in on me strongly, in constituency surgeries and so on that, of all the people who came to see me, those who were most oppressed and psychologically battered were those who had the responsibility of caring for people with learning difficulties

  49
  and disabilities or physical handicaps. I am sure that that is the experience of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The phrase that was used over and over again was, "You have to fight for everything you get." Exactly as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said, if a child had persistent parents who knew their way through the system, they might get what the child needed. If the parents did not have that persistence or knowledge, the outcome could be very different.
  Since I have had more personal involvement in such matters, I have had greater cause to reflect on that. Anything that the code of practice does to improve the lot of parents and children across the economic and social range is welcome. The proof of the code's value will be what actually happens over the years and particularly whether the necessary resources are made available to meet the aspirations of the code.
  Since my son was born, I have realised that, although it is not unreasonable to expect that a Rolls-Royce system should exist from the cradle to the grave for the relatively small number of children who are born with special needs and will obviously have learning difficulties, the reality is very different. I was initially struck by the extent to which people are left on their own to find out what is best for the child in the early stages.
  As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said in a slightly different context, there is an awful lot going on in the world. A lot of research is being done in other countries, where exactly the same questions are being asked. There has been a serious failure to bring together all that knowledge and experience to create a well-defined strategy for meeting the special educational needs of the various categories of children with special needs.
  I intend to limit my remarks to Down's syndrome children because they are the only ones about whom I have any claim to know enough to take up the time of the House. I shall speak particularly about the assessment of pre-school children. I note that the code sets out a worthy aspiration. Indeed, it is firm on one point. It says that the local education authority may make an assessment of a child's educational needs
  "if the parent consents to it, and must make such an assessment if the parent requests it."
  It goes on to state:
  "Such an assessment shall be in such a manner as the authority consider appropriate."
  But then, crucially, it states:
  "Following such an assessment, the LEA may make and maintain a statement of the child's special educational needs".
  Why is that "may" rather than "must"? Once the need has been defined, why should it not be a duty on local education authorities to maintain a record of those needs?
  The Scottish experience is of some relevance. Some time ago, I asked the Minister's Scottish counterpart, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) what was the statutory requirement in Scotland for identifying needs and maintaining a record. I then asked what was the practice in each of the education authorities. The answer disappointed me a little. Although it said, accurately, that the LEA may keep a record of needs from the age of two, it said that the information on what the education authorities actually did was not held centrally.
  It did not seem unreasonable to expect that, having set out what local authorities were expected to do, the Government would keep a check on what a dozen
  50
  education authorities did in practice. So I wrote to the 12 education authorities in Scotland. With great courtesy, all 12 replied. My point is that the practice differs widely, even among the small number of authorities covering Scotland.
  In Tayside, most records of needs are opened at 11 to 13. The reply continued:
  "The next largest significant activity is at the point of entry to primary school at age 4–5."
  The third largest significant activity in opening records for pupils was at age two. So age two is the third largest group. The reply from the director of education of Lothian states:
  "In practice, very few children are recorded pre-school."
  The reply from Shetland was
  "I cannot say that the Record of Needs is initiated at age 2."
  In Borders regional council records are most commonly initiated between the ages of three and five. However, Central region said:
  "we would anticipate identifying children with learning difficulties by the age of 2."
  Grampian similarly said:
  "Referral can take place at any age from 0–6 years but most such children attend initially at between 2–3 years."
  Strathclyde said:
  "this authority opens Records of Needs for children with special educational needs from age 2."
  I have rushed through those examples. The point is clear that, despite provisions on the statute book that the education authority may keep a record of needs from the age of two, the practice is widely different even among the dozen education authorities in Scotland. In many cases, the practice is resource-driven. I have no doubt that in others it is the product of a judgment by the education authority that that is the best thing to do. What concerns and surprises me is that there is not a well-defined national view on what is the best practice drawn from international research and experience of what is the best thing to do for such children.
  I agree with hon. Members who have said that the passage in the code of practice on speech therapy is vague and disappointing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the Scottish experience. It is not quite so rosy as that. Possibly the formula is right—the education authority purchases from the health authority—but unless the resources are there, the provision will not be there either. I emphasise the importance of the availability of speech therapy to pre-school children, who are my particular concern. Undoubtedly, it is one of the most important facilities with which children with Down's syndrome can be provided.
  I do not want to introduce any note of controversy into an otherwise harmonious debate. However, the Minister had something to say on the matter and I am sure that he knows better than I do that he was taken strongly to task for his words in an article in Therapy Weekly, which stated:
  "The remarks made by a government minister on the provision of speech therapy for children have been slammed by the College of Speech and Language Therapists. The CSLT has described as 'appalling' comments made by junior education minister"
  the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools.
  The Minister called into question whether pre-school speech therapy was an educational provision and whether it had educational value and should therefore be considered in the context of education. The College of Speech and Language Therapists found the draft code disappointing in that it missed an ideal opportunity to state whether health or education services should provide speech and language therapy.

  51
  If nothing else comes from my contribution to the debate I hope that it will at least have been made clear that it would be unthinkable for my little boy and many children like him not to have access to speech therapy from the youngest possible age. So much of the progress that he and others in his position have made is due to the availability of speech therapy as of right. That availability is relevant to their education and educational prospects.
  The headline of the article in Therapy Weekly is "Therapists reject minister's claims". I hope that the Minister will make it unequivocally clear that he recognises the need for speech therapy for children with special educational needs from the youngest possible age.
  In the purchasing relationship, whereby an education authority buys services from a health authority, a difficulty is arising because unless a record of need is kept, purchasing may not take place. Purchasing is based on the existence of such a record and if it does not exist, children are in danger of losing out. It is even more essential, therefore, that such a record is kept from the age of two or the earliest possible age. Certainly, with Down's syndrome children there is not the slightest doubt, from the day of birth, that they will have special educational needs. Such records must be opened in every authority.
  In deference to other hon. Members who want to speak in other debates I shall limit my remarks to that. I sympathise with the problems in England and Wales. Pray God we are never dependent in Scotland on the decisions of hundreds of boards of governors and small committees here and there rather than on the decision of 12 education authorities. Each will have many competing priorities and for many people this priority plays no part in their calculations. Patchwork provision is bound to result. We have to have the muscle of Government and of large education authorities with the resources behind them if the proper facilities and provisions are to be made available to a relatively small number of our fellow citizens.
  I have no doubt that enormous good will exists in the House. Every hon. Member has experienced similar problems in his or her surgery, as I said at the beginning of my speech. Everyone is in favour of the best possible provision for children with special educational needs. As attendance here today shows, however, it is not exactly a high political priority. Someone has to make it a high
  52
  priority, and it will be one only if the Government take the lead and put in the necessary resources to back up that commitment.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to intervene but briefly and apologise for not having been here for the entire debate.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the great interest that he has taken in the subject and for coming to my constituency to address a meeting of parents of children with special educational needs. He was able to encourage them to press their cases more strongly.
  The emphasis of the Government's document is that local authorities will have the responsibility for deciding priorities and should make such decisions. Parents should get together and put pressure on councils.
  Councils need to press ahead promptly with the preparation of statements. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that Bolton council has been reported to the ombudsman and criticised for excessive delay that occurred in the preparation of statements? I hope that my hon. Friend will remind local authorities of the need to act more promptly. The document calls for the identification of special needs as promptly as possible.
  There is much to be gained from parents getting together to form action groups so that they can bring more pressure to bear on councils to review their priorities and give them the proper emphasis.
  At a local level, there is a constant call for the Government to decide matters centrally rather than leave such difficult decisions to be decided locally. I believe that these priorities should be decided locally. Substantial amounts of money are provided in local authorities' education budgets and they should decide the priorities in the light of local needs and of listening to parents.
  I welcomed the contributions made by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I am glad that we have had this debate and I add my praise to that of other hon. Members for the document that my hon. Friend the Minister prepared.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.

  NATO Headquarters
  5.35 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
  That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.
  Mr. Hanley: As you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be appropriate to consider the two orders together.
  The first of the orders amends a 1965 Order in Council, which designates headquarters and a defence organisation for the purposes of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964, while the second amends a 1965 Order in Council, which provides for the application, to visiting forces and international headquarters, of law applicable to home forces.
  Before I describe the effect of the orders, it may be helpful if I explain the background to the changes in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command structure which make them necessary.
  The area covered by the North Atlantic treaty is divided among three major NATO commands or MNCs—European, Atlantic and Channel—and a regional planning group for Canada and the United States. Below that structure is a hierarchy of subordinate commands: major subordinate commands, or MSCs, principal subordinate commands, or PSCs, and sub-principal subordinate commands. Hon. Members will be aware that the NATO organisational structure lends itself to the adoption of many acronyms, and I will try to avoid quoting too many of them this evening.
  A number of adjustments to that structure are being made to reflect the profound changes that have taken place in the strategic environment during the past few years, and to meet the changing needs of the alliance in the mid to late 1990s. As a first step, NATO Defence Ministers decided in December 1991 that the major NATO commands should be reduced from three to two—European and Atlantic. It was agreed that arrangements in the Atlantic command should be left largely unchanged, since they remained appropriate to the alliance's continuing maritime task.
  Ministers also decided to reduce the number of major subordinate commands in Allied Command Europe—ACE—from four to three. Those would be responsible for the southern, central and north-western regions.
  Those decisions paved the way for detailed planning during 1992 and subsequent implementation. Last year saw the completion of the changes in central region. Under the old structure, the boundary between Allied Forces Central Europe—AFCENT—and Allied Forces Northern Europe—AFNORTH—passed through Schleswig Holstein. The boundary has been moved north, and the central region now includes all of Germany and Denmark. The Allied Forces South—AFSOUTH—structure has been agreed, and is being implemented. Hon. Members may
  54
  wish to note that I am placing in the Library of the House some maps and an organisational chart outlining these structures.
  Later this year, the command changes affecting the United Kingdom will come into being. The post of Commander-in-Chief Channel—CINCHAN—lapses on 30 June, and the headquarters of Allied Forces Northern Europe in Kolsaas, Norway, closes. The following day, reorganisation of the major subordinate command structure in Allied Command Europe will be completed, when the headquarters of the new north western area is activated. That area will comprise the land mass of the United Kingdom, for the first time, and Norway and the sea and air areas surrounding them.
  The new NATO headquarters for this area, to be designated headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces North Western Europe—HQ CINCAFNORTHWEST—will be situated at High Wycombe, and will be commanded by a British officer. At the same time, two new principal subordinate command headquarters will be activated in the UK: the headquarters of the Commander Allied Air Forces North Western Europe—HQ COMAIRNORTHWEST—also at High Wycombe, and the headquarters of the Commander Allied Naval Forces North Western Europe—HQ COMNAVNORTHWEST—at Northwood, which will assume Commander-in-Chief Channel's current responsibilities. Some 330 alliance personnel will be located at the new headquarters in the United Kingdom, of whom 130 will be from the United Kingdom.
  To reflect those changes, it is necessary to amend the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 1965 to designate in United Kingdom law the new headquarters. We are also taking this opportunity to designate the NATO airborne early warning force headquarters in Mons, Belgium, and the NATO E-3A component in Geilenkirchen, Germany, whose visiting staff are treated as members of an international military headquarters, but have not yet been formally recognised as having that status under United Kingdom law. The purpose of the first order is therefore to establish the status of the various headquarters and visiting forces.
  The second order, amending the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1965 provides for the application to the visiting forces and the headquarters, of the law applicable to home forces.
  The changes I have described will effectively complete the restructuring of NATO's command structure agreed at the end of 1991. They will help meet our objectives for a lighter, more flexible, command structure, which will enable the alliance to respond more quickly and effectively to the increasingly challenging and diverse demands of the European security situation.
  The changes have already led to considerable savings in manpower. In particular, they have allowed the United Kingdom to reduce its overall contribution by more than 30 per cent., mainly from the headquarters in Allied Command Europe.
  There are clear advantages to the establishment of a new major subordinate command—MSC—in the United Kingdom. We will retain significant influence at an increasingly important level of command within the alliance's military structure—a level which we expect to play a leading role in NATO's new force structure.

  55
  There will also be cost savings from home basing for the United Kingdom complement of staff and economic benefits to the High Wycombe area from the presence of visiting forces. Furthermore, United Kingdom firms have benefited from work on the construction and fitting out of the new headquarters, the cost of which will be some £l2 million from NATO funds.
  The NATO summit in January charted the next steps for the adaptation of the alliance, and we can expect the new headquarters in the United Kingdom to play an important role in giving practical effect to the initiatives agreed there. This will help to keep the United Kingdom at the forefront of work to ensure that the alliance remains centre stage in European security arrangements in the years ahead.
  I commend the orders to the House.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the reason for, and significance of, the two orders. I accept that they are linked, and that it makes sense to examine them together. Orders of this nature would normally be considered upstairs in Committee, and it is only the ending of the parliamentary cold war that allows us to have the opportunity to examine them in the House.
  As the Minister has said, the orders are consequential and of no great significance. What is significant, however, is what they tell us about the context of the adaptation of NATO to post-cold war realities, and what they reveal about the changed status of the United Kingdom within the alliance. The weight given to our role in the immediate post-war settlement in 1949, at the time of the formation of NATO, has evolved into its current status. I shall dwell briefly on those changes, and pose certain questions to the Minister.
  In terms of NATO and post-cold war realities, the organisational chart, which existed in 1949, has already been set out by the Minister. The current integrated military command structures under the military committee stems, largely unchanged, from the 1949 structure with the three major commands, Allied Command Channel, Allied Command Atlantic, and Allied Command Europe. As the Minister has pointed out, they are divided into major subordinate commands, and, within those, principal subordinate commands.
  The current MSCs of ACE, which are commanded by Supreme Allied Commander Europe, are Allied Forces North, Allied Forces Central, Allied Forces South, and the United Kingdom Defence Region.
  The end of the cold war led to the need for a new NATO strategy, and, in turn, to the need for a rationalisation of the NATO military command structure. The criteria of that review were economic and political. As the Minister has said, financial and personnel savings have been made, perhaps as part of the peace dividend and because the lower alliance force levels reflect the pressure throughout the alliance for less expenditure on defence.
  The political significance of the changes stems from the united Germany, which is no longer split between two MSCs—Schlewsig Holstein in AFNORTH and the rest of Germany within AFCENT. One consequence is that all NATO forces on German soil will be under German command.
  56
  The history of the NATO review, which has led to the two orders, has been set out by the Minister and is well known, but the dates are significant. In May 1991, Defence Ministers met in Sicily to examine the package of changes, and in December 1991, the Defence Planning Committee agreed the consensus package.
  The chief casualty of the rationalisation is the elimination of Allied Command Channel, a major command led by a British admiral and based at Northwood. I am not wholly convinced by the Minister's argument that British weight in terms of personnel will remain in tact. In the new context, ACCHAN obviously had to go once its new responsibilities were divided.
  What is significant is that, after reorganisation, the two remaining senior command posts are now held by Americans. Is that wholly consistent with the current spirit within the alliance? I understand, however, the need to ensure the full commitment of the United States to the alliance. General Joulwan of the United States has only recently been appointed.
  On the weight and the role of the United Kingdom within the alliance, the second key change is the extension of ACE to include the United Kingdom mainland for the first time. That makes sense when judged according to the time of the original settlement, but it is a significant change, as it reflects the different significant role that Britain played in the late 1940s. In turn, the number of MSCs within ACE has been reduced from four to three, with the replacement of UKAIR and AFNORTH by AFNORTHWEST.
  The headquarters of AFNORTHWEST is at High Wycombe; hence the need for the order. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to ensure that, so far as possible, there will always be a United Kingdom commander of the United Kingdom's land or air forces within the United Kingdom? I understand that there are to be roughly 250 posts at High Wycombe, but I note that the figure that the Minister now gives for the costs of the operation—I think it was £12 million—is slightly greater than the sum that was given to the Defence Committee.
  I shall end with a number of questions for consideration by the Minister. One is the relevance of those changes to, and their consistency with, the broad thrust of current NATO thinking, especially as set out in the NATO Brussels communiqué in January—the new move towards a European defence identity and the way in which the new United States administration is more prepared—indeed, seems to be almost enthusiastic—for a greater European contribution.
  The changes that led to the orders stem from before May 1991. Indeed, one can probably go back more than three years. The Defence Ministers who met in Sicily in May 1991 reflected the view at that time of the post-cold-war changes and the institutional framework that was relevant to those changes. There has now been, as I have mentioned, a greater evolution, especially under the new administration in the US.
  It would be interesting for the Government to reflect on the extent to which the current package of proposals reflects the new thrust of policy as it was enshrined in the Brussels communiqué in January, or whether what the House is now presented with is part of a time warp—that which appeared relevant and appropriate three years ago.
  I shall not detain the House by discussing the proposed structure for the Baltic, but it is obviously a compromise, based more on political than military needs. There is an

  57
  artificial division of responsibility between land and maritime forces—two different commands. That makes no sense, at least in managerial terms.
  The inclusion of the NATO airborne early warning force in the two orders presumably also relates to the reorganisation of the NATO commands. For legal reasons, the extension of Allied Command Europe to cover mainland Britain may mean that its executive agency, the NAEWF, may require a new status in the UK. I wonder whether there is another reason—the history of the change—but that may effectively be caused by the need to remedy a legal omission.
  It would be wrong to survey the unfortunate decision to proceed, not with a jointly funded airborne warning and communication system squadron, but with a national AWACS squadron with the early warning version of Nimrod, a project that was cancelled in 1986 and which was disastrous for the British taxpayer. As I understand the position, from the mid-1980s the NAEWF was regularly deployed to the UK to help provide early warning cover for UK airspace until the RAF Boeing E—5 squadron became operational in 1991. That is, the early warning system used RAF airfields, even though not covered by the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964, so that is in any event putting right a legal omission, bringing into legal form what was already the practice, for a period at least.
  Finally, it is fair to say that the reorganisation of NATO headquarters, which is due to be implemented at the beginning of July, may already, to some extent, have become outdated because the merger of AFNORTHWEST and AFCENT might now be possible. I note that, in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which was published last month, the Government said:
  "In the longer term, it may also be necessary to look again at NATO's higher military structure to ensure that it remains suited to the new forces and the new tasks."
  Finally, I pose the question whether, not in the longer term but in the shorter term, as we adjust to the position in the cold war with the new views of the US administration, we might need to consider a structure which, in spite of those orders, may already be somewhat outdated.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I was attending another meeting. I shall not detain the House for long.
  The wonder of the alliance in 1949 was that it was formed at all. In spite of the threat, Europe and America were, with rare exceptions, if not adversaries, at loggerheads. There had been in Europe a strong tradition of neutralism. Countries such as the United Kingdom were used to being alone.
  As a result of wise statesmanship and Ernest Bevin—who was probably one of the wisest of the statesmen—and as a result of a little bit of skullduggery on the part of the State Department and the US Congress, the Americans were committed to a presence in Europe and committed to NATO in such a way that probably very few congressmen and senators who signed up for the agreement were aware of what they were letting themselves in for.
  In spite of the vicissitudes of the cold war—one suspects that the internal problems in NATO were in many ways greater than the external threat—the alliance held together. The deal was not an equal partnership between
  58
  the United States and Europe, because the US was immensely strong militarily and economically, and Europe was prostrate economically and had very few armed forces available to meet a potential threat from the Soviet union.
  Nevertheless, in that initial bargain, we had one of the major NATO commands. We had Allied Command Channel, on a par virtually, although not entirely, with the other two major NATO commanders, both American. Therefore, organisationally, if there was not a balance between Europe and north America in terms of senior military personnel, at least Europe was able to say that we had a major commander, alongside an American admiral and an American general. That situation prevailed until quite recently.
  Following the cold war changes, many critics in the House hoped that NATO would disappear. When the Warsaw pact collapsed, there were people who wished that NATO would collapse in empathy with the Warsaw pact. They thought that NATO was no longer relevant in the new peace environment that we were entering.
  However, NATO showed that it had longevity; that it was not simply a military alliance but a political alliance. It made fundamental changes to strategy and reduction in forces and in the command structure, which I generally support. The changes of creating a new command structure, a rapid reaction corps and the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and, more recently, in the summit in January, the establishment of the partnership for peace and the combined joint task forces, show that NATO has resilience.
  What worries me slightly—I do not wish to appear too partisan at this stage in what is obviously if not a bipartisan approach, at least major agreement between both Front Benches—is that in some ways I very much regret the downgrading of the British contribution. Northwood is no longer to be regarded on a par with Mons and with Norfolk, Virginia.
  Europe as well as Britain has been downgraded. It is wrong that the two senior military commanders of NATO—SACEUR and SACLANT—are American. I am a committed Atlanticist and desperately hope that the European Union will develop further. Although I want greater co-ordination in foreign policy and perhaps a common foreign policy, greater co-ordination in security and perhaps a common security policy, I shall need persuading that, at this stage in its history, Europe is capable of developing a common defence policy, especially if it is to the detriment of NATO.
  When discussing future command arrangements, I hope that, as the Western European Union and the European Union grow closer, they will not see as part of their new macho status the requirement to supplant an alliance which has held us in safety over the decades and will play a considerable role in the future. In the new international environment, NATO will be as important in the future as it has been in the past.
  The downgrading of the British dimension is a consequence of the downgrading of our armed forces. If, in the space of a decade, the number of Royal Navy frigates and destroyers will drop from between 50 and 60 to between 30 and 40, we shall cut less of a dash in NATO. Is that a reason why we no longer occupy a major position within NATO's command structure and Allied Command Channel? That relates directly to what we are discussing.
  Is the fact that we can no longer provide adequate forces the reason why the command structure was altered? I am

  59
  worried that Northwood no longer has a British admiral who meets on a par with his American counterparts. If defence expenditure falls further, we shall lose, if not our primacy, our position in other NATO commands, which will diminish our influence in the transatlantic alliance and NATO.
  NATO has made considerable changes to its command structures. The way in which the United Kingdom's headquarters are altered reflects the drop in defence expenditure and the need for greater efficiency. I fear that the goal of greater efficiency will not be achieved by reducing forces.
  At some stage in the near future, as the balance of the threat moves from the northern and central regions to the old southern region, the southern flank, the southern guard and the southern arc of crisis, Naples will be infinitely more important in dealing with problems in the Maghreb, the Balkans, the middle east and the Gulf. At what stage will NATO consider re-establishing a command on a par with Norfolk and Mons, concentrating not on a command in NATO subordinate to SACEUR, at AFSOUTH Naples, but on a separate and equal command?
  I welcome the legal changes that must be made. The Select Committee on Defence considered them in 1992. It is ironic that the House should be considering them more than two years later. Clearly, the changes must be supported. I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this important issue, although it may have been slightly tangential to the subject in hand.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Hanley: With permission, I shall answer briefly a few of the points that have been raised.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Commander UK Land Forces will always remain the UK commander. But the Commander-in-Chief of AFNORTHWEST could come from another nation at some subsequent time.
  On the United States' MNCs, there is increasing European representation throughout the alliance's command structure. I do not have the relevant figures to hand, but I am willing to write to the hon. Member for Swansea, East and explain the numbers.
  He also queried the cost of £12 million for High Wycombe. The cost of the military budget is expected to be some £7.6 million, and the UK share is fixed at just under 22 per cent., which is some £1.7 million. The cost to
  60
  the infrastructure budget is expected to be some £4.2 million, and the UK share is some £900,000. The difficulty may have been the fact that the total cost to NATO budgets of establishing the headquarters is £12 million. I am not sure whether the Select Committee received different figures, but those are the definitive ones.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Baltic overlap. It is sensible to allow SACEUR the operational flexibility to select the MSC best suited to control joint operations on a case-by-case basis. That is the position that we are in. I shall not comment on some of the other points that he made.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made an important contribution. The White Paper made it clear that the UK's defence is based on NATO. It also clearly set out decisions reached at the NATO summit, which are shaping our defence and security policies. The summit reaffirmed our commitment to the transatlantic link, which is the bedrock of NATO, but it also supported the development of the European security and defence identity to strengthen the European pillar of the alliance.
  May I refer back to the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East? We are now catching up to 1991, and a lot of water has gone under many bridges since then. This, at least, is now the command structure, and we must let it bed down. In the meantime, the combined joint task force concept was introduced at the last NATO summit. That is designed to allow European countries to act under the auspices of WEU in circumstances where they perceive a need for action, but the north Americans, for whatever reason, choose not to be involved.
  The new headquarters at AFNORTHWEST is a good example. The European or British commander and strong European representation in the headquarters will mean that it will be capable of undertaking NATO and/or WEU operations.
  The description of the multilateral dimension of our security in the White Paper is not a departure, but rather a reflection of the response of the allies to the changing strategic environment. I am therefore pleased that the House welcomes the motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13 April, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 13 April, be approved.—[Mr. Hanley.]

  Ro-Ro Passenger Ships
  6.8 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I beg to move,
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 28 March, be approved.
  The regulations extend the requirement of higher survivability standards to all existing ro-ro passenger ships when operating to or from ports in the United Kingdom. Similar provisions are already in force for new ships—those built after 29 April 1990, by virtue of the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction and Survey) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.
  The draft regulations are required to be made by affirmative procedure by the terms of section 21(1)(c) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, the enabling power, and by section 49 of that Act which sets out the parliamentary procedure for section 21 orders; both sections were modified by section 11 of the Safety at Sea Act 1986. In summary, the requirements of the enabling legislation are that orders applying to foreign ships must be made by affirmative procedure unless the requirement is the subject of international agreement.
  Conclusions of an extensive research programme, sponsored by the Department of Transport following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster have confirmed that the standard of survivability introduced for new ships provides adequate protection against rapid capsize, after sustaining collision damage, while operating in moderate seas.
  A steering committee set up to monitor the ro-ro ferry safety research programme, and made up of representatives from all sides of the shipping industry, recommended that the higher standard of damage stability imposed for new ships should be applied to all existing ro-ro ships. To that end, the committee recommended that agreement be sought in the International Maritime Organisation; if that proved unsuccessful, European maritime administrations should be approached with a view to a regional solution. The committee suggested that if both approaches failed, the United Kingdom should consider unilateral action.
  Accepting the committee's recommendations, the Department proposed that the higher standard to be applied to existing ships should be the standard introduced internationally for new ships. The recognised procedure for introducing international safety measures is to submit proposals to the IMO; it is fully supported by the United Kingdom. Despite lengthy discussions in the IMO, however, the application of that higher standard to existing ro-ro ships was not accepted.
  Having exhausted all the avenues for international agreement, my Department—with officials from the European Commission and member states of the European Union, together with Norway and Sweden—opened discussions that have led to a regional agreement. The introduction of the regulations upholds the United Kingdom's obligation to comply with that agreement, and will ensure that ro-ro passenger ships travelling to and from United Kingdom ports comply with the standard of survivability that was previously restricted to new ships. The regulations also provide for the imposition of penalties for contravention.
  6.10 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: I will be brief: time is limited, and an important debate follows.
  The Opposition welcome the new regulations, and the fact that they are to be applied retrospectively. None the less, they may well not apply to ships until 14, or even 17, years after their introduction. That is particularly important in the context of ferry safety. Let me ask the Minister a question: as Minister for shipping, does he intend to require ferry operators to state which ferries will operate on which crossings, so that people can choose whether to travel on ships that meet the safety standards? We feel that that choice is important, and that travellers have a right to know and to make a considered decision.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I am sorry to take issue with my hon. Friend the Minister, but he confirmed an anxiety that I expressed when I met his officials some time ago. I told them then that they were trying to impose higher standards on British ships and the routes to and from our shores than were acceptable to the IMO.
  As far as we can see from the map of the area covered by the regulations, the line is drawn off Ushant, which means that ferries sailing from the United Kingdom to the bay of Biscay might not be covered at the bay of Biscay end; moreover, if we look at the top right-hand corner of the map, we see that Norway is practically excepted.
  We all recall the tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise, and I know that a price can never be placed on safety. I fear, however—especially as one who represents the Isle of Wight—that we are straining to approve regulations that may go a little too far. The compliance cost assessment submitted by the Department of Transport along with the regulations estimates the running costs for ships on domestic routes at some £2 million per annum. Paragraph 4, which deals with typical costs, actually mentions the Isle of Wight; it estimates that the capital cost of modification of existing ships will be between £10,000 and £2 million, with additional running costs of approximately £100,000 a year. Those costs are not analysed in the context of routes, however, and the comparison made is with the Isle of Wight and/or Scottish islands.
  As far as I am aware, Wightlink, with its Portsmouth-Fishbourne ferries, already complies with the regulations. The Southampton-Cowes route, operated by Red Funnel, has a brand new ferry, the Red Falcon: I assume that it also complies, given that it was launched only recently. The second ship to replace existing vessels on the route has now been launched, and will come into service in October; we hope that it, too, will comply. That leaves the ships that serve the Lymington-Yarmouth route, which—once the new ship is introduced on the Southampton-Cowes route—will be the oldest ferries serving the Isle of Wight.
  When people hear the term "roll on, roll off vessel"—or, as we used to say in the Transport Regiment, "roll on, roll off and roll about"—they have a vision of a ship rather like the Herald of Free Enterprise. The Isle of Wight vessels, however, are really just platforms quite close to sea level, not enclosed, with a small amount of passenger accommodation over the vehicle deck. Compartmentalisation is quite alien to ferries serving the

  63
  Isle of Wight—although that does not apply to ferries serving the Scottish islands, which have enclosed ro-ro vessels in the conventional sense.
  Will my hon. Friend give me a breakdown of the compliance cost assessment relating to the Isle of Wight, as his officials see it? If he cannot do that now, will he undertake to write to me? My constituents will be concerned to learn that the cost may add to that of travelling to and from the Isle of Wight, and we do not wish to impose an undue burden on our economy.
  Anyone listening to the debate, however, should be reassured: it is our proud boast that, throughout the long history of ferry services to and from the Isle of Wight, there has never been a major accident causing considerable loss of life at sea. I am sure that that will continue, but my constituents would want me to cast an eagle eye on any proposal that would add to the expense of travel to and from the Isle of Wight. I must look to my hon. Friend for reassurance.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend the Minister would not expect a Southampton Member to miss a debate about cross-channel ferries. It does not matter whether I have just walked in or just rowed in; that does not affect my enthusiasm for the regulations.
  The cross-channel ferries are ahead of the game. In Southampton, we have had several new ferries, which are doing excellent trade. They are also going through the bay of Biscay: no one can hazard a guess at the difficulties that they encounter there, but the fact remains that they are coming through some of the worst storms.
  There is a tendency to over-correct in terms of safety. We all remember the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. That happened because the crew were asleep—it had nothing to do with the quality of the ship or of its management. The problem has been straightened out, and nowadays there is a great deal of internal discipline. I have crossed the channel many times since and have observed that the crews are assiduous about safety—they all seem to be on the car decks, which is where the dangers can arise.
  We need not take a large sledgehammer to this problem; there is a great deal of good will in the ferry companies. I do not think that they would resist any measure that the Government might want to introduce, and I hope that the Minister will consult them extensively so that there is no unnecessary expenditure on safety which, in turn, could mean a loss of profit, and redundancy for some of the ships and their crews.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has summed it up: there is a price to be paid for safety; it is important that it should be reasonable and that we should set the risks in perspective.
  Of course I understand that no one wants to impose additional costs on the Isle of Wight to the detriment of those who live there and who generally transport goods there by sea. Still, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) himself referred to the Herald disaster, and we are bound to seek the right trade-off between increasing the safety of vessels and reasonable expenditure on them. I think it unlikely that the conversion costs for Isle of Wight vessels will be at the top end of the scale.
  As for the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), we have to some extent traded the time scale for a standard that was higher than the IMO was prepared to accept, and have sought a regional agreement. I agree that it is regrettable that the time scale is so long, but it is still a reasonable one. All we are doing is declaring that the standards that we set for ferries as from 1990 shall be applicable to older vessels, too. Recently built vessels serving the Isle of Wight post-1990 will already be of safety-of-life-at-sea—SOLAS—1990 standards and will not require any upgrading; they are already safe enough.
  I will ensure that my officials discuss any difficulties to do with costs that may be faced by operators to the island, to see whether it is possible to mitigate them. I stress, however, that the regulations will have statutory force. There is no great opposition to them in the industry.
  I have no great difficulty with the right to know. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North believes in the need to support British industry and enterprise, and in particular the British shipping industry. I am sure that she, like me, wants to ensure that information of this sort is obtainable from all vessels that ply to and from the United Kingdom, including those carrying the 50 per cent. of passengers not carried by British vessels. If we can arrange for this information to be available throughout Europe and from all the nation states whose vessels are likely to serve these islands, I will have no great difficulty urging the British shipping community to comply.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.

  Immigration
  6.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move,
  That the draft Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
  The purpose of this Order in Council is to incorporate into United Kingdom immigration law the provisions of all the various European Community directives dealing with freedom of movement and rights of residence for European Economic Area nationals.
  The earliest of these directives, relating to the free movement of EC workers, were already in force when the United Kingdom joined the Community. These and later directives have been implemented since by way of the immigration rules, but, as a consolidating measure, they are now to be covered by the order, to provide a separate legislative instrument dealing with the rights of residence of European Economic Area nationals.
  In spite of that legal change, the order will make little practical difference to the treatment of EEA nationals in the United Kingdom, because those directives not already covered by the immigration rules are being implemented administratively. The order is thus largely a technical measure.
  The three most recent directives relating to students, retired people and others—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Wardle: I will give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I want to get through my speech so that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and his hon. Friends will have a chance to speak.
  Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that, but, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I should like to ask the Minister to explain the fact that it is rather unusual of the Government to press ahead with an order when there is a clear suggestion that there might be problems with its vires. Would it not have been better to take the instrument away and bring it back when it is right?
  Mr. Wardle: It is the Government's clear view that it does not need amending. I shall deal later with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  As I was saying, the three most recent directives relating to students, retired people and others who are financially self-sufficient have been implemented administratively since they came into force in June 1992—and the latest students directive, in December 1993. Likewise, the extension from 1 January 1994 of all the rights of residence directives to the European Economic Area—that is, to Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in addition to the 12 EC states—has been implemented administratively.
  The order will discharge our commitment to implement formally the latest rights-of-residence directives. At the same time, it provides a distinct legal framework for EEA nationals who come to the United Kingdom, by covering also the six earlier directives which date back to the 1960s and 1970s and have already been implemented through the immigration rules.
  By consolidating these directives, which have already been long in force, together with the latest three directives,
  66
  which have been implemented administratively, the order is a necessary technical measure and it will not introduce any significant change in the entitlement of EEA nationals to reside here with their families. These, of course, are the same rights of residence which enable British citizens to work and reside anywhere within the European Economic Area.
  The concept of free movement within the European Community is long standing. When the United Kingdom joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1972, we acceded to the provisions that were already in place allowing the free movement of EC workers.
  Further measures were introduced subsequently allowing the free movement and residence of self-employed people and of providers and recipients of services. Three more directives came into force in 1992 and 1993 concerning the rights of residence of retired people, students and of any EC nationals not already covered by existing EC measures.
  The main condition for anyone benefiting from the three latest directives is that he must be financially self-supporting. The cumulative effect is to provide all EC nationals with a right to reside in any member state, regardless of whether they are economically active, provided that they are working or can otherwise support themselves.
  The European Economic Area Act 1993 enabled the United Kingdom to ratify the European Economic Area agreement which came into force on 1 January 1994. The agreement extends most of the provisions of the single market to five of the member states of the European Free Trade Association—to Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. That is why, although we are speaking about Community entitlements arising from directives made under the treaty of Rome, the order refers to nationals of states that are parties to the European Economic Area agreement. The order is being made under the powers conferred by the European Communities Act 1972, as amended by the European Economic Area Act 1993.
  The immigration rules already contain a general statement to the effect that they apply only to EC nationals—now extended to EEA nationals—and their families to the extent permitted by Community law, and that such persons are entitled to exercise their rights of residence as provided in Community law.
  The order carries no implications for the maintenance of immigration controls at our frontiers with other member states, on which the Government's position is well known. However, on 1 January, to coincide with the entry into force of the European Economic Area agreement, the separate immigration channels for EC passengers arriving at our major ports and airports were extended to all EEA nationals. Arriving EEA nationals are thus treated in a similar way to British and other EC citizens and no longer require any "leave to enter" stamped in their passports.
  The reality is that EEA nationals, including British citizens, are now free to work or reside anywhere within the European Economic Area. Showing a passport or identity card at the frontier as evidence of nationality cannot be said to interfere with the fundamental rights of free movement and residence.
  The wording of the order is in part complex as it follows closely the wording of nine separate directives. It sets out the rights of residence of EEA nationals who fall into the following categories: workers; self-employed people,

  67
  including those who have ceased economic activity in the United Kingdom; providers and recipients of services; retired persons; self-sufficient people; and students.
  The order confirms that any EEA national may enter the United Kingdom on production of a valid passport or identity card. I should add that this wording comes from the EC directives that link the right of entry to the production of an EEA passport or identity card.
  As long as they continue to qualify under the order in one of these categories, EEA nationals are free to remain in the United Kingdom without any further formality. I should make it clear that in some other member states, where there is a compulsory system of registration, residence permits are obligatory, but in this country there is no obligation to apply for a residence permit. If an EEA national does so, of course, subject to proof of their entitlement, a residence permit confirming this status will be issued. The residence permit is a card with the holder's photograph available to EEA nationals residing here. It is issued free of charge and, with certain exceptions, is normally valid for five years,
  For example, workers who are to be employed in the United Kingdom for more than three months, but less than 12 months, are issued with a residence permit valid for the period of employment. Students' residence permits are valid for the duration of the course of study or, where the course lasts for more than one year, the validity of the permit may be limited to one year.
  Mr. Max Madden: The Minister will know that the primary concern of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments involved students. Will he give information on the procedures and the evidence that the UK authorities will require, first, to assure themselves that a student has the resources to support himself or herself and, secondly, to satisfy the validity of a spouse and family?
  Mr. Wardle: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I shall come to that point, as is my wont, at a fair gallop to allow as much debate as we can reasonably have.
  The order also confirms the right of appeal to the independent immigration appellate authorities for any EEA national or family member who is refused a residence permit or residence document or has one withdrawn.
  Those rights of residence are qualified by the important power to refuse admission to, or to remove from, the United Kingdom any EEA national whose exclusion or deportation could be justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
  The order provides that EEA family members of EEA nationals benefit from the same rights of residence as the EEA principal. They are not required to apply for a residence permit, but may do so if they wish and, so long as they remain members of the family of an EEA national who is exercising residence rights in the United Kingdom, they benefit from the same entitlements.
  Any family member who is not an EEA national and who is coming to the United Kingdom to install himself with an EEA national exercising rights of residence will need to be in possession of an EEA family permit. That family permit is an entry clearance issued by British diplomatic posts overseas to those who can demonstrate
  68
  that they are family members of an EEA national who is resident, or is about to become resident, in the United Kingdom.
  No charge will be made for the issue of such a family permit. We have chosen the name "EEA family permit" to distinguish it from a visa issued under the immigration rules. The power to demand such an entry clearance is contained in article 3(2) of directive 68/360/EEC.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Minister clarify the status of a non-EEA national who does not have such a document? Will it be regarded as one of the documents that are necessary under section 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993? If so, that will have an impact on the rights of that person to have an appeal.
  Mr. Wardle: I shall seek to clarify the hon. Gentleman's point in a few moments.
  Non-EEA family members of EEA nationals who are coming to the United Kingdom for other reasons—for example, a short visit—will not be required to hold an EEA family permit, but family members who are visa nationals will need to obtain a visa or an EEA family permit, depending on the purpose of their stay, before travelling here. That answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
  The definition of "family members" in the order covers all those family members of EEA nationals with an entitlement to reside here with the EEA national in accordance with the various directives—the spouse, dependent children, parents or grandparents. I should add that any children under 21 years of age are regarded in EC law as being entitled to accompany their parents; that provision dates back to 1968.
  In addition, we allow for the admission of other dependent relatives of EEA nationals as provided for in EC regulation 1612/68. That provision, however, is not contained in the order, first, because it is not an absolute entitlement to entry and, secondly, because EC regulations have direct effect in United Kingdom law and, therefore, do not require separate transposition.
  Hon. Members will have noticed that the order contains a provision in article 2(2) that precludes non-EEA nationals from any entitlement to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by contracting a marriage of convenience to an EEA national. We recognise that EC law does not enable us to apply all the provisions of the immigration rules, such as the primary purpose test, in EEA marriage cases, but we do not accept that a party to a marriage of convenience has any right to benefit from EC law relating to the admission and residence of family members. We intend to maintain a strong line against bogus marriages and we will ensure that non-EEA nationals are not able to use marriages of convenience as a way of obtaining residence in the United Kingdom.
  I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has expressed its doubts about the vires of the reference in the order at article 6(2)(h)(ii) to the adequacy of the financial resources available to an EEA student. We take a different view from the Joint Committee over the drafting of this article, the wording of which comes directly from the students directive. The article states, among other things, that a student for purposes of the order means a person who
  "has sufficient resources to avoid him becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom."
  The term social assistance, rather than social security, is

  69
  used here simply because that term is used in the directive. Although not defined in EC law, it is regarded as covering income-related benefits such as income support.
  The order does not specify by what means a student may demonstrate that he has adequate resources. We do not consider that it is necessary to set out that evidence of means may be provided by way of a declaration, or such alternative means as are at least equivalent, or that the absence of any such detailed procedural reference creates any doubt about the transposition of the students directives by the order.
  When an EEA student applies for a residence permit, we only ask for only reasonable evidence of funds, and a declaration including letters indicating financial support from parents or other sponsors would be regarded as sufficient.
  In parallel with the order, we shall bring into force section 7(1) of the Immigration Act 1988, which removes the requirement on EEA nationals to obtain leave to enter the United Kingdom.
  I should mention an administrative change relating to the non-EEA dependants of Irish nationals, which is linked to the order. Until now, given our close links with Ireland, it has been our practice to regard the non-EEA spouse and dependants of an Irish national as settled as soon as they arrive in the United Kingdom. This practice is different from the treatment of non-EEA spouses of other EEA nationals, who would normally be issued with a five-year residence permit. There is some evidence, moreover, of non-EEA nationals contracting marriages of convenience with Irish nationals.
  We have decided, therefore, that, following the entry into force of the order, the non-EEA dependants of an Irish national who apply under EC law will be treated under the order in the same way as the non-EEA dependants of all other EEA nationals. Irish nationals, in such circumstances, will be issued with a residence permit, normally valid for five years, and their non-EEA spouse or other dependants will be issued with a residence document of the same limited validity. Irish nationals with a non-EEA spouse will not, however, be obliged to apply for residence permits and the non-EEA spouse may choose to apply under the immigration rules in the same way as a non-EEA national who marries a British citizen. Furthermore, the change will affect only Irish nationals with non-EEA dependants. Accordingly, it will not cause any inconvenience for the great majority of Irish nationals living here.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Minister assure the House that additional resources will be made available to the immigration service to enable it to deal speedily with these changes?
  Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as soon as the changes come into force, that will be attended to. It has been taken into account under the normal procedure in our negotiations with the Treasury.
  In the context of EEA nationals more generally, the order will not result in any fundamental change of treatment. It will enable us to discharge our commitment to implement formally the latest directives in United Kingdom law and will thus enable us to maintain one of the best records within the European Union for transposing EC law into domestic legislation. The United Kingdom is second only to Denmark in its rate of transposition of single market measures.
  70
  I hope that the order will go some way towards clarifying the effects of EC law on rights of residents by consolidating in this one document the key provisions of the nine separate EC directives on which it is based. Time is short because of the earlier debates, but, if I have the opportunity, I will seek to answer some of the points that I suspect the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and other hon. Members will raise. If I do not get the opportunity to do that before 7 o'clock. I assure the House that I will write to hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: Out of courtesy to hon. Members and those outside, I hope that in the not-too-distant future the House will timetable its business so that our debates on immigration and other matters can be heard by those who regard such issues as significant. We often get, at best, one and a half hours quite late, and on this occasion we have only 30 or 40 minutes to debate the matter at the end of other business.
  It is sad to see a great Department of State in trouble and out of political control, but that is what has happened over the past few months in the Home Office, especially on immigration and nationality matters. Immigration policy was never much more than an add-on to Conservative thought, a way to supplement playing the race card at general elections, and it was never taken seriously as a significant policy matter.
  In the past few months, there have been a number of banana skins and some deliberate miscalculations. It started at Christmas with the fiasco over Jamaicans coming to our country. About 160 people were detained for no good reason and not one person was charged as a result. We still do not know whether the Minister had agreed to that or whether it was a freelance operation at Gatwick airport by immigration officers who were perhaps not under proper political control.
  There was the fiasco of the Campsfield detainees. At one point, about 150 political asylum seekers were on hunger strike. Was that fiasco a weapon deliberately designed to put off people seeking asylum in our country or did it have its own momentum and get out of hand because of lack of control from the top? Hon. Members could pepper the Government's record with examples from their casework relating to immigration and asylum matters in which discretion has not been used in the way that it should. That applies especially in the context of the abolition of the right of appeal for student or other visitors. Thousands of people are denied the right of appeal that was used successfully until last year.
  We could add to the catalogue. There was the tragedy of Joy Gardner, the present banana skin of identity cards or border checks and the "when the music stops" nonsense that is being played with the European Commission. We are right up to date with the pantomime surrounding the order. The Government have had six years to prepare the instrument, but it is unclear and deeply confusing and confused. I challenge hon. Members to read it if they have the time. It may not even conform to EC directives.
  Just over a week ago, the order was debated in the other place and so many discrepancies were found by my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and by Lord Bonham-Carter that the Minister responsible for the order,

  71
  Lord Annaly, felt unable to put it to a vote. It is amazing that the order has not been withdrawn or rewritten in a form that would be acceptable to both Houses.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I am used to the hon. Gentleman's normal delivery, but he has raised a couple of issues to which he and the House would expect me to reply. The Joint Committee made one point in its report that we saw no reason to change.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the order being withdrawn in the other place, but that did not happen. The debate was adjourned and my noble Friend undertook to look into a number of points raised in the debate and follow them up by writing to the noble Lords. He gave no undertaking that the order would be amended before being reintroduced and we have no intention of so doing.
  Mr. AllenThe debate was adjourned in the other place, and it is unusual for a debate on such an affirmative order to be adjourned there or in this House. If it is a familiar process, I should be happy for this debate to be adjourned so that hon. Members could have more than 15 minutes during which they can seek to intervene on my speech. It is an unusual procedure, but I should be happy to see it repeated in the House if the Minister thinks that it is appropriate.
  It is evident from the recent record of the Home Office, from Joy Gardner to the Jamaican incident and to the order placed before the two Houses, that the Department is a complete shambles. Someone inside or outside the Home Office needs to get a grip on the Department and restore its political primacy so that, instead of blaming officers at Gatwick or Heathrow, we can call Ministers to account at the Dispatch box.
  The Home Secretary has attempted to steer clear of immigration matters and keep to law and order, which has given great pleasure to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). We all know from recent opinion polls the outcome of that battle.
  The order puts into UK law parts of nine different EC directives which, as the Minister said, will give the rights conferred on nationals of European Union member states to nationals of the European Free Trade Association. The measure was enthusiastically backed by Conservatives during proceedings on the European Economic Area legislation, but a few weeks ago those same people, bereft of any sense of purpose in Europe, sought to appease their Europhobes with puerile antics in the Council of Ministers on the issue of enlargement. That put at risk the chance for colleagues in Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland to become members of the European Union.
  That shows how lacking in importance are European and immigration matters to the Government and the Home Office. Having deliberately created that difficulty over enlargement, Conservatives had to back down in humiliation. I do not mind the Conservative party ritualistically inflicting humiliation on itself over Europe, but I do object when my country has its good public image and good European image dragged down into the mire alongside the internal battles of the Conservative party.
  Despite our broad and necessary support for the measure, I wish to raise a number of general points, some of which the Minister touched on and others that he sidestepped. In view of the time constraints, it may assist
  72
  the House if I put those points as a series of questions. Colleagues who wish to intervene may take the opportunity to do so.
  Is the Minister aware that the rules for EEA nationals throw into sharp relief the lack of corresponding rights for resident third country nationals in the United Kingdom—notably, settled Commonwealth country citizens? Although the order did not need to include them, as it is designed to implement a European agreement only, will the Government resolve the anomaly whereby an Austrian citizen, for example, will now have more rights in the European Union than an Indian citizen who has lived here for 30 years? The European Commission recently proposed improving the rights of resident third country nationals throughout the union. Will the Government support its proposals?
  Will the Minister further define the reference to "a marriage of convenience" in paragraph 2(2)? Who is to decide what is a marriage of convenience? Couples have been questioned by Home Office officials in a way that suggests that it is treating applications as though people must meet the requirements of British immigration law on marriage. European law gives automatic rights to the spouses of people who have moved for a treaty purpose. British immigration rules could mean no right of appeal against refusal and deportation.
  If a person has been in the UK less than seven years, he or she has no full right of appeal against such a decision. European Union nationals and their family members have extra safeguards against deportation under EU law. The Minister must be aware of fears that the measure is an attempt to export Britain's primary purpose rule to all other EEA member states. Is that his intention? Does he realise that there are no domestic powers to overrule rights defined under European law? The Minister is creating a lawyers' bean feast, with the possibility of judicial review and cases being taken to the European Court.
  Will the Government delete the rider to the definition of spouse in paragraph 2(2), so that it has its customary and normal meaning? If the Home Office believes that the marriage is one of convenience and therefore that it is not conducive to the public good that the person be given a residency permit, it has the power to refuse a permit or to deport on that ground—as provided in sections 17 and 18 of the 1972 Act—and justify its allegation before the immigration appellate authorities. That is the course that the Home Office should take.
  Does the Minister acknowledge concerns about paragraph 3(1) and (2) which require proof of family membership? How is that proof to be provided? Who will make the decision, and what means of redress will be available to those whose claims are refused? In that context, what is meant in paragraph 3(3) by a "family permit"? That conflicts with paragraph 5(2), which in turn conflicts with paragraph 19. Those differences are hard to understand and virtually impossible to reconcile. They are yet another example of drafting that almost defies comprehension.
  In the other place, my noble Friend Lord McIntosh raised a number of other issues that require further explanation, which one hopes will be forthcoming when debate is resumed there. Contradictory definitions of "family member" and of the immigration status of a family member who reaches the age of 21 are to be found in paragraph 2.
  Mr. Gerrard: Paragraph 4(2) deals with a person who ceases to be a family member of a qualified person. Does my hon. Friend agree that under existing immigration rules, a person who is a foreign national and the spouse or family member of a UK national, would normally acquire residence rights after one year's probationary period. It is far from clear whether that would be the case under the order.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I shall be glad to give way to the Minister if he wishes to put his comments on record. Otherwise, I hope that that aspect will be put right in the other place because it is a source of great confusion. What will happen to such individuals? There seems to have been little preparation, even though the Government had six years to pull the order together. I hope that they will re-examine that issue and will put on the record in the other place what will happen in such circumstances.
  Their Lordships also queried the definition in paragraph 6(2)(h) of a student as a person on a vocational course. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey). The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments commented that the matter was ultra vires, and even wrote to the Home Office to point out that provision was so contradictory and conflicting that the Committee felt that it might prevent the order progressing in its present form. Although only a passing reference to that was made in another place, the Minister should give clearer assurances.
  Does the order's definition of a student mean all students, or are the Government sticking to the words of the European Union, to mean only students who are on a vocational course? If so, that would be highly restrictive.
  We seek further clarification of the difference between social security and "social assistance", in paragraph 6(1)(f). The provisions covering involuntary unemployment seem designed to exclude as many people as possible and also demand further clarification.
  Further assurances are sought in respect of paragraph 12, dealing with residence permits. Is it the Government's intention to get rid of or to limit the concept of settlement and permanent stay, and to replace them with time-limited residence permits that are subject to periodic review? The order goes only as far as absolutely necessary.
  My hon. Friends who have dealt with the Home Office in seeking written answers will know of the mentality that produces a lack of openness and generosity in its definitions. Nowhere is that more evident than in the order's failure to tackle third country nationals. The appalling treatment of domestic servants wholly dependent on employers has been passed by—another opportunity missed. Equally, there is nothing in the order to help unify split families of third country nationals.
  The order is a dog's breakfast and will produce a rich seam of cases for judicial review and the attention of the
  74
  European Court. Unless it is withdrawn or substantially amended, it will pass tonight without the support of the Opposition.
  As an aside, it is nonsense that under the affirmative procedure, even when it is obvious that an amendment is necessary, it is not procedurally possible to amend an order in this House or the other place. Either the order must be withdrawn and resubmitted or the House must pass a resolution stating that it acknowledges that the order is faulty.
  I hope that the Minister will refer to our detailed criticisms of the order and those of my noble Friend Lord McIntosh and the Lord Bonham-Carter, as well as to the views of knowledgeable pressure groups. It is evident from the order that a more mature and professional approach needs to be taken to Europe than the Conservatives—riven by internal differences—are capable of providing. The order is the product of a tired, directionless Government who do not know what they want from Europe. I hope that the electorate will put the Government out of their misery, at least in respect of the European issue, on 9 June.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: With the permission of the House, I will reply. The preamble of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was entirely predictable. It was a chorus that we have heard again and again. The only thing is that it sounded more tired on this occasion. He raised a number of points. I said earlier—like him, I regret the shortness of the debate—that I would provide answers in writing, which I will make available to hon. Members.
  The first point that I will address is about a marriage of convenience: a marriage entered into solely for immigration purposes, with neither partner having the intention of living permanently with the other as man and wife in a settled and genuine relationship. The hon. Gentleman referred to the primary purpose test. That test is contained in UK immigration rules, but not in EC law on free movement, which simply refers to a "spouse"—who may or may not be a EEA national—
  It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to order [29 April].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the time available for the debate has been wholly inadequate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to participate. May I move, therefore, That the Question be not put, to enable debate to take place on another day?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): No. I comply with the order of the House.

  Italian Steel Industry
  [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 6472/93, relating to the privatisation of the German steel company Sachsische Edelstahlwerke GmbH, Freital/Saxony, 9098/93, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish integrated steel company Corporacion de la Siderurgia Integral (CSI), 10074/93, relating to the future of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, 10167/93, relating to the restructuring of the Portuguese steel company Siderurgia Nacional (SN), 10276/93 and 10359/93, relating to the restructuring of the German steel company EKO Stahl AG Eisenhuttenstadt, SEC(93) 1434, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish steel company SIDENOR, and 5473/94, a Commission Report on state aid to the steel industry.]
  7 pm
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10166/93 and 11317/93, relating to the Italian state iron and steel industry; endorses the Government's decision to support the agreement reached on the package of state aid cases discussed at the Industry Council on 17th December 1993; notes with approval the undertakings secured at the Council regarding the stringent monitoring of approved aids, which will help to ensure that they are not used to disadvantage unaided competitors, the commitment to the strict application of ECSC state aid rules to end subsidisation, the recognition that there will be no further aid to these companies if viability is not achieved, and the early privatisation of most of the companies involved; and endorses this agreement as a useful step towards ending the distortion of state subsidies in the steel industry.
  The debate is a welcome opportunity to comment on recent developments in the European steel industry and in particular on the package of proposals for state aid to restructure six steel companies, including the Italian company Ilva, agreed at the 17 December Industry Council. The other companies concerned are EKO Stahl and Freital in Germany, CSI and SIDENOR in Spain and Siderurgia Nacional in Portugal.
  The House will be aware that the proposals were made under article 95 of the treaty of Paris, which requires the unanimous assent of the Council. Several of the proposals have been under discussion for more than a year, during which time some of the companies had continued to receive state support. The continued operation in the Community of inefficient companies propped up by massive illegal state aid has been directly responsible for preserving over-capacity and allowing uneconomic pricing, both of which have put great pressure on our own unsubsidised and highly efficient steel industry.
  I should like to emphasise straight away that, throughout the lengthy and complex negotiations on the proposals from the Commission, I, and my officials, kept in close touch with the British Iron and Steel Producers Association and our leading steel producer, British Steel. I can assure the House that we shall continue to consult them, particularly on any reports or proposals that come from the Commission. The Government and the industry have a shared aim: a level playing field with fair trading in steel in the Community. It is, however, much easier to identify and agree on that aim than it is to achieve it.
  For the Council on 17 December, the industry and I had four main objectives. First, we wanted an agreement that there should be an immediate end to running cost subsidies. The industry was prepared to draw a line under past unauthorised subsidies, if that was the price of agreement to strict observance of state aid rules in the future. Secondly, we wanted to see adequate capacity reductions at the companies concerned. Thirdly, we looked for explicit acceptance that there would be no "second
  76
  helpings" for those companies, so that if the planned restructuring failed to restore them to viability, no further aid would be allowed, and further capacity cuts—or, indeed, total closure—would follow. Finally, we were determined to get far more rigorous arrangements for monitoring how the approved aid is spent. We wanted, for the first time, a role for the Council, rather than, as in the past, supervision of the aid being given left entirely to the Commission.
  As I have already said, throughout the negotiating process we maintained close contact with the industry. Because the proposals had been brought under article 95, which requires the unanimous assent of the Council, I was able to take a firm line on the conditions that Britain would attach to any agreement. During the negotiations, I had to take account of the support for our proposals from fellow member states and the extent to which we could achieve each of our objectives. I had constantly in mind the consequences for our industry of failure to obtain agreement in the Council of Ministers. It was, I regret, clear that, if there were no agreement, illegal subsidies would continue, probably for at least another year, and we would have made little or no progress on essential capacity reductions.
  As a result of our tough stance, our four objectives were substantially agreed. Working with industry advice, we were also able to negotiate the tightening up of aspects of a number of the specific cases, notably EKO Stahl, CSI and SIDENOR. However, I will not pretend to the House that the agreement reached on 17 December was ideal—far from it. I have to say that, during the final stages of the negotiations, we had much less support from our partners in the Community for a better deal than I would have hoped.
  The terms finally agreed for Ilva, the Italian company, were not as good as we would have liked, especially on capacity reduction, but they do commit the Italian Government to total privatisation of the company at an early date. Privatisation should help to ensure that its future operations are carried out on a proper commercial basis. The Council did accept other points for which we had pressed—an agreement to end subsidies, no "second helpings" of aid, and stringent monitoring of authorised aid. So we achieved three of our four objectives. As to the industry response to the decision, I can do no better than quote Brian Moffat, chairman of British Steel, who said that the agreement reached in December was
  "the best in the circumstances."
  I attach particular importance to the agreement that we reached on stringent and effective monitoring—the text owes a lot to our proposals and is an important step forward. It is much stronger than those in previous restructurings. That monitoring will include visits to the plants to see what is really happening. With the involvement of the Council of Ministers, we can ensure that the views of our industry are taken into account.
  The conclusions of the 17 December Council set out in some detail the rigorous monitoring procedures. For the first time, as I have said, the Council of Ministers has a role in the monitoring process. The Commission is required to report on its findings to the Council at regular intervals. Indeed, at the industry council on 22 April, the Commission gave an oral report on the first monitoring period—up to 15 March. The first formal written monitoring report was presented on schedule and discussed at an ECSC working group meeting on 3 May. It was

  77
  prepared by a small team—established within the Commission—that has the assistance of specialist consultants as necessary.
  The Commission describes the first report as providing, in effect, the base line against which future developments can be measured, as well as covering some developments since December. Our initial analysis is that, while it represents a useful starting point for future work, it is clear that much more needs to be done. It is evident from the report that, by late April, the Commission had still not received all the information requested from the six companies. There is a particular lack of information from Ilva.
  Of at least equal concern, the report also shows that what information has been provided demonstrates that the financial position of some of the companies, notably CSI, SIDENOR and Siderurgia Nacional, has deteriorated further since their restructuring plans were drawn up. It is, however, encouraging to report that, at the ECSC working group meeting last week, Commission officials undertook to take infraction action against countries and companies that transgress the terms agreed.
  The Commission has also confirmed that its monitoring team will do more than just examine its member states' regular returns on progress and report them to the Council—the Council previously did not have the benefit of such reports. The team will take, according to the Commission, a proactive role by seeking additional information that is relevant, inspecting plants and verifying—this is particularly important—the information provided and the financial performance of the companies.
  At the working group meeting, my officials took a firm line on the need for full information and insisted that failure to meet agreed conditions should be punished. They also insisted that, in accordance with the agreement reached in December, there must be no attempt to provide additional aid to companies with worse-than-forecast results, even if that means further capacity cuts or, as I said earlier, even the total closure of a company.
  My Department will also carry out some independent monitoring through our industry contacts and our embassies in the relevant countries. We shall watch carefully to ensure that the Commission team examines all the information that it receives with a critical eye and that any necessary action is taken to ensure that the terms of the article 95 decisions are observed in full.
  The December agreement is not the only state aids issue occupying the British steel industry at present, and I took the opportunity of the Council on 22 April to raise two other cases, Klöckner and Saarstahl, which are causing grave concern and which I had already taken up personally with Commissioner Van Miert. The Government regard those cases as important tests of the commitment of the Commission and the Council to apply the rules of the treaty and the steel aids code against state aids to steel producers. I am pleased to report that I had strong support for our views on those cases from a number of colleagues in the Council chamber in April.
  The 22 April Council also received an interim report on the progress of voluntary restructuring of the steel industry, as envisaged in the Braun plan. I expressed my disappointment at the slow progress of that exercise, but said that I understood the reluctance of the private sector, unsubsidised industry to commit itself to closures until it is certain that member states and the Commission have
  78
  shown the political will to enforce the treaty and steel aids code and until it is clear that the conditions attached to the 17 December agreement are being observed.
  The Council agreed to an extension of the supporting measures first agreed in February 1993 to facilitate voluntary restructuring until September of this year, but I made it clear that we would want to see firm evidence of restructuring by that time. Any decision to participate in the voluntary restructuring process, either by offering capacity cuts or by helping to finance closures elsewhere in the Community, is entirely a matter for the company concerned.
  The United Kingdom steel industry is now universally recognised to be highly efficient and capable of competing successfully anywhere in the world. It is the envy of many other countries. That is an achievement of which the industry can be justifiably proud, although it has sadly meant closures and job losses. It is now the turn of other countries and companies to take their share of the pain.
  To conclude, I can assure the House that the Council and the Commission are in no doubt about the importance that the British Government attach to rigorous implementation of the enhanced monitoring procedures agreed in December. I am not assuming that the battle has been won, but I see evidence of progress towards the creation of a fairer single market in steel, a market in which our highly efficient industry will be able to compete effectively and fairly. I commend the motion to the House.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I fear that the Minister's speech could have been made on several occasions over recent years. I suspect that if we were to go back and examine copies of Ministers' speeches and ministerial press releases, we would find the same words and sentiments.
  There is agreement about two points. First, it is abundantly clear that there is over-capacity in the European steel industry. Secondly, it is plain that the British steel industry is now Europe's most efficient steel industry. It is clear from the figures that our efficiency compares well with that of the steel industries of other countries.
  According to figures published in "World Steel Dynamics" in February, Britain has a competitive advantage over the Japanese of nearly 42 per cent., over the Germans of 30 per cent., over the French of 17 per cent., over the Koreans of 17 per cent. and over Taiwan of 23 per cent. It may be relevant to the debate to note that "World Steel Dynamics" could not produce figures for the Italian steel industry. While the Minister may find that amusing, it is the heart of the problem because those figures are simply not available.
  The British steel industry is efficient, but it has not enjoyed the support of its Government in recent years. It is clear from the figures that the British steel industry has borne the lion's share of capacity and employment cuts over the past decade.
  It is odd for a Minister of a Government who believe in free markets and competition to come to the House on behalf of the British steel industry to argue that the most efficient industry in Europe should be the industry that, in recent years, has been forced to lose jobs and capacity. That has occurred not because of the failure of the management or the work force of the British steel industry. According to all criteria, efficiency and productivity in the

  79
  industry have increased. The deep problem facing the British steel industry is that the Government have not offered their support for the industry in the way in which other Governments have offered support to their steel industries.
  If something is going to happen in the way that the Minister described it, and if real action is to be taken to deal with the subsidy problem, the British steel industry should not lose jobs or capacity. However, what does the Minister say? He says that on 17 December he and the Council of Ministers set themselves four objectives, but those objectives are simply not being met.
  As I said earlier, the Minister's comments today could have been made at any time over the past few years. They clearly show the extent to which the Government have failed to deliver to the British steel industry. Let us consider those four objectives—the end of running-cost subsidies, capacity reductions in other countries' steel industries, no "second helpings" and no further aid, and rigorous arrangements for monitoring. The simple fact is that the Minister's speech shows that not one of those objectives has yet been achieved.
  Brian Moffat said that the Minister achieved the best deal "in the circumstances" when he went to negotiate on behalf of the British steel industry last December. However, I wonder what that really means. I suspect that it means that the Minister came back with exactly the same set of promises that he has returned with on every other occasion.
  Does not the responsibility for the dilemma now facing the British steel industry rest wholly at the Government's door? How can steel managers and steel employees be expected to improve their productivity and efficiency when they know that if they become more competitive in the marketplace, they will be undercut by companies and industries that are operating on a subsidised basis? At the same time, they know that the British Government are so weak and so incapable that they are not delivering on promises to cut subsidies in other countries.
  The Government are in a dilemma. We have a strong steel industry, but we have a weak Government. Our real problem is the weakness of our Government. The Government spend their time fighting and arguing among themselves instead of fighting and arguing in Europe for Britain's interests. If more energy, effort and commitment were devoted to fighting for the British steel industry instead of fighting for position within the Conservative party, those working in the British steel industry might have a better deal.
  When the Minister goes to the Council of Ministers, he finds himself on this issue—as I suspect on many others—alone and without allies. Is that not surprising given that this Government, under this Prime Minister, claimed that they were going to be at the heart of Europe? They are marginalised on each and every issue. When the Minister was trying to negotiate a tough new regime to remove subsidies, his Government were alienating every other European Government on the issue of qualified majority voting.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was listening earlier when I clearly said that it was welcome to hear the strong support that I received from Ministers in the Community at the meeting on 22 April.
  80
  One might say that I led the charge on Ilva but I had strong support around the table, which was welcome. That does not seem to reflect what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Mr. Fatchett: My fear for the British steel industry is that the Minister, as the general leading the charge, will remind many of the first world war. I fear that it will be yet another general who takes his troops into a loss of jobs and a loss of capacity. The simple fact is that the Minister has made the same promises and commitments for years, and they simply have not been delivered.
  Britain's way of playing issues and policies in Europe is to find itself in isolation and without friends. The key point of the Minister's speech—I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak in the debate because they have key constituency interests—is that, despite all the words that he used tonight, all the promises and all the suggestions that he has come back with a better deal, there is a simple question that he must answer: how will this be enforced? Despite all those words, there is no evidence of the rigorous monitoring that will lead to enforcement.
  I dare say that in 12 months or two years—if the Government and the Minister survive that long, which is highly improbable—the Minister will come back and say yet again that he has an agreement that will lead to cuts in subsidies and cuts in capacity. While that is happening, further British steel industry jobs and capacity will be lost.
  It is time that the Government showed some real commitment to our manufacturing base, recognised the importance of our steel industry and did for our steel industry what other Governments are doing for their steel industries—protect jobs, protect capacity and fight in Europe. We are fed up with Ministers coming back with wishy-washy statements. Now is the time for action and now is the time to protect the British steel industry. We shall be voting against the motion tonight because we believe that the Government have had too long and they have simply failed on the issue.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. John Morris: The House is grateful for the opportunity of drawing attention to the progress—or lack of progress—in cutting subsidised steel capacity in the EC, particularly in Italy. I endorse some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett); we have been waiting too long for progress.
  Nearly 30 years ago, as a young Minister in the Ministry of Power, I visited Italy to look at IRI, the Istituto per la Riconstruzione Industriale—Italy's mechanism to finance industrial development. If I remember correctly, it is one of Italy's inheritances from Mussolini. I visited Taranto, its subsidiary steelworks—today, it is one of our problems. It was an enlightening visit. There was hardly a worker in sight, and it was held up to us as a model.
  In the United Kingdom, we have gone through, and paid dearly for, the process of restructuring our steel industry. In my time, I have seen the numbers of workers walking through the gates of the plant at Port Talbot come down from 14,000 to 15,000 a day to fewer than 5,000 now. We have survived.
  I should be profoundly dismayed if our highly competitive steel industry, of which we are proud, should, through no fault of its own—it is able to compete with anyone in the world—suffer because of the failure of other parts of Europe to weed out their dead wood and, indeed, to continue to subsidise that dead wood at our expense. I

  81
  yield to no one, having lived through an awful period of redundancies, in my concern for redundancies themselves. But the funds are there to be utilised. I was glad to read of a decision at last by the Italian Government to deal with more than 10,000 redundancies reported only a few weeks ago in Ilva.
  First, we all recognise that there is a huge problem of over-capacity. According to BSC, that over-capacity is in the order of 30 million tonnes of crude steel or 19 to 25 million tonnes of hot rolled products. The Council has agreed to the Commission's plan to reduce the figure by 19 million tonnes. As Commissioner Bangemann confirmed in his letter to the president of the Council on 14 April:
  "The Community's steel market has deteriorated seriously since November 1992 …The Commission accepts that capacity reductions already decided upon are insufficient."
  That is an indication of my concern and that of my hon. Friend as to the effectiveness of the present arrangement to meet the decision made at the December meeting or in the discussions that continued in April.
  The agreement reached in December was extremely disappointing from the viewpoint of non-aided companies such as British Steel. We have all noted the careful words of Mr. Brian Moffat—they were careful because there was nothing else that he, or, indeed, the Minister could accept. The meeting in December was not a success, and the sooner we recognise that the better. The closure timetable will have a negligible effect on supply in 1994 and 1995. The highly subsidised flat product mills of Italy and Spain increased their deliveries to the United Kingdom market in 1993. That is the position.
  The balance sheet of proposed closures shows that 2.3 million tonnes are to be closed in the Basque region of Spain. However, the Spanish authorities intend to replace that with a new mill of 1 million tonnes—or possibly two—as soon as possible. That is an intention which the Commission will not resist if at least 51 per cent. of the capital is from private sources. Secondly, there will be a restriction of 1.2 million tonnes at the Taranto strip and plate mills. That will not affect current output.
  Thirdly, there will be the demolition or sale of a strip mill at Bagnoli in Italy which has not operated for two years. That accounts for 0.3 million tonnes. The real effect is in fact zero. It is a theoretical capacity reduction in Italy, but it will have no effect on real production potential. To offset that, a new mill will be created with state aid at EKO Stahl in east Germany. It will be limited to 900,000 tonnes per annum—for the moment, I suspect. That is the economics of the madhouse. It is obvious that the great bulk of the desired capacity reduction is to be effected by unaided steel producers.
  As for reducing capacity in loss-making, inefficient subsidised companies, the Council meeting on 17 December was not a success. The inevitable result—this is where it affects my constituents—is an effect on the unaided companies which must influence their restructuring and decisions.
  There were two good results from the December meeting. I commend the Minister because it was the Government's pressure that brought about the hoped—for improved monitoring system. A great deal is expected from that. I also welcome the fact that the Council resolved that the exceptional measures that had been taken to authorise subsidies would not be repeated in the future—what the Minister described as second helpings.
  82
  Two other important matters were not in the discussions in December. I tried to follow what the Minister said—as I understand it, he raised the matters at the April meeting. This is significant. The bankrupt German company, Saarstahl, continues to operate at full capacity under German bankruptcy regulations. It has done so for more than a year and the Commission appears to be powerless. The pricing policy being pursued by the company producing rods and bars is seriously disruptive. The Minister said—I have received reports on this—that complaints were made only at the April meeting. Obviously, no decision was taken, or he would have reported it.
  The Commission has approved a sort of act of forgiveness—the Klocknerstahl company of Bremen. Last year, the company persuaded its creditors to cancel 40 per cent. of its debts. I draw the attention of the House to what is happening there. That was conditional upon the company undertaking to close one of its blast furnaces. The Commission recently agreed that the closed furnace should be reactivated, as the remaining furnace had technical problems. I am sure that the Minister knows about this and I am sure that he will want to inquire further about whether the Commission is willing for the Belgian company Sidmar, as a condition of its participation in the equity of the company, to be allowed to maintain both blast furnaces and the full capacity of the hot coil mill if compensating capacity reductions can be found elsewhere in the Sidmar/Arbed group.
  That is a sorry tale and it appears that the Commission abandoned its responsibility once it agreed to the reopening of the mill. Therefore, we are deeply concerned about the future.
  In closing, I shall deal with what the Minister has emphasised is monitoring. It must be adequate and, whether it is by the committee of the Commission or not, it must be able. I would have preferred independent auditors to be employed to ensure that there were regular reports on the physical and financial restructuring.
  I was glad to note in today's Metal Bulletin that the Commission is moving in respect of monitoring Ilva, EKO Stahl and Freital. Italy is believed to have withheld its full 1993 balance sheet for Ilva, and refused at the May meeting of the Commission's committee to provide further details. I am glad that there is movement in that respect.
  As Commissioner Van Miert said:
  "The credibility of the whole plan for restructuring …depends on compliance of conditions laid down and agreed to."
  Obviously, there should be no new subsidies and, where there is privatisation, it should be for the full and fair market value. Those are the problems which affect us and we are deeply unhappy about them. They have a much wider significance than to the steel industry alone, because subsidiaries of some of those companies have been able to tender successfully from Italy and Spain to secure public contracts here—including, for example, the Severn bridge approach roads—by under-bidding United Kingdom contractors. That will go on until there is a level playing field.
  Those who have paid the price of reconstruction—my constituents—are entitled to a fair chance to produce steel and to become as competitive as anyone else. We want also to be able to sell it in markets that are available.
  7.32 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am sensitive to the fact that there are many hon. Members with direct steel interests in their constituencies who wish to speak, and I shall limit myself to some short remarks.
  I shall make two preliminary points. First, I wish that the Government would stop congratulating themselves on their motions. I suppose that they think that if they did not do it, nobody else would. The Government motion says that the House
  "notes with approval the undertaking secured",
  as though all Council meetings consisted of the British Government telling the other 11 what to do and getting them to respond to it. It is not always like that at all.
  Secondly, it is worth remarking in passing—we are approaching the European elections and our place in Europe is being questioned—that the ECSC treaty, by subsidies and industry levies, has helped a great deal to ease the pain of the closure of steel mills and the loss of nearly half a million workers in the past 20 years in the Community, and that is worth saying.
  The Minister must recognise that there is a great deal of scepticism about whether that will work, whether the latest round of subsidies will be the last or whether the capacity cuts will be real. That scepticism is against the background which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) spelled out, of a painful time all over the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the closure of Ravenscraig was a tragic and painful experience for everybody. It is an expensive package and it works out, I am told, at about 1,250 ecu per tonne of cut capacity. In the case of Portugal, it goes up to 2,183 ecu. I am not complaining about that if it works, but it is essential that it works. The Minister talked about "no second helpings". He could also say, "Stick to the diet" as a complement.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made most of the arguments cogently and I shall add only one supplementary. The Minister said that monitoring reports would be produced by the Commission and will go to the Council of Ministers. As I understand it, those may not necessarily be made publicly available. The Council of Ministers is not a notoriously transparent and open organisation and I do not think that that makes accountability terrible easy. I would like the Minister to remark on that.
  I repeat what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said about the Bremen factory, the Klocknerwerke, which went bankrupt last year. It discovered somehow that the Bremen Land can subsidise that and that it is not against German law. The Commission seems not to be sure whether it should be against European law or not.
  My last point is that there is a problem with regard to the countries of central and eastern Europe. We are all agreed that we should do as much as we can to help those countries which emerged from communist totalitarianism. Everybody says that the great thing is not only aid, but trade. What can those countries trade in? They can trade in textiles, agricultural products, armaments and steel. We all know—it does not need me to spell it out—that there are difficulties in all those sectors, but most particularly in steel. What will the Government, and perhaps the Commission, do about that problem, which is boiling away and which one day soon must be faced?
  Dr. Robert Spink: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he explain what his party's policy might be to secure a level playing field for steel in Europe and to secure the necessary capacity reduction? The Government have been fighting for that successfully. Is his party's policy to go belly-up on steel in Europe as they go belly-up on everything else in Europe?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am not trying to be terribly controversial—it is not in my nature. I shall simply say that we will not vote against the motion, as we see no point in doing so. If the Opposition felt that they wished to do so, they should have tabled an amendment spelling out alternatives. We accept that it is a difficult area, but I think that the Government can be questioned and criticised on certain aspects.
  7.37 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful for the opportunity to mention the special steel sector, which is of particular relevance to United Engineering Steels, the plants in my constituency and the associated industries in the Sheffield area. That sector of the steel industry provides no less than 70 per cent. of all the special steel supplies for manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
  There is no question but that, if that crucial sector of the steel industry goes, the UK's manufacturing base will be left without a UK special steel supplier, and that will have a significant effect on the United Kingdom manufacturing base. Therefore, we are not just talking about the steel industry, but about the welfare of the overall manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom.
  I remind the Minister—if he needs any reminding—that the special steel sector has retained its profitability through the recession. During the past year, it has suffered from a variety of problems including the rise in the price of scrap metal for electric arc furnaces and the failure of the Government to control satisfactorily the price of energy for major manufacturing enterprises, such as those with electric arc furnace production. That has resulted in an electricity cost which is half as much again as that in the French electric arc steel-making industry.
  I remind the Minister that jobs have gone: 200 jobs at UES Aldwarke and 200 jobs at Stocksbridge Engineering Steels in my constituency last year. Significantly, 190 jobs were lost at UCAR Carbon in my area, which is the only United Kingdom manufacturer of graphite electrodes, which are used in the electric arc steel-making enterprise. Special steel no longer has a United Kingdom manufacturer of graphite electrodes, so it has to import them. A drip-by-drip decline is taking place in the special steel capacity. It will have a major effect on the capacity of the United Kingdom manufacturing base.
  I see our vote against the Government tonight as one that says that we have no confidence in the Government's policy. Their policy of the past two years has failed. It is one of being the odd man out in Europe. Britain is one country against the Eleven saying that everyone else is acting unfairly and that only we have the right policy for special steel. We say that everyone must come into line. The Opposition feel that the Government have failed to support the steel industry and manufacturing in research, in investment in new environmental technology, in action on energy costs and in action on training.

  85
  The Minister must realise that the jobs that are disappearing now in my constituency and the surrounding area are those of technicians and engineers. At a time when we are trying to boost our manufacturing base, to put on the dole those highly skilled, highly trained technicians and engineers who have the skills to bring the industry around again must be economic madness. My guess is that our European competitors and partners believe that a policy that allows that to happen in this country is one of economic madness.
  All that I have heard today is a promise that more monitoring of the situation in Europe will reap results. We have no confidence that that alone will be enough and we look to a Government who will take major action to support this core element of our manufacturing industry.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and particularly those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who always speaks with great insight into one of Wales' greatest industries—steel.
  The debate is about cheating on the continent and the need for fair play for Britain's steel industry. It is fundamentally about manufacturing in Great Britain. Manufacturing is wealth and wealth gives us our national health service, to name but one of the provisions that we expect in a civilised society. I conclude that we must ensure that we in Britain promote and further support our remaining steel plants. We need and we want a powerful and strong British steel industry.
  Above all, I want to see Britain great again as an economic power. To be great again as an economic power, we must have a powerful, developing and modern manufacturing industry. Looking back at the period of disastrous stewardship of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, and the then Secretary of State for Industry, Sir Keith Joseph, I recall that almost 2.75 million manufacturing jobs in Britain were allowed to drain away. Britain lost its ability to create many of its manufactured goods. We will pay a very heavy price for that in the years ahead.
  I know steel to be a bedrock industry. We have made sacrifices in the steel industry and it is as well to consider some of them. Since 1975, 142,000 jobs have disappeared in Britain. That may be a conservative estimate. Certainly there has been a 77 per cent. reduction in the number of jobs in the steel industry. Until four years ago there was a steel works in Clwyd called Brymbo, which had about 1,400 employees. Overnight it was closed. Months later near there I saw a series of heavy, powerful motor trailers taking the remains of Brymbo steelworks—the furnaces and all—to the docks at Birkenhead, there to be transported to the Republic of China. The former Brymbo steelworks is now in part in China producing steel. That is a salutary tale.
  There were enormous steel job losses in Wales at the still-great plants of Llanwern and Port Talbot. They are two of the finest steel plants in the world, but they have had their blood and their sacrifices. In my constituency, Shotton steelworks once supported a town or large village of some 14,000 or 15,000 steel workers. Now there are but 1,300 at the works. That again was a grievous blow to manufacturing in Wales.
  86
  The great plant at Ravenscraig no longer exists. There is no steel making in Scotland at Ravenscraig. It is fair to say that our steel communities have made enormous sacrifices and have taken terrible redundancies. In Deeside there are still more than 3,000 people out of work. Streets, estates and communities suffer long-term unemployment. Such communities throughout Wales and Britain have lost development area status and access to structural funds and they no longer have the iron and steel employees readaptation benefit scheme.
  For what have those sacrifices been made? Why have those tens of thousands of redundancies rained down on the British steel communities, with all their grievous social and economic consequences? In Britain, in Wales, in Scotland, in England, and on Deeside there have been sacrifices, closures and redundancies. The debate must send a message to Brussels. It must tell the continental nations who are not playing fair that we want fair play, we want justice, and we want a future. The British steel industry must have backing. We want to see further capacity cuts in Germany, Spain and Italy or else the end of subsidies to inefficient continental plants.
  Are Ministers indifferent? I do not want to say that they are, but we have to say that the steel work force in Britain has to be rewarded for its efficiency, its sacrifices and its productivity. The Government have given the coal industry the kiss of death. British steelworkers are not impressed by the Government's handling of the steel industry's problems. We want to enhance, not to curtail, the British steel industry. We do not want more redundancies or any more cuts in our capacity. We do not want any more plant closures.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: These European Community documents are something of a contrast. Essentially, they concern Italian steel companies and companies in other countries, such as Germany and Spain, which seem to be transgressing EC rules.
  I am concerned about their possible effect on British Steel. What has happened in the Italian steel industry has been a direct threat to our domestic steel industry. I have no wish to make a racist attack on the Italians, but they seem to have scant regard for EC rules. As far as I have been able to make out from the documents, Ilva, the Italian steel producer, is wholly owned by IRI, the Italian state holding company which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) reminded us, goes back to the days of Mussolini. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I visited some of those operations more than 20 years ago.
  I also learned from the documents that Ilva's debts exceed the value of its assets, which is rather extraordinary. Furthermore, the Minister for Industry tells us that the European steel industry is suffering from substantial over-capacity and depressed prices. I fail to understand why action was not taken earlier to deal with the Italian steel industry. The British steel industry was rationalised well over a decade ago, with all the hardship that that caused. The Government's motion is altogether too smug.
  In recent months, I have been pursuing the request by the illegally subsidised Italian steel company Arc-Sipra, which has asked the Department of Transport to put it on its list of approved suppliers. Asset International—a steel company in my constituency—was most concerned about

  87
  the Italian threat. The Italians wanted to get a foot in our door to dump products in the United Kingdom at prices below cost and to steal our markets. I understand that they have already done so in France. Those tactics could certainly harm Asset International in my constituency, let alone British Steel's Llanwern plant, which is so important to the economy of south-east Wales.
  The Department of Transport has acknowledged that approaches have been made, and states that it is considering what action can be taken to exclude companies that are in receipt of illegal state aid.
  The Government must take positive action to stop those pirate activities. In those circumstances, is it any wonder that British steelworkers and their trade union are calling on the Government to use their veto to save our steel industry in the same way that the French Government use theirs over agriculture? A campaign is also being launched to urge companies in this country to buy British steel. In the present circumstances, that certainly makes sense.
  Unfortunately, the Government have made a difficult situation worse by their decision in January to contract out of the iron and steel employees' re-adaptation benefit scheme—ISERBS. The effects of that Government decision are already being felt in south Wales and other steelmaking areas. Recently, 351 workers were made redundant at Ebbw Vale and Trostre. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has been very concerned about that.
  When those workers requested parity of treatment with other European steelworkers, they were turned down, which means that those 351 redundant south Wales steelworkers will each lose between £10,000 and £15,000. What a disgrace, and what an indictment of the Government's policies. The Minister talks about the industry being successful, but all the workers are getting is a smack in the eye.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that trade union representatives have met the Government to find out whether they have reconsidered their decision about ISERBS? Is he also aware that the answer was no, which puts those 300 to 350 redundant people in my constituency and in Trostre in a terrible situation, especially as they are in one of the most deprived areas in Wales—an area with some of the worst unemployment in Wales? The jobs coming into the constituency are low-paid, part-time, menial and nonunion, and there is no way that they will replace the jobs lost in the coal and steel industries. The Government's refusal to reconsider their decision is another smack in the face for those workers.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend describes the position very well. Even at this late stage, will the Minister reconsider his position on the ISERBS scheme? Our steel industry is badly in need of it in the difficult times that are looming.
  Mr. Michael Bates: From recollection, the average cost of ISERBS is £20,000 per steelworker. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give, and what would he say, to a constituent who lost his job but did not work in the steel industry and thus did not qualify for any money? Why should that worker be differentiated from a British Steel worker?
  Mr. Hughes: Our steelworkers are entitled to expect parity with steelworkers on the continent. They are asking no more than that, and it seems a pretty fair demand.
  Last week, the Conservative party and the Government took a real thrashing in the local elections. They were just about wiped out in Newport, which is a steel-making community.
  Our steel communities have suffered greatly. There have been massive redundancies and steel areas in other parts of the country have also been affected. If there is any justice, it is now up to European producers to rationalise their industries and not engage in unfair and illegal trading practices. All our steelworkers are asking for is a level playing field. They are engaged in a lean and fit industry, which can compete in world markets. The Government need to ensure that those workers get proper backing.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: This deal does not go far enough, and it is totally unsatisfactory in view of the situation of the steel industry in this country and in Europe.
  In the early 1980s, more than 22,000 people were employed in the steel industry in Scunthorpe. Now, it is about 7,000. The Scunthorpe works and the ancillary works of the United Merchant bar mill—UMB—and the Allied Steel and wire rod mill are some of the most efficient works in Europe, but that efficiency has been bought by the jobs of thousands of people and has had a knock-on effect on the local community in Scunthorpe and on all communities dependent on steel.
  Steel Action was set up for that reason, and was supported by 25 local authorities, because they can see the threat posed to our steel areas because steel has not been restructured in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, we have had a decade to do something, but there has been precious little action from the Government to deal with that very real problem.
  Not one British steelworker's job should be lost as a result of illegal or inefficient subsidies to other European steelworks. We do not want to see other steelworkers thrown on the scrapheap as our workers have been, but the deal struck should have concentrated more on restructuring, retraining and jobs than on capacity.
  The Minister's claim that this successful deal has been welcomed is not borne out by an article that appeared in the Financial Times on 28 March, which stated:
  "Although Mr. Bangemann's entourage insists it is delighted that the industry has apparently met the European Commission's demands for further steel reductions, in private officials admit the deal may have been little more than a face—saving camouflage."
  We can see why when we study the details of the deal.
  Monitoring is one of the key aspects of the motion, but I have heard nothing from the Minister to reassure me that adequate monitoring will be conducted to ensure that steel companies—particularly Italian ones—make capacity reductions properly. I believe that Ilya hid an entire reheating furnace when the Commission was trying to judge its capacity.
  I understand that the whole deal went through because of concessions from the United Kingdom Government. Why did the Minister offer them? It is understandable that countries such as Italy should stick out for the best deal for their steel producers and work forces in depressed areas: nevertheless, they are dependent on the total aid package

  89
  available from the deal. Surely that fact gave the Minister some cards that he should have played more skilfully when the deal was struck.
  The deal consists of enormous aid packages, but it does not deal with certain anomalies. For example, Ilva received £1.9 million in illegal subsidies through capital injections in 1991–92. Will those illegal capital injections be taken into account in the overall package? I see no evidence to suggest that that will happen.
  As a result of the deal, the cut in production from the Bagnoli hot strip mill is being counted as a capacity reduction of 300,000 tonnes per annum, but that mill has been mothballed for two years. If it is counted in the overall package it will not make any major contribution to capacity cuts.
  It is not surprising that the Select Committee on European Legislation said:
  "The deal struck at the Industry Council was unsatisfactory."
  It emphasised that the capacity cuts would have little effect on production capacity. I am not surprised that Mr. Moffat, who used his words carefully, described the original deal as a "sham". A study of the small print explains why.
  Although a capacity reduction of 5.3 million tonnes is supposed to be achieved, because of the examples that I have cited, the actual figure will be nearer 2.5 million tonnes. The price of that reduction will be about £5 billion. That enormous amount of money should have been directed at aids to the work force to help them look for new jobs, and at encouraging alternative employment in depressed areas.
  The Minister may talk about effective monitoring, but I understand that the reports that the Commission will produce as a result of the deal will not be made public, but will be secret. That hardly represents effective monitoring. Independent groups will be unable to discover what progress has been made towards capacity cuts.
  In Bremen, the local council has bought the strip mill at Klockner. Is that subsidy from the local council illegal? I would not want to criticise that local council, because I understand that it has done what it can to save local jobs for local people. It is interesting to note that a local council in Germany has the autonomy, power and skills to do that, whereas our local councils are being neutered by an over-centralising Government.
  The deal does not go far enough to protect the work force of the steel industry. It does not offer the kind of support that is needed for our steel industry, which is the backbone of our manufacturing industry. For 15 years, little support or attention has been given to our manufacturing base. Now we are paying the price for that and witnessing the consequences.
  To add insult to injury, ISERBS is to be phased out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East has said. The very same Minister who sits in the Council of Ministers and votes huge sums of money to our European competitors is taking away money that could aid steelworkers who still face redundancy, many of them as a result of Government inaction in the past 15 years.
  The Government's policy in Europe has been a complete failure. It is little wonder that we get such bad deals when we have so few friends in Europe. It is little wonder that we have so few friends, when all we get from the Government is a negative response. We have an opt-out, cop-out Government who care little for our manufacturing base, for building alliances and for the future of our communities that depend on steel.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Fatchett: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on the knowledge and experience that they have brought to the debate. It was clear from their contributions that they have an intimate knowledge of the steel industry and the communities based on it.
  Anyone who reads the debate in Hansard will be hit by one striking fact; throughout the debate not one Government Back Bencher felt interested enough in the steel industry to speak in defence of the Government's policies. That reflects a deeper—
  Mr. Bates: I spoke.
  Mr. Fatchett: Only in an intervention. We did not hear a speech from one Conservative Back Bencher, which not only reflects the Government's lack of interest in the steel industry, but their deep lack of interest in manufacturing.
  Mr. Bates: Surely our silence reflects our confidence in the Minister's ability to fight our corner in Europe. It was astonishing to listen to speeches from Labour Members who said that they wanted to send a message to Brussels that we want to get tough on subsidies when they will vote against a motion that says just that. What sort of message is that?
  Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate the hon. Member, because he must be the only Conservative Back Bencher who can get up and say, with a straight face and without any sense of embarrassment, that he has absolute confidence in his Government. That degree of political skill and sycophancy may do him a lot of good in the future. The underlying fact that has emerged from the debate is that the Conservative party is so inward looking and so deeply split that it does not have time to look up and consider the real issues that face our steel and manufacturing industries.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Can my hon. Friend explain why we should feel confidence in the Government and their so-called defence of the steel industry when that campaign resulted recently in another 159 jobs lost in Ebbw Vale and a similar number lost in Trostre? Does my hon. Friend get the impression that other steel-making countries are laughing at us because we are willing to go along with quotas and regulations, when other countries refuse to do so in defence of their industries? Does my hon. Friend believe that the British Government should defend the steel industry as the French Government are willing to defend their industries?
  Mr. Fatchett: That important point ran through my hon. Friends' speeches, and I shall refer to it later.
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that I have sat through the debate? I have done so because I wanted to hear the Opposition's alternative policy to the Government's successful policies, which have achieved a level playing field and reductions in steel capacity in Europe for the benefit of our industry. Those policies have not yet been forthcoming.

  91
  I hope that we shall hear those policies, so that we may have the opportunity to comment on them in our interventions. Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he follows the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in calling for public funds to subsidise that sector of British industry? If so, does he have the shadow Chancellor's agreement to that?
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has an ability to find success where success does not exist. To speak about the success of this Government's policies in relation to protecting the British steel industry very much distorts the truth. [Interruption.]
  One of the other themes that ran through the speeches made by my hon. Friends was the Government's attitude towards ISERBS. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made a telling point about the Government's attitude when he referred to the 351 redundancies at Ebbw Vale and Trostre and said that each employee there will lose £10,000 to £15,000. Does it not tell us a great deal about the Government that, at a time when they introduce tax cuts for the very rich, they can still take from redundant steelworkers rights that they have enjoyed in recent years?
  When the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) says that those rights are not enjoyed by other people and therefore should not be enjoyed by the steel industry, he reflects, does he not, the attitude of the Conservative party throughout history to any social improvement and change? The Conservative party has always been in favour of levelling down rather than improving. The hon. Gentleman wants to take away from the steelworkers in his constituency the rights that they have enjoyed. Will the hon. Gentleman go round his constituency, telling steelworkers there that they should lose £10,000 to £15,000? Is he doing that?
  Mr. Bates: The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's statement about the Conservatives being in favour of levelling down, implying that the Labour party is in favour of levelling up. Is he suggesting that all people who lose their jobs ought to have a £15,000 to £20,000 retraining package?
  Mr. Fatchett: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman for a second time. It was obviously a mistake, because the second intervention was no better than the first.
  The nature of Britain's social history is that the Labour party has tried to improve social conditions and the Conservative party has always tried to level down. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the rights of steelworkers were typical of the history of his party and its current ideological position.
  The Government's attitude to ISERBS shows a meanness and a weakness on the Government's part.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statement by the Government in the autumn of last year that the ISERBS scheme was no longer useful to steelworkers in the area was nothing short of disgraceful? Is he aware that no fewer than 4,000 workers—4,000 people—from United Engineering Steels have benefited in the past few years, and that every one of them would endorse the view that the ISERBS scheme has been a major
  92
  benefit to them in their tragic situation? It is selling our work force short to say that that is no longer useful, when our European competitors are taking steps to extend the scheme for their workers.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is correct, and she makes the argument with telling knowledge about her constituency in the Sheffield area.
  The key theme that ran through the speeches of all my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was the extent to which the British steel industry and the communities based on it have endured significant change and pain in the previous decade. Job losses have damaged communities. My hon. Friends spoke about those communities in Scotland, in Wales, in Humberside and in Teesside, where there have been job losses, great change and great social stress as a result.
  All my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, said that that pain had not been fairly distributed. It is a pain that has come to an industry which has changed, which has improved, which is now a world leader, but it is a pain that has come disproportionately to British steel, and there is, in the jargon, as my hon. Friends have said, no clear level playing field in terms of competition.
  That is the crucial argument that the Minister has to answer. All my hon. Friends said that we had been here before. The debate has taken place before; the issues have been aired in the House and outside before. The British steel industry cazn compete, but it cannot compete against subsidies and unfair competition. What will the Government do to ensure that the agreement that was reached in December, and has been further monitored and discussed subsequently, will be kept and implemented? That is the crucial question.
  The words that came through from my hon. Friends were words of scepticism, because they wanted to know exactly what the Government intend to do if there is no delivery in terms of surplus capacity in other countries. My fear is that there will be no change in other countries: as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East said, this is not just a debate about the Italian steel industry; it affects each and every steel industry and steel community in the country. If the Government do not get it right, there will be more job losses, in Sheffield, in Wales and on Humberside, which will be a direct result of the Government failing to protect the British steel industry.
  My final question to the Minister is as follows. We have little faith in the agreement. We have little faith that it will be implemented and enforced. What we want to know is, what happens if that agreement fails, as other agreements and other words have failed in the past?
  This is an important debate. Opposition Members are saying tonight that the British steel industry is important to our manufacturing base. It is the essence of our wealth production in the future. That is why we take the position that we do. We want our industry, a world leader, to be able to compete fairly and openly with similar industries in other countries. We do not believe that that chance is there, and we believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that that opportunity is available. So far, the Minister and the Government have simply failed to deliver that level playing field. It is not words we want, but action from the Government.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johston) asked the Opposition to spell out alternatives. I thought that he made a fair argument. He said that his party would not vote against the motion and I wondered why Labour Members were planning to do so. He, I feel, should not have been surprised at the failure of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), with two opportunities to do so, to spell out the alternatives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) also noticed that lack of alternative. He probably shared my lack of surprise, however, at the failure of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central to produce an alternative, for the simple reason that he has no alternative. He blustered away, but he has no alternative.
  Perhaps I am not being fair to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps there is an alternative that he did not want to tell us about. He made one revealing remark. He said that the Government have not offered their support in the way in which other continental and European Community Governments have. Other Opposition Members made it clear that they were well aware—even if the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was not—of the type of support that some European Community Governments had offered their steel industries. They had offered their steel industries massive subsidies. It was not clear to me whether the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was succumbing once more to that road to ruin.
  Mr. Hughes: The Government have been in power for 15 years, and our steel industry suffered badly more than a decade ago. Why have not the Government ensured parity of treatment between our steel industry and others, particularly in Italy? They have given our steelworkers a smack in the eye by getting rid of ISERBS.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) insults our steelworkers by suggesting that they should have parity with Italian steelworkers. The Italian steel industry is the most overmanned, inefficient and uncompetitive in the world. As a result of the Government's policies, our steel industry is as competitive and efficient as any in the world.
  Under the last Labour Government, it took more than 13 man hours to produce a tonne of steel, and the steel industry absorbed massive subsidies and lost a great deal of taxpayers' money, whereas under our policies the steel industry requires fewer than five man hours to produce a tonne of steel. In spite of what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, our steel industry is the world's fourth largest, and is as efficient as any in the world.
  The Opposition have failed to justify opposing the motion. The hon. Member for Newport, East suggested that we should veto the deal. I thought that, like the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party wanted to abandon the veto. That would be very helpful in those circumstances.
  Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister asks why we oppose the Government's line on the steel industry. Two examples of recent weeks concern Ebbw Vale and Trostre, which have resulted in a further 350 redundancies. The steelworkers in those communities are arguing that, were the Government willing to stand up for the steel industry as the French stand up for their industries, those 350 redundancies would not be necessary. Also, we are not supporting the Government
  94
  also because they are too mean to give those 350 people, who will now be on the scrap heap, the ISERBS they deserve to relieve their position. They represent and are living in some of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The motion is not about ISERBS and, as far as I can gather from what the hon. Gentleman and some other hon. Members have said, the Opposition want the extension of subsidies not only to encourage overmanning and inefficiency in the steel industry but to provide massive and unhelpful aid.
  May I explain to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) that that aid is unhelpful because it does not help redundant steelworkers to return to employment. The Opposition want to give such unhelpful aid to everybody who loses his or her job. Will the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) work out what that would add to the burden of public debt?
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Has the Minister any idea of the difference between subsidies and support for a major manufacturing industry? I speak of support in terms of research and European grants for environmental technology. The Government have done nothing along those lines to support the key overheads of that core industry. Does the Minister have an answer to that type of support, which other European Governments successfully give their steel industries?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I do have an idea. Those European Governments now realise that they can no longer afford those large subsidies. As a result of pouring subsidies into their industries, they have overmanned and uncompetitive industries, on which they must now cut back. Changing the name from "subsidy" to "support" does not change the nature of the beast. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, and a subsidy is just as wasteful.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) expressed a welcome to the points agreed at the December council. I thank him for that recognition. It may be another split in the Labour party—another disagreement between those with experience on the Back Benches and those without it on the Front.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about Saarstahl. I find the position there as unsatisfactory as he does. It was made clear not only by me but by other Ministers at the last Industry Council that we did not regard it as acceptable that the German Government should shelter behind their bankruptcy laws effectively to provide subsidies to allow their company to continue in operation when it was losing large sums of money.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about Klocknerstahl. Our complaint, supported by other Community Governments, about Klocknerstahl is still under investigation by the Commission. Some reports have said that the Commission will allow Klocknerstahl to retain the steel-making capacity which it had earlier demanded be closed as part of the original debt restructuring plan.
  When the company first filed for bankruptcy protection, the Commission, in the shape of DG XVIII, was among its creditors. The Commission agreed to restructure the debt in exchange for the definitive closure of one blast furnace and the reduction of 500,000 tonnes of hot strip capacity. A date was not set for the definitive closure, but the company has been held to the production limits.

  95
  Negotiations are now at an advanced stage for another steel company, Sidmar, to participate in the restructuring. The Commission has said that it would accept the reduction of alternative closures if that would help to rationalise the merged companies. But it has insisted that any replacement capacity cuts must be in the same product sectors, and affect plant in current use.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who referred to the Italians counting the reduction at Bagnoli as a reduction in current capacity. We should not like to have agreed that. However, in respect of that, as of other matters that were less than satisfactory in the agreement, the alternative to reaching that agreement, which could be brought about by using the veto which Opposition Members want us to abandon, would have been the continuation of those subsidies for a considerable time and no capacity reductions.
  Moreover, we would not have obtained the most satisfactory feature of that agreement, which is a monitoring arrangement that is stricter, more rigorous and more capable of being overseen than anything that we have had before.
  Mr. Morley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: No, I must complete my speech.
  It is a major step forward that the agreement requires a report to the council. There is a good reason for not making the monitoring reports public: they contain a lot of sensitive commercial information. For the first time, however, they will be made available to the Council of Ministers, which also means to my officials, who can scrutinise exactly what is happening.
  That has never happened before. It gives us a much better prospect of achieving what we set out to achieve, which is a level playing field for an efficient British steel industry that deserves our support, rather than the criticism that it has received from the Opposition.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 212.

  Division No. 231]

  [8.27 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Alexander, Richard

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Booth, Hartley

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Ashby, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butcher, John

  Bates, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  96

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hendry, Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cash, William

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

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

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Congdon, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cormack, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Couchman, James

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Key, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, Sir David

  Dover, Den

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lament, Rt Hon Norman

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Eggar, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Elletson, Harold

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Faber, David

  Lord, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mates, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Needham, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harvey, Nick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  97

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thomason, Roy

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rendel, David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Riddick, Graham

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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Viggers, Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sackville, Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Sims, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stephen, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Sykes, John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Coffey, Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Barren, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (CovySE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Darling, Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Boateng, Paul

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Dixon, Don

  Bradley, Keith

  Dobson, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dowd, Jim

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Byers, Stephen

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Faulds, Andrew

  Clapham, Michael

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Flynn, Paul

  98

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Motley, Elliot

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, John

  Mudie, George

  George, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  Murphy, Paul

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Godsiff, Roger

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Hara, Edward

  Graham, Thomas

  Olner, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Gunnell, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hain, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hall, Mike

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hanson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Henderson, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Heppell, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prescott, John

  Hoey, Kate

  Purchase, Ken

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hutton, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Illsley, Eric

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ingram, Adam

  Rooney, Terry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jamieson, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Janner, Greville

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Soley, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Spellar, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Litherland, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  Livingstone, Ken

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Turner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Vaz, Keith

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  McCartney, Ian

  Walley, Joan

  McFall, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  McKelvey, William

  Watson, Mike

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  McLeish, Henry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  McWilliam, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Winnick, David

  Mahon, Alice

  Wise, Audrey

  Mandelson, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Martlew, Eric

  Wray, Jimmy

  Meacher, Michael

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Meale, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michael, Alun

  Milburn, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Miller, Andrew

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10166/93 and 11317/93, relating to the Italian state iron and steel industry; endorses the Government's decision

  99
  to support the agreement reached on the package of state aid cases discussed at the Industry Council on 17th December 1993; notes with approval the undertakings secured at the Council regarding the stringent monitoring of approved aids, which will help to ensure that they are not used to disadvantage unaided competitors, the commitment to the strict application of ECSC state aid rules to end subsidisation, the recognition that there will be no further aid to these companies if viability is not achieved, and the early privatisation of most of the companies involved; and endorses this agreement as a useful step towards ending the distortion of state subsidies in the steel industry.

  Equal Pay and Equal Treatment
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  8.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6703/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Employment Department on 21st October 1993, relating to the burden of proof in the area of equal pay and equal treatment for women and men; endorses the Government's view that the draft Directive breaches the principle of subsidiarity and would have a disproportionate impact in the United Kingdom; shares the Government's view that the proposed Directive is wrong in principle and unnecessary for the proper determination of cases; agrees with the Government that the United Kingdom's arrangements for deciding complaints of sex discrimination and equal pay are fair to both parties, and take proper account of the problems of evidence and the need to reach fair decisions with due regard to the interests of both parties; and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive should not be adopted.
  I find it simply incomprehensible that the Community is now considering yet again the directive on the burden of proof. The directive was laid to rest as unworkable and unacceptable as long ago as 1988. It lay dead for five years until the Belgian presidency resurrected it last July as one of three Lazarus directives that it wanted to bring to life. Now, when it looks like being consigned to the tomb once more, the Burke and Hare tendency on the Opposition Benches wants to prevent a decent burial by trying to breath new life into the body.
  The simple fact is that the directive has nothing whatsoever to do with the real priorities facing the 12 member states. Unemployment is now at record levels across the Community, and in all countries except the UK the figures for unemployment among women are higher than those for men.
  Whenever we consider the social agenda in the Community, we must put questions of unemployment at the top of the list. Europe needs to stop adding to the regulations for people in employment and to start helping the people who are without employment of any kind. What we want is action which supports, not hinders, the efforts of member states to return to sustainable economic growth and provide real employment opportunities for men and women alike.
  Despite the resurrection of measures such as the directive, things are beginning to change in Europe. The debates about growth and competitiveness in the Community stemming from the Commission's white paper last year show that the distinctive UK message is beginning to hit home. All member states recognise that Europe's labour markets are simply not delivering the jobs we need. That is good; Britain has long been saying that.
  Member states are recognising that labour costs are too high and damage the growth in jobs. That is good, too—again, a British message. Member states are recognising that employers must be given the flexibility to compete with the rest of the world. Britain has always said that a policy of Fortress Europe would spell disaster for our prospects.

  101
  All proposals from the Community therefore need to be measured against three fundamental principles if they are to meet the needs of a changing Europe. The directive fails against all three.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: If everything the Minister says is true, why do the other 11 member states all support the directive?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman: he usually takes care to read these texts. If he reads the text of the directive, he will find that other member states have managed to opt out of the provisions. There are exemptions covering those countries because of their differing legal systems. So they are quite happy to support a measure that lumbers Britain with the problem. Unfortunately, Opposition Members do not fight for Britain, do not speak for Britain and will sign up for anything.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is not Britain pursuing its historic role of vetoing a measure that is unpopular in other member states, which pretend to be in favour of it knowing that we shall do so?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, that is not so. My hon. Friend will know that we have used our veto, which Opposition Members would throw away, and the Eleven will proceed with the directive as Eleven. If Opposition Members had had their way, we would have signed up for the social chapter and would not now be in a position to resist this ridiculous measure, which fails all three tests.
  All action taken by the Community should not damage but promote Europe's competitiveness; the directive is a distraction from that. Community social policy needs to recognise Europe's diversity—the very different traditions, institutions and practises of 12 very different member states. The directive ignores our differences by trying to move to a single statutory model.
  Community policy needs to be consistent with subsidiarity. Nothing shows that this issue requires action at Community level. No evidence has been produced to show that differences in the way in which legal systems operate affect Community obligations. On the contrary, Heads of Government have made it clear that the legal systems of member states should not be called into question.
  What is all too predictable, however, is that the Opposition are now giving the directive their support. Here we go again. Labour would sign anything, whatever its cost or whatever damage it would do. Let us think what we would have been saddled with in recent years if the Opposition had had their way: a working time directive, which would have banned work on Sundays.
  Mr. John Prescott: Yes.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member says yes, but that directive would have banned work on Sundays and robbed 2.5 million people of the chance to earn overtime pay.
  A young workers' directive would have threatened the long United Kingdom tradition of allowing children to earn pocket money by delivering newspapers or by doing a Saturday job.
  Mr. Prescott: What would the working time have done for the doctors?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman, who, as a Front-Bench spokesman, should know better, says, "What
  102
  would the working time have done for the doctors?" If he had read the text of the directive, he would be aware that there is a specific exemption.
  Mr. Prescott: The Government are the employer.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that we are the employer. It is a matter for the House and the Government to decide; it is not for others outside the House to dictate working time or conditions in our country. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition.
  If the Opposition had had their way, a part-time work directive would have priced many part-time jobs out of the reach of employers.
  A European works council directive would have given the unions the whip hand in 330 major UK-based multinational companies. United Kingdom employers and employees alike can be grateful that they have a Government who fight for their interests and do not surrender them at the first call from Brussels. That is what would have happened if the United Kingdom had accepted the social chapter at Maastricht and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not been successful in securing an opt-out, which Opposition Members would throw away.
  Equal opportunity measures such as this directive would have been subject to qualified majority voting, despite the fact that the directive is aimed almost exclusively at the British system. A British Government would have been unable to protect themselves from this directive being imposed over their head. We used the British veto against the directive once before in 1988 and we can do so again to protect vital national interests. The Opposition would cast that veto aside.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain attracts almost half the total inward investment in the European Community, the other half being shared among the other 11 members of the Union? Does he think that the directive would almost certainly damage our ability to attract that investment and would therefore damage jobs in this country?
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend that Britain is as successful as all the other member states put together in attracting inward investment, which is vital for jobs. The man to whom we should look for the explanation is that well-known socialist, Jacques Delors, who said that, because the Prime Minister had secured the opt-out from the social chapter, Britain would become a paradise for inward investment. He was right—not even Jacques Delors is wrong about everything—and my hon. Friend is right to point out that we have benefited from the success of our policies.
  The directive is completely irrelevant in addressing the fundamental issues facing the Community. The Commission says that it is necessary because women are at a disadvantage in bringing sex discrimination claims. It says that women cannot prove their case because employers have all the evidence and that tribunals are reluctant to draw inferences from the facts: bunkum and balderdash, I say to that.
  If the Commission had taken the trouble, which it did not, to inquire about the United Kingdom system, it might have thought twice before proposing this silly measure. It did not do so. Instead, it wants to put British employers in

  103
  the dock, condemned guilty of sex discrimination unless they can prove themselves innocent. That is what the text of the directive means.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: For those of us who are trying to look at the issues in this matter, will the Minister explain, so that we can understand what the Government are saying, the difference between the directive and decisions such as Chattopadhyay v. Headmaster of Holloway school, which I am sure he will have considered? How does the directive differ from the state of the law as it is now?
  Mr. Forsyth: What the country needs to know—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer—is that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends in the Liberal party would sign away the veto and the House would have no say in whether the proposals applied to this country. The answer to his question—the hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and should know it—is that there is all the difference in the world between the impact of a judgment in the courts and a directive such as this, which would apply the universal principle of reversing the burden of proof.
  Mr. Prescott: What case law?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should focus on what the directive says. I can understand the Liberals supporting it, but I am surprised that Labour supports a measure that reaches this level of absurdity.
  The Opposition amendment seeks to set aside the centuries-old principle that is central to our system of justice. No evidence has been presented to show that there is a problem. Lord Slynn of Hadley has made it clear on behalf of himself and the all-party sub-committee in the other place that the Government's opposition to the directive's central purpose remains valid. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his hon. Friends appear less clear-headed. They have become deeply infected by the Commission's enthusiasm for this measure. The amendment supports—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Forsyth: In a moment, if the hon. and learned Gentleman can contain himself; if he persists, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I will happily give way to my hon. Friend after I have given way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and when I have completed the point that I want to put to the Opposition. Opposition Members do not want to hear it spelt out.
  They are taking an astonishing position which suggests a complete lack of appreciation of the strength of the United Kingdom's system for dealing with complaints about sex discrimination and equal pay.The UK has a strong and comprehensive framework of law which goes far beyond what other member states provide. There is no need for the directive or for us to abandon the principle of innocent until proved guilty.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman appears to turn our understanding of the law on its head. What is the difference in effect on the Government between decisions by the employment appeals tribunal, which is a superior court of record, and the directive, if its provisions were brought into force, and decisions of the courts of the European Community?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, if the House agreed to such a directive and produced legislation, the burden of proof in every sex discrimination case would be reversed. It would be universal. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that there are limited occasions on which the reversal of the burden of proof will apply, but, as he knows, the directive is about applying it universally. It is wrong for him to seek to fudge that. If he had his way, the House would have no say on this and many other matters, because he would have sold out our veto and the sovereignty of this place.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there were references in Chattopadhyay to where inferences could be drawn, in case after case since Chattopadhyay the courts and the employment appeals tribunal have stressed that in British law the burden of proof does not shift.The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is not listening. The directive seeks to do something totally different.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his free legal advice. It is much appreciated. I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery knows the position perfectly well. It is that Britain has effective frameworks such as ACAS, the Equal Opportunities Commission and industrial tribunals to establish the facts and apply the relevant law. They operate on the principle that the applicant has to prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities. That principle has been whole-heartedly accepted by all parties until now, but now we know where the Opposition stand. They are prepared to ditch an important principle for a great leap in the dark.
  The Opposition want confusion instead of common sense, and it is common sense that guides industrial tribunals. They have received guidance from the Court of Appeal about the burden of proof. An industrial tribunal simply looks at the evidence as a whole and decides whether a complaint has been established. Sometimes clear evidence of discrimination will not be available, but tribunals are perfectly capable of dealing with that by drawing inferences from the facts. That is a common-sense approach that works perfectly well and tribunals apply it every day.
  The Government will fight to ensure that employers remain innocent until proved guilty. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East scoffs as if this were some minor matter. That shows why he will remain on the Opposition Benches and will not be in government. We will simply not accept a measure that seeks to put every employer in the position in which, on the flimsiest of evidence, an aggrieved party can force him to prove his innocence.
  Mr. Hoon: If we accept what the Minister says about the state of the law, what does he say about the Law Society's observations—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is so much noise from the Opposition Front Bench that I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's intervention. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members must respect the courtesies of the House.
  Mr. Hoon: What does the Minister say about the Law Society's observations on the directive? It says that the directive would help to clarify the law and that such a change would produce greater consistency in decisions of industrial tribunals.
  Mr. Forsyth: I have not seen the reasoning behind that. The Law Society says many things. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about Lord Slynn of Hadley and the all-party sub-committee which agreed with the Government. That is a fairly authoritative source. I look forward with some enthusiasm to hearing the explanation by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of the Opposition policy which Opposition Members must try to defend. I dare say that that is the strongest argument they can produce.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: While I wish to convey my enthusiasm for the splendid sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister, will he make it clear that, if we followed the Law Society's recommendations and changed our law, we could change it back next year if it did not work? If we allowed the European people to alter our law, we could not change it. That is terribly important.
  Mr. Forsyth: I think that I should be where my hon. Friend is, and that my hon. Friend should be here. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He puts the argument clearly and precisely—I could not have put it better myself. I want the House and the country, if it is listening, to know what Opposition Members would hand over.
  Let us get down to brass tacks. How would the proposal work? An employer would advertise for someone to fill a vacancy and a man and a woman would apply. On this occasion, the employer chooses the man because he is the best candidate. That ought to be the end of the matter. Not so under the directive. If the woman could show that she had the minimum qualifications necessary, her case would be made in the eyes of those who drafted the directive. Never mind the employer's judgment that she was not the better candidate. Simply by not being selected, she would establish a prima facie case under the directive and the entire burden of proving no discrimination would shift to the employer. Unless the employer could produce convincing evidence that the complainant was not discriminated against, she would win. That is amazing and totally unacceptable.
  As if that was not reason enough to consign the measure to the dustbin, there are others to show how misguided is the Opposition's support. The directive would have an uneven impact across the European Union because it exempts procedures based on inquisitorial systems of justice that are common in most other member states—for example Belgium, France, Italy and Luxembourg. Other countries whose systems are a mixture of inquisitorial and adversarial—Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal and Greece—could also claim exemption. The directive would bear heavily on the United Kingdom's adversarial system. France, Italy, Greece and Spain have all secured their
  106
  lifeboats while the Opposition are scuppering a British system that stands scrutiny alongside that of any member state.
  The vagueness and ambiguity of the directive would introduce confusion into an important area of the law. I am too kind and honourable to give way to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley so that she could explain exactly how an industrial tribunal would apply article 4. Has she studied article 4? What does it mean? Does the hon. Lady know what it means? The plain fact is that the directive is confused and not needed.
  Our record of providing employment opportunities is the best in the European Union.
  Mr. Prescott: Oh!
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman scoffs. Why does he not examine Britain's success? In Britain, more and more women are working. The number of women in employment here has risen 16 per cent. since Labour Members were last in office. That represents more than 1 million extra jobs for women under this Government. Opposition Members have nothing to teach us in that regard. There are now more women in paid employment in Britain than in any other European member state except Germany.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: The Minister suggests that the British system works and does not need change. Is he aware that the National Union of Mineworkers has been pursuing a claim for equal value for canteen workers for 16 years, but it has still not been resolved and has yet to go before the Court of Appeal? Surely the Minister does not believe that the system is foolproof.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree that there have been problems in pursuing claims, in terms of timing and so on. That is for the House to put right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is addressing some of the proposals made by the Equal Opportunities Commission, but that has nothing to do with the directive. If there is a Division, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby. He should recognise that it is for the House to decide the systems that operate in this country and that his party would sign all that away and give up our veto—which the Government are maintaining. We will use to ensure a system that reflects the interests of the United Kingdom and employment opportunities here.
  Since 1979, women's average weekly earnings have risen in cash terms 300 per cent. and in real terms 55 per cent. faster than those of men. That impressive record has been achieved because the Government steadfastly pursued the right policies, leading to a dynamic and flexible labour market, underpinned by an effective framework of law. Under this Government, the UK labour market is able to offer a wide range of opportunities, and women have taken advantage of them. The Government will continue to pursue those policies and to make more opportunities available. We will not accept damaging proposals such as the directive.
  9.9 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, To leave out from "men" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "refutes the assertion by the Government that the United Kingdom's arrangements for deciding complaints of sex

  107
  discrimination and equal pay are fair to both parties: supports the principle of reversing the burden of proof in this area; condemns the pressure, mostly from the UK Government resulting in the original draft Directive being diluted; is perturbed that the wider definition of indirect discrimination contained within the original draft has been removed and that Article 4 of the new draft introduces the concept of 'objective justification' into cases of direct sex discrimination; and calls for the redrafting of the Directive to reflect the proposals outlined in the original version."
  I imagine that the Minister's bluster over the past 20 minutes has been more to do with his dislike of the European Union than of the directive. I recall that, when I last debated European legislation that promoted the rights of part-time workers, in Committee upstairs, the Minister was at pains to distance himself from his Christian Democratic colleagues in the European Parliament, describing them as too socialist for the liking of the "party opposite". I suspect that if we are looking for a stalking horse, we could do no better than promote the Minister's chances in the race ahead.
  I cannot accept the Minister's bluster when we are discussing a directive that is of supreme importance and offers an opportunity to discuss the undervaluing of the contribution that women make to the economy and society. The deficiencies in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 are all too obvious to the eye of any objective observer.
  I cannot accept the Minister's crocodile tears over jobs. The Conservative party has just deprived 200 men in my constituency, who work in a highly profitable and productive industry, of jobs. The Conservatives did not shed any tears over making sure that those men lost their jobs. In fact, by pursuing a deceitful argument and programme, they eventually pushed them out of their jobs.
  It is not up to the Minister to give the Labour party any lessons on the importance of employment to people in our constituencies, because we have seen the effects of the Government's policies in every single one of them. So please give us no lessons on the importance of jobs; we have seen the effects of long-term unemployment, not only on those who have lost their jobs, but on their families as well, and no jobs have come to areas that have lost thousands of jobs, for example, in the coal and the steel industries in the past 15 years.
  Despite the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, women continue to be undervalued and underpaid. They still face unnecessary barriers at work. They fail to gain equal treatment at work and are denied equal pay. Again, the Minister boasted about women and their pay. The figures show that pay differentials between men and women are greater in the United Kingdom than in any other European country. For manual workers in industry, female earnings represent just over two thirds of average male earnings. For non-manual workers in that sector, female earnings represent only 58.3 per cent. of average male earnings—lower than any in other country shown except Luxembourg. If the Minister wants to make any claims about pay, he should address himself to those tables, which are available in the Library if not to the Department of Employment.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether the hon. Lady has looked at the statistics on men and women's pay, moving up towards and including 1970 when the Equal Pay Act was introduced. They show that women's
  108
  pay was getting closer and closer to men's pay until the Equal Pay Act; then, for more than two decades, it went in the opposite direction.
  Mrs. Clwyd: That is a very interesting argument indeed. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the table in the Library, which shows that, since this Government came into office, the gap between men's and women's pay has grown wider instead of closer. That is nothing to do with the Equal Pay Act; it is to do with the Government and their policies towards women.
  The right to equal treatment is a fundamental right for all workers in the European Union. There is a legal duty on all member states to provide effective measures to ensure that those principles are applied. Yet, since 1979, the United Kingdom Government have paid only lip service to attempts to reduce discrimination.
  Despite having a woman Prime Minister for 11 of the past 15 years—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—only one woman was appointed to the Cabinet, and she was sacked after a year. I am interested in the support for the 'previous Prime Minister. If that support were available from the Conservative Benches for the present Prime Minister, he would not find himself in his present vulnerable position.
  I must say one kind word about the present Prime Minister: he is a leader in one respect. He was the first person holding that office since 1964 to appoint an all-male Cabinet. As the Minister was happy to acknowledge, this Government have blocked European directives on part-time work and parental leave. Indeed, the Government find a reason to oppose any progressive European social legislation. They did that when I was a Member of the European Parliament. Of all the countries and parties represented on the Social Affairs and Employment Committee, the only party to block effective social legislation was the Conservative party.
  The Government's latest act was to abolish wages councils which provided for the equalisation of pay rates for men and women. Nearly 2 million of Britain's lowest-paid women now have no effective remedy against unequal pay. The Trades Union Congress has made a formal complaint to the European Commission arguing that, by abolishing the wages councils, the United Kingdom Government are failing to comply with their legal obligations.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Of course we have abolished wages councils. However, will the hon. Lady confirm that wages councils had nothing to do with equal pay? Until the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, was it not the case that, under a Labour Government, wages councils set different rates of pay for men and women?
  Mrs. Clwyd: The disparities have grown since the wages councils were abolished.
  The Minister did not welcome a recent House of Lords judgment which gave part-time workers the same rights as full-time workers with respect to unfair dismissal and redundancy payments. Instead, he said that he was still taking legal advice. He did not even bother to say that tonight. The Minister's comments tonight seemed to convey the fact that it was never the Government's intention to implement legislation that the other place has said that this House must implement.
  Clearly, the Government have no intention of moving on the protection of part-time workers. That is another

  109
  example of the Government's reluctance to support working women when 88 per cent. of part-time workers are women.
  I was very interested in the Minister's comments on the draft directive on the burden of proof. The draft directive was first published in 1988 and, predictably, it was opposed by the United Kingdom Government. It was revised and amended by the Belgian presidency in July 1993. If the Minister is unaware of the evidence given to the Committee in 1988, I suggest that he examines it. The Law Society, the TUC, the Equal Opportunities Commission and others gave very detailed evidence and they all supported the directive.
  The purpose of the draft directive is to enable alleged victims of sex discrimination to pursue their claims more easily and more speedily in the courts. It is not clear from the memorandum submitted by the Department whether the United Kingdom Government agree that that purpose is important and desirable. From what the Minister has said tonight, it is highly unlikely that the Government believe that such a purpose is important.
  Government opposition to the original draft directive in 1988 put them at odds, as was said earlier, with the Law Society and the Equal Opportunities Commission. Both those bodies believe that the reforms in the draft directive were sensible and practical and would eliminate areas of doubt from complex legislation. The proposals would ensure greater consistency in application of discrimination legislation in industrial tribunals and, where appropriate, the county court.
  As noted in the supplementary explanatory memorandum, the United Kingdom opposes the shifting of burden of proof in principle, and it is the only member state to do that.
  Not surprisingly, I cannot find anywhere in the Government's written evidence any statement about the importance of eliminating discrimination in employment. Indeed, quite the contrary, from what the Minister said tonight. There is no mention—and the Minister has not acknowledged it anywhere—of the undisputed fact that sex discrimination remains prevalent in employment and in many other areas of British life.
  It is brazen impudence for the Government to argue that the law is fair and accessible when both the TUC and the Equal Opportunities Commission have complained about its operation. The EOC has also called for a major overhaul of sex discrimination and equal pay laws in this country. It seems that everyone apart from the Government acknowledges that the laws are complicated and obscure.
  In the Minister's written evidence, the United Kingdom also opposes the draft directive on the grounds of subsidiarity. We know from other debates that we have had with the Minister that the Government use subsidiarity as an argument when they do not like some European measure; then they say that we should decide the matter at home. In the area under discussion, the Government want to argue subsidiarity on the one hand, but on the other hand they are not prepared to do anything about the issue.
  Since 1981, the EOC has been pressing for legislation to bring United Kingdom law into line with that of the European Union. Each time the Government adopt a minimalist response, and that is their idea of subsidiarity. If anyone is to take the argument of subsidiarity seriously, surely there must be common minimum standards on which European Union member states can build. What women in Europe need are easier and speedier ways to win
  110
  basic rights. The apparently technical draft directive is about making European equality law work in practice for women in all the member states.
  The Government's motion argues that the draft directive would have a disproportionate effect on the United Kingdom. Yet as the EOC pointed out, broadly speaking, United Kingdom case law already provides for the shifting of the burden of proof. The directive therefore would for the most part establish that position.
  Mr. Heald: In the most recent case, Camara, the employment appeals tribunal made it clear that the suggestion in earlier cases had been misunderstood and the burden of proof had not shifted. Does the hon. Lady disagree with that?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman read the rest of the judgment.
  The main relevance of the directive to the United Kingdom would be its effect on sex discrimination proceedings. Everyone can quote cases and pick out lines, as we could from Enderby and others, which show that there are still some arguments on these points. It is to clarify the points that we are trying to persuade the Government to be progressive in their approach to the directive.
  Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that study after study over the past 16 years has shown that women have failed to succeed at tribunals, partly because there is no legal aid? Also, it is impossible for women to prove discrimination if they have no access to records. That is also applied to race discrimination cases such as that of West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive v. Singh—as we are all citing cases. In that case, it was held by the Court of Appeal that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no female precedent in that.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: They are all precedents.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for that remark from a sedentary position; at present, I am in the Chair.
  Ms Corston: Time and again, it has been shown that women have failed to prove sex discrimination because they have no access to records. The only way in which that can be done is for the burden of proof to shift, and that is why it is so important for the directive to be enforced.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston). She is a most eminent lawyer who has much experience in the matter, and we are all grateful for that intervention.
  Interestingly enough, the Government conceded that point in the explanatory memorandum of 12 July 1988 relating to the earlier drafts of the directive. They said that the directive proposed in sex discrimination cases that the burden of proof should be shifted from the complainant to the respondent, once a rebuttal presumption of discrimination had been established. They added that case law in the United Kingdom provided for the burden of proof to be shifted in that way already.
  It is therefore nonsense to suggest now that the draft would disproportionately affect the United Kingdom. The Government surely are making a mountain out of a molehill. The Opposition have, of course, always been

  111
  staunch supporters of the original draft. In particular, we supported the wider definition of indirect discrimination that it contained. Under current law, that is extremely difficult to prove, and the draft directive would make it easier for people to claim indirect discrimination, since it allows more general practices to be examined for discriminatory behaviour. That would have been a major advance in the fight for equal treatment in the workplace.
  The original draft contained many other worthwhile proposals—far too many for the Government to countenance—but the Government's pressure to wreck a worthwhile European initiative eventually bore fruit. When the Belgian Government, who were seeking a compromise, brought the directive back to the table, it had been considerably watered down. That was mainly due to the efforts of the Government.
  In addition, article 4 of the new draft was rewritten. It begins by stating that the respondent—that is, the employer—must prove that the principle of equality has not been violated. It goes on to say that member states may decide that the respondent complies with that point if he or she can prove that there are objective reasons not concerned with a person's sex which justify a difference in treatment.
  That clause has apparently sprung from nowhere, and it may introduce so-called objective justification into cases of direct sex discrimination. An implication of that may be that employers will be able successfully to justify a refusal to take on a pregnant woman because of the costs of staff cover during maternity leave. That, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission, would be a major departure from the current position in United Kingdom law, and that is one of several reasons why it does not support the draft directive in its present form.
  Labour's position is entirely clear. Unlike the Government, we support the principle of reversing the burden of proof. That has been established in practice in the United Kingdom, and we support the extension of the principle, and of laws to support it, throughout Europe. Along with our allies in the European Parliament, we have consistently supported the extension of best practice for working men and women throughout the Union.
  Mr. Jenkin: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the letter in the Vote bundle on this issue from Lord Justice Slynn of Hadley—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Lord Slynn.
  Mr. Jenkin: I beg your pardon. The letter refers to his belief that the measure would lead to
  "more protracted litigation rather than a higher ratio of success for applicants seeking to prove unlawful discrimination".
  Is the hon. Lady aware that Lord Slynn is hardly a Euro-sceptic? He has served extensively in employment appeal tribunals, judged extensively in sex equality cases and served in the European Court, both as Advocate-General and as a justice.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me Lord Slynn's curriculum vitae. However, I prefer to take account of the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission's considerable and extensive experience of these matters. It has more experience than Lord Slynn, despite his extensive CV, which the hon. Gentleman read out. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Lady think that it is perhaps worth making the point that the Government have rejected the opinion expressed by the distinguished lawyer and judge Lord Slynn and have given reasons for rejecting the directive which are different from those given by Lord Slynn in his letter?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. Perhaps he would explain the matter to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) as soon as he can.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: In the spirit of helping the hon. Lady, if we could leave Lord Slynn for the time being, may I ask her what she would say to the Court of Appeal, which has taken the view that changing the position on the burden of proof would not be helpful and is not necessary?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I do not think that the Minister got the phraseology right. Would he like to phrase the question again?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I was simply making the point that not only Lord Slynn but the Court of Appeal has said that reversing the burden of proof would be unnecessary and unhelpful. Is the hon. Lady saying that we should take the views of the Equal Opportunities Commission before those of the Court of Appeal?
  Mrs. Clwyd: Obviously, there are many opinions on the matter. I am not saying that anyone has the complete answer. We do not support the directive as it is currently drafted. We ask the Government to go back and rewrite it. If the Minister had read our amendment—he clearly has not—he would have seen what we were asking him to do. We are not calling for support for the directive. We want to see it rewritten. We want to bring back many of the positive features of the original version. We also want to see article 4 redrafted so that there is no prospect of objectively justified direct sex discrimination creeping into United Kingdom law.
  If the Government claim that they are committed to the elimination of sex discrimination and oppose the draft directive on principle, which is what I understand the Minister to argue, as well as for technical reasons, what other steps are they planning to take—[Interruption.] I am addressing the question directly to the Minister and I hope that he will respond to it when he replies.
  What steps do the Government plan to take to speed up and increase the success rates in sex discrimination and employment cases? If the Minister rejects the directive and wants to see it buried, what does he propose to put in its place to improve the current position?
  As we all know, the Government have fought tooth and nail against any extension of Community competence in equal opportunities legislation. I have not seen any evidence that the Government want to make it easier and quicker for applicants to win sex discrimination cases. In fact, the opposite is the case.
  The original draft directive was a modest attempt to improve the status and position of women in society. In opposing the amended directive, the Government once again are showing their complete lack of concern about the growing gap between the position of men and women in our society. Whatever progressive social legislation is proposed by the European Union to eliminate inequality, the Government are guaranteed to fight it tooth and nail. In

  113
  the coming European elections, as in last week's local elections, the electorate will once again kick the Government where it hurts.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I was not planning to speak until I saw this incredible amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about your notes?"]. They are all blank; I am making it up as I go along. The Opposition tabled this incredible amendment—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may scoff but I am trying to address my remarks directly to the motion.
  I was starting to warm to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) during her final remarks because she rightly said that she wants something positive to happen to redress the balance between men's and women's earnings. I certainly agree. The question that we should ask is whether that balance can be redressed by legislation either in this House or in Europe. I contend that it cannot.
  Before 1970—before we legislated—employers were starting to recognise that women were valuable members of the work force, and the differential between men's and women's earnings was becoming less. For one year after the Equal Pay Act 1970, the momentum carried that trend forward, but, in all but a couple of years since then, the differential has widened. Therefore, legislation has not been effective.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the Law Society often enough this evening, saying that it wants us to legislate more. I am looking at the lawyers who are present in the House, because one finds that almost all those in lawyers' offices who are doing the really valuable work are women and they are on the lowest salaries paid in virtually any profession. All those legal secretaries who make all the money for the business and keep it going by doing the conveyancing get virtually no money.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: Very briefly. Obviously the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and I have insulted his sensibilities.
  Mr. Hoon: On a straightforward political point, if the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, why did the Conservative Government not repeal the Equal Pay Act 1970 between 1970 and 1974? That Act was fully implemented in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
  Mr. Bruce: If I had been in the House, I certainly would have urged the Government to do precisely that. Hon. Members should learn that, if legislation that was put in place more than 20 years ago has completely failed, we should kick against it instead of trying to tinker with it in the ridiculous fashion that this European directive requires.
  When I earned an honest living, as they say, carrying out work studies, as a work study manager—I cannot even remember my job title now—I was a good job evaluation person. One thing that we had to do was to demonstrate why job evaluation was a useful tool in a workplace. We had to make it clear to people, however, that there never has been and never will be a situation in which one can say that a job of work has a particular financial value.
  Job evaluation was set up to ensure that, within a workplace, differentials could be justified in terms of the types of jobs people had to do. Clearly, if it is impossible to give work a specific value, it is also impossible for
  114
  anyone who does a job in a different company at a different rate of pay to prove that his or her work is equally valuable. When people take employers to the sex discrimination courts to try to prove that case, they find it impossible. They are trying to prove an impossibility.
  There is no clear relationship between the value of what someone does and the amount that they are paid for it. I touched on the example of solicitors' offices. Hon. Members should consider where the money is earned and who does the conveyancing work, and the fact that the solicitors are paid a large amount of money because they have a particular qualification.
  It is a value judgment to decide that someone who has had the privilege of going to college for six years and all the fun of student union rags and the rest of it should get extra reward for their work. Opposition Members may scoff at that, but I have an even better example to cite that is much closer to home. They should think twice about scoffing, especially when they read Hansard tomorrow, because my other example concerns the differential between the salaries of Opposition Members and their secretaries.
  If one compares the work of Opposition Members with the productivity of every secretary in the House it becomes clear that there is absolutely no case for those hon. Members to earn more money than their secretaries and research assistants. They get all the perks and the money but, in terms of skill levels, qualifications and knowledge, their secretaries stand far higher: they do all the work, but they earn much less. Those Opposition Members would have the greatest difficult in proving that they are worth more money. They are paid more just because of custom and practice. There are also far more men than women doing their job.
  Mr. Illsley: The hon. Member started by arguing that comparisons are invalid and that no comparisons can be made between the equal value of one type of work and another, but he is now seeking to make such a comparison between hon. Members and their secretaries. Which way does he want it?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has just made my point. I was simply saying that one cannot make such value judgments. The marketplace and those in power make the decision. One of the few occasions on which the House can be assured of a good turnout from Labour Back Benchers on a one-line Whip is when they are called upon to vote through a pay rise. They are very good at justifying that. That is the way of the world and that is reality.
  I am not kicking against reality; I am telling legislators that they cannot simply tell the House or the European Parliament or the Commission that they want to reverse the laws of reality. There is no point in their deciding that there is a strict relationship between the amount of money that someone is paid and the value of his work. The directive is seeking to change the burden of proof, which means that the impossible, which cannot be proved, will be proved by the employer. The employer will be unable to do that and the case will therefore fail.
  The Government are totally justified in rejecting this ridiculous directive. If the European Parliament fights against our Government and the sensible measures that they put forward after the European elections, we will rue the day on which anyone voted for socialist or Liberal Democrat candidates to serve in that place.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It was interesting to see the cloak of sackcloth and ashes worn by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), as he talked about equal pay for equal value. The Register of Members' Interests reveals that he is the chairman of Ian Bruce Associates Ltd., parliamentary adviser to the Telecommunications Managers Association and parliamentary adviser to Trevor Gilbert and Associates, personal injury employment advisers, which is a division of Recruitment Network Ltd. The register also states that he has received a gift of satellite equipment, two fax machines from Southern Electricity plc and a mobile telephone from Talkland International, and that he has had the use of a Nissan Primera. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He also visited Elveden forest holiday village. And so it goes on.
  What a disreputable performance we witnessed from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman would like to confirm that he does not take his full parliamentary salary, for which some of us voted, I should be happy to give way. Does he take that money or not?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just proved the point, because although my staff work much harder than I do, I can command more in the marketplace for doing certain things. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that any of my staff should simply be able to go to the European Parliament or wherever and prove that he should be paid that money instead of me, that is ridiculous.
  Mr. Carlile: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's brain works like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.
  There are some important and serious arguments to be made. As I listened to the Minister's speech, I was reminded of the memorable occasion in the House on which Mr. Alan Clark spoke about the same subject. In his diary, Mr. Clark is frank about that occasion. He says, in effect, that on that evening he was playing the part of Bacchus after earlier bibulousness; his speech then was at least as coherent as that of the hon. Gentleman playing the part of ignoramus here tonight.
  For example, the Minister sought to rely on the right hon. and noble Lord Slynn of Hadley. I have read Lord Slynn's letter. I have an immense admiration, as I think have most lawyers in the House, for the intellectual ability of Lord Slynn and his experience in the European Union. If Lord Slynn had objected to the directive on the same basis as did the Minister tonight, the Minister might have some credibility; but he has chosen to rely on two entirely different points. One related to subsidiarity, and has been adequately discussed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and the other related to the basis of the labour market.
  The hon. Gentleman was eventually tempted by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to remember the case in the Court of Appeal of Camara. I would remind him that his hon. Friend was a little bit selective—I am sure more selective than he would be in court—in citing from the case of Camara. In court, one has to tell the judge not only the good things but the adverse points when making
  116
  one's submissions. I remind him especially of that part of the judgment in Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v. Camara, in which it was said:
  "Thereafter bearing in mind the burden of proof upon the applicant the Tribunal should apply their findings to each element necessary to establish the type of discrimination alleged, and finally decide whether the applicant has established direct or indirect discrimination or victimisation as the case may be."
  If one analyses those words and the rest of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Camara, one realises that the Court of Appeal was doing its best to apply the same evidential standards without reversing the burden of proof in jurisprudential terms. If it were to reverse the burden of proof it would be overruled by the House of Lords, because that would be judicial law making, which is not permitted. By taking a very clever, intellectual approach, the Court of Appeal achieved almost exactly what is in the directive in any event.
  It is plain that the Government do not understand what article 4 of the directive says. Indeed—I know that there is a great shortage of time tonight, so I shall make the argument as quickly as I can, but it is important—it seems clear that the Minister has never read article 4 of the directive, in its present or its previous form.
  Paragraph 1 of former draft article 3 would have required persons who considered themselves wronged by failure to apply to them the principle of equality to establish before a court or other competent authority a presumption of discrimination. So immediately, before the burden of proof—if it be the right word—shifted, the complainant would have to establish that there had been discrimination. There is a clear burden of proof on the applicant.
  Paragraph 2 of the same draft stated:
  "A presumption of discrimination is established where a complainant shows a fact or a series of facts which would, if not rebutted, amount to direct or indirect discrimination."
  Those words could not have a plainer meaning. I say to the Minister that they and the subsequent version made it crystal clear that the applicant under the directive has to establish something that would amount to direct or indirect discrimination unless it is rebutted. What is the difference between that and what the Minister claims to be the alternative, which the Government seek to present to the House as the answer to the directive?
  The Government do not understand the directive. They seek simply to find yet another stick with which to beat the European Union. At the beginning of the debate when the Minister was making his opening remarks, it was plain that most of the Conservative Members who had come in to listen to him belonged to the Prime Minister's illegitimate tendency. There were so many of them that the Minister looked like the old woman who lived in a shoe.
  It is time that the Government showed a little intellectual honesty in European matters and recognised that the directive represents a fair statement of what should be the law in this country and the fact that it is close to our existing law.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I confess that when I heard the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) twitting my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about his interests, I chuckled because I thought of all the remunerated employment that the hon. and learned Gentleman must have as a silk. He must make a good few bob—

  117
  [Interruption.] I confess to being a lawyer. However, in addition to being a Queen's counsel, a recorder and a lay member of the General Medical Council, the hon. and learned Gentleman also has the loan of a word processor and software from Tandem computers, which is no doubt useful when considering briefs.
  I was hoping to make three points in the debate. First, the burden of proof is an important principle. It is a right of the individual that should not be attacked except where it is essential in the interests of justice. The principle that he who asserts a right must prove it is vital. It is wrong for Opposition Members to say that, simply because it is difficult to prove a case in particular circumstances, we must change the whole basis of proof and how it is achieved.
  The House of Lords Select Committee looked at the proposal and reached that conclusion. It said that, if we pursued that approach, more cases would be proved but at the risk of proving cases that should not be proved. It made the cogent point:
  "a Directive which clearly did reverse the legal burden of proof would undoubtedly assist complaints in this area. The Committee do not, however, believe that such a change would he right in principle … It is not obvious that there is any unique justification for making a change as sweeping as reversing the basic rule on burden of proof in favour of victims of sex discrimination".
  Once that barrier is breached, where does the matter end? A case that is difficult to prove can always be found, but, if the burden of proof were reversed in every such case, an extremely dangerous principle would be established.
  Mr. Hoon: Does the hon. Gentleman see a difference between equal pay cases and product liability cases where the burden of proof is reversed?
  Mr. Heald: Yes, I certainly see a distinction. We could have an interesting legal argument about that.
  Mr. Hoon: What is it, then?
  Mr. Heald: I have only a short time in which to speak. Given our years of debating law together, the hon. Gentleman will accept that we could discuss that area of law for many a happy hour.
  Secondly, if there are objective reasons and one can point to, for example, a difference in pay, I accept that the burden should be reversed—and it is. But in a case where such direct evidence does not exist, the balance struck in the case of Chattopadhyay and later cases is right: that if one person has better qualifications than another but that person has not been appointed, an inference should be drawn. But the burden of proof should not be changed because it is an important protection for the individual.
  In the Chattopadhyay case, the court made it clear that the inference should be drawn only in circumstances that were consistent with the treatment's being based on racial grounds. In later cases—in particular, the case of Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v. Camara, of which we have already heard a good deal—the courts made it clear that
  "the guidelines in earlier cases permitting inferences to be drawn in favour of an applicant were not to be taken to mean that the burden of proof itself shifted."
  That principle was still clearly enshrined in the words read out by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery: the burden of proof, which is important in English law, should not be interfered with in such a way. The fad that an inference can be drawn is a way of providing proof, but that is not the same as changing the burden of proof.
  118
  The Commission has not taken adequate account of the procedural safeguards in English law. There is a statutory questions procedure, whereby—if inferences are not to be drawn—an employer can be forced to answer a range of sweeping questions relating to the way in which he has dealt with the choice between two applicants. Documents can be required, and the employer can be forced to give them up if that can be justified. Those protections, together with the burden of proof, are important in protecting the interests of the employer, while also ensuring that the plaintiff has a reasonable chance of succeeding in a case of this sort.
  I believe that the burden of proof should be protected. I think it right, in clear cases, to shift the burden as we do; but, given the protections that already exist in English law, I do not consider that we would be right to introduce the directive. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) criticised Conservative Members, saying that we argued for subsidiarity because it would allow us to decide at home what should happen. I believe that: I believe that we should fight hard for subsidiarity. It is right for us to decide many such issues at home. One reason is that, over a thousand years, we have developed one of the best legal systems in the world—and I do not want it to be bastardised by the European Community or anyone else.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: Earlier, we were entertained—his speech was certainly entertaining—by the Minister of State. He made what most of us would describe as a rather raucous speech and a convincing case for being reshuffled into the Foreign Office, where he could display some of his more diplomatic skills in describing our European Union partners. At various points, he described this modest set of proposals as ridiculous and absurd, but anyone examining the details of the directive would reach a different conclusion.
  Many of us were left with the impression that the Minister was not actually talking about the directive. He showed contempt for our European partners who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) said, support the proposals. His comments about competitiveness were complete gibberish. There is no suggestion that the directive will add any new legal obligations for employers. It is simply an attempt to clarify the emerging European jurisprudence on where the burden of proof lies in cases of discrimination.
  The Government's rather flimsy compliance cost assessment, contained in the bundle of documents that they have provided, is also ludicrous. The measure will increase employers' obligations by a minute fraction. As the Government have effectively conceded, it is almost impossible to put a financial measure on any extra costs that British employers will face, and the attempt to do so strikes me as absurd.
  The Government's objections to the draft directive have more to do with their current problems over Europe than with the issues raised by this modest set of proposals. The debate is all about their resistance to positive measures to improve the employment protection rights of British workers. That resistance will be shown to have been a mistake. The debate is also largely about appeasing the growing number of Eurosceptics on the Government Back Benches.

  119
  There has been some reference to case law tonight and to the burden of proof in discrimination cases, but no one has looked in great detail at the Enderby v. Frenchay health authority case. The European Court of Justice, which is the ultimate authority in such matters—not the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, although the Minister may not like that—has already made the position transparent in respect of that case.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Equal Pay and Equal Treatment (Burden of Proof) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Hutton: As I was saying, in the Enderby case the European Court made it transparently clear that under the provisions of article 119 and the supporting directives there has already been a shift in the burden of proof. Paragraph 18 of the European Court judgment, which was about a case involving equal pay, reads as follows:
  "Workers would be unable to enforce the principle of equal pay before national courts if evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination did not shift to the employer the onus of showing that the pay differential is not in fact discriminatory".
  The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) and others have tried to quote other authorities, but the European Court is the overriding authority, and I have quoted the governing principle that applies to cases in which the onus of proof is the subject of dispute.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a point that the Minister did not seem to understand—these are not cases that will land employers with impossible burdens. They will not have to fight cases with both hands tied behind their backs, because applicants will have to make out a prima facie case of discrimination before there can be any argument about the onus of proof moving to the respondent. The Minister cited the case of a man and a woman with equal qualifications, but the woman did not get the job. There, it would still be open to the employer to present the argument that the Minister predicted—that the woman was not appointed because she was not the right candidate for the job.
  Mr. Heald rose—
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity, and time is limited.
  The argument about subsidiarity must also be exposed for what it is. The Government are using it to reject and defeat an idea to which they are fundamentally and ideologically opposed.
  The Minister also tried to argue that there is no evidence to warrant the changes to the directive. In the research done in 1984 by Jennifer Corcoran and Elaine Donnelly, the problems in many European jurisdictions were clearly shown up. Many applicants face a problem trying to present their cases successfully to an industrial tribunal, and that problem is what the directive attempts to solve.
  The Minister rather laboured the point that there is a fundamental objection in the British legal system to anything that reverses the onus of proof and places it on the respondent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield
  120
  (Mr. Hoon) has said, we have already done that in a number of other sectors. The burden of proof in taxation law has been moved around. For the product liability directive in 1985, the Government accepted a change in the onus of proof—it was moved to the respondent. So that, too, is a bogus argument. There is no principled objection to the change. If there were, it would have emerged in earlier cases, when the Government did not object to a shift in the burden of proof.
  It all comes down to the basic proposition that the Government oppose the draft directive because it would do something positive to advance the employment protection rights of British workers, especially workers who have faced sexual discrimination. The Government's arguments amount to superfluous waffle. They simply oppose the directive because, in its modest way—many of us would say, its limited way—it represents an attempt to improve the employment rights of British women.
  I hope that the House will have the common sense and the good judgment to tell the Government that we have had enough of their Eurosclerosis and scepticism. A logical and reasonable case can be made in support of the directive. I hope that the House will take that view.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: In the few remaining minutes of the debate, I want to elaborate on a point that I made earlier about an equal pay case that has dragged on for many years.
  A number of women have been unable to plead their case successfully under the legal system, despite the fact that they have been aided by the National Union of Mineworkers, which provided funds so that the women could pursue their case and have legal representation.
  As long ago as 1978, two canteen workers at Hem Heath colliery in Staffordshire applied successfully to an industrial tribunal for pay equal to a male working in a surface establishment. The NUM negotiated with British Coal in an attempt to ensure that that principle was applied throughout the industry. British Coal refused and said that each case would have to be proved and considered on its own. That led to a number of equal pay claims on behalf of women employees of British Coal, which unfortunately proved unsuccessful.
  The NUM then pursued a case under equal value legislation. In 1983, it made some 1,500 claims to British Coal to secure equal pay for work of equal value on behalf of canteen workers. That claim was successful. An industrial tribunal found in favour of the canteen workers who were supported by the NUM. British Coal appealed, but the canteen ladies' case was upheld and British Coal's arguments were again rejected.
  It is interesting to note the differential between the canteen workers' wages and comparable wages of male surface workers. It amounted to about 80 per cent. There was also a differential in concessionary fuel receipts, which were originally the basis of the claim. The preliminary hearing of the industrial tribunal found in favour of the canteen workers and the NUM was again successful at the employment appeals tribunal, yet, many years after the original claims in the early 1980s, British Coal wants to take the case to the Court of Appeal.
  The union incurred considerable costs in pursuing those cases at the industrial tribunal and at the employment appeal tribunal. Despite the fact that British Coal has

  121
  already lost two cases, it is pursuing the case at the Court of Appeal, and if it loses that case, it threatens to take it to the House of Lords.
  It is obvious that British Coal has lost the argument and that it opposes the case because, as a company, it has more resources available to it than the NUM. That is a result of a fault in the legislation. British Coal's deliberations and filibustering, for want of a better word, have resulted in the union spending much money on the case. The membership of the union has, sadly, declined because of Government policy and it now faces difficulties in pursuing the case to the Court of Appeal and then the House of Lords, despite the fact that it has been successful on two occasitons.
  Our legislation is not good enough and in the absence of Government legislation the directive is the only measure that is available. Perhaps we should consider it to make our legislation more effective. Where a proper and valid claim has been found successful by the employment appeals tribunal, there should be a measure to allow it to go forward.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: This interesting debate has shown the differences between the Opposition and the Government on Europe. Were it not for the social chapter opt-out which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated and which Opposition Members opposed, the House would not be discussing the measure at all because it would have been decided by other member states under qualified majority voting. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) nods with enthusiasm because, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) confirmed in her speech, Opposition Members see Europe as a way of bringing in socialism by the back door and of achieving what they cannot achieve in the House because they cannot secure a mandate for it.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was hoist by his own high technology. He accused me of not having read the directive but quoted from a version that has long since been superseded. It appears from a study of the Register of Members' Interests that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a computer. It is high time that he had a look at his database and revised his views.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that the Equal Opportunities Commission was concerned about the impact of wages councils on women's pay. As I pointed out, she neglected to mention that wages councils used to set different rates of pay for men and women. There was no mention of that under a Labour Government. Why was it that we had no trouble in Europe and no trouble from the Equal Opportunities Commission on the role of the wages councils when the Labour Government abolished 11 of them?
  The measure is unnecessary. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, every employer who refused to give a job to a woman with the same qualifications as a male applicant, even though the employer had chosen the man because he thought that he was the best person for the job, would be put in the dock and asked to prove that he had not discriminated against the woman. If that is what the Labour party wants to happen, I hope that people will know about it. [Interruption.] We do not want any interventions from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We all know his view on positive discrimination from the
  122
  shadow Cabinet elections. If his colleagues are to be believed it was not exactly progressive. We know all about his efforts to support his leadership on that matter.
  We do not need the directive to decide matters. The House can put in place systems to deal with sex discrimination. The level at which our system has placed women in work is better than that which other member states have been able to achieve. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, under our system women's pay has grown and under this Government the pay differential with men has been reduced.
  Mrs. Clwyd: That is not true.
  Mr. Forsyth: It is true. Since 1979 the differential has been reduced by 4 per cent. and the hon. Lady should know that.
  The most fundamental objection to the directive is that it is part of a package of measures that simply misses the point about the principles that are important in the Community. If we want to give women more opportunities and create more jobs we do not need more regulations that will add to the cost of employment and make it more difficult to employ people. Opposition Members would accept the social chapter and give away our veto, leaving our country less able to compete.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has been travelling throughout the country making a lot of noise and the Leader of the Opposition has been busily telling the country that Labour are committed to maintaining Britain's veto and would not get rid of it. Tonight, we have an example of a measure that Britain is vetoing. We are able to veto it because we opted out of the social chapter. If we were in it, we could not veto the directive. Opposition Members would have removed that veto.
  Labour Members do not need the veto because they believe in a socialist agenda that would make it more difficult to create the jobs that are desperately needed throughout the Community. As my hon. Friends pointed out, it is no coincidence that half the inward investment in the Community comes to Britain. That is happening because we are able to reject the kind of nonsense that we have heard tonight.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to the Order [29 April.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 285.

  Division No. 232]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boateng, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boyes, Roland

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Keith

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barnes, Harry

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Battle, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  123

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hutton, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Illsley, Eric

  Cann, Jamie

  Ingram, Adam

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Janner, Greville

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Coffey, Ann

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Keen, Alan

  Connarty, Michael

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Corbett, Robin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lewis, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Darling, Alistair

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  McFall, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dowd, Jim

  McLeish, Henry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McWilliam, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Madden, Max

  Enright, Derek

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Alice

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michael, Alun

  Fisher, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Flynn, Paul

  Milburn, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Miller, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Foulkes, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fraser, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morley, Elliot

  Gapes, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Garrett, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mudie, George

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mullin, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  Murphy, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Olner, William

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gunnell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hain, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Hall, Mike

  Patchett, Terry

  Hanson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pike, Peter L.

  Harvey, Nick

  Pope, Greg

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Henderson, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Heppell, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prescott, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoey, Kate

  Purchase, Ken

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Rendel, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rogers, Allan

  124

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooney, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wise, Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Colvin, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Congdon, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Day, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baldry, Tony

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bates, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Batiste, Spencer

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Eggar, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gill, Christopher

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Cash, William

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clappison, James

  Gorst, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  125

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Norris, Steve

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hannam, Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Paice, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Pickles, Eric

  Hendry, Charles

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Horam, John

  Richards, Rod

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Riddick, Graham

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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jack, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sackville, Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Key, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spring, Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Legg, Barry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stern, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Sumberg, David

  Lord, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Luff, Peter

  Sykes, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Thomason, Roy

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Malone, Gerald

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mans, Keith

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Marland, Paul

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tracey, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mates, Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Merchant, Piers

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mills, Iain

  Viggers, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Walden, George

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Ward, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Needham, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  126

  Whitney, Ray

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whittingdale, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6703/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Employment Department on 21st October 1993, relating to the burden of proof in the area of equal pay and equal treatment for women and men; endorses the Government's view that the draft Directive breaches the principle of subsidiarity and would have a disproportionate impact in the United Kingdom; shares the Government's view that the proposed Directive is wrong in principle and unnecessary for the proper determination of cases; agrees with the Government that the United Kingdom's arrangements for deciding complaints of sex discrimination and equal pay are fair to both parties, and take proper account of the problems of evidence and the need to reach fair decisions with due regard to the interests of both parties; and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive should not be adopted.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given notice to the Minister for Energy and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), relating to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 3 May about a report published today, "Competition and choice in the gas market—a joint consultative document". A similar question was tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth three days later. The Minister answered that question today, held a press conference outside the House and notified me of his answer to the hon. Gentleman, despite the question that I had tabled previously. That is a gross discourtesy to the House.
  The document, which is effectively a Green Paper and which has been the subject of parliamentary questions, should have been the subject of a statement in the House. It is an insult to more than 18 million gas users in this country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman may think that, but it is not a matter for the Chair, as he well knows.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you recall the occasion when a press release was put out by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) about a speech which he never made in the House of Commons—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Undoubtedly you will have heard earlier today that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People misled the House on Friday when he said that he had no knowledge about parliamentary questions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, Madam Speaker told the House that she will consider the matter.

  Water Pollution (Worcester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to the people of Worcestershire. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has approached the issue and for being here tonight to respond to this short debate.
  On Friday 15 April, a serious water pollution incident occurred in my constituency, which also affected the water in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and caused supply difficulties in Gloucestershire and as far away as Coventry. It was a major incident by any standards, but not a dangerous one, as eventually became clear by great good fortune.
  My purpose tonight is to explain what happened, to ask about the questions that the various inquiries which have been established must address and to ask the Government to do three things urgently. When the reports of the inquiries are available, that will be the time to apportion blame, if any, and to ensure that the lessons of this incident are properly learned.
  The issues which I will raise tonight, and have done repeatedly since the incident, should not mask my general admiration for the way in which all the bodies and agencies involved have responded, both to the events themselves and to the public debate since. They have been models of openness, which I have found encouraging.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friends whose constituents were affected for their invaluable assistance, and, perhaps unusually, to the two members of the Government Whips Office who experienced similar problems in the past—my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick)—for their advice.
  It is generally not my intention to point the finger of blame tonight. Some Opposition Members—I see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) in his place—have been quick to do so. I think they were wrong. Is it just a coincidence that their early-day motion singles out for criticism by name two public servants from the Government-controlled district health authority—two individuals of great personal integrity and professional skill—but does not mention the involvement of a Labour-controlled city council or a Liberal and Labour-controlled county council in the same emergency incident team?
  Opposition Members have named names in an irresponsible way, and have risked politicising an important issue. Finding the right responses to the issue will be more difficult in a party political climate. Their attitude contrasts with the highly responsible attitude of the three local authorities in my constituency, each of a different political composition, towards the incident.
  Let us turn to the events themselves. Customer complaints began it all at about 8 am on Friday 15 April. They were related to water from the Barbourne treatment works in the centre of Worcester. The reports were of a strong paraffin-type smell and taste to the water coming out of their taps.
  128
  The works was shut down within 80 minutes—by any standards, a fast response. The decision to issue the formal warning not to drink water, though, was only made around midday on Friday. Information was provided on local radio, from a police helicopter, loudspeaker vans and letter drops. Bowsers containing emergency supplies began to arrive quickly.
  An estimated 126,000 people were affected by the incident, plus thousands of others who were asked to save water as far away as Coventry. Indeed, water was actually cut off in many homes in the midlands.
  South Staffordshire Water, upstream of Worcester, suffered a polluted reservoir, but by a miracle that company was not abstracting water for immediate consumption from the River Severn at the time, or the scale of the emergency would have been far greater, as much of the Black Country could have been directly affected.
  The source of the pollution was tracked around 1 am on Saturday by the National Rivers Authority, to an industrial plant at Wem in Shropshire. The water was declared safe by 5 pm on Saturday, but the problems of taste, particularly in the more remote areas, continued well after that.
  We must learn the lessons, not just for Worcestershire, but for everywhere where water is abstracted from rivers. There is no room for complacency. The worst did not happen, but tens of thousands of people were inconvenienced and alarmed—particularly the elderly, the disabled and those expecting babies, who are naturally very concerned about any possible long-term effects. We owe it to all these people to provide the maximum level of reassurance that those events will not happen again and that there is no long-term health hazard resulting from the pollution.
  What, then, are the crucial questions to which public answers—and I stress public—must be given? I will start upstream, at the source of the pollution itself.
  The source of the pollution was Vitalscheme Limited, a recycler of industrial solvents, licensed by Shropshire county council waste regulatory authority. It was only licensed on 28 February 1994. Within six weeks, its activities had gone wrong, and pollutants were being discharged.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that Severn Trent is taking criminal proceedings against Vitalscheme Ltd for the way in which substances have been introduced into Severn Trent sewers? Does he agree that there is now a powerful argument for companies such as Severn Trent to have a much greater input into the licensing of waste companies?
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I am delighted that Severn Trent has decided to take proceedings against the firm in question, but that limits what we can say tonight on the subject, as the proceedings are sub judice.
  Something went wrong, and material was discharged into the river without authorisation, which led to the problems in my constituency. There have been press reports about the nature of the firm which it would be improper to go into in detail tonight. Of course, the company is the subject of those proceedings.
  If those reports are accurate, questions have to be asked about the licensing regime, whether there was negligence, and whether access to the right information or whatever would have made it easier for Shropshire county council to

  129
  deal with the matter. The system itself may be at fault. I understand that changes under an Act of Parliament introduced on 1 May may have dealt with the deficiency in the system which led to the problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to deal with those points.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that recycling is a hazardous and skilled business, and that there is room only for the best possible operators in the trade. On the face of it, on this occasion something went badly wrong. To my mind, the answers to those questions are the most important answers to be gleaned. Only by getting the issue right can we be sure that similar pollution incidents will be avoided in the future.
  The polluted water passed through the Severn Trent sewerage works, apparently for several days. Unwittingly, Severn Trent became the polluter of the Severn. It must have been for several days, because the polluted water had to travel 70 miles to Worcester before it was detected. I know that sewage works are smelly places, but the National Rivers Authority will have to examine that issue carefully in its investigation.
  Talking of the National Rivers Authority leads me to the question of the river itself. How could the National Rivers Authority fail to spot pollution that must have been there for several days? As I say, there are 70 miles of river between Wem and Worcester. Perhaps more seriously, why was the NRA not part of the emergency incident team formed to deal with incident? Did its exclusion from the team delay the analysis and finding of solutions?
  What of the Barbourne water treatment works in my constituency? The works is old, and is scheduled for replacement by enlarged works at Strensham at the end of 1995. They have served Worcester well, and the procedures there are thorough, but the fact remains that the noses of my constituents—the customers of Severn Trent—proved better at detecting the pollution than the formal monitoring that was in place there. How could this be?
  I have read accounts of a similar incident in Philadelphia in the United States of America, involving the same chemical, which clearly illustrates the difficulties and properties of the particular pollutant involved. It is strange that my constituents' tastebuds were better than all the procedures in place at that treatment works. The puzzle must be satisfactorily resolved. Whatever the answer, I believe that only the superior filtration systems available at more modern plants can provide complete reassurance that the events will not be repeated.
  What of Severn Trent's response to consumer complaints? Within 80 minutes of the first calls, the plant was shut. But it subsequently took three and a half hours to issue the warning not to drink the water. We have to ask whether that is genuinely the best that could have been achieved. If a major toxin had been to blame, that delay could have been fatal.
  The water smelt strongly of paraffin, yet could not be analysed quickly. Why? Indeed, it took 14 days to work out the identity of the last pollutant—the smelly one. This question was asked in the Philadelphia experience, too, where the analysis took 20 days, but our inquiries must look into the apparent delay. Are the analytical facilities available for such incidents good enough? Do we need to provide more resources to the NRA and make it the central facility for events of this kind?
  On the question of the health effects of the pollution, it is important to quote at some length from a report prepared for me by the department of public health medicine of the
  130
  Worcester and District health authority. It confirms a conversation that I had with Professor Rod Griffiths of the regional health authority, himself an expert in this area. The report says:
  "By Saturday afternoon 16th April we knew that Severn Trent had looked for but not found any of the major groups of toxic chemicals including polyaromatic hydrocarbons and pesticides. In addition, "Trihalomethanes" (formed when chlorine reacts with any organic material present in water after treatment and used as an indicator of the possible presence of toxic organic chemicals) were reported to be normal. We also knew that whatever chemicals were present were at concentrations of one part per billion or less. 2-ethyl 4-methyl 1,3-dioxolane had been positively identified at maximum concentrations of 0.02 parts per billion in tap water and was known to be volatile and smelly. The other chemical identified, in maximum concentrations of less than 1 part per billion, was reported to be an amine compound.
  Advice was received through Professor Rod Griffiths on the basis of this information from the National Poisons Information Service (Birmingham) and the Health Advisory Group on Chemical Contamination Incidents (HAGCCI) that under these circumstances the chemicals did not pose a hazard to human health and that no other known chemicals as yet unidentified which could also be contaminating the water in trace amounts would be toxic at these concentrations.
  The decision, taken jointly by a representative of the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health, the Advisors at the Regional Health Authority and by the Emergency Incident Teams in Worcester and Gloucester, was that there was no significant risk to health from drinking contaminated water and this advice was issued to the public."
  I agree that questions need to be asked about where the samples that were analysed were taken and when. I accept that the conclusions arrived at by so many experts at the time must now be independently validated. On the basis of the evidence available to me, however, I am confident that the advice to the public was prudently and thoughtfully given, and that no blame attaches to any member of the emergency incident team for giving such advice. That evidence clearly contradicts the claims of the early-day motion to which I referred earlier.
  What about the effectiveness and timeliness of warnings? I was living in Worcester, but I did not hear about the incident until about 2 pm on Friday, and then essentially by chance. No letters were received in my road until about 7 pm. The delay in giving the warning not to drink the water is an issue, but how could we have achieved something approaching 100 per cent. awareness among the population more rapidly, once that decision was taken?
  There was considerable confusion of message. For example, acting on the same advice from Severn Trent on Saturday morning the two local radio stations offered different advice on the simple question of whether one could brush one's teeth. The letter that came through our door at home at 7 pm contrasted sharply with the reassuring tone of a Severn Trent spokesman on the television news a little earlier.
  There was also confusion about the areas affected, although Severn Trent denies that. The lists issued of places affected were confusing, and the names offered seemed to change from list to list.
  I appreciate the difficulties caused by the particular circumstances of the event. For example, the need for water conservation in other areas made the message more complicated. I do not believe that that aspect of the crisis was satisfactorily handled, however.
  As for the provision of safe water, I have particular concerns about the experience of the rural areas. Perhaps those areas could also have done with better warnings.

  131
  Perhaps the parish council network could have been better used. Could more loudspeaker vans have been deployed in rural areas?
  Bowsers were provided quickly in Worcester, but in many rural areas in the vale of Evesham it simply took too long. Some bowsers in Worcester city were vandalised and even stolen, which may also raise questions about the design of the bowsers for future incidents.
  I am delighted by Severn Trent's response to demands for compensation. We all now have our cheques for £25. That is a generous and prompt response for domestic consumers, but what about businesses? There may be no strict liability on Severn Trent, but many restaurants and hotels in my constituency experienced very real losses.
  What inquiries are being conducted? There are at least five: by Severn Trent, the drinking water inspectorate, the National Rivers Authority, the Worcester and District health authority and the West Midlands regional health authority.
  I expect that Shropshire county council, Ofwat, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and others are also taking a very close look at the issues raised by the events.
  There is a desperate need for co-ordination. Will all the right questions be asked? Will there be wasteful and confusing overlap? Perhaps a full public inquiry is the only way to deal with those concerns properly. I will be listening to the Minister with particular care on that point.
  The fundamental question revolves around the filtration system. The system used at the current Strensham plant would have prevented pollutants reaching the water supply. We must bring forward commissioning of the enlarged plant and the associated water main to Worcester and closure of the Barbourne treatment works.
  It is only Severn Trent's massive investment programme—already well under way before the incident—that makes that possible. Worcester city and Wychavon district councils and the district health authority are all clear that that is the single most effective way to restore the confidence of the people of Worcestershire in their water supply. It is also the only way to ensure that the incident cannot be repeated.
  I have read accounts of four similar incidents in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The experience of this latest incident shows that many lessons have clearly been learnt. We have separated the provider of water from the regulator—a direct result of privatisation. We have recognised the need to speed up public notification, which has been dramatically improved, despite my lingering concerns.
  The media have become more prepared to play their part—I particularly congratulate my two local radio stations, BBC Hereford and Worcester and Radio Wyvern on their excellent service during the weekend in question. The water company has been much more open than other companies were in the past. Finally, the necessary investment in water is being made.
  What do the Government need to do? First, they must do all in their power to stop similar pollution ever occurring again. If history does repeat itself, they must do all that they can to ensure that all drinking water would still be safe to drink. That means two things. The top priority
  132
  must be a thorough review of the licensing regime for industrial processes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr.Pawsey) suggested. That regime enabled Vitalscheme Ltd. to pollute so much water only six weeks after getting its licence.
  It is particularly important to establish whether the test of an individual being "fit and proper" is properly defined in legislation and in guidance from the Department of the Environment. It is also essential that the maximum pressure is put on Severn Trent to bring forward commissioning of the expanded Strensham works and the water main to Worcester.
  Secondly, as I have already said, we must ensure that each and every lesson from this incident is learned. I am encouraged by the openness and determination of Ministers and all the agencies involved, but can we not co-ordinate their work more effectively? Failure to draw the right conclusions because of confusion between the inquiries would be unforgivable, and could have serious implications for any similar future incident.
  I am not one of those who believe that all risk can be eradicated from human life simply by spending enough money—generally, enough of someone else's money, that is. Risk is an integral part of the human condition. On the basis of what I know so far, however, I am clear that my constituents have been exposed to very serious and genuinely avoidable risk. That is why I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to be conscientious and diligent in pursuing this matter. Such events must not be allowed to happen again.
  10.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on bringing this matter before the House and on the way in which he reacted throughout to an incident that caused understandable concern to many of his constituents. I also commend the thoughtful way in which my parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who are present tonight, approached the matter throughout.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has raised a number of issues, and I hope that I can cover most of them fully in the time available. If not, I shall write to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members present who are concerned about the issue.
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the drinking water inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority are carrying out investigations into this incident. I understand also that the Worcester and District health authority is also carrying out investigations. They are all, of course, liaising with each other. I appreciate that there may be concerns that a number of investigations are involved, but as I am sure will be appreciated, these are separate bodies looking at different aspects of the incident. As my hon. Friend has said, I am sure that they will want to try to achieve the maximum possible co-ordination of their work.
  Both the Secretary of State and the NRA are now considering whether prosecutions should be brought against some of those involved in the contamination of the river or in supplying contaminated drinking water. The

  133
  House will understand that I can say nothing that could prejudice either those decisions or any subsequent court proceedings. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made clear, Severn Trent Water has announced that it is to commence criminal proceedings against Vitalscheme Ltd. and its director. I will, however, try to respond as fully as I can to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester.
  I think that there is little disagreement as to the sequence of events. My hon. Friend has mentioned many of the facts, so I will not take up the House's time by repeating what he said. It may be helpful if, for completeness, I made the following points.
  Severn Trent Water reported the incident to the drinking water inspectorate at 10.30 am on Friday, 15 April. The inspectorate monitored developments closely throughout that day and over the weekend. On Monday 18 April, the inspectorate sent two inspectors to the affected area to begin a thorough investigation.
  On the afternoon of 15 April, Severn Trent detected odour in water being taken from the River Severn, and additionally shut down its Strensham water treatment works and Mythe waterworks. Mythe water treatment works supplies consumers in the Gloucester area, and Strensham supplies consumers in the Coventry area. Supplies were maintained to those areas from other sources, although appeals were made to conserve water.
  At just after midnight on Saturday 16 April, the NRA had traced the source of the substance causing the contamination first to a sewage treatment plant operated by Severn Trent Water at Wem some 135 km above Barbourne. It is thought that the substance came to the sewage treatment plant from a waste disposal company in Wem called Vitalscheme Ltd., connected by sewer to the sewage treatment plant.
  The NRA took formal samples from the Wem sewage treatment works and from Vitalscheme Ltd., the company on the Wem industrial park from where the discharge into the sewerage system was believed to have come. The circumstances in which the substance reached the sewer and went into the river from the sewage treatment plant are among those matters which may, I suspect, come before the courts.
  By the morning of 16 April, knowledge of the character and concentration of the contaminants enabled a decision to be taken to re-start the Mythe works. Customers in Gloucester were advised to boil water before drinking it to minimise taste problems. The Strensham works was brought back into use on Monday 18 April, and supplies substantially restored to normal by Monday 25 April.
  As I have said, it is thought that the source of the contamination was Vitalscheme Ltd., a waste disposal company in Wem. Vitalscheme was granted a waste disposal licence under Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 by Shropshire county council. That Act, and regulations made under it, prescribe the procedures to be followed in granting such licences. The aim of these procedures is to ensure the prevention of pollution of water or damage to human health. An authority may attach what conditions it thinks fit to the licence to secure that.
  The licence granted to the company was for a waste transfer station and related only to the handling and storage of water solvent mixtures. It did not and does not relate to the disposal of waste to the sewer or elsewhere. Approval
  134
  of disposal to the sewer would largely be a matter for that part of Severn Trent Water that deals with the sewerage system.
  It is the duty of the water supply companies in England to supply water that is fit to drink. They must also meet the requirements of the water quality regulations relating to drinking water quality, and other matters, such as sampling frequencies and methods of analysis. They are also required by law to report to the drinking water inspectorate incidents where drinking water quality is affected or which, among other things, could give rise to public alarm. Water companies must also have in place arrangements to deal with incidents.
  Water companies in England and Wales are not left to their own devices in those matters. The drinking water inspectorate inspects the companies to ensure that they meet their legal obligations on drinking water quality. It publishes an annual report on its findings. The inspectorate also investigates incidents where drinking water quality is affected or threatened.
  The inspectorate is inquiring into the effects of that incident on drinking water quality and is considering all aspects of the actions that Severn Trent Water took to deal with it, including advice given to consumers and matters relating to sampling and analysis. The inspectorate will also advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on whether Severn Trent Water should be prosecuted for supplying water unfit for human consumption. The inspectorate's report will be published, although that may be delayed if a prosecution is pursued.
  My hon. Friend asked about treatment at the waterworks and why the substances were not removed by it. At this stage, I am reluctant to go into detail about that. That is one of the matters that are, rightly, under investigation by the drinking water inspectorate. It is studying the adequacy of the facilities and treatment processes at the works affected.
  Identifying unknown chemicals present in minute quantities in water is complicated and perforce time-consuming, especially when one has no precise idea what chemicals one is seeking. It involves matching "signatures" with those known and recorded in existing databanks. There are perhaps more than 100,000 such chemicals. The drinking water inspectorate is checking the validity and performance of the methods used during the incident.
  My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the time it took to notify consumers of problems with their drinking water. The works at Barbourne was closed at 9.40 am on Friday 15 April, and local media releases were made at 12.25 pm. It takes time to mobilise the authorities and media to contact the large number of consumers involved.
  It is of course important that any information given out is accurate and not alarmist. Here again, the drinking water inspectorate is investigating the speed of response of all people involved—of course, if my hon. Friend or any of those people involved have suggestions about the way in which the problem can be further improved, I should be very interested to consider such ideas.
  It is important to recognise that, if a water system becomes unpressurised, there is some risk of the water becoming contaminated from the ground. This is a major consideration when considering whether or not to resume piped supplies.
  The NRA has an important role in safeguarding river quality, but it is important to appreciate the extent of its

  135
  responsibilities in fulfilling this role. Anyone who proposes to discharge trade or sewage effluent into a watercourse—including, but by no means restricted to, rivers—needs a consent to do so. If a discharge does not have a consent, or does not comply with the consent, then quite simply, a criminal offence is committed and the discharger is liable to prosecution and if convicted punishment.
  Considering applications for discharge consents, and setting and enforcing consent standards appropriate to protecting river quality, is one of the NRA's main functions. However, the NRA as a regulator is not responsible for discharges made by third parties into rivers, whether authorised or not. It is the discharger's responsibility to ensure that his effluent meets the terms of the consent. The NRA carries out regular monitoring of significant discharges to ensure that that is the case, but it is not feasible for the NRA to require or carry out continuous monitoring of every discharge from every source.
  Inevitably, the NRA depends to a significant extent on dischargers, water users and members of the public to report incidents where it is suspected that water quality may have been affected by pollution. Such reports are carefully investigated without delay by "on-the-spot" pollution control officers. They then take whatever action is practicable to keep polluting matter from the river, keep it from spreading downstream, or neutralise its effects.
  The NRA collects evidence with a view to possible prosecution of the polluter, as its policy is to prosecute in all serious cases. Moreover, the NRA also has the power to recover from the polluter the costs of responding to an incident.
  I understand that, once the NRA received reports from Severn Trent Water of possible problems at the Barbourne abstraction, an urgent investigation was mounted into the possible source. The NRA faced the difficulty that there was no on-site visual, chemical or biological evidence of pollution in the river, but merely a slight and barely detectable smell. Portable instruments were simply not capable of detecting the pollution.
  As such, working back up the river to locate the source was not a quick or easy task. Those concerned had to monitor and sample approximately 135 km of the River Severn and its tributaries, together with discharge points
  136
  and other areas of potential risk, before identifying Severn Trent Water's sewage treatment works at Wem, Shropshire, as the source.
  The NRA's further response to the incident included, in liaison with Severn Trent Water, releases of water from two river regulation reservoirs in Wales to help dilute the already low concentrations of pollutant in the river and wash them downstream.
  The NRA is carrying out an internal inquiry to assess the effectiveness of its response and see whether useful lessons might be learned. The inquiry is being carried out by Grainger Davies, regional general manager of the NRA's Anglian region. He has been asked to report as soon as possible. The NRA's findings will be made publicly available when the investigations are complete, although care may have to be taken to do nothing that might prejudice any prosecutions in respect of the incident, in which case the report would be made public immediately after the conclusion of any such prosecution.
  Severn Trent Water has commissioned its own review, which will be under the chairmanship of Professor Kenneth Ives, emeritus professor at the department of civil and environmental engineering at University college, London. Professor Ives has added two other experts to his team: Dr. Ronald Packham, a specialist in drinking water; and Professor Desmond Hammerton, director of the Clyde river purification board.
  Clearly, all the organisations concerned are taking the incident seriously. I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester about the follow-up which the health authorities are taking. Suffice it to say that the Worcester and District health authority has sent questionnaires to people who are worried that the water may have made them ill and who contacted the helpline. I hope that those who receive a questionnaire will return it. Longer-term studies are planned by the West Midlands regional health authority, because it is determined that there should be the fullest investigation of possible longer-term health implications.
  It is clear from the action that has been taken and is being taken that we take seriously any incident that affects the safety of drinking water, and that the most rigorous investigations are being carried out into all aspects of this incident—
  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 three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's press releases issued electronically through the Central Office of Information are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and to POLIS.

  The Department's press releases are also available through the COI's fax retrieval service, details of which can be provided by their news distribution service.

  There are no further plans to use Internet.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued relating to charges for eye tests and visual field tests; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No guidance has been issued about charges for eye sight tests and visual field tests. Under the general ophthalmic services certain groups of people are entitled to a free sight test on the national health service.

  Vacant Hospital Consultant Posts by Specialty Group England—30 September 1988–1992

  Specialty Group

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  General Medicine Group

  133·4

  119·7

  129·2

  86·3

  82·8

  Accident and Emergency

  17·0

  15·0

  18·4

  12·6

  15·6

  Surgical Group

  110·5

  88·2

  135·3

  77·7

  63·8

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  25·0

  17·9

  23·4

  12·6

  15·0

  Anaesthetics

  100·2

  70·3

  87·9

  44·8

  66·7

  Radiology Group

  38·3

  34·6

  33·9

  16·8

  15·0

  Radiotherapy

  6·7

  4·2

  7·2

  2·0

  4·0

  Pathology Group

  70·3

  39·0

  49·9

  31·5

  16·6

  Psychiatry Group

  268·9

  193·4

  217·3

  137·9

  131·6

  Dental Specialties

  20·1

  10·0

  10·5

  12·3

  9·0

  ALL SPECIALTIES

  790·4

  592·3

  713·0

  434·5

  420·1

  Note: The table shows whole time equivalent.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she expects to meet the target of 72-hour maximum contracts for junior doctors by 31 December.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Returns from regional task forces for the six months to 31 March 1994 are currently being analysed. We will make an announcement in due course.

  Dental Services
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she will take to introduce the licensing and registration of denturists and dental technicians following the Nuffield report;

  (2) if she will take steps to establish a separate profession of clinical dental technicians covered by legislation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the terms of the Dentists Act 1984 it is for the General Dental Council to make regulations to establish classes of dental auxiliaries who may undertake dental work.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the number of dentures fitted by denturists and dental technicians; and what percentage this represents of the total number of dentures fitted.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Dentists Act 1984 does not permit dental technicians to fit dentures.

  Hospital Consultant Posts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 307, how many hospital consultant posts have been vacant, by specialty, in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  This indicates trends in consultant vacancies notified to the Department as at 30 September of each year. As a snapshot of vacancies on a single date they may not fairly reflect the trend for the number of vacancies over the year as a whole.

  Ministerial Visits
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hospitals that each of her Ministers and she has visited in the last three months where journalists have not been present; and for what percentage of the total number of their hospital visits journalists have not been present.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministerial visits to hospitals are not planned on the basis of whether journalists will or will not be present. The Department does not keep records of their attendance on such visits.

  Mr. George Henry Dance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require a report from the director of Berkshire county council social services department on the circumstances of the case of Mr. George Henry Dance.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a report on this case from the Berkshire social services department.

  Registered Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use is made of the annual reports of local authority registration and inspection units.

  Mr. Bowis
  The purpose of inspection unit annual reports is set out in chapter 5 of "Caring for People—Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 160, how many entries there were in the national list of cancelled registrations for each year since the Registered Homes Act 1984 came into force.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of names reported to the Department for inclusion in the national list of cancelled and refused registrations since 1985 when the Registered Homes Act 1984 came into operation is shown in the table.

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  Dually registered homes

  1985

  2

  3

  —

  1986

  16

  5

  —

  1987

  28

  4

  —

  1988

  54

  15

  2

  1989

  44

  1

  2

  1990

  54

  21

  2

  1991

  74

  16

  —

  1992

  38

  3

  —

  1993

  34

  10

  —

  Notes:

  1. The figures may include some cases where the registration of more than one person was cancelled in respect of the same home.

  2. Since 1990 the list has included those cases where an initial request for registration has been refused.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will reduce the charge for prescription charges to the same amount in current prices as in May 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Guy's Hospital
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a full reply to the April letter from the chair of the Southwark community health council on the subject of her statement of 10 February as it affects Guy's hospital by 9 May.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Community Care (Local Government Reorganisation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that the new authorities established following the review of local government are 4
  of appropriate geographical size and population and have sufficient human and financial resources to work effectively with health authorities in the commissioning of community services, provide specialist services within a soundly based, multi-disciplinary framework and secure the cost-effective provision of a wide range of care services within a mixed economy of care.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  We will not implement changes to local government structure unless we are satisfied that effective provision can be made for all local authority functions, including personal social services. That provision may include shared arrangements in some cases. The resources available to new authorities will be decided in the same way as for existing authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rhinoceros Horn and Ivory
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will engage in discussions with representatives from Hong Kong, Japan and China for the purpose of eliminating the demand for rhinoceros horn and ivory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom works actively through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES—and bilateral contacts to persuade consumer states to stamp out the illegal trade in rhino horn and ivory. The CITES standing committee in March called for further progress in enforcement before its conference in November. The committee particularly commended Hong Kong for its recent efforts.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received concerning the slaughter of rhinoceros and elephants for rhinoceros horn and ivory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We receive a great many representations and share public concern about trade in endangered species. We are actively involved in international efforts, through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES—to stamp out this activity.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations has made to the Security Council members about upgrading the United Nations involvement in Rwanda; and what was his response.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Secretary-General has made no requests to the Security Council about upgrading United Nations involvement in Rwanda. He did present a series of options to the Security Council in his report of 20 April, on the basis of which it adopted Security Council resolution 912.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has had with the Organisation of African Unity over Rwanda; and what material, financial and diplomatic support he is offering to the OAU for the peace process.
  5
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have welcomed the involvement of the Organisation of African Unity and countries of the region in attempts to bring about a ceasefire and advance the peace process. The United Nations Secretary-General is in touch with OAU states about their possible involvement in further international operations in Rwanda. We await the Secretary-General's recommendations in the light of these discussions.

  Belize
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 123, what steps he is taking to secure the recognition by Guatemala of Belize as a sovereign and independent state.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Guatemala recognised Belize as a sovereign and independent state in September 1991. This was reaffirmed by the new Guatemalan Government in August 1993. We will continue to encourage both countries to work for a full settlement of their territorial dispute.

  Conventional Arms Register
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government submitted to the United Nations Secretary-General a return from the United Kingdom to the United Nations register of conventional arms; and if he will place a copy of the return in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We submitted our return to the UN register covering the calendar year 1993 to the UN Secretary-General on 29 April. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  King Charles Street Building
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconcile the figures of the estimated total cost of refurbishment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building in King Charles street, as given in his answers to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) of 12 April,Official Report, column 14, and to the hon. Member for South Hams on 25 April.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The figures given in my answer of 25 April were restricted to expenditure totalling £86 million by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Prior to 1988 the Property Services Agency—PSA—was responsible for major works. It would be possible to quantify PSA expenditure only at disproportionate cost. The balance of £14 million represents an assessment of works costs based on such evidence as is readily available. It covers essential maintenance works when the Home Office vacated part of the building in 1978 and refurbishment of one part of the former India Office between 1984 and 1986.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Angola peace talks in Lusaka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the Lusaka talks, the Government of Angola and UNITA have reached agreement on military issues, the formation and 6
  composition of the police and the general principles of the electoral process. They are still discussing national reconciliation, including the issue of UNITA participation in government, upon which they have yet to agree.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  E-mail
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will consider introducing a system enabling hon. Members to table written questions by E-mail.

  Mr. Newton
  Such a change would need to be considered by the appropriate Committees of the House.

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities the Office of Parliamentary Counsel offer to hon. Members representing Opposition parties in the drafting of amendments to public Bills which were not originally drafted for the Government.

  Mr. Newton
  The Office of Parliamentary Counsel does not offer facilities to hon. Members except at the request of Ministers.

  Deregulation Orders (Scrutiny)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the Government will reply to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure on the parliamentary scrutiny of deregulation orders, and publish their response.

  Mr. Newton
  Copies of the Government response are now available from the Vote Office.

TREASURY

  G10 General Agreement to Borrow
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the G10 general agreement to borrow power has been used in the last 10 years; and what was the United Kingdom contribution on each occasion.

  Mr. Nelson
  The general arrangements to borrow have not been used in the last 10 years.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury is planning to use the Internet for the exchange of electronic mail.

  Press releases issued by the Treasury are distributed by the Central Office of Information through its news distribution service—NDS. The NDS advises that:

  (i) Most Government press releases issued electronically via NDS are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis.

  (ii) It is up to the "hosts", i.e. the organisations who hold databases of Government press releases, to negotiate

  7
  access via the Internet. Neither the COI nor its Government clients can insist on this, as there are commercial and security implications that only the "hosts" can decide upon.

  The use of the Internet is one of a number of options being examined for increasing openness.

  Tropical Rainforests
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received asking that pension and other institutional funds be required to make available to their investors details regarding the identity and work of companies involved in timber exploitation in tropical rainforests.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. It is for institutions, their auditors and regulators to settle the contents of their annual reports and other information provided to investors, with due regard to legal requirements.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to consult on the role of employers in self-assessment as announced in his November 1993 Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is today publishing a consultative document entitled "Self-assessment: what it will mean for employers and employees." The document considers where changes may be necessary or desirable for self-assessment. It makes proposals for employers to give their employees information they will need to complete a self-assessment tax return after the new system has come in.

  In designing the proposals the Inland Revenue has aimed to keep any burden on employers to the minimum necessary to enable those employees who receive tax returns after 6 April 1997 to self-assess. The proposals have been discussed with employers' representatives and they are now being set out in the document for wider consultation and comment.

  Copies of the consultative document will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 46, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: Firms of consultants employed by my Department, including in privatisation contracts, for the period August 1991 to March 1994 are listed. The remaining consultancies were carried out by individuals, academics and academic institutes.

  Consultancy firm

  Number

  Price Waterhouse

  12

  TPF & C

  2

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  3

  Mouchel Management Ltd.

  1

  Inenco Group

  2

  Demograft Recruitment Consultants

  3

  Wyatt Company (UK) Ltd.

  3

  Touche Ross & Co.

  3

  8

  Consultancy firm

  Number

  Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte

  2

  Arthur Walton & Partners

  1

  KPMG

  5

  Ernst & Young

  8

  KPG Computer Support

  7

  PMMS Consulting Group Ltd.

  1

  Dunnett Shaw and Partners

  3

  DW Diamond Management Consultants Ltd.

  1

  Hay Management Consultants

  1

  Grosvenor Consultancy Services

  1

  William M. Mercer

  2

  Montrose

  2

  Kingsley Lord Ltd.

  1

  Achilles Consultancy

  1

  Solid Solutions Associates

  3

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lake Windermere
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the cost to public funds of the public inquiry shortly to be held into the proposed byelaws and objections concerning Lake Windermere in the Lake District national park;

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to safeguard the position of sport and recreation on Lake Windermere, without recourse to a public inquiry, following the proposal of byelaws seeking to introduce a 10 mph speed limit on Lake Windermere.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We consider that the terms of reference of the public inquiry which my right hon. and learned Friend has ordered to be held into the proposed byelaws should be sufficiently broad to encompass matters such as the practicality of alternative approaches to the management of Lake Windermere advocated by the Sports Council and others. I understand that the council and a number of other sports bodies are due to give oral evidence at the inquiry. It is not possible to estimate the cost of the inquiry at this stage.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes there are in operation in(a) each country in Wales, (b) Wales as a whole and (c) England as a whole.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the number of neighbourhood watch schemes is recorded at police level and so it is not possible to attribute schemes to individual Welsh counties. The number of schemes recorded by the police at the end of December 1993 for England and Wales is as follows:

  Police Force Area

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes

  Dyfed—Powys

  1,257

  Gwent

  210

  North Wales

  2,989

  South Wales

  1,292

  Total Wales

  5,748

  Total England

  124,856

  Juvenile Offenders
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he will put in place to assist financially the families of juvenile offenders in secure training centres when visiting their children in the centres.

  Mr. Howard
  I intend to put in place a scheme which will enable a juvenile offender, on one occasion each week, to receive a visit from immediate family members, foster parents or guardians with the visitor able to claim reimbursement of the cost of that visit. I hope that this will encourage more frequent contacts between families and offenders, thus helping to maintain ties and promoting the involvement of families in offenders' training plans and in their progress in the centre prior to returning to the community.

  Police, Peterlee
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police constables were deployed in the Peterlee sub-division in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many women police officers were deployed in the Peterlee sub-division in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The deployment of police resources within a force area is a matter for the chief constable. I understand from the chief constable that the Peterlee sub-division was merged with the Seaham sub-division on 1 January 1989 to form the Easington sub-division. The information provided relates to that part of the division made up of the Peterlee area.

  Year As at 31 December

  Strength Constables (male and female)

  Strength Women Officers

  1989

  91

  10

  1990

  92

  11

  1991

  98

  12

  1992

  103

  13

  1993

  110

  21

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Howard
  About 1,250 mobile telephones are in use in my Department, including executive agencies. About a dozen are installed in official vehicles. There are about 2,100 pagers. Mobile telephones and pagers are used mainly by staff in Her Majesty's Prison Service and Her Majesty's Immigration Service, who for operational reasons need to maintain immediate contact with their offices or other officials. Annual expenditure is estimated to be about £745,000, excluding capital costs which are variable.

  Asylum Seekers and Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 943–45, what were the numbers in each local education authority of (a) asylum seekers and refugees, (b) children of asylum seekers and refugees, (c) unaccompanied children admitted as asylum seekers or refugees and (d) children admitted for family reunion reasons, admitted to the United Kingdom for the years (i) 1990–91, (ii) 1991–92, (iii) 1992–93 and (iv) 1993–94, derived from addresses notified to the Immigration and Nationality Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  Limited use of the Internet is made by research and development scientists in my Department for communicating with universities and other research organisations. My Department's press notices are passed electronically to the Central Office of Information, through which they are made available to users of the Internet. We have no further plans to use the Internet.

  Immigration
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the carrying companies that have failed to pay expenses incurred in respect of persons detained, or liable to be detained, under the Immigration Acts, the amounts owing, and which amounts are still being pursued.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not normal practice to disclose information on the amounts owed in detention expenses by individual carrying companies, nor their payment record. The total amount currently owed to the Immigration Department is £2·7 million. Similar information about the amount due by carriers to police forces and the Prison Service for immigration detention costs is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom have been granted in each of the last five years on the basis of a common-law relationship with a British citizen.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table. Information on cases where the partner was a British citizen is not separately identifiable in these statistics.

  Acceptances for settlement' on the basis of a common-law relationship with a partner who is settled in the United Kingdom or who is a British citizen.
  11

  Year

  Number

  1989

  110

  1990

  170

  1991

  310

  1992

  290

  1993

  400

  1 On a discretionary basis.

  Integrated National Criminal Intelligence Systems
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in each financial year the amount spent on the development of the integrated national criminal intelligence systems computer project; which private sector firms participated in this project; and what amounts have been paid to them.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The figures, including the amounts paid to private sector firms, are given in the table. The private sector firms participating were Computer Sciences Co. Ltd., Grafton Database Associates Ltd., Hoskyns', PA Consultants, Software AG and World Quality Systems. Individual contract costs are commercially confidential, but the total amount paid to private sector firms was £1·008 million.

  Year

  £ Thousands

  1989–90

  173

  1990–91

  357

  1991–92

  699

  1992–93

  218

  TOTAL

  1,447

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects the crime statistics to be broadly the same as in May 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will not make predictions on long-term crime statistics. In the meantime, the Government will continue to take vigorous action to tackle crime and protect the public.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new appointments have been made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Howard
  Ann Kelly, who served on the British Railways Board up to 1992 with responsibility for promoting equal opportunities, has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. She took up her appointment on 18 April.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Fire Precautions Legislation
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the six bedspace rule in respect of fire precautions legislation.
  12
  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has received a number of representations on this subject, particularly from tourist accommodation operators with more than six bedspaces. The effect of fire precautions legislation and its enforcement featured strongly in responses to my Department's inquiry into regulatory burdens on the tourism industry. These matters are currently being considered both by the Home Office and by the interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny team, announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade —to whom I have made the tourism industry's concerns known—on 17 January.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department has made of the effect of local government reorganisation on the English regional tourist board structure.

  Mr. Sproat
  Each of the regional tourist boards—RTBs —is an independent organisation, and their boundaries will not be directly affected by the outcome of the local government review. Local authorities have always been active supporters of the work of the RTBs, and I am sure the RTBs will be keen to co-operate with any new authorities which emerge from the review.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the objectives of the Government's tourism policy.

  Mr. Sproat
  The objectives of the Government's tourism policy are, as set out in my Department's annual report, to create the conditions which will encourage inward and domestic tourism so that the industry can make its full contribution to the economy and increase opportunities for access to our culture and heritage.

  In pursuit of this overall aim my Department seeks to:
  —facilitate the work of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board in developing the tourism product to its full potential and in marketing it to the consumer both overseas and at home; and
  —ensure that all parts of Government take full account of the implications of their policies for the tourism industry and that unnecessary barriers to its development are removed.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the review of the crown classification system in respect of tourism in England to be completed.

  Mr. Sproat
  The consultants commissioned by the English tourist board to review the crown classification scheme are due to report to the board at the end of May. My Department will then discuss with the English tourist board its proposals for taking forward the recommendations of the report.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom tourism survey.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact on non-EC tourist traffic and expenditure in the United Kingdom as a result of implementing EC Commission proposal Com (94) 58 to amend directive 77/388/EEC.

  Mr. Sproat
  The proposed amendment to directive 77/388/EEC imposes a minimum threshold of 175 ecus
  13
  before non-EU visitors can claim a VAT refund. There is some concern within the retail sector that this would have an adverse effect on tourist expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of these concerns and the Government have made clear their objections to this proposal.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have asked the English tourist board to review its research activities, including the United Kingdom tourism survey. The aim of this review is to assess whether information is being provided for the industry and for Government in a form that meets their needs. This review is due to be completed in the near future.

  Public Library Service
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of local government reorganisation on the public library service; and what account he has taken of the views of the chairman of Library and Information Services, Council for England.

  Mr. Sproat
  In his annual report to Parliament on library matters, published last month in conjunction with that of the Library and Information Services Council, my right hon. Friend responded to the council's concern about the likely effect of local government reorganisation upon existing county library services in the following terms:"I am well aware of the deep feelings which have been aroused by proposals for change in the structure of local government and have, myself, taken every opportunity to register within Government the importance of ensuring effective future arrangements for the delivery of the public library service, whatever the final outcome of the re-organisation".

  Administration Expenditure
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much of his Department's estimated outturn expenditure on administration for the year 1994–95 will be spent on(a) premises, (b) publicity and (c) salaries.

  Mr. Sproat
  Estimated expenditure in the three areas is:

  £ Million

  Premises

  3·5

  Publicity

  0·1

  Salaries

  9·1

  National Lottery
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how much of the cost for 1994–95 of the Office of the National Lottery will be spent on(a) salaries, (b) publicity and (c) administration;

  (2) how many staff are at present employed at the Office of the National Lottery; and how many are likely to be employed once the lottery has begun its operation;

  (3) what services of the Office of the National Lottery have been contracted out; to whom and for what purpose.

  Mr. Brooke
  These are matters for the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member and place copies of his reply in the Library of the House.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department's press releases, issued electronically through the Central Office of Information, are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and to POLIS.

  My Department's press releases are also made available through the COI's fax retrieval service, details of which can be provided by its news distribution service.

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

  Mr. Sproat
  Since formation in April 1992, my Department and its agencies have not employed any private detective agencies.

  Private security firms have been employed and I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 21 April 1994, Official Report, column
  613.

  British Library
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretry of State for National Heritage what plans he has for the completion of the British library building at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Brooke
  Following a competitive tendering exercise, I have agreed to place a contract for the cladding and fitting-out of the final phase of construction with a joint venture consortium comprising Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd. and Haden Young Ltd.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: Nil.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single Market
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions advice from the single market compliance unit has led to a United Kingdom company successfully challenging a contract originally awarded to a company based in another member state of the European Union.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The single market compliance unit and other parts of Government have provided guidance to
  15
  many companies on EC public purchasing procedures. Companies do not usually report back to us unless they face subsequent difficulty. We therefore do not know to what extent Government advice has enabled United Kingdom firms successfully to challenge public sector contracts originally awarded to companies from other member states.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Eggar
  Records are no longer kept centrally of all uses of mobile telephones, pagers and electronic bleepers. However it is estimated that excluding "next steps" agencies there are some 700 mobile telephones and 480 pagers/bleepers in use in my Department at costs of around £280,000 and £65,000 per annum respectively.

  This equipment is in use where the costs can be shown to be justified by improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. This covers a wide range of personnel.

  Easington (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will pay a visit to the Easington constituency; and when was the last time he was in that area.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no plans at present to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. My last visit to Durham was on 18 September 1992 when I opened the new joint office of the Northern chambers of commerce and I attended the annual dinners of the Teeside and Tyne and Wear chambers in April and October of last year.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current capacity of the electricity interconnector with France; what percentage of this capacity is utilised; and what proposals there are for constructing additional capacity to transmit electricity between Britain and continental Europe.

  Mr. Eggar
  The interconnector with France has a capacity of 2,000 MW. Since it was commissioned in 1986 it has generally been fully utilised. Proposals to construct additional capacity between Britain and continental Europe are a matter for the industry.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, columns 251–53, on research establishments, when he expects to make a further announcement on his plans for contracting out.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I will make further announcements as and when I am ready to do so.

  Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of British exports at constant prices in each of the last five years; and what proportion consisted exports of military equipment.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The value of United Kingdom exports, in constant 1990 prices, is given in the table. Information on exports of military equipment is not available in constant prices. The proportion of total visible exports accounted for by military equipment, in current prices, is given in the table.

  Year

  United Kingdom visible exports (£ billion, 1990 prices)

  Military Equipment1 as a percentage of total (in current price terms)

  1989

  95·8

  3·4

  1990

  101·7

  2·8

  1991

  102·9

  2·2

  1992

  105·2

  2·7

  1993

  108·3

  2·1

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Note:

  1 Military equipment is defined, in terms of the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 3), as aircraft and associated equipment (all tariff headings in division 79 other than those identified as "civil"; and excluding spacecraft and launch vehicles); warships (tariff heading 890600 100) and arms and ammunition (for military purposes) (division 98).

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each current grant, incentive, advice, consultancy, award or other scheme involving either direct or indirect expenditure his Department sponsors together with the date of commencement, and the authority for each such scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  The supply estimates for 1994–95 and the DTI's annual report for 1994—both published in March —copies of which are available in the Library of the House, describe in some detail the Department's current schemes involving programme expenditure. The information requested regarding dates of commencement and authority for individual schemes could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Arms and Ammunition Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the controls or licence requirements in respect of the export of arms and ammunition to the counties of central and south America; and how many licences were(a) issued and (b) applied for and rejected for such countries in the last three years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Exports of arms and ammunition to all destinations are controlled under the relevant Export of Goods (Control) Order. Arms and ammunition as defined in the International Munitions List are prefixed "ML" in the orders. Details of the numbers of licences in respect of destinations in south and central America in the last three complete calendar years are as follows.
  17

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Issued

  Refused

  Issued

  Refused

  Issued

  Refused

  Mexico

  16

  0

  23

  0

  9

  0

  Belize

  5

  0

  1

  0

  7

  0

  Guatemala

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Honduras

  2

  0

  16

  0

  11

  0

  E1 Salvador

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nicaragua

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Costa Rica

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Panama

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colo"mbia

  12

  0

  19

  0

  10

  0

  Venezuela

  18

  0

  20

  0

  21

  0

  Guyana

  1

  0

  2

  0

  4

  0

  Surinam

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ecuador

  22

  0

  20

  0

  17

  0

  Peru

  14

  1

  15

  0

  23

  0

  Brazil

  148

  0

  261

  0

  595

  0

  Bolivia

  0

  0

  2

  0

  6

  0

  Chile

  264

  0

  303

  0

  83

  0

  Paraguay

  2

  0

  2

  0

  5

  0

  Argentina

  1

  3

  2

  4

  0

  5

  Uruguay

  3

  0

  8

  0

  4

  0

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to publish the consultative document on opening up the domestic gas market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the consultation document on the future of the United Kingdom gas market.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the consultation paper on regulation of the competitive gas market will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Director General of Gas Supply and I have today published our joint consultative document, "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market". This outlines an approach to bringing the benefits of competition to the domestic gas supply market, and describes the regulatory arrangements which could be put in place. This is a consultation document, and no decisions have been taken.

  Comments are requested on certain issues by the end of June, and on the remainder by the end of July. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House. Further copies are available from the Library at the Office of Gas Supply.

  The proposals envisage the separation of the business of gas supply, which is increasingly subject to competition, from gas transportation, which will continue to be substantially a monopoly.

  The proposed new licensing framework will allow independent suppliers, as well as the British Gas supply business, to have their gas transported through the pipeline system and supply customers. Regulation on the supply business will gradually be relaxed as the benefits of competition flow, although a number of important conditions, such as debt and disconnection, will be retained indefinitely.

  Because of the complexity of the issues and the need to feed back experience as it is gained, the introduction of competition will be phased in carefully. For the first two years, the extent of competition will be limited to 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the volume of gas sold.
  18
  A new British Gas network code, to be agreed by OFGAS, will ensure that all approved suppliers—including the British Gas supply business—can use the transportation system on a fair and responsible basis. The document envisages that prices charged by the British Gas transportation network will be controlled by a formula.

  The document makes it clear that safety will remain paramount. Broadly, the present system for handling gas emergencies will continue, with the British Gas transportation and storage business responsible for providing the emergency service, including making safe any leak on the customer's side of the meter and the first half hour of any repair work associated with a leak. The transportation business would also handle connections to the network. The Health and Safety Commission will make a thorough study of the safety implications of the proposals in the document.

  Special considerations apply to the domestic market they include.

  Assurance of Supply
  Customers of British Gas at present have a high assurance of supply. We see no reason why the competitive market should not provide a similarly high level of assurance—and the consumer will benefit from the choice provided by competition.

  Standards of Service
  The document recognises the importance of meeting high standards of service, especially in areas such as debt and disconnection, and services for the elderly and disabled. The document proposes that the same regulatory standards should apply in these areas both to British Gas and its competitors.

  Pricing
  The principal effect of competition is likely to be overall downward pressure on costs and prices. Competition is a spur to efficiency, innovation and higher standards of service. Within this overall pattern, small price differentials are likely to emerge gradually as relative prices move to reflect costs.

  However it will be important to avoid abrupt price movements and a number of proposals are put forward in this area. The document makes clear that:
  the present RPI-4 price formula will continue to apply until at least 1997;
  the maximum level of standing charge, will continue to be capped at 1986 levels in real terms—at least until 1997;
  —OFGAS's proposals on transportation standing charges should help reduce any pressures to raise prices for the average small consumer;
  —during the transitional period between 1996 and 1998, it is expected that no British Gas published tariff will increase by more than the rate of inflation, taking one year with another and apart from factors outside the control of the gas supply industry.
  19
  Energy Efficiency
  The document considers whether it might be reasonable to broaden the director's powers in this area. It also suggests that suppliers should be enabled to sell total energy packages, including both gas and energy saving measures, so that least cost planning can be undertaken by consumers at the level of the individual kitchen.

  Comments are requested on the points raised in the document. On certain issues of direct relevance to the preparation of draft legislation—which are marked at the end of each chapter—comments should be received by the end of June 1994. For other issues, comments can be received up to the end of July.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given of the impact on low-income gas consumers of a 2 per cent. premium on gas bills to achieve the Government's energy conservation targets.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are committed to achieving the Rio target and look to energy efficiency programmes devised by the Energy Saving Trust to make a sizeable contribution to meeting the target. Consideration is being given to the means of financing these programmes, including their costs to gas consumers. No decisions have been taken.

  Oil Industry
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out his powers in respect of cancelling or refusing licences if an oil company takes over another.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: If an oil company takes over another which has a petroleum licence, this would constitute a change of control of that licensee. A change of control of a licensee might, in certain circumstances, trigger the Secretary of State's power to revoke the licence. If an oil company takes over another company which has applied for a licence, such an application would be treated on its merits. Under the relevant legislation the Secretary of State has power to grant licences to such persons as he thinks fit.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation has taken place with Her Majesty's Government with regard to the continuation of licences when an oil company takes over another.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Such consultations take place from time to time in relation to developments in the market. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today, which sets out the Secretary of State's powers in the event of a change of control of a licensee.

  Year

  Total Applications

  Independent Consultants

  Firm of Consultants

  Others

  Referred to Advisory Committee

  Department of Trade and Industy

  1986

  48

  5

  5

  38

  3

  1987

  83

  4

  15

  64

  5

  1988

  107

  23

  13

  71

  3

  1989

  138

  7

  13

  118

  5

  1990

  168

  29

  7

  132

  1

  1991

  46

  6

  7

  33

  2

  1992

  72

  14

  25

  33

  2

  1993

  51

  17

  7

  27

  1

  Coal Industry Privatisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 708, if he will now announce a new redundancy scheme for mineworkers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The operation of British Coal's redundancy arrangements is a matter for the corporation. I understand it is currently discussing with the unions the redundancy arrangements for industrial employees to apply after 30 April.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce a statutory requirement to ensure that the new coal authority must ensure appropriate environmental safeguards and levels of public accountability for the privatised coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: It will be for the successor companies to discharge their obligations to protect the environment, and for the relevant regulators to enforce these obligations.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade in manufacturing goods in May 1979; and what it is currently.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the balance of trade in manufacturing is no longer readily available on a monthly basis for 1979. In the second quarter of 1979, the United Kingdom had a trade surplus in manufactures worth £1·1 billion. In the last three months to January 1994, the United Kingdom had a deficit of £2·5 billion.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants in his Department and the Department of Energy 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. Heseltine
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The table sets out the information requested. Under the business appointment rules Departments may not withhold approval but they may impose conditions on applicants. They may, for example, impose waiting periods of up to two years before outside employment is taken up.
  21

  Year

  Total Applications

  Independent Consultants

  Firm of Consultants

  Others

  Referred to Advisory Committee

  1994 (Q1)

  34

  4

  11

  19

  0

  Department of Energy

  1986

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1987

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1988

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1989

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the costs incurred by his office in(a) providing legal advice to witnesses appearing before the Scott inquiry, (b) drawing up evidence to be submitted to the Scott inquiry, (c) officials and legal advisers attending the Scott inquiry and (d) any other related costs.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: The cost to the DTI of providing legal advice to witnesses giving evidence to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry is currently £165,976. Officials and Ministers, whether serving or former, have provided evidence to the inquiry on a personal basis and have not been supervised by the Department. It is not possible, therefore, to estimate the time spent or cost incurred in the provision of such evidence. Serving officials are required to submit evidence and attend the inquiry as invited by Lord Justice Scott as part of their official duties.

  The direct central cost of the provision of evidence and information from the DTI to the inquiry is estimated to be £311,219, which represents the cost of the inquiry liaison unit within the DTI and the costs of the attendant registry. The direct costs of the Scott inquiry to date, falling to my department, have been £1,028,000.

WALES

  European Regional Fund
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the moneys received by local authorities in the county of Clwyd from the regional fund of the EU since its inception.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total European regional development fund grant aid received by local authorities in Clwyd since 1975 is £48,424,961.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the regional challenge basis for ERDF funding allocation in England being used as a suitable basis for allocating funds in Wales; and what plans he has to top-slice objective 5b funds in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have decided that a proportion of the ERDF allocations in both the objective 2 and 5b areas of Wales will be used to fund projects selected through regional challenge competitions, which I believe will enhance the quality and value for money of grant allocations by stimulating the submission of imaginative regeneration and development proposals from local partnerships.

  Meat Hygiene
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to establish a meat hygiene service office in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Detailed arrangements for the meat hygiene service's organisation are still under consideration.

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers of(a) part-time and (b) full-time employee workers on Welsh farms for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is given in the following table. The number of seasonal and casual workers is not recorded as either part-time or full-time and is shown separately.

  Employees on Farm Holdings in Wales1

  Year

  Part-time2

  Full-time2

  Seasonal or Casual

  1989

  3,674

  6,112

  8,252

  1990

  3,983

  5,881

  8,196

  1991

  3,912

  5,730

  8,504

  1992

  4,021

  5,382

  8,286

  1993

  4,052

  5,405

  7,918

  Source: June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  1At June each year. Includes estimate for minor holdings. All figures include trainees employed under an official scheme at Agricultural Wages Board rates or above.

  2 Includes all family and hired workers, excluding spouses of farmers, partners and directors.

  Students
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county and for Wales as a whole how many students receiving further education receive repayments from the further education access fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Access funds are allocated to individual further and higher education institutions. Returns from institutions show that the number of students on further education courses who received payments from the access funds in 1992–93 were:

  Institution

  Number of students

  North East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  168

  Llandrillo Technical College

  178

  Welsh College of Horticulture

  11

  23

  Institution

  Number of students

  Llysfasi College

  8

  Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  30

  Pembrokeshire College

  41

  Coleg Ceredigion

  27

  Welsh Agriculture College

  1

  Trinity College

  —

  Gwent Tertiary College

  320

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  16

  Gwynedd Technical College

  79

  Coleg Pencraig

  31

  Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor

  16

  Coleg Normal Bangor

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil College

  58

  Aberdare College

  63

  Bridgend College

  22

  Rhondda College

  10

  Ystrad Mynach College

  104

  Pontypridd College

  117

  Pencoed College

  8

  University of Glamorgan

  —

  Coleg Powys

  49

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  —

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education

  11

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  67

  Barry College of FE

  67

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  5

  Swansea College

  15

  Gorseinon College

  4

  Neath College

  11

  Afan College

  11

  Coleg Harlech

  53

  Arable Farming
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest total paid to farmers in(a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme payments in Wales following the 1993–94 harvest.

  Mr. Redwood
  Payments made under(a) arable aid scheme set aside payments amount to £617,480 and (b) arable area total payments of £5,526,385, in the 1992–93 harvest year.

  No payments have yet been made in respect of the 1993–94 harvest year.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms in Wales had arable aid scheme set-aside areas greater than(a) 100 hectares and (b) 50 hectares in the last available year.

  Mr. Redwood
  No farms in Wales had arable aid scheme set-aside areas greater than 50 hectares.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers in Wales received arable area payments greater than(a) £100,000, (b) £250,000, (c) £500,000 and (d) £1,000,000 in the last available year.

  Mr. Redwood
  No farmers in Wales received payments greater than £100,000.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms in Wales had hectarages of land under cereals greater than(a) 1,000 hectares, (b) 500 hectares and (c) 250 hectares in the last available year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Because of the risk of disclosing confidential information it is not possible to answer the question using the size groups given. The information 24
  available is for those farms growing over 175 hectares of cereals—excluding maize. There were, according to the June 1993 agricultural census, four of these holdings in Wales.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Consultants
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the Information Technology Services Agency's current major software developments are undertaken or managed by private consultants.

  Mr. Hague
  ITSA currently has 59 major software development projects. The use and combination of consultants, contractors and civil servants vary on each of the projects. In 1993–94, 62.3 per cent. of ITSA's total personnel costs for software development was spent on consultancy/contractors.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department's press releases issued electronically through the Central Office of Information are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and to POLIS.

  The Department's press releases are also made available through the COI's fax retrieval service, details of which can be provided by their news distribution service.

  There are no immediate plans to use the Internet. However, this Department is currently undertaking a review of its telecommunications requirements. This includes an evaluation of the services which are available, including Internet, to decide on the most suitable networks to meet its future requirements.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent a person with no housing costs, who is on income support, and who moves out of the matrimonial home, is entitled to help with the costs of a new mortgage.

  Mr. Burt
  From May 1994, persons in receipt of income support with no housing costs who move out of the matrimonial home will not receive help with the interest on a new mortgage for a new home unless it relates to the special needs of a disabled person, the need to provide separate sleeping accommodation for children of different sexes over the age of 10 years, or it is for essential repairs and improvements.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants had deductions from their benefit amounting to(a) over 15 per cent. and (b) over 20 per cent. of (i) their benefit income and (ii) their total income.
  25
  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is in the table.

  Number of cases

  Benefit income

  Deductions over 15 per cent. of benefit income

  260,000

  Deductions over 20 per cent. of benefit income

  156,000

  Total income

  Deductions over 15 per cent. of total income

  244,000

  Deductions over 20 per cent. of total income

  146,000

  Source: Income Support Statistical Enquiry, May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. The deductions are for direct payments to third parties, Social Fund loan repayments, and overpayment recoveries. The third party deductions include direct payments to lenders of the mortgage

  Income Support Recipients Cases with Deductions

  Cases with one or more deductions Number of Cases

  Average Total Income

  Cases with more than one deduction Number of Cases

  Average Total Income

  Higher Pensioner Premium

  23,000

  98·07

  4,000

  99·18

  Enhanced Pensioner Premium

  4,000

  69·01

  1,000

  60·16

  Pensioner Premium

  38,000

  74·76

  10,000

  72·12

  Severe Disability Premium (Higher Rate)

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Severe Disability Premium (Lower Rate)

  5,000

  144·81

  2,000

  159·76

  Disability Premium

  97,000

  98·33

  35,000

  104·57

  Lone Parent Premium

  422,000

  94·69

  176,000

  96·47

  Disabled Child Premium

  11,000

  183·26

  5,000

  176·99

  Family Premium

  605,000

  105·78

  245,000

  106·28

  Carer Premium

  14,000

  147·75

  5,000

  151·14

  No Premium

  274,000

  48·57

  54,000

  48·44

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. The deductions are for direct payments to third parties, social fund repayments, and overpayment recoveries.

  2. Income does not include housing benefit or council tax benefit because this information is not available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Know-how Fund
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many management training projects are currently being supported by the know-how fund in Russia; and if he will place a list of all current know-how fund projects in Russia in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Management training is not in itself a priority area for the know-how fund in Russia. But many of the projects we undertake in energy, small business development, food production and distribution and financial services involve training in applied management. A list of all know-how fund projects is placed in the Library every six months.

  Russia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made as to the amount of international aid to Russia subsequently transferred to Swiss banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Because the majority of the United Kingdom's support for Russia is closely targeted on
  26
  interest allowance for which specific amounts are then added to claimants' Income Support.

  2. Income does not include Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, because this information is not available.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures on the same basis as series 10 of the income support statistics annual inquiry showing the average total income for each premium group broken down by(a) all cases with one or more deductions and (b) all cases with more than one deduction.

  Mr. Burt
  The available figures are in the table. We have no plans to publish them in tables at series 10 in the income support statistical annual inquiry.

  specific projects, we are able to ensure that the money is spent as intended. It is not for us to comment on the aid programmes of other countries.

  World Bank Programmes, Africa
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of World bank structural adjustment programmes in Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The recent World bank report "Adjustment in Africa" examined the performance of 29 African countries which drew up adjustment programmes in the 1980s. We endorse its two basic conclusions.

  Those countries which consistently implemented comprehensive adjustment policies had achieved better economic performance than those which did not. Economic reform is only part of the effort to secure sustainable growth and poverty reduction in Africa; parallel efforts are also needed to improve governance; basic social services; and infrastructure.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanism the ODA has whereby Somalis in the United Kingdom with specialist skills could be assisted to return to Somalia to assist in their country's redevelopment; and if he will explore this possibility with the Somali community.
  27
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Aid funds are available to support rehabilitation programmes in Somalia carried out by non-governmental organisations and UN agencies. Expatriate Somalis can be employed on these programmes.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much help, broken down by categories including humanitarian and development aid and other specific categories, has been given in each of the past five years to(a) Somalia as a whole and (b) Somaliland by (i) the British Government, (ii) the European Union countries, (iii) the European Union, (iv)

  Net Official Development Assistance to Somalia 1988–1992

  £ millions

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (i) European Union Countries

  Belguim

  0·15

  0·18

  4·51

  0·80

  4·33

  Denmark

  4·70

  3·96

  1·19

  0·02

  0·06

  France

  3·76

  1·67

  1·72

  1·26

  8·43

  Germany

  17·76

  15·03

  11·69

  5·84

  15·72

  Ireland

  0·22

  —

  —

  0·22

  0·00

  Italy

  110·72

  100·32

  62·64

  30·96

  13·73

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  0·05

  0·03

  0·97

  Netherlands

  0·07

  0·16

  0·13

  1·38

  29·05

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  0·01

  5·46

  0·01

  0·46

  (ii) European Commission

  8·38

  21·50

  22·91

  20·14

  24·50

  (iii) United States

  12·35

  17·08

  40·54

  3·40

  174·33

  (iv) Other Multilateral Organisations

  African Development Fund/Bank

  2·02

  8·16

  10·77

  2·79

  0·06

  IDA

  12·35

  27·45

  18·02

  —

  0·00

  International Fund for Agricultural Development

  0·95

  1-0·07

  0·86

  0·09

  0·11

  International Monetary Fund

  —

  1-0·8

  —

  —

  —

  UN Childrens Fund

  1·76

  1·40

  2·05

  2·78

  16·18

  UN Development Programme

  5·44

  6·01

  4·96

  2·13

  1·54

  UN Fund for Population Activities

  0·47

  0·54

  0·46

  —

  n·a·

  UN High Commission for Refugees

  19·27

  12·08

  6·30

  3·89

  4·67

  UN Technical Assistance

  1·03

  1·38

  0·72

  0·81

  0·85

  World Food Programme

  13·15

  12·25

  12·12

  6·68

  36·40

  UN Other

  0·92

  5·64

  1·21

  0·37

  n·a·

  Arab Funds/Banks

  0·43

  0·74

  0·03

  0·12

  1-1·08

  1Repayments of official development assistance loan disbursement from previous years are shown as negative figures.

  In 1993–94 the United Kingdom committed £5·39 million of bilateral humanitarian assistance to Somalia of which £1·72 million has been committed to the north-west region. We expect to spend about £3 million in assistance to Somalia in 1994–95. In addition we are currently considering a number of proposals to support rehabilitation in the north west.

  Since January 1993 the European Commission has funded activities in Somalia equivalent to £44·27 million of which the United Kingdom share is £7·25 million. A breakdown of EC expenditure is as follows:

  Tonnes

  United Kingdom equivalent (£ million)

  Food aid

  20,476

  4·20

  Humanitarian

  —

  8·05

  Rehabilitation

  —

  32·02

  Planning figures for the United Kingdom and other donors beyond the current year are not available.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions have been made(a) by Britain and (b) other EU countries to the United Nations' humanitarian appeal for Rwanda.
  28
  the United States and (v) other international organisations; and what figures are planned for the current financial year and in each of the next five years in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 27 April 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 24 February at columns 399–400 on British aid to Somalia over the five financial years to 1992–93.

  Details of other donors' assistance from 1988–1992 are as follows. A breakdown by type of aid and region is not available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs launched an appeal for Rwanda on 25 April. Since the start of the current emergency, Britain has provided over £1·1 million of humanitarian assistance and last week my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development made available a further £2 million for British non-governmental organisations working in the region. Other EU countries and the European Commission have announced nearly £2 million of assistance so far.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the number of people killed in the civil war in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are estimates that more than 200,000 people may have perished in the recent fighting in Rwanda. It is a horrific and tragic civil war where we will probably never know the true figure of those killed and injured.

  Narmada Dam
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the reasons for the recent sit-in protest in India over the Narmada dam project; what assessment he has made of the implications for local people if the sluice
  29
  gates are opened during the coming monsoon; and what action his representative at the World bank is taking in this matter.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received no reports of a recent sit-in protest over the Narmada dam project. Responsibility for the project rests with the Indian authorities, who have re-affirmed their commitment to the satisfactory linkage between implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation and construction work on the dam. World bank funding of the project ceased when the Indian authorities asked it to cancel the balance of the loan in March 1993.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his timetable for legislation concerning the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 3 May at columns 420–21. The Government's legislative programme for 1994–95 will be announced in the Queen's Speech.

  Soft Loans
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions since 1986 a soft loan has been paid to a body other than a Government; to whom payments were made; when and for what sum; why the payment was not made to the appropriate Government; and which British companies were the major parties to the contract.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 21 April 1994]: Soft loans, made by commercial banks and involving Her Majesty's Government paying interest make-up to support the concessional rates offered, have been made direct to a body other than the recipient Government on four occasions since 1986. In all these cases the soft loans were made direct at the request of the recipient Government. Details are given in the table.

  COLOMBIA

  Title:

  System X Project.

  Borrower:

  Empresa Nacional de Telecominicaciones de Colombia.

  Loan amount:

  £8·6 million with effect from June 1988.

  Lead contractor:

  Plessey UK Limited.

  JORDAN

  Title:

  Walking Draglines.

  Borrower:

  Jordan Phosphate Mining Company Ltd.

  Loan amount:

  £9 million with effect from April 1987.

  Lead contractor:

  Ransomes and Rapier plc.

  MALAYSIA

  Title:

  Pergau hydroelectric project.

  Borrower:

  Tenaga Nasional Berhad

  Loan amount:

  £305·443 million with effect from July 1991.

  Lead contractor:

  Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. and Cementation International Limited.

  TURKEY

  Title:

  Ankara Natural Gas Conversion.

  Borrower:

  Electricity, Gas and Omnibus Authority of Ankara.

  Loan amount:

  £68 million with effect from May 1988.

  Lead contractor:

  British Gas plc.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects in China which received technical co-operation assistance from Her Majesty's Government in 1992–93 together with the amount allocated to each project and the organisations receiving the funds.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Listed are those projects in China which received more than £20,000 of technical co-operation assistance with the expenditure per project in 1992–93 and the organisations involved:

  Project Title

  Figures in £s millions

  English Language Teaching Programme (British Council)

  1·28

  Sino-British Friendship Scholarship Scheme (British Council)

  1·37

  Technical Co-operation Training Programme (British Council)

  2·76

  Royal Fellowships Scheme (Royal Society)

  0·10

  Forestry Project (various)

  0·13

  Support for projects under the Agricultural Memorandum of Understanding (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

  0·06

  Transport Planning Study for Peking (The MVA Consultancy)

  0·09

  Energy Conservation in Buildings for Peking (Building Research Establishment)

  0·10

  Water Quality Monitoring study for Chongqing (Binnie and Partners)

  0·02

  Control of Air Pollution Study for Chongqing (Environmental Resource Management)

  0·06

  Investment Techniques for Project Appraisal (Crown Agents)

  0·18

  Shanghai Water Management Study (Mott MacDonald)

  0·05

  Shanghai Environment Project (Mott MacDonald)

  0·95

  Computer Management Training for Coal (British Coal)

  0·03

  Energy Efficiency and Demonstration Project for Taiyuan (Coal Research Establishment)

  0·51

  Solid Waste Disposal Study for Tianjin (Binnie and Partners)

  0·07

  Pollution Control Study of the Grand Canal at Wuxi (Watson Hawksley Ltd·)

  0·19

  Resettlement Studies (The World Bank)

  0·06

  China Council for International Co-operation on Environment and Development Pricing Policy Working Group (Simon Fraser University, Vancouver)

  0·03

  Training for Xinhua News Agency (Thomson Foundation)

  0·02

  Remote Sensing Data Acquisition (Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick)

  0·03

  Support for projects under Heads of Mission Small Projects Scheme (British Embassy, Peking)

  0·04

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects and organisations in China which received aid and trade assistance from Her Majesty's Government together with the amount allocated in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Listed are those projects in China which received aid and trade assistance in 1992–93 with the organisations involved and the expenditure per project in 1992–93:
  31

  Project Title

  Figures in £s millions

  Urban Traffic Control System for Peking (Plessey Controls Ltd)

  0·01

  Chongqing Tyre Factory (Dunlop International Projects Ltd)

  0·12

  Modernisation of Peking Subway (Balfour Beatty Ltd)

  1·70

  Danyang Aluminium Plant (Davy McKee (Poole) Ltd)

  1·82

  Cotton Textile Mills (Platt Saco Lowell (UK) Ltd)

  0·22

  Shanghai Telecommunications (GEC Plessey Telecommunications Ltd)

  0·45

  Duck Processing Plants (APV Baker Ltd)

  1·11

  Flour and Feed Mills (Robinson Milling Systems Ltd)

  1·00

  Pre-stressed Concrete Wire (Marshall Richards Barcro Ltd)

  0·68

  Dalian Power Station (Gibson Wells Engineering Ltd)

  1·40

  Fushun Power Station (Gibson Wells Engineering Ltd)

  5·11

  Training of operators for Yue Yang Power Station (GEC Alsthom)

  0·45

  Container ships for COSCO (British Shipbuilders)

  1·11

  Yue Yang Power Station (GEC Turbine Generators Ltd)

  7·38

  Bohai Aluminium Plant (Davy McKee (Poole) Ltd)

  0·99

  Dushanzi Ethylene Complex (Snamprogetti Ltd)

  1·45

  Urumqi Pure Terephthalic Acid Plant (Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd)

  0·48

  Urumqi Para-xylene Plant (Babcock contractors Ltd)

  0·16

  Traffic Study for Peking (The MVA Consultancy)

  0·06

  Training and advisory Services for Peking Subway (Balfour Beatty Ltd)

  0·62

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish his estimate for the reduction in Government funding of grant-maintained schools for 1994–95 and 1995–96 as a result of new funding rules introduced by the DFE.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's expenditure plans provide for the Exchequer funding of grant-maintained schools to increase from £244 million to £446 32
  million net between 1994–95 and 1995–96 reflecting the increase in their number. These plans take account of the announced revisions to the detailed grant regime for GM school in 1994–95. The plans for 1995–96 and later years will be subject to review in the normal way.

  Further Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish for each county and for England as a whole for the last available year(a) the number of students aged 19 years and over receiving further education and (b) the estimated proportion of those students aged 19 years and over in further education who are not receiving grants.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of students in each LEA in England aged 19 and over who are undertaking further education and the estimated proportion of those students who do not receive an award under section 2 of the Education Act 1962 are shown in the table.

  Number of FE students aged 19 and over by Home LEA showing number of students not receiving grants under section 2 of the 1962 Education Act 1991–92

  Local education authority

  Number of Students aged 19 and over

  students aged 19 and over not receiving grants

  Number

  Percentage

  Corporation of London

  243

  99

  Camden

  2,988

  100

  Greenwich

  2,927

  96

  Hackney

  4,659

  97

  Hammersmith

  4,051

  98

  Islington

  3,592

  97

  Kensington

  6,952

  98

  Lambeth

  7,069

  98

  Lewisham

  4,553

  96

  Southwark

  4,344

  98

  Tower Hamlets

  3,145

  97

  Wandsworth

  6,199

  n/a

  Westminster

  4,016

  100

  Barking

  1,686

  91

  Barnet

  12,122

  96

  Bexley

  2,235

  88

  Brent

  7,280

  96

  Bromley

  2,791

  95

  Croydon

  4,562

  99

  Ealing

  6,501

  94

  Enfield

  9,725

  98

  Haringey

  7,456

  100

  Harrow

  9,495

  100

  Havering

  3,560

  92

  Hillingdon

  3,794

  100

  Hounslow

  3,153

  100

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,527

  96

  Merton

  3,223

  92

  Newham

  7,778

  95

  Redbridge

  4,240

  100

  Richmond upon Thames

  15,847

  99

  Sutton

  9,443

  98

  Waltham Forest

  4,629

  98

  Birmingham

  22,722

  88

  Coventry

  8,188

  95

  Dudley

  12,291

  98

  Sandwell

  7,058

  91

  Solihull

  4,818

  96

  Walsall

  5,336

  71

  Wolverhampton

  7,316

  100

  33

  Numbers of FE students aged 19 and over by Home LEA showing number of students not receiving grants 1991–92

  Local Education Authority

  Number of Students aged 19 and over

  Percentage of students aged 19 and over not receiving grants

  Number

  Percentage

  Knowsley

  3,783

  86

  Liverpool

  14,498

  93

  St. Helens

  5,356

  95

  Sefton

  8,383

  99

  Wirral

  16,215

  97

  Bolton

  4,546

  88

  Bury

  3,080

  83

  Manchester

  9,595

  88

  Oldham

  2,354

  90

  Rochdale

  5,103

  83

  Salford

  8,151

  97

  Stockport

  4,221

  90

  Tameside

  6,539

  96

  Trafford

  8,025

  98

  Wigan

  8,710

  97

  Barnsley

  4,635

  93

  Doncaster

  11,560

  96

  Rotherham

  10,915

  95

  Sheffield

  22,053

  95

  Bradford

  22,984

  96

  Calderdale

  3,946

  97

  Kirklees

  10,942

  90

  Leeds

  18,059

  96

  Wakefield

  10,476

  97

  Gateshead

  4,725

  97

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4,492

  92

  North Tyneside

  3,664

  82

  South Tyneside

  4,006

  94

  Sunderland

  7,071

  93

  Avon

  30,177

  91

  Bedfordshire

  13,396

  93

  Berkshire

  24,613

  100

  Buckinghamshire

  9,925

  99

  Cambridgeshire

  11,746

  99

  Cheshire

  27,988

  95

  Cleveland

  16,716

  99

  Cornwall (including I.o.Scilly)

  4,579

  82

  Cumbria

  7,596

  84

  Derbyshire

  21,594

  94

  Devon

  16,008

  90

  Dorset

  9,331

  85

  Numbers of FE students aged 19 and over by Home LEA showing number of students not receiving grants, 1991–92

  Local Education Authority

  Number of Students aged 19 and over

  Percentage of students aged 19+ not receiving grants

  Durham

  16,533

  95

  East Sussex

  22,461

  99

  Essex

  23,986

  93

  Gloucestershire

  21,649

  97

  Hampshire

  29,696

  95

  Hereford and Worcester

  21,806

  99

  Hertfordshire

  44,767

  99

  Humberside

  19,333

  86

  Isle of Wight

  4,492

  95

  Kent

  14,591

  80

  Lancashire

  61,824

  89

  Leicestershire

  17,012

  83

  Lincolnshire

  8,780

  85

  Norfolk

  9,234

  89

  North Yorkshire

  21,913

  92

  Northamptonshire

  16,492

  98

  Northumberland

  4,030

  95

  Nottinghamshire

  48,840

  99

  Oxfordshire

  14,081

  98

  34

  Local Education Authority

  Number of Students aged 19 and over

  Percentage of students aged 19+ not receiving grants

  Shropshire

  18,487

  96

  Somerset

  14,067

  95

  Staffordshire

  27,396

  95

  Suffolk

  20,403

  96

  Surrey

  9,965

  94

  Warwickshire

  14,372

  100

  West Sussex

  7,762

  100

  Wiltshire

  27,764

  98

  England

  1,247,006

  95

  Note: These tables do not include data for sixth form college students. Sixth form colleges transferred to the new FE sector on 1 April 1993.

  History
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's draft views on the history curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend will be publishing his proposals for a revised history curriculum very shortly. Publication will be followed by a period of public consultation which will last until the end of July.

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what resources are provided for the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority by his Department; and if he will announce his plans for its future.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The authority was established in October 1993, and has a substantial programme of work, focused on the current review of the national curriculum, the national tests, and the scrutiny of public examinations. Its total grant from the Department for 1994–95 is likely to be around £30 million.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children in each local education authority were assessed for statements of special educational needs in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these children received statements.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for the years 1988 to 1992 for each local education authority in England have been placed in the Library.

  Teachers (Suspensions)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to require local education authorities or schools to inform him when teachers are suspended.

  Mr. Forth
  No. It is for the head teacher or governing body of a school to decide whether suspension is appropriate in the circumstances of each particular case, and my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in such decisions. A requirement to report all cases in which a teacher is suspended would impose an additional and unnecessary burden on schools. Special schools, and
  35
  independent schools approved by my right hon. Friend to cater for pupils with special educational needs, are asked to inform the Department if a member of the school staff is suspended as a result of allegations of child abuse involving pupils at the school because of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for the approval of such schools.

DEFENCE

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will consult the ex-service organisations before triggering any reduction in the United Kingdom's contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission;

  (2) what representations he has had from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the light of the proposed reduction in the United Kingdom's contribution to its resources.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is agreed annually between my. Department and the commission. Over the past five years, my Department has increased the funding in cash terms to the commission by some 50 per cent. and this year's reduction in the size of the grant from my Department takes full account of the size of the commission's operating surplus which is carried forward from year to year.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met representatives of the commission in February. This was one of several occasions on which it was confirmed that there were no plans to cut any projects or commitments as a result of the level of funding agreed for 1994–95. There are no current plans to consult the ex-service organisations in respect of this subject.

  Defence Estimates
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors account for the differences in the incremental grand totals listed in table 3 of the 1993 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and the incremental grand total listed in table 4 of the 1994 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" for(a) engineer regiments (regular), (b) engineer regiments (TA), (c) infantry battalions (TA and Royal Irish Home Service), (d) transport, tanker and search and rescue aircraft, (e) Harrier, (f) Nimrod reconnaissance and maritime reconnaissance and (g) Tornado F3.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The differences reflect, for the most part, changes in presentation following SDE 93. In detail, the changes arise from:

  (a) and (b) exclusion of MT 1.24 (Hydrographic and geographic services) from tables 1 to 4, leading to the deliberate omission of 1 Regular and 1 TA Engineer Squadron for survey work (no change in actual force levels);

  (c) change in arithmetic rounding conventions used in SDE94 (no change in actual force levels);

  (d) exclusion of Hercules, BAe 125 and Tristar In-Use Reserves (IUR) to reflect the conventions used for other RAF aircraft in SDE tables; revised assumptions for Puma Aircraft Establishment following withdrawal from Belize; revised Sea King Wessex mix as the latter is replaced in the search and rescue role; and revised aggregation of Chinook numbers (IUR remain included in the figures, however, as these are declared to NATO);

  (e) revised plans for declaration to NATO of new Harrier T10;

  36

  (f) exclusion of MT 1.11 (Intelligence Collection) from Tables 1 to 4 of SDE 94;

  (g) revised declaration of OCU aircraft to NATO Main Defence Forces.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) male and (b) female workers earned below the national insurance threshold for each year over the past 30 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 May 1994]: The available information showing the difference between the total work force and numbers of employed people who paid a national insurance contribution is provided in the tables:

  Year

  Workforce in Employment in June

  Number who paid at least one NI contribution

  Difference

  (Thousands)

  1962

  8,225

  8,180

  45

  1963

  8,265

  8,190

  75

  1964

  8,444

  8,350

  94

  1965

  8,610

  8,460

  150

  1966

  8,798

  8,530

  268

  1967

  8,688

  8,400

  288

  1968

  8,721

  8,410

  311

  1969

  8,804

  8,430

  374

  1970

  8,839

  8,270

  569

  1971

  8,855

  8,200

  655

  1972

  8,949

  8,250

  699

  1973

  9,320

  8,350

  970

  1974

  9,548

  8,500

  1,048

  1975

  9,607

  N/A

  N/A

  1976

  9,575

  9,226

  349

  1977

  9,676

  9,159

  517

  1978

  9,780

  9,245

  535

  1979

  10,059

  9,254

  805

  1980

  10,090

  9,509

  581

  1981

  9,775

  9,129

  646

  1982

  9,699

  8,774

  925

  1983

  9,675

  8,687

  988

  1984

  10,061

  8,667

  1,394

  1985

  10,275

  8,839

  1,436

  1986

  10,418

  9,135

  1,283

  1987

  10,787

  9,275

  1,512

  1988

  11,222

  9,604

  1,618

  1989

  11,671

  10,070

  1,601

  1990

  11,873

  10,361

  1,512

  1991

  11,663

  10,473

  1,190

  1992

  11,577

  10,215

  1,362

  Source:

  Employment Department and Department of Social Security

  Notes:

  Information is not available for 1975

  Worforce in employment includes members of Her Majesty's forces, self employed people, and people on government training schemes

  Males

  (Thousands)

  Year

  Workforce in Employment in June

  Number who paid at least one National Insurance contribution

  Difference

  1962

  16,395

  16,600

  -205

  1963

  16,379

  16,650

  -271

  1964

  16,488

  16,710

  -222

  1965

  16,579

  16,760

  -181

  37

  Year

  Workforce in Employment in June

  Number who paid at least one National Insurance contribution

  Difference

  1966

  16,546

  16,720

  -174

  1967

  16,297

  16,630

  -333

  1968

  16,108

  16,560

  -452

  1969

  16,040

  16,500

  -460

  1970

  15,900

  16,380

  -480

  1971

  15,806

  16,240

  -434

  1972

  15,688

  16,200

  -512

  1973

  15,890

  16,120

  -230

  1974

  15,731

  16,020

  -289

  1975

  15,576

  n/a

  n/a

  1976

  15,372

  15,768

  -396

  1977

  15,294

  15,666

  -372

  1978

  15,322

  15,659

  -337

  1979

  15,420

  15,597

  -177

  1980

  15,343

  15,711

  -368

  1981

  14,682

  15,196

  -514

  1982

  14,322

  14,410

  -88

  1983

  14,068

  14,363

  -295

  1984

  14,338

  14,241

  97

  1985

  14,408

  14,178

  230

  1986

  14,290

  14,295

  -5

  workforce in employment: Great Britain

  Seasonally adjusted

  (Thousands)

  Total

  Male all

  Male F/T

  Male P/T

  Female all

  Female F/T

  Female P/T

  1963

  24,113

  16,015

  —

  —

  8,098

  —

  —

  1964

  24,397

  16,121

  —

  —

  8,276

  —

  —

  1965

  24,643

  16,208

  —

  —

  8,435

  —

  —

  1966

  24,801

  16,181

  —

  —

  8,620

  —

  —

  1967

  24,445

  15,931

  —

  —

  8,513

  —

  —

  1968

  24,288

  15,744

  —

  —

  8,545

  —

  —

  1969

  24,298

  15,675

  —

  —

  8,623

  —

  —

  1970

  24,183

  15,532

  —

  —

  8,651

  —

  —

  1971

  24,097

  15,441

  —

  —

  8,656

  —

  —

  1972

  24,079

  15,326

  —

  —

  8,753

  —

  —

  1973

  24,646

  15,525

  —

  —

  9,121

  —

  —

  1974

  24,707

  15,368

  —

  —

  9,339

  —

  —

  1975

  24,608

  15,215

  —

  —

  9,394

  —

  —

  1976

  24,382

  15,016

  —

  —

  9,366

  —

  —

  1977

  24,401

  14,941

  —

  —

  9,459

  —

  —

  1978

  24,523

  14,969

  —

  —

  9,554

  —

  —

  1979

  24,881

  15,061

  —

  —

  9,820

  —

  —

  1980

  24,838

  14,987

  —

  —

  9,850

  —

  —

  1981

  23,887

  14,345

  —

  —

  9,543

  —

  —

  1982

  23,461

  13,995

  —

  —

  9,467

  —

  —

  1983

  23,178

  13,742

  —

  —

  9,436

  —

  —

  1984

  23,833

  14,012

  12,994

  1,018

  9,822

  5,557

  4,264

  1985

  24,107

  14,077

  13,037

  1,040

  10,030

  5,666

  4,364

  1986

  24,131

  13,961

  12,873

  1,088

  10,170

  5,692

  4,478

  1987

  24,688

  14,152

  12,946

  1,206

  10,536

  5,888

  4,647

  1988

  25,529

  14,569

  13,298

  1,271

  10,960

  6,184

  4,776

  1989

  26,317

  14,915

  13,538

  1,377

  11,402

  6,385

  5,017

  1990

  26,528

  14,933

  13,494

  1,438

  11,595

  6,392

  5,203

  1991

  25,613

  14,236

  12,837

  1,399

  11,377

  6,221

  5,156

  1992

  25,023

  13,734

  12,310

  1,424

  11,289

  6,114

  5,174

  1993

  24,603

  13,372

  11,921

  1,451

  11,232

  6,026

  5,206

  Notes:

  1. Information relates to June of each year.

  2. Part-time information is not available prior to 1984.

  3. There is a discontinuity in the series between 1970 and 1971 due to change of source for the self-employed data.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Suffragan Bishops
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what was the total sum of money paid out in(a) 1992–93 and (b)
  38

  Year

  Workforce in Employment in June

  Number who paid at least one National Insurance contribution

  Difference

  1987

  14,484

  14,302

  182

  1988

  14,907

  14,402

  505

  1989

  15,255

  14,613

  642

  1990

  15,282

  14,656

  626

  1991

  14,591

  14,435

  156

  1992

  14,084

  13,883

  201

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will present in tabular form the size of the working population for each of the last 30 years; and if he will divide this data into male and female workers and further sub-divide the total as to whether these people work full or part time.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 May 1994]: The information requested is provided in the table:

  1993–94 in (i) the salaries and other employment costs, (ii) housing, (iii) transport and (iv) office and on other incidental expenses for suffragan bishops.

  Mr. Alison
  On a calendar year basis, the total sums provided by the commissioners were as follows:
  39

  1992

  1993

  Stipends, staff salaries and other employment costs

  1,715,911

  1,778,383

  Housing

  101,992

  175,883

  Transport (including provision of car)

  311,376

  333,474

  Office and other incidental expenses

  452,447

  498,740

  Total

  2,581,726

  2,786,480

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners for how many suffragan bishops financial responsibility was accepted in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Alison
  On a calendar year basis the commissioners contributed towards the salaries, official expenses and housing costs of 65 suffragan bishops in both the calendar years 1992 and 1993.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 18 April,Official Report, column 365, for what reason no records of correspondence received by his office prior to April 1989 any longer exist.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not cost-effective to retain full records of all correspondence received by my office. However, from April 1989 onwards brief records of selected correspondence—and from 1992 brief records of all correspondence—have been entered on a computer database.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  The Prime Minister
  My office's press releases are accessible, through the Central Office of Information, to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline, POLIS and through the Central Office of Information's fax retrieval service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flood Defence Committees
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will select the chairman of the regional flood defence committees.

  Mr. Jack
  The following have been reappointed as chairmen of regional flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority in England for three years from 1 July 1994:
  40
  Mr. G. C. Manning, OBE (South West); Mr. J. S. Martin, CBE (Anglian); Mr. W. M. Wannop, OBE (North West); and Mr. T. D. Collier (Yorkshire).

  The following new appointments have been made:

  Mr. J. Dainty, OBE (Severn-Trent); Mrs. J. Venables (Thames); Mr. D. G. L. Monnington (Southern) and Mr. J. P. Hackney (Northumbria).

  Consideration is still being given to the chairmanship of the Wessex regional flood defence committee.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will ensure that farming and landowning interests are adequately represented on the regional flood defence committees.

  Mr. Jack
  As indicated in the reply to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 8 March,Official Report, columns 195–96, in making ministerial appointments to these committees, the objective is to reflect a range of interests. Nominations of farmers and landowners will be considered alongside those for other candidates with expertise relevant to the work of the committees.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions her Department is taking to ensure compliance with the European Union ban on drift nets longer than 2·5 km.

  Mr. Jack
  At the Fisheries Council on 12 April the Commission tabled a report on the ecological impact of drift netting, together with a proposal. The Council had a first discussion on the issues raised, including a suggestion that a derogation for use of drift nets longer than 2·5 km should be reintroduced. I made clear my firm opposition to this and the importance I attach to taking environmental implications fully into account. The derogation was not renewed. These matters are now being considered by experts.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the detailed arrangements for Spanish accession were settled at the same time as she approved the principle of the agreement.

  Mr. Jack
  No.

  Arable Farming
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of(a) the total area of cereals grown in the United Kingdom in 1993 and (b) the area of land which was set aside under the arable area payments scheme in 1993.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The June 1993 agricultural census estimated that a total area of 3,030,900 hectares of cereals—excluding maize—was grown in the United Kingdom in 1993. The total area of land which qualified for set-aside payments under the arable area payments scheme, including land used to grow crops for non-food purposes, was 567,000 hectares.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in England received arable area payments greater than(a) £100,000, (b) £250,000, (c) £500,000 and (d) £1,000,000 in the last available year.
  41
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in England had arable aid scheme set-aside areas greater than(a) 100 hectares and (b) 50 hectares in the last available year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1993, 204 holdings in England had more than 100 hectares of land set aside under the arable area payments scheme and 1,151 holdings had between 50 and 100 hectares.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the rates of set-aside payment under the arable area payments scheme for each region of the United Kingdom for(a) the current year and (b)

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The payment rates per hectare for setting aside land under the arable area payments scheme are as follows. The actual rates paid in 1994 may be reduced if base areas are exceeded and set-aside land which is used to grow sugar beet for industrial purposes does not qualify for any payment.

  Region

  1992–93 Actual £

  1993–94 2Projected £

  11993–94 2Projected £

  England

  253

  314

  220

  Wales: LFA

  198

  175

  123

  Wales: Non-LFA

  198

  273

  192

  Scotland: LFA

  205

  254

  178

  Scotland: Non-LFA

  236

  295

  207

  Northern Ireland

  201

  249

  175

  1 Voluntary set-aside for which there is no corresponding area of eligible cropped land.

  2 Payment rates are set in european currency units and converted to sterling at the green rate prevailing on 1 July for the year in question. The projected payment rates for 1993–94 have been converted using an exchange rate of 1 ecu/£0·929299 but the actual green rate on 1 July may be higher or lower than this.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest total paid to farmers

  Date of arrival at slaughterhouse

  Country of registration of the haulier

  Nationality of driver

  Number of animals deemed unfit at the slaughterhouse for further transport

  Number of animals dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse

  Number of recumbent animals at the slaughterhouse

  17 February 1994

  Germany

  German

  0

  0

  0

  8 March 1994

  Netherlands

  Dutch

  0

  1

  0

  9 March 1994

  Republic of Ireland

  Republic of Ireland

  1

  1

  0

  17 March 1994

  United Kingdom

  British

  6

  2

  6

  28 January 1994

  Republic of Ireland

  Not recorded

  1

  0

  1

  15 February 1994

  Netherlands

  Dutch

  2

  1

  2

  8 March 1994

  United Kingdom

  British

  1

  0

  1

  23 March 1994

  Republic of Ireland

  Not recorded

  0

  0

  0

  Cheese Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support she is giving to the promotion of the British cheese industry.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food supports the promotion of the British cheese industry in several ways. It seeks to
  42
  in (a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme payments in England following the 1993–94 harvest.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total amount paid to date in Engalnd under the arable area payments scheme in respect of the 1992–93 scheme year is just over £681 million, including set-aside payments of £125 million. No payments have yet been made in respect of the 1993–94 scheme year.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in England had hectarages of land under cereals greater than(a) 1,000 hectares, (b) 500 hectares and (c) 250 hectares in the last available year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of holdings in England with more than 1,000 hectares of land under cereals—excluding maize—estimated from the June 1993 agricultural census, was four. The number with more than 500 hectares and the number with more than 250 hectares of cereals was 96 and 916 respectively.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich of 13 April,Official Report, column 180, regarding animals unfit for transit if she will list for each consignment (a) the country of registration of the haulier and (b) the nationality of the driver;

  (2) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich of 13 April, Official Report, column 180, regarding animals unfit for transit what was the place of slaughter for each consignment and how many animals were (a) deemed unfit for transit, (b) recumbent and (c) dead, on arrival at the place of slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  The place of slaughter was a slaughterhouse in Birmingham. The other information requested is as follows.

  ensure that EC legislation does not disadvantage the industry in any way and that the regulatory burden is minimised. It liaises closely with the various cheese associations, which act as a central contact point for cheese makers, wholesalers and retailers. In addition, it ensures that the National Dairy Council, the co-ordinating body for the dairy industry's generic information and promotion activities in England and Wales, is kept fully informed of the availability of EC funds for promotional work.
  43
  The Ministry also assists the export of all British food, including cheese, through its support of Food From Britain —FFB—and initiatives such as the continental challenge. Specialist cheese makers can benefit from the FFB speciality food programme which helps small producers to promote and market their products both nationally and internationally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not readily available in the form requested in all NI Departments and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, the information that is available has been placed in the Library.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation or regulations to require(a) neighbour notification and (b) consultation with the planning and road service departments of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, prior to approval by the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, in respect of extensive grant-aided tree-planting schemes which will be adjacent to public roads or residential property.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I do not consider that legislation or regulations of the type suggested are either necessary or desirable. The Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland forest service pays particular attention to landscape, conservation and amenity issues both in planning its own planting activities and also in approving grant aid for new private sector planting.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office have market-tested a range of services which includes security guarding. Eighteen security guarding companies were employed in Northern Ireland on contracts at a cost of £1,947,000 in 1993–94.

  There are currently no contracts for private detective agencies.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in reducing junior doctors' hours in Northern Ireland over the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Very significant progress has been made towards reducing junior doctors' hours since 1991. Of the 44
  1,013 junior doctors and dentists identified at that time in Northern Ireland, about 500–52 per cent.—were contracted for more than 83 hours a week. Only 19 such posts, less than 2 per cent. of the total, remained at September 1993 when the last survey was completed. It is expected that these will be eliminated very shortly.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people over the age of 60 years receive(a) the higher rate and (b) the lower rate mobility component of the disability living allowance; and what is the latest estimate of the number of people aged over 60 years entitled to claim the mobility component of disability living allowance who do not do so.

  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 6 May 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the mobility components of Disability Living Allowance.
  The numbers of people over the age of 60 years who receive the higher and lower rate mobility components of Disability Living Allowance are 14,743 and 1,911 respectively.
  There is no information available on which to estimate the number of people aged over 60 who are entitled to but do not claim the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made towards the establishment of an environmental protection agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  In Northern Ireland most of the functions of the proposed agency in England and Wales are already carried out by the environment service of the Department of the Environment. I will decide whether or not any proposals for change in Northern Ireland should be made when final details of the proposed agency in England and Wales are known and when I have received the results of the prior options study of the environmental service which was announced by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), on 18 January 1994.

  Training
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the cost of funding the job training programme in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the cost of funding the youth training programme in Northern Ireland;

  (3) how many people participated in the youth training programme between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1994; and how many of these have obtained a full-time position.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Responsibility for the subject matter in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  45
  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 9 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your questions about the cost of funding the Job Training Programme (JTP) and Youth Training Programme (YTP) and how many people participated in YTP, and entered full time employment.
  The cost of funding JTP and YTP in the year ended 31 March 1994 was £21·2 million (estimated) and £47·6 million

  Average Occupancy

  Total Number of Leavers (For whom destination is known)

  Leavers to Employment

  Percentage

  Leavers to F.E.

  Percentage

  Total Percentage to Employment or F.E.

  1984–85

  7,347

  9,117

  5,017

  55

  274

  3

  58

  1985–86

  8,081

  9,620

  5,500

  57

  289

  3

  60

  1986–87

  8,659

  10,271

  5,686

  55

  411

  4

  59

  1987–88

  8,778

  10,509

  5,787

  55

  525

  5

  60

  1988–89

  8,881

  10,232

  6,428

  63

  512

  5

  67

  1989–90

  9,818

  10,914

  6,767

  62

  655

  6

  68

  1990–91

  12,914

  8,768

  4,223

  48

  1,228

  14

  62

  1991–92

  15,688

  12,675

  5,754

  45

  2,662

  21

  66

  1992–93

  13,725

  12,090

  6,672

  55

  1,334

  11

  66

  1993–94

  '12,510

  10,565

  5,911

  55

  1,260

  11

  66

  1 Includes jobskills pilots.

  In addition, during the years 1985 to 1990, YTP workscheme was a major element of second year provision in the Youth Training Programme. Workscheme offered employers financial and other assistance to encourage the employment and training of 17 year olds. Surveys indicated that the majority of young people in YTP Workscheme continued in employment beyond the grant aided year. The average numbers in employment with training under Workscheme was:

  Average occupancy

  Number

  1984–85

  1,428

  1985–86

  1,713

  1986–87

  3,951

  1987–88

  2,641

  1988–89

  4,447

  1989–90

  2,411

  1990–91

  911

  1991–92

  4

  The Training and Employment Agency has been reviewing its training programme and you may be aware that since September 1992 we have been piloting a completely new programme which if approved by Ministers would replace both YTP and JTP. It is designed to enhance quality and outcomes for participants partly through better performance in the achievement of qualifications.
  I hope that you find this helpful.

  Community Care
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice the Department of Health and Social Services has given to health boards on consultation with users and carers in producing local purchasing plans for community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The need to involve users and their carers in the planning and delivery of community services is a continuous theme in a broad range of advice and guidance issued since March 1990 by the Department of Health and Social Services to health and social services boards.

  In March 1991 the Department issued guidance on commissioning and purchasing and asked boards to seek to involve service users, carers and other relevant bodies in
  46
  respectively. The JTP expenditure has been estimated because all of the expenditure in respect of Training Allowances has not yet been charged to vote.
  Whilst we have figures showing the numbers of trainees entering employment we cannot say for certain that this was invariably full time employment, although that is likely to have been the position in most cases. In addition a proportion enter further education.
  The number of young people engaged in the Youth Training Programme in each of the years since 1984–85 then entering employment or further education is as follows:

  determining service specifications, and to set out the terms and conditions of service users' involvement. The guidance also required boards to consult individual clients and their carers when planning to purchase services to meet their assessed needs.

  In October 1993 the chief executive of the HPSS management executive issued further guidance to boards requiring them to consult widely with their residents, their health and social services councils and other interested parties in developing their plans for purchasing community care.

  In addition the Department's social services inspectorate has brought to boards' attention official and other relevant publications and reports covering good practice in community care including the participation of users and carers. In February 1994 the social services inspectorate informed boards of a further publication in the Department of Health study series "Implementing Community Care" entitled "Informing Users and Carers" about empowering users and carers through disseminating information.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many invalidity benefit awards for people in the constituency of South Down have been(a) reviewed, (b) disallowed and (c) reinstated on appeal in each of the last 12 months.

  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 6 May 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of Invalidity Benefit awards that have been reviewed, disallowed and reinstated on appeal in each of the last 12 months within your constituency.
  I am sorry that the information you have requested cannot be provided for your constituency as Invalidity Benefit is

  47
  administered centrally for the whole of Northern Ireland and separate statistics are not maintained for specific areas. However,I have provided in the table below details of the total number of Invalidity Benefit claims in Northern Ireland which have been reviewed, disallowed and reinstated on appeal during the 1993–94 financial year, which I hope you will find helpful.

  Month

  Reviewed

  Disallowed

  Re-instated on appeal

  April 1993

  109

  406

  59

  May 1993

  122

  483

  60

  June 1993

  150

  657

  93

  July 1993

  122

  692

  74

  August 1993

  123

  844

  74

  September 1993

  108

  840

  103

  October 1993

  151

  970

  125

  November 1993

  103

  395

  127

  December 1993

  169

  316

  127

  January 1994

  274

  374

  138

  February 1994

  247

  312

  Not yet available

  March 1994

  280

  386

  Not yet available

  Cattle Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what steps he plans to take to ensure that United Kingdom cattle are not exported illegally to the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what evidence he has that cattle are being exported illegally from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no firm evidence of large-scale illegal movement of cattle from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland. Where evidence is produced, this is thoroughly investigated. In a number of instances action has been taken by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland authorities in respect of cattle which were suspected of having or had been illegally exported. There is continuing co-operation and exchange of information between the relevant authorities on both sides of the border.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) complaints and (b) contacts have been made to the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in each of the last three years and the current year until the latest available date; and if he will list the sources, by name of organisation, of the complaints and show how such complaints are categorised and the number in each category, and the areas of Northern Ireland from which complaints originated by district council or other convenient administrative area or by parliamentary constituency.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement the Irish Government have the right to put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the intergovernmental conference. These views and proposals are conveyed to the British Government through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in its role of servicing the conference. The details of these exchanges remain confidential between the two Governments.

  Whincroft Way (Fire Safety)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the extent of fire bomb damage last week at Whincroft way, the Braniel in the borough of Castlereagh; what provision there is for fire escapes from all floors above ground level at Whincroft way; and if he will make a statement about fire safety at Whincroft way.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that 17 Whincroft way, a ground floor flat, was extensively damaged and that two upper floor maisonettes received superficial damage. All floors above ground level are accessed by a staircase and walkway, both constructed in concrete, which also provide a means of escape.

  Arable Farming
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers in Northern Ireland had arable aid scheme set-aside areas greater than(a) 100 hectares and (b) 50 hectares in the last available year.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest total paid to farmers in(a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme payments in Northern Ireland following the 1993–94 harvest.

  Mr. Ancram
  The latest total paid to farmers in Northern Ireland following the 1993 harvest for arable aid scheme set-aside payments is £243,086 and for arable area scheme payments, including crops and set-aside, is £4,007,244.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers in Northern Ireland had hectarages of land under cereals greater than(a) 1,000 hectares, (b) 500 hectares and (c) 250 hectares in the last available year.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers in Northern Ireland received arable area payments greater than(a) £100,000, (b) £250,000, (c) £500,000 and (d) £1,000,000 in the last available year.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have to publish(a) recommendations made by the forestry review group and (b) a Government decision as regards the future of the Forestry Commission before 9 June.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend plans to make an announcement during the summer about our conclusions from the review and to publish a document which would form the basis of consultation on our preferred options. There are no plans to publish any further material arising from the forestry review group.
  49
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on measures currently being undertaken by the Forestry Commission for the preservation of butterflies.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: The Forestry Commission undertakes a wide range of practical forest management work to protect and enhance the value of its woodlands for wildlife; this includes widening forest rides, creating glades and open spaces, and managing coppice to make suitable butterfly habitats. Examples of specific projects include work to encourage the re-introduction of the Chequered Skipper into England, creation of a butterfly garden in Chambers wood in Lincolnshire and a butterfly reserve in Coed Allt Fedw in Ceredigion, ride management in Sandlings forest in Suffolk to provide a habitat for Silver-studded Blue butterflies, protection of mire habitat in Kielder forest in Northumberland to encourage the large Heath butterfly and the removal of conifers in South Scotland to protect the Green Hairstreak and Scotch Argus. In addition, the commission manages several sites of special scientific interest which are particularly important for butterflies.

  The commission also encourages private owners to establish and manage woodlands in a way which will benefit all types of wildlife, including butterflies. The commission has published guidance to woodland managers on how to enhance forest rides for the benefit of butterflies and the plants which support them.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has laid down for Scottish Enterprise about when local enterprise companies may take steps to provide serviced sites.

  Mr. Stewart
  The strategic and policy guidance which my right hon. Friend has set for Scottish Enterprise makes it clear that the objective should be to ensure that the formation and expansion of business in its area is not artificially constrained by a lack of suitable sites and premises.

  In pursuing this objective, Scottish Enterprise is required to concentrate on facilitating private development and encouraging the private sector.to take an increasingly active part in the provision and management of industrial property, thus promoting a normal and self-sustaining industrial property market.

  Within that broad strategic and policy framework, Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies have discretion to operate subject to certain detailed scheme rules and delegated authorities.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to encourage Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies to take a more proactive role on industrial site development to prepare for any increasing demand.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has already made clear, in his strategic and policy guidance to Scottish Enterprise, the need to ensure that the formation and expansion of business is not constrained by a lack of suitable sites or premises. In particular, in setting out strategic guidance for the operation of the network in 1994–95, he acknowledged that, with the essential elements of economic recovery now in place, the Scottish 50
  Enterprise network would be keen to translate the opportunities which the recovery will bring into sustainable growth, jobs and competitiveness in Scotland.

  Scottish Enterprise and its local enterprise companies have also been given substantial budgets, and broad-ranging and flexible powers, to allow them to respond to market demands and opportunities. They are well placed to do so, although they are not, of course, alone in having a contribution to make in this area.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the information he receives about the operation of local enterprise companies; and what plans he has to increase the information available to him.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: The operation of local enterprise companies is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The enterprise bodies are required to agree with local enterprise companies the monitoring information to be collected in order to ensure that activities and services in the network as a whole are delivered satisfactorily.

  I am satisfied that these information requirements are subject to regular review and that periodic reports are provided showing progress towards the enterprise bodies' objectives and priorities.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to conduct a survey in respect of otters and winter low vegetation levels on the lines of that recommended by the Skye bridge environmental impact assessment and the public local inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Surveys of the otter habitat have been carried out by the Vincent Wildlife Trust both during winter, when vegetation levels are at their lowest, and after the line of the construction corridor was set out on the ground. The results of these surveys were incorporated in the booklet "Skye Bridge Crossing, Additional Information" which contains supplementary information on various matters in connection with the bridge. This information was made available to the regional district and community councils earlier this year.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he has taken since publishing his response to the recommendations of the public local inquiry into the Skye bridge to consult Scottish Natural Heritage and the National Trust for Scotland over otter protection, with particular reference to the subsequent monitoring of measures by the Vincent Wildlife Trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consultation has been ongoing with both Scottish Natural Heritage—SNH and the Vincent Wildlife Trust—VWT—on the details of the measures for the protection of otters. These measures include the construction of barriers, tunnels, replacement otter holts and fresh water grooming pools. The National Trust for Scotland, through its local representative, has also visited the site and is aware of these measures. Arrangements are in place for further visits. Consultations will continue with SNH, the statutory body responsible for the protection of the environment, and VWT to ensure the
  51
  measures incorporated are to their satisfaction. Thereafter, it is SNH's and the VWT's intention to monitor their effectiveness once the bridge is open to traffic.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the compliance with regulation 16 of the Environmental Assessments (Scotland) Regulations 1988 of his original advertisements in respect of 23 October 1991 compulsory purchase orders and road orders relating to the Skye bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A representation was made at the public local inquiry held into the bridge that regulation 16 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 was applicable and had not been complied with. This was considered by the reporter who in her report reached the view that there was no basis in the relevant legislation to support the representation. The Secretary of State agreed with those views and rejected the representation.

  Arable Farming
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest total paid to farmers in(a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme payments in Scotland following the 1993–94 harvest.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To date, about £15·5 million of aid has been paid in Scotland in respect of the set-aside element of the 1993 arable area payments scheme—AAPS —claims. Total AAPS aid payments, to date, amount to £90·6 million.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farms in Scotland had arable aid scheme set-aside areas greater than(a) 100 hectares and (b) 50 hectares in the last available year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Under the 1993 arable area payments scheme, 17 farms in Scotland had set-aside areas greater than 100 hectares, and a further 128 farms had set-aside areas of between 50 and 100 hectares.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers in Scotland received arable area payments greater than(a) £100,000, (b) £250,000, (c) £500,000 and (d) £1,000,000 in the last available year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Under the 1993 arable area payments scheme, 45 payments of more than £100,000 have been made to Scottish farmers, with a further two payments of between £250,000 and £500,000. No payments in excess of £500,000 have been made.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farms in Scotland had hectarages of land under cereals greater than(a) 1,000 hectares, (b) 500 hectares and (c) 250 hectares in the last available year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The numbers of farms recorded in the June 1993 agricultural census of main holdings with cereals area greater than 500 hectares, or greater than 250 hectares were five and 50, respectively. There were fewer than five farms with greater than 1,000 hectares of cereals; to avoid disclosure, the number is not published.

  Eastwood District Council
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all appointments within his Department's responsibility which are currently held by 52
  Councillor Ian Hutchison of Eastwood district council and any changes in this list within the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: Of the bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993" as being sponsored by the Scottish Office, Councillor Hutchison is a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. He was first appointed on 1 December 1983 and was last reappointed from 1 December 1992 until 30 November 1995. A copy of "Public Bodies 1993" is available in the Library of the House.

  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region, the number of cases of tuberculosis in deer in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of cases

  Region

  1985–88

  0

  —

  1989

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1990

  0

  —

  1991

  0

  —

  1992

  1

  Strathclyde

  1993

  0

  —

  1994

  1

  Strathclyde

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the allocation of capital resources to each regional or islands council by service; what percentage of the Scottish population is represented by each council's population; and what has been that council's share of the capital allocation as a percentage of the regional council allocation of capital for each service for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: The information requested is too lengthy to print in the Official Report. I shall therefore arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member and for copies to be placed in the House Libraries. The allocations listed are net allocations as announced prior to the start of each year in question. These allocations are, however, not the only source of funding available to local authorities. They can be enhanced by the use of capital receipts, which now include grants from the European regional development fund, the use of revenue for capital purposes and by private sector contributions. The ability of authorities to fund capital expenditure from these other sources is central to the approach that the Secretary of State takes in the distribution of resources among authorities. His controls are over all local authority expenditure and not just over the element he distributes by way of capital allocations.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has commissioned regarding estate management and property maintenance in the NHS in Scotland.
  53
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: Estate management and property maintenance in the NHS in Scotland is monitored on a continuous basis by the NHS management executive and studies relating to particular aspects are undertaken as required. This work is supported by a computerised data profile which assists the monitoring of performance targets, and informs consideration of the estate maintenance and investment requirements suggested by regular property condition surveys.

  Quarries
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy relating to the development of quarries within the urban area of the central Scotland conurbation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: Planning policies for mineral working in Scotland are set out in the recently published "National Planning Policy Guideline on Land for Mineral Working". No specific mention is made of quarries in the urban areas of the central Scotland conurbation; they are therefore covered by the general policies established in the guidelines. It is for planning authorities now to reflect those policies in their specific structure and local plans.

TRANSPORT

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he expects to the time of completion of strategic routes as a result of his prioritisation of the roads programme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The recent roads review I announced to the House in March puts the programme in a realistic order of priority, and focuses resources on essential schemes on strategic routes and bypasses. Delivery of the strategic route schemes will be speeded up as a consequence of no longer taking forward all schemes with the same effort and at the same pace.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reaction he has received to his recent statement on prioritisation of the roads programme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The reaction to the review of the roads programme has shown the widespread support across the country for the prioritisation and more efficient management we have undertaken, and for the dropping of projects, such as the M12 and the A5 to Stansted section of the east-west route, which had serious environmental difficulties and for which alternative improved routes were available on existing corridors.

  Air Services (Liberalisation)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.

  Mr. McGregor
  The United States has still not returned to the negotiating table. I have continued to signal my willingness to continue talks, both on the liberalisation package as a whole and on more limited interim exchanges of new rights.
  54
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the policy of the United States Government in respect of United Kingdom based airlines bidding for contracts to fly(a) United States mail and (b) military personnel in and out of the United States; what negotiations he has held with the United States authorities on the subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  United Kingdom airlines are prevented from carrying the vast bulk of United States mail carried by air. They are also prevented from competing with United States airlines on an equal footing for the carriage of the remaining small percentage of United States mail. United Kingdom airlines are also prevented from carrying United States Government-financed passengers and property. These restrictions on United Kingdom airlines' ability to compete on equal terms with United States airlines are one of the issues the United Kingdom has raiseed in the current air services liberalisation negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States. The United Kingdom is seeking the right for UK-designated airlines to compete without discrimination on ground of nationality for such business.

  Motorways
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement about the condition of United Kingdom motorways.

  Mr. Key
  I have just published the report on the 1993 national road maintenance condition survey, which indicates that the previously noted deterioration in the condition of motorways in England and Wales has been arrested.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to increase the use of public transport in urban areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are encouraging the use of public transport through our policies of deregulation, privatisation and competition. We are making resources available to local authorities for investment in public transport improvements: these range from the major light rail projects in Manchester and Sheffield to bus priority measures across the country. We have said that we will not build new roads to assist car commuting into town centres. We have introduced the package approach, which invites local authorities to develop balanced transport strategies for their areas and we have published planning policy guidance note 13, which encourages the location of new development where it can be served by public transport.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to promote public transport integration and reductions in cost to the passenger.

  Mr. Freeman
  Deregulating public transport and increasing opportunities for the private sector represent the best policies for improving services to the passenger. We are pursuing a range of measures along these lines.

  London Lorry Ban
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost of enforcing the permit system attached to the London lorry ban.
  55
  Mr. Norris
  Based on the projected budget of the London boroughs transport scheme for 1994–95, the estimated cost of enforcing the permit system is approximately £400,000. If permits are abolished, the savings made can be used to enhance enforcement of the ban.

  Midland Metro
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the necessary public finances be made available for the Midland Metro line 1 project before March 1996.

  Mr. Freeman
  The case for grant will be given careful consideration when the necessary funds are available.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the design of traffic-calming measures.

  Mr. Key
  We consulted widely before making the traffic-calming regulations last year. The design of individual schemes is for local highway authorities, but my Department conducts research and gives advice.

  London Underground
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss improvements to the London underground.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the London underground.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is the current year's investment by his Department in the London underground.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government provides a block grant to London Transport (LT) as a whole; they do not allocate a specific amount to the underground. This year's grant to LT will be £373 million, to which LT will be able to add a substantial sum from sale of the London Bus companies. LT are currently budgeting to invest £423 million in London underground this year.

  Great West Rail Line
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss the electrification of the Great West rail line with the chairman of the Railtrack authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with Mr. Robert Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, to discuss a wide range of issues. These include the opportunities for investment in response to the commercial requirements of Railtrack's customers.

  Investment (East London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the impact on east London of his public transport investment plans; and if he will make a statement.
  56
  Mr. Norris
  The Government's plans for substantial public transport investment in east London will improve travel and employment opportunities for local people and will support new development in the area.

  Rail Privatisation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made over privatisation, with particular reference to the Fenchurch Street line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 21 April the director of Passenger Rail Franchising published the programme for the sale of the 25 franchises that will be created from the national British Rail passenger rail network. The London, Tilbury and Southend franchise, comprising the line from Fenchurch Street, is in the first group of franchises which will be sold in 1995. It has already started shadow running as a separate operating unit with British Rail.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefit to passengers from the privatisation of the railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  The involvement of the private sector in taking responsibility for provision of passenger services will bring additional capital into the railway industry above that provided by the taxpayer and will also introduce new management skills and innovation aimed at meeting more fully the demands of the passenger.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to maintain lightly used rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are committed to supporting socially necessary passenger services through subsidy. There is no reason why privatisation should cause any reduction of services.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether passengers holding discount tickets on a particular service will be able to use alternative services following privatisation in the event of a cancellation or termination of a train.

  Mr. Freeman
  The scope of interavailability for discount tickets is being considered by the Franchising Director. The question whether these would be valid on alternative services in the event of disruption is likely, as now, to depend on the circumstances of the case.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many micro-franchises he estimates will be created during rail privatisation; and what benefits this will bring.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Franchising Director is responsible for the sale of franchises. I understand that it is too early to estimate how many micro-franchises might be created. A micro-franchise may offer benefits through the provision of clearly focused services, targeted on a relatively discrete market, where the route involved is substantially self-contained.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the salaries and principal conditions from 1 April of(a) the chairman of British Rail, (b) the chairman of Railtrack, (c) the Rail Regulator and (d) the Franchising Director; and if he will list the percentage increase of their salaries over the 1993–94 rates.
  57
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 15 April Official Report, column 333. The 1994–95 salary rates for (a) and (b) have yet to be determined but the salaries for (c) and (d) have been increased by 2·75 per cent. with effect from 1 April 1994. Accordingly the salary for Mr. John Swift QC is now £128,440 and that for Mr. Roger Salmon is £102,750.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Supersaver ticket will remain, after privatisation, interavailable on all trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  Supersaver is the brand name of a discount ticket offered by BR, and it will be for the train operators to decide whether this name is maintained. The Franchising Director is considering whether the scope of mandatory interavailability should be widened to include such tickets.

  Barking to Gospel Oak Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with Railtrack to discuss the Barking to Gospel Oak line.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport holds regular meetings with Railtrack to discuss a wide range of topics. They have not specifically discussed the Barking to Gospel Oak line.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the sale by municipal authorities of their bus companies.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Very good progress has been made. Twenty-eight local authority bus companies have now been sold: and they include the seven largest.

  Ships' Officers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of his announcement of changes to the officer nationality requirements for United Kingdom vessels in relation to the consultation period on these proposals; and what consideration he will give to submissions received since his announcement.

  Mr. Norris
  Consultation on the proposal to relax the officer nationality requirements for United Kingdom vessels will be completed by the end of May. Careful consideration will be given to the representations made. My right hon. Friend expects the new arrangements to be in place by the autumn of this year.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he has made to his requirements for efficiency savings by the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend announced on 29 April that the Vehicle Inspectorate is required to achieve an efficiency improvement of 5 per cent. this year as measured by the agency's aggregate cost efficiency index.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect efficiency savings imposed by his 58
  Department have had on recruitment by the Vehicle Inspectorate; and what assessment he has made on the effect on road safety.

  Mr. Key
  Recruitment to the Vehicle Inspectorate is a matter for the agency's chief executive, but I am advised that it was on a very limited scale in 1993–94 and that the position is likely to be similar this year. The targets set by my right hon. Friend for the agency last year and those he announced last month for 1994–95 imply, as well as efficiency gains, an improvement in the quality of service which can only contribute to road safety.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individuals and organisations consulted by the consultants who carried out the privatisation review of the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Key
  The consultants KPMG Peat Marwick consulted a wide range of organisations and individuals in studying the options for privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory and their feasibility. It is not my Department's normal practice to publish the names of those involved in such consultations.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department's press releases issued electronically through the Central Office of Information are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and POLIS.

  My Department's press releases are also made available through the COI's fax retrieval service, details of which can be provided by its news distribution service.

  I have no further plans to use the Internet.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his target for cuts in the running costs of his Department; when he will make an announcement on the details of such cuts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have set my Department a requirement to make a 20 per cent. improvement in efficiency with the target of achieving it over the two years beginning 1 April 1994. Agency chief executives and senior managers elsewhere in the Department will be preparing proposals on how they might secure such an improvement in efficiency in their areas of responsibility.

  Roundabout Safety
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department has taken as a result of the findings of Transport Research Laboratory report 1120; and what plans his Department has to carry out further studies into safety at roundabouts.
  59
  Mr. Key
  The question which is related to safety at roundabouts is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Douglas French, dated 6 May 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary question regarding further studies into safety at roundabouts.
  The findings of the TRL study report LR1120 have been incorporated into the Departmental Standard for the geometric design of roundabouts TD16/84 and TA42/84 and in TRL's computer program for roundabout design ARCADY/3. A fundamental review of the geometric design of roundabouts was undertaken in 1990 and this led to the revised Standard TD16/93. Whilst continuing to embrace the findings of the earlier TRL study, Report LR1120, the new Standard has adopted additional measures to improve safety for all road users, like amended entry path curvature requirements to ensure adequate deflection on entry, and revised visibility requirements.
  Concerning further studies into safety, the Highways Agency closely monitors accidents occurring at all Trunk Road junctions, including roundabouts. The accident statistics show that roundabouts are still one of the safest forms of road junction, excluding those comprising flyovers or underpasses and have remained fairly constant over the last 15 years.
  The Highways Agency is, of course, committed to ensuring the safety of the whole of the Trunk Road network and contributing towards the Government's target for reductions in road traffic accidents. In order to maximise the benefits from the limited research resources that are available you will appreciate the need to target future safety studies towards those areas where the greatest contribution towards safety can be made. I therefore have no plans at present to undertake further studies into safety at roundabouts but of course will keep the issue under review.

  Dorchester West to Castle Cary Line
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future prospects for the Dorchester West to Castle Cary line, and on the current arrangements for its maintenance.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any proposals to suggest the future of the line between Dorchester West and Castle Cary is in doubt. The line is inspected, maintained and renewed to meet both present and anticipated future traffic.

  European Passenger Services
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in transferring British Rail's subsidiary, European Passenger Services Ltd., into Government ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  European Passenger Services has today transferred from British Rail into direct Government ownership. This will allow the company to prepare for privatisation while completing preparations to launch its international services this summer. Jim Butler, the new chairman of EPS, and his board will be working to ensure the success of these services in the months ahead. This marks another important milestone on route to the completion of the new channel tunnel rail link.

  A299
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when, following the submission of the inspector's report he expects to be able to make an announcement concerning the routeing of the centre section of the A299 Thanet Way dual carriageway.

  Mr. Key
  The inspector's report into the A299 Thanet Way dual carriageway was received by the Secretary of State for Transport on 27 April 1994. It is not possible at this time to predict when the decision will be announced but consideration of the report is currently under way and is being given the highest priority.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to change the practical element of the driving test.

  Mr. Key
  There are no plans to change the practical element of the driving test, but a separate theory test will be introduced by July 1996.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria for deciding on the closure of driving test centres; and what plans he has to restrict driving tests to larger towns.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from S. J. Ford to Mr. Don Foster, dated 6 May 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the questions you have raised about the criteria used when deciding on the closure of driving test centres and whether there are plans to restrict driving tests to larger towns.
  The 1994–1995 Business Plan for the Driving Standards Agency explains that the review of the DSA test centre estate will continue with the aim of maintaining a list of possible centres for rationalisation. This might include a range of options from re-siting, merger with another centre or closure. Each test centre will be assessed against the following criteria:—

  (i) the number of satisfactory test routes, including an assessment of the proportion of routes which include higher speed roads;

  (ii) the quality of facilities for customers, including the provision of toilets and off-road parking;

  (iii) financial efficiency, including rent, maintenance and energy costs, compared to equivalent costs at an alternative centre; and

  (iv) demand for tests at the centre and its proximity to other test centres, including the capacity of neighbouring test centres to meet the existing level of transferred demand and cope with a possible increase.

  There are no proposals to restrict driving tests to larger towns.
  It is not practicable for DSA to provide a test centre in every town in Britain, and the Agency must review its network by applying its criteria as even-handedly as possible across the country as a whole.

  A26
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the economic importance of Newhaven to the local economy of east Sussex in formulating his trunk road improvement plans; and what plans he has to extend the A26 to Newhaven port by the construction of a new route from the southern terminal of the A26 to the quayside.
  61
  Mr. Key
  The economic importance of Newhaven is reflected in the Department's cost benefit analysis which is applied to all proposed schemes. The primary purpose of the recent review of the road programme was to establish priorities to concentrate effort and resources on the most urgently needed schemes, and produce a clear set of objectives and targets. Cost benefit was one of the three main criteria applied on a national basis.

  There are currently no plans to extend the A26 to Newhaven port.

  Minicabs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions there have been for illegal plying for hire by minicab drivers for each of the last eight years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: Illegal plying for hire of itself is not an offence for which people are arrested. Information on the number of convictions for illegal plying for hire by minicab drivers is not available. The police do not keep information on crimes broken down by the alleged occupation of the criminal.

  The present law prohibiting plying for hire by cars not licensed as taxis dates back to the middle of the last century. In its present form it is not easy to enforce. Modernisation is clearly a priority.

  "Plying for hire" should not be confused with touting, although in practice taxi touts are normally associated with illegal plying for hire. I hope we can deal with the problem of touts through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, at present under consideration in another place.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he proposes to introduce legislation in this parliamentary Session to promote and increase open government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's new code of practice on access to Government information came into force at the beginning of April. We will introduce legislation on access to personal records and health and safety information as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

  Citizens Charter
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research his Department has carried out to find out how many people know of their rights under the citizens charter.

  Mr. David Davis
  It is for each public service provider to consult its users in line with the principles of the citizens charter and to provide information to users about the standards of service that they are entitled to expect. Published surveys reveal that seven out of 10 people are aware of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to republicise the contents of all charters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  The provision of information is an important principle of the citizens charter. To accompany 62
  "The Citizen's Charter Second Report" a free guide called "The Citizen's Charter Report Back 1994" was published which highlighted the good progress already made and set out future commitments, as well as full details about how to obtain further information on individual services and charters. The guide has been made widely available around the country and is also published in six other languages, on audio cassette in large print and braille. Copies of the second report and the free guide were placed in the Library of the House. In addition, individual Departments, agencies and other organisations are responsible for ensuring that the standards and other information set out in their charters are made widely available to their customers.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to progress initiatives that will improve public understanding of science following the national week of science and technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  SET7 was a great success. Planning has begun for next year's national week of science, engineering and technology. At the same time the Office of Science and Technology is continuing to support a number of initiatives to encourage greater understanding and appreciation of science and engineering, especially in our schools but also among the general public.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress his Department has made in achieving the original objectives of the science White Paper.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made an excellent progress. The first forward look of Government-funded science and technology was published last month; this provides a clear and up-to-date survey of the research and development scene, and sets out strategic objectives for the next five to 10 years. The new research council structure came into being on 1 April. The technology foresight programme is well under way; and the week of special events to promote public understanding was described by New Scientist as "a staggering success".

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since my Department was established in May 1992 there have been 48 parliamentary questions where the answer given by my Department included a reference to part or all the information being available only at disproportionate cost or because the information requested was not held centrally. Details of these questions can be obtained from the POLIS database, access to which is available in the Library.

  The remainder of the question could itself be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department's press releases issued electronically through the Central Office of Information are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Staff Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and to POLIS.

  My Department's press releases are also made available through the COI's fax retrieval service, details of which can be provided by its new distribution service.

  I have no further plans to use the Internet.

  Disablement Quotas
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Government Departments meet the quota requirements for the employment of people with disabilities and which do not.

  Mr. David Davis
  Information held centrally does not include some smaller Departments and agencies. Of those for which information is available, at 1 July 1993 there were five which met the 3 per cent. quota for the employment of people with disabilities. These are as follows: Department of Education; Employment Group; Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; the Office of the Paymaster General and Registers of Scotland.

  Overall, 1.5 per cent. of civil service staff are registered disabled, compared with 0.8 per cent. in the public sector generally and 0.7 per cent. in the private sector. Like many other employers, civil service departments also employ many staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

ENVIRONMENT

  Eland House
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many British firms were included on the tender list for the cladding contract for Eland house.

  Sir George Young
  The redevelopment of Eland house is being undertaken by Land Securities plc. The Department has signed an agreement to take a 25–year lease with a 15–year break provision. The sourcing of the building's cladding is therefore a matter for the company and not for the Department.

  I understand, however, that Land Securities plc is anxious to maximise the United Kingdom content of the building within its commercial and legal constraints. The company is a founder member of the Construction Procurement Group established by leading specifiers in the industry and supported by my Department to work with suppliers of building products in enhancing their competitiveness. I am pleased to say that they have agreed to make Eland house one of the early case studies for the group.

  Recycling
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what civil service-wide co-ordination exists in the recycling of waste materials in order to maximise efficient use of resources and value for money.

  Mr. Atkins
  Government Departments now have environmental strategies in place and are preparing, or have prepared, action plans to implement them. These strategies set out the policy of each Department for the use of its own resources and are designed to ensure that full account is taken of the needs of the environment. They cover a wide variety of issues including recycling, and are co-ordinated by a committee of green Ministers drawn from the major Departments.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what areas of grassed space open to the public exists in the London Docklands development area.

  Sir George Young
  Some 382 acres of grassed area are open to the public in the London Docklands urban development area.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of land area in the London Docklands development area is public open space.

  Sir George Young
  Some 11·25 per cent. of land in the London Docklands urban development area is public open space.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure affordable housing in rural areas; what statistical information he has of rural housing need; if he will publish it; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We provide funding through the Housing Corporation's annual approved development programme for new social housing in rural and non-rural areas. In rural areas—defined as settlements with a population of 3,000 or less—the ADP has approved funds through the corporation's rural programme for more than 6,000 new units between 1989–90 and 1992–93; and some 2,200 units in 1993–94—exceeding the Government's target by some 19 per cent. In 1994–95 the corporation aims to approve a further 1,850 new units.

  In addition, the Rural Development Commission provides support for the work of the Rural Housing Trust to assist the setting up and support of rural housing associations, and for other measures which facilitate the supply of social housing in rural areas.

  The resources for the ADP are distributed each year in accordance with my Department's housing needs index. The index is calculated for all local authority districts, and the individual scores are published annually by the Housing Corporation.

  My Department does not specifically compile information on rural housing need. However, we are currently carrying out research into the nature and causes of housing need in rural England with the aim of identifying possible solutions. We expect the results to be published in due course.

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

  Mr. Gummer
  In line with Government policy, my Department employs security companies in situations where this can be shown to provide best value for money. There has been no requirement so far to engage private detective agencies.

  Rio Agreement
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of financial aid provided in the implementation of agenda 21 of the Rio agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Chapter 33, paragraph 13 of agenda 21 said that, in general, financing for the implementation of agenda 21 should come from countries' own public and private sectors. In the case of developing countries, it was accepted that foreign aid would continue to be required. The United Kingdom has a substantial overseas aid programme.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority-owned properties have been sold by each of the London borough councils in each of the last five years.

  Sir George Young
  Tables showing the available information on total council house sales for each English local authority for every financial year since 1980 and a cumulative total to December 1993 are in the Library.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of accumulated capital receipts from the sale of council houses for each district council in Nottinghamshire.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The total discounted values of all council dwellings sold in Nottinghamshire between April 1980 and December 1993, as reported by local authorities, are in the table. No estimates have been made for those periods where data have not been supplied by a local authority or were incomplete. Actual cash receipts for the period will depend on the extent to which sales had been financed by loans from the authorities.

  Nottinghamshire

  Discounted value of all sales

  Local authority

  £ million

  Ashfield

  36·7

  Bassetlaw

  32·1

  Broxtowe

  29·6

  Gedling

  34·8

  Mansfield

  30·9

  Newark and Sherwood

  28·5

  Nottingham

  106·3

  Rushcliffe

  21·8

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the planning constraints on the erection of telecomunication masts.

  Mr. Baldry
  A planning application is required for the erection of masts above 15 m and for all masts in protected areas such as conservation areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  A general planning permission is granted for the erection of masts of up to 15 m in height, under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. However, local planning authorities do have powers to intervene in such cases to require the approval of the siting and appearance of a proposed mast if they consider it would seriously threaten amenity.

  Tenancies (Consultation Paper)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many additional staff his Department has taken on to deal with the responses to the consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies";

  (2) how many staff are dealing with responses to his Department's consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies";

  (3) how many of the responses to his Department's consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies" have been from hon. and right hon. Members.

  Sir George Young
  Of the 10 members of the Department's homelessness policy division whose work is associated with the responses to the consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies", four were taken on specifically to handle the volume of responses, which include over 500 communications from right hon. and hon. Members, most of which were forwarding letters from their constituents.

  Limehouse Link Tunnel
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the Limehouse link tunnel is to be closed between 5 May and 10 May; what repairs are due to be undertaken; and what is the estimated cost of these repairs.

  Sir George Young
  The eastbound sliproad of the Limehouse link tunnel is to be closed to improve drainage. This remedial work is covered under the contractor's liability warranty. The cost is not known.

  The main route from The Highway to Aspen way and the royal docks will remain open.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the circumstances in which the demolition of dry stone walls requires planning permission.

  Mr. Baldry
  In general, planning permission is required for the demolition of any gate, fence, or wall, including dry stone walls. But in particular cases, it is for the local planning authority to decide whether demolition is sufficiently minor or immaterial to fall outside planning control.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  Press releases from my Department are already available on the Internet via commercial database hosts used by the Central Office of Information. There are some technical features, however, which currently make wider use of Internet impractical, although we are planning various improvements in electronic information exchange.

  Reservoirs
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of additional staffing requirements of the National Rivers Authority if the responsibility for administration of the Reservoirs Act 1975 is transferred to the authority.

  Mr. Atkins
  This would depend on the arrangements that the National Rivers Authority chose to make and on the extent to which—like some of the local authorities currently responsible—it chose to employ consultants to do the work. Since there would be a merger of the two separate existing registers of large, raised reservoirs and of impounding licences, less staff effort overall should be needed.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the administration of the Reservoirs Act 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As described in "Deregulation: Cutting Red Tape", the Government have proposed to merge in England and Wales the two separate existing registers of large, raised reservoirs—the responsibility, under the Reservoirs Act 1975, of certain local authorities—and of impounding licences—the responsibility, under the Water Resources Act 1991, of the National Rivers Authority—in view of the substantial overlap between the two registers.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which he considers to have been neglectful in carrying out their duties under the Reservoirs Act 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no reason to think that any local authority has been ineffective in carrying out its functions under the Reservoirs Act 1975: however, over 10 per cent. of the authorities concerned have still not sent to my Department the report on the previous two years statutorily required to be made by 1 April 1993.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost to local authorities of carrying out their duties under the Reservoirs Act 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  When the Reservoirs Act 1975 was implemented in 1985, the additional current expenditure by local authorities was described as insignificant. No subsequent estimate has been made.
  68
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of cases in each local authority where enforcement under the Reservoirs Act 1975 has been carried out in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Reports are required every two years: the number of enforcement actions reported in England has been:

  Number

  1987–89

  14

  1989–91

  10

  1991–93

  13

  1 In the reports so far received.

  Public Works Tenders
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that when tenders for public work are invited by local authorities that they are in realistic commercial terms and without unnecessary contingent liabilities.

  Mr. Curry
  Local authority tendering procedures are governed by European rules and United Kingdom law as well as authorities' own standing orders. Authorities make their own decisions on the way in which they invite tenders, subject to the law and to financial propriety. They have a fiduciary duty to their taxpayers to operate effectively and efficiently and to secure the best value for money in the discharge of their functions. They must also justify their actions to the independent auditor appointed by the Audit Commission to check their accounts.

  In the case of work subject to compulsory competitive tendering, authorities are under a specific statutory duty not to act in any way which may restrict, distort or prevent competition. My Department has issued guidance on the fair conduct of CCT, and has statutory power to take action against authorities acting in an anti-competitive way.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the number of local authority housing starts for 1977–78 and the number of such starts so far in 1993–94.

  Sir George Young
  Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. Local authorities' primary housing tasks are the efficient management of their own stock of dwellings and enabling other organisations to provide new housing.

  Local authorities in England started 78,580 dwellings during the financial year 1977–78. Provisional figures show that they started some 570 dwellings during the first 11 months of the financial year 1993–94. Provisional figures for the full financial year 1993–94 will be published by my Department on 10 May 1994.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve funding for the Energy Saving Trust's conservation projects.

  Mr. Atkins
  Funding for schemes sponsored by the Energy Saving Trust comes from a variety of sources. The
  69
  Director General of Gas Supply has questioned the suitability of the trust's schemes for funding from one of these sources, the so-called E factor levy on gas consumers. In the light of these reservations and of future changes in the gas and electricity industries, an inter-departmental working group of officials is looking at alternative options for the longer term.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if a fiche d'impact was prepared on the proposal for a Council directive concerning the quality of bathing water 94C 112/03, COM (94) 36 final-94/0006 (SYN), submitted by the Commission on 29 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the financial statement attached to the proposal, the Commission states that, on balance, the burden on member states will be reduced. The Government will be making their own assessment of the cost implications for the United Kingdom of the proposal.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the outstanding council tax banding appeals have been scheduled for a hearing.

  Mr. Curry
  Around 45,000 appeals had been listed for hearing—but not yet heard—at valuation tribunals in England by the end of March. We expect, however, that the great majority of cases will be settled by agreement between the Valuation Office Agency and the taxpayer without the need for a formal tribunal hearing and decision.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

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

Natural Gas: Energy Policy
Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
If projected gas-fired generating stations are constructed, what proportion of natural gas overall will be used in running them and whether this is a sensible use of a limited resource which is likely to become increasingly expensive.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government's policy, as stated in the Coal White Paper, is to create a fully competitive energy market in which decisions on fuel choice for power generation are best left to the generators answerable to their customers.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the commercial incentive to produce more power from gas turbines, and so on, is rather extreme and that, in the long run, that may not be in the national interest? Will he take some steps to control future developments in the industry? Finally, the Minister has not answered my Question at all. My own information—if it interests him —is that the amount of energy used by nuclear power stations would be at least 20 per cent. of our national gas requirement.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not feel that I have answered his Question. I always come to the House with the greatest intention of doing justice to any Questions that are put to me. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe that my Answer is the correct one to give. It is central planning that has failed. The market is in much the best position to decide which kind of fuel to use in terms of power generation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is not the premise behind the noble Viscount's Question somewhat at fault? Did not the Department of Trade and Industry very recently produce figures showing a 16 per cent. rise in the output of gas in the last quarter as compared with the previous quarter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend's question is very helpful. It demonstrates that it is not very useful to use forecasts of available fuel. I understand that in the United States of America the forecast for the use of natural gas has been set at some nine years—and that has been the case for the past 20 years!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the market decides, why do we have the nuclear levy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an entirely different question from that set down on the Order Paper.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in connection with the Question that was asked by my noble friend, can the Minister indicate to us what progress is being made in the concept of a gas interconnector with the Continent? That could obviously materially affect supplies.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that will be a decision for the market to take in due course.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Minister referred to the market. Can he help the House in regard to the report on the proposals that the regulator has in mind? When can the House expect that report, which I believe has been delayed for some time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, announcements will be made shortly about the role of gas, the report of the gas regulator, and so on.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by "shortly"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, "shortly" in this case means very shortly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the answers are getting better by the minute. I take it that the Minister is really giving his usual answer to all questions on energy; namely, that the Government do not have an energy policy and that the free market will do the job. Does he accept that the premise that lies behind that position is that the price of gas on the free market reflects its true value and that the objection to that is that it is widely believed that the free market is unable to price correctly the value of an exhaustible resource such as gas? Does he agree that that is the central point? Do the Government believe that the price of gas on the free market, no matter what it is, is always the correct price?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I refute what the noble Lord said about the Government's lack of an energy policy. We do have an energy policy and it is a very clear one. The policy aim is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. The competitive market is not always perfect, but it is still the very best way that anyone has found to trade sensibly on a long-term basis.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we do not want to bandy words about, but there is absolutely no doubt that the Minister's reply was simply another way of saying that the Government have no policy in the sense of doing anything. Their policy is simply to stand back and let the free market do it. Will he at least confirm that he has said that to me at least six times this year?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, allowing the market to make these decisions is very much a positive policy and a positive decision that has been taken by the Government.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if the free market is not always right when it predicts or seeks to fix the price of a commodity, is there any reason to believe that central planning, which has so often failed in the past, will be any better?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is where my noble and learned friend has such an advantage over me—his historical perspective. His great knowledge of what socialism and central planning have done to this country over decades is tremendously useful in making the point.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that what he has just said and attributed to his noble and learned friend is, in my view, wrong and will cause great consternation to those who rallied to the country when public ownership was the only way in which we could reassert ourselves before and after 1945? Does he further agree that some acknowledgment ought to be made of that? Will he give this House an assurance that in the event of a threat to this great industry the Government will immediately take precautions to protect it, not on behalf of the Labour Party, Tory Party or any other party but on behalf of the British people?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the event of a national emergency things may well change. But we are not faced with a national emergency. We have a clear and concise policy that currently is working.

Transport Research Laboratory: Sale
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, work towards the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory is at an early stage. Arrangements are under way to appoint financial advisers to assist the Government with the sale of TRL. Those advisers will be appointed by means of a competitive tendering process.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Will the Minister accept that the delay is a little surprising in view of the speed with which the Government rushed to announce that it would privatise when the executive agency was barely a year old? Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will keep the House informed of the progress of negotiations and the terms that the Government are considering granting to potential purchasers? Will he give a guarantee that the Government will not allow the vested interests of potential purchasers to damage what the Peat Marwick report calls the "perceived impartiality" of TRL under public ownership?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness a guarantee that we will not allow the privatisation process to damage TRL. I have
1338
made that clear on a number of occasions. As for keeping the House informed of progress, I suspect that the noble Baroness will ensure that I do so by tabling a Question almost fortnightly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Government have shown about the same sense of historical perspective over this whole issue as was displayed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde? In the light of what he said, does he agree that it is essential for the Government to be open with the House about the terms and conditions which will be impressed in the contracts in relation to the privatisation exercise? What particular provisions are likely to be introduced in order to ensure the integrity, impartiality and objectivity of the new enterprise that will take over its activities?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the process proceeds, the financial advisers begin to put together the package and we go out looking for the competitive sale, one of the principal elements that we shall look for is an assurance from any potential buyer that the integrity of TRL will remain and that it will continue to offer to the Department of Transport and other organisations the kind of skills that it has offered in the past.

NHS Management: Breaches of Regulations
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Pursuant to their answer of 13th April (HL Deb. Col. 1531) regarding codes of conduct for the National Health Service, whether any court action is contemplated regarding the breach of regulations in the appointment of Mrs. Anne-Marie Nelson to a multiplicity of posts in the NHS, and the persons criticised in the district auditor's report relating to the Halton Health Authority, stating that £100,982 had been spent unlawfully.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the appointment of Anne-Marie Nelson to a second health authority was the result of an oversight by the department. Mrs Nelson has since resigned from the West Kent Health Authority and been correctly appointed as chairman of the Special Hospital Service Authority. The earlier mistake was made in good faith and does not give any grounds for legal action. North Cheshire Health Authority, which succeeded the Halton Health Authority, is taking legal advice about the recovery of payments to the last district general manager of Halton. Court action is not appropriate for other people named in the district auditor's report.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply to my two-part Question. With regard to the appointment of the lady mentioned in the first part, will the Minister confirm that it was an illegal

1339
appointment made by the Secretary of State and authorised by her? If that is the case, does she accept that the Secretary of State should be called into question in the courts of the land for an illegality? Can she say whether the money that was paid to the lady in that illegal appointment has been repaid? If not, should not that be done? As regards the second part of the Question, is anybody to be prosecuted? Is the money to be reclaimed or do the codes of conduct mean nothing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the Question, the appointment is not illegal but it contravenes two sets of regulations. The difference in the regulations was overlooked by the department; that is why Mrs Nelson was appointed in error. As for the second part of the Question, I have already said that the health authority is taking legal advice on the matter.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the persistence of my noble friend Lord Dean on these matters has been very helpful in restoring public service values to the health service? When will the Government play their part and introduce appropriate sanctions so that the codes of conduct are worth more than the paper that they are written on?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, being a member of a health authority, the noble Baroness will appreciate that the codes of conduct have only just been published. At this very moment health authorities are in the process of adopting those codes. We have every confidence in them and the people who serve with such integrity on health authorities and trusts.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, regarding the presumed double payment of salaries? Have steps been taken to recover those moneys?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand the situation, Mrs. Nelson never took both salaries.
Lord Dean of Beswiek: My Lords, is it not the case that other people have been appointed against the regulations in the same manner? I refer, for instance, to the former Chairman of Wessex, who was made Chairman of the National Health Supplies Authority at the same time in contravention of the then standing orders, or however the noble Baroness would describe them. We are not talking in the strictest sense about the present code of conduct. The regulations under which those people were appointed were introduced by the Government in 1990. Their appointment is in contravention of the system then introduced. Is it not therefore strange that people can be appointed contrary to the law of the land and no action is taken against them? It is about time that the Secretaries of State, who appeared to want the power given to them in legislation, were prepared to wear the crown of thorns rather than the laurel leaf.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the generality is that there is not cross-membership between regional, district and family health service authorities. However,
1340
some special health authorities are permitted to hold dual appointments. I refer to the Dental Vocational Training Authority, the Mental Health Act Commission, the Microbiological Research Authority, the National Blood Authority, the NHS Supplies Authority—to which the noble Lord referred—and the UK Transplant Support Services Authority. Only three are not allowed dual membership; that is, the Health Education Authority, the Prescription Pricing Authority and the authority which was drawn to our attention, the Special Hospitals Service Authority.
Before this situation came to light it was the intention of the Secretary of State and the department to establish closer links with the Special Hospitals Service Authority which, as your Lordships will realise, does a difficult job in looking after patients who are extremely vulnerable and difficult, many of them having been before the courts in severe psychotic situations. It was the intention to bring that service closer into the mainstream of the National Health Service that prompted this appointment, in addition to which, Mrs. Anne Marie Nelson is a person of exceptional calibre.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I accept what the Minister said regarding the integrity with which most members of the health authority serve and I am glad that she includes me in that category. But I am sure that she will be pleased to learn that the health authority of which I am a member takes the codes of conduct extremely seriously and responsibly. We need to return to the question raised before in your Lordships' House: why do not the same sanctions which apply to local authorities apply to health author ties?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that ground was covered on a previous occasion in a Starred Question. There is no question of members of health authorities being surcharged. They are totally different from those elected to local government. Councillors are locally elected and are answerable to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The board members of NHS trusts and authorities are appointed by the Secretary of State who answers to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee. No accounting officer is accountable to the accounts committee in local government In the NHS the Permanent Secretary and the Chief Executive of the National Health Service Executive are both accounting officers and answerable to the PAC. I have in front of me seven distinct differences between local government and the National Health Service members who serve on health authorities and trusts.

Foreign Policy: Europe and. America
2.54 p.m.
Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have noted that, in a speech in London on 19th April, the United States ambassador said, inter alia, that "if Britain's voice is less influential in Paris or Bonn it is likely to be less influential in Washington", and what implications this has for the conduct: of Britain's foreign policy.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the outgoing US Ambassador describes very well the importance of Europe in Britain's relationship with the United States.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of that scarcely enlightening reply, does not the Minister agree that what was said underlined an important nuance of American foreign policy and brought out something not hitherto emphasised in statements on American foreign policy? Also, can she give us some idea as to whether the Government think our influence in the three capitals mentioned is likely to be enhanced by the current controversy and discussion regarding the possibility of a referendum on constitutional change in the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I recommend to all your Lordships the reading of Raymond Seitz's address to the Pilgrims on 19th April. It is a fascinating revelation of the real situation that exists between the United Kingdom and the United States.
On the second part of the question, so neatly slipped in, I do not believe that the possibility of a referendum on European matters arises now. Therefore, it does not need a decision now. I still recall the long debate in your Lordships' House last year when we firmly rejected the idea of a referendum. Indeed, many people wondered what question we could ask if we decided to hold a referendum. It is simply not on.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that what is acutely injurious to the conduct of British foreign policy is the deep division in the Government and the Cabinet on foreign affairs generally and on Europe in particular?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, much of the division to which the newspapers give great prominence is caused by a small group of people. This morning I went through a number of the clear successes of our policy on Europe—the success in the 1988 budget discipline decision; the success of the Edinburgh future financing agreement; the success that we had in introducing fines for non-compliance. I could give your Lordships another 15 examples, but I shall not detain the House in so doing.
My point is that if your Lordships examine what we are doing in foreign policy in a balanced and sensible way, it will be seen that the newspaper headlines and those who seek to draw attention to their personal views —on Back Benches or in other places—simply have not appreciated what is really happening in foreign policy, which in fact adds up to some great successes for Britain.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm, for the benefit of those of us who have not yet had the advantage of reading the late ambassador's speech, that there is nothing in it which departs from the proposition that we shall be more influential in Paris,
1342
Bonn, Washington and elsewhere if we retain our constitutional independence and do not become merged in the European federation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the former ambassador—I am delighted to say that he is still very much with us and living in Britain—makes absolutely clear the benefit of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom and how it enhances the relationship with other Members of the European Community. He does not talk about any of these far-flung ideas of federation, which we are not seeking; he talks about the relationships and the sound ground on which we work with our European partners and with the United States.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not obvious—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Is it not obvious that the ambassador's message is that he would like a British Government who had as much influence in Europe as possible and who would stop squabbling about Europe and behaving as though they were in the middle of a nervous breakdown?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the House that the British Government agree not only with what Mr. Raymond Seitz said but also with the view that Britain's role in the Union is indispensable to the relationship with the United States of America. Many people are seeking to undermine Britain; to undermine the Government and particularly the Prime Minister. The sooner it stops the better it will be for Britain.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as someone who has read the speech to the Pilgrims with great care, I ask my noble friend whether she agrees that this is a rather deplorable intervention in a matter of British domestic politics. Will my noble friend assure me that the practice that British ambassadors in Washington do not intervene in American political debates will continue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, anyone who knows the former American ambassador to the United Kingdom will recognise that one would have to go a very long way to find someone more pro-Britain than Raymond Seitz. The speech was wholly positive. I am quite sure that speeches made on any matters American by the British ambassador in Washington would similarly be wholly positive. It is neither an interference in British matters nor in European Union matters. It is the summation of a very outstanding ambassadorship to the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with all respect to our American colleagues, will the noble Baroness stretch her memory a little further back into history when an American ambassador to the United

1343
Kingdom at the beginning of the last war passed the view that Britain would be unable to defend herself and that as far as he was concerned it was not a good bet to back the United Kingdom? Will she bear in mind also that, following that, the United Kingdom, together with the United States, succeeded in liberating Bonn from a tyranny and Paris from the consequences of her own folly? Does the noble Baroness further agree that we shall once again regain the national prestige that we had when we start talking with a firm voice instead of talking with a forked and muted tongue? Will she bear in mind that there are voices in Parliament, in this House and in another place that are quite capable of speaking out on behalf of Britain?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no one could speak out more strongly for what he believes than the noble Lord. We may not always agree with him but he always speaks as he believes for Britain. However, times have greatly changed since the former ambassador to whom he referred expressed his view at the beginning of the last war. I shall not go back into history. I want to look forward, because what we have to do is to take forward the opportunities that we have in Europe. We have to take them forward in a way which helps us to bring down our unemployment, now the lowest in the Union, and to promote enterprise and employment. We have to stop niggling about things which we can change if we need to and we need to work on the positive; and the sooner we do that the better.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble: Baroness agree that whether we have a strong voice in Washington, Bonn or Paris depends on whether we have a strong economy and a strong trading position throughout the world and not just with Europe; on whether our leaders believe in Britain and the British people and the British people believe in their leaders; and on whether we all believe in our parliamentary democracy and the institutions which have been built up over centuries rather than those that some people at the present time seek to impose upon us from outside?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble. Lord knows full well that we are second to none in building a strong economy. We are coming out of the recession first, before any of our European partners. We are working, in a way which is quite amazing to some of our competitors on the Continent, in far off places to improve our trade throughout the world and not solely in the European Union. We do have a belief in Britain. But it is not only believing in Britain but working to make the European Union work for Britain that we are engaged upon. That is why the successes—and they are successes—need to be talked about and examined properly in contrast to some of the nonsense we read in the newspapers day by day.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be extremely helpful if the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Bruce of Donington, who speak so strongly for Britain, could persuade their colleagues on the Benches opposite to support Britain rather more strongly rather than signing a manifesto for a European federal system?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Elles, I was amazed when I read the European socialist manifesto. To be in favour of extending majority voting to all issues is the very opposite of what we want. That is why it was a success by the British Prime Minister, John Major, to gain not only the retention, but an extension of, the veto. Other countries now want to make sure that they have a Luxembourg compromise should they need it. It is the socialists who are prepared to give away the Luxembourg compromise and the veto.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was glad to see the Minister accept what the former US ambassador said about the importance of our influence in Paris and Bonn for our influence in Washington. But she also asked us to be positive in our approach to Europe. Would she not also agree that as long as the party in government remains deeply and publicly divided on Europe it can only weaken our influence in all the European Union capitals and hence our influence in Washington too?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was present at the Council of Ministers meeting on Friday in Brussels. There was no weakening of the British stand or of our standing with all our partners in that council; nor has there been in Council after Council. In the Prime Minister's meetings with other heads of government, it is quite clear that our voice is well heard and that our fights for Britain are well understood. That is well understood, too, in Washington.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [HI.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Special Standing Committee on the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.)—

L. Brightman (Chairman),

L. Coleraine,

B. Flather,

L. Lucas,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (L. Chancellor),

B. Mallalieu,

L. Mishcon,

B. Robson of Kiddington,

L. Wilberforce;

and that the Committee do meet on Wednesday 11th May at five o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical Ethics: Select Committee Report
3.8 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics (HL Paper 21).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the noble Lord the Leader of the House approached me a year ago asking whether I would be willing to chair a Select Committee on Medical Ethics, established in order to consider difficult issues set out in the preamble to our report, I recognised that the task would be sensitive and challenging. But, at the outset, I wish to pay a very warm tribute to the remarkable expertise and judgment of those whom your Lordships in your wisdom nominated as members of the committee, embracing as they did a wide range of legal, theological, medical, nursing and political opinions. Never have I been privileged to chair a body at once so thoughtful, so dispassionate, so dedicated and so judicious. I was also much impressed, as were my colleagues, by the vast range and volume of evidence we received from innumerable sources, corporate, professional and individual; indeed some of the most moving came to us from individuals, based upon their personal and often harrowing experiences. I must also pay a very special tribute to Mary Ollard, our Clerk, whose drafting skills and total dedication to the task in hand, let alone her command of the English language, were simply beyond praise.
Little did I think, as our task began, that it would be possible to achieve unanimity. I was only too well aware of the wide range of religious and ethical opinion represented on the Committee and of the many entrenched differences of opinion on the topics that we were required to consider which had been exposed in the media in the past few months and years. But, in the end, although there was a single important issue on which we disagreed, we did not find it necessary to divide as we concluded that that particular point, to which I shall refer later, need not be decided. Hence it is with very great pleasure that I am able to present a unanimous report to the House and I am grateful, as I am sure are my colleagues, for the Government's carefully considered and generally supportive response.
May I summarise our principal conclusions. First, we wholly accept the concept of informed consent as being at the heart of the relationship between doctor and patient, invariably governing decisions about medical treatment. Hence we strongly endorse the right of a competent patient to refuse consent to any medical intervention for whatever reason. The doctor must nevertheless ensure that the patient understands the likely consequences of such refusal and the reasons for proposing a particular treatment, but no member of the healthcare team may overrule such decisions except, as the Government point out, in certain defined and limited categories of mental illness where it is of course not an issue relating to a competent patient. If there is, however, a public interest in the outcome of a treatment decision relating to a competent patient which is thought to surpass the interests of the individual, a decision to overturn it may be taken by the High Court. If that occurs full reasons must be given.
With respect to euthanasia, may I first indicate that in our deliberations we defined voluntary euthanasia, at the request of the individual concerned, as being a deliberate intervention undertaken with the intention of
1346
ending a life so as to relieve intractable suffering; an act which must inevitably terminate life. We were unanimous in concluding that the right to refuse medical treatment is far removed from the right to request assistance in dying. We considered carefully the strongly held and sincerely expressed views of those witnesses who advocated voluntary euthanasia. Many of us have had relatives or friends whose dying days or weeks were less than peaceful or uplifting or whose final stages of life were so disfigured that the loved one seemed already lost to us or simply weary of life. Many moving letters also came to us from individual members of the public describing such experiences. And we were fully aware of the view expressed, for example by Professor Dworkin, that for those without religious belief the individual is best able to decide what manner of death is fitting. Ultimately, however, we concluded that such arguments are not sufficient reason to weaken society's prohibition of intentional killing which is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships. Individual cases cannot reasonably establish the foundation of a policy which would have such serious and widespread repercussions. The issue of euthanasia is one in which the interests of the individual cannot be separated from those of society as a whole.
One compelling reason underlying this conclusion was that we do not think it is possible to set secure limits on voluntary euthanasia. As our report shows, we took account of the present situation in the Netherlands; indeed some of us visited that country and talked to doctors, lawyers and others. While we accept the sincerity of those who fervently advocated the present procedures that exist there, and while it would not be proper for me to criticise the decisions of the medical and legal authorities in another sovereign state, we nevertheless returned from our visit feeling uncomfortable, especially in the light of evidence indicating that non-voluntary euthanasia—that is to say, without the specific consent of the individual—was commonly performed in Holland, admittedly for incompetent, terminally ill patients. We also learned of one specific case in which voluntary euthanasia was accepted by both doctors and lawyers for a physically fit 50 year-old woman alleged to be suffering from intolerable mental stress. We felt particularly uncomfortable about that and about other examples. We concluded that it would be virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people—the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed—would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.
Our decision was significantly influenced by the outstanding achievements of the palliative care movement in the United Kingdom; a movement which does not exist in comparable degree in the Netherlands. We are satisfied that the pain and distress of terminal illness can be adequately relieved in the great majority of cases, not only within hospices but also in general hospitals, and in the community through the training of homecare teams and the expertise of general practitioners who are making such care more widely

1347
available. We would have welcomed an even more positive response from the Government on that point, especially in relation to resources.
While we rejected the legalisation of euthanasia, we were nevertheless wholly supportive of so-called "double effect". What we mean is that, in the small and diminishing number of cases in which pain and/or distress cannot be satisfactorily controlled, the professional judgment of the healthcare team can be exercised to enable increasing doses of medication (whether of analgesics or of sedatives or of both) to be given in order to provide relief, even if this shortens life. The essential question here is one of motive. If the motive is to relieve pain and distress with no intention to kill, we regard this as being wholly acceptable, both in terms of medical practice and under the current law.
We spent much time in considering decision-making for incompetent patients, bearing in mind the need for society to offer special protection to the vulnerable. We therefore support the proposal of the English Law Commission that a new judicial forum should be established with power to authorise the commencement, withholding or withdrawal of treatment where this is in the patient's best interests. However, we do not believe that application to such a forum should be a routine event; in most cases, consultation among the healthcare team and the family or other people close to the patient should result in agreement on an appropriate course of action. But, in the event of dispute as to what action is appropriate, or doubt as to the legality of what is proposed, recourse to an authoritative forum would be an advantage. We understand that the English Law Commission will probably recommend that the new jurisdiction should be exercised by a reconstructed and enlarged court of protection with nominated judges of the High Court and nominated circuit and district judges. The Scottish Law Commission is also considering this issue.
My committee was strongly attracted by the idea of local tribunals comprising legal, medical and lay members to fulfil the functions of such a forum for medical decision-making. But we recognise that the Law Commission's intention is that the new court should also discharge other functions for incompetent people. We are, however, concerned that an entirely judicial forum will not have the same medical or lay input as would a tribunal system, and therefore recommend that a mechanism should be adopted whereby the new court will make full use of appropriate independent medical and ethical advice. Such a court should be locally based, with procedures being as informal and accessible as possible, and life or death decisions should be considered only by judges of appropriate status and experience.
With respect to treatment-limiting decisions, all our witnesses agreed that there is a point at which the duty to try to save the patient's life is exhausted and at which continued treatment may be inappropriate. But this point cannot be readily defined. Decisions to limit treatment may depend on a balance between the burdens which the treatment would impose and the benefits
1348
which it may produce. Controversy inevitably arises when such treatment-limiting decisions must be made in respect of incompetent patients.
We were particularly concerned, of course, with the case of Tony Bland and subsequent decisions made by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Appellate Committee of this House. We have recommended that the medical and other caring professions should be invited to draw up an agreed definition of the persistent vegetative state, along with a proposed code of practice.
The one issue upon which we could not agree was as to whether, in such a case, it was ever proper to withdraw food and fluid, however administered. Some of us agreed with the conclusion of the Appellate Committee and of the other courts that, when given by an invasive method such as, for example, a nasal tube in an individual unable to swallow, this constituted medical treatment; others took the view that food and hydration, however given, are a basic human right which should not be withdrawn under any circumstances. In the event, we concluded that the question as to whether it was ever proper to withdraw these was one which need not, and indeed should not, usually be asked. Alternatively, it would be better to ask whether certain treatments could be judged inappropriate, in that they added nothing to the well-being of the individual as a person. In the Bland case, for example, our view was that, if antibiotics had been withdrawn earlier, the outcome would have been that which eventually occurred after his feeding tube was withdrawn. We concluded that recovery from the complicating infections which would be inevitable in such a case could have added nothing to his well-being.
We considered carefully the question as to whether a new offence of mercy killing should be introduced into the criminal law. The Home Office reported to us some 22 cases in which it was suggested that a family member had either abetted suicide or had taken a positive act to end the life of a loved one suffering severe pain and distress due to an incurable affliction. In each, an initial charge of murder had been considered, but this was ultimately changed either to one of attempted murder or manslaughter or else a plea of diminished responsibility was accepted; it was generally agreed that the motive in virtually all such cases had been compassionate and merciful. However, we concluded that to distinguish between murder and mercy killing would he to cross the line which prohibits any intentional killing, a line which we think it essential to preserve.
But we endorse the recommendations of a previous Select Committee of your Lordships' House that the mandatory life sentence for murder should be abolished. This would allow the courts in the case of particularly heinous crimes to impose a sentence even longer than is now implied by a life sentence, but to take a much more lenient view when it was clear that the motive of the individual charged was one of mercy. It seemed to us that in some such cases the, prosecuting authorities may have amended a murder charge on the grounds that no jury would be likely to convict, possibly because of the consequential imposition of a life sentence if the individual were found guilty. It seemed to us that in some such cases the present law was, in a sense, being

1349
manipulated. I am sorry that, in their response to our report, the Government have not accepted that argument, which I find compelling. However, we did not recommend that there should be any change in the law relating to assisted suicide, and we note that the Government agree.
We also considered the question of advance directives and proxy decision-making. While the idea of a patient appointing proxies was superficially attractive, we felt that, either when surrogates were appointed by the patient himself or herself or when appointed on an ad hoc basis by an external agency once a question of withholding or withdrawing treatment had arisen, there might be serious practical difficulties in ascertaining what choice the patient would have made if competent. We also felt that even a decision made by a surrogate in good faith could lack objectivity; for this and for other reasons we did not favour proxy decision-making.
However, we did commend the development of advance directives which enable patients to express in advance their individual preferences and priorities in respect of treatment, should they subsequently become incompetent. We considered carefully the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the points he set out in his supportive memoranda, but eventually concluded that such directives are becoming so widely accepted in case law and by the medical profession that legalisation is not now necessary. Hence we did not feel that the Bill set down by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was needed either, but we did accept that there may be circumstances in which it is possible to specify precisely particular categories of treatment which a patient would not find acceptable in any circumstances, such as, for example, a blood transfusion in a Jehovah's Witness.
Nevertheless, we were concerned that advances in medical treatment occurring in the years after signing an advance directive might render its recommendations inappropriate. Hence our conclusion was that, while such directives should give general guidance, they should not be made legally binding. However, we recommend that the colleges and faculties of all the healthcare professions should jointly develop a code of practice to guide their members on this matter, and that they should encourage professionals to disseminate information about these documents. They should most appropriately be lodged by a patient with his or her general practitioner, who should be required to produce them to any other healthcare professional taking over care of the patient—for example, on admission to hospital. We recognise, of course, that the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission are now considering this matter carefully.
Finally, we did conclude that, while, as the Government point out, resources for health care are not and can never be infinite, healthcare teams should not be required to make decisions relating to resources in the course of day-to-day clinical care of individual patients. Their concern should be for that individual's welfare. Decisions about treatments which society can or cannot afford should be made elsewhere than in the hospital ward or the doctor's consulting room, on the basis that
1350
such treatments as society does wish to fund must be made available equally to all who can benefit from them. We emphasise in particular that treatment-limiting decisions should never be influenced by resource availability.
We recommend finally that high-quality palliative care should be made more widely available, that research into new and improved methods of pain relief and symptom control should be adequately supported and its results effectively disseminated and that the training of healthcare professionals should do more to prepare them for the weighty ethical responsibilities which they carry, by giving more priority to ethics and to counselling and communication skills; points now well accepted by the relevant professions and, I am glad to see, by government. And we stress that long-term care of those whose disability and/or dementia makes them dependent should have special regard to the need to maintain the dignity of the individual.
In welcoming the Government's positive response to most of the recommendations in our report, I commend it and have pleasure in presenting it to the House.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? In the course of evidence and in reply to a question by the Lord Chairman, Mr. Hurwitt, the chairman of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, stated that the society had in preparation and in draft two new Bills, one on advance directives and the other on voluntary euthanasia. Were either of those Bills produced before the committee?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, we received extensive evidence from the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, but my recollection is that we did not see a draft Bill on euthanasia.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics (HL Paper 21). —(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
3.29 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on getting it on to the Order Paper.
The focus of this debate is the recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics and the Government's response to it which was published last Wednesday. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, chairman of the Select Committee and to all the other Members of your Lordships' House for preparing such a well-considered and helpful report in this extremely important area. It is a testament to the wisdom of your Lordships in the choice of the chairman of this committee that it was able to produce a unanimous report in an area in which diverse views are held.
The House established the Select Committee on Medical Ethics at the end of 1992. Its terms of reference were to examine the issues relating to euthanasia and look at the wider area of what might be called "end-of-life decisions". The difficulties in that area were thrown into relief by two cases which were widely reported last year.

1351
The first was that of Dr. Nigel Cox, a rheumatology consultant at the Royal County Hospital, Winchester. Dr. Cox gave a lethal injection of potassium chloride to an arthritic patient in extreme pain who had let it be known she wanted to die. He was tried and convicted of attempted murder.
Then there was the sad case, to which the noble Lord has referred, of Tony Bland, a young man in the prime of life who was injured in the Hillsborough football disaster in April 1989. He was left severely brain damaged and in what is known as a persistent vegetative state. His condition was irreversible, yet he could have continued to exist for many more years—possibly 20 years or more—provided that he received nutrition through a tube. The health authority, with the support of the family, applied to the High Court to be allowed to discontinue feeding him so that he might be allowed to die. The court supported the application, which was then upheld by the Appeal Court and subsequently by my noble and learned friends in your Lordships' House. Tony Bland's feeding tube was disconnected and he died.
The advance of medical science has had some dramatically beneficial effects on the health of individuals and the population as a whole. Conditions which once led to an early death can now be cured, or if not cured, kept at bay. But it has led some people to question whether mere survival in the absence of any quality of life is a desirable outcome. Should doctors perform heroic interventions to prolong life on each and every occasion? What say does the patient have in all this?
In recent years there has been a welcome move towards a greater degree of participation by patients in the decisions about their treatment. The Patient's Charter emphasises the individual's right to be given a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks and options, before deciding whether to agree to the treatment. It is no longer a case of "doctor knows best". Patients' rights extend to participating in decisions—to the extent that they are able—on how they should be treated in the terminal stages of an illness.
The Law Commission for England and Wales and its counterpart for Scotland are both carrying out some work in the area examined by the Select Committee. As is widely known, the Law Commissions were set up in 1965 to promote the reform of the law.
In England, the commission published a preliminary consultation paper, Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision-making—an Overview, in April 1991. The responses to that paper convinced the commission that there is a need for reform. It published further consultation papers on various aspects of mental incapacity and decision-making. One of the papers issued in April 1993 is entitled Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision-making —Medical Treatmen and Research. That explores a number of the areas looked at by the Select Committee, principally from the angle of how decisions regarding medical treatment should be made on behalf of mentally incapacitated people, whether any changes in the law are needed, and if so, what they might be. The scope of the commission's
1352
work does not extend to euthanasia, mercy killing, assisted suicide or consideration of the mandatory life sentence for murder. The commission is hoping to publish a report on the whole topic of decision-making for people without mental capacity before the end of the year.
As is often the case, Scots law in this area differs from that in England and Wales. The Scottish Law Commission has been carrying out similar work to its English counterpart. In September 1991 it published a discussion paper on Mentally Disabled Adults: Legal Arrangements for Managing their Welfare and Finances. That explores many of the issues addressed by its equivalent south of the Border. It too hopes to publish its findings this year.
Naturally, the Government want to wait to see what the Law Commissions recommend before we take any final decisions on some of the Select Committee's recommendations. We will look at the recommendations together and take decisions on the basis of their combined wisdom. That then formed the background to the committee's deliberations.
I should like to focus on some of the legal issues raised by the report. I shall leave it to the noble Baroness the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health to deal with some of the wider health issues when she speaks later in the debate.
When a patient no longer has capacity to make decisions for himself, who should make the decisions regarding medical treatment on his behalf? The committee considers three ways in which those decisions can be made. The first is advance directives, First, the person himself can make the decisions before the onset of mental incapacity by means of an advance directive. By such a directive, I can give instructions as to which medical treatment I would not accept if I should subsequently lose capacity to decide for myself. When the instructions relate to the refusal of life-sustaining treatment in the event of terminal illness, they are typically referred to as "living wills".
In England and Wales it now appears that an advance directive can have legal effect. Those directives were supported by the Law Commission in England and Wales in its consultation paper and commended by the committee. I understand that the Scottish Law Commission also supports them. They are invaluable as they ensure that the patient's own wishes are known and are an extension of the individual's right to say no to medical treatment. In addition, the preparation of such directives encourages useful dialogue between patients and doctors regarding treatment at a stage at which the patients may be able properly to engage in such a dialogue. It is important to emphasise that advance directives are not a form of euthanasia or suicide. They cannot require doctors to do anything which is illegal.
However, directives are not without problems. For example, can I so accurately predict into the future that I can give instructions regarding all eventualities? What if new treatments become available of which I was unaware at the time of giving my instructions? For reasons like this, the committee does not suggest that legislation is appropriate but recommends the formulation of a code of practice.

1353
The Government are not making any decisions regarding those directives until we have looked carefully at what the Law Commissions in England and Wales and Scotland have to say on the subject when they produce their reports. Nevertheless, we agree that a statement of good practice would be beneficial. My noble friend the Minister will bring us up to date on progress on this matter later. Such a code of practice will need to take account of any decisions taken by the Government as a result of the Law Commission's recommendations in this area.
Secondly, it has been proposed that a person could be appointed as the patient's proxy and make decisions whether or not to consent to medical treatment on his behalf. The proxy could be appointed by the patient himself before the onset of mental incapacity or by the court. Scotland already has proxy decision-makers. They are called tutors-dative.
The committee does not favour proxy decision-making. It considers that decisions by proxy have many disadvantages, including the possibility that the proxy's decisions could be influenced by the cost of treatment where the proxy is paying the bills. It considers it to be a fiction to suppose that a proxy choosing between life and death is making a choice as the representative of the patient when it is a choice which the patient never had the occasion to contemplate. It did not specifically consider the extension of the scope of enduring powers of attorney to cover health care matters.
I have considerable sympathy with the committee's views. However, some people might prefer to appoint a trusted family member rather than try to draw up a complicated living will or leave it all up to the doctors. We must wait to see what the Law Commission's findings are in the matter. It will be interesting to see what the Scottish Law Commission has to say about the Scottish experience of proxy decision-making.
Thirdly, it is suggested that the court should make decisions regarding medical treatment for incapacitated persons. The committee supports the English Law Commission's provisional thinking on this. It is suggested that the court should not only have power simply to declare what is lawful or unlawful but also power to choose between alternatives or options.
The committee considers that recourse to the courts should be restricted to cases of dispute or difficulty. In most cases, consultation among the health care team and the family or other people closest to the patient will result in agreement on an appropriate course. Certain "special category" procedures, such as the withdrawal of artificial feeding, should always require approval of the court.
The Law Commission has not yet made any firm recommendations as to what the judicial forum should be and until those recommendations are made and considered carefully the Government would not be wise to make any final decisions. However, I note the committee's original attraction to a system of tribunals for medical treatment decisions and its recommendations relating to a new court. These will certainly be taken into account when the recommendations are being considered, in particular that the court should obtain
1354
appropriate independent medical and ethical advice and for procedures to be as informal and accessible as possible.
There are thus various proposals on the agenda as to how decisions might be made on the treatment options for incompetent patients. In the meantime, as the President of the Family Division has said, any future cases in England similar to that of Tony Bland, where it is proposed to withdraw nutrition from a patient in a persistent vegetative state, must continue to go to the courts. My noble and learned friends, in reaching their judgment in the Tony Bland case, made clear that their decision was in respect of the one case only: any other cases would have to go before the courts individually.
The Tony Bland case was of course a case arising under the law of England. The specific questions which it has raised have not come before the courts in Scotland. The practice which has evolved north of the Border is that treatment-limiting decisions in relation to persistent vegetative state patients have been taken only with the full involvement of the patient's family, the doctors and nurses concerned and in the light of expert clinical advice. Advice has also been taken from ethical and religious sources. This seems to be very much the approach now advocated by the Select Committee in paragraph 273 of its report.
I turn to refer briefly to the Committee's recommendations on the criminal law. The key element of the committee's report is its first clear rejection of the case for legalising euthanasia. The Government welcome this conclusion and find the committee's arguments wholly persuasive. We do not deny that this is a difficult and controversial subject, nor that individual cases will sometimes pose the most distressing and profound of dilemmas. But we believe that the committee rightly identifies the forceful arguments for maintaining the law's long-standing prohibition of intentional killing. This is a matter of principle in which society as a whole has a deep and inalienable interest. But it is also a practical matter; legalising euthanasia would put the weak and vulnerable in our society at risk and in fear. Our firm view, therefore, is that the intentional taking of life to relieve suffering should remain illegal.
For similar reasons, the Government also strongly endorse the committee's recommendations that there should be no new offence of "mercy killing" and no change in the law on assisted suicide. We do not believe that active intervention to end life should be excused on the basis of motive or the victim's consent. To do so would undermine the law's uncompromising stance on intentional killing and might bring with it many of the dangers associated with euthanasia.
The Government do not, however, agree with the committee's recommendations on the mandatory life sentence for murder. The committee's argument is that it would be wrong to exclude any intentional killing from the offence of murder by creating a new offence of "mercy killing". Its preferred response to pressure to create a new offence would be to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder. In its view, it is the mandatory sentence for murder which gives rise to the pressure to distinguish mercy killings from other murders.

1355
I am not sure, however, that this line of argument bears close scrutiny. The pressure to create a new offence surely arises as much from a feeling that mercy killings are not and should not be regarded as murder as from any concern about sentencing. That feeling is understandable. But the committee has recognised the importance of maintaining the stance of the criminal law on all intentional killings.
The Government agree with the committee that it is "essential to preserve" the line which prohibits any intentional killing. It is exactly that need which, in the Government's view, justifies intentional killings continuing, uniquely, to carry a mandatory life sentence for murder. The mandatory life sentence reflects the unique nature of an offence which deliberately deprives another person of life.
There have, as the committee notes, been previous recommendations for the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder, most recently by the Committee on the Penalty for Homicide, and prior to that the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment. The Government take the view that these recommendations merit very careful consideration and take very seriously the arguments and concerns on which they are based.
But I have to say that, while there are undoubtedly some strong arguments for change, which previous committees have drawn together, the basis on which this recommendation is made is not a strong one. It is simply not consistent to argue that, regardless of motive, it is essential to preserve the line between intentional killings and other killings in relation to the offence of murder but to object to such a distinction being reflected in the sentence for murder.
The real question in relation to the issues that we are here to debate today is surely this. Given that we all accept that the law must clearly distinguish intentional killings, are the present arrangements able properly to deal with cases which might be covered by an offence of mercy killing? The answer, as your Lordships know, is that the mandatory life sentence is highly flexible in its practical effect. In fixing the minimum period to be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence the Home Secretary considers the circumstances of each individual case. He also takes the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, who will already have had an opportunity to make his recommendation in open court. If the particular circumstances of the case merit it, an early review date can be fixed.
There is no question, in other words, of the particular circumstances in which an offence of murder was committed being ignored when decisions are taken about the period of the life sentence which should properly be spent in custody. But that mandatory sentence also ensures that we do not lose sight of the intentional killing which led to conviction in the first place.
I look forward to hearing the views of your Lordships on these important issues. I conclude by renewing the Government's thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and members of the Select Committee for their excellent work in producing for us a unanimous report on issues of such complexity.
3.48 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I speak as a member of the committee. I wish to begin by saying what a good experience it was to serve on the committee and how much its members owe to the excellent: leadership of its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I wish to underline his comments about the superb work of the clerk.
It is pleasing to see how widely the committee's recommendations have been welcomed not only by the, Government but by many other bodies. Despite what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the mandatory life sentence for murder, I hope that the Government will reconsider carefully the arguments for that. I bear in mind the case which made us think most carefully about the issue. It was that of Dr. Cox, who was convicted of attempted murder and that was possible only on the ground that the woman concerned had been cremated before the charge was brought against him. A murder charge was therefore impossible. We fear that unless there is some way in which the courts can indicate the seriousness of an offence juries will not convict. Therefore, I believe that there are matters here which need much more careful attention.
My main concern in speaking this afternoon is to draw attention to the very interesting moral and practical convergence experienced by the committee as we pursued the main arguments about euthanasia. We began, as our chairman reminded us, from very different positions. It was not at all clear at the start that we should be able to produce a unanimous report. Nobody was forcibly converted; and yet we found that the deeper we went into the issues, the more clearly we could identify the legal and moral lines which must not be crossed.
I draw attention to that because that is an important issue in a society like ours which quite rightly celebrates the fact that it is a tolerant and pluralist society, proud of its diversity, anxious not to restrict freedoms unnecessarily and willing to listen sympathetically to everybody's point of view. In the evidence that we took, we heard much that deeply aroused our sympathy on both sides.
However, it is becoming increasingly evident in our society that a tolerant and caring society can exist only if there are, at its root, some basic common understandings and shared values which must be nurtured and maintained arid which cannot be simply taken for granted. For example, tolerance can quickly relapse into indifference unless it is constantly reinforced by positive affirmations and policies which reinforce and safeguard respect for people and care for their lives.
We have to look, as indeed we did, at the legal assumptions which have made possible such tolerance, not least through their protection of human life. In the field of medicine too, we have to be aware of the aims and values which have formed the ethos of the medical profession and the absolute obligation to do no harm. It was that kind of thinking which lay behind our firm recommendation that we should have nothing to do with

1357
intentional killing; that there was a line which we must not cross, no matter how sympathetic we might be towards the fears and wishes of some individuals; and that if we crossed it, we could begin to erode the very foundations on which tolerance and care are based. We should be in danger also of changing the whole ethos of medicine and law if the absolute prohibition against intentional killing were removed. In other words, there are deep moral structures in our society with which we tamper at our peril.
The report affirmed strongly patient consent, frequently discussed today under the heading of autonomy. But we recognise that there too, there are moral lines which must not be crossed. Autonomy cannot be absolute and, indeed, it would be morally self-destructive if it were. Freedom is always freedom within limits. To take moral responsibility for one's own life does not absolve one from a whole range of responsibilities towards other people. Even death is not a purely individual matter because others are affected by it, whether relatives, friends, medical staff or, that abstraction, society as a whole which, in subtle ways, can be shaped by the manner of death of its members.
In other words, we belong to a moral community within which we learn and to which we contribute. Our autonomy as individuals always has to be understood in that context. The implications of belonging are particularly sharp when the point at issue is self-chosen death. That is why suicide is such a traumatic experience for those who are left behind. To will one's own death is the ultimate rejection.
Those are some of the thoughts which lie behind our central and firm recommendations. I highlight them because, of course, they have also a much wider significance in the on-going moral and political debate about the limits on individual freedom. One of those limits must surely be against actions which, in the long run, could undermine the sense of moral community on which individual morality must ultimately be based and within which it is nurtured.
I turn for a few moments, and finally, to the Bland case. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, reminded us, that was the most difficult issue with which we had to deal. The problem presented itself in the form: is or is not artificial feeding a form of treatment? As the noble Lord reminded us, on that particular point, we disagreed. But it seems that behind the disagreement was a much more difficult issue about the kind of meaning which life could have for a patient in the persistent vegetative state. Had it not been for that more difficult question, the particular question about feeding would probably not have been relevant. Assuming the strict definition of PVS, which we should like to see established, the question is: in what sense is such a patient in the persistent vegetative state still morally a human person, needing all the care and attention normally given to conscious patients and those who may eventually recover consciousness?
The answer seems to be both yes, this is, in some sense, still a person; but no, in another sense, he is not. Yes, such a person still possesses human life; still commands the love of those who knew him; is still in
1358
some sense the same person who was once conscious; and therefore, he must be treated with the respect and care due to a human being both before and after death. But no, a patient in PVS has lost permanently some of the most vital attributes of personality—consciousness, the ability to think and the ability to communicate. If personhood is understood in terms of continuity of life, then a PVS patient is still undoubtedly a living person. But if personhood is understood in terms of the possession of certain vital attributes, then in PVS, the person in that sense has gone.
I do not believe that we can resolve that dilemma. I believe that both meanings of the word "person" are important, but I believe that it is possible to act in ways which acknowledge both meanings of the word "person". The phrase in paragraph 257 of our report about treatment adding nothing to Tony Bland's wellbeing as a person is an attempt to walk that very difficult tightrope. The phrase "wellbeing as a person" is, one might say, attribute language. It is about the way in which a person can be helped to flourish, to be more of a person. In the Bland case we recognise that no amount of treatment by antibiotics against infection could have done anything for Tony Bland's attributes as a person. Therefore, there was no overriding necessity to give such treatment.
On the other hand, the maintenance of life by feeding belongs to the other definition of personhood; namely, bodily continuity. Some of us felt that it was wrong to deny that aspect of care as long as bodily life continued. I hope that that is a clear and sensible distinction. It is a distinction within which I am elaborating on what the Select Committee says and the latter bears no responsibility for my particular interpretation. Nevertheless, I hope that it gives a clue as to what lawyers might work on to put the matter into an appropriate form. It seems to me to go some way towards resolving the intolerable dilemmas which surround such tragic cases and it may help us in the future as we try to face even more difficult problems.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Llewellyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, the Select Committee on Medical Ethics was an unusually large committee. It had 14 members which is larger than usual; indeed, some of your Lordships, including myself, had the idea that it might be too large. However, as our discussions developed, my view changed. It is a subject which requires a multidisciplinary approach from both professional and lay points of view. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said in his powerful speech, we had distinguished lawyers, leaders of religious thought, moral philosophers, academics and active politicians who knew about the conditions that we were discussing. Most importantly, it was a unique opportunity to hear clear and explicit accounts from doctors and nurses about how they tackle the complex problems of desperately ill and dying patients, both those who were able to discuss their case with the health team—the competent patients—and those who were suffering from severe mental problems or persistent vegetative state.

1359
That the committee was unique was largely due to our chairman with his encyclopaedic knowledge, subtle wit and his fair and patient dealings with colleagues who looked as if they might be troublesome. We thought that he was magnificent. We were, indeed, especially fortunate to have the intellectual skills and complete dedication to her work of our Clerk, Mrs. Ollard. I think that the women on the committee were, perhaps, especially proud of her.
I shall try to be brief because I believe that the House will wish to hear more fully from colleagues who are more professionally qualified than myself. In any case, the two previous fellow members of the committee have already covered most of my speech. I have been intensely interested in the problems of patients in hospitals and in euthanasia itself for more than 30 years. Being on the committee has been one of the most interesting work experiences that I have ever had, although it was tremendously hard work—for all of us —and rather gruelling working both here and at home for a year which kept one thinking constantly of death and suffering.
The report is both massive and complex. Although your Lordships have had a very full description of the summary of the committee's conclusions from all speakers, I believe that it is as well to read it first in order to get the perspective of the whole. As the Government have recommended that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia, I should like especially to mention conclusions 287 and 291 which emphasise that,
"rejection of euthanasia as an option for the individual entails a compelling social responsibility to care adequately for those who are elderly, dying or disabled… [and that] long-term care for dependent people should have special regard to the maintenance of human dignity".
We believe that to be of fundamental importance in the handling of all those cases. The committee goes on to emphasise that palliative care, which is now coming into greater prominence, should be more widely available. I worry a lot about this because although the hospice movement is doing magnificent work and is being extended, there are not enough of them, despite recent valiant efforts. We need to extend them and services such as those offered by the Macmillan Nurses. However, such services should be more available outside the hospices, because so many people die at home and many more wish to do so. Of course, that would be expensive, but special efforts should be made by local authorities and health authorities, and not least by the Government.
As previous speakers said, another of our conclusions endorses the right of competent patients to refuse any treatment for whatever reason. We also believe that the health team should always be aware of the patient's right to informed consent which should be the basis of the partnership between doctors, nurses and patients. Moreover, we believe that further training of health teams is vitally important so that student nurses and doctors can fully understand and appreciate the ethical questions that surround their practical skills.
After listening to the whole of the debate, your Lordships may feel that that is enough about euthanasia. I know that the volumes of evidence look very formidable, but there is a very human and moving
1360
account of the health teams' difficulties, especially when the situation of withdrawing treatment sometimes arises. A highly experienced senior consultant in geriatrics describes this in Vol. II of the evidence where he says:
"We must have some means of being able to sensibly and humanely withdraw treatment with the full support of the relatives, of other doctors, of the nursing staff and, hopefully, with the support of the law. It is this last bit which worries me and worries my colleagues".
The consultant went on to say:
"There are difficulties with the present system—the first is, quite rightly, that the nurses are not handmaidens of the doctors that they were; they are very independent, very competent and very skilled and they have their own ethics. Quite rightly so. They believe, also, they have their own responsibilities; to see that the people they are caring for get the best treatment".
"There is also a conflict between some relatives who feel that the patient has suffered enough, they have reached a point of no return, and other relatives who feel that you have not given them long enough and there must be further hope. This is; also very distressing; you feel enough is enough".
The consultant also told the committee:
"We need a simple method of obtaining reliable guidance so that we can take our nursing and medical colleagues with us and we can seek the advice independently of our legal colleagues to help us in framing a simple solution to a difficult problem, not overwhelming, but a common problem which the doctors at the moment largely carry … they carry it relatively unsung and we do not try to make a fuss about it, but every now and then we are in danger of running into conflict and it is very complex for us".
From that description, your Lordships will recognise the complexities that face the health teams administering the wards which deal all the time with death, suffering, distress and the decision-making involved.
The committee was deeply impressed by the delegations that we met from the nursing profession. Their dedication to the patients is, of course, universally acknowledged and their practical skills are enhanced by their intellectual qualities, and also by their qualities of character. We can understand their worries about withdrawing treatment because it is the doctors who usually give the order or permission to act. It is the nurses who have cared for the physical needs and comforting routines of the patients, but they often carry out the withdrawal after they have given hour-by-hour care, sometimes for months even years. 'Their concern is completely natural.
The consultant also felt—I found this interesting—. that the nurses and doctors might take the special. education together, as they frequently did in the past. I would like to finish by saying that it would perhaps have been naive to expect changes in the law at present: without further pressure from medical and public opinion. I believe that opinions have moved in the past few years to a more sensitive attitude in general, for instance, to the life imprisonment question, advance directives and the giving of increasing doses. of painkilling drugs, even if they lead to death. These are. significant changes.
At the very first meeting of the Select Committee our witnesses were the Department of Health, the British Medical Association and the Home Office. They were rather overwhelming, and appeared to be dubious about. any kind of change. Now a year later the Government's response to the report has been more realistic than we

1361
could have hoped. I hope that we can build on the work of the report which has been in many ways a fruitful dialogue.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is perhaps worth recalling that when the noble Lord the Leader of the House introduced the first report from the Liaison Committee on 7th December 1992 at col. 11 of the Official Report he said that it had been agreed to recommend the setting up of a Select Committee on euthanasia. I ventured to say that I had it in mind to introduce a Bill about advance directives and that, although this was not euthanasia, it was likely to arouse not dissimilar reactions, and that it might be desirable that the committee's terms of reference should be drawn in sufficiently wide terms—and so in the event they were. I realise that I may unwittingly have played a small part in lengthening the time of the debate today but I think that the width of the terms of reference has proved to be of general benefit and that the committee has produced a most valuable and wide-ranging report —and unanimous into the bargain—on which the chairman and the members are to be warmly congratulated.
In view of the number of speakers, I shall limit my remarks today to the one topic of advance directives and I shall even resist the temptation of speaking about the life sentence for murder, on which, as it happens, I have a good deal of sympathy with the Government's view. I duly introduced my Bill—the Medical Treatment (Advance Directives) Bill—in March 1993. I did not seek a Second Reading but brought the Bill formally to the notice of the Select Committee. The Bill had a strictly limited purpose, which is very proper for a Back Bencher's Bill. Under its provisions, if an individual when of sound mind made an advance directive about the withholding of life-sustaining treatment in the event of that individual suffering from one or more of certain specified conditions without hope of recovery and being no longer able to take decisions, then a doctor, although not obliged to comply with such a directive, would not be committing a criminal or disciplinary offence if when the time came he did comply. There was a schedule attached to the Bill with a possible form of advance directive.
The Bill included a number of safeguards. A directive could become operative only when two physicians, one of them a consultant, were agreed that the patient was in a terminal condition and unable to make decisions about the use of life-sustaining treatment. The Bill also made provision for a number of criminal sanctions, for example against the forgery of a directive, or concealing the revocation of a directive. It suggested, although this was not mandatory, that a directive should be signed by two witnesses who, unlike witnesses to the signing of a will, should certify that they were satisfied that the person signing the directive understood what it meant and what was involved. All of this rested on the belief that the doctor will have regard to the wishes of his patient, even when these are given in advance.
1362
I had decided to go ahead with a Bill because of the number of people who told me that they did not want to be kept alive when helpless and in a vegetable-like state, and also because doctors I talked to were in genuine doubt as to their position under the law and the risks they might be taking if they acted on a directive. I received a good deal of support and I received a good deal of criticism, some of it from people who had read the Bill, some of it from those who had not. The Bill even achieved the distinction of having a petition presented against it praying that it should not be passed into law. As the petition was presented a day or two before the end of the Session, the risk was perhaps not all that great.
I naturally welcome the Select Committee's decision to commend the development of advance directives, endorsed as it now is, in suitably restrained language, by the Government in their written response and elaborated today in the helpful comments made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I note with interest that the Select Committee thinks that doctors are increasingly recognising their ethical obligation to comply with advance directives and that the development of case law is moving in the same direction; and it is certainly helpful to have on record the views of the Crown Prosecution Service about the unlikelihood of prosecution. But, as my noble friend Lord Walton has explained, the Select Committee also concluded that legislation is unnecessary. I have to confess that I am not altogether persuaded by the arguments.
The committee rests a good deal on the argument that the patient might be deprived of new treatments which had become available since the directive was signed. But one would hope that there would be continuing dialogue between the doctor and the patient to ensure that a directive is kept up to date; and anyway, as I envisage it, it will become operative only if the doctors are satisfied that the patient is in a terminal condition and quite unable to take decisions about the use of life-sustaining treatment. This applies whether there is legislation or not. But the absence of legislation means the absence of the safeguards of the kind that my Bill was intended to provide. There would be no statutory bar to the directive being acted on by one doctor in isolation. It leaves a blank about ensuring that a person signing a directive understands what it means. The absence of legislation leaves in the air the potential role of an appointed proxy or of an enduring power of attorney. I fear that my own experience is that there are doctors, perhaps rather remote from the headquarters of the BMA, who are still not certain of their position.
Like the Government, I think that it will be necessary to wait for the findings of the Law Commissions before we can finally decide about the need for legislation going perhaps wider than my own modest Back-Bench Bill, assuming that the English Law Commission does not become too discouraged by the log-jam which is holding up some of its earlier proposals.
In any event, we shall clearly not have legislation for some time to come, if at all. In the meantime, I very much share the hope expressed by the noble and learned Lord that the colleges and faculties will take action on

1363
the Select Committee's urging to develop a code of practice, including the suggestions that the code should encourage the professionals to disseminate information about directives and encourage the regular review of directives by patients. A number of us will be watching for early action.
I have one last point. It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that the individual states in the USA recognise as legally binding what the Americans, with their gift for phrases which defy intellectual analysis, call "living wills". It is reported that the late President Nixon had signed such a document stating in effect that he did not want to be sustained by artificial means if a serious illness or accident left him permanently debilitated. His stroke had done just that, and he was allowed to die with dignity. It is not surprising that many Americans are now following his lead and are signing "living wills". I hope that with increasing knowledge and with the increasing clarity which a code of practice should bring, more of our own fellow citizens will have the comfort of taking a step which will avoid a fate which so many people dread.
4.22 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, as President of the Catholic Union, with the Guild of Catholic Doctors I submitted written evidence to the Select Committee. I should particularly like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson for his indefatigable efforts to represent our views as a Catholic member of the Select Committee.
I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the committee on their most welcome primary recommendation at paragraph 237 that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia. I am horrified to read that the Dutch Government revealed in their Remmelink Report that in 1990 there were a thousand deaths from euthanasia in Holland which were not at the patients' request.
Heading the recommendations of the Select Committee, at paragraph 276 the report reads:
"high-quality palliative care should be made more widely available by improving public support for the existing hospice movement, ensuring that all general practitioners and hospital doctors have access to specialist advice, and providing more support for relevant training at all levels".
We should all like to know what steps the Government are going to take to implement those important recommendations.
My wife founded a national charity, Help the Hospices, 10 years ago when there were only 80 in-patient units, including 20 financed by the National Health Service. Today there are 200, of which 150 are independent hospices giving free charitable service and largely dependent on their own fund-raising. Government funding for the running costs of voluntary hospices has reached 38 per cent., but there is a likelihood that in 1994–95 that will cease to be ring fenced, by which I mean specifically allocated in the Vote given to the health regions for hospices. I earnestly hope that the Government will keep the funding ring fenced and will raise it to 50 per cent.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff:: My Lords, I count it a great privilege to have served on the Select Committee. The topic before us held a great many complex issues of medical, ethical, legal and theological concerns on which there were profound differences of view, both in our committee and among those who gave evidence to us. Those views were often held with great depth of emotion since they touch on matters of human worth, the value of life, personal autonomy and the suffering and death which are inherent in the human condition.
I should like to add my tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in achieving a unanimous report from a group which held widely different views without any suggestion of compulsion.
I came to the work from a background of traditional Christian belief which holds the view that human beings are created in the image of God, and as a consequence there is a sanctity or holiness in human life. Yet, as we discussed with those who gave evidence to us and read the evidence submitted it was clear that not everyone holds that view. I accept that for many in a secular society the phrase "the sanctity of human life" has ceased to have meaning. Yet we have to come together as a society and find a way of making decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already paid tribute to developments in palliative care and in the hospice movement. I believe that during my lifetime we have passed through an era in which we strove officiously to keep people alive rather than recognising that there is a time to be born and a time to die. I am heartened that there have been changes in recent years as the hospice movement and palliative care have developed as specialties. I like to think that the great innovator of hospice care, Dame Cicely Saunders, came to it from a background first of nursing, then through social work, medicine and pharmacology, with her own unique spiritual dignity. In hospice care she has created a very real asset to our society.
One can also read the works of people such as Dr. Sheila Cassidy, who maintains that hospice care should be a model for other areas of medical and health care because in that setting we look at the whole person arid care for the whole person.
Our terminology is important. It is important to look at the definition of euthanasia as a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering. I believe, too, that the term "passive euthanasia", which has been so commonly used, is misleading. It is important to make those distinctions.
As a nurse I wish to go through some of the responses of the Royal College of Nursing to the report of the Select Committee. I am heartened that similar responses come from the British Medical Association and from the Government through the Department of Health. The Royal College of Nursing agrees that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia. It agrees that the practice of euthanasia is contrary to the public interest and to the ethical principles of the profession. It suggests that the fear of pain and hospitalisation is better

1365
met by improved palliative care rather than a change in the law. It shares our anxiety that should the law be changed, vulnerable people might well be placed under pressure to accept euthanasia.
The Royal College of Nursing strongly endorses the right of the competent patient to refuse consent to any medical treatment; and indeed that is now enshrined in the Patient's Charter and I believe is far more commonly recognised and implemented by the medical profession.
The college endorses the view that treatment-limiting decisions should be made jointly by all involved in the care of the patient on the basis that treatment may be judged inappropriate if it will add nothing to the patient's wellbeing; and the college welcomes the committee's clear distinction between treatment and treatment limitation.
The college endorses the committee's recommendations about the desirability of advance directives—that legislation is unnecessary. But it says that directives need to be fully understood and that there may be difficulties in interpretation. There is need for open discussion about the ethical problems involved in the care of people at the end of their lives. It is significant that already the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association have agreed to work together in developing a code of practice on advance directives; and indeed in its response the Department of Health has offered to help them in the best way forward in this matter.
The Royal College of Nursing particularly welcomes the recognition of the Select Committee that,
"in certain circumstances, some treatments may be inappropriate and need not be given",
and that this,
"should make it unnecessary in future to consider the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, except where [this is] burdensome to the patient".
Many of us on the Select Committee were impressed by the verbal evidence given by the Royal College of Nursing that feeding and hydration have a very special significance for nurses. After all the root meaning of the word "nurse" is to nourish; and it is through that activity, which is at the core of the nursing role, that many nurses are engaged in palliative and terminal care. Therefore that part of the discussion has a special significance in nursing.
It is probably unhelpful to have territorial disputes as to what constitutes medical treatment and what is nursing treatment. An interesting article in the Journal of the Christian Medical Fellowship seeks to summarise arguments for tube feeding as a medical treatment and arguments to classify tube feeding as nursing care. To classify as medical treatment, the first argument is that it is a medical response to pathology—the patient's inability to swallow, or to swallow safely. The second argument is that tube feeding is a medical treatment because it uses artificial means—an artificial tube and artificial substances. However, the contrary arguments are that food and fluid are part of basic nursing care which is the right of all patients. The arguments are, first, that tubes can be passed and operated by people other than doctors; namely, nurses, other help care professionals, family carers and even, in different
1366
circumstances, the patient himself. Secondly—it is an argument that I had not heard previously—it is argued that the concept of artifice is potentially misleading. We bottle feed babies and use cutlery ourselves. Although that analogy can be pushed too far, Dr. Keith Andrews of the Persistent Vegetative State Rehabilitation Unit at the Royal Hospital and Home, Putney says,
"To my mind the tube is simply a tool for daily living, similar to the specially adapted spoons that enable arthritic patients to feed themselves".
Therefore, I come back to the words of the report that,
"in certain circumstances, some treatments may be inappropriate and need not be given",
and that this,
"should make it unnecessary in future to consider the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, except where [this is] burdensome to the patient".
The last two points supported by the Royal College of Nursing concern the training of health professionals in ethical decision making. In its Project 2000 courses, the United Kingdom council for the training of nurses and health visitors has already laid down that ethical content in training. Similarly the Royal College of Nursing endorses the recommendation that more resources be made available for palliative care. I was heartened to see in the Government's response that the Standing Medical and Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee issued a report in 1992 stating that all patients needing palliative care nursing services should have access to them and that good practice initiated by the voluntary sector should be incorporated at all levels in the National Health Service. We may have some way to go to achieve that objective, but I am sure that we are on the way.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the committee's report that we debate today is most impressive, showing great sensitivity and understanding in dealing with the difficult subject of life and death. This House must be thankful that, despite all the complexity and controversy of argument presented to the Select Committee which rendered its task of formulating an opinion so difficult and demanding, it was able to achieve a consensus and to make its report unanimously. We all pay a particular tribute to its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
I share the committee's belief that the special worth of human life is at the heart of civilised society. Once that belief is eroded in however small a way, subtle changes in associated values will become more acceptable insidiously, and our community will find itself coping with quite unintended results. As the committee notes, death results in possessions and privileges passing to other people, who, however hard they try, cannot be entirely disinterested or objective.
I remember when serving on a rural district council young couples putting to us the fact that after looking after their elderly parents for years they would have no right to the tenancy of their council houses when those parents died. Initially we agreed to transferring the tenancies into the young couples' names. After some years' experience it became clear that some elderly couples felt, in varying degrees, a sense of pressure.

1367
Their homes were no longer their own. We changed the policy back to leaving the tenancies in their hands, coupling it with sympathetic consideration for the young couple's likelihood of getting the tenancies when their parents died. That experience leads me to support the committee's emphasis on consideration of different cases being taken jointly by families and health care teams, and not by individuals, giving due weight and balance to all the attendant circumstances. I also support the right of competent patients to contribute to decisions about their own treatment once they have understood the advantages and disadvantages of those decisions.
Similar kinds of decisions have sometimes to be made for patients who are no longer competent to make them for themselves. They may have made advance directives before they became incompetent. Those directives, which I do not believe should be legally binding, will nevertheless be of assistance to the health care team in coming to difficult decisions about withdrawing treatment or about not intervening over-aggressively to prolong life.
I like the idea, too, which appealed to the committee of developing codes of practice in these difficult situations to which health care teams and families could refer to assist them in coming to responsible decisions on behalf of incompetent patients. I also agree with the committee that the right to refuse treatment is far removed from the right to request assistance in dying, and that arguments on behalf of voluntary euthanasia should not weaken society's prohibition on intentional killing. That would start us down a very slippery slope which, I am sure, we should all later regret, since its ultimate results in the future could not clearly be seen now. I am sure that it would mean that some vulnerable elderly people would feel pressurised to seek early death so as to relieve their relatives of their care instead of seeking the palliative care that they really needed.
I am deeply privileged to be the patron of our local hospice, which has now been in action for over 10 years. Its aim is to provide what is now called palliative care. It helps only people who cannot be cured. In that respect its inspiration is entirely different from that of a hospital, where the aim of the staff must be to do all that they can to cure patients. Hospices are there to relieve pain and distressing symptoms and to give patients as much quality of life as possible, and to help them to die with peace of mind in an atmosphere of loving care.
The relief of pain and distressing symptoms, as the committee states, may entail the need for increasing doses of medication if relief is truly to be provided. That may in itself shorten life. But if such treatment is carried out responsibly by the doctor and the health care team with the objective of relieving pain and distress—not with intention to kill—then that is not a reason for withholding it. In those kinds of circumstances team decisions are of great assistance in taking proper medical responsibility.
Palliative care may be provided residentially in the hospice, or through day care there or at home through the associated Macmillan nurse scheme. Much needed respite care is also provided so as to relieve pressure on the carers themselves.
1368
We must all die one day and experience fear of death. The existence of the hospice movement, which was only started so recently, in the 1950s, by Dame Cicely Saunders, is bringing into being an entirely new attitude to dying which is of immeasurable comfort to patients and their relatives.
If we allow euthanasia (or mercy killing) we shall negate all the careful development of the hospice movement over the years. We shall undermine all its patient and difficult work in exercising, mercy in the treatment of the dying. That work has spread into general practice through conferences and lectures, and is now partially financed by the National Health Service. That shows how deeply its success is appreciated.
At this point I should like to divert for a moment to say how important National Health Service financial support to the hospice movement is in providing a secure base upon which to plan financially for the future. Professional staff contracts must be secure if the staff are to give their whole minds and all their skills to improving the treatment of vulnerable people who are in pain. Hospital beds are not used; and people are better treated in hospices. So there is every good reason for financial support to follow them. It can also finance the education of hospital staff and general practitioners in the new developments in palliative care so that they too can exercise these new skills in their day to day work. The Government must make sure that that financial back-up continues on a firm basis, as laid out in paragraph 276 of the report.
The greatest miracle, however, is the degree of voluntary help that the hospice movement attracts in a myriad of different ways: volunteers sitting with patients both in the hospice and at home; teaching them interesting crafts to fill their days in pleasant ways; carrying out ironing, cooking or gardening duties; sorting clothes for their shops; and raising money in an incredible variety of ways; never giving up, and continuing sometimes over many years. Often the volunteers have been helped themselves by the devoted nursing of their own loved ones through their last days. The support of those bereaved people is the clearest indication of the value of the work of the hospice movement. They know that palliative care really contributed to the comfort of their former relatives and friends. Nothing should be done to undermine that work. That is why I support the committee's report wholeheartedly.
I shall not enter into further detail, although, as the chairman knows, I do not agree with having the mandatory life sentence for murder removed for the reasons laid out so well by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor this afternoon. Otherwise, I feel that this report has been most thoughtfully worked out. I hope that this House will endorse the committee' s report in general this afternoon.
4.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I add my own very warm welcome to the report of the Select Committee. I have to say that it came as a blessed relief. With so many bizarre and dangerous delusions floating around in our culture today, it is wonderful to have a

1369
report that is not only fundamentally sound in its recommendations but is a model of moral questioning and reasoning in reaching them.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and other noble Lords have already drawn attention to the proper emphasis in the report on the value of the human person, even when sick or old. I shall not repeat what they have said. I should, however, particularly like to commend the distinction in the report between killing and letting die, with its associated principle of double effect. As every doctor knows, and as the Government rightly recognised in their response, there comes a point in a terminal illness when it is absolutely right simply to let the patient die. As the 1980 Papal Encyclical On Euthanasia put it:
"One cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome … When inevitable death is imminent, in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. There is no obligation to go on trying to keep a person alive when the expectation of life is short, the quality of life poor and the treatment burdensome".
Furthermore, what we all require when we come to that point is to be kept out of pain and cared for. We may need large dosages of pain relieving drugs, even though they may have the further consequence of shortening our life. Administering such drugs in those circumstances is morally right; for, as the joint submission from the Church of England House of Bishops and the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales put it, in words quoted by the Select Committee:
"There is a proper and fundamental ethical distinction … between that which is intended and that which is foreseen but unintended".
That distinction is not always recognised and those who make it are sometimes accused of hypocrisy; nor is it passive euthanasia or euthanasia by another name.
The distinction is fundamental to Christian moral reasoning and many other kinds of moral reasoning as well. We can see the force of it, if we imagine potassium chloride being administered with the intention of killing a patient. If the dosage failed to bring about the result —killing—then a further large dosage would be administered in order to achieve it. However, when a person is given morphine with the intention of relieving pain, if the person's life is not thereby shortened, we do not administer more morphine in order to bring about that result. What was intended was pain relief and the drug has succeeded in achieving that result. We can and must make a distinction between what is intended and what is unintended, even though it is foreseen and has to be taken into account.
As we approach our end, we need to be kept out of pain and cared for. Like others, therefore, I particularly welcome the recommendations of the report about the need for further research into pain relief and symptom control and the emphasis upon palliative care being made more widely available. The hospice movement has been one of the great movements of our time, as the figures quoted by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, indicated and as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, reinforced. As a result, the importance of palliative care
1370
for everyone is now widely recognised. Nevertheless, there is still progress to be made in ensuring that the highest standards of palliative care, which are present in hospices, are available in every hospital and every home throughout the country where someone is dying. At its best palliative care is concerned with the whole person —his physical, emotional and spiritual needs.
Our duty toward the dying is to accompany them on their way. There can be no reason deliberately:
"To hasten them from the here-and-now in which they still claim a faithful presence from us".
As we accompany them, they deserve and need the best medical and nursing skills and the fruits of continuing research. For that, appropriate resources need to be made available.
I believe that this report deserves to be widely discussed and its recommendations carried forward. By refusing to sanction euthanasia, it underlines the value of the human being, even when old and sick. It is a value that constantly needs restating in our society. At the same time, it reflects best medical practice as well as the intuition of the majority of people that there is a time to die as well as a time to live and when that times comes the prime obligation must be to keep the person free from pain and fully supported emotionally and spiritually, not to prolong life at all costs. The practical imperative must, therefore, be to ensure that the terminally ill, wherever they are, receive the benefits of the best practice available.
4.55 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too want to pay tribute to the brilliant work of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the Clerk to the committee, Mrs. Mary Ollard. I should like to draw attention again to the difficult subject of advance directives, over which there are considerable differences of opinion throughout the country. Those involved in the development and interpretation of the law gave evidence to suggest that advance directives are legally binding as a result of case law. In the recent case Re T, the Court of Appeal held that there were three elements to a valid anticipatory refusal of treatment which must be proved. First, the patient must have the capacity to consent or refuse treatment; secondly, the patient must have anticipated and intended his decision to apply to the circumstances that ultimately prevail; and, thirdly, the patient's decision must have been reached without undue influence. Furthermore, in that case it was noted that an anticipatory decision need not be in writing but could be given orally to relatives and friends.
The debate has taken a further step in the Bland decision, where the majority of the Law Lords acknowledged that a doctor would act unlawfully—commit a battery—if he ignored a valid anticipatory refusal of treatment. As the Law Society stated categorically in its evidence, the legal validity and binding force of advance directives is now beyond question.
Furthermore, in the light of that present position, a number of legal bodies suggested that the time was right for legislation on this matter. They felt that there was a need to iron out the residual uncertainty that remains

1371
concerning the common law and that legislation might provide an opportunity for procedural matters to be claritied—matters such as the form of living wills, witnessing, registration and so on.
Other evidence that the committee received had a rather different perspective on advance directives. In its evidence, the Department of Health stated that:
"the doctor concerned should remain free to interpret an advance directive in the light of the precise circumstances applying at the time. Where a doctor Is satisfied that the circumstances envisaged when the patient drew up the advance directive match the patient's condition, he should follow the patient's predetermined wishes as set out in the directive. But where the patient's condition does not match the directive, or there are other factors, the doctor ought not to be obliged to withhold treatment".
So far as concerns the Department of Health, it appears that the ultimate responsibility lies with the doctor and he is given considerable leeway in his interpretation of the directive. Furthermore, the BMA, while supporting the principle of an advance directive which represents the patient's wishes, fell short of supporting calls for legislation on the matter. While the BMA recognise that an advance directive should be complied with, it stated quite clearly that the individual patient's rights do not supersede the rights of other parties, and so doctors cannot be obliged to act contrary to conscience or the law.
There is need for clarification of advance directives before misunderstandings lead to court cases and doctors spending more of their time defending their actions in court than curing and looking after the sick. In the long term, legislation may be necessary to clarify the role and validity of the directives; but I hope that the legislation will fall short of making them legally binding upon a doctor in all circumstances. For instance, advance directives should not be legally binding upon a doctor in the following circumstances.
First, where a doctor is convinced that at the time of making the decision and drafting the directive the patients could not have been adequately informed about the nature of the condition from which they were suffering and the treatment options. For example, a young lady of 20 comes into hospital with an acute obstruction in the abdomen and has previously stated that on no account will she accept a colostomy. If the surgeon finds that the only way to save her life is to carry out a colostomy, what should he do? That situation has arisen on many occasions. I can recall a man of 36 who had a heart attack. His heart stopped and he took great exception to the treatment given in order to start the heart, and so forth. That happened several times and he decided to have no more of it. It was therefore clearly laid down in the notes that he was not to be resuscitated if the heart should stop in the future. Three days later it stopped again and a doctor from another ward happened to be passing by and resuscitated him, which caused no little rumpus. However, seven years later the patient is alive and well.
Secondly, when a person makes a directive which becomes inappropriate because of medical advances, it should not be legally binding. For instance, a directive to forbid treatment if an AIDS-related illness occurs would be inappropriate if a cure for AIDS were discovered in the future. Thirdly, the directive should
1372
not be legally binding where the doctor considers that the patient's wish may have been suicidal. Fourthly, the directive should cease to be legally binding where a doctor perceives that there may have been some pressure applied to the patient in drafting and signing the directive. Fifthly, it should not be legally binding when it contains requests for any unlawful intervention or omission, nor can the patient require treatment Ito be given which the health team judges is not clinically appropriate.
I have some anxiety over directives produced by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society which contain in them a refusal to take food and water by so-called artificial means. If such directives are legally binding upon a doctor, then we may see cases in hospital of patients dying through lack of food and water—perhaps patients with PVS, motor neurone disease or Alzheimer's, If such requests are legally binding then advance directives could become the back door for euthanasia, for some would consider it more humane to kill than to allow patients to die through lack of food and water.
Finally, if law is to be drafted on advance directives then perhaps the term "declaration" would be snore suitable. A declaration is a statement of wishes which can be discussed and taken into consideration by the healthcare team; a directive is an order, an issue of command, and technically incorrect as there are circumstances when advance directives should not be acted upon.
I hope that the House commends the report and reaffirms society's rejection of the practice of euthanasia.
5.4 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords. I speak as a layman; I am not a doctor; I was not a member of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant but this is a subject in which I have taken an interest since 1935—over 50 years. First, I express my thanks and associate myself with those who have already expressed their thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his invaluable report, the time and trouble that were involved, including a journey to, Holland, and the opportunity that it gives us to discuss, a subject of immense importance both to us and to the: general public.
I was pleased to hear that the right reverend Prelate: the Bishop of Oxford agreed with a recommendation in the summary of the report on the subject of double: effect. That could lead, in the drug treatment that the doctor had to give, to the death of the patient. However" the right reverend Prelate made it clear that the essential. point was that the treatment was given without the: intention to kill.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the recommendation under 296:
"We commend the development of advance directives".
The advance directive would obviously be of great use: to a doctor who wished to study the wishes of the patient he was treating. But I share the doubt expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with the rest of the sentence, which says,

1373
"but conclude that legislation for advance directives generally is unnecessary".
I cannot help feeling that that is a doubtful point which deserves further consideration.
I shall at this point inject a somewhat controversial note into the debate. I cannot agree with the first of the summary of conclusions at the end of the report:
"We recommend that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia".
I assume that what is meant is "voluntary" euthanasia, as involuntary euthanasia would be homicide.
Since 1935, when the Voluntary Euthanasia Society was first formed by two doctors who asked me to join them, I have been advocating a change in the law which would allow a doctor to terminate, with the patient's consent, the life of a terminally ill or incurable patient, but that that could take place only after the patient had submitted a document called an "advance directive" informing his doctor what sort of treatment, if any, he wished to be given in the event of contracting an incurable or terminal illness.
The part played by modern developments in medical technology is enormously important. Having created a situation in which lives are routinely saved, transformed or prolonged by medical intervention, we can hardly accept that the process of dying must largely be left to nature. Medical expertise can now "keep alive" irreparably sick or damaged patients who in the recent past would not have survived. In a significant change of opinion I am glad to hear that the withdrawal of life support in appropriate circumstances is now supported by the British Medical Association.
The phrase "respect for life" may more accurately describe our present attitude to life and death situations than the more old-fashioned "sanctity of life". It was used by a distinguished judge in a recent case in the Court of Appeal. I shall quote his words:
"In my view, the choice which the law makes must reassure people that the courts have full respect for life, but that they do not pursue the principle to the point at which it becomes empty of any real content, and where it involves the sacrifice of other important values, such as human dignity and freedom of choice".
That there is an informal "humane consensus" on this matter is now beyond doubt. Since the early 1960s, national opinion polls have been conducted on the following question: some people say that the law should allow adults to receive medical help to a peaceful death if they suffer from an incurable physical illness that is intolerable to them, provided they have previously requested such help in writing. In 1993, the positive response to that question was 79 per cent. At no time has there been a significant difference between those professing a religious belief and those without. It seems to show that at the present time public opinion is on our side.
The fact that doctors often act to help suffering patients to end their lives, and always have, has long been an open secret in medical circles. But until recently the profession's policy was not to make open acknowledgement of this. The British Medical Association reviewed the matter in 1988. So unsatisfactory did the Institute of Medical Ethics find the report that it formed a working party to issue
1374
another. The majority view of the working party was that for a doctor to assist death, if the patient has sought such help and all else has failed, was ethical.
An international consensus based in the United States reached the same conclusion in 1982. In several American states, the legality or illegality of assisted suicide has been the subject of a lively debate in the past two years. In Europe, it is unequivocally legal only in Germany and German Switzerland. But there are now voluntary euthanasia societies all over the world. The organisation representing them is called the World Federation of Right to Die Societies. These societies exist literally all over the world, in every continent.
A warm tribute should be paid to Dame Cicely Saunders, to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, and to others who have done great service through the provision of hospices and the treatment that can be given in hospices. However, their aim is the control and mitigation of pain, and they do not claim to have found a completely painless, path to death. When I look back on the progress that has been made since 1935 in support for voluntary euthanasia in the democracies throughout the world, I feel sure that legislation will ultimately follow.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I think it is difficult for anyone over three score years and ten, when considering the subject of euthanasia—of life and death—to be objective. At the back of one's mind is the fear that somewhere ahead, after years of health and activity, there may lie a period of physical and mental corruption and pain, when life is no longer worth living.
Your Lordships will remember how many of the saintly characters recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles looked forward to death—partly, no doubt, in order to claim their inheritance in the next world, but partly because life in this was nasty, brutish and short. Owing to the advances in medical technology, life for an increasing number of people is nasty, brutish and long.
It was against the background of these sort of thoughts and when I studied the cases of Anthony Bland and Dr. Cox that I introduced during the last Session a Bill dealing with the termination of medical treatment. Your Lordships gave it a First Reading. I did not intend to take it further. It was simply that I was advised that it might help to persuade the authorities to set up a Select Committee on the subject if I brought a Bill before the House. In drafting it I had the advice of an extremely experienced consultant for the elderly and chronic sick at the Essex County and Colchester General Hospitals, who is a neighbour in my village, Dr. Peter Wilson. I recognise now that the Bill had a number of deficiencies. But if it had any part in influencing the authorities to set up the Select Committee, the report of which we are now considering, my amateur efforts were perhaps worth while.
The Select Committee's report provides what I suppose is the most thorough and important analysis of this difficult and emotive subject that exists anywhere in the world. It has provided a platform of fact and diversity of opinion on which those who seek to pursue the subject can now build. In view of the Select

1375
Committee's composition, it would be wrong to have expected it to make recommendations which would have satisfied the varied legal, moral, theological and medical views which are strongly held. I gave evidence to it both in writing and in person and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and his colleagues for the opportunity they gave me and the courtesy with which they listened to Dr. Wilson's and my evidence.
As I have said, I believe that one's attitude to this subject is inevitably subjective. I am not a moral philosopher or a theologian. I believe that each of us has the right of choice and that we all have the right to claim, in the words of the poet Henley:
"I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul".
The courts have already decided that anyone capable of making a rational decision is entitled to refuse treatment. Differing from the Select Committee's views, I believe that treatment includes the provision by artificial means, as a result of developments in medical technology, of nutrition, hydration and air. This principle was applied in the case of Anthony Bland, who was of course a PVS patient, but I think it should be available in cases where the person is able to make a rational decision. It should be regarded as treatment in the full sense of the term and, where appropriate, withdrawn.
I should say here that I agree with the committee that the advance directive or living will should be regarded —this is what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said—as an indication of the patient's attitude of mind but should not impose on the doctors or nurses an inescapable obligation which is at variance with a clinical judgment.
The real problem arises when the patient is mentally unable to make a rational decision or is in a persistent vegetative state. The reasons why I introduced my Bill were partly that I was appalled by the long-drawn-out legal process by which the Bland case was settled and partly that the immense responsibilities of the doctors and the liabilities which Dr. Howe faced in the Bland case and Dr. Cox in the other one were brought home to me. It seemed to me that Parliament had a responsibility to act as Lord Browne-Wilkinson in his judgment in the Bland case said he very much hoped it would.
I believe that when a person's body has become a cadaver, without any hope of improvement or recovery, sustained only by technically induced fluid, nutrition, air and medication, the decision to withdraw treatment should be a medical and not a legal one. That decision should be made in consultation with the nearest of the patient's kinship, or in the modern context with his or her partner. But the medical opinion should not be that of the consultant or doctor alone but also of the nurses whose devotion and skill have kept the patient technically alive.
Making such a serious decision of life and death imposes an immense responsibility on the doctors and on the caring team. In a litigious and media-dominated age there is always a possibility of litigation or vilification. Doctors have of course the BMA and the Department of Health guidelines on various aspects of the problems they have to face. But I think that as regards a small number of particularly difficult cases,
1376
some form of authoritative: support is needed. I do not think that this should be the long-drawn-out procedure of resort to the courts as in the case of Anthony Bland.
I suggest that the Royal College of Physicians, of which my father was a Fellow, the Royal College of Nursing and the BMA should set up an advisory panel consisting of three members experienced in the field of geriatric and chronic illness to which consultants and doctors can refer cases of particular difficulty.
I hope that something like that will help doctors who have to make these difficult decisions. I hope that it will help patients for whom continual suffering and the sense of mental degradation is no longer tolerable; and I hope that if I find myself faced with such an end, it will hell) me.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I would like to join others in recording my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his chairmanship of the committee. It was a difficult task which he carried out impeccably. Those who hoped, and those who feared, that the committee would recommend great changes in the law have, of course, been disappointed. There are some people (of whom I have met many recently) who think that the report is a timid and, in the worst sense, conservative or even complacent document. Having had the honour to serve on this Select Committee, it is worth saying that we were not complacent and that the report actually shows this because we have argued that there is still much that needs to be done.
There are just two aspects of the report on which would like to comment. The first is the so-called doctrine of double effect. It requires no change in the law for doctors, probably after consultation with the: nursing team and the patient's family, to give a dosage: of pain-killing drugs or sedatives in the case of terminal illness, which will probably have the effect of marginally shortening the life of the patient. In such a. case the double effect doctrine is used by way of justification; the argument being that the intention of the doctor was to relieve pain; the subsequent death being an unwanted side-effect which was not intended.
I believe that to many people this does sound like prevarication. If you know, or are reasonably certain, that an undesirable consequence will follow from what you intend to do, then in normal circumstances you are held responsible both for what you do and for the undesirable consequences. So, for example, if you know that your cat will almost certainly die if you spread weed killer on his favourite haunts, then you can hardly be absolved from responsibility for his death by claiming that all you intended was to kill the dandelions. I believe that most of us would regard it as a case of moral responsibility to take responsibility not only for the intention of killing the dandelions, but also for the consequence that the cat died.
There is a tendency among the medical profession to rebut this response that one must take responsibility for consequences whether wanted or unwanted. They tend to rebut that response by saying that, after all, they do not know for certain that the patient will die in the circumstances in which he has been given an extra dose

1377
of pain killer. They do not know for certain that the result of the pain killer or sedative will be death. All they know is that there is a risk that he will die and that is a risk that they, in the circumstances, are prepared to take in order to relieve his pain.
I personally very much prefer this way of putting the matter; namely, that they are prepared to take the risk of earlier death because in this way one can avoid what may turn into a number of philosophical quibbles, but quibbles nonetheless, about the meaning of the word "intention" or how far one's intentions are taken to extend in the case of any deliberate action. Because in saying that the doctor is prepared to take the risk we are quite overtly admitting that the doctor, with whatever advisers he has, is making a value judgment—that is to say, he is judging that the relief of pain in the particular case is of more important value than the preservation of life. In other words, he is judging that the quality of the patient's life of pain is so low as to justify the probability of its coming swiftly to an end.
I believe that there are some members of the medical profession who do not altogether like this way of putting it; holding that it places on the shoulders of the doctor too great a moral responsibility. It does impose this moral responsibility on him and it is right that it should be so placed. The medical and nursing team in charge of a terminally ill patient, whether they like it or not, are in a responsible—indeed a paternalistic—position. For my own part I would prefer this to be acknowledged. Their position is not enviable, but I do not believe that it can or should be concealed under a cloud of unknowing constructed about the concept of intention.
My second point I shall make more briefly. The Select Committee strongly recommended that the mandatory life sentence should be removed for the crime of murder. It is of course with extreme hesitation that I venture to dissent from the Government's view as expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But I am personally no more persuaded by his arguments than the Government are by ours. I can see no inconsistency between maintaining—as I am certain we should—the absolute prohibition against intentional killing and the suggestion that not all cases of intentional killing should carry a life sentence. I do not see that it is inconsistent to say that intentional killing is murder, and is prohibited and to say that not all cases of murder should carry a life sentence.
We did not argue that killing from a supposed merciful motive should automatically receive a lesser sentence. Some intended killings of the terminally ill might turn out at trial to have been frivolously or even maliciously carried out. We argued only that some of those so accused should receive a lighter sentence. I do not believe that it is enough to say that in exceptional cases prisoners can be released after a comparatively short period in prison. It may be true that they may be so released, but in fact a glance at the figures of those imprisoned for murder, of which the motive was apparently the relief of suffering, shows that they are mostly serving at least six years imprisonment.
In my view it is at the stage of sentencing that the motive of pity or perhaps a desire to do what the sufferer
1378
deeply wants, should be taken into account if such a motive is ascertained. In my own view paragraph 261 in our report, in which we argued that the mandatory life sentence be abolished, is one of the most important in our report. Surely the Government's expressed view that "prison works" cannot be called in aid in such cases as those that we were considering.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I should like to join all those who have offered their congratulations to my long-standing friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and to his committee which he has led so brilliantly to produce this unanimous report. I was very touched by the remarks of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York when he spoke of the spirit of that committee and how its members converged—that is a very European word to use in these circumstances—on a general view about its attitude towards intentional killing. In fact, the most reverend Primate revealed the committee's abhorrence of that problem.
I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me a short time in which to test three euthanasia problems with which I have to deal in my professional life against the Select Committee's recommendations. I shall not reveal any names, but I think that from the circumstances of the cases your Lordships will get a feel of the situations with which I had to deal. The first occurred when I was very recently qualified. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the case shows how important it is that the Select Committee does not recommend the creation of a new offence of mercy killing and how important it is that the training of healthcare professionals—I was a young fledgling at the time—should prepare them for their ethical responsibilities.
As part of the healthcare team on a ward, I was taking care of a man who was, to use the modern jargon, "riddled with secondaries" in his spine from a carcinoma in his lung. He had such excruciating pain that he had to lie quite still in his bed. Turning in any way produced stabbing pains as a result of the secondaries rubbing against his nerves. I was a very recently qualified young doctor when the patient took me on one side and said, "I see that you are a keen sportsman. That means that you are a leader. That means that you understand that sometimes you have to take responsibilities above and beyond the expected call of duty". Much flattered, I nodded. He then went on to say that he knew, as I knew, that the morphine and heroin injections that we had been giving him were losing their effect, which was why he was still racked with pain. He asked why, given my courage as a young doctor, I could not release him from life. He went on to say that one of the other doctors had told him that if I were to inject a large dose of insulin between his toes—in those days insulin could not be detected—I could transport him over the Lethe.
I wrestled with the problem. I talked to my senior colleagues, who were rather of the opinion that the poor patient had much to be said on his side. I shall never be able to thank the Almighty enough for what happened.

1379
I had arranged that I might be woken in the middle of the night with the idea that. I would go about the task, terrified that the needle injection would leave a haemorrhage and be spotted and that the headlines would read, "Young doctor in court for mercy killing". A nurse came—to wake me, I thought, to take me to the ward—and said that Mr. X had died peacefully about 10 minutes before. So I realised that the Almighty was going to be on my side throughout my career. That is perhaps why I am standing here now.
The second case was a very difficult case of a much loved and very senior nurse who came into my care for her second coronary attack. She had had one before and was thoroughly aware of the prospects facing her when the second attack came on. But she was not expecting the complication which occurred. On the inside of her heart a clot formed where the coronary occlusion had interfered with the circulation of the muscle. The clot broke off and lodged in the left femoral artery, and she had excruciating pain. In the very moment that that happened, she completely lost all hope that we could do anything to help her. A very important point that we must bear in mind when talking about euthanasia is that doctors have to be sure, whatever they are doing, that the patient has lost hope otherwise patients will always be hoping that something will turn up to help them. That poor, much loved lady sought my eyes—I was always teaching medical students about the importance of eye contact—and made it clear to me that the condition in which she found herself must not go on. It was up to me to arrange that it would not go on. And we built up her dose of morphine and heroin, and other compounds.
That case highlights the report's important recommendations that palliative care should be available and that research into pain relief and symptom control should be adequately supported. I believe that even youngish professors should be well acquainted with what is feasible in the revolution that has followed that begun by Dame Cicely Saunders.
The third case is much more complicated and I do not know what your Lordships will think about it. It involved a very senior medical man who thought that he had pneumonia but found to his distress that he had a growth in his liver. He was conscious that that growth was growing and interfering more and more with his breathing. He was also very conscious that there was a high probability that one day the growth would burst out of the capsule of his liver and there would be a flood of haemorrhage into his abdomen.
I knew that man very well and went to see him just before catching an aeroplane to give a lecture in America. He told me--in circumstances when I could not do anything about it because the car was waiting at his gate to take me to the airport and away—that he had provided himself with three large injections of heroin and that if he got the pain in his liver he was going to give them to himself, by himself, at home—one, two, three. His reasons were, first, that he knew that it would stop the pain and give him a chance to call his children to his bedside before the haemorrhage carried him away. Secondly, he knew that if he was admitted to the hospital where he was a consultant, there would be a terrific disturbance and he would be given many pints of
1380
blood and he felt that as he knew he was a hopeless case, that should be denied. However, I also recognise—I hope that other members of the medical profession will forgive me for saying this—that that great man did not want to be put in a small room, out of control of his own destiny. He had made a sort of advance proclamation, declaration or directive of his own to himself, as a doctor taking care of himself. It was an obvious form of euthanasia suicide.
That case makes me conclude my remarks by saying that I fear that there are still complicated cases which cannot be solved by the deliberations of a committee. I am sure that in the future we shall be returning to tribunals of associations, involving the British Medical Association and associations of physicians, surgeons, midwives and nurses and so on, to try to find ad hoc answers to complex individual cases.
I hope that your Lordships will allow me to withdraw, because I have just heard that my daughter-in-law is to have minor elective surgery, and my grandchildren are asking that the grandfather go back and make them supper. So I hope that your Lordships will excuse me from attending the closing part of the debate. I shall read it with fascination.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am sure that we all wish the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, well in the next couple of hours. I regret that I cannot follow the noble Lord with personal examples of near exposure to possible euthanasia because as yet such situations do not arise in the dental surgery.
As advances in medical science lead to an increased ability for new technology to look after patients, treatment decisions become more complex for doctors, for patients and for their families. That has brought about a change in attitude to the role of those making the decisions about healthcare and in some cases a compelling argument for the voluntary ending of life. The ability to prolong life in extreme circumstances can now subject the terminally ill to months of dependency upon the technology—causing suffering to both the patients and those close to them.
No carer has the right or the responsibility to use complex medical technology on every patient in every situation, and it is the concern that some patients are being over-treated which has perhaps been in some way responsible, along with the Tony Bland case and that of Dr. Cox, for the setting up of the Select Committee and the report which we are considering.
The committee agreed that competent patients should be involved as much as possible with the decision-making process to the extent that advance directives to assist healthcare teams should be encouraged, not by making them compulsory, but by the development of a code of practice within the faculties and colleges so that doctors are informed and reminded of their responsibility to their patients: to treat them in a way which accords with ethical standards.
The practice of euthanasia was rejected by the majority of those who gave evidence to the committee. The Department of Health and the Home Office, various medical and nursing bodies, the BMA and the RCN

1381
have all expressed their opposition to the necessity of killing the patient in order to kill the symptoms. Although effective pain management measures have been available, misconceptions among health professionals in the past have also led to the under-treatment of some patients. There was some hesitancy among doctors and nurses about providing the necessary degree of pain relief because of the concern about drug tolerance and addiction or fear of shortening the patient's life. Numerous studies have shown that psychological dependence occurs only rarely in cancer patients receiving narcotics for pain. It is now emphasised that the relief of physical and mental distress must be the first aim of treatment at the end of life.
I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I am aware of the fact that the Voluntary Euthanasia Society believes that the situation in the country at present is very different, claiming that 79 per cent. of people were in favour of euthanasia. I think that the committee felt that its question,
"Would you like medical help to a peaceful death?",
might well have favoured the response which was obtained. I agree with the BMA that the,
"willingness by society to supply or condone euthanasia will merely confirm the patient's sense of worthlessness, resulting in a society where individuals are not deemed valuable unless demonstrably useful. The healing role of doctors would be compromised and pressures put on patients to choose death for the sake of others".
It is impossible to set secure limits on voluntary euthanasia without putting undue pressure on vulnerable people to seek this way out of their increased disabilities, distress and loneliness. The committee believed that the message which society sends to vulnerable and disadvantaged people should not, however obliquely, encourage them to seek death but should assure them of our care and support in life.
Many potential patients are worried that any suffering will be prolonged by over-zealous treatment. In his Cassell lecture in 1993 to the faculty of law at Stockholm University, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, thought that one solution to euthanasia was a development and widening of the hospice service. With the kind help of Robert Twycross, the Macmillan Clinical Reader in Palliative Medicine, I visited the Sir Michael Sobell House in Oxford and was tremendously impressed with the treatment and facilities for patients. I met several patients, some of whom had only a short time to live. Their cheerfulness and attitude to what was left of life is an impression which will remain with me for many years. Although there are nearly 200 centres working with many more community and home care teams, it has been suggested that hospice-type care is not available to the vast majority of dying patients.
In his Upjohn lecture at the Royal Society on 25th April, Ian Kennedy, Professor of Medical Law and Ethics, Head and Dean of the School of Law at King's College, claimed that the law was not at all satisfactory when life and death are in the balance, with a charge of murder being the consequence of breaking the law. He
1382
made a comprehensive case for doctor-assisted suicide, and stated that hospice care does not always succeed in easing the pain and burden of dying.
We have heard from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on mandatory life sentences. At present, the deliberate taking of life is categorised as murder, and the courts have ruled that doctors are not entitled to any special consideration. A doctor acting with the intention of taking a patient's life can claim no special privilege, and must be prepared to face the closest scrutiny of the law. However, I would ask the Government to look carefully at the committee's recommendations on mandatory life sentences.
I endorse the recommendation that there should be further research into pain relief and symptom control so that the standard of palliative medicine that many of the committee saw in the hospices can become more available in hospitals and the community.
There is a need to disseminate the principles of palliative medicine which have developed within the hospice movement. The principles of good palliative medicine are an essential part of every doctor's practice and should be taught at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Death has been traditionally represented as a failure of medical effort, to the extent that attempts to extend life were often made regardless of the circumstances. Such views are undergoing reappraisal as health professionals respond to patients' claims to make some choice among the treatments on offer. Nevertheless, many patients still fear that modern medical technology will be used to prolong their dying. Training must include the importance of listening to patients.
Doctors have a duty to try to provide patients with a peaceful and dignified death with minimal suffering. To put an end to a life, with a deliberate intention to kill, is too fundamental to the law and to society to be negotiable in any terms.
I am delighted that the Government agree with the committee on the importance of palliative care. Their response confirms the growth in the provision of those services within NHS palliative care units, hospitals, nursing homes and at home, often with the help of the excellent Macmillan nurses who are, I believe, funded entirely independently.
The Standing Medical Advisory Committee and Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee report recommended that all patients needing palliative care services should have access to them, and that the principles of the good practice of palliative care—stimulated by the voluntary sector—should be incorporated at all levels in the NHS. They also recommended an expansion of education programmes in palliative care to assure continued support for higher medical training programmes and advanced nursing studies.
I am aware of an increase in funding to £35.7 million in 1994–95 and of help towards the cost of drugs in hospices. But can my noble friend say whether there is likely to be any new initiative on funding for palliative care as a result of this report?
In conclusion, perhaps I may also congratulate our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on his excellent

1383
stewardship of the committee and Mary Ollard and her assistant Jennie Morgan on their organisation and, among other things, complete control of the paperwork which when I measured it last week was over 24 inches high, or 32 inches if one includes the books. I commend the report.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should like to say, first, why I welcome the report and, secondly, to mention one main area of anxiety. I believe that paragraphs 237 to 239 are the most crucial. In paragraph 237 the committee recommends that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia. It also states its belief that the issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of an individual cannot be separated from the interest of society as a whole. In paragraph 238 the committee states that it did not think it possible to set secure limits on voluntary euthanasia. As the committee saw during its visit to the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia all too easily leads to involuntary euthanasia. In paragraph 239 the report points out that the legalisation of euthanasia will cause vulnerable people —that is the elderly, the lonely, the sick or the depressed — to feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.
These are just the kind of considerations that last year led me to suggest that the terms of reference should be altered to include the effects on society as a whole of any recommended changes. I am grateful to your Lordships' House for agreeing to that amendment, and to the committee for putting it into effect. Of course, it might well have put that into effect without my amendment.
I welcome the committee's clear recommendation that legislation to permit euthanasia should not be introduced. Its most deadly result would have been a downgrading of our attitude to the elderly or the chronically sick, as has been seen in Holland. The reason why I say that is because we all shrink from killing another human being. We tend to convince ourselves that the victim is, to coin a phrase, "not quite a person" and is disposable if he becomes a nuisance or a burden to others. This is what we have done with abortion, and I fear that we might do it again with euthanasia. The committee did well not to lead us down that path. The test should never be whether the patient is worth the treatment but rather whether the treatment is right for the patient.
My main area of anxiety is the position of advance directives. Several noble Lords have spoken about that today, in particular the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. The committee commends the development of them and goes on to suggest what they should and should not contain. As far as that goes, I have no serious quarrel. What the committee did not resolve was the difficult question of the legal status of advance directives and the legal framework in which they are to be operated.
Most of the evidence submitted to the committee appears to have been against legalisation for advance directives. The case against legislation is strong but legislation may be unavoidable if the situation is not to
1384
get out of hand. Two questions need to be faced. 'The first is: what would be the position of a doctor who in good faith feels obliged to apply medical treatment in contradiction to a view expressed in an advance directive? The second is: what would be his position if he withheld life-saving medical treatment because it had been ruled out in an advance directive and the patient died as a result?
I believe that doctors are entitled to have Parliament's guidance on those two questions. My own views are similar to the evidence given by the Department of Health on 20th April 1993, in particular that an advance directive may be of help to the medical team attending the patient. Furthermore, an advance directive should not be legally binding and should not exclude a judgment by a doctor caring for an incompetent patient that the advance directive should not be followed.
It is of fundamental importance that within the framework of the law. doctors must be allowed to act in good faith in accordance with what they feel is medically in the best interest of their patients. It is therefore extremely worrying that- in the context of "living wills", the Department of Health has apparently ruled (I quote from a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health to Dr. Michael Dulake dated 22nd December 1993):
"When a health professional retains a conscientious objection to the course of action for which authority is given, he or she must relinquish responsibility for caring for the patient, allowing another to take over responsibility".
I should be grateful if, in summing 'up, the Minister would indicate whether the view expressed in that letter is consistent with that of Her Majesty's Government.
We shall have to look very closely at the proposed code of practice as regards what it contains and how it works out in operation. Otherwise advance directives could become a Trojan horse. Without Parliament being consulted, we could find ourselves faced with a fait accompli, with euthanasia virtually legalised; a situation which would be hard to reverse. With that reservation, I generally welcome the report.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I was enormously privileged to be a member of the Select Committee. It was a personally enriching experience. It was a journey through many vague, confused and conflicting thoughts and a considerable amount of clarity was achieved. There are doubts on the edges of all our minds because we have not resolved everything. With subjects as difficult and emotive as this we shall never resolve all our doubts. I shall share one of those doubts with your Lordships.
I wish first to pay tribute to our chairman. I know that it is customary to do so but the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was a model chairman. He was considerate., thoughtful and extremely diplomatic. He brought all of us together and without his skill we should not have managed to do that in the way that we did. I thank the noble Lord for that.
I was pleased when I was appointed to the committee, More than one Member of your Lordships' House said

1385
to me, "Of course, you are totally pro-euthanasia, aren't you?". But as I walked down the corridor some other Member said to me, "I know that you are totally against euthanasia". I was delighted because they were as confused as I was. I had not cleared my thoughts on the subject and I was pleased about that. Had I had fixed views I should not have liked to be a member of the committee. It was of great value to work through the stages with wonderful people such as the most reverend Primate and others and come to our various conclusions.
I believe that the desire for euthanasia results from a fear of medical intervention beyond what we would like to see. It also results from a fear of pain. Today I read an article in The Times written by Dr. Sherwin Nuland. He writes that he would like to die at home and that no specialist will tamper with his dying process or use their technological toys. Many of us have sympathy with that thought. However, when we are talking of the technological toys, the medical advances and the way in which they are causing fear we must not forget what dying was like prior to that. It is easy to forget that dying was difficult and painful. There are still countries in which all the technological toys are not available and there people must die without medical help and assistance. They do not die beautifully and they do not die in great glory. They die in pain and suffering. I hope that in our desire to stop ourselves going in one direction we shall not go overboard in the other direction and say that we do not require such medical intervention.
I believe that perhaps we do not sufficiently train our care teams to look at the whole person. That has been mentioned already today. Clearly, it is essential that after a patient has been admitted to hospital and has received emergency treatment the needs of the whole person must be assessed in order to see what is required and they should not carry on trying to deal with one aspect of the illness which is most apparent at that moment. It is much easier to pick on the main illness and say, "Right, we will deal with this. We will do everything possible to relieve the person of that illness". But what about the whole person? Will that person survive and if he does, will he have any quality of life? To me, that is one of the most important factors.
I am very much in favour of advance directives because I believe that they enable the patient to take a part in the decision-making process. If I am competent, an advance directive cannot take precedence over what I feel at that time. The advance directive becomes valuable at that point in time when I am not competent to give my view personally. I wish to take issue with my noble friend Lord McColl. He mentioned a patient who needed a colostomy. Surely at that point the patient, especially as she was young, was competent to say whether or not she wanted the treatment. Surely an advance directive cannot supersede a competent patient's view. One cannot say, "I will write a paper and that will take over from my competence". That paper, form or whatever it is must be used to express my views to the doctor at a time when I am not competent to do so. That then puts forward the view that I had when I was in a position to give it. That is extremely valuable.
1386
For the same reason, I should not like advance directives to be legally binding. If I were competent and expressed a view and the doctor then told me that I was wrong for a number of very good reasons, it may be that I would decide to change that view. I would not then stick to the view that I had held. If advance directives are legally binding, even if the doctors or the care team felt that my view did not represent the perfect solution and was not in my best interests, it would not be possible to deviate from the view expressed in the advance directive except under very restricted conditions, I assume, or possibly not at all.
Therefore, I believe that we should bring forward a code of practice to deal with advance directives. I commend paragraph 267 which recommends that those directives should be renewed or reaffirmed, perhaps at five-yearly intervals, so that they are seen to represent the current wishes of the patient, rather than a view that was held many years ago.
The second point with which I have some difficulty —and it has been spoken of extremely well by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock—is the double effect. I understand absolutely and agree with all that they are saying about that, However, there is one aspect of double effect on which they did not touch and with which I have difficulty; that is, the "patient's best interests". If the patient is incompetent and is given a cocktail of drugs which might have the double effect of shortening that patient's life, how can it be said that it might not be better to terminate that life since the patient is suffering? Would that not be considered to be ultimately in the "best interests" of the patient?
I do not support euthanasia. I do not support that form of action. However, I have difficulty in reconciling the fact that that may well be in the best interests of the patient at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has given us very good examples of situations that may arise where there may be a conflict between the best interests of the patient and the wish to follow a course of action which does not go down the route of euthanasia. Those are the only two points which I wish to place before your Lordships.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, the House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and his admirable committee for this no less admirable report. I hope that I may attract a small fraction of gratitude on the grounds of brevity for I have very little to say. There is only one point that I wish to make, which may amount to a small footnote to the report, which is drawn not from the past or the present but from the future.
There is before the House, in theory at any rate, the Medical Treatment (Advance Directives) Bill. It has received a First Reading, although it may go no further. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who sponsored that Bill spoke about it at some length.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Bill is not before the House at the moment. It fell at the end of the Session, and I have not reintroduced it.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I was not entirely clear about the stage that that Bill has reached.
That was an effort to construct a Bill permitting voluntary euthanasia. I believe that the Voluntary Euthanasia Society was responsible for that Bill. In evidence it said that it has prepared another Bill, if not two Bills, and earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said that the committee had not seen either of those two Bills. Therefore, one must suppose that the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, represents the state of the art, if that is the right term.
It is worth considering what is the state of the art, because I do not believe that that subject will fall out of sight after this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, appeared to suggest that another Bill may be brought forward. I should like to sound a small note of warning. One of the noble Lord's great contentions was to the effect that that Bill contains safeguards for the patient. I invite your Lordships to consider what those safeguards are. They are contained not in the Bill itself but in the advance directive which is attached as an integral part of the. Bill.
That advance directive was drawn up years ago and it has been brought up to date, I think, by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. I have a copy in my hand. A person who becomes a candidate for voluntary euthanasia must go through two stages. In the first stage he must become a qualified patient. The various conditions which must be fulfilled are set out. There is a paper which he must sign to the effect that if he is suffering in various ways he will become a qualified patient. From that moment on. if he fulfils two or more of those conditions, he is qualified. One would suppose that he will be under medical care. The next stage which lies ahead is progress forward to what may or may not be his ultimate demise and disappearance from the scene.
Let us suppose that he is an incompetent patient. Such a patient must be most vulnerable and in most need of protection against any mishap befalling him as a result of the provisions contained in this Bill. He may be admitted into hospital, possibly after a severe motor accident and be in a state of coma. Then under an anaesthetic he may suffer an anaesthetic shock and in such circumstances be "qualified" under the terms of the advance directive. He cannot speak and, therefore, he is an incompetent patient.
'What now stands between that patient and the decision as to whether he should be admitted to the ranks of the euthanasia victims or beneficiaries? The answer is to be found at the beginning of the directive in the following terms: the physician must apply to "two independent physicians —I take it that they will be independent of the first, and that would make three of them altogether—one of whom must be a consultant, who shall be of the opinion, in the words of the patient (as he signed the document years ago when he was in good health) that he is:
"unlikely to recover from illness or impairment involving severe distress or incapacity For rational existence".
1388
That is the safeguard, and the only safeguard at such a late point, which stands between the patient and a mistaken demise, which could happen.
What does it amount to? First, the doctor has to find two other doctors. They do not have to have any particular qualifications, except that one of them must be a consultant. But a consultant in what? In anything? It has nothing to do with the condition of the patient. Moreover, such doctors do not have to know the patient —they may never have heard of him before—and they do not even have to know the physician who has called them in for consultation. Admittedly, some of those points could be dealt with at a Committee stage of such a Bill, but all of them collectively could not be.
What are those doctors asked to do? The physician who calls the other two doctors in for advice may say to one of them, "I have a patient here. He is a man in his early eighties. He has had a nasty accident and is in a comatose state. I do not think that he has much chance". He then gives the doctor a few more particulars, and asks, "Do you think this chap has a good chance of survival?" The other doctor says, "No, I don't think so". That opinion, if it is repeated by the third doctor, is a death sentence. But it is only an opinion. Are the opinions of doctors, or indeed of any doctor, infallible? Doctors are people and they can make mistakes. I am sure that it is quite within the bounds of possibility that every Member of your Lordships' House has heard of a mistake made by a doctor.
What is required at that point is a statement from an expert saying, "This man will not recover"; in other words, a statement of clinical fact. But that cannot be given. It is quite impossible for anyone ever to make such a statement in those circumstances. Life is not like that. Similarly, death, as most of us probably know, is not like that. Therefore, on those two opinions—which. after all, are only statements of opinion of what is likely to happen and no more than that—such a patient can be allowed to die.
No one has thought about confronting such a danger. It is all very well—and I say this with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Allen., who says that the directive is full of safeguards—but there is no safeguard there at all. Indeed, in many cases it is a prescription for an actual putting to death of a patient. That is the product of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society made in honour, sincerity and compassion. I am perfectly certain about that fact. However, the society has been in existence for 60 years and the directive is the nearest thing that it has managed to get towards a safeguard in any of its legislation.
Moreover, not only is the directive as near as the society has managed to get, but also it is as near as it is ever likely to get. It is not possible to get any nearer. There are various reasons for saying that, but there is. one reason that is valid in every case. If a mistake is made—by which I mean that the patient is allowed to die when in fact, if he had only been able to speak, he would not have agreed that he wanted to die—that patient is the only witness to his own state of mind and he is dead.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it was my intention to make a long and argumentative speech to the House this evening as a longstanding member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. However, I have decided not to do so. I am still in favour of voluntary euthanasia, but I shall not make the same speech about it that I had intended to make for the following reason. I happened to come across the Written Evidence to the committee and therein found evidence from the Royal Marsden Hospital. I was happy to see that the leader of that delegation supported what he called the "legalisation of euthanasia". I was especially happy about that because it so happens that my wife died of cancer in that hospital on 30th January this year. Therefore, I have some close, personal experience of what it is like to be in that situation, not as a patient but as someone sitting by the bedside.
When the doctor asked me to go and see him after my wife had been in hospital some little time, he told me that she was seriously ill. I knew what that meant. I returned to the ward and wondered how I should break the news to my wife. However, I was surprised to find that my wife was already aware of the situation and that she had been aware of it for at least a fortnight before I was informed. She had refrained from telling me that she knew. She was a strong minded and courageous woman and she knew that I would find out in due course.
My wife also knew something about the treatment that she was receiving. She said to me, "They are getting it about right". I asked, "What do you mean?" She replied, "They are keeping me out of pain but they are not overdoing it". She knew that she was getting a mixture of drugs. I suppose that is what they mean by the "double effect"; in other words, what the doctor does is to give the patient a sufficient amount of medication, though there is no certainty of the date or even of death itself. However, one knows very well that when doctors who are used to dealing with cancer come to the conclusion that it will not be very long, then it will not be very long.
As I said, my wife thought that the doctors were getting the treatment about right. In fact, I did not ask the doctors about it. I felt that it was wiser not to do so. It was fairly clear to my wife—and certainly to me—that what was happening was what is known as the "double effect": you say that you are giving the medicine to the patient to relieve him or her of pain, but you know that in the course of doing so you are terminating the length of his or her life. My wife said to me, "I would rather have a painless week before I die than a painful fortnight". That is what it comes down to. How can you ask a doctor to judge whether or not he is doing that by intent? It seems to me that the burden on the doctor is quite intolerable. He has to decide how the treatment is to be varied in order to keep the patient out of pain but, at the same time, he has to ensure that he does not overstep the mark and find himself being regarded as someone who has committed murder. That can happen to a doctor.
1390
All I want to say about that experience is that, happily, my wife died peacefully, without suffering and serious pain, a fortnight after the doctor told me that she was seriously ill. What follows from this? I think that we need voluntary euthanasia. I hope that we shall not be put off by words. The word "euthanasia", as has been said, has been used for a long time and sometimes it has some rather unpleasant overtones. When one comes to think of it, the staff in hospices and any one practising euthanasia have the same object in view: it is to make death easier than it otherwise would be. They are both working in that direction. They are closer than is sometimes made out. They are not in total opposition to each other. The object is identical but the methodology and the verbiage is different.
We ought to try to approach this matter reasonably surely. If it is possible to say rationally in a society that in war killing each other is not murder, and no one will be had up for it except of course in the case of war crimes, and we can devise a system whereby we say, "No one has committed any murder", are we saying that it is impossible and beyond human intelligence to devise a means whereby one can say that a doctor whose sole object is to assist somebody to die peacefully is not in the same category as someone who bludgeons someone else to death? Of course it could be done. One can be pretty sure that taking this rational step will not undermine the morals of society and will not result in everyone killing everyone else. Quite frankly, the situation is a nonsense.
The committee arrived somehow at unanimity. I believe it was my noble friend Lady Jay who told me it was probably nearer a consensus. The committee arrived at a consensus and it ought to be possible to approach this problem afresh and to recognise the type of society in which we are living in which people are living longer but are needing to be assisted out of life when there is no alternative. If we approach the matter from that point of view—even taking account of the hostility which the committee has experienced as regards some aspects of voluntary euthanasia—and make sure there are plenty of safeguards, and that voluntary euthanasia is only used when it is proper for it to be used, I think it is not beyond human ingenuity ultimately to change the law to make an exception for the occasion when it is proper that people shall be assisted to leave this life in dignity and in peace.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he accept that as doctors we do not have a problem in relieving pain of people dying of cancer? It is quite easy to set up a drip and regulate the dose so that it is precisely the right dose to relieve pain but not to kill. If we do that, we find that patients often live longer and in a much more comfortable state.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Indeed, yes, my Lords, but the patient eventually becomes terminally ill. All I am asking for is that that shall be recognised. If that were recognised, it would relieve the doctor of a responsibility which he ought not to have because he knows that the patient is going to die. He is making the judgment as regards the mixture which is being

1391
administered. We cannot continue to have the situation in which he has to deny that that is what he is doing because at the moment it is against the law. It ought not to be against the law and it is up to us to make sure that it is not against the law.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, like so many others who have spoken this afternoon I welcome this debate and the Select Committee's report. At a time when politicians and the art and practice of politics are subject to such vicious and often unfair abuse and criticism, it is good to acknowledge, is it not?, the great achievement of this Select Committee of Parliament in presenting a unanimous report. The ability of the chairman and the Members of his Committee to reach those conclusions is in some ways a vindication of the political process. I certainly see it as such.
I recall well the alarmist stories that were around last year, and in particular the headline in the Observer of last November, "Euthanasia by the back door". That article appeared to be very authoritative but I should think it was intensely irritating to the Members of the Committee who knew what was happening in that committee. I am glad that the report has rejected the legalisation of euthanasia and that the Government strongly support that rejection.
I should at the outset declare an interest as president of Help the Hospices which has been referred to by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and others. I believe the hospice movement would have been seriously undermined and compromised by a proposal for or actual legalisation of euthanasia. Thank God it is not going to happen.
I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, when he was speaking of Holland where euthanasia is closer to being legalised than perhaps anywhere else in Western Europe, and where the hospice movement is underdeveloped. It is no coincidence that those two things go together. Of course I cannot mention the hospice movement without paying my tribute—as so many have already in this debate—to Dame Cicely Saunders. What a remarkable lady and what an honoured place she will have when the 20th century history of medicine and patient care is written.
My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk very properly referred to the sterling efforts of his gracious wife. The money raising that she accomplishes, the encouragement and the wise advice that she gives to so many in the hospice movement is invaluable. But these voluntary efforts must be backed by the National Health Service. I am glad that the report of the committee is so clear and specific in the recommendation which I think has been referred to more than any other recommendation in the course of this debate; namely, paragraph 276. I shall quote selectively from it:
"Despite the inevitable continuing constraints on health-care resources, the rejection of euthanasia as an option for the individual, in the interest of our wider social good, entails a compelling social responsibility to care adequately for those who are elderly, dying or disabled".
I hope we can all say "hear, hear" to that. Paragraph 276 continues,
1392
"high-quality palliative care should be made more widely available by improving public support for the existing hospice movement, ensuring that all general practitioners and hospital doctors have access to specialist advice, and providing more support for relevant training at all levels".
The welcome that one can give to the increase in government support to the hospice movement in recent years must be coloured a little by a hope that the rising trend of spending will continue. But the "top slicing" system—the ring fencing of the financial support for hospices—is, I understand, being replaced by the contracting system. The Department of Health has recommended that three-year contracts be negotiated between the purchasing authorities and the individual hospices.
But I am advised that many hospices in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are finding that the health authorities are unwilling to go beyond one year. This is the point made so clearly by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle—that to plan reasonably ahead one needs longer certainty about the finances which are to come. I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister—whose personal sympathy, concern and support for the hospice movement is greatly appreciated. by all who are involved with it—to take a close look at what is happening and to. see what remedial action could be taken to give greater certainty to those involved, particularly within the voluntary hospice movement.
The sectors involved are individual hospices, the Help the Hospices movement, the Marie Curie Cancer Care, and the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund. A wealth of voluntary effort is devoted to these causes which is raising substantial sums of money and providing high quality compassionate care both for patients in the hospices and also for the larger number —perh.aps double the number—who are given palliative care in their own homes. One must consider the hospice movement not merely in terms of the real estate element but also in terms of its outreach within the community which is so valuable.
The report of the Select Committee also stresses the need for more research into pain relief and symptom control. I am glad that the Government have at least given a nod of support to that. However, as ever in these matters, it is not so much the voice which is important but whether money and resources will follow that voice.
The need for enhanced training of the healthcare professionals involved is also underlined by the report. Again, I welcome the Government's positive response. An enormous amount has happened since I first came into contact with the hospice movement, largely through the introduction of my noble friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate. She will remember the visit that we made together when she was chairman of the Brighton Health Authority. That was in the mid-1980s, but at that time the training of doctors had very little content concerned with palliative care, pain relief and symptom control. Much has improved since then, and more improvements are no doubt required.
I turn to the question 'which has been raised by a number of noble Lords contributing to the debate—mandatory life sentences. My own inclination is to move towards the committee's view rather than the Government's view as expressed by my noble and

1393
learned friend the Lord Chancellor. But in politics timing is crucial, if not of the essence. I am persuaded that now is not the time to be bringing forward to Parliament a measure to amend the present law in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee and indeed of other committees of this House.
The Select Committee's report and the Government's response have provided a great boost for the hospice movement and for high quality palliative care. There is a recognition in paragraph 136 of the report that,
"hospice is a philosophy not a building".
I end by quoting from the evidence submitted by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. It said:
"Palliative care:

—affirms life and regards dying as a normal process;

—neither hastens nor postpones death;

—provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms;

—integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care;

—offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible until death;

—offers a support system to help the family cope during the patient's illness and in their own bereavement".

Such civilised and compassionate care should be widely and generally available, and that will best be achieved by fruitful co-operation and partnership between the National Health Service and the voluntary sector. May it continue to expand and improve.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I must begin by congratulating the chairman and members of the Select Committee on producing what I am sure many of your Lordships will agree is a very satisfactory report. There is no shortage of interest in the work of the committee, and from the volumes of evidence printed it appears that it was able to take a wide cross-section of views and representations during the course of its deliberations. The Committee must have worked very hard indeed.
The committee's recommendations are particularly apt and address some of the problems that have arisen as a result of the advances made in medical technology and the difficult decisions regarding the provision of treatment. I should like to draw attention to the first and perhaps strongest recommendation that there should be no change in the law to permit the practice of euthanasia. I welcome that recommendation of the committee and hope that the Government will listen to the wisdom therein.
Contrary to what the Voluntary Euthanasia Society states, there is no overwhelming desire, either in the country or indeed in Parliament, to see the legalisation of euthanasia. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society repeatedly quotes an NOP poll which claims that 79 per cent. of people in this country support voluntary euthanasia. However, as the editorial of the Lancet recently stated, such a poll is thoroughly misleading, for the question asked was:
"Would you like medical assistance to a peaceful death?"
In comparison, parliamentary support for euthanasia continues to reduce. A recent independent survey by Access Opinions in another place showed that support
1394
for euthanasia has reduced from one in three to one in five. The medical, legal, ethical and social arguments against the practice of euthanasia are particularly strong, and I am encouraged that noble Lords and Members of another place are resisting the view of a minority to change the law.
I hope that this report shows that there is no doubt that as a civilised society we cannot tolerate the practice of euthanasia. For the weak, the infirm, the elderly and the chronically sick, the provision of euthanasia would not relieve suffering but rather increase it. Their last years would be lived worrying about whether they were a burden to other members of the family: should they request euthanasia and so relieve the family, friends and even society of the burden that they have become?
Furthermore, some would be fearful that their lives would be ended without their request, for as they found it more difficult to communicate and ultimately became incompetent, a decision to shorten their life could be made without their request. As the committee was made aware, there is evidence to show that this is taking place in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch official Remmelink Report. As stated by His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, in 1990 there were more than 1,000 deaths in the Netherlands from euthanasia without the patient's request. Such startling figures should provide a warning that even voluntary euthanasia cannot be tolerated.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the recommendation in paragraph 287, namely that the rejection of euthanasia as an option for the individual entails a compelling social responsibility to care adequately for those who are elderly, disabled or dying. A large number of the elderly are healthy, active and capable of living independent lives. However, there is no doubt that health problems increase with age, along with the demand for and dependence on external care. The challenge we face today is to develop a range of services and facilities that meet the growing and changing demand for care against a socio-economic background that is forcing the Government to reduce expenditure. Our aim must be to create a range of care provision so that anyone in need of care can call on services appropriate to his or her specific requirements.
Particular attention should be paid to the specific needs of women. They are clearly in the majority among the elderly. Furthermore, they are especially vulnerable. More women live alone than men of the same age and their income is usually far lower. However, for all the elderly, whether living alone, with relatives, or in institutions, the care that is provided must enhance the dignity of the individual, and I welcome the report's categoric support for that.
For those who are dying or coping with the difficulty of a terminal disease, I am glad that the committee commended the work of the hospice and palliative care services in this country. Many noble Lords have been involved in the movement for a long time and have witnessed the excellent provision of care which the movement gives. I myself was one of a number of your Lordships who went to see Trinity Hospice in Clapham in action earlier last year. I have also visited other hospices in Sunderland, Leeds and Hackney. The

1395
standard of care and the dedication of all those involved was most impressive and the commendations received are richly deserved.
The multi-disciplinary approach which the hospice movement is pioneering is to be applauded and sets the standards for the future. Instead of a purely clinical approach to all problems, attention is also paid to the social, psychological and spiritual needs of the patient.
Perhaps the most outstanding achievement of the hospice movement is the advances made in the relief of pain. In a letter to the Guardian last week, Jean Gaffin, the Executive Director of the National Council for Hospice Care, stated,
"Those working in hospice and palliative care services … know that almost all pain can be relieved and that it can always be reduced".
In a lecture last year to Peers and Members of another place, at which many of us were present, Dr. Anthony Smith, the Director of Education at St. Christopher's, stated that 96 per cent. of pain can be relieved and pain could be reduced in the remainder. Such advances and understanding of the workings of pain have given an increased quality of life to many as they live with a terminal disease.
However, there is still much to be done on the development of new techniques and relieving pain. Some conditions are more difficult to relieve than others, and many noble Lords will be aware that rheumatoid arthritis is one such condition.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one project in particular which will be critical to the development of palliative care in this country and further afield. This is the development of an International Centre for Palliative Care at Oxford. The centre will be based on the site of the Churchill Hospital where there is land available and waiting. The architectural plans have been drawn up and planning permission has been given. The centre is now seeking to raise the funds. If we are to maintain the standards of hospice care that we have set, there is an urgent need for funds to further research in this field and indeed to disseminate the information as widely as possible. I believe that the establishment of a centre at Oxford could be instrumental in enabling many to have a dignified and peaceful death even in the face of terminal illness and all the hardships which that involves.
The Association for Palliative Medicine presented a case before the committee. It was told of a 19 year-old boy, the son of a surgeon, who had advanced intra-abdominal sarcoma. Believing that nothing more could be done for his son, the father was so distressed that he requested information on how best to help his son die. Palliative care was offered and the father agreed after some negotiation. After a short time, relief was achieved and the boy was able to participate in family life for several weeks until his death. The father, a surgeon, and the mother, a nurse, could not believe that such relief and quality of life could be obtained. Since then the father frequently refers his patients to palliative care. I hope that the report will result in the further dissemination of information regarding palliative care and become a building block to further developments in hospice care in this country.
1396
Many severely disabled people who suffer pain become depressed and worried with the immense pressure on hospitals, and even doctors' surgeries, some of which have only five-minute appointments. I believe in value for money, but I also believe in a caring society. When money rules everything, excuses are found for not providing for needs and the fear of euthanasia could become as real to vulnerable people as the death camps of Hitler's regime. With the continued failure of anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people, some people can find just living difficult..
I end by saying that I hope the Select Committee's recommendations on page 57 under "Health-care Resources" will be taken very seriously by the Government and by healthcare providers and purchasers, and that young people will be encouraged to care for the less fortunate people in society. That can be stimulated by leadership in places of education and youth organisations and by religious leaders as well as by parents.
6.46 p.m.
The Marquess of Hertford: My Lords, perhaps I may express my unbounded admiration for the committee in the enormous amount of work that it has done. I perhaps greet the report itself with modified rapture and the Government's reply to it with less enthusiasm.
I suppose that many of us have some particular fear or phobia. Some of your Lordships may remember that horrifying moment in George Orwell's book, 1984, when the hero is about to have his face pushed into a cage of rats and is reduced to begging his gaolers to do it to his girlfriend instead of to him. Another dreadful fear which I believe is quite common, although it cannot occur very often, is of falling into a coma and waking Lip to find that you have already been buried. My own particular fear is referred to briefly on page 69 of the report. In plain language, it is to be conscious and alert while completely paralysed. The report states:
"Recovery from the locked- in syndrome is rare and it must be stressed again that such individuals, though incapable of moving their limbs and of speaking, are sentient human beings with full awareness of their surroundings, even if dependent upon artificial ventilation, tube feeding and other life support systems for their survival".
Perhaps I may ask noble Lords to think for a moment about the word "sentient". Can you imagine what people in that condition may be feeling? They do not suffer physical pain. But must they not—how can they not?—be in the very depths of despair? Do they not long for death? Even a few days in such a state would be a nightmare; a month must seem like hell.
No doubt all doctors and nurses will be sympathetic to such a patient. But even if the patient has already signed an advance directive, it is doubtful whether that alone would ensure that whoever has the kindness and the courage to turn off the life support machines will be completely safe from the present law. The safe course would be to do nothing and to let the patient continue to suffer the torments of the damned.
I do realise that there are great difficulties, moral, legal and practical, in legalising voluntary euthanasia. I certainly hope that involuntary euthanasia will never be

1397
legal. I have no legal or medical skills whatever, but there are in this House quite a lot of very clever people who could surely devise changes in the law to allow the medical profession to do what most of us hope it will do anyway; that is, simply to assist us to an easy death. One step in that direction might surely be the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder.
Finally, at the risk of sounding frivolous, I cannot resist commenting that I find it odd that in a largely Christian assembly very few people seem to think that moving on into the next life might be rather a good idea.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I join in paying a sincere tribute to the outstanding chairmanship of the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. His skill and profound knowledge enabled the committee to cover a great deal of material and to produce the wide-ranging and unanimous report that is being discussed today. He helped the committee through areas in which what one person might respect as a deeply held view another might regard as unreasonable prejudice. I hope and believe that the report will provide a lasting framework for the future.
I freely confess that before joining the committee my mind was uncluttered by much serious thought on the topics that it was to consider. Personally, like most of us I suspect, I try not to think too much about the unpleasant aspects of mortality. Professionally I have spent much time arguing about what is in the best interests of vulnerable children who have a full life ahead of them. But I have spent almost no time at all in considering what might be in the best interests of vulnerable people with little of life left to them in terms of either quantity or quality.
Throughout the committee's inquiry it was necessary to distinguish between the situation of those who were terminally ill but who remained alert and sometimes in pain and those such as the PVS patients. Before the case of Bland, fortunately very few of us had had to grapple with what might be in the best interests of the permanently insensate or with whether, and to what extent, an assessment of those best interests means something more than trying to resolve what the patient would wish for himself by way of treatment and care. The committee has had to grapple with all those problems and with such question-begging phrases as "futile treatment" and "inappropriate treatment".
My own starting point was to recognise that whatever emerged had, if at all possible, to be acceptable to the doctors in the front line who have to take the decisions in most of these cases. Such decisions are taken in the light of the circumstances then prevailing and with knowledge of what is and is not possible for the patient but sometimes with little opportunity for much consultation. The outcome also had to be acceptable to the other members of the healthcare teams. It is therefore pleasing to see that the conclusions of the report seem to be acceptable to bodies such as the BMA and the RCN.
In considering the question of euthanasia, perhaps three matters seemed most important. The first was the
1398
revelation (to me at least) that those who do not have a sudden death but are terminally ill can almost certainly have a pain-free progress to death. The growth of the hospice movement and the development of palliative medicine are very reassuring for most of us in this country. But even so, good palliative care and psychiatric support are not universal, and the report contains a clear message for the Government that the funding must be found to ensure that growth and development continue.
Secondly, there was the reassurance that responsible medical care can properly involve a considered decision not unduly to prolong futile and burdensome treatment. In some extreme situations the prolonging of death is not the same as extending a meaningful life; indeed it can be the opposite.
Thirdly, in respect of euthanasia, it did not seem possible to find any other place beyond the existing law for a firm foothold on an otherwise slippery slope. The evidence of the Dutch experience was not encouraging: in the Netherlands, which apparently lacks much in the way of a hospice movement, there seems to be a gap between the theory and practice of voluntary euthanasia. One cannot escape the fear that the same could happen here, with pressures on the vulnerable sick and elderly, who may perceive themselves to have become a burden on others, and pressures on the doctors and nurses from relatives and from those who are concerned with resources.
Surely the BMA was right to fear that the practice of euthanasia would detrimentally change the way in which doctors are regarded and in which they regard themselves and would detrimentally change the relationship between doctor and patient. I do not believe that it would be possible to foresee all the repercussions of legislation on this topic, and I suspect that legislation would throw up more problems than it could solve. I therefore suggest that the committee was right not to recommend it.
In respect of advance directives, again I suggest that it is best to allow matters to continue to evolve as the committee recommended. I do not believe that to make directives binding would necessarily serve the interests of patients or their families. In the United States some statutes provide for directives to operate when there is "terminal illness", but there are problems of defining "terminal illness". The points made by Mr. Montgomery, which are set out in paragraph 211 of the report, seem to me to be compelling. It is in the nature of such documents (as with ante-nuptial agreements, which family lawyers are increasingly being asked to devise) that they require immense care in drafting in the attempt to deal with unlikely and unforeseeable events in the future.
Moreover, all sorts of people sign all sorts of documents confirming, as they do so, that they understand what they have signed. Lawyers are all too well aware that in reality such people do not always understand what they have signed. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to exceptions to the enforceability of such directives—or declarations, as he preferred to call them—where pressure was improperly applied. But of course it is all too well known to lawyers that

1399
improperly applied pressure is not usually seen or detectable by those who are intended to act on the document concerned—whether that person be a doctor, a bank manager, a lawyer or anyone else.
Advance directives are, I suggest, best left as no more than guidance to doctors, the weight to be given to such documents to be assessed when the time comes to do so in the light of all the other circumstances that then prevail. That seems to be consistent with the list of factors that are set out in the Law Commission's proposals, summarised at paragraph 177 of this report.
The report deals with "mercy killing" in two succinct paragraphs, 259 and 260. That topic is best dealt with in a wider debate on the law of murder and manslaughter and on the vexed question of penalties for murder. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case involving Dr. Cox, as the most reverend Primate reminded us, Dr. Cox could in the event be charged only with attempted murder as distinct from murder itself, because there was no post-mortem which might have established the actual cause of death before the patient concerned was cremated.
It seems to me that there are great problems in defining a separate category of mercy killer, and that a great number of safeguards would probably have to be built in to any such defence to murder before it could be effective. Moreover, if such killing is defined by reference to mercy towards the victim, it would probably not extend to ending the life of those such as Anthony Bland who are not suffering or of those whose otherwise intolerable suffering can be adequately relieved by drugs. In such cases the ending of life may be a relief to the family, the concerned carers and other people requiring the resource being used by the person concerned. But it could not be categorised as "mercy killing". Likewise, the termination of a life which it might seem quite futile to continue would probably not he covered by such a category.
A number of essentially legal issues concerned with the taking of life have precipitated the need for this report. The law has to provide clarity for the medical and other practitioners, identifying what people may and may not do and what they must and must not do. In the extreme case of Bland, the law had to have recourse to distinctions between care and treatment, although, frankly, to many people treatment can be care and care includes treatment. Both are aspects of life support and both served to support the vestiges of life in Anthony Bland. However, the lawyers on the committee have been all too aware that, although the law can provide a useful framework for grappling with these and with less extreme cases, there is no room for any professional insularity or monopoly.
The law has also to provide a mechanism for dealing with difficult or unusual cases, to resolve disputes, protect the vulnerable patient and protect the doctors and nurses. The Family Division of the High Court and the Official Solicitor have shown an ability to respond to individual cases and to reach fully informed decisions. They will continue to do so. The suggested new forum provisionally proposed by the Law
1400
Commission must not lose the expertise that already exists. We shall need to look with care at the proposals of the Law Commission when the time comes.
Unless Parliament is confident that changes are required and their consequences can be foreseen, Parliament should leave things simply to evolve, as is recommended by the report.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, first I must make it clear that, although I speak from the Opposition Front Bench, this evening I do not represent the Labour Party position. I express solely my personal views as a member of the Select Committee. It was a very great privilege for me to serve on that distinguished committee and to do so in my second year as a Member of your Lordships' House. It was an experience that I valued enormously. I should like to join all the other noble Lords who have spoken in paying warm tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his stimulating intellectual leadership, his patience and I might almost say dogged chairmanship, 'which enabled the committee to reach—as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney described it—the consensus position that we are discussing today. Like my noble friend, I deliberately emphasise the word "consensus" rather than "unanimous" because I feel that the report has most skilfully blended the disparate views of individual members, but in doing so, it has appropriately smoothed the edges of our differences.
At this stage of what has been a very wise and thought-provoking debate it seems most helpful to be less subtle—perhaps to be blunt—and briefly to state my personal views and comment on the Government's response to the report, which I found disappointing in several ways. From my personal viewpoint, I should like to see us move towards a society in which voluntary euthanasia is accepted as an ultimate choice for anyone reaching the end of life. However, I do not believe—I emphasise this point—that we should now change the law to try to bring that about. I entirely support the first and primary conclusion of the report. But I also agree with Professor Ronald Dworkin, who has. already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I found him one of the most compelling witnesses that we heard. He emphasised to us the role of autonomy and individual decision-making in matters of life and death. He put it in the context of the unique value of human life. He said (paragraph 39 of the report) that everybody accepted the idea of the:
"intrinsic value, the objective importance, the sanctity, if you will, of human life".
But, he said, that idea led people to different choices. He went on to say (paragraph 93 of the report):
"I am in favour of choice because people disagree about what kind of death is meaningful for them. I, myself, believe what sort of a death is right for a particular person and gives the best meaning to that person's life, largely depends on how that life has been lived, and that the person who has lived it is in the best position to make that decision".
Professor Dworkin's conclusion was that he advocated voluntary euthanasia as one choice for those people who

1401
felt that to be kept alive in a situation which they found unacceptable would be harmful to their lives as a whole, cheapening what they had valued.
If, as I do, one accepts the validity of that kind of autonomous choice, how can it best be facilitated in a compassionate and mature society? I hope that several of our recommendations, if acted upon, will make it easier for both competent and incompetent patients and for healthcare teams. Medical and nursing professionals, as we heard this afternoon, at present often face extraordinarily difficult decisions without adequate ethical guidance or codes of practice. In my view, the committee's conclusions on double effect, on limiting treatment, and on a new judicial forum to make decisions for incompetent patients, as well as its strong endorsement of the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder, could all ease practical, clinical difficulties and at the same time encourage a climate of open choice for patients and their relatives.
I should like in particular to draw your Lordships' attention to the recommendations about persistent vegetative state and Appendix 5 on brain stem death, which has not been mentioned this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and other speakers have described the importance of the Tony Bland case and the considerations of persistent vegetative state in our discussions. Paragraph 258 of the report states:
"We suggest that the development of a generally accepted definition of the [PVS] condition would assist both the health-care professions and the wider community, and … lead to a code of practice for the management of [these cases]".
Appendix 4 is an authoritative memorandum on the differential diagnosis of PVS. I hope that the colleges and faculties of all the healthcare professionals will rapidly take forward that important area of work. I am glad that the Government's response indicates that discussions are already beginning about how to do that.
Appendix 5 of the report, which I consider most important, describes the significant history of the concept of brain death. It shows that diagnosis of a non-functioning brain stem has changed, over a relatively short period, from a hotly controversial issue to a commonly accepted definition of death. That now enables doctors to withdraw heart/lung support systems without ethical or legal concerns. Just recently we have seen how readily the general public accepts that practice, following the tragic brain damage suffered by the boxer Bradley Stone. The popular newspapers reported the damage to that boxer on their front pages and without comment noted that doctors had rapidly decided that he could not recover from coma and had switched off his life support machine.
Over the past 15 years or so, the codes of practice about brain stem deaths have grown up, ethical boundaries have shifted and, without a change in the law, society has in that context accepted a different attitude to death. Appendix 5 of the report states clearly that:
"death has come to be seen more as a process than an event".
It is my hope that a similar approach to PVS, and perhaps to other long-term conditions, will extend codes of practice about limiting treatment, thereby extending
1402
public understanding of a shifting definition of death and extending the culture of choice about when and how death is reached.
Individual choice is most explicitly addressed in the report in our discussion of advance directives or advance declarations, whatever we now choose to call them. Again, we recommend the development of new codes of practice rather than legislation. As I have already said, I believe that, as a society, we are more able to accept the idea of change and choice in those very difficult areas if change occurs gradually through medical practice and case law and not through statutory action.
In retrospect—I alerted the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, to what I am about to say —I wonder whether we may have been a little too restrained about advance directives. Since the report was finished I have had various opportunities to find out more about the situation in the United States, which was also referred to in the course of the debate. As your Lordships know, in several states advance directives (or "living wills" as they are often described in American) have binding legal status. I was impressed by what I learnt of how the system operates there. Of course I recognise the enormous gulf between the practice of law and medicine in the United States and in this country, and I remain convinced by many of the arguments of noble and learned Lords on our committee in regard to the difficulties of introducing any new law here. Nevertheless, for my part I believe that it may be helpful to encourage advance directives, perhaps by suggesting that we give them some immediate legal force. Perhaps that could be limited to giving people who indicate specific directives on certain categories of treatment the comfort that their instructions will be legally enforceable.
I apologise to other members of the committee for appearing to break the consensus of the report, and I must emphasise that my "afterthought" on the subject is only intended to strengthen the main thrust of our recommendation to,
"commend the development of advance directives".
I shall be interested to learn the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and other people with great legal expertise who spoke on the matter, and to see what the Law Commission proposes when it reports later this year.
I turn briefly to one or two of our more practical recommendations, which have resource implications and affect the organisation of health services. It is in those areas that I found the Government's response disappointing. As a committee we argued—as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather—that rejecting a change in the law to legalise euthanasia led to,
"a compelling social responsibility to care adequately for those who are elderly, dying or disabled".
As noble Lords, said, the report makes strong recommendations about extending palliative care services and supporting further research into pain relief and symptom control. But though the Government say that they agree with those conclusions, there are no definite proposals for additional resources either for care

1403
or for research. I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, to the Minister and ask whether or not the Government will make a specific commitment in that area.
It is still the case that the vast majority of the 700,000 people who die each year in the United Kingdom do not have the benefit of palliative care or hospice support. The National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services recently noted that the voluntary sector is funding a large proportion of those services. That was a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe. He also made the point that the local contracting system makes future public funding uncertain. That situation must be addressed by the Department of Health in order that our confidence in palliative care can be sustained.
At the moment the average NHS contribution to the revenue costs of voluntary hospices is 38 per cent., but in some instances it can be as low as 10 per cent. I understand that initially the Department of Health intended to match revenue funding on a 50–50 basis, and that was achieved in Scotland. But the Government response to the Select Committee contains no definite commitment to improving the position in England and Wales.
Overall, although the tone of the official response is generally supportive, there is little to suggest an active government role in ensuring that the recommendations will become realities. In the light of the current controversy about age discrimination in healthcare it is particularly unfortunate that the response relies, rather lamely, on the Patient's Charter as a guarantee of patients' rights to equitable healthcare at every stage of life. If, in practice, elderly people are badly treated by the NHS market, if contracting does not allow more resources for pain research or hospice care, then public demand for voluntary euthanasia is bound to grow for completely the wrong reasons.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, observed, some critics described the Government's document as a "bland reply" to a "bland report". I believe that the noble Baroness said that it was a "timid" reply to a "timid" report. I do not believe that the report is either timid or bland. It is appropriately cautious and careful. My hope is that at least some of our important recommendations will be put into practice. Among those I would emphasise codes of practice about treatment limitations, expanded advance directives becoming commonplace and ethical issues being openly discussed between patients and healthcare teams. In that case I would hope that a social culture would develop in which different difficult choices about the ending of life can be clearly and legitimately expressed. It may then be time for another Select Committee to look again at changing the law on voluntary euthanasia. Until then, for my part, I am content to allow a Fabian approach of gradualism to take this most fundamental debate forward.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, a distinguished and eminent neurologist, past president of
1404
the General Medical Services Committee and the BMA, and all members of the Select Committee for the work that they have done. As your Lordships are aware, this House is able to assemble from its Members people who, as Kipling said, are,
"of infinite resource and sagacity",
to deliberate upon the fundamental values of society. The committee achieved what this House is so well equipped to do: to produce a report that shows no deviation from what is right for the sake of some passing whim or political distraction. It is an example of Parliament working at its best.
There is a need, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, to take account of the views of the Law Commission and organisations representing doctors and nurses so that the findings of your Lordships' Select Committee can be embodied into codes of ethics. Subject to those consultations and caveats—the point raised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor concerning mandatory life sentences—the Government welcome the Select Committee's findings and recommendations.
There are two great changes occurring—the advance of medical science which will continue and which will heighten the ethical dilemmas and a decline in belief that there is life after death. If there is for the majority no belief in life after death then all that people have is life. The Select Committee is therefore right, by implication, to emphasise the sanctity of life. Perhaps I have to remind myself of this having spent time as a convent schoolgirl where the brides of Christ welcomed death as a glorious unification with their spiritual spouse. I appreciate that mine was a rarefied education —a fact I do not often forget. The memory was triggered tonight by my noble friend Lord Hertford in his closing comments.
The Government respect the views so lucidly and cogently expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that we need to work towards a shared value and respect and safeguard the limits which society believes to be right. We recognise that a small part of setting limits must reflect in the work carried out by health professionals.
It is a great concern to the Government and to every person that neither doctors nor nurses who are so trusted by the public should tarnish or destroy that trust by becoming "mercy killers". However old or however confused, everyone needs to have complete faith that the next visit from the doctor will be for their well-being and from the nurse for their care. Both doctors and nurses have the highest ethical standards. Those standards are the sure foundations of their professions. In the case of doctors the Hippocratic Oath says,
"I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel".
That is quite unequivocal. It has stood doctors in good stead for 2,500 years. As one who was a member of the UKCC I know full well the commitment of nurses to the highest ethical standards.
Euthanasia, as literally defined, means "an easy death". But the term is commonly used and understood to mean "mercy killing"—the deliberate killing of someone in a terminal condition and usually in severe

1405
pain, at his own request, "to put him out of his misery". The Government entirely agree that positive action should not be taken to cause death. That is murder, and must remain so to protect vulnerable individuals.
The Government agree with my noble friend Lord Colwyn that if euthanasia were to be permitted, it would effectively change the social context, making voluntary death a viable option. Like my noble friend, we believe that this could place an additional, perhaps intolerable psychological burden on elderly or mentally ill people, who might feel that they had a duty to end their lives when they became difficult to care for, a view expressed by many of your Lordships. We must also recognise in a more materialistic age that there is pressure from relatives who see the cost of care whittling away their inheritance. The Government believe that we should avoid creating these additional burdens on vulnerable people and ensure that mercy killing is not legalised. The Government agree with the Select Committee's report and reject calls to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for his clear and compassionate contribution to the debate. If I may be permitted an aside, how lucky we are to hear a little more of him than we are limited to in "Thought for the Day". We are grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the support he gave the Government when in their response the Government recognised that there are occasions when doctors will be faced with a terminally ill patient in severe pain and they will need to administer sufficient doses of drugs to control the pain, even though an inevitable consequence may be the shortening of the patient's life. The Select Committee called this the "double effect".
I was interested to hear the so well argued and profoundly reasoned case as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. For those of us who were not privileged to serve on the committee, it gave us a little flavour of the depth of some of the discussions which I am sure took place. The Government conclude that it is acceptable for a doctor to administer drugs even if it shortens life as long as the doctor acts in accordance with responsible medical practice with the objective of relieving pain or distress and with no intention to kill. I appreciate, though, that my noble friend Lady Flather seeks to take this debate a little further. But at the moment that is the Government's position.
The Government also accept the powerful views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, that the issues we are seeking to debate tonight are not solely issues for the medical profession. It is essential that all health professionals or members of the care team work together, and in many cases it is nurses who are closer to the patients, their families and friends. As the noble Baroness so rightly said, the evidence submitted by the Royal College of Nursing was extremely powerful, and we are grateful to it. I believe your Lordships will join me in expressing the gratitude of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for deepening our understanding of some of these
1406
difficult, profound and very painful issues by revealing his recent experiences to us. But we cannot go along with his conclusions.
The Government's response to caring for dying people is not negative. On the contrary, it has been very positive. When I attend international conferences on palliative care I am left in no doubt that this country is by all standards the world leader. There is no reason for complacency or self-congratulation, but that is a fact.
As my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said, the Government have increased their contribution for palliative care services from £8 million in 1990–91 to £35.7 million in this financial year. With recessions and deficits raging around us, to increase funding more than fourfold shows commitment beyond the call of Treasuries. This year an additional £6.3 million has been made available to enable hospices to obtain drugs for their patients free of charge. But we recognise that the Government are but a partner—some would say a junior partner—in this field. I too would like to pay tribute to the thousands—perhaps millions of people if one includes fund-raisers—involved with the hospice movement. Outstanding among their number is my noble friend's wife, the Duchess of Norfolk, whose energy, determination and, when it comes to fund-raising—I was going to say "guile"; I think I had better use "ingenuity" —has generated many admirers.
My noble friend Lady Platt succinctly drew out the important distinction between hospitals and hospices and the contribution that they make to training health professionals. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, in his moving and clear exposition of three challenging case studies, left us in no doubt about the dilemmas facing the medical and other health professions. He reinforced the point made by my noble friend Lady Platt that education is paramount. It was a point so well elucidated by my noble friend Lady Flather.
I hope I can reassure my noble friend Lady Flather and other noble Lords that, with regard to doctors, the General Medical Council has recently issued new recommendations. They include as one of the suggested curriculum themes Man in Society, which covers issues relating to palliation and the care of the dying. It suggests that this theme should be present throughout the full five years of the course. The GMC's recommendations also set objectives which include attaining knowledge and understanding of the importance of communication and the ethical issues relevant to medical practice. Another objective is the awareness at an early stage in the course of the moral and ethical responsibilities involved in patient care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, told us of a new centre in Oxford and pointed out the need for more research. I am sure she will be heartened to learn of a programme of research by the University of York into the availability and effectiveness of palliative care. This study is being carried out with the help of a grant of £370,000 from the Department of Health.
As president of her local hospice, my noble friend Lady Platt expressed concern about the future funding of voluntary hospices, as did my noble friend Lord Colwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and many other noble Lords. Hospices vary in the amount of funds they

1407
receive from voluntary giving. From 1994–95 individual hospices will be able to negotiate, through contracts, the level of funding they need to provide care for NHS patients. For some, this may be more than half their running costs; for others it may be less. The Government's contribution in England ranges from 10 per cent. to 70 per cent. This reflects variation in need for support across the country. But I regret that I cannot give my noble friend Lord Colwyn or the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the assurance they seek that as a result of this report and our debate more funding will be forthcoming for this area of work.
It is essential with any programme that has expanded so quickly that quality of service is carefully monitored. This is being done by district health authorities purchasing the services of the best. Inevitably this causes difficulties, especially where voluntary sector hospices cannot get contracts. The system of course will be blamed. But the department is determined to see good quality care provided and accepts that delivering this will sometimes be challenging to people working in the field.
I recognise the cogent arguments put by my noble friend Lord Hayhoe regarding uncertainty in contract funding. However, our advice is unequivocal. Where health authorities value individual hospices we wish to see stability in funding. The new contracts were introduced only in April of this year. We are monitoring them very closely. While I am mentioning my noble friend, I should like to congratulate him not only on his speech tonight but also on being appointed to the presidency of the Help the Hospices charity.
Many of the Select Committee's findings deal with people's dignity, starting from the premise that people have the right to refuse consent for any medical treatment through to consideration of the individual's requests, advance directives and staff training. The Government are resolute in their aim that people's own views should be taken into account. It is yet another change in culture that causes garments to be rent, but in the past some health services have been paternalistic. A few stalwarts continue to call people "cases" or even "clinical material". and for them there is a long haul to the point where they accept the notion that the patient's own opinion is not just relevant but of overriding importance. The Government will continue to uphold people's right to refuse treatment. We have codified in the Patient's Charter the right of every citizen of whatever age to receive health care on the basis of clinical need. Respect for privacy and dignity is one of the charter's standards. Those are fine words but it requires constant inspections and investigations into complaints to achieve and then to maintain high standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, with his close association with the UKCC, Fill recognise that nurses entering training under Project 2000 are receiving more ethical training than ever before. This is vital for both nurses, who are becoming themselves more autonomous, and their changed role as they deal with people whose rights and views will become more important as the charter is absorbed into our national culture.
1408
Regarding advance directives, the Government will await the Law Commission's deliberations before finally taking decisions. But the Government are sympathetic to the Select Committee's conclusions. 'The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, quoted the views of the BMA contained in a letter from my honourable friend Mr. Sackville. In the same way as doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortions are not compelled to take part in such an operation, a doctor who believes that it is important to preserve life at all costs, faced with a patient with a terminal illness who has made a valid advance directive requesting no medical intervention, is able also to pass the care of the patient to a colleague for whom carrying out the patient's wishes would not cause a crisis of conscience.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was quite right to call our attention to some of the anxieties concerning advance directives. Although I understand the apprehensions expressed by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, it is the Government's view that advance directives are not a part of euthanasia. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of course has been associated with them over the years, certainly, but many people who utterly reject euthanasia favour advance directives; for example, the Terrence Higgins Trust, the Select Committee and others.
I have listened very carefully to the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. The Government support the Committee's absolute rejection of legalising intentional killing. Advance directives authorising such an act are not and cannot be legally binding; a statement which I hope will also reassure my noble friend Lord McColl. Much of the Select Committee's work has concentrated on the concerns for what is often the last weeks, days or even hours, of life. But in cases of persistent vegetative state, existence may continue for years.
The question of whether to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging treatment (including artificial nutrition and fluids) from someone who is not benefiting from it is quite different from euthanasia although it raises similar moral and ethical questions. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord. McColl for drawing your Lordships' attention to some of the recent judgments in the courts. As he indicated, the courts in England have been anxious to assert the law's commitment to the sanctity of life. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, said in the Bland case:
"The principle [of the sanctity of life] is not an absolute one. It does not compel a medical practitioner on pain of criminal sanctions to treat a patient, who will die if he does not, [contrary to the express wish of the patient]."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, concurred:
"The interest of the State in preserving the lives of its citizens is very strong, but it is not absolute. There are contrary interests, and sometimes these prevail; as witness the over-mastering effect of the patient's refusal of treatment, even where this makes death inevitable".
This is a difficult area and I am sure your Lordships —not least my noble friend Lord McColl—will be pleased to learn that the Royal College of Physicians has taken up the invitation in the Committee's report to draw up codes of practice on PVS and also for advance directives. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, feels that that may go some way to meet his anxieties. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Lord

1409
that albeit the Government cannot travel all the way with him, he can be assured that we are grateful to him for drawing the nation's attention to these difficult issues. Likewise, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Alport who suggested that a panel of three wise people drawn from different professions should be set up. I hope that he will feel that the college, in setting up a working group with not only physicians but other health professionals, will meet some of his needs.
The Department of Health will have an observer on this group so we will keep in touch with proceedings. We shall be very conscious of your Lordships' eagle eye as to our progress. The group will of course need to reflect any decisions which might come out of the Law Commission's recommendations in these areas. As the committee recognises,
"resources for health care are not infinite. There are limits to what society is able and willing to afford and rationing of resources has become a fact of life in all developed societies".
The health service has always operated within a finite level of resources. Today's service is no different. The allocation of resources within a hospital is determined locally. It needs to be done within the framework of a clearly expressed policy as this will ensure difficult decisions are made away from the treatment room, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. The decision on how to treat an individual patient. must always remain a clinical one.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for the spirit in which she entered the debate today, drawing very much on consensus, although I was rather anxious that that seemed to be a little rocky as her speech continued. But no debate we have in your Lordships' House seems to be complete without my having to reiterate—and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is well aware of this—that NHS spending is at an all-time high. In the UK as a whole, we now spend over £100 million every day on the service. I do not wish to go further into that because the statistics are well known to your Lordships' House.
In conclusion, the Government want people to feel comfortable with their health service. This report must not just be the concern of professionals, but accepted by the majority of the people, for there are no simple solutions that can be codified in neat pieces of legislation. I very much appreciate the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Although we can all sympathise with those who demand clear laws for every eventuality, it is not possible. The Government wish to support the vast majority of the Select Committee's recommendations. But we also recognise the complexity of the task which they have to undertake.
As my noble friend Lord Alport has said, the Committee's work is of international importance. I would like to thank him not only for his subjective and thought-provoking contribution tonight, but also for the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who provoked your Lordships' House into setting up this Select Committee.
The Committee rightly starts from the very old fashioned premise that "thou shalt not kill". It continues by asking us how best we can be concerned for love of
1410
our fellow human beings. I am sure that those two foundations upon which this report is based will commend it to the people of this country.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it would neither be proper nor appropriate for me to detain your Lordships long in responding to this superb debate. I am deeply grateful for the generous comments which have been made by Members of the Committee, which I had the privilege to chair, and by other noble Lords on the contribution which I made to the work of the Committee leading to the publication of this report. As I said at the outset, I owe to the Members of the Committee a very great debt of gratitude for their support and expertise in helping me with what proved to be a demanding, but nevertheless enjoyable task—a commitment for which I shall always be grateful.
I have listened to this debate with very great care. It would be quite impossible for me to comment—indeed it would not be proper for me to comment—on all the contributions which have been made. I can only say that in my view it has demonstrated, in the sensitivity, depth and understanding of the contributions, the work of this House at its very best. I wholly appreciate the sincerity of the views put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who wished that we had come to the conclusion that it would be proper to legalise voluntary euthanasia. I do not intend to rehearse again the arguments which I put at the opening of this debate giving the reasons why in the end we rejected that option, even though we recognised the force of some of the arguments put forward by those who proposed that it should be so legalised.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for interjecting into this serious and sensitive debate what might be regarded by some as a light-hearted contribution. Only recently I was privileged to attend a meeting that was attended by many disabled people suffering from neuro-muscular diseases, a group of conditions in which I have had a lifelong medical interest. The chairman of the meeting was faced with a very aggressive and unfortunately brutal questioner in the front row who asked some very inappropriate questions. In the end, in the presence of a very large number of chronically disabled people, he asked, "What is your view, chairman, of euthanasia?", the implication being that it was to be regarded as an option for severely and chronically disabled people. The chairman had a flash of inspiration and said, "When we have enough problems with youth in the United Kingdom, I do not think that we should be concerned with youth in Asia". That was his response. It certainly dealt with the questioner very effectively.
I should like to put on record how sensitive I found the contributions of the most reverend Primate in dealing with the moral issues and in being so precise when dealing with the question of personhood. He and his colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford endorsed the double effect, as described in our report, a concept so helpfully clarified by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I was delighted by what was

1411
said about the hospice movement and the crucial importance of supporting its development and the work that it spreads out into the community. I was delighted to hear the support for that also from the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe. Naturally, however, as the Minister will recognise, we were all a little disappointed that she was not able to be more encouraging about resources for the hospice movement. While appreciating the amount of money that the Government have put into that and their work on research and education, we invite the Minister and her colleagues in the Department of Health to try just a little harder in that regard in the future.
I was also pleased to hear the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Liewelyn-Davies and Lady McFarlane, about the important and vital contribution of the other members of the healthcare team. This is not a matter affecting the medical profession only.
Perhaps I may say a few words about advance directives. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, can be reassured that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which we considered carefully, was not promoted by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. It contained several important safeguards for patients and doctors and was certainly no attempt to introduce the legalisation of euthanasia. It was a Bill which had principles which we commend, of allowing an individual who may at an earlier stage have been perfectly competent to specify the circumstances in which, if he subsequently became incompetent, he would not wish to have certain very invasive interventions.
We have commended such forms of advance directives, and like the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Jay, and the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, we would much prefer the present situation to continue, whereby advance directives are used as a guide to the medical profession. If they comply with directives that have been properly established and properly drawn up, members of the medical profession need have no fear that they are no more than a guide. Our belief is that their use should be hallowed increasingly by common law and not defined by statute because of all of the difficulties that have been exposed in the debate.
Perhaps I may respond to the helpful and supportive response of the Government, as so lucidly expressed first by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and then by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. We are grateful for the Government's general endorsement of the major principles of our report. I am delighted to know that the colleges of the healthcare professions have responded to our wish to see codes of practice relating to the definition of the persistent vegetative state and its management, and to advance directives, accepting of course that the Law Commissions in this country (in England and Wales and in Scotland) may come up with further proposals which we shall be required o discuss and examine in detail in due course. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, "brain death" situations were originally controversial, but the code of practice in relation to that has now been accepted
1412
generally by the public and by the healthcare professions at large. We hope that the same may ultimately arise in relation to the persistent vegetative state and its management.
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recognise that we were not persuaded by his comments about the mandatory life sentence for murder. As the most reverend Primate said, if Dr. Cox's patient had had a post mortem, the probability is that he would have been convicted not of attempted murder, but of murder. We appreciate, as the General Medical Council decided, that his action was seriously misguided. Nevertheless, it had a compassionate motive. No member of the committee 'would wish to see any reduction in society's condemnation of the deliberate heinous crime of murder; but we are concerned that there have been situations, we believe, where a family member, through compassion, may have ended the life of a loved one suffering from terminal and serious distress where the intention must surely have been to terminate that life, yet where the lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service amended the charge from one of murder to either attempted murder or manslaughter or accepted a plea of diminished responsibility. We believe that that As a compelling argument to invite the Government to look yet again in due course at the recommendation. We hope that the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues will consider that.
It has been a privilege to have chaired the Select Committee and to have listened to the debate this evening. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chiropractors Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational! Needs
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main document before the House today is the draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. Together with the draft code is a foreword which offers an explanation of the background to and status of the draft code. The third document in the package is the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994, which were also laid before Parliament on Wednesday 13th April. The regulations were included in the package for information, as they are subject to the negative procedure.
Sections 157 and 158 of the Education Act 1993 are concerned with the making and approval, of a code of practice. Section 157 says that the code should give practical guidance in respect of the discharge by local education authorities and the governing bodies of

1413
maintained or grant-maintained schools, or grant-maintained special schools, of their functions under this part of this Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is required to issue a draft code for consultation and then, if he sees fit to proceed with the draft, either in its original form or with such modifications as he thinks fit, to lay it before both Houses of Parliament. That is the stage we have now reached. If the draft code is to come into effect, it must be approved by resolution of each House.
The code of practice is an important document. The draft code aims to put flesh on the provisions of Part III of the Education Act 1993. It aims to set out a model of good practice which will help iron out inconsistencies around the country in the quality of provision for children with special educational needs and eradicate undue delays in identification of, and making of provision for, special educational needs.
In brief, the draft code proposes a staged model for assessment and provision for special educational needs. The first stages are school-based in recognition of the fact that the great majority of pupils with special educational needs do not need statements of special educational needs. The code recognises that there is a continuum of special educational needs and that there should be a similar continuum of special educational provision.
In the staged model, the draft code seeks to promote the effective assignment of responsibility for children with special educational needs. It allows scope for the proper use of judgment by schools and LEAs. It lays particular emphasis on the role of the mainstream school. The draft code also lays emphasis on partnership —between schools, LEAs, social services departments and district health authorities and between all those agencies and parents.
Much of the code's content represents existing good practice. It seeks to build upon the invaluable report of the Committee of Inquiry chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It reflects the principles embodied in the Education Act 1981. It also reflects lessons learnt since the passage of that Act. In offering comprehensive practical guidance drawn up in the light of that experience, I believe that the code will do a signal service to children with special educational needs and their parents.
In producing this draft code, we have benefited from the time and expertise of very many skilled and experienced people in the special educational needs world. The draft code emphasises partnership. It has been developed in that spirit. I must take this opportunity to pay the warmest tribute to all those who have helped us. We are most grateful to them.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education issued the consultative draft in October last year. Over 30,000 copies were distributed. There were over 1,000 written responses. In addition, Ministers and officials participated in many conferences and meetings. I particularly valued a meeting which I had with your Lordships' Ad hoc Group on Special Educational Needs, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
The consultative draft code was widely welcomed, subject to certain caveats, mostly but not exclusively, to do with the implications for teachers' time and workloads and for schools' and LEAs' resources. We took those issues and other points into account in revising the draft code. I know that many of your Lordships will be familiar with the consultative draft code. I will quickly run through the main changes that we have made.
First, we have added the foreword, as I have mentioned, to explain the legislative background and the status of the code; to emphasise our commitment to monitoring the code's impact; and to make important connections with other documents and the work of the SEN tribunal. We are particularly indebted to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, for suggesting this foreword. The foreword does not legally form part of the code itself. It could therefore be updated in the light of experience and subsequent developments.
There is an important change in Part 2 of the draft code. In response to representations made to us by schools in the consultation exercise, we have stripped away any unnecessary bureaucracy and concentrated on the main principles of a staged approach. We have stressed that schools will wish to have regard to the code in the light of their own particular circumstances. The three school-based stages now comprise the registration of concern and initial special measures at stage 1; the development of individual education plans at stage 2; and the involvement of outside specialists at stage 3. Nonetheless, it remains an obligation on schools to have regard to the code. While the code provides guidance designed to help schools fulfil their duties, they cannot ignore the code.
Part 2 also includes important new passages on the role of the health services and co-operation with the LEAs' special educational needs support services. The message here, as throughout the code, is on partnership.
In Part 3, we have not proposed any significant change to the time limits for assessments and making statements or to the criteria for deciding to make a statutory assessment. We have, however, sought to clarify the role of the named LEA officer. And here and in Part 4 we have, in response to concerns expressed by your Lordships, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), significantly developed the role of the named person, who will be able to offer independent advice to parents of children with special educational needs.
The revisions in Part 4 are in the nature of clarification, of, for example, the distinction between the objectives of a statement and the short-term targets to be set in the light of a statement and to be reviewed annually.
We have also sought to improve the guidance on speech and language therapy. Throughout, the code lays particular emphasis on partnership. Nowhere is such partnership more important than in meeting the deeds of children with speech and language difficulties. In order further to promote partnership in this field, the Department for Education and the Department for

1415
Health, will jointly make available a sum of £50,000 over the next few months to fund projects to maximise the use of speech therapists' time.
Those projects will focus, among other things, on developing and increasing the consultancy role of speech therapists working with schools and teachers. We expect the outcomes to be disseminated widely and to make a positive contribution to the co-operative working of the bodies responsible for the delivery of speech therapy.
Paragraph 4:47 addresses the requirement on LEAs to send to parents with the proposed statement complete lists of maintained schools in their area and of all non-maintained special schools and independent schools approved under the Act. I hope that that will fully meet the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and many others, during the passage of the legislation. My department and the Welsh Office Education Department will ensure that all LEAs are provided annually with an up to date and comprehensive list of non-maintained special schools and approved independent schools.
In Part 5 we have sought to import some of the principles of the staged approach; to recognise more fully the role of the health services in the identification of special needs in the under fives; and to recognise the substantial contribution of pre-school playgroups.
Part 6 likewise contains a number of clarifications and improvements, including encouragement to LEAs to avoid bunching of reviews of statements at one point in the school year; noting that the head teacher can delegate his or her functions; dropping the requirement to invite the Further Education Funding Council to the 14+ review, and introducing a requirement to invite the careers service to the 14+ review.
The foreword to the draft code lists the regulations and circulars which are relevant to matters covered in the code. I will not repeat the full list here, but I will mention the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994, which give statutory effect to the time limits for assessments and making statements. Those are the regulations appended to the draft code laid before your Lordships' House and will, subject to your Lordships' approval of the draft code, be published alongside the code. Those regulations are crucial to the achievement of an efficient and timely service to children with special educational needs and I believe that they will be workable if the code's guidance on their application is put into effect.
Your Lordships will also wish to be aware of the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1994, which are summarised in the code and will be enlarged upon in a separate circular. Those in effect require schools to adopt policies on special educational needs and report annually upon them. I regard those regulations, the development of schools' special educational needs policies and the accountability that that will entail as vital to the success of the code.
We are planning to publish along with the code a guide for parents. We should pay particular attention to make it an easy to read and easy to understand document, bearing in mind, of course, the complexity of the subject. The guide will explain the system of
1416
provision for special educational needs as set out in the legislation and the code of practice. It will help to embed the principle of partnership. The knowledge, views and experiences of parents are vital if effective provision is to be made for their children.
I turn now to the legal status of the code. The primary legislation provides that schools and LEAs must "have: regard" to the code. That means that, whenever schools., LEAs, the health service and social services take action on behalf of pupils with special educational needs, they must consider what the code says. They cannot ignore it. The decisions they reach will, of course, vary according to local circumstances. Some LEAs, for example, may adopt a four-stage model of assessment of special educational needs, but they should do so only after having considered the code and the principles of the staged approach which it embodies.
As the foreword explains, the effect of having regard to the code may vary according to circumstances and over time. Clearly one cannot expect all schools and LEAs to have undertaken a comprehensive study of the code and to have changed their procedures accordingly in September this year. But it is reasonable to expect them to have regard to the code from that point and to plan future action in the light of the code.
The independent special educational needs tribunal will also be under a duty to have regard to the code of practice. This will serve as an added incentive to LEAs to have regard to the code. But the tribunal will not. exercise a general oversight of LEAs' adherence to the code's provisions. The tribunal's task will be to consider appeals in cases where parents have exercised their right of appeal under the 1993 Act. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will have noticed the statement in the draft foreword:
"The Tribunal will expect LEAs to be able to justify any departure from the Code where such a departure was relevant to a decision in question".
We will be putting in place a battery of measures to monitor and evaluate the effect of the code of practice. Bodies such as Ofsted and the Audit Commission will play their part. We shall also discuss with the local authorities ways in which we can co-operate in the gathering of information and statistics and shall consider the case for commissioning research projects. We shall of course keep Parliament fully informed.
The impact of the code clearly depends upon the effectiveness of the procedures which we put in place for its dissemination and the preparation and training of those who will need to implement it. Together with the Council for Disabled Children, the National Children's Bureau, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office Education Department, we are planning a series of dissemination conferences which we hope will spawn many more conferences and seminars. We are making available substantial GEST funds for special educational needs, including £9 million directly to support the code. We will also be supporting the development of a variety of materials for in-service training of teachers generally, special educational needs co-ordinators in particular and for the training of governors.
The Government will not hesitate to seek the approval of your Lordships' House for any new code of

1417
practice in the light of evaluation, but I hope that we shall now have a period of stability in which those to whom the code applies can adapt their policies and practices. I commend the draft code to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blotch.)
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to give a warm welcome to the code of practice and to the regulations in their final form. It is a pleasure to be the first to do so. They are clearly an important step towards the entitlement of appropriate provision for children with educational special needs and their parents.
The code is overall excellent; it is well presented, easy to read and written in clear language. The table of contents and the index make it easy to find one's way around.
In turning to the details, I shall stick to the issues with which I was involved and which have been resolved thanks to many welcome amendments to the earlier versions of the code and regulations. I appreciate the Government's willingness to listen and to act upon comments and suggestions made by a number of us, including members of the ad hoc group referred to by the Minister. I wish to thank the Minister in particular for being so ready to meet, listen, talk and respond so positively.
I am pleased that under the code parents will from 1st September receive copies of all professional advice on their children's needs when the LEAs decide not to issue statements following assessments. Similarly, under regulations parents will receive copies of all professional reports obtained on their children when statements are reviewed.
I am delighted that the Government have amended the regulations to remove the gag which would have been placed on professionals, preventing them from giving their opinion on the type of provision suitable for a child with special needs as part of their formal assessment advice. Parents need to know what the professionals think, particularly now given the new parental right to state a preference for a type of school. So, three cheers to the Minister for this. I am also pleased to see that the amended code encourages professionals to share their advice with parents.
I welcome the fact that arrangements for a child's placement should be finalised by the beginning of the child's last term before transfer to a new school. That should solve the problem of the many children without a placement at the beginning of the school year because proposals for change of provision are made too late.
I shall not be too starry eyed over the code for a moment. Many of the changes which during the passage of the Bill I argued should be in primary legislation have materialised in the code. I am grateful for that. However, the code will not be as binding as the Act or the regulations and because of this I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on two counts.
1418
The first is that the Secretary of State will do all in his power to provide effective policing of the code and will state clearly in the guide to parents that he will investigate fully and vigorously any formal complaint made by parents under the Education Act 1944 when they believe that either their child's school or the LEA is ignoring the code. Page 12 of the guide states that parents can complain about the school but it does not state that firmly. I cannot find any statement anywhere that one can complain about the LEA.
Secondly, I would like reassurance that the Government will be prepared to bring forward amending legislation to transfer the duties to which I referred from the code to the regulations if it emerges that the code is proving too cumbersome or toothless to be of practical benefit to children or parents on these particular points.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on speech therapy, which is such an important area. The amended code is greatly improved in that it has, moved from stating who employs the therapists to what is the nature of the child's need. It also clearly states that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring provision rests with the LEA. The code cannot go further, but there is a great need to draw up guidelines on what constitutes educational and non-educational speech therapy. Certainly, AFASIC believes that. It will be very important to monitor just how the code works in practice in relation to the provision of speech and language therapy. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said about the money that is to be made available for that. I was also glad to hear how much importance she puts on monitoring.
All in all, the code is a very important milestone for children with special educational needs and their parents. As the helpful foreword clearly states, it,
"should also be a living document and should therefore be kept up-to-date in the light of experience".
That is very important.
I approve wholeheartedly of the code. I very much hope that it will enable children with special educational needs to acquire the education that they need to survive and flourish in a competitive world.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to associate myself wholly and without qualification with the glowing commendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). They are wholly merited. Indeed, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who chaired the ad hoc all-party committee on the drafting of the code. I had the privilege to serve under her. The committee was set up with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lady Blatch, with whom it was also a privilege to serve.
The code of practice is introduced by the Education Act 1993 as a means of implementation. It was your Lordships' House which on an all-party basis supported the Private Member's Bill, which my noble friend Lady Blatch took on board giving full effect to the spirit of that Bill in the 1993 Act. In the result, the Government have without doubt produced a far superior regime,

1419
conceived in the mould of partnership, to that proposed in the Private Member's Bill. That tinkered with the old regime by amendment to the 1981 Act. However, as a result of the 1993 Act, under which the code arises implemented by regulation, a totally fresh start has been made. A new tribunal has been set up to entertain appeals by parents to ensure that regard is had to the provisions of the code, as explained by my noble friend the Minister, which, in appropriate circumstances, must be implemented. But a degree of flexibility is always maintained and always retained. The status of the code is fully explained in the foreword in a wholly clear and satisfactory manner.
As I understand it, the code will be amended from time to time and will be reissued in the light of practical experience. In the meantime, specific aspects of anxiety —for example, clarification as to who is responsible for the provision of speech therapy, subject to the ultimate responsibility being on the LEA—may be covered by ministerial circulars.
In that context, I refer also to the issue of guidelines to which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, has just referred. I am afraid that there is still a shortage of speech therapists.
It is just not possible to give adequate credit for the shared toil and trouble taken by the Minister and her department in the drafting and presentation of this code. First, it is written in good, plain, clear English which is readily understandable by all concerned and, in particular, by the parents. The diagrams for time limits for making statements and assessments at page 48 and the charts which show the action involved at the three school-based stages of the stage model at pages 33 to 35 are indeed most useful. The narrative which takes in reference to statutory provisions and regulations affords an excellent and—perhaps I may say as a lawyer in this sphere—accurate basis for the exposition of main principle. There is a comprehensive table of contents indexed to paragraphs in the code which serves as an index.
As has already been said, the code is a milestone in our fresh approach to children with special educational needs. The Government may take just pride in that notable achievement. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Blatch will allow me to offer my sincere appreciation for her own spirited public service in that regard.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I find myself in almost total and rather boringly repetitious agreement with the two speakers who have preceded me. This very important document was produced in a spirit of co-operation. It has covered up many of the holes which were present in the provision of education for those with special educational needs. If such a spirit of co-operation were to continue, we should need far less time to discuss these matters in this Chamber as we should know exactly for what we were aiming and how we could achieve those aims.
The noble Baroness gave tremendous help to the ad hoc committee, in which I must admit I always felt I was something of a bit player, but to bask in reflected glory
1420
is better than to have no glory at all. The time and help that the noble Baroness gave helped enormously in regard to the production of this document.
I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. I am glad to see that dyslexia is at last officially recognised in a government circular. I am glad that the Government are moving forward towards recognising individual types of disability; and, indeed, they are listed in this document. I believe that that is a good step forward. If that attitude continues—that is, no longer talking about a whole but beginning to define it down to its parts—we shall solve many of the problems which occur in the very wide field of special needs education.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the code of practice which we are discussing this evening. I feel that I should take the opportunity to repeat just one regret which I mentioned during our debates on the 1993 Act, which is that it contains a presumption in favour of educating all special educational needs in an ordinary school unless the parents object strongly to that and maintain their objection. As I mentioned before, special educational needs is a very broad church, and as the father of a mentally handicapped child I feel sure that this presumption is misguided for mentally handicapped children. Indeed, since our debates last year, there is mounting evidence that mentally handicapped children may not always be accommodated in ordinary schools as comfortably as the authors of the policy hoped.
So with that view, the new tribunal is particularly welcome to parents such as myself who had a considerable battle to get their child accepted in a special residential school against the prevailing ideology of the local authorities and the social workers who wanted them to go to an ordinary school. And I would like to record my thanks, particularly to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his part in perhaps giving birth to the concept of the new tribunal.
Parents who want their children to go to a special residential school but who come up against the prevailing ideology which I have mentioned will find the tribunal particularly useful. However, there is one assurance about the tribunal's powers which I would seek from my noble friend this evening. As I understand it, the general policy is that children with statements of special educational needs should, subject to the wishes of their parents, be educated alongside their peers in mainstream schools so long as this would be compatible with the child receiving the special education provision that he or she needs, with the interests of other children already in the school and with the efficient use of resources.
It is with the last caveat that I seek my noble friend's help. It seems to me that a local authority might refuse, for example, a place in a residential special school chosen by parents on the grounds of efficient use of resources, whereas in fact its objection might he more on ideological grounds and its belief that it wishes to keep the pressure on to educate the child in an ordinary school. My question to my noble friend is: can she confirm that the new tribunal, in its consideration of

1421
such a hypothetical case, will be able to challenge a local authority's decision in that regard; that is, will the new tribunal be able to satisfy itself that the efficient use of resources argument, if advanced by a local education authority, is indeed a genuine one in the case under consideration?
With that small question, I join with others in congratulating my noble friend on and thanking her for the wisdom that she has shown in bringing this code as far as it has got at the moment.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I too should like to open by welcoming the draft code of practice and, in particular, I welcome the co-operative approach taken by the Department for Education in its writing.
So far as I am aware, the teachers' trade unions, the local authorities' representative associations and the Special Education Consortium, which itself represents some 140 organisations, have all commented favourably on the co-operation which they have received during the consultation period.
The fundamental principles of the draft code of practice are generally welcomed. They enshrine the existing good practice of a number of local education authorities and build on the concept of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, of a continuum of need, requiring a carefully staged response, recognising shared responsibilities between LEAs and schools.
However, I shall register a note of caution. It is doubtful whether any local education authority has implemented all aspects of the draft code, although it is likely that all elements are in operation somewhere. The DFE has chosen to develop those fundamental principles into a long and detailed code. Teachers, governors and LEA officers will need time to understand and implement its provisions. Paragraph 7 of the "Foreword" is helpful when it states that,
"it would be unrealistic to expect all schools to have in place on 1st September 1994 procedures matching those set out in the code's guidance. Schools thereafter are expected to plan their provision in the light of the code".
The Government must recognise that that leads to issues of teacher workload and school resources. It is ironic that the code, if approved by Parliament, will arrive in schools during the period of the failed 1994 national curriculum assessments. It will be a great pity if the code suffers the same fate as that first version of the national curriculum. The fact that there has not been a trial of the code of practice should make the DFE act with caution over its implementation. It should be ready to review the code without delay. The education system should not be subjected to another experiment like the national curriculum.
If noble Lords will forgive me, I should like to give a brief anecdote outlining the issue of resources. It concerns my local authority of Wandsworth. We have a primary school which has been earmarked for closure. The parents of children in that school have started removing them in advance of the school's closure. Teachers and council officers have found that reading
1422
standards in that school are beginning to rise. I believe that that has been attributed to the smaller class sizes. That helps all children but, in particular, it helps children who are at Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the code of practice scale. That shows that the general level of school funding will inevitably affect the extent to which the code of practice is brought into use.
In my opening remarks I broadly welcomed the draft code of practice and outlined some general concerns. However, I should now like to comment on some more specific concerns about various aspects of the code's implementation. As regards training, all the groups which have contacted me have highlighted the issue of training. All have said that the DFE will have to respond clearly to the training needs implicit within the draft code of practice if it is to work successfully.
The SEN co-ordinators in some schools, perhaps even in many, will have been appointed, but few will have the necessary skills to meet the demands of the code of practice. Moreover, schools' governors will need a far better knowledge and understanding of special educational needs to enable them to fulfil their duties in relation to their school's policies and practices in special educational needs. At the very least, funding should be provided through the 1995–96 GEST budget. I think that the noble Baroness alluded to that in her opening remarks. However, I believe that the DFE should give consideration to funding fully that training itself for a few years.
There has been an allusion to the monitoring of the implementation of the code of practice. Again, it is a second issue raised by all the groups which contacted me that are concerned with the production of the code of practice. Mr. Eric Forth, in evidence to the Select Committee, suggested that the code of practice will be monitored by parents, governors, LEA inspectors, Ofsted and the SEN Tribunal. Governors and LEAs may become more concerned with keeping spending within limits rather than the effective implementation of the code of practice. Ofsted will usually be in schools on a four-yearly cycle which is hardly sufficient to monitor the code of practice. That leaves parents and the SEN Tribunal to carry out the monitoring job. They will need help and I suggest that the DFE should do that by giving Ofsted a monitoring remit beyond providing schools with advice in the run-in period for the code of practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), mentioned language and speech therapy. It seems to be a perennial concern of those involved in special educational needs that there should be adequate liaison among local education authorities, health authorities, trusts and social services departments. I believe that there is a successful model in Scotland to call upon. The education authorities in Scotland receive funds from the Scottish office to buy speech and language therapy from the health authorities. I am told that that approach works. While the code of practice is, I am told, incapable of amendment at this stage, I hope that the Minister will realise the importance of resolving that issue.
There must be doubts about whether the local education authorities have sufficiently strong multidisciplinary support services to meet SENs at the

1423
enhanced level implied by the draft code of practice. Examples of the reductions in support services and specialist teachers abound. That, together with the trend towards smaller and unitary authorities in the English counties and in Wales, leads me to fear that there is a real danger that many LEAs will not have the breadth of support service provision to fulfil the intentions of the code of practice. Ad hoc joint boards, or some other arrangement, may have to be made for special education. But I would question whether that is the best background in which to operate the code of practice.
I should like to conclude by reiterating that I believe that the code of practice is a good document. The shortfalls to which I have alluded by no means outweigh the correctness of the code's general approach. We welcome the code of practice.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for what now appears to be a universal acceptance of what I believe to be a most important piece of work. I should like to add to my noble friend's comments and pay a tribute to work done by my officials in the department. They have worked with great sensitivity and great professionalism; indeed, they have undertaken some very painstaking work as regards the code of practice which has enabled me to bring it before the House and my right honourable friend to do so in the other place.
I. turn now to some of the individual points that were made during the course of the debate. I should like, first, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for the very generous comments that she made and to refer to one or two of her concerns. She mentioned the effective policing of the code. I believe that I probably made it clear in my opening statement that that would be a most important part of the process. We shall involve Ofsted, the Audit Commission, and there will be special studies. Indeed, I promise also that we will keep Parliament fully involved.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the complaints system and referred to parents making complaints. She said that she hoped that any complaint that was brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be taken seriously. I can say that any complaint which makes its way to my right honourable friend will be taken seriously. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me that the establishment of a code will mean that complaints will not find their way to my right honourable friend's desk. It is important to do what we can to encourage effective partnership as regards all the agencies. However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, there is a reference on page 12 of the code to a gateway to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. If that is used, we shall ensure that parents' views are taken most seriously.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the fact that the complaint only refers to teaching and she wanted to know the position as regards the LEAs. In addition to what I have already said in the course of my statement today. I should like to point out that the system is very much more transparent now. It is not possible for an
1424
LEA not to honour its obligations either under the Act or having regard to the code without notice. There will be the annual inspections of at least one-quarter of the schools every year so that the Ofsted registered inspectors will be visiting and revisiting schools every four years, together with the special studies that we are carrying out and the feedback of information which we shall receive from the monitoring system. Therefore, we shall be able to pick up very quickly where local authorities are not honouring their obligations under the code. Moreover, because we have put a time limit on the time during which the statements have to be dealt with, it is to be hoped that any delay in that respect will come to light.
There was also a reference to speech therapy. That is an important point that was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. The code is clear as regards the responsibilities of the health service. Local authorities may expect the health service to provide a speech therapy service and of course local education authorities have ultimate responsibility for making special educational provision but they can still look to the National Health Service to provide. Again I think all noble Lords realise that there is a crossover here—sometimes it may be a teaching and sometimes it may be a non-teaching provision. But the important thing is that there is effective partnership to make sure that the particular needs of a child are properly met.
The Act contains, after extensive consultation, a duty on the National Health Service to co-operate with local authorities. This, of course, is qualified. We cannot, nor can we expect, LEAs to dictate medical judgment of use of National Health Service moneys. But again, permeating the whole of this Act and the code of practice are the needs of the child, particularly those children who need special speech therapists. We are now putting aside money to help to make those partnerships more effective and to make sure that the partnerships between the local authorities, the schools and the speech therapy service work more. effectively.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his complimentary remarks. We were all pleased to see dyslexia mentioned by name in the code. There are two points here. First, there is a very large number of young people who are affected by dyslexia. It often underpins under-performance of children in school. Because the whole force behind both the code of practice and Section 3 of the Act is early identification, that is important. But the other important point to make about the naming of dyslexia and one or two other conditions (and I have in mind a condition such as autism) is that we must remember that this is not an inclusive list. What we are talking about is meeting the needs of all children irrespective of their particular condition. We are talking about meeting the needs of all children with special needs.
It is appropriate that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway should remind us where this all started. It all started with his Bill and I am delighted that we have not only subsumed his Bill but have, I believe, gone further. I thank him for his generous comments tonight. He has been relentless in pursuing all his concerns and I think the code is the better for it. I shall return to the point

1425
made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), about complaints to the Secretary of State. I should put it on record that the purpose of the guide, like the code, is to promote partnership and the amicable resolution of problems and differences between the key agents. As I have said, there is a reference on page 12 to parents' rights to complain to the Secretary of State, and there is a clear introduction to the tribunal. There will also be a leaflet for parents which, as I said, will be as user friendly as it possibly can be. It would be helpful to know whether the noble Baroness is satisfied with that response and if she is prepared—as I hope we all are now—to allow this code to go forward. We can adjust the foreword at any time if we believe it needs adjusting, and we can come before both Houses of Parliament by means of a simple measure in order to adjust the code. However, I think it is important to have some period of stability to see that the code is working and so that we obtain a body of evidence to underpin any changes rather than chop and change. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the importance of a period of stability.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch again returned to the whole vexed issue of integration. I can tell my noble friend that it will be possible for the tribunal to question and to challenge where a local authority prays in aid expenditure or the cost of a provision. It will be absolutely essential for that to be taken into account but also for it to be justified. I can give my noble friend that assurance. What at the end of the day is absolutely essential is that parents make a preference; that there is a presumption in favour of that preference; and that it will be for the local authority to justify why it does not meet that preference if it goes before the tribunal. But the tribunal's prime responsibility in all of this is to make sure that the provision that is made at the end of the day, following a determination, is wholly consistent with the needs of a child with special needs. I hope that that is helpful to my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, was concerned about implementation and made references to the difficult implementation in the early days of the national curriculum. There is no comparison here. What we are talking about here is a code of practice that encodes good practice. There are local authorities out there working very well, and this codifies that good
1426
practice. We have gone further than that and firmed it up where necessary. We have said that there will be funding for training. We recognise that. We have said that we will put money aside for developing effective partnerships. We have recognised the importance of training for co-ordinators. We will use the cascading system, where people are trained and become the trainers within the system. That will be important.
However, the noble Lord seemed to misunderstand the code when he talked about leaving monitoring to parents, children and teachers themselves. I think I have made it clear that the monitoring will be through Ofsted, the Audit Commission, and will no doubt also receive enormous feedback from the annual registered inspections of a quarter of our schools every single year. So we will know from 25 per cent. of our schools just how this code is working.
The noble Lord made an important point about unitary authorities and the transition from two-tier authorities to unitary authorities. That is an important point and it is important that that is taken into account when the changes are made. I believe the noble Lord's party supports unitary authorities and indeed supports the smaller authorities—the district authorities—be-coming unitary authorities. But it is also important that, when the Local Government Commission—this is part of its obligation and its remit —advocates unitary status for an authority, it must make sure that all the services and all the obligations, and certainly all the statutory obligations, are properly catered for by the receiving authority. Sometimes that will mean working cooperatively with other local authorities.
I hope that I have been able to answer all the questions which have been raised. If I have not I will of course write to noble Lords. The code of practice is a major new departure. It marks the Government's determination to secure a fair deal for children with special educational needs and to ensure that they fulfil their educational potential and subsequently take their place as productive and fully integrated members of society. I believe that the code will be seen as a landmark in special educational needs policy, that it will be widely welcomed and that it will be a success. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.

  DISABLED RAMP, ROYAL COURT: COST
  DISABLED RAMP, ROYAL COURT: COST
  BRITISH LIBRARY: FINAL PHASE CONTRACT
  BRITISH LIBRARY: FINAL PHASE CONTRACT
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES: ABSORPTION TESTS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES: ABSORPTION TESTS
  NANCEKUKE AND MAFF
  NANCEKUKE AND MAFF
  OFFENDERS IN SECURE TRAINING CENTRES: FAMILY VISITS
  OFFENDERS IN SECURE TRAINING CENTRES: FAMILY VISITS
  PRISONERS' RECORDS: COMPUTER LINKAGE
  PRISONERS' RECORDS: COMPUTER LINKAGE
  PRISONERS: POLICE ACCESS TO INFORMATION
  PRISONERS: POLICE ACCESS TO INFORMATION
  PRISONERS: NATIONAL INSURANCE INFORMATION
  PRISONERS: NATIONAL INSURANCE INFORMATION
  Ms JOSEFINA PEDERE
  Ms JOSEFINA PEDERE
  GUY'S AND ST. THOMAS' HOSPITALS: CATCHMENT AREAS
  GUY'S AND ST. THOMAS' HOSPITALS: CATCHMENT AREAS
  US FORCES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AREA
  US FORCES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AREA
  D-DAY COMMEMORATION
  D-DAY COMMEMORATION
  GULF TRUST FUND
  GULF TRUST FUND
  UN REGISTER OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS: UK RETURN
  UN REGISTER OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS: UK RETURN
  IRAN: MURDER OF BAHA'I
  IRAN: MURDER OF BAHA'I
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: EFFECTS OF NEW ACCESSIONS
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: EFFECTS OF NEW ACCESSIONS
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: COMMON DEFENCE POLICY
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: COMMON DEFENCE POLICY
  UN PEACEKEEPING: COST OF UK MILITARY PARTICIPATION
  UN PEACEKEEPING: COST OF UK MILITARY PARTICIPATION