Sitting of 22 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Live Animals (Export)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.4 am
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am delighted to have secured this important Adjournment debate on the transportation of live animals, but before I begin my speech, I am sure that the whole House would join me in sending our best wishes to our Prime Minister in Belfast this morning as he takes part in that vital initiative.
  Animal welfare is of great concern to many of our citizens, who have been genuinely distressed by some of the scenes of cruelty to animals in the process of live transportation that they have witnessed. It is therefore important that this matter be discussed in detail in Parliament, so that the facts may be clearly presented and argued.
  Although it is an emotive and complex issue, I hope that we can debate the matter in a dispassionate and reasonable manner; in a broadsheet rather than a tabloid fashion. I hope that we can reach a clear view of the way forward, and that we can balance the understandable desires of our farmers to supply a real demand for live meat on the continent with the need to have the highest possible levels of animal welfare; that we can balance our needs as a meat-eating species to raise animals for slaughter with our responsibility to be wise and caring stewards of all other creatures; and, finally, that we can balance the need to support the dairy industry and the livelihoods of our farmers with widespread public concern about animal welfare.
  On Saturday night, at Millbay docks in Plymouth, two cattle lorries arrived and boarded a privately chartered ferry bound for the continent. The lorries carried calves and sheep, and came from farms throughout the south of England. Standing at the gates of Millbay docks with banners, 200 to 300 people were shouting and screaming their protests as the lorries swept through. The police were there in force to ensure that the protesters did not prevent the lorries from entering the docks.
  Once inside the docks, the cattle and sheep were inspected by the vet who accompanied them on their entire journey. They were inspected by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials, and by representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, all of whom gave the cattle and sheep a clean bill of health. Once inspected, the lorries boarded the ship, and the ship left.
  264
  I recently visited Millbay docks, and spoke to the vet and RSPCA representatives, who confirmed their opinion that the sheep and cattle were not in distress. Yet many of the protesters were in tears; many were simply angry. They are an embodiment of an outpouring of concern that has grown from all corners of our society.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my hon. Friend able to assist me by reconciling the view of the chairman of the Sussex police authority in my area, who calls this trade barbaric, and thinks that it should be stopped, with the view expressed by his colleague, the Liberal Democrat agriculture spokesman in this place, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who described the activities of protesters as "naive, hysterical and counterproductive"?
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important that we approach this issue from a consistent position, and that, wherever possible, we say the same thing.
  I ask myself, who are the demonstrators? Some are retired civil servants, some are teachers, some are housewives, some are students. Most of them care genuinely about the welfare of animals, and are prepared to stand in the cold and the rain night after night to make their protests. That picture is repeated almost daily all over the country. Many people want to stop the export of live animals from the United Kingdom to the continent for slaughter. They believe it to be a cruel and unnecessary practice. They care, they are committed and they are to be respected for their compassion and their concern.
  Some of the people at the demonstrations have a different motivation. They are members of Class War or the Animal Liberation Front, and are there to cause trouble and pursue their own agenda, whatever that might be. I shall say more about them later, but the first question that I want to explore this morning is: why do we not ban the export of live animals, which causes so much distress to some many people?
  The first reason is a legal one. Article 36 of the treaty of Rome—with its clause allowing restrictions on imports and exports on the grounds of public morality, public policy or the protection of the life and health of animals—is not applicable, because there is an existing EC directive on animal welfare standards. That EC directive does not deal adequately with the provision for feeding, watering, journey times and other matters, but it exists, and it prevents any member state from taking unilateral national action.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is making an eminently sensible contribution to the debate, and I am sure that many of us support what he has said. Will he condemn the actions of his hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who deliberately set out to destroy the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)? Will the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) condemn the actions of his hon. Friend, who prevented Parliament from dealing with an issue that the great majority of people in this country wanted to be addressed?
  Mr. Streeter: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's comments. At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should address the issues, not in tabloid terms, but objectively and sensibly. I refute what the hon. Gentleman said.

  265
  If we were to proceed with a ban on exports, the European Commission would take the United Kingdom Government to the European Court of Justice to have such a unilateral ban swiftly reversed. In the meantime, UK farmers would rightly claim for compensation against our Government for damages suffered as a consequence of unlawful action. It is simply not an option.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for missing the opening moments of his speech.
  Surely, if the Government were prepared, unilaterally, to institute a ban, it could be tested in the European Court. There is a body of opinion which says that, as European law is untested in many spheres, that would be a worthwhile step. At least the Government could then say that they had done their best, but were overturned by the European Court. At present, the Government seem to stand between the people and the European Court, frustrating the wishes of the people of this country.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Government have had the benefit of legal advice from the best legal minds in the country. Were I asked to choose between the hon. Gentleman's legal opinion and that of the best legal minds in the country, I would go with the latter every time.
  The same is true of veal crates as of banning exports. We fought hard in 1990 and 1991 to impose a Communitywide ban on veal crates when formulating the EC directive on the subject. However, the European Union adopted a lesser measure in 1991. Our Government secured a provision allowing member states to adopt stricter standards.
  We chose to adopt stricter standards, and effectively—and rightly—banned veal crates from our shores. It is cruel and unacceptable to keep a calf in a crate in which it cannot turn around or groom itself. But it is not possible to ban the export from the UK of calves that end up in veal crates. An existing EC directive covers the matter, and such a measure would be doomed to failure. It is simply not possible to ignore the legal realities and seek a unilateral ban, however much Opposition Members might object.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Was my hon. Friend encouraged to see Brigitte Bardot demonstrating in Paris and attacking the French Government for their poor, but improving, attitude? Would it not help the important cause of animal welfare if Brigitte Bardot or her equivalents did the same in Greece, Spain and other countries, thus providing better support for the excellent attitudes of this country and our Government?
  Mr. Streeter: Unlike my predecessor in the House, I do not know Brigitte Bardot personally.
  Madam Speaker: Pity.
  Mr. Streeter: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has anticipated later sections of my speech on the importance of approaching the problem Europewide, and mobilising public opinion throughout Europe, so that standards of animal welfare throughout Europe become as high as they are in this country.
  266
  It is likely that measures banning or restricting the export of calves would constitute an unacceptable interference with the operation of the common agricultural policy as it affects the market for beef and veal.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the legality of a ban. Perhaps he will support me in asking the Minister to place the legal advice in the House of Commons Library so that we can look at it. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked the Minister to do that, but the Minister refused.
  Mr. Streeter: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not disclose their legal advice, or even whether they have taken legal advice from a certain source. I see no reason to change that convention in this case.
  My first question was whether it would be possible, legally, to ban the export of live animals and veal calves. It is not. My second question is: even if the ban of the export of live animals were legal and possible, would it be desirable? What would be the result of such a ban? Surely our concern should be for animals everywhere, not just restricted to our shores.
  If our farmers, employing decent standards, were not able to supply the demand in southern European states, someone else would. Let us be under no illusions—it would almost certainly be the east European nations, which raise animals in far worse conditions than we do. That would set back the cause of animal welfare by decades. Fewer sheep and cattle would be produced in the United Kingdom, where we have decent standards and transport animals in humane conditions. More sheep and cattle would be produced elsewhere, in poorer conditions, and transported under lower welfare standards.
  Such a ban would not help the cause of animal welfare, but diminish it. There is nothing intrinsically cruel about transporting animals in a lorry. I draw upon my experience of being brought up on a dairy farm. I have been surrounded by sheep and cattle all my life—nothing changes.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman develops his interesting speech, he will comment on the air transport of live animals. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, an animal rights campaigner in my constituency was recently killed. It is an emotive subject. The vast majority of animal rights campaigners are decent people, but there is always a minority of troublemakers. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on air transport, particularly in relation to noise levels and how they affect residents living in areas such as mine in Willenhall in Coventry?
  Mr. Streeter: I shall talk about the demonstrators in a moment. I see no significant difference between transporting cattle and sheep in a lorry and other forms of transportation, provided the same standards apply. I have not inspected the aeroplanes in which those cattle are transported, so I have less knowledge of that. I am satisfied by what at I see at Millbay docks in Plymouth that such transportation is not intrinsically cruel.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman says that we should participate in the trade because, if we do not, others—perhaps from eastern

  267
  Europe—may do so, and do so cruelly. But the reason that we have a law banning veal crates in this country is because they are cruel, immoral and unacceptable.
  If the hon. Gentleman says that we should transport animals to a state that is cruel, immoral and unacceptable because we want to make profits rather than let others do so, does not his argument undermine the basis of law in this country, which bans that cruelty? The hon. Gentleman cannot say that we should allow animals to enter such a state simply because we would rather make the profits rather than allow someone else to do so.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me in his long speech. If he will be patient, I shall deal with that precise point in a moment.
  Provided that the appropriate conditions are in place and are monitored effectively, the journey to the slaughterhouse need not cause distress. In January, the Government introduced even tougher restrictions on our farmers, which require each exporter to comply with an approved journey plan. If we withdraw from the debate and seek to impose a unilateral ban, irrespective of the legal consequences that would follow, we would surely lose our voice in Europe on the issue just when people are beginning to listen to us about animal welfare.
  I believe that the decision by the Council of Ministers last night to discuss the issue again in a month shows that people are beginning to fall in behind us on the issue, and that there is a real chance that progress will be made. For those reasons, I simply do not believe that a general ban on exports—if it were legal—would help the cause of animal welfare generally, and it would not be desirable.
  I am bound to ask what impact a general ban on live exports would have on the dairy industry. Male calves are an unavoidable by-product of the dairy industry. We cannot ignore the laws of nature: a dairy cow will produce the milk from which we derive our dairy products only if she has a calf each year. Farmers must do something with male calves.
  It would be convenient to believe that they could be sold for veal in the United Kingdom, but the domestic market is simply too limited. If farmers are left to fatten calves for beef, a huge increase in the amount of beef on the market would destabilise the farming industry and the common agricultural policy.
  Farmers could be forced to slaughter calves within days of their birth—I think that that is a strange argument to come from people who are concerned about animal welfare—but that would be an unaffordable expense for farmers unless they were subsidised by public money for every calf slaughtered. There is no doubt that an immediate ban would threaten the economic viability of our dairy industry, to no avail. UK farmers would pay the price, animals would not benefit and eastern European farmers would laugh all the way to the bank.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Such a ban was imposed by the Conservative Government in 1974, and in 1975 the then Labour Government reversed that decision. Does my hon. Friend have any idea why Labour Members now suggest that the policy should be changed to reverse their original decision?
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said earlier, it is important that hon. Members do not play to the gallery, but have the courage of their convictions on the issue.
  268
  Some of those who are protesting at Millbay docks and elsewhere are vegans and vegetarians. They do not eat meat themselves, and they do not wish to see others eat meat. They represent about 5 per cent. of the population of this country. Joyce DeSilva and Peter Stevenson of Compassion In World Farming are strong vegans. I respect that, but it is not right that people who have such an unnatural agenda should seek to impose their views on the rest of us.
  I do not need to debate the morality of eating meat. I have no moral qualms about it and I am joined in that view by more than 90 per cent. of the population. If the vegans and vegetarians had their way, there would be no dairy industry at all in this country, which would devastate our economic and rural landscape. It is a dangerous agenda, and we should firmly reject it.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present to hear the earlier part of his speech. On his last point, it is true that the vast majority of those who are demonstrating against the export of veal calves eat meat themselves. I see nothing wrong with that. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that we have a responsibility to treat animals decently while they are being prepared for the table, and to kill them painlessly, instead of allowing them to spend six months of living hell in a veal crate?
  Mr. Streeter: Obviously my hon. Friend did not hear the first part of my speech, which was devoted entirely to that very point.
  I have dealt with the fact that the vast majority of demonstrators are genuine, decent people, and I have paid a great tribute to them. However, some of the protesters are not nice people. Some extremists, whose primary concern is to disrupt society, have jumped on the bandwagon. Some of that group claim to care about animal welfare, but they show a complete disregard for human life, which gives the lie to their claims.
  I shall refer to some brief extracts from recent newspaper reports. An article by Emma Wilkins, which appeared in The Times of 4 February 1995, said:
  "Animal-rights demonstrations at ports and airports are being infiltrated by violent militants intent on criminal activity, a senior police officer said yesterday.
  Mick Brewer, acting Deputy Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police, said that the peaceful protests at Coventry airport against the export of veal calves had been sabotaged by activists who had their own aims.
  'I think it is clear that we are seeing an influx of criminally minded people who are operating off the back of a peaceful demonstration,' Mr. Brewer said. `After the tragic accident, our officers began to notice new faces in the crowd at the airport. Their technique is often to hide behind the peaceful demonstrators and egg them on'.
  Mr. Brewer has discussed the policing of demonstrations with his opposite number at Devon and Cornwall Police. Violence has broken out at Plymouth docks. 'I think we are being targeted by the same type of individuals,' Mr. Brewer said".
  An article from The Sunday Times of 8 January 1995 by Mark Christy and Andrew Alderson, contains an interview with Michelle Ratcliffe, 27. She is
  "a self-styled black Boadicea of the anarchist movement, is typical of the hard-core elements who have hijacked the demonstration for political motives and who have left respectable protesters"—
  the people about whom my hon. Friend is concerned—

  269
  "questioning their own involvement. 'These animals are being tortured,' she said. 'We are tooled up with baseball bats and other weapons and are prepared to defend them'.
  Ratcliffe conceded, however, that she and her companions from the Justice Department, the anarchic group, were 'not particularly concerned about the animals. We are here to fight for social justice … I'm so angry with what's happening here I would kill the police to achieve our ends'.
  Ratcliffe, who travelled from her home in Brixton, south London, with Stu Johnson, 24, her white, dread-locked boyfriend, has protested previously"—
  this will be no great surprise to my hon. Friends—
  "against the poll tax, the Criminal Justice Bill and new roads. Many of the protests have culminated in violence. 'We like to steam in and sabotage a bit. The police are indiscriminately beating people up, and we are not just going to stand there and take it. We fight back,' says Ratcliffe … 'There are more of us now so the police will get trashed'".
  They are not nice people. A very sinister picture is beginning to emerge from some of the demonstrations. We must not be deflected by violent extremists who are seeking to hijack the issue. The rule of law, not mob rule, must prevail in this nation.
  I pay tribute to the police, who have done a tremendous job in protecting those who seek to go about their lawful trade. In so doing, the police express no opinion about the export of animals. Individual officers may be for or against it, but the police will protect any person equally against any assailant. I find it deeply reassuring that in this country, even in the face of the most ferocious attack, one person will always come forward to help—the uniformed policeman.
  Some irresponsible voices have said that the police should not prevent the demonstrators from stopping the export of animals, or that farmers should pay the cost of deploying the police. But that is a very dangerous road to tread. If law-abiding citizens must pay the police for protection in going about their lawful business, the police force will become nothing more than a privatised security force which protects the interests of the highest bidder.
  The police are a neutral force, who look to preserve public peace by safeguarding the laws of this country. If demonstrations were peaceful and non-threatening, there would be no need for such a heavy police presence. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the export of live animals, the outcome must be determined according to the rule of law.
  What can we do? I hope that I have shown that it is neither possible nor wholly desirable to ban the export of live animals from the United Kingdom. It would not improve the cause of animal welfare as a whole. It is also clear that it is simply not possible to ban the export of calves to the veal crate trade, much though I would like to see that happen.
  Nonetheless, there is a clear way forward. We must shift the focus of attention away from unilateral action in the United Kingdom, and mobilise public opinion throughout Europe in favour of wider measures in support of animals. That is the greater prize that is within our grasp: to see standards of animal welfare in Spain, Greece, Italy and elsewhere throughout the Community brought up to the high standards of animal welfare here.
  We must do two things to achieve that aim. First, we must maintain and increase pressure on member states through the institutions of the European Union. That is
  270
  why I welcome the diplomatic mission upon which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has recently embarked. She is going from capital to capital throughout the continent, seeking to persuade her European colleagues that the veal crate trade should be abolished. I can think of no one more persuasive or better qualified to lead that charge than my hon. Friend.
  I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to state what progress my hon. Friend has made in her challenging and worthwhile mission.
  Mr. Robert Key: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not just doing that. She is also calling a conference on Friday of farmers and retailers of veal to encourage the development of a new market for veal in this country, so that our farmers can get the added value, instead of those involved in transport and foreign rearers.
  Mr. Streeter: There is no limit to the initiatives being produced my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in support of British farmers and the cause of animal welfare throughout the EU. She deserves our congratulations, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister on his success in moving the question of veal crates up the Euro-agenda. Whereas the matter was due to be discussed in 1997 by the Council of Ministers, it is very much to my right hon. Friend's credit that the matter has been discussed this year, and that positive steps are being taken.
  I understand that the Commission has already started work on a scientific report on the directive on the welfare of calves, which is the first stage of the Council's veal crate provisions. Let us hope that that scientific report recommends the banning of this trade. It would be an enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend's efforts if the veal crate trade could be abolished throughout Europe in the next 12 months.
  It is also vital that the Government continue to press our European colleagues to adopt stricter feeding and watering intervals, the licensing of hauliers—with provisions for disqualificatvion—and a journey limit for animals travelling to slaughter. While it was disappointing that no resolution could be found on the matter at the Council this week, I would be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend what progress has been made.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Is it not a fact that, if the shadow spokesman for agriculture, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), held the position of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, he would find himself in an identical situation to that of my right hon. Friend? At least the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East understands that position, having been—unlike many of his colleagues, including those on the Front Bench—in both government and opposition.
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) says in his speech that he entirely accepts my right hon. Friend's position.
  It may well be that the introduction of proper welfare standards in the transportation of animals throughout Europe will not be achieved in the short term, but it is a much more valuable prize than any unilateral action could ever be. I am certain that it is the right way forward. One of the reasons why a pan-European approach would be so

  271
  effective is that, as more countries join the European Union in the future, so they will have to comply in full with the stringent requirements on animal welfare. That means that an ever-increasing number of animals would be brought within the better conditions.
  The enforcement of EC directives—we in the south-west know that that is difficult—is only achievable on a Communitywide basis. We have all been horrified by the videos of what goes on in some slaughterhouses in Spain and Greece, and those are already in contravention of EC directives. A far greater emphasis on enforcement must he given by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend might mention in his speech the question of enforcement.
  Many of us criticise the institutions of the European Union—I think, often with good cause—but here is a situation where the machinery of state of the European Union can be put to good use to produce a Communitywide solution which we could not possibly achieve on our own.
  In preparing my speech, I have recognised how restricted we are in taking our own decisions in agricultural policy; but this is perhaps one of the areas in which membership of the European Union can be used to our advantage. Who knows—we might even be able to use qualified majority voting to force the southern European nations to come to heel.
  The final way to tackle the issue is by an extension of people power. Attention drawn to the issue of animal exports by demonstrators has unleashed a powerful surge of public concern in this country. It is now time for that concern and energy to be harnessed in the most effective way. It is time to take the protests to Europe. I call on the lobby groups involved in the battle to mobilise public concern throughout Europe, and to take the arguments to Europe in a lawful and peaceful way.
  If there are to be demonstrations, let them be in Brussels and Strasbourg, or outside the slaughterhouses of Greece and Spain. Let letters of protest be written to the Italian and Portuguese Members of Parliament. It is time that the European Parliament, and its ruling party, took a closer interest in this subject, and started applying pressure wherever it can. Let it be a voice for change within Europe. Here is an issue on which the European Parliament can make a positive name for itself.
  In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all he has done in furthering the cause of animal welfare. I seek assurances that he will continue his crusade to improve welfare and standards throughout Europe by putting pressure on other Council Ministers and institutions.
  I call upon all those who are genuinely interested in the subject of animal welfare—not the extremists and anarchists, but genuine people—to lift their sights and take their arguments to Europe. They must seize the greater prize which lies within our grasp; not a unilateral action, which would be so unproductive, but a secure future for the welfare of animals across the whole of Europe, once and for all.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. There is obviously a great deal of interest in this subject, and that is very good. May I appeal to Members now to speak for about 10 or 12 minutes, so I may call as many as possible?
  10.36 am
  Mr. Eric Martlew: May I first declare that I am not a vegetarian? I worked for 21 years in the dairy industry, and I am qualified as a dairying chemist, so I do know a little about the industry.
  I was a little disturbed by the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), because he seemed to be saying that there is nothing we can do about the matter, that it is all to do with Europe. The first person to say something like that was Pontius Pilate.
  I am glad at last to have the opportunity to speak on the transportation of calves, because I want to talk about calves which are sent to the veal crates. I believe that that needs to be stopped, and I believe that this country could do it.
  Unfortunately, the only thing which has been stopped so far is my Protection of Calves (Export) Bill, which was due to be given Second Reading on 3 February. The Bill was blocked by the cynical methods of the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), whom I am glad to see in his place, and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), whom I am glad to see sitting behind the Minister of Agriculture. It is my understanding that the hon. Gentleman is the Minister's parliamentary private secretary. I do not wish to dwell on that matter.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman said that he was solely addressing the issue of calves. Is he not addressing the issue of sheep and other livestock exports?
  Mr. Martlew: My view is that there is a clear argument for this country to institute a unilateral ban on the transportation of calves, and we have a legal right to do that. It would be more difficult to do that with regard to sheep or other cattle.
  Hon. Members should realise that we have taken unilateral action in the past. Four years ago, there was an outcry about the transportation of horses for slaughter, and some 250,000 letters were written to the then Minister of Agriculture. The outcry was such that we banned the transportation. No one said that it was illegal, but we found an excuse, and we banned it. That went against all the concepts of free trade.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman unequivocally confirm that his private Member's Bill has the full and public support of his own Front-Bench team?
  Mr. Martlew: I am sure that they will reply to that. My understanding is that their views are similar to mine. Doubtless they are in favour of banning the transportation of calves destined for veal crates.
  I shall not dwell on the behaviour of certain Members of Parliament on the occasion in question—[Interruption.]—or on the antics of the Tory yob element today. It is enough to say that their behaviour did no credit to this House.
  As for my reasons for wanting to ban exports of calves to the continent: in 1994 we exported 500,000 calves, mainly to the veal crate system.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has on a number of occasions levelled accusations of filibustering at us, and

  273
  has just described us as "the yob element". Surely that cannot be in order, the more so as he will not give way to us to allow the truth of the matter to be told.
  Madam Speaker: I think that temperatures in this House are rising too high at this time of the morning. This is an important issue; I want it to be debated properly. If there are a lot of interventions, hon. Members will not be called—it is as simple as that. Hon. Members should therefore use a little common sense and allow Members to speak for 10 or 12 minutes. That way, they will all be called.
  Mr. Martlew: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Most of the calves that we exported in 1994 were destined for veal crates, a system banned in this country in 1990, although the regulations went through the House in 1987.
  The fact is that this is a relatively new trade, and the idea that the dairy industry would be devastated without it is incorrect. In 1986, we exported fewer than 200,000 calves. The dairy industry has simply taken advantage of the high prices on the continent.
  We banned the trade in 1990 because it was cruel. We decided that it cannot be right to incarcerate young calves for five months in a system that does not allow them to turn around or lie down. They are fed an unnatural diet, kept in semi-darkness and often tethered, before being slaughtered, because the continentals prefer white veal.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This whole House is greatly opposed to the rearing of calves in crates. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to convert her colleagues on the continent to pink veal, which is not cruelly produced.
  The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to unilateral action on the export of horses. In fact, we imposed a minimum price. That was not illegal; it was accepted by others and it had the same effect. The current proposals could be illegal and are likely to be reversed immediately, thus offering only a short-term solution, whereas we want a long-term solution.
  Mr. Martlew: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point that the banning of exports of veal calves may or may not be legal. In the case of live horse exports, the action taken was merely a pretext. The fact is that it has never been challenged in the European Court, because the Europeans know that we will not stand for the exporting of horses for slaughter.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Martlew: I am afraid that I must move on.
  The campaign against veal crating is overwhelming. No one should delude himself that it will disappear into the bureaucracy of Europe. The vast majority of the people I have met at various ports are good, honest citizens—many of them have never demonstrated before, and most of them are former Tory voters.
  These people are looking for a parliamentary solution. Many of the demonstrators are rather bemused by the antics of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He condemns the demonstrators in the same way as the hooligans at the Dublin football match are condemned—he calls them the hooligan element. But when they demonstrate in Brussels, he shakes hands with them and
  274
  tells them what a splendid job they are doing—even though they are often the same people who demonstrated at our air and sea ports.
  It is nonsense to condemn them at home and congratulate them abroad. We are, however, used to the Minister being somewhat two-faced—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I really do think that we are going too far with this personal abuse at this time of the morning.
  Mr. Martlew: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is usually a good debater and parliamentarian.
  Mr. Martlew: I am grateful. We are used to seeing the Minister deploying double standards. He says that he hates and opposes the veal crate system, yet until a few months ago he was allowing calves from his own farm to go to market to be sent on to veal crates.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): As the hon. Gentleman has lowered the tone of this debate by his personal abuse, I remind him that the management of my farm is in the hands of his—not yet right hon.—Friend, the spokesman on agriculture in the House of Lords. He might like to address his question to him.
  Mr. Martlew: Once again, the Minister seems to be saying that he owns the calves but that what happens to them has nothing to do with him. I do not accept that.
  Let us take a look at the exporters, and in particular at the leader of the exporters, Mr. Richard Otley. He was recently described to me by a senior police officer at Brightlingsea as a right-wing fascist. The man has a record of cruelty to animals, he claims to have personal influence with the Prime Minister, and I understand that he has been asked by a Welsh Conservative association to stand as a parliamentary candidate.
  There are good legal arguments on which the Government can rely if they want to prohibit the exporting of calves to veal crates. There is strong veterinary evidence that the EC calves directive is wholly inadequate in the protection it affords calves—it sanctions the continued use of crates, for instance. As such, it could be argued that the directive fails properly to occupy the field, and is thus no bar to a United Kingdom export ban.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman said that his Bill seeks the imposition of a unilateral ban, but he seemed a little less sure whether he had the support of his Front Benchers on that matter—no doubt they will clarify that later. Labour's policy paper on animal transportation suggests that the hon. Gentleman does not have their support:
  "We will seek a ban through the European Commission and the Council of Ministers".
  If that is Labour's policy, surely it makes the Front Benchers' attitude to the hon. Gentleman's Bill crystal clear?
  Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is confused. I am talking about this country's right to ban the exporting of calves to veal crates—
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Martlew: I have said that I cannot give way any more.

  275
  Secondly, unusually for an EC directive, the calves directive imposes only minimum standards, and expressly allows a member state to maintain stricter standards. The "occupied field" principle notwithstanding, it could be argued that, when a member state lawfully maintains stricter rearing requirements under a minimum directive, as Britain has done, it is then entitled to rely on article 36 in declining to send animals to other parts of the EU for rearing in the very system that has been declared unlawful in its own country.
  A minimum standards directive should not be viewed as occupying a field in the same way as a normal directive. Unlike the more usual kind of directive, a minimum standards directive does not purport to say all that can be said on a particular matter. It does not fully occupy the field; rather, it recognises the legitimate right of member states to establish stricter provisions.
  Surely this is a matter of political will, not of law alone. I am convinced, however, from my experience, that there is no political will. When I introduced my Bill, I expected all-party support. There was a problem in my constituency at the airport, and the local councillors, from one end of the political spectrum to the other, voted against the export of calves for veal. Unfortunately, the Minister was opposed to that approach from the outset.
  I wrote to the Minister on 3 January asking for an urgent meeting to discuss my Bill. I wanted to talk things through, and to ascertain whether it would be possible to get the Bill into Committee. There would then have been discussions with the farming lobby.
  The Minister did not reply. Eventually, I phoned his office. I made the call a fortnight after writing. I was told that the right hon. Gentleman was too busy to see me. He could not see me, but I was told that the Parliamentary Secretary could. On two occasions, the hon. Lady cancelled meetings with me. One of the cancellations was at short notice. I was told by a member of her private office that she was in Europe on the day when she was to meet me. She was due to meet me at 6 pm. At 6.20 pm, the hon. Lady walked into the House and said that she was going to a meeting.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we had, unfortunately, to cancel the meeting. When I saw him in the evening of the day when we were to meet, I had been in Europe. He will know that one can travel to Europe and back within a day these days. When he saw me, I was in the middle of a meeting in the House. I went to the Members' Entrance to collect some documents. I offered the hon. Gentleman an appointment before his Bill was due to be heard. He declined to see me.
  Mr. Martlew: It is strange that the hon. Lady had a meeting a 6.20 pm when she was due to meet me at 6 pm. It is obvious that something was going on.
  As I have said, the Minister refused to see me. The Parliamentary Secretary cancelled two meetings. On the day when my Bill was debated, they sent the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chamber to run the filibuster to block my Bill. It is obvious that that was done with the knowledge—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been suggested that I have
  276
  engaged in filibustering. You ruled that I had not, Madam Speaker, and that nothing untoward had occurred. Is it acceptable for such suggestions to continue?
  Madam Speaker: Members are responsible for their comments.
  The House will appreciate that I provided three hours for the debate. A number of Members had written to me because of the seriousness of the subject. I felt it was one that deserved the full three hours that the House allows me to give for such a debate. I hope that we shall debate the subject, and not personalities, with the seriousness that the House should adopt when approaching extremely important matters in which all our constituents are interested.
  Mr. Martlew: If there are no more interruptions, Madam Speaker, I shall come to a conclusion quickly.
  The argument is whether we can ban calves going to the veal crates in Europe. In my opinion, we can. The Minister has never said that it would be illegal to introduce a ban. He said in his letter of 1 February that it was likely to be illegal. The Parliamentary Secretary stated in a letter to The Times that it was likely to be illegal. But they are not prepared to say categorically that such a ban would be illegal. The transportation of live animals raises difficulties, but it is my view that we could take unilateral action.
  The idea that we shall lose our way in the bureaucracy of Brussels and that the demonstrators will go away is nonsense. We have seen the Minister's failure over the past two days to get any movement in Brussels. The idea that the southern Europeans will suddenly change their minds and allow the European Community to ban veal crates is nonsense. We all know that. We must take action soon. We must have debates with the farming industry to ascertain how we can help it. At the end of the day, the cruel trade that we are debating must stop.
  10.53 am
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (M r. William Waldegrave): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on securing the debate and on a sensible and level-headed speech in introducing it. I associate myself with a good deal of what he said.
  I think that we all recognise the width and depth of concern in the United Kingdom about these issues. They are famously, I guess, the easiest subjects on which to stir the British people. If a Member wants to increase his mailbag, the answer is to raise the subject of animal welfare. In one sense, it is a tribute to our country. When emotions are so easily stirred, however, it is incumbent on us to try to tell people clearly what the situation is and not to play on emotions. These are emotions easier to stir than to calm.
  Some of my criticisms of one or two of those who have offered their advice on these matters do not mean that I doubt their intentions, which I am sure are good. I merely say that it lies on us all in the House and outside to direct energies in a way that does not lead to frustration.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall observe the advice that has been given by Madam Speaker that my speech should not continue for too long.
  Mr. Banks: I am surprised that the Minister has intervened at this stage. I hoped that he would listen to the

  277
  debate and then respond to the various points raised by hon. Members. Will the Parliamentary Secretary respond to the debate? We want some ministerial responses on points that are likely to be made during it.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I thought that it would be helpful to the House if I were to intervene relatively early in the debate. After about six months of argument about these matters, we are reasonably clear about the principal lines of argument. It seemed that it would be helpful if the Government were to give a reasonably authoritative answer. Many hon. Members will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. If I am allowed a short intervention at a later stage on any particular point with which I do not deal properly now, I shall seek to make it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not the way in which these debates should be conducted.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman says from his great wisdom that what I have suggested is not the way in which these debates are conducted. I have spoken in a good many such debates over the years. It is often of help to the House for a Minister to speak at a relatively early stage, and I shall do so this morning.
  Let us deal with the history of the matter, but not too much. It goes back quite a long way. Concern about the export of live animals goes right back to the 1950s. Lord Balfour of Burleigh was asked to undertake a report in the 1950s. The result was the setting up of a system of mutual agreements between this country—this was long before we were in the Community—and others. The system was aimed at satisfying people in Britain that, when live animals were exported, welfare standards would be satisfactory. There was a series of bilateral agreements.
  In the early 1970s, when a Conservative Government were in office, there was concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the continuing trade of live animals. There was an occasion when Conservative Back-Bench Members joined Opposition Members and overruled the advice of the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not think that there was a vote, but there was great pressure on the Minister. As a result, he agreed that he would stop the trade and call for a report. The result was Lord O'Brien's report. In those days, the Minister was fully entitled to take that course in the absence of Community law.
  Lord O'Brien reported. He found that there was no reason why the trade, properly regulated, should not continue. He observed that there were being put in place a number of Europewide controls—not as many as are in place today, but some were being introduced. The trade restarted after a free vote in the House. Many Conservative Members and some Opposition Members, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), voted to reopen the trade, as did the present Commissioner with responsibilities for transport in the European Community. I think that it was perfectly sensible of them to do so.
  It behoves Opposition Members, however, if they are serious about putting themselves forward for government, to remember what it feels like when in government. The point has already been made. They will be subject to exactly the same constraints. They will be having exactly the same arguments, probably, with their own troublesome
  278
  Back-Bench Members. We all have them. [Interruption.] I apologise for that slip. I cannot think what I was talking about.
  Labour Members would sometimes have to say some unwelcome things to well-intentioned and powerfully motivated Back Benchers on their own side. One of the things that they would have to say—
  Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot think how I could have stirred my hon. Friend into action.
  Mr. Jenkin: However much sympathy the House may have with the objectives of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to ban calve exports, is it not the case that, even if it became law, my right hon. Friend would not be able to act, because if he acted contrary to European Community law he could be prosecuted and sued by those who had suffered financial loss as a result of obeying that Bill instead of Community law, as Community law overrides Acts of Parliament that have been passed by the United Kingdom Parliament?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know whether it would be me who would be personally sued, but if we passed law that laid us open to damages in the European Court, the Government would have to pay damages. My hon. Friend points that out as though it were something new and astonishing. When we signed the Single European Act, with support from both sides of the House—including many who are known as Euro-sceptics—we were establishing, for the great benefit of this country, a single market. In certain areas, we said that, if the single market is to be maintained, there must be European law to maintain it. That is how we have harried European airlines and European steel companies to get rid of illegal subsidies. That is how we have just managed to get illegal pig support systems in France and illegal mushroom subsidies in Ireland stopped. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—if I may make an agricultural analogy.
  On this matter, I make no apology whatever for saying that the House and, I believe, the majority of those within my party, understood that, when we established the single market, there would be some common European rules, and sometimes they would not always be convenient to us. The judgment was—I think that it is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that, over all, the maintenance of the single market is immensely in the benefit of the United Kingdom, as it is in the benefit of Europe as a whole. I do not think that on this occasion my hon. Friend points to anything particularly new. We knew that there would be rules.
  Let us come further forward in history. The decision was taken at the time of the establishment of the single market that we must have better welfare rules for the transportation of animals. That subject was addressed. It was particularly important to us because our licensing arrangements, which involved inspection at the national borders, and so on, had to end because we were moving into the single market. The Community quite rightly said that we could not just dismantle all that and do nothing; we had to have proper standards of transport.
  That argument is continuing. Although the Commission made proposals in, I think, 1992 or 1993, they have not yet been agreed. We came near to an agreement last summer, when my predecessor who is now the Secretary of State for

  279
  Education was Minister, but we rightly judged that the compromise offer—known in the trade as the Greek compromise—was not satisfactory, because it did not contain the concept of journey limits. There must be a definition of when a journey ends. One cannot just say that there will be a limit of five, 10 or 15 hours. One must define it. There must be a time scale after which it is a new journey, and it must be a long time scale to be meaningful.
  The French compromise, which we have been discussing in the past two days, was 12 hours. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory compromise. I do not believe that the House would regard a journey that had been restarted again after 12 hours as a separate journey. I judged that it would be a continuation of the same journey. There must be a longer gap than that.
  I have said that three days is a proper gap between journeys, because by then the stress level of the animals has gone right down again, and it probably is a new journey. The Dutch have said that it should be a little bit less than that. One must have a definition of what one means by a journey limit. No journey limit is allowed at present in European law.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What about Germany?
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is why, incidentally, the Germans, who have passed in their Parliament an eight-hour journey limit, will find that they will be struck down. They have already been challenged by other countries and have had to suspend it.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) did not hit the tone of the House quite right today, because we are trying to discuss important and emotional issues in, I hope, a reasonably objective way. If he thinks that this is all Tory villainy on this side, he has not studied the history of the matter. He would be in precisely the same position. It is quite dangerous, if the hon. Gentleman is serious about seeking to win the next election, to build up expectations that he cannot meet. He should think a little bit that his party might conceivably be in power—I hope that it will not be—but if he has pinned it to saying all sorts of things that are then shown to be false, he will make the situation much worse.
  It is perfectly clear that one cannot unilaterally introduce journey limits. There is no capacity in European law at present to do that. That is why we must introduce that principle. It is also clear, as I think the hon. Member for Carlisle made clear in his speech, that he knows very well that we could not have a unilateral ban on live exports. He accepted that, because he said that it may well be a bit more difficult to do that—which, I think, is parliamentary language for saying that it would be completely impossible in this circumstance; otherwise, he would be pushing on that as well.
  The legal argument is hardly worth entering into, because no one who has looked at it—certainly not Opposition Front-Bench Members, I believe, having read their document—thinks that the extent of interference with the single market and the common agricultural policy would survive for a moment as a legal judgment. It would not be a matter of long argument in the European Court. It would simply be prevented straight away.
  We have acted to prevent the illegal German ban on the importation of British beef under the bovine spongiform encephalopathy rules. The scientific evidence in the Community has been translated into rational law and the
  280
  German Government have had to abandon their unilateral objection to it, quite rightly. That is another example of where the same kind of legal pressures, which, sometimes, we complain about here, work greatly to our advantage.
  I hope that I need not detain the House for long on the legal cases that prevent us from having a total ban on the export of livestock. That really is not conceivable, but I will not hide behind that. What is more, I do not think that it would be right to argue that even if we could do it. I am entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, who opened the debate, and with many other hon. Members and people outside, who say that we must take action to maximise exports of meat, as opposed to live animals. It is already 80 per cent. of the trade by value and it can go up—in sheepmeat, perhaps, most easily.
  I know that some of the livestock slaughterers who deal with sheep are hiring French butchers and bringing them over so that French purchasers get the precise cuts they want. That is very intelligent work to do, and we shall be promoting that with the Meat and Livestock Commission and thinking of further things that we can do. We have some money available, in marketing grants, and so on, to help that to develop.
  Even if we can do so—I am sure that we can—I do not think that it would be rational or responsible to say to British farmers, "You are going to be the only farmers in Europe who are not allowed to transport any animals across your boundaries." That would be madness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said, quoting perfectly correctly the advice of vets—and, by the sound of it, a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vet or official—that is not based on any science, either. It is perfectly possible to move animals across 25 miles of water, as long as the conditions are proper, the trucks are right and the people are trained properly.
  We must not drift into a position of saying that, if we could, we would ban the export of all animals. We would not. No Government would. It would be crazy to do that. What is more, it would create acute difficulties for Northern Ireland, Scotland and internally in Britain. If one says that animals cannot be moved more than a few miles without stopping, I do not know how sheep farmers—for example, in Cumbria—will carry out their winter pasturing, and so on. We must be a little careful in saying that.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What are the unsurmountable difficulties in amending legislation so that animals can be transported by rail through the channel tunnel?
  Mr. Waldegrave: It is always best, when one does not know the answer to a question, to say so. Therefore, I say that I do not know what the unsurmountable difficulties are. I note that, right from the beginning, the channel tunnel prevented the transport of animals. I should seek veterinary advice before pushing on that point, but I shall look into it. It is slightly frustrating to some that we have the tunnel and cannot use it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; I suspect that there is a history to the matter which I do not know, so I shall come back to him on it.
  Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend might find that, were animals of any kind transported in open lorries on freight trains with open sides through the

  281
  channel tunnel—the only way in which they could be transported—the force of the wind would be such that they would suffer from severe windburn.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I suspect that the matter has been looked into, which is why I say that I shall write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones).
  That brings me to a further point which I shall take out of order in my speech. A way forward may be radically to raise the standard of the transportation vehicles, both ships and lorries, over time. The Irish have what are called pullman lorries, which are of a high standard, with air-conditioning and the capacity to feed and water animals on board. They are used particularly for pigs and for thoroughbred and breeding animals. In the longer term—it cannot be done overnight—we should be focusing attention Europewide on the radical improvement of vehicles and ships. Whether such vehicles could go on trains would have to be considered when the time came.
  I return to the subject of veal crates. No one who has seriously considered the matter doubts that a ban on the export of all live animals is out of the question; nor would it be right, although we want to minimise that and maximise the exportation of meat because that is sensible and minimises such problems as exist.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I represent an area with a substantial number of sheep. The right hon. Gentleman will know that farmers in my constituency will share his disappointment that he was unable to secure agreement at the Council meeting during the past two days. However, I wish to impress on him the urgency of reaching agreement in March in particular. We are now coming up to the lambing season in April, May and June, which will be a critical time for farmers in my constituency. Will the Minister ensure that he and his colleagues are in a position to try to secure agreement in March?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in ensuring that we have sensible rules for the carriage of animals across water and that we do not put ourselves in the position where we cannot do that. He is living proof of the nonsense that would result from that.
  I shall return to what happened yesterday. I apologise to the House if I am not as eloquent as the House is used to hearing. I returned late last night and I have not had much sleep. What happened yesterday had some good and some bad elements, to which I shall return because they are the basis of the crucial next step.
  However, I want to deal with veal crates. I beg the House to remember that the stoking up of frustration outside by saying that something can easily be done unilaterally is not a sensible way to proceed. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said from a sedentary position that most of the people protesting are Tories. I do not know whether that is true or not.
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is.
  Mr. Waldegrave: If so, and if they are peacefully protesting, I am proud of them. I am grateful for the endorsement from such a source that Tories lead in concern in these matters. It is helpful of the hon. Gentleman to make that point.
  282
  When I talk to such people, to the decent people who are really worried—not the extremists; I am sorry to say that there are some, and dangerous people they are, too—they cannot get over the fact that they have been told again and again that there is something simple that I can do that I am not doing.
  There are two reasons why there is not something simple that can be done. First, there is the legal position on veal crates. I have taken legal advice on the matter. There is a long-standing convention that the Government do not publish the detailed legal advice that they receive, and for good reason. The Government will appear in court next week in the case of Lomas, in which we are defending the ban that we imposed on exports to Spain because its slaughterhouse standards were not good. We made a bilateral deal with Spain on that, on which we are being challenged.
  We do not want to set out all our advice in detail, because that would be a gift to the other side, who would seek to pick holes in it. However, with the permission of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I have set out unusually fully the range of arguments that lead us to conclude that it would be irresponsible for a Government of either party to seek to introduce unilaterally a veal crate ban.
  The reason is a matter of common sense and law, which sometimes point in the same direction. The Community has passed a legal instrument which defines veal crates, although unsatisfactorily. We were outvoted on the matter. It says what a veal crate is and its exact dimensions. In certain circumstances, where the Community has not put its mind to an issue, the court could say that article 36 could be used because it was claimed that there was a welfare issue.
  But where the Community has debated the matter at length and has had all the points put to it before the decision is reached—as they were put by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment—and the Community, through all its instruments, endorsed by the European Parliament and the Commission, comes to a conclusion, the court is bound to take the view that the matters were taken into account at the time and cannot be brought up subsequently. That is sensible legal doctrine, and common sense.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not worth letting the court so decide? Why should the Minister be both judge and jury in the case?
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is not a fair way of putting it. Ministers, of whatever party is in power, have to advise the House on what is a responsible and reasonable way to proceed. For us to introduce a law which we know will be challenged instantly and which may produce a period when the law is completely unclear because rival laws overlap would not be responsible, because it would raise expectations. [Interruption.] I shall return to the point made wrongly by the hon. Member for Carlisle about horses. Such a step would simply stoke up anger and confusion. I assure the House that all the advice that I have been given is that it would fail.
  Two further points were made which have nothing to do with the situation concerning horses. We have carefully preserved the legal base for our extra ban on the export of horses for slaughter. That is based on an article in a directive, which includes solipeds, sea mammals and birds,

  283
  which allows us to take further measures. That is the basis of our legal action on that matter. It has nothing to do with the articles to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  I am determined that that legal basis for our ban on the export of horses will survive. We are making sure that its legal basis remains in any directive that is passed. However, it is wholly misleading to use that special case for additional bans. They would not work at all.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the conclusion to be drawn from what the Minister is saying that, at the end of the argument, it is the states of southern Europe that will determine the animal welfare policies of the United Kingdom Government? In so far as many of us believe that they will never change their position, because they have no history of understanding the issues in the way that people do in the United Kingdom, and they do not want to do so for commercial reasons and climatic conditions, surely the Government are saying that they must throw in the towel.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman must not despair. The last two days have been the third occasion in the Council in which I have been involved in the debate. It is perfectly clear that opinion is slowly but steadily swinging in the right direction. It would be misleading to tell the House that the battle is over and the problem will be resolved quickly. A hard, pounding battle faces us, like the battles on, for example, air pollution or environmental standards in the early 1980s when the British Government were initially a bit of a laggard.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Thanks to Margaret Thatcher.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That took time and caused great frustration. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned Mrs. Thatcher and said it was her great speech that shifted the whole policy so that progress was made.
  It is hopeless to assume that we will always lose the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton made an important point. Italy imports about 6 million animals a year on the hoof, including sheep, goats, horses and cattle. Many of those already come from eastern Europe, Russia and Poland. I am told by vets that the animals are arriving at the end of intolerably long journeys in very poor conditions.
  If the House is so pessimistic that it thinks we will lose the battles before we start, it is saying that nothing in Europe will be improved in order to address the issues in those countries and to raise the standard of welfare for millions of animals—not just the few thousand from here—all over Europe. That would be a counsel of despair. It would not be the advice to our people based on animal welfare. It would be the wrong kind of little England attitude—if I may apologise to the Irish, Scots and Welsh who are present—to say let us take our hat away, look at our own corner and give up on the rest.
  There is a great prize involved, and we now have a majority in terms of votes and in term of numbers of countries on our side. We are working as a team alongside the biggest and most powerful country in the community—Germany. People from the Scandinavian countries—the Swedes, Danes and Fins—are working closely with us and are concerned about the issues. The Austrians—new entrants to the Community—are also closely with us. The Dutch are closely with us and there are one or two countries that will agree to anything.
  The four groups who remain are the Spanish, the Italians, the Greeks and the Portuguese. There is a very big economic interest for Italy and a biggish one for Spain.
  284
  They have to be shown that real journey limits and journeys that are not too long will not put an overnight stop to the importation of animals. They will get their animals, perhaps at a slightly higher price, although those countries have great skill in extracting from those who pay for the Community certain subsidies to pay for any additional costs that fall on them, and I do not suppose that they would lose that skill. Nor would it be wrong to sugar the pill with some mixture of funds to make it possible, particularly for poorer countries such as Portugal and Greece, to meet the new standards. It would be a better use of funds than some of the uses to which they are put at present.
  If we stick to our guns—the issue will not be solved in March—it will be hard pounding. I hope that we will return to the matter in March, but it may be June before that happens. It is not, however, a hopeless task. There is the idea of higher quality transportation and various other ideas that can be put on the table and shoved through.
  If, however, the House says to Europe and the Commission that we shall take our bat away, pass illegal laws and give up, we shall be out of the game and we will not be thanked by those in Europe who are serious about raising animal welfare expectations and the strength of the animal welfare movement around Europe. We would be thought to have been pretty irresponsible; we would be locked in battle with the Commission and all those who are our friends would become our enemies. That would be a stupid piece of negotiation.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend has been at the forefront of bringing the issue to the centre of attention in Europe. He has gone a long way towards persuading other countries to come on side and building a serious consensus whereby we can achieve some sensible regulation. How would we be perceived in Europe if we were to turn around, say that we would act unilaterally and walk away from the issue? We would lose influence and our leadership role.
  Sir Donald Thompson: On the same point, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I spend much time in the Council of Europe with people from those countries that want to join the Economic Union. The Ukraine is one of those, and throughout this century until the war, thousands of horses were transported in those now notorious cattle trucks. Countries wanting to join the Economic Union sign up to all its decrees before they are allowed in. We were discussing the matter only yesterday. The representatives arrive with lists of lists. The Baltic and eastern European countries are eager to show that they are as civilised as the rest of us, and it is a civilising measure. If we stop, they will have nothing to sign.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. What is more, there is a danger of doing real damage—if we could get away with it, and I suspect that we could not. If we did that, we could damage British farming, where welfare standards are probably higher than elsewhere in Europe, and deliver the whole trade—the 6 million animals that go to Italy and the large number of animals that go to France and Spain—to eastern European countries; we would have lost the influence to raise the standards before those countries join. We must make proper rules before they join: otherwise, we shall drive the trade away to places where the standards are worse.

  285
  Let me give one piece of evidence that the battle is not the forgone defeat which some people seem almost to hope it is. I remember being told we would get no interest in the veal crate story. I remember being warned that when I raised it in the Council there would be an embarrassed silence and people would say that the English were eccentric. That is not what happened.
  I raised the matter in the January Council and I had no idea what the response would be. Eight other countries came in behind me at once and the Commission said that the review of the veal crates which was to be carried out in 1997 would be brought forward to this year. We raised the issue again last night and the Commissioner, Franz Fischler, said that he was now able to strengthen his earlier undertaking that the report would be available by the end of the year; having talked to the relevant experts, he was now able to say that the report would be ready considerably earlier. In terms of getting law through, that is not too bad.
  We are concerned not only about the veal crates but about the animals' diet, which is also important. It is no good having calves fed no iron so that they are deliberately brought up anaemic. There are things that we can do: those who think that nothing can be done by persuasion and by raising issues in Europe are too defeatist.
  There are also things we can do at home. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been doing such good work. She has also done good work in diplomacy, in getting people around Europe to see how important the subject is. I also pay tribute to the RSPCA, which revealed by an operation it carried out last week the appalling situation in two Greek slaughterhouses. Experts went to Athens and did the work where it mattered; they got a big response in Athens, as this has now become a real issue there. I helped them by writing to the Commissioner, and they received an instant response from the Commission, which sent inspectors to see what was going on and to put the matter right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) asked what would happen if we took away our bat and ball and gave up. A large part of the steam would go out of the issue.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is leading various measures we are taking to expand exports on the hook and to try to re-establish a British-based veal industry. Rose veal is perfectly satisfactory. The meat tastes nicer than insipid white meat, and it is far better that those male calves should be used for proper food which is humanely reared than that we should go down the route followed by the New Zealanders and knock them all on the head at birth. The farmers and the public would not like that, and it is wasteful and unpleasant. I am strongly against that; therefore, if I possibly can, I shall not introduce the subsidy premium to do that.
  We have a difficult but serious set of policies. We need to win the argument in Europe and I believe that we are already winning the veal crate argument. We have a difficult, but not impossible, task on transportation. We have a set of policies for exports on a hook which we can develop further. I would be happy to receive sensible suggestions from the House and the country on what we can do, as we have a little money to spend on that aspect. We must not blackguard the name of meat in general or of veal in general. That would simply make the market collapse and would be extremely short-sighted. All the sub-editors
  286
  who write headlines condemning veal are actually damaging the cause of humane rearing for a British veal trade.
  I welcome today's debate, which has highlighted the current frustration about what are felt to be limitations when there is real progress to be made. I must, however, put the other side of the case, which has already been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton. While the trade is legal, it is incumbent on the Government to defend it via the police, who do not always find that a very happy task.
  As I said at the beginning, this is the easiest of all causes in Britain to stir up and campaign for—although that does not mean that it is wrong. The farmers' argument is more difficult to put, and it is easier to arouse emotional opposition to it. Having myself received hundreds of threats, I must say that some of the threats and so forth that ordinary farmers are receiving are not satisfactory in a civilised society. We must be a rule-based, law-based society, especially if we want to protect the weak—and the weakest of all are the animals.
  If we are saying that we want a stronger law on animals, what is the point of applauding those who break the law because they feel strongly? I urge the House to be careful about judging causes by the strength of feeling that lies behind them: those who persecute Salman Rushdie feel at least as strongly as others feel about animals, if not more strongly. The strength of feeling does not justify the cause; what justifies the cause is rational and dispassionate debate such as that with which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton so eloquently opened today's discussion.
  My hon. Friend has shown that there are things to be done, and I hope and believe that the Government are doing them. They will take time, but they are worth doing. I commit Conservative Members—with, I think, a good deal of support from the Opposition—to doing those things, with, I hope, the full-hearted consent of the House.
  11.31 am
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) in calling for the debate—and, indeed, the decision to allot three hours to it. I commend the hon. Gentleman on his constructive and sensible speech.
  Until now, the House has been slow to respond to the widening debate on the live export of animals and the welfare of farm animals in general. One can sympathise with the exasperation of some of the protesters at the apparent failure of the national political system to take action; but perhaps it is an indication of the strength of our democracy that so many people have exercised their right to argue and protest about the issue. This morning's debate is a mechanism for the representation of the public's views.
  The protesters, many of whom are Liberal Democrats, have clearly done us all a service. They have raised awareness among the whole population—including politicians—of the animal welfare implications of our farming industry; they have shown a strength of commitment, and they have highlighted how much politics is changing and how much hon. Members must change with it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who speaks for the Liberal party? Is it the hon. Gentleman, who expresses sympathy for those who

  287
  demonstrate, or is it the party's official spokesman on agricultural matters, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who condemned the demonstrators in the language quoted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)? Who speaks for the Liberal party—those who condemn the protesters, or the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)?
  Mr. Harvey: I have heard the hon. Gentleman mumbling about that all morning, so I am grateful for the opportunity to respond.
  While the language used by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers was perhaps rather more florid than the language that I might have chosen in the circumstances, two points should be made. First, his remarks should be taken in context: they were made after the protests had turned violent, and at a time when those who had initiated them, like Compassion in World Farming, were disowning the violence. Secondly, his points struck me as eminently sensible.
  My hon. Friend said that, if the British took unilateral action, it would be found to be invalid within days; that if we went off on our own, we would lose influence in Europe; and that, if we replaced cruelty to British animals with cruelty to foreign animals, no overall benefit would be achieved. Clearly the protesters would feel that those urging them on had misled them if they proceeded with such a course and ended up disappointed. It seems to me that, whatever my hon. Friend's language, the points that he made were perfectly valid.
  I am sure that most hon. Members support the motives of the peaceful protesters of Shoreham, Brightlingsea, Coventry, Plymouth and elsewhere, and want—at the very least—improvements in the welfare of animals that are exported and more exports on the hook rather than on the hoof. The House should, however, move beyond sentiment—important and powerful though that is—to discussing the practical measures that can be taken to alleviate the pain and suffering of animals.
  What, then, are the options? First, the Government could respond to demands from hon. Members and others, and introduce a ban on the export of live animals. Secondly, we could allow an effective ban on live exports through ports and airports simply refusing to take the trade. Thirdly, we could tighten existing British regulations on live transport, and enforce them more rigorously. Fourthly, we could campaign for tough Europewide regulations to be effectively implemented.
  The first two options may seem superficially attractive. They would ensure that British animals did not suffer the indignities of long-distance transportation or end up in systems that have been banned in the United Kingdom. As I have said, however, they would not reduce the sum of animal suffering in the European Union. British farmers are responding to a demand for locally slaughtered meat in exporting lambs and veal calves, and I see no reason to suppose that demand would not be met if we stopped supplying them via other producers in Europe.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I am a little confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Before coming to the House today, I read the Liberal animal welfare policy document, "A Matter of Conscience", which clearly states:
  288
  "until such time as acceptable and enforceable EC-wide standards are in place, Liberal Democrats advocate an end to the live export of animals."
  That is not what is being argued by the hon. Gentleman, or by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. What is the Liberal Democrats' policy on the issue?
  Mr. Harvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall continue to build the argument as I proceed, but, for reasons that I have already explained, a Europewide solution must be found.
  Mr. Morley: What about the policy document?
  Mr. Harvey: I will not debate that point further. The Liberal policy document is exactly the same as the Labour policy document, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will clarify that policy later.
  A range of legal opinion—not least that of the legal director of the RSPCA, who has taken expert advice—has concluded that a ban introduced by the Government could not be sustained after the passing of a unilateral British law. It might not have mattered in 1973, when we entered the European Community, but our obligations under the single market and the general agreement on tariffs and trade make it extremely unlikely that we would not face a challenge.
  Some have argued—it has been argued again this morning—that we should press ahead with such a ban in any case, and battle it out in the European Court. The loss of such a battle, however, would return us to square one. All the time, energy and effort put into lobbying for a Bill and pushing it through Parliament would be wasted; as has been said this morning, that time, energy and effort would be better expended on taking the argument to the countries that are delaying progress at a European level. It would probably also force the Government to allow the trade to pass through the ports that have decided, on their own initiative, not to take it.
  The problem with the second suggested solution—an ad hoc ban allowing ports that have banned the trade to continue that ban—is that, while it would be effective in the short term, it would not provide a longer-term solution. The fear is that unilateral action by the United Kingdom, whatever its nature, will reduce pressure on the European Union to take action. Surely none of us wants the issue to fall down the agenda of the Council of Ministers, after the progress that has been made.
  To some extent, the third option—the tightening of UK regulations—has already been followed by the Government, in response to some of the demands for change from the protesters. I join those who argue that the recent regulations do not go far enough. There have been many suggestions of further action, including those made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and I hope that the Government will continue to listen and implement some of them; but there are clearly limits to the effectiveness of regulation in the United Kingdom on its own, especially given the failurc to enforce existing European regulations adequately in many other European countries.
  How are we to achieve effective and enforceable EU-wide standards? The protesters themselves are clearly playing an important part in keeping the issue at the top of the political agenda. As I have said, more of their protests should be directed at countries whose animal welfare standards are lower than our own. The

  289
  Government and the House must continue to exert pressure on the Council of Ministers. I commend the Minister on the progress that he has made in that, and I hope that further progress will be made at next months's meeting.
  In fairness, the Minister has taken a more robust attitude on this matter than his predecessor, who was persuaded only late in the day last year to support the German proposal for a 15-hour limit on live transport. The Government have now seen the error of their ways. It is a pity that they did not take advantage of the British presidency in 1992. Their report on their achievements during the presidency makes no mention of any action to improve the welfare of animals during transport.
  A problem exists on both sides of the issue: the failure to think through the consequences of the actions that have been taken. The Ministry and the Meat and Livestock Commission are thinking only now about how to develop a humane veal industry in the United Kingdom. Why did not that happen at the time of, if not before, the introduction of the veal crate ban in 1990?
  Another problem has been the decline in the abattoir industry, where unprecedented centralisation has taken place. The number of abattoirs in this country has fallen to less than half the number in 1979. That has not happened elsewhere in Europe—or even in Northern Ireland—because the relevant Governments have found ways of getting around the problem and requested derogations.
  As a result, Wales, for example, no longer has the abattoir capacity to deal with all its lambs, which have to be transported further away for slaughter. Farmers in the constituencies of, for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) are simply not able to get animals to a slaughterhouse within eight hours, which we, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and many others would want to see.
  Proposals from people who continue to advocate a ban for dealing with the large number of bull calves must be considered closely. I agree with the Minister that the public, farmers or anyone else would not welcome the suggestion that those animals should all be killed at birth. Even if they are, the cost implications of compensating farmers through some mechanism or other will be considerable. Similarly, people say cheerfully that bull calves could go off into the beef herd, but it is clear that most of those animals are not suitable for that purpose. In any event, that would cause immense disruption to the market in beef cattle and beef calves. Neither of those solutions is satisfactory.
  In the longer term, we need far more radical change than has yet been considered. The whole thrust of the common agricultural policy needs to be changed. Rather than merely acknowledging the role of farmers and of rural areas, we need to acknowledge the much wider role of maintaining the countryside and protecting animal welfare. That is why we have called for the replacement of the common agricultural policy with a common rural policy; a call that has been echoed by many others, including Professor John Webster, head of Bristol university's veterinary school. With the National Farmers Union, he has argued that European Union funding should be redirected from food production to humane treatment of animals.
  290
  All that, however, would take time to implement. We must acknowledge that no magical solution and no quick fix exist. If we fail to acknowledge that, we may be pushed into accepting the wider use of bovine somatotropin in this country and elsewhere, which would increase the cows' milk yield without increasing the number of calves born. We could even get into the realms of genetic engineering to reduce the number of male calves that are born. We would not want either of those options to be embraced. All the options would require a great deal of discussion in the House and beyond.
  The Government can and, to some extent, have introduced a series of policies to limit the suffering of animals in transport. More work needs to be done. Today's debate is a welcome start, but it is only a first step. I hope that the Minister will succeed in his efforts to keep this issue at the top of the agenda at the Council of Ministers, that he will keep the House informed of its deliberations, and that he will use the ideas and experience of many hon. Members in developing the necessary policies.
  I hope that he will harness the energy of the pressure groups and of the public to work for change at EU level. If the campaign can be taken across the continent, the legitimate demands of protesters, the needs of farmers and the requirement to produce food that is affordable to the public can all be met.
  11.44 am
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: This matter has been in the public eye for many months. During that time, and during this debate, I do not think that many people have recalled that the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, examined the matter of animals in transit way back in 1991. Our report, which was unanimously approved by all members of my Committee, treated the matter with common sense and should be a source of reference. I hope that commentators will take the opportunity to study some of the things that we said.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who was a member of the Committee at that time, has now left the Chamber. He was not enthusiastic then about banning anything except the importation of exotic birds and other special species. The Committee confirmed the necessity for free trade in animals and went into the matter in some depth. It is a bit inconsistent of him to wish to ban the export of calves, but not of sheep. I suspect that that is because there are not too many dairy herds in Carlisle, but there are plenty of sheep. The hon. Gentleman's speech was seriously inconsistent.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister set out the matter in common-sense terms. I strongly support the general direction of the Government's attitude to this problem. It is divided into two halves—the transport of animals, and the welfare of those animals once they have left our shores. I shall not go too much into the second point, in case my Committee resolves to examine the matter. I would not wish to anticipate the position. However, it went into the transport issue closely. I should like to remind the House of three important point that we made.
  The report states:
  "it would be desirable in principle for animals to be slaughtered at the nearest available point."

  291
  I think that the House agrees on that. The report continues:
  "the Commission should frame legislation which expressly discourages the transportation of slaughter animals over long distances."
  The report also urged the then Minister
  "to be vigilant in holding the Commission to the spirit of the preamble in any new proposals with which they may come forward."
  In other words, British standards are the highest and the best, and we should seek to impose them, rather than be prepared to allow derogation of our standards for the continental ones, which are not as good.
  It is easy to say that animals should be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible, but An many parts of the United Kingdom, slaughterhouses arc a great distance away. The islands of Scotland would not be able to produce meat animals if they did not first bring them across on ferries and on other transport. I shall be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) says on that subject.
  The Minister's decision to continue to block the export of live food animals to countries that fail to meet the new European Community directive gains unanimous support on both sides of the House. Even though the Community has subsequently removed the legality of some of the actions that we have taken, we understand that chief vets in the countries concerned are co-operating. We are moving towards EC-approved slaughterhouses, the standards of which are much higher than those of many of the slaughterhouses that, I am sad to say, we have been using in this country.
  I am being diverted down a different road from the subject under discussion. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister uses the support that the Committee gave him when he presses these matters in Brussels. We made it clear that Community safeguards should be consistent with British statutes. The Government used just that phrase in their response to our Committee's report.
  The maximum period of travel without rest is a contentious issue, but, having taken expert evidence, the Committee concluded that one of the most stressful factors in animal transport is the loading and unloading of those animals. When a properly equipped lorry is properly loaded with the right size of animal and in the right density, conditions are less stressful than when animals are taken on and off. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is nodding in agreement. As an experienced livestock man, he will concur that it is the stress that we want to avoid.
  We did not go along with the RSPCA and others who have sought an eight-hour limit. We thought that the general limit should be 12 hours for any species, with the possible exception of horses, but with a 15-hour limit if that was to be the termination of the journey. That would be in line with Britain's existing legislation, although the Community has yet to adopt such figures. My right hon. Friend the Minister has the Committee's support in trying to achieve a lower limit on the continent.
  The Committee recommended that vehicles should be certified. There is no question about the Dutch having a very high standard. It is quite wrong to think that all continental animal transport is cruel; it is not. During our inquiry, we learned that Holland is the second largest exporter of food in the world. It would be no use a Dutch exporter sending his pigs to southern Italy only for them
  292
  to arrive in a poor condition. It does no good to any farmer or transporter if the product does not arrive in good condition.
  There is no will to transport animals cruelly. There can be no advantage in doing so. From reading some of the articles in the press and seeing some of the advertisements placed by animal welfare societies, one might think that there were some advantages to transporting animals cruelly.
  The Committee would like animal transport to be more rigidly checked. We were not convinced that, even in this country, checks were as rigid as they should be—and we were far from convinced that on the continent checks were even carried out. We hope that something can he clone about that.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one point that should be firmly stressed is the fact that, year after year, exports of bloodstock and of pedigree livestock for breeding purposes are carried out to the most humane standards possible? There is no reason why exports of livestock for slaughter should not reach the same high standards.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend. It simply does not pay the farmer or the transporter to produce animals, even those for slaughter, in poor condition.
  The Committee suggested that there should be more official training for the drivers of vehicles. Unfortunately, the Government rather ran away from that idea, and took the view that more regulation was unnecessary. I was rather sorry about that, because it would be helpful if a training scheme were to be introduced for the drivers of vehicles carrying livestock.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have now accepted the Committee's advice. Included in the parts of the European directive that are agreed—although the key bits are not agreed—is a training scheme for drivers.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Committee has not considered the matter for a year or two, so I was not fully up to date with the current position. I welcome what he has said.
  I shall deal now with documentation. Much of the key to the welfare of animals in transport is ensuring that we know where the animals have come from, when they left there and where they are going. One problem raised by those who want a selective ban on veal calves—for example, those going for veal production—is how we can find out what will happen to those animals when they leave our shores and we no longer have any direct control over them. Therefore, the idea of a selective ban is ludicrous.
  The Committee strongly supported the Government's view on the export of horses. The way we solved that problem was extremely clever, and I am sure that it is supported on both sides of the House.
  I realise that time is short. It is regrettable that the procedures of the House do not permit the debating of Select Committee reports in greater detail and sooner after they are published. Had we had an opportunity to debate our report at the time, a few lessons would have been learnt and people would remember the interest that a Select Committee of the House had taken in such an important subject.
  11.54 am
  Mr. Tony Banks: I endorse what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said about debating reports from Select Committees. It is silly that hon. Members should serve on these Committees and produce reports after considerable deliberation, only for them never to be discussed on the Floor of the House. One could say it was almost time wasting. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for this work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a Christian gentleman—[Interruption.] He endorses that accusation. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) were here, he would defend himself. If, over the years, he has changed his position on the export of veal calves, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a Christian gentleman, would welcome his conversion. A sinner repentant is welcome in heaven, even if, in this case, heaven is the Agriculture Select Committee.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on choosing this subject for debate, which is named "Export of live animals". I believe that we should avoid the export of animals for slaughter as much as possible. I should prefer a complete ban; animals for consumption should be on the hook, not the hoof.
  The RSPCA position on maximum journey times is quite clear—eight hours from wherever the journey starts to the abattoir. Of course I understand that there are implications for Britain because of its geographical position. Nevertheless, I believe the RSPCA demand to he reasonable. The Germans adopted a similar view within their law. They may now be moving away from that position, but that is another matter. At least they decided, in their wisdom, to adopt such a law.
  The hon. Member for Sutton mentioned the European Parliament. In December 1993, it took a specific vote on the issue and, by 271 votes to six, decided to impose a maximum eight-hour journey time. If there is to be progress in journey times and animal welfare in Europe, it is important to try to achieve that during the French presidency. However much I endorse what the Minister said, he should never go into negotiations pessimistically—he should always go in intent on winning. Certainly Lady Thatcher always took that attitude in Europe, even if she did not always emerge as successfully as she thought she had. If we wait for the Spanish, Italian and Irish presidencies, which follow the French, we will have even more difficulties than we are experiencing now.
  The hon. Member for Sutton spoke about taking the protest to Brussels—into Europe. I agree, but that does not mean that we should stop protests here. We must protest in all the countries of Europe, although I accept that in particular we should protest in Brussels. I understand that on Monday the Minister received a petition organised by the RSPCA, which had been signed by 2.5 million people. They were not all people from this country; European nationals signed the petition. It called for a maximum eight-hour journey time and other animal welfare measures such as the training of drivers.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the RSPCA has been campaigning in other European countries—for example, France, Greece and Spain. It is
  294
  not something specific to eccentric English people. Many people are protesting in European capitals and countries. That is right thing to do.
  The Government have often spoken about leading Europe on this issue. I give credit to the Minister for doing more than his predecessor did. When the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) entered into the negotiations last year, she was lagging far behind the Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians and the Danes on the issues of journey times and animal welfare. Perhaps we should be grateful that we have a new Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Minister."] I am sorry, I have promoted the right hon. Gentleman—obviously something that will never happen to me.
  I shall now discuss veal calves. Everyone who understands or knows anything about the way in which the veal calf is produced in the veal crate will be repelled by the concept of placing a young calf for six months in conditions that one would only describe as inhuman, barbaric and abominable. That is why the Government rightly banned the production of veal in veal crates. However, we thereby reach the absurd and, at times, hypocritical position, as many understand it, of banning the production of veal in veal crates in this country but exporting the same calves to be produced in veal crates and re-importing the product. It appears illogical.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman's speech is extremely interesting. Stepping aside from the hypocrisy for a moment, I understand that about 1.25 million unwanted male calves are born to the British dairy herd each year. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we do with those?
  Mr. Banks: I accept that. It is fully understood that those calves are unsuitable for the beef trade. Perhaps people who are tucking into their cheese and drinking their milk should think a little more about the implications of what they are doing.
  Mr. Duncan: They should eat British veal.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I shall answer him. One of the ways of solving the problem is to stop eating cheese and drinking milk. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman asked me my opinion, but I am an eccentric and a total loony. I accept that, so let not anyone else shout that out before I have admitted it.
  If we were to ban the export of veal calves, it would give greater impetus to our own veal-producing industry, but I accept that demand for veal in this country has never been especially significant, and indeed is declining. However, those matters must be considered. If we find it necessary to move to a position in which male calves are killed at birth, that would have to be accepted. It is easy for me to say that, because I am not a veal calf. I should not like to be exterminated at birth, although I am sure that a few Conservative Members think that it would have been a good idea.
  We must accept that implication, if need be; we must consider all the options, but I accept that that is one of the problems.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: No; but I shall in a moment.

  295
  It appears absurd that, although we have banned the method of production, we re-import the product that comes from the same method of production somewhere else. The same is true of paté de foie gras. One could not produce paté de foie gras in this country, force-feeding geese as the French do, because it would be illegal, but we are nevertheless prepared to import it into the country. Many people feel that that is an illogical position, which should he rectified.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's speech is interesting and powerful.
  Some people, led by some supermarkets, are selling veal that may be imported but take great care to ensure that it comes from humane rearing sources in Holland and elsewhere. I hope that nothing that we say today will diminish our commitment to that type of effort, because, every time that a supermarket does that, it helps us to ensure that animals are reared humanely before we manage to change the law to ensure that they are reared humanely.
  Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is reading my notes, because that is precisely what I intended to say. Sainsbury's is one of the supermarkets that does that voluntarily. It would be helpful—we have asked Ministers questions about it—to make it compulsory to declare the method of production on goods, so that the consumer can exercise choice. If the consumer does not have the choice of deciding, "I do not want that veal because I do not like the method of production," we are not empowering the consumer as we should. Naturally, I welcome the fact that some supermarkets do so. I regret the fact that many others do not.
  Mr. Jenkin: Some of us find it confusing that some of the most enthusiastic proponents of European union do not support my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his efforts to achieve what we need to achieve on a European basis, and that they are the first to argue for a unilateral ban, which would appear to put the hon. Gentleman on to the Euro-sceptic side of the argument.
  Mr. Banks: Is it not interesting that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is one of the most fervent Euro-phobes in this place, and continually pushes his colleagues to opt out, not to accept, to stand up and fight and so on, yet on that issue he is not prepared to urge his colleagues to do precisely that?
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Banks: I cannot give way. [Interruption.] All right, I will, but Madam Speaker said that speeches should be 10 minutes long and I am trying to stay within that limit, because many Conservative Members want to speak.
  Mr. Jenkin: My position is absolutely clear. I believe that the House should have, and ultimately has, the authority to decide what goes across our frontiers. I do not accept that this Parliament has lost its sovereignty. The policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have more authority if he acknowledged that the House had the power to ban live exports.
  Mr. Banks: The Minister is arguing completely the opposite, but on this occasion I will join hands with the
  296
  hon. Member for Colchester, North. It is a strange alliance. We make odd bedfellows—metaphorically, of course, not literally. Under the circumstances, I welcome what he has said.
  Let me say something to the hon. Member for Sutton, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. The hon. Gentleman spoke with all the certainty of ignorance about the protesters who have been standing outside the harbour at Shoreham and at various other places throughout the country. I am a vegetarian, but I know that not all those protesters are militant vegetarians or vegans. Some are likely to be, but I suspect that most are meat-eaters.
  I know, as a result of having perhaps the heaviest correspondence of any Member in the House about animal welfare issues, that many of the letters that I receive start, "I write as a lifelong Conservative supporter" and they often continue, "and I am not going to vote Tory again." It is not for me to help the Conservative party win back its lost support, but I shall make those letters freely available to Ministers so that they realise that those protesters, in many respects, are not militant vegetarians or vegans. Some protestors are vegetarians, like me, but many are middle-aged, middle-class Tory supporters, who are repelled by the trade.
  Mr. Waldegrave: No one doubts the hon. Gentleman's commitment or concern, so it would be helpful if he would join me in unequivocally condemning those who use threats. We have all probably received such threats. I have received hundreds of very sick letters indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that farmers, parliamentarians and so on should not receive such letters, and that that way of persuading people is utterly wrong.
  Mr. Banks: I have no difficulty in saying that I agree, because such behaviour is diversionary. The media seize on those isolated examples—as did the hon. Member for Sutton, reading extracts from The Times—as a way of suggesting that the great mass of public opinion and the great mass of protesters are not genuine, decent, law-abiding people, many of whom have never been out on a protest before but who are moved to protest because they find that trade so abhorrent.
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Banks: I cannot take up the time of the House much longer—a minute more perhaps.
  Article 36 of the treaty of Rome appears to offer the Government a way out.
  Mr. Waldegrave indicated dissent.
  Mr. Banks: The Minister shakes his head. There is conflicting legal advice about it. It is often said that, if one does not like the advice that one receives from one lawyer, one should go and buy another lawyer. That might not be what the Government want to do, but I believe that it is worth imposing a ban under article 36.
  If we ban the export of veal calves and the import of veal, we cannot be said to be interfering in trade in terms of giving preference to our domestic industry, because it is true that the farmers of this country will receive the greatest impact of the ban. It is difficult to imagine a way in which that could be challenged from outside these shores. If it is not challenged, we have won; if it is

  297
  challenged, I hope that the Minister would show more enthusiasm to defend it than he is now doing by shaking his head. He has already spoken about the minimum value order for horses. I know for a fact that he has said that, if that were challenged in the European Court, it would probably be lost, but he stands by that position and is ready to defend it in the European Court. We want some political will from the Government.
  I am prepared to support the Government in their negotiations on improvements in animal welfare when they negotiate in the interests of animals and public opinion, but not when they are in thrall, acting as the lickspittles of the National Farmers Union.
  12.9 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: It is a pleasure to be able to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is a regular contributor to the debates that we hold internally in the all-party animal welfare group. The hon. Gentleman referred to his eccentricity on some of these matters, but nobody would gainsay his commitment to the cause of animal welfare or the sincerity with which he holds his views.
  Sadly, I must almost immediately differ from the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He knows me well enough to understand that if I thought that there was a snowball's chance in hell of achieving a legitimate ban on the export of veal calves or, in general, of live animals for slaughter, I would be going for it hell for leather.
  From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the situation facing Germany. Where one country has tried to introduce a unilateral ban—Germany is the only one that has—it has immediately been taken before the European courts by other countries. Were we to go down that road, I fear that the transporters, the farmers and others involved in the trade on both sides of the channel would immediately sue for large sums of money.
  Also from a sedentary position, I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West say earlier, "Go for it. It's our money." I am not entirely certain that those who elect us would take that view once the bills started to come in.
  I hope to be brief, if only because my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) covered so much of the ground in his excellent opening speech. I pay tribute to him for raising the issue and giving us an opportunity to debate it on such a relevant day, given my right honourable and bleary-eyed Friend's labours in Brussels over the past couple of days. It is immensely helpful to have this early opportunity to hear the present position from the Front Bench, whether we like it or not.
  On behalf of the all-party group—I can probably speak for most if not all of its members—I must say that we respect the fact that my right hon. Friend has gone into bat very hard on this issue and has taken a robust line. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the tireless work that she has done at grass-roots level with Ministers throughout the European Community, going round and trying to win hearts and minds. That is how the battle will be won, and I believe that it will be won.
  298
  For the past two years under my chairmanship, and before that under your distinguished chairmanship in another incarnation, Madam Deputy Speaker, the all-party animal welfare group has sought European solutions to animal welfare problems. In recent years we have had to recognise that, if we are to provide genuine solutions to animal welfare problems as opposed to populist tabloid newspaper headlines, we will have to do it on a Europewide basis. If there was ever need of the proof of that pudding, the veal crate problem undoubtedly provides it.
  I concede immediately that I was one of those who welcomed the ban on veal crates in the United Kingdom. Shortly after that it became apparent, to some of us at least, that that was a pyrrhic victory. We did not ban the use of veal crates, we simply promoted the trade in other parts of the European Community. We moved the problem from A to B and some of us tried to pretend that we had solved it. That was not the case.
  I do not believe that there is any merit in seeking a unilateral ban on anything if the practice continues on mainland Europe. If, by damaging our own trade, we simply create circumstances in which hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of cattle, sheep and pigs are imported into the European Union under infinitely worse conditions and over much longer distances from the eastern bloc, that is not contributing to the cause of animal welfare that I wish to promote as chairman of the all-party group.
  As painstaking and unpopular as it may he on occasions—it is certainly not populist—my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary are correct to seek to press the cause within the European Union. I endorse entirely the actions of those, particularly the RSPCA, who have sought to take the battle, not to the tabloid headlines in the United Kingdom, but to the Ministers and the streets of Europe where the hearts and minds will have to be won.
  My right hon. Friend currently has most of the northern states with him. That is a tremendous achievement and we should not gainsay it. Unfortunately, the southern states—Spain, Italy and Greece in particular—are less helpful. Millions of those who have been applauding what they have seen on television and some of those who have been demonstrating on the streets go to Spain, Italy and Greece for their holidays and eat the meat that comes from the animals about whose transport and slaughter they are complaining. Perhaps it behoves us now to remind our Spanish, Italian and Greek colleagues that those of us in the United Kingdom who use their holiday facilities do not approve of some of their practices and that we look to them for support to end once and for all the need for a trade that most of us find abhorrent.
  I should like to see an end to the transport of live animals for slaughter in its entirety. It is not necessary in this day and age. My right hon. Friend said that he would welcome suggestions about ways in which we might achieve the export of more meat on the hook. I concur with those who have said this morning that our abattoir facilities are, for some very good reasons and some less good reasons, inadequate.
  We have high-quality abattoirs, but they are not necessarily in the places where they are most needed by the farming community. Associated British Ports has told me that it has land at ports which, under the right circumstances, it might be prepared to make available for

  299
  abattoir facilities. I urge my right hon. Friend urgently to seek ways of investing in new and better abattoir facilities and in the cutting of meat specifically for the European market so that we can have the added value in this country and export our meat on the hook almost in its entirety. I should like to see the lot on the hook, not on the hoof. If we could do that, we would have brought about a major achievement. It could not happen overnight, but within months we could obviate much of the problem.
  I must come back to the European solution. I have had to accept—I understand that not everybody in the House accepts this, but I do not believe that this is a party political issue—that the legal position does not allow us to pursue a unilateral ban. More than that, I genuinely believe that if my right hon. Friend, with support from both sides of the House, can win this battle, win the hearts and minds of his colleagues in the Council of Ministers and carry the sort of European directive that we want on this issue, we will have taken an enormous leap forward in European animal welfare. If we can win this battle, it will help us to win battles over the use of animals in medical experiments Europewide, in the import of wild-caught birds into Europe and in fiesta sports. That would be a major achievement.
  12.18 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: The House can be in no doubt that the British people care a great deal about animal welfare, and today's debate has demonstrated that the House welcomes that concern. Many would argue that one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its animals.
  When considering what legislation should be in place and what measures we should implement to avoid animal cruelty as far as possible, we must be objective. We must recognise that animals experience pain and strain, but it is wrong to assume that they think in the same way as humans and that what is comfortable for a human being would also be comfortable for an animal and vice versa. We must base our discussions and our decisions on the most objective scientific criteria available, but it must certainly be our objective to achieve legislation which ensures that animals are well looked after on the farms and that the opportunity for their ill-treatment in transportation and, of course, through methods of slaughter is absolutely minimal.
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Dr. Strang: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall give way rarely because I am keen to allow a number of hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Duncan: To that end, is it or it is not official Labour party policy to support the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)?
  Dr. Strang: I shall come to that point. We do not accept that the Minister is necessarily correct in his interpretation of the legal position with regard to calves, although we certainly accept the position with regard to sheep. Some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) may turn out to be germane to the final assessment of the legal position, but let me move on.
  I appreciate the Minister's contribution to the debate. It is excellent that he is putting forward the Government's position in this Adjournment debate. I especially
  300
  appreciate his presence in view of the tremendous pressure that he has been under in the past two days, involving, I understand, many hours of negotiation into the early hours of this morning. The House very much appreciates the Minister being able to give us the very latest position and explain why the negotiations failed in Brussels.
  The Minister commented on the history of the matter and it is worth adding to it. It should be recalled that we extended the maximum journey time of animals in legislation passed by the House of Commons. Before I January 1993, animals were allowed to travel for a maximum of 12 hours before they were fed, watered and rested, unless the journey could be completed in 15 hours. The Welfare Animal Transport Order 1992 increased the maximum interval from 12 to 15 hours. The requirement for animals to be fed and rested for 10 hours and inspected near the port of export was also scrapped on 1 January 1993.
  Then, the Greek presidency compromise, as the Minister rightly described it, was discussed in June. That proposal stipulated 22 hours of transport before animals should have to be fed, watered and rested. There is no question that the British Government were minded to support that. Indeed, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), said on 16 June that the Greek proposals were
  "a great step forward for animal welfare in the Community".
  He went on to indicate the Government's support of them.
  When the Minister's predecessor—I make no apology for putting this on the record—the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), got over to Brussels, she discovered that, notwithstanding the British Government's support, since Belgium was joining Germany and the other opponents to the proposal, the proposal was to be defeated. So rather than vote for the proposal, lose the vote on the basis of qualified majority voting and have to justify that position, the Government flipped over and voted against it.
  The Government's stance has been transformed since then, which we applaud and welcome. The stand now being taken by the Minister, which goes back to earlier in the year—he can now claim, along with the Germans, to be leading on the issue and seeking to drive it forward—is a mile away from what previously prevailed. We strongly support that new stance, and certainly think that the Minister was right not to go along with the final compromise put forward by the French presidency, which is rather technical, as some of us will have read in the quality newspapers, or heard on the wireless and seen on the television this morning.
  The Minister has tried very hard to get a satisfactory agreement on journey times, which we applaud. He was right not to accept what was on offer, and we wish him well in the discussions next month. He has warned us—I am not criticising him, far from it—that it may not be as easy as some people think to bridge the huge gulf that still exists between the southern states and the more northern states of the Community, where the electorate feel strongly and, let us be honest, have much higher standards of animal welfare.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the RSPCA special operations unit trailed 21 vehicles during their journey from the United Kingdom to European destinations and that 14 of those exceeded the

  301
  15-hour limit without providing food, drink and rest for the animals? What action does he think that the British Government should take to prevent such practice?
  Dr. Strang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. I add my congratulations to the compliments paid by the Minister to the work of the RSPCA in that area.
  That brings me to a point that I want to develop. For some time, the Labour party has advocated a licensing scheme for lorry drivers and hauliers. Of course, we were very pleased when subsequently the European Commission included among its package of proposals last year a European licensing scheme. Unfortunately, its implementation is not likely to be achieved in the short run, so we would like the British Government to go ahead with a national licensing scheme. That would stipulate that if a haulier were to move animals over a substantial distance—obviously it would not apply to normal, short journeys—such as the distances involved in cross-channel journeys, the haulier and its and driver would require a licence.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, say that the Committee was interested in such an approach, although it was not identical to what we are advocating. The scheme would require high standards of hauliers and drivers and provide some training, advice and guidance for drivers. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, those of us with some experience of farming, as he has, know that the most stressful time for animals is when they are loaded on and unloaded off vehicles. It is perfectly possible for animals to be transported in reasonable conditions, although, sadly, it is also possible for them to be transported in appalling conditions, and we have seen some disgraceful examples of that which we want to eliminate.
  Mr. Waldegrave rose—
  Dr. Strang: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman soon, as I am keen to hear his view.
  Although the Labour party advocates a national licensing scheme, we would prefer a European scheme. Before the Minister intervenes, I would like to put to him the grounds on which he criticises the scheme, so that I may better understand it.
  If the scheme were implemented, a haulier would lose its licence in the UK if it did not comply with it and was found to be treating animals cruelly. It is galling to see on television an individual driving lorries on to vessels going across the channel when most people involved know that that person had been convicted of animal cruelty. That upsets and angers people. Obviously, it would never happen under our proposal.
  I may be putting it too strongly, but I understand the Minister's objection. He thinks that the scheme could be applied in the UK—remember we are talking not only about the movement of animals across the channel but through the United Kingdom and across long distances in Scotland and the animals being looked after well during that transportation—but that there would be nothing to stop hauliers taking animals across the channel and immediately moving the animals to another vehicle.
  302
  My response to that criticism is that it would be bound to increase the costs of transporting animals such as sheep. We are not advocating a ban on the movement of live sheep across the channel, although we want the number of live sheep transported to decrease as quickly as possible because we are not happy about it. That would enormously increase the cost of the operation. It would be a financial penalty if, once across the channel, the animals had to be unloaded and put on a second vehicle. Therefore that in itself would be a positive factor.
  Secondly, would it not provide a tremendous focus for people on the continent if they understood the extent of the cruelty? It would provide a focus if it was known that the British people had laid down conditions to be met by the lorry drivers when transporting animals, but that, on the continent, rather than meeting the conditions, those involved were unloading the animals and placing them on an unlicensed vehicle. I put that argument to the Minister and shall be happy to hear what he says.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that the House will forgive me for intervening, but this is an important point. The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech, and it will perhaps be helpful to the House to debate such issues, including that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), which is similar.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, we believed that some people were not following the journey plan that they had given to our vets, and were running over the limit—the RSPCA had shown that to be so. Therefore, we introduced a recent amendment to the transport order so that anyone not adhering to the journey plan could be prosecuted here. That is as far as we can go in making the provision stick. The trouble is that I am told that people are doing what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and I feared that they might—changing to foreign hauliers as soon as they have crossed the channel.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They switch contractors.
  Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman says, they switch contractors.
  Although I have introduced that amendment, and I think that it was a sensible thing to have done—anything that we can do, we shall do—it does not solve the problem. I do not rule out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. If we do not achieve in reasonable time a European licensing system—which the hon. Gentleman and I agree would be much better—we shall have to consider all the options again. I fear that the provision has not solved the problem, for the reason that I gave. It may put up the costs, but unfortunately people seem to be willing to accept that.
  Dr. Strang: That has been a helpful exchange. The first sentence of the Minister's press release states:
  "Britain is to introduce national measures to improve welfare protection for animals during transport following the failure of the EC Agricultural Council to reach an agreement."
  That was the point raised by the Minister. I cannot recall where it is stated in the press release, but the Minister certainly said that one of the pluses of the system was that authorities of the member states on the continent were to help the Government to police it. The Minister was effectively saying that Governments of the member states were not delivering their undertaking.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The point is not that those Governments are not helping, but that they can only help us to provide evidence against British-originating hauliers, which they are doing.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is another way.
  Mr. Waldegrave: If there is another method, as the hon. Member for Workington has suggested, I shall look at it. We shall not rule out anything. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—if we can achieve a Europewide system, it will be far better.
  Dr. Strang: The Minister's intervention was constructive and helpful.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The options that vie are currently considering are whether to have a pan-European or a domestic licensing system. There is no reason why the Minister should not ask French Governments and other Governments bordering the channel to introduce licensing systems unilaterally. If they were to do that, we might—by tying up the licensing system with pre-transport arrangements for animals going into the mainland Community—be able to resolve the problem with licences rather than have a pan-European arrangement.
  Dr. Strang: That is an interesting point. If we introduced a licensing scheme, perhaps the Germans, and even the French, might follow.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: I shall not give way, as I want to allow time for at least two more speeches before the end of the debate. I am sorry, but I have given way repeatedly.
  It is surely accepted that the transportation of veal calves to crates is cruel. The House of Commons legislated because it is cruel. It is indefensible that, having deemed the system to be cruel—having said that it is wrong to put calves in narrow crates, raise them in relative darkness and feed them an artificial and unbalanced diet—we should transport our calves across the channel into precisely that system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, not only are we doing that, but we are buying back the veal from the continental producer. That cannot be defended.
  Of course, we support the Minister's efforts at a European level. We are not persuaded of the Minister's legal advice. Much work is being done on the subject and I believe that there could well be a different legal position. That has nothing to do with transport, but is based on whether the—
  Mr. James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: No, I have said that I shall not give way again.
  The legal position is based on whether the calf directive is sufficient to block national action here. There are other arguments that I shall not develop this morning.
  In a single market, it is one thing to export an inanimate object that is to be finished or a food ingredient such as grain or flour to be turned into bread, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about sentient creatures and have to adopt a different approach. That issue must appear on the agenda—it is not just a matter of the single market.
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) must resume his seat. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Dr. Strang: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am certainly not giving way.
  We support the Minister's efforts to achieve progress at a European level. That will be better for all the reasons that he gave—there are so many more animals involved and so much more cruelty and abuse will be eliminated if we act on a European level, not just a British one. However, that must not become an excuse for not doing everything that we can nationally. We must consider the subject in its entirety and take every possible action. It is the responsibility of all of us—Members of Parliament, farmers, transporters, slaughterers and the community—to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals.
  12.37 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on securing the Adjournment debate, which is very well-attended. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his speech. We have come to expect good speeches from him, but today's was particularly commendable as he has spent two trying days in Brussels. It is deliciously ironic that Opposition Members who are first in the Lobby to vote for ever-closer union and single institutional frameworks suddenly discover the logic of their own voting records and are surprised to realise that they have largely succeeded in neutering the mother of Parliaments—assuming that a mother can be neutered—through the consequences of their actions.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned some of the protesters—a subject on which there has been much discussion. Many of the protesters are well-meaning people, but, sadly, those who represent rent-a-mob are not well-meaning and a number of them have been travelling around the countryside. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that the protesters have a lot of time on their hands. They tour the countryside picking up the dole wherever they happen to be—demonstrating against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, committing mass trespass on my right hon. Friend's farm, travelling down to the docks. The only danger is that they may exceed the 48-hour directive.
  I know from 30 years' experience just what an organisation the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was in days gone by. There were sometimes 5,000 animals at market in a single day. The RSPCA inspectors were always present, and the relationship between them and the auctioneers was close. If an inspector came to us and said that an animal in the market was unfit to be there, it immediately went home or to the slaughterhouse.
  I wish that I could say that I have had the same high respect for the RSPCA in recent years. Although it still performs much good work, it has become just another political lobby group. That is a very sad development, because I think that the RSPCA could have played a vital part in the hours question. I have listened to the arguments about whether there should be an eight, 10 or 15-hour limit on journeys, but I am not sure that that is the point.

  305
  We could decide upon a maximum journey length of 10 hours, but what if a journey takes only 11 hours? My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned the process of unloading and reloading and my right hon. Friend referred to the three-day rest which would have to be taken for the sake of an extra hour's journey, perhaps on a major motorway. I believe that there should be some discretion in this area and the RSPCA could play a role in enforcing that discretion. I hope that that organisation will get politics out of its system before we reach any more agreements with it.
  Mr. Paul Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that Professor Jeffcote at the veterinary school in Cambridge has undertaken scientific research with regard to stress on animals in transit and has collected substantial data about it? Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than plucking figures for journey times out of the air—whether it be eight hours, 10 hours or whatever—we should try to use scientific evidence as a basis for reaching decisions about the correct length of journey time for different animals?
  Mr. Knapman: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend; I think that a lot more work should be done in that area. There is no "right" number of hours that animals should spend in transit. It may be highly convenient for parliamentary draftsmen and others to mention a number of hours as the basis of an agreement, but we should press for a certain amount of flexibility in the system. I suspect that Professor Jeffcote would find that the animals who were subjected to the activities of rent-a-mob as they passed through the ports suffered quite a bit of stress.
  Once we have moved away from the views of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and others, the reality is that farmers thrive if their animals thrive. They want to sell their animals and by looking after them properly they increase the value of their stock. That point must not be overlooked. What would happen if there was a unilateral ban?
  Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) the hon. Gentleman undertook to answer later in his speech my question whether it was official Labour party policy to support the Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). However, he failed to do that in his speech. Although he addressed the ambiguity of the law—a problem that we are all wrestling with—he did not come off the fence about that matter. Therefore, the House is entitled to conclude that Labour party Front Benchers do not support the Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle.
  Mr. Knapman: To be fair to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, I think that he said that he agreed with certain points that the hon. Member for Carlisle made, but that he could not attend the debate on Friday, probably because he was busy elsewhere. The Labour party's paper on animal transport says:
  "we will seek a ban through the European Commission and Council of Ministers."
  If that is what the Labour party intends to do, the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Carlisle cannot be
  306
  Labour party policy. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has not addressed that point, although he has been invited to do so several times this morning.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On the point about the legal advice to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, is my hon. Friend aware that when the Labour party was in power it received the O'Brien report, which contained legal advice that a unilateral ban of the sort that the hon. Member for Carlisle favours was not clearly justified? It is even less likely to be justified now because, under the Community's directives on calf production, the ground has been occupied. If a unilateral ban were imposed, this country would face a legal mess and the Commission may have warned the Government to that effect.
  Mr. Knapman: That is a fair point. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has forgotten his own voting record, he may also have forgotten some of the finer points of the O'Brien report.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I apologise for intervening in the debate once again, but I wish to assist the House. When a similar Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Commission wrote to the British Government and said that such legislation would be contested. It is not simply a matter of my receiving legal advice; the Commission is extremely equivocal when it wants to be, but it knew that it would win any such case.
  Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making the position clear. I understand that the hon. Member for Carlisle is seeking a unilateral ban on live exports. What would that achieve? What would happen to small calves? They will be born on the farm and killed on the farm, and not all farmers have suitable equipment for stunning and killing small calves on their farms. It would lead to immense cruelty, which is most unsatisfactory.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made more constructive points on the subject this morning than he has for some time. As the hon. Gentleman said, the best scenario is for a maximum number of calves to be slaughtered in British abattoirs. It will add on value—as the hon. Gentleman said, if an animal kills out at 50 per cent., it is better to transport a ton of carcass than two tons of live animals. It may also prove a boost to employment in this country. It is the best scenario for all those reasons.
  I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's speech and it seems that there are four main lines of attack. First, we are seeking a ban on veal crates throughout Europe; secondly, we are pressing the Commission for stronger enforcement of animal transport rules; thirdly, we are pressing for the licensing of hauliers; and, fourthly, we are seeking the co-operation of the meat industry in promoting meat exports and the development of British veal.
  British farmers currently produce pink veal, but white veal is preferred on the continent. However, people used to prefer white bread until there was a campaign to persuade them to buy brown bread. We must make people understand that pink veal has been reared more humanely.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all his activities, which are extremely practical—unlike the suggestions offered by Labour Members, even assuming that they know what Labour party policy is.
  12.47 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am conscious of the time, so I will try to progress quickly with my speech and perhaps another hon. Member will be able to speak as well. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on introducing what has generally been a good and constructive debate—with the exception of the speech by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), which I think lowered the tone of the debate on occasion.
  I think that the call by the hon. Member for Sutton for a broadsheet rather than a tabloid approach to the issue has been heeded. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman lapsed into tabloid-speak twice in his own speech. On one occasion he described vegans as "unnatural", which I think was slightly pejorative. I will return to his other point later. However, he made an important speech which deserves a response.
  I come from north Warwickshire, which is largely an agricultural area. Many of my farming constituents are unhappy about the veal trade and about many practices in other areas of agriculture. They prefer to send their animals to the nearest abattoir rather than transport them longer distances, even though they could make more money that way. It is not a matter of city and rural people having different views on the issue, as many of those in rural areas feel strongly about animal rights.
  Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No, I am trying to make quick progress.
  Transporting animals in conditions which we define as cruel is wrong. We have a moral basis in the law that has been passed here which says that we will ban veal crates. Allowing animals to be transported and put in veal crates in other countries and seeking to reap profits from that undermines the basis of the law. That is why it is very important for the Government, not only to carry on the work they are doing to try to get a European ban on veal crates, but to ensure that there is the strongest condemnation of those who seek to make profits from what we have decided is wrong, cruel and immoral.
  Exporting live animals in that way damages our good abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) recently tried to introduce a private Member's Bill on the export of live animals, and my hon. Friend has a long-term interest in the subject. He has drawn to my attention the closure of an abattoir in Nuneaton, with the loss of about 70 jobs which have now been exported. We must ensure that those jobs remain in this country.
  Let us be clear that there is a real problem with EC law, but that legal opinion is, to some extent, divided. After all, legal opinion is often divided as lawyers, such as myself, make our money by arguing the different sides of a case. There is a strong argument for testing the law. There was a ban on exports in 1973, and there is an argument that that ban could be sustained, at least for a period, perhaps under article 36 of the treaty of Rome or article 20 of GATT. That could provide the basis for such a challenge to the law.
  If they tested the law, the Government would show the strength of their opposition to the trade, and they would also put pressure on the southern European countries to change their views. Even if we lost the court case, it would give a strong discouragement to business men in the UK who are trying to make a profit out of this trade.
  308
  I welcome the Minister's convincing efforts to try to change the law in relation to veal crates. But if that European law requires some sweetening—perhaps for Greece or Portugal—let us ensure that we make some bilateral contacts soon to discuss that and to ensure that they understand that we are prepared to go in that direction. In the mean time, we should promote a system of licensing for hauliers and introduce tough regulations, high standards of training and vehicle supervision in which the licences can be withdrawn for any breach. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) suggested, we can make bilateral contacts with France and other countries to try to ensure that they introduce high standards. That is important and urgent.
  I shall now refer to the position in Warwickshire. In my county and in neighbouring Coventry, six people have died as a result of the veal trade. Five people died in the air crash, while a demonstrator died under the wheels of a lorry. There is anger in my area about that, and it has had a significant impact upon local people. It is right at this point to declare an interest, in that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I hold no brief for them on this matter, and I have not discussed it with them.
  There have been long-term demonstrations at Coventry airport which are putting enormous pressures on the local constabulary. If the trade is not banned, the implications must be looked into. I ask the Minister to approach the Home Office with regard to the considerable concerns felt in Warwickshire about the impact of the trade on the police force. There are enormous pressures on the police, as 50 officers are likely to be lost during the next year. There can be no recruitment within a two-year period and, at the end of this year, 16 per cent. of community beats will not be covered.
  There is an immediate financial crisis as a result of the financial settlement upon the police this year. If the protest continues as a result of the veal trade, the implications for Warwickshire police are, if not disastrous, enormously serious. Police stations could be shut and officer posts lost. That could lead to a lack of policing in Warwickshire. Will the Minister approach the Home Secretary, not just on behalf of Warwickshire but on behalf of Essex, where there have been problems with policing at Brightlingsea?
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the matter, but I am trying to ensure that one of his colleagues has time to make a speech.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is referring to my constituency.
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way as I have referred to Brightlingsea.
  Mr. Jenkin: There have been confrontations with the police at Brightlingsea. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he join me in pleading with the protesters—who, after all, want to keep public support and are in danger of losing that support by confronting the police—to stop sitting down in front of lorries and confronting the police? It is not the veal trade which is causing the police to be at Brightlingsea in large numbers, it is the protesters. If they took a more responsible attitude, they would gain more public support, and they

  309
  would not be costing our constabularies money and threatening the police activities to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to that in a moment, as it is important. Those issues must be addressed and, as a result, I may go up to my time limit.
  I shall finish the point that I was I making. As a result of difficulties in the negotiations about the trade, police forces face long-term public order problems in the areas concerned. There is a need for those funding difficulties to be addressed by the Government. There are unexpected difficulties, and there has been a high settlement on some police forces this year.
  The position in Warwickshire is worrying. The Home Office needs to create a fund which ensures that those forces which have extraordinary public order problems can call upon it to provide the resources which they need. Otherwise, there will be severe dangers of police forces being unable to carry out their duties effectively at the end of the year. I ask the Minister to make representations to the Home Office.
  I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and others in relation to the policing of protests. I agreed with some of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), although I disagreed with others. I entirely agree with his important point that the police are neutral in the matter. Some officers may support the veal trade, while others may disagree. That is not the point. They are paid by the citizens of this country to enforce the law, and that means doing two things—ensuring that the roads are clear for the lorries to pass and ensuring that people can exercise their civil right to protest. It is important for the police to observe both of those, and they know that.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he was "proud" of the peaceful protesters who exercised their civil liberty to demonstrate their real concerns. I welcome that statement by the right hon. Gentleman.
  310
  The hon. Member for Sutton read out a number of press cuttings, one of which referred to a senior officer in Warwickshire. Extremists do get involved in many events and can often inflict great damage to the cause, but causes such as this do not depend solely on what happens during a protest. The strength of the arguments is what matters, and many decent and honourable people involved in the protest—whether they are Conservatives, Labour supporters or Liberal Democrats—properly want to peacefully protest their interest in raising the issue, and that should be welcomed. They have a strong argument, and are exercising their right to protest.
  This trade is, in my view, immoral. While it is not breaching the law, it breaches the spirit of the law by seeking to make a profit out of something which we accept is cruel and unjust. I very much hope that the efforts of the Government to try to ensure that we have an EC ban on veal crates, and also a licensing system not only in this country and neighbouring countries but throughout Europe will be sustained. That will effectively ensure that animals will be transported and kept in the best conditions. That is what we are looking for, and that is what we can get.
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I have little time, but I wish to speak in the debate because a great many of my constituents object vehemently to this trade. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, many people who object to the trade are Tory voters. What outrages them most is learning from the television and the radio that we have given up the power to do anything about it. I do not accept that. I regard this as a sovereign House, and I am not prepared to be lectured by MAFF officials about what the House can and cannot legislate for.
  I am fortunate enough, I hope, to have secured an opportunity to present a Bill under the 10-minute rule which will restore to the Minister the powers that he needs to apply a ban, if he considers that appropriate, and I urge Opposition Members to support it—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

  Spectac Ltd.
  1 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: I am grateful for the opportunity today to draw attention to what I believe to be a serious risk to many of our citizen—the unscrupulous way in which many foreign-based overseas recruitment companies operate in the United Kingdom.
  I want to illustrate a particular instance of this abuse. In the weeks leading up to Christmas 1994, 27 people became the innocent victims of a carefully orchestrated criminal conspiracy. They each lost £8,000, money that none of them could afford to lose. The 27 came from all parts of the United Kingdom, but mostly from our shipbuilding towns and cities. Eleven of them are from my constituency, where, as the Minister will know, unemployment has rocketed over the past few years as Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. yard has declined.
  All 11 constituents were recruited by a Dutch company, Spectac, based in Dordrecht and operated as a one-man business by Colin Martin. The workers, who were welders, platers, riggers and electricians—many of them used to work in shipbuilding—were told that they would he working on five-year fixed-term contracts in Guam, and would be paid £4,000 a month tax-free.
  Before signing any of the contracts, many of my constituents took advice from their financial advisers, who told them that this was a safe bet and to proceed with the contracts. Many of them borrowed money, some remortgaged their properties.
  Spectac recruited these workers from a variety of sources. The company placed advertisements in several British regional newspapers, and it certainly used the jobshop operated by a local enterprise council in Invergordon. I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with that information. Others recruited have testified that they were notified by local jobcentres, but in the main, details of the recruitment were circulated through a network of word-of-mouth contacts of the type common in the offshore construction industry.
  The company in Guam, Offshore Corporation, would require each worker to deposit a confidence or integrity bond worth nearly £8,000, which would be repaid monthly over the duration of the five-year contract. The downpayment of £5,000 was supposed to be a sign of good faith on the part of the workers towards Offshore Corporation.
  Inevitably, the confidence bond money was duly handed over to Spectac. The workers and their money were flown out to Thailand and later to the Philippines. The tickets, I believe, were paid for out of the proceeds of the integrity bonds.
  After a few days in Thailand and the Philippines, the truth became apparent. There was no company called Offshore Corporation. There were no jobs in Guam, and the money—by this time totalling more than £200,000—had disappeared, along with the villains of this whole dismal episode: Ronnie Hydes, Gerry O'Connor and Colin Martin himself.
  There is some doubt about whether Colin Martin was a participant in the conspiracy. I have no opinion on that matter one way or the other, but I am alarmed by some evidence that I received today purporting to come from Spectac in Holland and claiming to provide evidence of a
  312
  payment guarantee that it had lodged with Barclays bank in Jersey to cover any problems with the non-repayment of the integrity bond. That document, I am confident, is completely fraudulent—and it raises doubts about Colin Martin's participation in the whole business.
  Unfortunately, the whereabouts of Ronny Hydes and Gerry O'Connor are not known; and the chances of recovering the stolen moneys are small. On 14 February, Spectac ceased to exist as a legal entity under Dutch law. Colin Martin is thought to be somewhere in Thailand, outside the effective reach of any legal action in the United Kingdom, and probably anywhere else.
  My constituents have been devastated by these events. In short, they have been exploited and ripped off.
  Ms Angela Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this important subject. Bob Neil, a constituent of mine—the shipbuilding connection is again obvious—was also one of the 27 people affected. I can confirm that exactly the same happened to him as happened to my hon. Friend's 11 constituents. He too stands to lose £8,000 under the contract exposed by the good work that my hon. Friend is doing.
  Mr. Hutton: I am aware of the difficulties that my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Bob Neil, is experiencing. They are exactly the same as those experienced by the other 27 innocent victims of the crime.
  This is not the first time that Ronny Hydes and Gerry O'Connor have perpetrated this kind of fraud. They were well known conmen and cowboys. The sad fact is that they are still able to perpetrate this fraud in the United Kingdom.
  I want to discuss how the Government can respond to what I believe is an acute problem. We are dealing not just with work outside the European Union. There is also well documented evidence of abuse on construction sites in Germany, where many skilled British workers have found themselves ripped off—their wages have not been paid, and so on. Mr. Bob Neil's case is a stark reminder of just how vulnerable many of our fellow citizens are. They never expected to be out of work, but they possess valuable skills, and they find themselves facing the dismal prospect of years out of work in this country. Naturally, they tend to look overseas for employment opportunities.
  I do not believe it fair to say that the 27 people involved were gullible: they were innocent victims of a crime. These events highlight deficiencies and loopholes in what is left of our regulatory framework after deregulation. They also highlight a number of gaps and loopholes in the law. Unless we deal with those problems, it is likely that they will be repeated again and again in the years ahead.
  We know that cowboys operate in the overseas recruitment business, often through front companies that act as agents for undisclosed principals. We need seriously to tackle and confront such problems.
  Probably no regulatory system can he foolproof, but we can do a number of things to make it harder for the cowboys to operate. First, the Government should look at the arrangements for checking the bona fides of foreign-based recruitment companies that operate in the United Kingdom. A recruitment company that has no operational base in the United Kingdom falls outside the scope of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, so it is not

  313
  possible under UK domestic legislation for enforcement action to be taken against a foreign-based recruitment agency.
  Effective action will require co-operation between European Union member states if we are to deal with the problem satisfactorily. I hope that there will be a chance, under the French presidency, of another look at the posted workers directive to see whether there is any prospect of breathing life into that initiative. I recognise that, if it has life left in it, it might benefit only workers who work in the EU. Of course, the case that I am highlighting goes outside the EU, and would not be covered by the posted workers directive.
  Secondly, the Department of Employment should ensure that all Government agencies are properly advised about consulting the overseas placing unit when handling overseas job places. That is especially necessary when job places are being advertised by a recruitment company. I understand that that did not happen in the case of the Invergordon job shop, which is run by the local enterprise company and is part of the Highlands and Islands enterprise agency.
  If an overseas recruitment company were able to operate in this country through agencies established by central Government without any effective procedures for ensuring that proper information was disclosed between the agencies, there would be a serious abrogation of responsibility. I am prepared to accept that this case may be an example of a one-off, a mistake, but there were guidelines. It seems that they were not followed in this instance. I hope that it is a one-off. If it is not, the Minister should seriously consider what has happened. It is one of the ways in which we should have regard to how recruitment agencies are operating.
  We must, of course, operate within a framework of European law in partnership with European Union member states, but there is a case for the Government examining the operation of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and tightening some of their administrative arrangements for disseminating information and best practice in advising local job shops, job clubs and jobcentres about overseas recruitment and vacancies.
  Thirdly, measures need to be taken to deal with integrity bonds. It is this aspect of the Spectac case that concerns me most. The Government should consider making it unlawful for companies to require the payment of such bonds in the United Kingdom. At the least, there should be more effective control over how the moneys are to be handled.
  If it is considered inappropriate to make the payment of integrity bonds unlawful, there is a case for saying, for example, that any payments should be held on account by trustees and not, as in the Spectac case, paid directly by the 27 workers recruited by Spectac to the recruitment agency. When that happens, there is little or no effective control over the moneys, including where they eventually end up. In the Spectac case, we still do not know where the moneys ended up.
  The Government should consider amending the guidelines issued by the overseas placing unit to overseas jobseekers. In particular, the guidance should be amended to warn against paying into integrity or confidence bonds. There is nothing in the guidelines issued by the overseas placing unit that refers directly or indirectly to the
  314
  problems associated with integrity bonds. There is a warning about working overseas and not being covered by United Kingdom employment protection legislation, but that misses the point. Most people working in the far east, for example, would assume that that legislation does not extend to Guam and Thailand.
  The problem lies more with some of the sharp practices that are increasingly finding their way into the recruitment agency business. Integrity bonds are inherently dangerous and dodgy. The Government should carefully consider the guidance they have already issued to overseas job seekers, with a view to spelling out the problems associated with the payment of integrity bonds.
  It may be appropriate, in the light or wake of the Spectac case, for the Department of Employment to consider advising the editors of British regional and national newspapers against handling any advertisement from foreign or domestic recruitment agencies that require payment of integrity bonds. That would involve the Government in recommending editors and newspapers generally to engage in an easy and standard form of inquiry.
  Our newspapers provide the main forum for the cowboys' operations. The Government should require an investigation to determine whether any vacancy being handled or placed through any agency requires the payment of an integrity bond. If the Government are not convinced of the need to make such payments unlawful, they should introduce a requirement that advertisements should warn the public of the dangers or hazards associated with paying integrity or confidence bonds.
  We must bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. I know that the Minister is extremely competent, but I do not believe that her jurisdiction extends into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I hope, however, that the Government will be in contact with the Dutch and Thai authorities to ensure that Hydes, O'Connor and Martin are all held to account for their actions.
  It is clear that no criminal offence took place within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts, but there may have been violations of the Dutch criminal code. I hope that the Government will raise the extradition of Hydes, O'Connor and Martin with the Dutch Government. British citizens have been the victims of an appalling fraud. That being so, I hope that the Government will do all they can to ensure that justice is seen to be done in this case.
  1.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on obtaining the debate and on raising an important matter. He will have increased public awareness of the problem, and I congratulate him on that, too. I congratulate him also on having his debate at such a "seasonal" hour. I hope that afterwards I do not go on autopilot and go home forgetting that there is the rest of the parliamentary day.
  First, I shall respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points about what the Government might seek to do to counter what is, fortunately, a rare but serious type of fraud.
  We shall strengthen the guidance that we give to warn job seekers about the dangers of integrity bonds. I take the opportunity to reinforce the advice that we already give job seekers, which is that, if they find in a magazine

  315
  or newspaper an advertisement of employment abroad, they should take it up and have it checked through their jobcentre with our overseas placing unit, about which I wish to say more in a moment. That is a sensible measure, which will greatly increase the protection offered to job seekers.
  European legislation will not help in dealing with the tiny minority of fraudsters who come within the terms of the debate. The Department has, however, taken up with the Dutch Minister with employment responsibilities the matter of illegal agencies that are based in the Netherlands. Officials will be taking discussions forward.
  We have already taken steps to warn job seekers about bogus agencies, through a poster and leaflet campaign. In the light of the debate and in the light of the Spectac incident, I shall examine the need to refresh the campaign.
  I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should be making representations to newspapers. Newspapers are already well aware that it is not in their interests to carry advertisements that place their readers at risk. On the other hand, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that bogus agencies do not make their purposes entirely clear in newspaper advertisements. I think that he will accept that it is quite difficult for newspapers to come to judgments. Often, however, they contact the Department for advice when they think that there is an element of doubt. There is already some contact between newspapers and the Department.
  Ms Eagle: Is there a list of companies that are known to have been fraudulent in the past that the Department of Employment could refer to or begin to keep, if it does not do so already? At least those companies would have to keep changing their names and taking on new forms if they were intent on trying to perpetrate the same fraud over and over again.
  Miss Widdecombe: When I come to discuss the overseas placing unit, I shall explain that one of the purposes is to check on the bona fides of job vacancies that are advertised from abroad. Given its experience, the unit would obviously have knowledge of companies where there was established fault or doubt. That is not information that would be held centrally in every jobcentre. We have the unit as a point of referral, so that we can try to keep a level of expertise.
  I turn to the specific case that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness has raised.
  I wrote to him on 12 February and set out the steps that the Employment Service had taken to establish how the vacancies had been drawn to the attention of job seekers. I confirmed that it was not, in fact, through the Employment Service, and I also told him the checks that the Employment Service makes on vacancies that come to it from employers in other countries.
  Of course we deplore completely the activities of bogus employers who trade in entirely fictitious jobs overseas with the sole intention of defrauding job seekers. It is a practice that is known to us, but it is, as I said earlier, thankfully, still rare. Where and when we can, we are taking steps to ensure that it happens even less often. I would advise anybody considering paying an integrity bond to take legal advice before doing so. They may well end up having to pay a solicitor, only to find that they are advised not to take the job, but that is infinitely better than losing thousands of pounds on an integrity bond.
  316
  This very unfortunate incident must be seen in context so that we can tackle it appropriately. About 5.7 million people change jobs each year. Many do so through informal channels, such as friends, colleagues or newspaper advertisements. The Employment Service and the private sector recruitment agencies have a valuable part to play, both in helping people to find work and in stimulating a flexible labour market.
  The Employment Service is charged by the Government, of course, with offering unemployed people—especially the long-term unemployed and others at a disadvantage in the labour market—help and advice in finding work. In the last full year, 1.64 million people were placed into work and 2.27 million vacancies were handled, so that puts this problem into context.
  From those volumes of business, therefore, we must bear in mind the infrequency of the type of incident that we are debating. Although we need remedies—and we do—we must keep them in proportion to the problem; otherwise, we would run the risk of prejudicing a wide range of good practices for all parties in the labour market, and thus reduce our ability to service legitimate vacancies from employers, including employers overseas, which can bring real benefit to skilled individuals from Britain. In that context, the posted workers directive, even if fully implemented, would have had nil impact on this case.
  The Employment Service will therefore continue to deal with vacancies overseas, as do UK-based private employment agencies. Sadly, we cannot take direct action on foreign-based employment agencies, but I will come back to what the employment agencies, the Employment Service and its overseas placing unit can do, and in most cases what they are already carrying out, to minimise the risks of sharp practice.
  The case that the hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn to the attention of the House is highly serious. The company that he has described—Spectac—is reported to have responded to an advertisement placed in a Dutch newspaper calling for the submission of tenders for the supply of labour to work on a barge on the north Pacific ocean island of Guam. The company that placed the advertisement, variously described as the "Offshore Corporation of Chicago" or the "Offshore Corporation of Bangkok", is bogus. Spectac, a Dutch-based company, run by a director of British origin but resident in the Netherlands, had agreed to obtain an integrity bond of US$12,000 from applicants as a condition of securing the contract for the supply of labour.
  Men were then recruited from various parts of Great Britain towards the end of 1994. Some were indeed unemployed; others gave up full-time jobs to take up the vacancies. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, many of them ill-advisedly raised the money for the bond through taking out loans.
  The men went to the far east in early December, only to become stranded in Manila, where it became clear to them that the jobs did not exist. The director of Spectac returned from Manila to Bangkok, with one of the men from the final group to leave Britain, and there they reported to the police the activities of the Offshore Corporation. One of the directors was then held by the Thai police for a few days, but, allegedly, was released by them after promising to find his partner. He and his partner have since disappeared. Spectac has now been investigated by the Dutch authorities and closed down.

  317
  It is known that the unfortunate victims of the fraud came from different parts of Britain. There is, however, evidence that areas of the country where men have recently been made redundant were specifically targeted by Spectac. That may well explain why men in the hon. Gentleman's constituency were particularly affected. Many of his constituents are skilled shipbuilding workers, who supposedly would have been able to find the money for the integrity bond from redundancy payments.
  There is also evidence that the highlands region of Scotland was targeted by Spectac, probably because it, too, has a large number of ex-employees from the oil fabrication industry, who have skills and a source of capital. But after exhaustive inquiries throughout the Employment Service, concentrating particularly on the highlands region, there is no evidence that jobcentres were involved in what is a profoundly regrettable incident. I believe that the hon. Gentleman might have been led to suspect that my Department was involved, because many people learned of the bogus vacancies through the Invergordon job shop.
  The Invergordon job shop is run by three local enterprise companies reporting to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Two years ago, Highlands and Islands Enterprise recognised that the oil fabrication industry, on which the economy of the area around the Moray firth had depended heavily for two decades, was facing significant decline. Along with the increased efforts to ensure the survival of the existing businesses, and the provision of advisory services, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in conjunction with the three local enterprise companies, set up a redundancy counselling and placement service, known as the job shop. The job shop has, to date, been successful in placing some 1,100 redundant oil fabrication workers.
  I understand that, on 3 November, the Invergordon job shop was contacted by the director of Spectac Ltd. in the Netherlands, notifying the management there of an impending contract in Thailand between his company and the so-called Offshore Corporation of Chicago, with the potential of up to 500 jobs. Seven days later, Spectac again contacted the job shop to say that its director was in Thailand, preparing to sign the contract, and gave details of the staff required.
  In total, 54 people on the job shop's books were contacted to find out whether they would be interested in the contract. But it was stressed to them at that stage that nothing was known about the job or the company, and that the approach at that point was entirely tentative, to ascertain—
  Mr. Hutton: Did the Invergordon job shop, at any time prior to contacting those 54 individuals, discuss Spectac and the contract with the overseas placing unit?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall come to that point, and will also point out that, when doubts were raised in the job shop's mind, it went to great lengths to contact all those who were on its books and who had originally expressed interest, to point out to them that they absolutely should not enter into a contract with Spectac, because the company's bond was illegal. Job shop staff contacted all 54 individuals. They even contacted 20 or so other people from the Easter Ross area, who had come to them unsolicited. It then gave them the same advice.
  In the short time left, I want to say something about the overseas placing unit, and so shall leave my rather fuller description of what went on. I hope that I have shown from that rather brief description that the job shop in Invergordon took every last possible step to inform people that there was a severe risk in paying over an integrity bond. Indeed, it did more than that, and advised them not to do it.
  The overseas placing unit, which is based at the Employment Service head office in Sheffield, provides guidance to our jobcentres on giving advice to job seekers about work abroad. It supplies guidance to job seekers directly and to employers both in the UK and abroad on placing vacancies.
  It is supported in Employment Service English regions, Scotland and Wales by a network of experts known as Euro-advisers. They are connected by information technology to a central clearing point in Brussels and to other Euroadvisers in the European Union, so that they can exchange details of vacancies and information on living and working conditions. On average, the unit receives 3,000 inquiries a month on all questions about working overseas, not only in Europe but many other parts of the world.
  In 1994, 950 people were placed by the Employment Service in jobs overseas, but as we can see from the subject of the debate, there can be special difficulties with such vacancies. Because they are overseas, it makes it difficult for my officials in jobcentres. For that reason—I cannot stress this too strongly—jobcentres may not act on overseas vacancies until the vacancies have been vetted by the overseas placing unit.
  The overseas placing unit runs several checks on the contract of employment and job description. It seeks a letter from a lawyer, written in English, stating that the company is bona fide and clarification on the availability of work permits. If the prospective employer cannot meet any of those stipulations, the vacancy is refused, and may not be handled by our jobcentres.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

  Senior Officers (Employment Conditions)
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for granting me the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for being here this afternoon to respond to it.
  Some colleagues and others listening to the debate will have believed that I applied for the debate to highlight the circumstances surrounding the case of my constituent, Air Chief Marshall Sir Andrew—otherwise known as Sandy—Wilson, KCB. Sir Sandy had an excellent record of service in the Royal Air Force for more than 30 years. He began as a formidable fighter pilot and subsequently assumed the initial command of our forces during Operation Granby and was promoted to the post of Commander-in-Chief of RAF Germany from 1991 to 1993. He is now Commander-in-Chief of RAF personnel at RAF Innsworth, a four-star appointment, and he is the third most senior officer in the RAF.
  Given that exemplary record of public service, many were surprised to read of Sir Sandy's early retirement. I should make it clear for the record that it was his decision to seek early retirement and, on balance, bearing in mind all the circumstances, I believe that he made the correct decision. I hope that it will now be possible for him to retire with all the dignity and honour that he deserves and that his retirement, terminal grant and redundancy terms will be generous and befitting of an officer of his stature, and as recommended in paragraphs 63, 64 and 65 of the latest report of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
  Before I move on to the substantive part of my speech, I want to highlight the case of Private Clegg. It is vital that the Ministry of Defence considers the yellow card instructions so that our soldiers carrying out their duty can know that they have the full protection of the law.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am not aware that a private is a senior officer in the armed forces.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I just say that there is a welter of public indignation at the way—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may chose to say all sorts of things in different debates, but this morning he must confine himself to senior officers only.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We should have no doubts at the outset of the origins of overstretch. The armed services will number 236,000 in April 1995—a reduction of 22 per cent. since April 1990—but in general terms there is every hope that the pressure placed upon service men post-"Options for Change" will ease. I fervently hope that the Northern Ireland peace process holds so that it will be possible to reduce the number of roulement units in Northern Ireland, perhaps reversing the increase from four to six which took place in 1992.
  There are other reasons for confidence that the conditions of stretch in our armed forces will be reduced, such as the creation of a Territorial Army unit for the Falklands, which will reduce the pressure for roulement
  320
  units to cover those islands. However, it is likely that commitments elsewhere, such as in Bosnia, will always remain.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the independent Review Body on Armed Forces Pay. The average pay rise will be 2.6 per cent., taking a corporal to a possible maximum of £18,527.
  Furthermore, it is right that we continue to reward the most senior officers for the significant and increasing managerial responsibilities that they are now asked to undertake. We must pay realistic rates if we are to retain those with the skills and the ability to carry out senior officers' responsibilities. At £57,766 for a brigadier and £97,430 for a general, I have no doubt that, in comparison with the private sector, the taxpayer is receiving value for money.
  The report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, published this month, offers some interesting comparisons between top officials. It recommends that a permanent secretary should be paid between £90,000 and £150,000, with an average of £120,000, a top judge should be paid £121,000 and the Chief of he Defence Staff should be paid £121,130. Those figures are all comparable.
  I shall say a few words about the review of pay and conditions of service men being undertaken by Michael Bett, which is due to report to Ministers shortly and will cover the period up to 2010. The signs are that the Bett review is moving in the right direction and the Ministry of Defence has said that its findings will be published and subject to consultation. I welcome that.
  However, we should recognise that there are differences between civilian and service life. Disruption through frequent postings is the recognised norm in all three services. Stability for those with young families should be considered and, where practical, longer postings should be the norm. There is also scope for better targeting of travel and other allowances for those who need them most. The children of Army and RAF officers facing frequent overseas postings in mid-career deserve a stable education. Boarding school allowances have an important role to play in that. We must also recognise the pressures that come from overseas postings and transient lifestyles on service men's wives who are unable to establish permanent homes, second incomes, or stable networks of friends.
  Fair redundancy terms for senior officers also need to be considered in the context of the Bett review. According to recent media stories, eight major-generals, 32 brigadiers and 48 colonels will be asked to retire early under the "Front Line First" study. The details of the settlement by which a major-general will receive a total first-year pay-off of £210,000 seem fair in the circumstances. That figure is made up of 18 months salary worth £90,000, a further severance payment of £90,000 and a first year's pension of £30,000.
  Paragraph 64 of the report of the latest Senior Salaries Review Body states:
  "We recommend that three-star officers and above who are retired early as a result of current and future restructuring should receive compensation on terms no worse proportionately than apply to junior officers in their service."
  Given the age and current earnings of senior officers, such sentiments are only fair.

  321
  It is vital that we continue to attract the high-calibre officers on whom the future of our services rest. Ministry of Defence figures from the statistical bulletin in June show that while recruitment was above target for the Navy and on par for the Air Force, in the Army there was a 20 per cent. shortfall between target and actual officer recruitment—784 compared with 967. In comparison, the shortfall for 1990 was only 4 per cent., based on a much higher level of recruitment. A single year does not make a trend, but those figures should be noted with concern.
  The public perception of the status of senior officers, including their remuneration, promotion and retirement conditions, will affect the recruitment prospects of officers at junior level. We should in no way compromise the level of talent in officers and other ranks whom we are prepared to recruit.
  Again, the 17th report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries states:
  "The quality of the senior officer structure depends on the ability of the services to recruit and then retain sufficient young men and women of the highest calibre to rise to two-star rank and above."
  The most important part comes next. It states:
  "In our last report we expressed concern that the reduction in career prospects could impair the recruitment and retention of junior officers. We remain highly concerned that the highly publicised reductions in armed forces strength may deter many high-quality individuals from pursuing a military career."
  In this short debate, it has not been possible to cover all aspects of employment conditions of senior service men but I hope that I have highlighted a few concerns so that people of the highest calibre will continue to be recruited and to make their complete career in our armed forces. The public have a right to be proud that our armed forces are the most professional in the world. The Gulf, the Falklands and the Northern Ireland campaign truly demonstrated that, and I hope that it will always be so.
  1.39 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing this debate on such an important and timely topic. Some of the points that he raised went a little wider than the subject of the debate, but I would like to reassure him that a number of those points will be raised, and I shall deal with them at some length, during the Army debate tomorrow which, knowing his interest and support for the armed forces, I very much hope he will try to attend.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the great responsibilities placed on our service men and women at all levels, and the crucial importance of our continuing ability to recruit and retain people of the first quality. That is one of the most important challenges that face the armed services for the future. It is precisely with that objective in mind that my right hon. and learned Friend The Secretary of State commissioned the independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service that is being conducted for the Ministry of Defence by Mr. Michael Bett and his team. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that Mr. Bett and his team have gone to enormous lengths to produce what I am sure will be a worthwhile and interesting report.
  322
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive Mr. Bett's report at the end of March. The review is very wide-ranging, as my hon. Friend knows. It covers pay and allowances structures, pensions, rank and career structures, housing and accommodation policy and terms and conditions of service, all of which, as my hon. Friend rightly knows, are extremely important to service men and women.
  The review's purpose is to ensure that, as we approach the early years of the 21st century, arrangements are in place that are sufficiently robust and flexible and meet our needs in terms of our ability to attract and retain people of the highest quality to perform the very demanding tasks that we ask of people at all levels. In particular, the review was needed against the background of change in the deployment of the armed forces and the very profound changes—not all of them for the better—in our national life. Mr. Bett and his team will thus be taking the most careful account, among other things, of changes in the nature of the tasks which our service men and women are expected to perform, in the skills that they need and in the work force from which they are recruited.
  At the same time, the review will certainly take the fullest account of the particular requirements and ethos of service life. That is an extremely important matter for the armed forces and one for which we shall have a very high regard and care. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that point and I want to assure him that it is especially reflected in Mr. Bett's terms of reference. It is a matter that we shall consider very carefully indeed.
  As for recent and current recruitment trends, lower targets resulting from the "Options for Change" rundown have meant that we have had few problems in attracting sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and well-motivated young people to a career in the services, even though applications for both officers and other ranks are down on previous years. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, however, that premature voluntary release remains at very low levels, although there is some evidence of increased competition from the civilian job market as the economy improves.
  As recruiting targets rise in the coming years, it may be more difficult to attract young people in the eligible age groups. That, as my hon. Friend will understand, would be a very serious matter for the forces. We are therefore spending great time and effort to see how we can better manage those issues. As my hon. Friend knows, studies about recruiting have been under way for some time and some have gone very well indeed.
  My hon. Friend referred to allowances, on which we are expecting Mr. Bett to make recommendations. My hon. Friend has identified issues such as the degree of stability or otherwise in service life, which will obviously be a very important background to the review team's thinking because they influence the costs incurred by service men and women and their families as a result of the requirements of service life.
  My hon. Friend might like to know that, last week, I met an outstanding brigadier who has served for 30 years in the Army, during which time he has had 28 jobs in 14 countries involving 17 home moves. He remains triumphantly happily married with two very beautiful daughters, but it is an appropriate moment to pay the warmest possible tribute to the wives of our service men who put up with a great deal and do not derive great confidence from the fatuous sniping by the Opposition.

  323
  Until we receive Mr. Bett's report, however, it would obviously be quite wrong for me to speculate about his likely recommendations or to comment on the speculation in the House or by the media.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister should be assured that this will not be a fatuous snipe. Will the Minister tell us when the Bett report will be published? Will it be available to hon. Members and will the House have an opportunity to debate it, as it deals with important matters?
  Mr. Soames: I have never heard anything fatuous from the hon. Gentleman in my life and I totally exclude him from my remarks.
  The Bett report is not yet with my right hon. and learned Friend. We expect it quite shortly. We will wish to give it the most prudent and careful consideration. Whether it should be debated in the House is plainly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will go to great efforts to ensure that what is in the Bett report is disseminated widely throughout the services and to all those who are interested in it. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attention to it; if he wishes to come and discuss it when it is published, I should be happy for him to do so.
  As well as looking at the time scale of Mr. Bett's review, we are seized of the need for today's pay levels to meet recruiting and retention needs. On 9 February, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was glad to announce that the Government are meeting in full the recommendation on service pay of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay and the Senior Salaries Review Body.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the claims made in the past few days by the Opposition about the pay of senior members of the armed forces. The figures on which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has been trying to drum up indignation compare movement in the earnings of the armed forces with rises in average earnings. It is not surprising that the pay of the most senior ranks has risen more and that of the junior ranks has risen less than the increase in average earnings. It is not the same as measuring increases in pay in real terms.
  What matters is that the pay of all ranks, except the most junior entrant private, has risen in real terms since 1979. I accept that the most senior officers have seen the highest increases in real terms, but that mirrors the position in the economy at large and they bear great and onerous responsibilities for which they should be properly rewarded.
  One of the more idiotic remarks that I have heard recently was from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who inquired whether senior officers received share options. That shows the level of understanding and debate in the Labour party.
  I might add that, in its last two reports, the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay has said that its recommendations on pay levels for brigadier and colonel equivalent fall short of broad comparability. To suggest that other ranks are losing out to subsidise the salary of most senior officers is, frankly, ridiculous.
  We have always accepted the recommendations of the armed forces review body and the Government are rightly and justifiably proud of their record on armed forces pay. We aim to he fair to the service men and to the taxpayer
  324
  and to recognise that service pay must be sufficient to recruit and retain sufficient people of the very best calibre, including those at the most senior levels.
  My hon. Friend has rightly pointed to the demanding range of skills that are increasingly required of our senior people. There is no doubt that restructuring and management reforms within the services have, in some cases, resulted in considerable increases in the responsibilities of many senior officers, but they have—almost without exception—risen magnificently to the tasks that they have had to undertake.
  To fill posts at that senior level with people of exceptional calibre, we need in particular to retain our most able men and women. That clearly cannot be done without rewarding them appropriately and fairly. Today, the services are in regular competition with the rest of the marketplace at senior level and, indeed, at every level of expertise and training, not least because they are the best trained work force in the United Kingdom.
  Inevitably and sadly, the process of restructuring in the armed forces has involved painful redundancies at all levels. In the longer run, the corporate identity of all three services will be enhanced by measures that have sought to ensure that the armed forces are able to concentrate their efforts and manpower on vital tasks, and on tasks that only they can perform.
  As the House knows, that was the thrust of the "Front Line First" exercise: to maximise front-line capability by making prudent, achievable and wholly necessary economies in, for instance, headquarters, infrastructure, administration and stores. However, no one would wish to make light of the upheaval and pain that changes of that nature—and particularly the related redundancies—cause in the short term.
  Let me place on record my profound admiration for the way in which both the services and their vital and essential civilian support are coping. I also pay tribute 10 the work of the resettlement organisation in the armed forces, whose record is outstanding. I propose to say more about its achievements tomorrow.
  My hon. Friend mentioned compensation for senior officers who are made redundant—that subject prompted the recent question from the hon. Member for Carlisle about whether they were given share options. We have been reviewing the matter during the past 12 months—
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
  Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not a point of debate rather than a point of order. It is important to clarify that, as points of order have been abused on the Floor of the House recently. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of doing that, but it is an important point that he should bear in mind. Does he wish to proceed with his point of order? Is it a point of order for the Chair?
  Mr. Martlew rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There seems to be some doubt. I invite the Minister to continue.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As I was saying, we have been reviewing compensation during the past 12 months. It is discussed in the recent report of the Senior Salaries Review Body. There are differences in career structures, and thus in retirement policies, among the three services, reflecting differing manpower structures and requirements. In the past, severance compensation for senior Royal Navy and Army officers has been paid only when an officer, having been promoted with the expectation of serving for a particular period, has been compulsorily retired before completing a specified tour. At present, however, we do not envisage paying compensation when the inability to offer an individual further appointments does not arise from structural causes—when the individual is not truly redundant.
  Although my hon. Friend did not allude to it, a great deal has been written recently about the life styles of, and so-called perks for, senior officers. I must make it clear yet again that it is not for the individual's benefit that some official residences are provided for senior commanders; it is to enable them to fulfil their crucial command duties and their responsibilities for representational entertainment.
  I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the review that Sir Peter Cazalet is currently conducting for us; Sir Peter's terms of reference ask him to examine the requirement to entertain, and the means of discharging it. In particular, they ask him to consider whether it could be discharged more effectively than through the use of official service residences and other quarters and, in the light of that, whether any properties can be disposed of. Sir Peter will also make recommendations on how entertainment should be funded and on the levels of assistance that should be provided if the concept of entertaining in officers' own homes is retained. A statement of the Government's reactions will be made as soon as we have given detailed consideration to Sir Peter's report, which is expected later this month.
  326
  In the light of the report, we may well want to change some aspects of the current arrangements in the future. The fact remains, however, that our existing arrangements are intended solely to enable senior officers to fulfil their official responsibilities, which are of great importance to the interests of the country and the dignity of the service that they represent.
  I agree with those who point out that, in many instances, the burdens placed on senior officers by the representational and social aspects of their duties are considerable, and often constitute a thoroughly unwelcome intrusion into their lives and the lives of their families. As my answer of 10 February made clear, we are determined—as are the services—that provision should be limited to what is absolutely necessary for the undertaking of those duties. We are taking appropriate steps to improve the control and visibility of expenditure on residences.
  We are also anxious to ensure that the assistance given to occupants of official service residences and other married quarters is provided in a cost-effective and sensible way, and is no more than is required to enable officers to carry out their representational and command duties and conduct official hospitality to the standard rightly required by the high responsibilities of their post. My right hon. and learned Friend and I look forward to receiving Sir Peter Cazalet's findings.
  My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the distinguished career of Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson, who ceases to be Air Member for Personnel at the end of April. I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging the valuable service that Sir Andrew has given his country and the Royal Air Force, and I agree with the sentiments that he expressed.
  My hon. Friend also rightly remarked that we expect a great deal from our serving officers. He should be aware that the United Kingdom is unbelievably lucky to continue to have such truly remarkable people at the most senior level in all the services. By achieving high rank, they will have had to demonstrate the highest levels of reliability, self-discipline, self-reliance, loyalty, leadership, integrity, decisiveness and self-motivation, which mark them—and all other service men and women—and set them apart from any other organisation in the land. They are of a quality not to be found anywhere else, and they deserve our thanks and respect.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  1.57 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the Minister for Transport in London is to reply. I hold the Government responsible for the care and maintenance of the Forth rail bridge, and I am pleased that a United Kingdom Minister is present.
  I have written to the Scottish Office, to no avail. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been more successful, however. He received a letter, dated 2 February, from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), the third paragraph of which states:
  "As agreed, officials have also sought the views of Railtrack and ScotRail. You also wished the views of the Bridgemaster to be sought. As you will appreciate, the Bridgemaster is an employee of British Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd, who are contractors to Railtrack for the day to day management of the Bridge and for carrying out the maintenance programme. It is Railtrack who determine the maintenance strategy for the Bridge and have overall responsibility for it."
  I do not want the Government to hide behind any organisation, whether it be Railtrack or British Rail. I hold the Government responsible for the maintenance and safety of the bridge and its funding.
  Everyone knows that the Forth bridge is an engineering wonder of the world and a tourist must for people visiting Scotland. In Scotland, we consider that it belongs to the people and not to the persons who are its caretakers. Funding must be found, but that funding should not be for an industrial museum. That is not the intention of my speech. I want the Forth bridge to be an integral part and working model of communications between Fife, Lothian and the rest of Scotland.
  We hope that rail commuting and freight levels will be increased on that route and that the proposal for a second road bridge which has been mooted by the Government will be put aside. One of the problems with the second road bridge is the fact that the problem of the bottlenecks will not be solved. One will get over the water more quickly, but one will hit a bottleneck more quickly as well, especially in and around the city of Edinburgh. If the Government wish to build a bridge, they should consider the Kincardine area. The bridge there has too much traffic. The savings from dropping the proposal for the alternative bridge could go into maintaining the Forth bridge properly.
  I have visited the Forth bridge as a guest both of Railtrack and of ScotRail. I have sailed below it with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). We have examined it in detail and it is in a deplorable condition. Again because of the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I have a letter dated 14 February from the Health and Safety Executive. It spells out in the third paragraph:
  "In effect the situation is that the Railway Authorities have been moving since the early 1980s from a short term cycle of repainting to a long term cycle. The short term cycle involved manual abrasion of the structure followed by 2 coats. The long term cycle is involving shotblasting which is a lengthier process requiring more robust access equipment—including scaffolding to give a firmer base for this heavy work. Five coats of paint giving a 25 year life is being applied."
  That is absolutely fantastic. We saw the effect of that work. We have no criticism of that. The organisation is
  328
  tackling the trellis work, but when asked how long it would take to do the that work, it said that it would take 10 years.
  In the meantime, what do we do with the bridge? Does the rest of it deteriorate? I submit as visual evidence an article in the Independent on Sunday, which was published on 23 October 1994. It contains pictures of the bridge. It shows a rusting hulk. It is a not a ship that has been tied up in Lerwick or a Bulgarian klondyker that has been ignored and that has not had funding. It is a part of the bridge. Anyone who looks at the picture can see actual rusting of the structure, and that it is in a deplorable state. That is a scandal for such a bridge.
  If hon. Members think that I am exaggerating, let me tell them that I have a letter from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), Mr. L. Mackenzie. I shall not read the letter—it contains far too much detail for that—but I would be happy to submit it to the Minister at the end of the debate. On a fishing expedition near to and below the bridge, Mr. Mackenzie saw a girder and rivets fall off into the water. He was so worried that he put on his helmet, which he used when riding his motor cycle.
  Since 1993, Mr. Mackenzie has tried to talk to the people who are in charge of the bridge. He has listed in detail all the people whom he has contacted. He reckons that, at a conservative estimate, he spent up to £200 on telephone calls. He has had the runaround. I submit that as an example of an ordinary member of the public who is worried about the state of the bridge, and who is getting nowhere because the authorities are dodging the issue.
  The repair and maintenance of the bridge is too little, too late. What is being done is admirable. A first-class job is being undertaken, but a massive area needs to be covered. A structural, financial and, yes, independent inquiry into the bridge is needed, with action from the Government and funding of it.
  I am aware that the Treasury has put the dead hand on many activities of the Government and of people connected with Government spending. Short-termism seems to be the policy of the Government. That will not be tolerated by the people of the United Kingdom. I re-emphasise that I hope that the Minister will not hide behind, and, in some way, hand over total responsibility to, Railtrack. If Railtrack continues with its current expenditure, the rest of the bridge will fall to bits. Why put a new engine in an old car if the old car falls to bits? It is admirable to put in something new to bring part of the bridge to a high standard, but if the rest of the bridge falls to bits, it is no use.
  I give a warning that I will hold the Government solely responsible if any accident or something else happens to anyone in and around that bridge because of the lack of maintenance and care. I do not think that I am making this statement on my own. The people of Scotland, the people of the UK and many people worldwide genuinely care about the structure. I emphasise that I do not want it to be turned into an industrial museum. That structure is part and parcel of the lifeblood and communications of this country and of the region that I represent.
  2.6 pm
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. With my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke)

  329
  and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I have visited the Forth bridge. One may wonder why a west coast Member of Parliament involves himself in this situation, but, as the Minister will know, I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport and I believe that it is important to focus attention on the shortcomings of Railtrack.
  For a number of years, I have been concerned about the bridge's structure. I have made four visits to it to examine it in more detail with some other people. Major implications are involved in the continuing lack of any form of maintenance. Many aspects of the structure require examination.
  There are implications for the tourist trade in Scotland, given that the bridge attracts a fair proportion of the tourist trade to and around the South Queensferry area. That is important. The bridge is a landmark of some distinction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian suggested, it is viewed as the Scottish wonder of the world.
  The state of the bridge is, obviously, of most concern. I have some experience of steel work. Having worked in a shipyard as a steel worker, and in ICI as an engineer, I have some understanding of how structures start to erode. It was clear from the visit that we made, especially during the boat trip beneath the bridge, that corrosion was at an extreme stage. There is absolutely no evidence of paint on the part of the structure nearest the River Forth. Bulging steel and warped steel plates are visible. In some areas, there is a void of any structure.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said, the Health and Safety Executive report looks only to the short term. We want to ensure that the bridge is able to perform its function over a long period. In no circumstances would I accept that such an important issue should be left entirely to Railtrack. The current examination of the financing of the railway industry shows that ScotRail has given Railtrack £170 million. The Minister might care to ask Railtrack how that money is spent.
  I, too, would back an independent inquiry. Indeed, nothing less would satisfy the Opposition—nor should anything less satisfy the Minister, if he has any understanding of the problems. I know of two reputable companies that have vast experience of painting and repairing steel work that is similar in nature to the Forth bridge. There must be other companies that could also be contacted to give evidence to any inquiry. My hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian and for Linlithgow would be the key to any inquiry.
  The Minister is a fairly reasonable person. In the past, he has helped me with the affairs of the Transport Select Committee, and I am grateful to him. We need a commitment from him today that not only will he consider the matter more seriously than the Scottish Office, Railtrack and, over the years, British Rail have done, but that he will agree to set up an independent inquiry. I want my name to be added to the campaign.
  2.12 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate. Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity about the Forth bridge, much of which I believe has been exaggerated. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Cunninghame,
  330
  South (Mr. Donohoe) in his place. I value his contribution to the debate. I envy him and his hon. Friends their sailing expeditions, which sound quite delightful. Personally, I do not have the time for that sort of diversion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are those who have speculated about why—[Laughter.] I repeat, the sailing trips sound as though they are the most delightful occasions.
  I acknowledge the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). I am aware that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has had some interest in this matter, and he has recently asked an oral question about it.
  The concern about the publicity generated about the Forth bridge has been worrying on two counts. First, it has been worrying for the great many people who are admirers of the bridge as a structure of architectural interest and believe it to be a national monument. Secondly, there are those who claim that it is being run down as part of a hidden agenda to cut train services in Scotland. I hope to be able to reassure the House that the latter proposition is certainly not the case. I hope to put minds at rest about the structure.
  Sir William Arrol's bridge has been a dominant feature over the Forth estuary for 105 years. However, it is not just a Victorian bridge of historical and architectural interest, or a structure that is aesthetically pleasing. Like any river or estuary crossing, it is primarily a working transport link, currently carrying more than 200 trains a day over the estuary.
  For many years, the bridge was maintained by British Rail, until Railtrack assumed responsibility for it when it was established as a Government-owned company in April 1994. Railtrack has since received some adverse publicity about an alleged lack of maintenance and safety concerns about the structure. I assure the House that those fears are unfounded. Safety concerns are taken extremely seriously by Railtrack. The Forth bridge has been assessed by a wide range of engineering experts, including the independent Health and Safety Executive, all of whom declared themselves satisfied with the structural integrity of the bridge.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: There have been two letters from Mr. John Rimington. Who were the advisers to the Health and Safety Executive? Did they have qualifications in marine environment engineering, or were their qualifications limited to the normal work of Railtrack at Derby?
  Mr. Norris: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question now, but I shall endeavour to do so in due course. I know him well and I have great respect for his experience and for his approach to these problems. I do not believe that either he or I would wish to question the integrity of the Health and Safety Executive. I am sure that that is not in question on either side of the House. Indeed, if I wished to strike a slightly discordant note, I would say that there have been many occasions when evidence from the HSE has been quoted by the Opposition against Ministers, precisely on the basis that such advice was independent and therefore could be relied on.
  On the question whether the HSE was suitably qualified to carry out the work, I shall endeavour to find an answer to that, but I would be very surprised were there to be any foundation to an allegation that the HSE was not competent.

  331
  I want to reiterate that the Forth bridge was assessed by a wide range of engineering experts, including the HSE—which is an independent body—all of whom declared themselves satisfied with the structural integrity of the bridge.
  Mr. Donohoe rose—
  Mr. Norris: I shall give way, but I am trying to answer the debate.
  Mr. Donohoe: I require only a yes or no answer. Will the Minister give my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) a copy of the report?
  Mr. Norris: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the HSE. It is the HSE's report and, if it so wishes, I would be content for the report to be released. However, the Opposition are straying into unusual territory in questioning the integrity of the HSE. They have frequently used that body as a stick with which to beat the Government. I have no complaints about that in general. However, I do not believe that a case is very strong if it relies on a criticism or implied criticism of the work of the HSE. Therefore, I do not believe that the recent call for yet another independent engineers inquiry is valid.
  Railtrack, using HSE-approved access arrangements, regularly inspects the more remote areas of the bridge more thoroughly than ever before. It is able to ensure, therefore, that attention can be concentrated on the areas of highest priority. I know that many people view the Forth bridge as a monument of national importance. The hon. Member for Midlothian rightly said that that was not the way in which he regarded it, and I am grateful to him for saying so, because that is a sensible position to adopt.
  However, it is important to recognise that Railtrack's object is to maintain the structure as a working railway bridge, a vital transport artery, and it does not claim—nor indeed does it have a remit—to maintain the bridge as a gleaming national monument or a tourist attraction. Its priority is to maintain the bridge as economically as possible without compromising safety.
  Railtrack's present maintenance and painting programme, approved by the Health and Safety Executive, is fully—I emphasise, fully—adequate to protect the structural integrity of the bridge. Railtrack is identifying and prioritising the painting of those areas that are of structural importance, rather than adopting a "quick fix" solution to appease critics which would be only temporary and not in the bridge's long-term interest.
  Railtrack's maintenance programme is currently contracted to British Rail Infrastructure Services, which relies on expert metallurgical advice from British Rail Scientific Services in Derby. In the light of that advice, the old painting processes, which involved wire brush cleaning of the metal followed by two coats of paint, have been changed to a more modern technique, which involves shot-blasting the metal and applying five coats of paint.
  Although it is true that shot-blasting can be used only on a small area of the bridge at a time, the results of that technique together with the new painting method are expected to last between 20 and 25 years, rather than the four to five years' life expectancy of the old method. What is more, the painters, who are meeting Health and Safety Executive requirements in their painting activity, can now gain access to the more inaccessible parts of the bridge, so generally improving the overall maintenance standards.
  332
  I tell the House, with some sense of personal disappointment, that the popular opinion that British Rail used continuous end-to-end painting methods on the Forth bridge is, sadly, a myth. Key areas of the bridge have always been prioritised for painting, while other non-essential areas have often been left for many years.
  The House will also recognise that safety standards are becoming continuously more stringent, and in the past 20 years far more demanding standards have been applied by the Health and Safety Executive—on, for example, specialist scaffolding—than previously. Painting methods have been altered accordingly. We no longer allow the painters to dangle from rope above the structure as they carry out their painting work.
  I can assure the House, importantly, that the metalwork of the bridge is, contrary to current scaremongering, in good condition. I will ensure that any allegations made by the hon. Member for Midlothian, or by constituents of his to whom he referred in his speech, are fully investigated, and I shall let him know the results of that investigation.
  The metal is not, as some have claimed, devoid of all protective coatings in some parts of the bridge. The elements of tubular sections which appear to be most affected by flaking paint are covered by an undercoat of carboniferous material and black iron oxide, which continues to protect the metal. Surface corrosion on those elements has little significant impact on the structural integrity of the bridge.
  Railtrack is concentrating on cleaning and repainting eight lattice tie-members. Those parts of the structure are very important to the integrity of the bridge, but it is difficult for one to see from a distance that they have been repainted. This year, Railtrack will also turn its attention to some of the central cantilever sections of the bridge.
  British Rail Infrastructure Services also carries out routine maintenance. It removes the debris—dead birds, litter and so on—from the crevices of the bridge. In spite of recent criticism, there has been no change in that procedure under Railtrack's management.
  I know that there has been some—
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I am not questioning whether the maintenance is going on; I am questioning the lack of maintenance in other parts of the bridge. The maintenance that is taking place is first-class, but it is insufficient. An admission was made about timing, and I have witnesses—my hon. Friends who were with us when the question was asked. That is the question that I want the Minister to concentrate on—how long will it last?
  Mr. Norris: I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, that I fear that the conclusion that he has drawn is not the conclusion drawn by the Health and Safety Executive in respect of the structure or the conclusion drawn by Railtrack. Railtrack has never disguised the fact that it does not see itself as having a remit to produce a gleaming national monument. I agree, as does Railtrack, that one could, in essence, spend many more millions of pounds on improving the appearance of the structure, but Railtrack has maintained throughout that its real responsibility is to maintain a vital transport artery.
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
  Mr. Norris: If I am to give way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it will take only a second.
  Mr. Wilson: If Railtrack is not responsible for maintaining parts of the railway infrastructure that are also national monuments, who is?
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that the structure is a working structure and part of the railway system. Railtrack maintains it in accordance with its responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the railways. If there are proposals to add to the work that is being done, and which the hon. Member for Midlothian says is excellent work, I have no doubt that my hon. Friends in the Scottish Office would be perfectly happy to discuss such arrangements, but I am saying that the structure must be retained as a safe structure.
  Apart from the habitual maintenance functions that I have mentioned, which mean that Railtrack incurs regular maintenance costs—incidentally, spending no less on maintenance than was spent on it per annum by British Rail—a £4 million programme to replace the weighbeams and to renew the rails has been carried out. It was completed in July 1994 and it has meant that the speed of a train crossing the bridge is now 50 mph rather than the 20 mph restriction imposed in the early 1990s because of worn and splitting tracks. No one, as far as I am aware, denies that that is a vast improvement. It emphasises and demonstrates Railtrack's commitment to the bridge's future.
  In spite of all that I have said about maintenance and safety aspects of the Forth bridge, and in answer specifically to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), may I say that Railtrack willingly accepts that, from a cosmetic point of view, the bridge could look better. Railtrack has, as I said, explained that it would cost tens of millions of pounds to paint it to the high cosmetic standards that some critics demand. I repeat that Railtrack is not in the business of maintaining a tourist attraction. Even if there were limitless funds, there is a physical limit to the area of the bridge that could be painted at any one time using current painting methods and complying with the Health and Safety Executive's important requirements.
  I appreciate that many people, including many hon. Members, regard the bridge as a national monument, and no one denies that it is a great feat of Victorian engineering, but it is not in any sense threatened. I have
  334
  no reason, and I do not believe that there is any good reason, to doubt Railtrack's evidence that the bridge is structurally sound.
  Mr. Dalyell: When did the Health and Safety Executive last conduct its in-depth technical consideration of the problem? In what year did the Health and Safety Executive do that? I understand from Mr. Rimington's letter that it was 1989.
  Mr. Norris: I shall advise the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can on whether there is a later date. It would be necessary to ascertain precisely what inspections had taken place, and I would not want to mislead the House or the hon. Gentleman. I understand his argument.
  However, I emphasise the facts that I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House need to know. Although many millions of pounds could be spent on cosmetic improvements to the bridge, the independent Health and Safety Executive has no doubt that the structure is sound, that it has been maintained at the same cost at which it was previously maintained by British Rail, that there are no structural defects, that reports of flakings or large pieces falling off are—as far as we are aware—as yet unsubstantiated, and that the bridge remains a vital part of our transport network and in an absolutely safe condition for that purpose. I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect Railtrack to paint the bridge simply for cosmetic purposes. It goes beyond its remit and resources.
  I hope that what I have said has reassured the House that the bridge is being maintained and that it is a safe operational structure. I have no reason to doubt Railtrack's assurances that all the necessary steps are being taken to maintain the bridge in a sound condition. Railtrack has made clear its commitment to the Forth bridge and I am happy that we can look forward to another century of trains crossing it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the constituency Member of Parliament for the area, I am dismayed at the Minister's answer. We are talking about the greatest engineering structure of the 19th century. Baedeker of 1906 gave half a page to Salisbury cathedral and two pages to the Forth bridge. It is a great monument and it is not being treated as such. All this business of cosmetic—
  It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Timber
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the Forestry Commission grows timber suitable for the United Kingdom furniture industry; and what is his policy on import substitution for timber products.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The Forestry Commission grows timber for a wide range of markets, including the furniture industry. The Government are committed to expanding the woodland area in Britain, thereby reducing our dependence on timber imports.
    Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that it takes hours of careful craftsmanship to create a beautiful piece of furniture and just moments of vandalism to smash it to pieces? Is there not an analogy here with the centuries of statesmanship that have created the United Kingdom and the vandals on the Opposition Benches who want to destroy it with the hammer of devolution?
    Sir Hector Monro: That is an original thought. The trees of the United Kingdom are a fine asset and I am glad that our hardwoods are manufactured into the finest furniture in the world. Quality has always been the watchword of the United Kingdom. It would be a crime to destroy it by going down the route towards independence.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Does the Minister agree that the best place to plant trees would be in the Pollok estate in my constituency where hundred of trees have been vandalised and destroyed to make way for a road that endangers the health and lives of the people of my constituency? It has destroyed one of the greatest beauty spots in the south side. Does the Minister agree that work on that obnoxious road should stop and that the Eaglestone bypass should be considered?
    Sir Hector Monro: That is rather far removed from furniture. I understand that the road is supported by a Labour council and by Labour Members of Parliament. When the route is completed, I hope that there will be excellent landscaping and that a large number of trees will be planted to replace those that have been felled.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is not the Minister concerned at the poor take-up of grants for broadleaf trees and the relatively disappointing results of the Government's change of policy towards the support of those who wish to grow hardwood?
    Sir Hector Monro: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Of the 34,000 hectares planted in the United Kingdom last year, 16,000 hectares were hardwood. That is a big improvement on anything that has happened recently. I believe that our increased grants for hardwood are working and I hope that that will continue in the future.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the revised and improved grants for tree planting in Scotland over the past few years, can the Minister confirm that there has been an increase in tree planting in Scotland?
    Sir Hector Monro: About 1 million hectares are owned by the Forestry Commission and a substantial number of hectares by private forestry owners. The level is about the same, but as our timber is maturing, more felling is taking place. All felling licences are matched to replanting licences.

    Fishing
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss policy on drift net fishing for salmon and other migratory fish.
    Sir Hector Monro: As my hon. Friend knows, there is no drift netting for salmon in Scottish waters. However, I am in touch with angling interests and will be discussing the subject of the north-east drift net fishery for salmon with representatives of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards shortly.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that all civilised countries, apart from England and Ireland, have banned drift net fishing for salmon? Is he also aware that a drift net-caught salmon is worth whatever Billingsgate will pay for it, whereas a rod-caught salmon is worth hundreds of pounds to the Scottish economy? In light of that, is it not sheer folly to allow the north-east drift net fishery to continue? Should it not be bought out immediately with proper compensation?
    Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong view, which I share in regard to the economy of Scotland. There is no doubt at all that the tourist industry—our hotels and so on—in the areas through which the salmon rivers run is seriously affected by the drop in the number of salmon coming into the rivers because of the north-east drift net fishery, but we have to proceed on scientific grounds. We are having further consultations and it is at least welcome that between 1992 and 1994 the number of licences in the north-east drift net fishery fell by 19 per cent.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Minister have any plans to change the antiquated laws prohibiting the domestic production of salmon roe in Scotland? Is it not ridiculous that we can sell and consume imported salmon roe but we are prohibited in Scotland from producing our own? Would it not be a lively source of jobs for many people in Scotland?
    Sir Hector Monro: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would not want to over-estimate the number of jobs that may be involved. We are having urgent consultations to try to resolve the matter, but it is not quite as simple as it looks.

    Community Care
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen and chief executives of NHS trusts to discuss matters relating to care in the community.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met the

    337
    chairmen of national health service trusts on 20 January to discuss a range of issues including care in the community. The chief executive of the NHS in Scotland held one of his periodic meetings with chief executives of NHS trusts yesterday.
    Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State will be aware of the proposals to close Ravenscraig, Dykebar, Merchiston and Bridge of Weir hospitals in my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Members. He will also be aware of the concern felt by many of the parents and relatives of patients in those hospitals. They are very worried. Therefore, will the Secretary of State support vigorously the Carers (Recognition and Service) Bill which will have its Second Reading on 3 March? Will he guarantee that Ministers will back it completely to ensure that thousands of hard-pressed carers receive the service and support from the Government that they need and rightly deserve?
    Mr. Lang: I shall certainly study the terms of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Government's policy of care in the community has been widely welcomed as being a considerable advance in that area. The possible closures to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and any such proposal, would be subject to widespread consultation and any proposed closure of a hospital would come to me. I would ensure that all proposals were given the most careful scrutiny possible, taking account not only of any planned closures, but any planned extensions and developments.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving the responsibility of funding for the care of the elderly in residential and nursing homes to local authorities has discriminated against private nursing and residential homes?
    Mr. Lang: I hope that that is not so. If my hon. Friend has any examples that he can bring to my attention, I shall certainly ensure that they are examined. What matters is providing the best possible care for the individuals concerned at the most cost-effective price to taxpayers, who are, after all, funding the programme to the extent of many millions of pounds. It is important that all agencies involved—local authorities, health boards, the private sector, the voluntary sector, Scottish Homes and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—work together on an inter-agency basis, and we have given them guidance to that effect.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given the importance attached to the link between social services and health services in guaranteeing the delivery of care in the community, does the Secretary of State accept that there must be confidence among members of the community in those who are charged with ensuring the delivery of the service? What action is being taken by the Scottish Office with respect to Moray health services trust board and the as yet unexplained resignation of the chief executive and two non-executive directors?
    Mr. Lang: That is essentially a matter for the board, but if the hon. Lady has any anxieties that she would like to bring to the attention of myself or my noble Friend the
    338
    Minister for Health, we shall look into them. To answer her general question—yes, I have confidence in the way in which the general policy is being delivered.
    Mr. George Robertson: On the subject of health and care in the community, is the Secretary of State aware that the Government propose that, under the framework document on Northern Ireland published this morning, those subjects will be the responsibility of a legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland? Are not the Government revealing the stark contrast and double standards in their position when they offer a legislative Assembly to Northern Ireland but, despite its special features, they offer nothing to Scotland? Now that the Government have conceded the key principle that devolution inside the United Kingdom is perfectly compatible with a reformed constitution how can they, with any credibility, continue to attack Labour's plans for a devolved legislature for Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so keen to fall so far below the level of events. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the differences between the circumstances in Scotland and Northern Ireland—with its history and traditions, and the great issues at stake in the Prime Minister's initiative announced today—he has much homework still to do.

    Unemployment, Highlands
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the prospects of unemployment falling in the highlands in 1995–96.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): The Scottish Office does not produce unemployment forecasts for either Scotland as a whole or for parts of Scotland. However, independent forecasters have predicted further falls in Scottish unemployment in 1995–1996 and I trust that the highlands will also follow that trend.
    Mr. Macdonald: Two weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gave a clear undertaking on behalf of the Government that there would be a full, formal consultation, as required under the Railways Act 1993, before the closure of any rail or Motorail services affecting Fort William, and on the implications of that for employment in the highlands. Will the Minister confirm the Government's commitment to formal consultation? What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Department of Transport to get the consultations under way?
    Mr. Kynoch: I recognise the importance of transport links with the Western Isles. Future services to that part of Scotland depend on providing services geared towards the customer. The proper way forward is to ensure privatisation as quickly as possible to achieve improved services and improved usage and, therefore, better links with the area. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the franchising director is required, under guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport—under the Railways Act 1993—to consult formally the rail users consultative committees and local authorities on the pattern and quality of services to be provided through franchising. Consultations on the ScotRail franchise, of

    339
    which the passenger service requirement is a key component, will start after the PSR is published—probably in May.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being given a warm welcome.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. Can my hon. Friend confirm to the House that unemployment in the highlands has been, and is, falling because of the strength of the Scottish economy, of which the highlands are an integral part? More specifically, is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) yes or no?
    Mr. Kynoch: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and shall take the first part first. He is right: unemployment in the highlands and islands area has been falling—it has fallen in seven out of the previous 12 months. On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I suggest that he waits for a later question to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give a full answer.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Given that the unemployment figures in my constituency, particularly in the Kintyre area, are certainly not falling, how does the Minister think that the objective 1 funding will help unemployment figures? He should remember that, out of more than 214 projects, Argyle and Bute received only 20 in the past. In view of the recent criticism of the piecemeal approach to objective 1 funding, can the Minister say what the overall strategic development policy is for the whole of the highlands and islands?
    Mr. Kynoch: In 1994, a total of 58 projects for the highlands and islands were approved for support from the European regional development fund under the objective I programme. The hon. Lady will be aware that there is also a geographical targeting programme, but that comes secondary in the selection procedure.
    The first procedure is very clear: every application is assessed against a set of common criteria, with a view to selecting the best projects, whatever their location. There is then a secondary procedure whereby geographical targeting is taken into account. I am sure that, if the hon. Lady were to encourage her local enterprise companies to support projects which are worth-while, money would be forthcoming.
    Mr. George Robertson: The House will notice how the new Minister dodges and weaves around a straight question which was also asked by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). The fact is that unemployment in the highlands will be affected dramatically if railway privatisation leads, as it will, to a reduction in services throughout that area.
    A Minister of the Crown gave a categorical assurance in the Scottish Grand Committee that there would be formal consultation on the issue of the Motorail and sleeper services to the north of Scotland. The Minister must not pass the buck to another Minister or to his boss. He must answer the question: will there be formal consultation before the services are withdrawn—yes or no?
    Mr. Kynoch: I have already answered that question in relation to the passenger service requirement's formal consultation. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr.
    340
    Robertson) and I differ significantly in our views about the benefits of privatisation. I believe that British Rail must improve its service, and the only way to do that is by introducing private enterprise into the network. By attracting more people who will use the railways the service will improve, costs will come down and the number of services will increase.
    Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gave an assurance to me, will the Minister accept that an answer which refers to the passenger service requirement obligation is not relevant because it depends on the existing timetable when the passenger service requirement is brought forward? We are concerned that the services should be in place when the consultation period starts. I do not want the Minister to put up any blinds with references to passenger service requirements. Will the Minister give a clear answer—yes or no? Will there be formal consultation before the services are withdrawn?
    Mr. Kynoch: I believe that I have answered the question very fully with regard to the statement by my hon. Friend last week.

    Housing
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of Scottish Homes to discuss housing in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I meet the board of Scottish Homes from time to time to discuss a range of issues, the last occasion being on 7 November 1994. I have no immediate plans for a further meeting.
    Mr. McMaster: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when Scottish Homes was founded as Scotland's national housing agency, he told the House that it would be founded on the twin principles of efficiency and tenant choice? Is it efficient for Scottish Homes to empty a 56-flat multi-storey building in my constituency— Waverley court—for a redevelopment which we are still awaiting six years later? Is it democracy or tenant choice to offer tenants, like it or lump it, take it or leave it, no choice of landlord? Is it not time that the Secretary of State told Sir James Mellon, the chairman of Scottish Homes, to start concentrating on problems like that, instead of using Scottish Homes as a machine for party political propaganda?
    Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make those comments about Scottish Homes. According to a letter that I have seen, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that much of what Scottish Homes had achieved was "commendable" and that Scottish Homes had been a "breath of fresh air" for housing in Scotland.
    I believe that Scottish Homes has created an enormous number of achievements in Scotland. So far as individual cases are concerned, if the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been running for as long as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I am surprised that he has not been in touch with the Government or with Scottish Homes to clarify it earlier.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, Scottish Homes has acted as a catalyst in bringing the private and public sectors

    341
    together in the Aberdeen city centre partnership to transform and rejuvenate the centre of Aberdeen by an imaginative policy of building new homes and refurbishing old properties? Is he also aware that that policy is encouraging up to 2,000 people to come back to live in the centre of the great city of Aberdeen? Does he agree that that is more typical of the excellent work being done up and down the country by Scottish Homes?
    Mr. Lang: Indeed I do. I gather that some £6.5 million has been invested in that project, and it is a good example of the kind of partnership which Scottish Homes makes the keynote of its activities. The project involves Grampian regional council, Aberdeen district council and the local enterprise company. That is exactly the kind of catalytic partnership which can do so much to improve Scottish housing.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: We all know what a good job Scottish Homes does, and that is why we do not want to see it broken up by hatchet men such as Mr. Mackinlay. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, if tenants in my constituency and others vote to stay with Scottish Homes, they will be entitled to the same high standards from that landlord?
    Mr. Lang: I am certain that Scottish Homes would never distinguish between different categories of tenants in terms of the service it offered them.
    Mr. McLoughlin: When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of Scottish Homes, could he ask for an updated report on the right to buy in Scotland? Will he inform the House about the success of that policy in giving tenants the right to buy their own homes?
    Mr. Lang: The right to buy has been enormously successful, and Scottish Homes has been at the forefront of disposing houses to sitting tenants as well. We have sold some 300,000 council houses in Scotland since the policy began. The policy had to be fought through in the teeth of fierce opposition from the Opposition. Thus, 300,000 tenants and their families have had the kind of housing that they wanted.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a shortage of special needs housing in Scotland, especially in the city of Glasgow? If he does agree, will he make adequate resources available to Scottish Homes to ensure that there is a substantial increase in the number of special needs houses available? If not, why not?
    Mr. Lang: Scottish Homes makes a feature of meeting special needs in its housing programme, and it has embarked upon a programme of providing 2,000 community care and other special needs houses.

    Water Authorities (Chairmen)
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the new water authorities to discuss their salary levels.
    Mr. Lang: I shall meet the chairmen of the new water authorities as appropriate to discuss matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Welsh: Why is the Secretary of State defying economics and democracy by paying £40,000 a year to
    342
    water board chairmen for a two-day week, when the services are being run by unpaid, democratically elected local authority conveners who offer a high-quality, low-cost service, which is what people want? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify his extravagance upon those part-time water rustlers when the Government are offering a few pennies more to qualified nurses for a full week's work?
    Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the skills and business experience gained from their involvement in other public bodies which the new chairmen will bring to their posts will stand in good stead the services which are delivered to people in their respective areas.
    As to the economics of the matter, the combined salaries of the present directors of water and sewerage add up to £770,000. The combined salaries of the new chief executives and chairmen add up to only £344,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs a lesson in economics.
    Mr. Donohoe: When the Secretary of State meets the chairmen, will he discuss with them why questions addressed by hon. Members to the right hon. Gentleman have been dealt with by those quango chairmen? When one writes to the quango chairmen, one discovers that they do not reply for months. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about that intolerable situation?
    Mr. Lang: It is entirely standard for questions of fact, administration and procedure to be dealt with by the chairmen and chief executives of non-departmental public bodies, and for their answers to be deposited in the Library. As far as policy matters are concerned, those are for Ministers to deal with. I am not aware of any delay of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but if he would like to draw to my attention to such a delay I shall follow it up.
    Mr. Allason: In view of the relatively insignificant cost of salaries in the overall budgets of the water authorities, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what representations he has made to the European Commission, bearing in mind that most of the additional costs imposed on water companies come from the European drinking water and clean bathing water directives?
    Mr. Lang: These are indeed directives that impose substantial burdens on water and sewerage services in Scotland, as they do elsewhere. It is, however, the Government's desire to ensure that water and sewerage standards in this country are of the very highest; and it will be the purpose of the new public authorities to achieve that.
    Mr. McAllion: With bungs on transfer deals dominating the headlines this morning, will the right hon. Gentleman try to justify the £100,000 bung that he is paying as part of the transfer of water and sewerage services away from elected local councils? How does he justify paying £40,000 a year to unelected part-time placemen, when those whom they will supplant, the elected conveners of water services committees, currently get £900 a year in councillors' allowances? What is the public interest argument that justifies ditching the people's choice to run water and sewerage while the right hon. Gentleman lines the pockets of the people he chooses?

    343
    Is it not true that only paid hirelings will do the dirty work that the Minister wants them to do: putting up prices and paving the way for water privatisation? The right hon. Gentleman should remember that there are some things that money cannot buy—among them, the votes of the Scottish people who, at the next election, will sweep him, his water quangos and his chairmen into the dustbin of history where they all belong.
    Mr. Lang: The payment levels offered to these chairmen are entirely comparable with those of other public sector body chairmen. The appointment of these chairmen is entirely compatible with the procedures adopted by the last Labour Government.
    As for the benefits to the public: the benefits come from the most cost-effective and efficient delivery of water and sewerage services in Scotland. I am sure that that will result.

    Forth Rail Bridge
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the department of offshore engineering at the Heriot Watt university on the condition of the Forth rail bridge.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): No representations from the department of offshore engineering about the condition of the Forth rail bridge have been received.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister help the House by dealing with two questions of fact which somehow eluded the Under-Secretary of State for Transport? In what year did the Health and Safety Executive last conduct an in-depth investigation into the bridge? And what are the qualifications in offshore engineering or the marine environment of those who are giving the advice that all is well with the Forth rail bridge?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that W. A. Fairhurst, consulting engineers, carried out a review of the painting strategy for ScotRail in 1992 and endorsed ScotRail's method of painting. The company has recently confirmed that Railtrack's strategy is satisfactory.
    I cannot state the qualifications of all the engineers concerned off hand, but I have no doubt that Railtrack will have been relying on expert evidence. As the hon. Gentleman heard in the Adjournment debate, the Health and Safety Executive has said that it is satisfied with Railtrack's maintenance programme for the bridge, and that the structural integrity of the bridge is not at risk.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) said that he would make inquiries about the most recent investigation and would contact the hon. Gentleman. The crux of the matter is that the elements of the tubular sections which appear to be most affected by flaking paint are still covered by an undercoat of carboniferous material and black iron oxide which is protecting the structure. It is not at risk, contrary to the scaremongering by some Opposition Members.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he took into account when setting the capping limit for Lothian region for the financial year 1995–96.
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend's provisional capping principles for all regional and islands councils take into account the overall level of the 1995–96 local government finance settlement; the additional provision which is being made for the police service; and the categories of expenditure which will be disregarded for capping purposes.
    Mr. Chisholm: Why are the Government cutting their contribution to Lothian's budget and setting the cap only £4 million above the present one, when £9 million is required to cover inflation and an additional £17 million is needed to meet agreed pay awards? Does the Minister realise that many teaching posts in Lothian will have to go at a time when school rolls there are set to increase by 2,500 in August, and when the pupil:teacher ratio is already the highest in Scotland? Why is the Minister sacrificing the children of Lothian to the Government's economic incompetence and to the intended tax breaks of next year?
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he accepts that the capping regime for next year is very tight. But it is clearly not unrealistic when one takes into account the level of inflation and for as long as local authorities fund pay increases from efficiency savings—as the rest of the public sector has had to do.
    It is wrong to calculate that a specific number of extra teachers will necessarily be required simply because of a rise in pupil rolls. Obviously the impact will vary considerably from school to school. I suggest that local councils thoroughly examine their budgets before they assume that services will have to be cut. Greater efficiency is always possible.
    Mrs. Fyfe: What answer does the Minister have to the Forum on Scottish Education, which warned this week that Scotland's education service is facing its most severe cuts for more than a decade? Yesterday, the Prime Minister advised education authorities to look for efficiencies to fund pay deals. Is the Minister aware that the Rev. John Taylor, chairman of the Forum on Scottish Education, has said that there is no conceivable efficiency that could meet the extra costs and that, therefore, class sizes would increase, support services would diminish and community, outdoor and pre-five education would be cut drastically or even abolished? It is disappointing to hear the Minister regurgitate the Prime Minister's platitudes, dodging and weaving on a major issue. Will he answer parents' worries about their children's education?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am amazed by the hon. Lady's reluctance to accept that improvements can be made in any form of local government expenditure. The teachers' settlement was negotiated by the Scottish joint negotiating committee, and many district regional authorities took part. I assume that negotiators on the management side took full account of the likely budgetary provision when agreeing the pay deal. It is now up to them to deliver within that pay deal.

    Rail Sleeper Services
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy towards the maintenance of overnight rail sleeper services between London and the principal Scottish cities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The Scottish Office welcomes the Franchising Director's intention to safeguard the four most heavily used Anglo-Scottish sleeper services by including them in the passenger service requirement for the future ScotRail franchise.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who indulge in field sports, in which Scotland is supreme—grouse shooting, salmon fishing and stalking—need to arrive at their destination well and truly refreshed? Would it not be a great loss to Scotland if these sleeper services were denied to such people? Would there not also be a loss to Scotland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our balance of payments would suffer, as would all business men who use these vital services? Should not British Rail be able to run these services more profitably without needing a £400 subsidy on the Fort William service from the taxpayer?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that all those concerned will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The subsidy is £180 per passenger on the Fort William sleeper service and £453 per passenger trip when account is taken of access charges to the track. It is clear that these are substantial figures. I am as concerned as anyone that the services remain as extensive as possible. Following privatisation, I have no doubt that they will expand and succeed, as all other privatisations have succeeded. I am sure that those responsible for taking decisions will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the week before his recent meeting with Sir Bob Reid I tried to make a forward booking on a Motorail service from Aberdeen. I was told that the services were cancelled and were being withdrawn. What credence can we give to the right hon. Gentleman's assurances about future services when British Rail treats him and his Ministers with such contempt? Does that not mean that we are facing a serious problem in respect of north-south rail services once franchising gets under way?
    Mr. Lang: I do not believe that we are. The circumstances of the Carlisle and Fort William sleeper and the Motorail services to which the hon. Gentleman referred are those where there is an indication of a diminution of service. That is clearly to the detriment of those who have relied upon them. All closures consequent upon the passenger service requirement would be subject to formal consultation under the Railways Act 1993. That has already been made plain.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On his last point, does the Secretary of State not understand that what was promised and confirmed in Hansard, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and in the Scottish Office's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—full and formal consultation under the terms of the Act—is not the same as the consultation that the Minister was hiding behind today and which the Secretary of State for
    346
    Transport has just written to me to confirm, which is that consultation will follow the issuing of passenger service requirements? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what he promised to the Scottish Grand Committee—that consultation will be under the terms of the Act, not based on services that have already been axed?
    Mr. Lang: Formal consultation under the 1993 Act follows the PSR publication. Consultation is required with local authorities and with the rail users consultative committee. That is the consultation to which my hon. Friend referred in the Grand Committee debate.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us who are used to hearing weasel-worded performances from him believe that, even by those standards, today's performance was a disgrace? Does he accept that, by his actions, he is shaming and making his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who gave an assurance in good faith, look a fool? That assurance was omitted from the official record and was reinstated at the request of some of us. There is no doubt about what the hon. Member for Dumfries said or meant, and that has been confirmed by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). That is the opinion and the knowledge of every right-thinking, decent person who heard it. Is the Secretary of State now repudiating the hon. Member for Dumfries? If he is, let all shame be upon him from this House. It is a disgusting performance.
    Mr. Lang: Far from repudiating my hon. Friend, I am confirming what he said. As to the entry in Hansard, my officials sought to ensure that what my hon. Friend said was entered on the record of the debate. The hon. Gentleman will have had a letter from the Chairman of the Committee, explaining why the Hansard officials had failed initially to include the relevant words.
    Mr. Salmond: The House believes that, having failed to rewrite the record, the Secretary of State is now engaged in a process of rewriting history. Why cannot we have a straight answer to the question: will the services still be available when the formal consultation exercise starts—yes or no?
    Mr. Lang: That is a different question and is a matter for British Rail and ScotRail. If the services are not available—if British Rail were to contemplate their removal—it, too, would engage in consultation with the rail users consultative committee. If closure had taken place, the assets would still be in place and, in response to subsequent PSR consultations, could, if necessary, be reinstated.
    Mr. McFall: Is the Secretary of State aware of the inauspicious comments of the director of ScotRail, Mr. John Ellis, who, two short months ago, as production director, said that Railtrack could not take into account social issues? He could not see much being done to equip branch lines. Does the Secretary of State not realise that those comments mean a debilitating future for economic development, tourism and community life in the highlands? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether services will he shut before there is consultation? Labour Members are asking for a one-word answer with either two letters or three: yes or no?
    Mr. Lang: I have already answered the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, I had a

    347
    meeting with the chairman of Railtrack last week and am confident that he is extremely positive and ambitious to maintain and, indeed, expand services in Scotland.

    Scottish Economy
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will urgently meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss recent manufacturing job losses in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.
    Mr. McKelvey: When the Secretary of States gets the opportunity to discuss with the STUC the economy of Scotland and the important part that the economy of Ayrshire can play, will he explain to it that, for 25 years, the people of Ayrshire have been desperate for a road that can lead them down to the south but have been landlocked? When he meets the STUC, will he be able to say that the M77 is either completed or that it is near completion and that the A77 will be upgraded to meet the M77, to release the people of Ayrshire so that they may travel south?
    Mr. Kynoch: We are very well aware of the strong feelings of hon. Members from Ayrshire about road links. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the roads will proceed, and on schedule. I certainly hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to report positively in answer to the question.
    Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister test on the STUC the absurd equation often canvassed by the Government in the House between the proliferation in Scotland of temporary, low-paid, short-term and often contract jobs assembling other people's manufactures or forklifting other people's goods around empty warehouses, and the jobs that have been lost designing aircraft, building ships, mining coal and making steel—real manufacturing jobs that have been lost to Scotland during these dismal, bitter Tory years?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman lives in a rather unreal world. He must accept that conditions change from day to day and that businesses in Scotland have to adapt to those changing circumstances, but that what is important is that the Government put in place the right economic factors to guarantee that business can thrive. I would argue strongly that the Government have achieved just that and that with unemployment steadily falling that is being proved time and again. The worry of business in Scotland today is that the tax rises and cost increases that are likely to come from the Opposition's proposal for a devolved, tax-raising Scottish Parliament will drive business away from Scotland and not be in the best interests of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Gallie: Bearing in mind the massive investment of the Government and Strathclyde in the M77, is my hon. Friend aware of the disruption being caused to the work there by protesters? Will he do what he can to protect that
    348
    investment by ensuring that the new law on aggravated trespass, which he and I supported last year, is in force to ensure that the road goes ahead?
    Mr. Kynoch: Of course I am aware of the instances referred to by my hon. Friend, but it is a matter for the police authorities. I can assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for roads will keep a careful eye on progress.
    Mr. Stewart: When my hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he re-emphasise the importance of business rates to jobs in Scotland? Will he seek the valuable assistance of the STUC in attempting to clarify what on earth is the Labour party's policy on that?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) seeking clarification of the Labour party's policy. If it wishes to return business rates to the control of local government, I would argue strongly that that bodes badly for Scottish business. Under the Government, business rates have been brought down from 76p to 43p, which is good news for Scottish business.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the state of the Scottish economy will be one of the issues under discussion in the forthcoming by-election in Scotland? Does he further accept that the anticipated defeat of the Conservative party by the Scottish National party by a majority of at least 10,000 to 15,000 reflects the view that the Scottish people seek to serve upon the Government that enough is enough and that Scots will unite behind any party which wishes and is able to defeat the Government?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am confident that the economy will play a significant part in any forthcoming by-election. I am equally confident that the Government's argument is sound. The policies of the Scottish National party and the Labour party, to which I referred earlier, clearly point to increasing costs and taxes for Scottish business, which bodes badly for investment, both inward and within Scottish business.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold under right-to-buy legislation.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: At the end of September 1994, more than 300,000 houses had been sold by public sector landlords in Scotland to sitting tenants under the right-to-buy legislation. This has opened up the opportunity for home ownership for many people, and I am delighted that the Government overcame opposition from the Labour party to secure it for them.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which confirms that every fifth Scottish family is living in a home bought under the right-to-buy legislation. Is that not remarkable progress from the days when Labour local authorities were loth to co-operate and Labour Members said that no one would want to buy? Does that not show that Conservative policies work to the benefit of the people of Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one takes into account voluntary sales

    349
    as well as right-to-buy sales, the figure is nearly 310,000. We have now substantially overtaken England, as 30 per cent. of Scottish public sector stock has now been sold compared with 27.6 per cent. in England. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is in his place, should remember when he and his party strongly opposed the right to buy. I believe that they now regret the stance that they once took.
    Mr. Watson: The Minister has given us the figures for right-to-buy legislation, but what about those people who choose not to buy but want the right to rent? Will the Minister provide the figures for the number of council houses that have been built since the Conservatives came to power in 1979? Why does he consider it necessary to narrow the right to rent to those authorities that the Government have established? Many people wish to remain council house tenants and want the right to rent a modern house. How many have been built since 1979?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The number of houses built in Scotland since 1979 is nearly 300,000; the number of council houses runs into many tens of thousands. If local authorities wish to choose as their priority to build more council houses, they have the right to do so. Of course, Scottish Homes is giving priority to providing rented housing through housing associations that are especially geared to the needs of priority groups throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that large rent increases have turned the right to buy into the need to buy? Is he aware that Scottish Homes has increased rents by 4.2 per cent.—twice the rate of inflation? How does he expect ordinary working people, whose wages are either pegged or reduced, to pay those huge rent increases?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that some £800 million a year is being spent on housing benefit targeted on those who need it and who are paying rent. The hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce rents in Scotland, which on average are £7 or £8 below those south of the border, but if less rent is paid, less will be spent on management and maintenance and the housing stock will suffer. If rents are reasonable, management and maintenance can also be reasonable and houses will be in better condition.

    Rules and Regulations
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what assessment he has made of the impact that this will have on his Department's manpower.
    Mr. Lang: I have arranged for information about the Department's deregulation programme to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Secretary of State aware that more rules and regulations are being passed by the House than are being repealed? Does he agree that the problem is not just Europe, but the interpretation of those rules and regulations by officials in Scotland and elsewhere? How
    350
    will the Secretary of State increase the deregulation initiative in Scotland and reduce the number of rules and regulations being considered by the House?
    Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that I am entirely in sympathy with the thrust of his question. It is highly desirable that we reduce the number of regulations as they impose a burden not only on their own administration, but also on those who are obliged, sometimes unnecessarily, to comply with their terms. It is important that they are constantly reviewed and I am ensuring that my Department is fully involved in the deregulation initiative running through all Departments.
    Mr. Worthington: Does the Secretary of State set any rules and regulations for the response times of his Ministers to letters? Do those regulations apply to the noble Lord Fraser, and how is it possible to get an answer from the noble Lord in less than two to three months?
    Mr. Lang: I am certain that my right hon. and noble Friend responds in far less time to the vast majority of letters sent to him, but I shall certainly draw to his attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman is awaiting a reply to a letter that has been outstanding for that period.

    Rail Services
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the outcome of his consultations with British Rail on the proposed withdrawal of sleeper and Motorail services from Scotland and Carlisle.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend and I have discussed a wide range of topics with British Rail relating to railway matters affecting Scotland, including sleeper and Motorail services.
    Sir David Steel: Why are Ministers reneging on the undertaking given to the Scottish Grand Committee that consultation would take place before any services were withdrawn? Is the Minister aware that the phrase used by the Secretary of State this afternoon—"diminution of service"—will go down in history, along with "economical with the truth", as a euphemism for the complete destruction of the Motorail service? Does the Minister recognise that it is perverse to cancel Motorail services to Scotland just when we are opening them under the channel?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Following publication of the passenger service requirement, the Franchising Director will consult formally—as the right hon. Gentleman has already been told—with both the rail users consultative committee for Scotland and local authorities before making final decisions on the PSR. Both under nationalisation and now, British Rail has had the power to stop a service at any time if that is its resolve and determination, but I have made it clear, both now and in the past, that final decisions will be made at the end of that formal consultation.
    Incidentally, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was entirely wrong: Hansard was not tampered with. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who chaired the Grand Committee, has written to every member making the facts absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with presenting facts that obviously do not accord with reality.

    Taxation and Spending
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of United Kingdom local and national taxation raised in Scotland; and what is the proportion of local and national Government spending in Scotland.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current annual value of net transfer payments made to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lang: The Government collect revenue on a United Kingdom basis. In 1992–93, the latest year for which data are available, the revenue raised in Scotland through the four main sources of income tax, national insurance contributions, VAT and local government revenues formed approximately 8.3 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. The Government estimate that in the same year Scotland's share of identifiable Government expenditure was 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. That figure excludes expenditure incurred on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole, or which cannot readily be identified as incurred on behalf of particular countries.
    Mr. Bruce: Has my hon. Friend considered the idea of establishing a separate Scottish Parliament with revenue-raising powers? Has his Department calculated the extent to which the balance would shift as a result of both the additional costs of such a Parliament and a possible reduction of the positivity with which costs are currently dealt with by the United Kingdom Parliament?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to identify the potential danger to Scotland if a tax-raising Scottish Parliament were established. With 8.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, Scotland generates less in revenue than her population share and receives more from the United Kingdom Treasury. Consequently, if any tax-raising powers were taken by a Scottish Parliament—as threatened by the Labour party—Scotland's existing funding arrangements would inevitably come under closer scrutiny, and might well lead to the reduction referred to by m hon. Friend.
    Mr. Duncan: Given my right hon. Friend's answer, if those net transfer payments to Scotland were removed would not Scotland have far fewer resources to spend on its needs? Is it not also a grave deceit to pretend to the people of Scotland that any shortfall would be made up by payments from the European Union? Is it not abundantly clear that any proposal to devolve tax-raising powers to Scotland would ensure that the people of Scotland ended up poorer?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this country, we seek to ensure the delivery of comparable standards of public services in all parts of the United Kingdom. That necessarily and properly leads to higher expenditure in some parts of the United Kingdom—such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—that have greater needs. Such expenditure would, however, be put at risk if a tax-raising Parliament were set up in Scotland.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State be honest, and confirm that, if it were not for the oil revenues from
    352
    the Scottish sector of the North sea and the benefit to the Treasury from the privatisation of Scotland's public assets, the Government's economic policy would he down the plughole?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In the last year for which North sea figures are available—1993–94—revenue amounted to some £1.2 billion. That would not begin to bridge the funding gap that Scotland would experience in the circumstances threatened by the Labour party.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State accept that many factors must be taken into account when forming a judgment on the disposal of national assets, especially by the Treasury, and that mortgage tax relief subsidy is one of the most important factors? Does he agree that, in that regard, south-east England receives far more from the national Exchequer than Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right on that point, but if he considers income tax revenue, VAT revenue, local government revenue and national insurance contributions, he will find that the equation tilts heavily in the other direction.

    Culture
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department takes to promote interest about Scotland's life and culture amongst the Scottish diaspora.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A range of Scottish Office-funded bodies promote international interest in Scottish life and culture, although their activities are not targeted specifically at the Scots diaspora. For example, the Scottish tourist board's marketing and promotional activities continue to foster historical and cultural links in the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where ties with Scotland remain.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State understand that the monopoly that his Government gave the British Airports Authority over the principal airports of the UK means that people who wish to visit the UK always visit Heathrow first? Should he not have put some time, energy and resources into encouraging people from North America and Australasia to visit Scotland as the first port of call, rather than the overcrowded Heathrow airport?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Tourism is the largest employer in Scotland. We have agreed to contribute £20,000 towards the production of a British Council-Scottish Arts Council guide to the arts in Scotland, which is aimed primarily at overseas tourists. The Scotland international register is an initiative to encourage the private sector to develop contacts with distinguished Scots and business men abroad. We hope that those contacts will strengthen enterprise, development and tourism in Scotland.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss manufacturing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish TUC from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.
    Mrs. Adams: Does the Minister realise that, since his party came to power in 1979, my constituency has lost some 80 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs? In the light of his inadequate answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), when will the Government realise that a strong economy cannot be built by people selling each other hamburgers? It will be built only when the Government start to deal with the disasters that have taken place in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Kynoch: I hoped that the hon. Lady might have welcomed the fact that, last month, Babcock Energy Ltd. in her constituency announced that the jobs of its 700-strong work force would be secured as a result of a £125 million order for boilers from a power station in China. She is doing her businesses a great disservice by selling Scotland down the river.
    Mr. Ingram: Does the Minister accept that that is the most complacent answer that he could possibly give on one of the key issues facing Scotland? Since the Government came to power, 50 per cent. of all aerospace jobs have been lost to the Scottish economy. Is he aware that Rolls-Royce intends to cut another 600 highly skilled jobs in that economy? Why have the Government remained silent on that announcement? Is it because they do not understand its impact, because they do not care, or both?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman must place the changes in Rolls-Royce in the context of world affairs. He might be interested to know that Rolls-Royce is not alone in its problems. Its two major competitors, General Electric and Pratt and Whitney, have made massive job cuts, including 14,000 redundancies that were announced in 1993. At the same time, Boeing announced 80,000 job losses. He might also like to know that Rolls-Royce in East Kilbride has recently announced two major, long-term repair and maintenance contracts with Cyprus
    354
    Airways and China Eastern Airlines. The hon. Gentleman should start talking Scottish prospects up rather than down.

    Water Authorities
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the new water authorities to discuss their investment plans.
    Mr. Kynoch: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend gave earlier to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).
    Mr. Salmond: As we are about to have a discussion founded on the principle of democratic consent, can the Minister point to what area of democratic consent in Scotland justifies the removal of Scottish water from local democratic control?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should realise that in Scotland over the next 10 to 15 years we have to find some £5 billion of capital expenditure to improve services. My right hon. Friend has set up structures with the intention of ensuring that we get the best value for money. We believe in ensuring that we get the best possible services at the lowest possible cost—something that the hon. Gentleman will never understand.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Education to discuss entry requirements for institutions of higher education.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend and I liaise closely with our colleagues in the other education Departments. Requirements for entry to higher education, however, are a matter for the institutions themselves to determine.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the England and Wales Department for Education has a lot to learn from Scotland? Does he believe, as I do, that there are too many scientists who are inarticulate and too many managers and, perhaps, Members of Parliament too, who are innumerate? Should not we have a broader base of education in England and Wales for entry to university, as in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have a great deal to learn from each other. Access to higher education is being enormously increased, which is to the benefit of students throughout the United Kingdom. We intend to play our full part in that.

Northern Ireland (Framework Documents)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland.
Almost every day there brings new evidence of the benefits of peace. The conditions taken for granted elsewhere in the United Kingdom are gradually returning. But a return to normal life in Northern Ireland requires much more than just a paramilitary ceasefire, important though that step is. It requires a permanent end to violence; and it requires a balanced political settlement under which all parts of the community can live alongside each other without fear or antagonism.
That is the purpose of the talks process, started in 1991. We need to seek new arrangements for the internal government of Northern Ireland, for the relationship between north and south, and for the relationship between the two Governments.
The British Government have discussed these matters at length with the Northern Ireland political parties and with the Irish Government. I should like to pay tribute to the role played by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Today we have published proposals in two framework documents, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
Let me make it clear from the outset that nothing in these documents will be imposed. The aim is to assist discussion and negotiation with the parties in Northern Ireland. It is not an immutable blueprint.
I urge all hon. Members and people across Northern Ireland to read and study the documents carefully. The proposals in them have been the subject of a number of leaks and misrepresentations, which have resurrected old fears. When people study and consider the documents, I believe that they will come to see that those fears are unfounded. They will see that these proposals are based throughout on the principle of consent. It is made absolutely clear that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom for so long as that is the expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland.
I am a Unionist who wants peace for all the people of the Union. I cherish Northern Ireland's role within the Union. I have no intention whatsoever of letting that role change, unless it is the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland to do so.
I turn to the documents published today. I begin with strand 1, which sets out the Government's ideas for restoring local democracy in Northern Ireland as pall of a full political settlement. That paper has been prepared after consultation and talks with the main political parties in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government played no part in its formulation.
The circumstances in Northern Ireland are widely recognised to be unique in the United Kingdom. There are two traditions with very different political aspirations. What is needed is a structure of government that combines democratic legitimacy with a system of checks and balances. That calls for mechanisms different from those appropriate in the rest of the United Kingdom.
356
It was those historic differences that meant that, until 1972, there was a Northern Ireland Assembly with a wide range of functions. Since then, however, those functions have been the direct responsibility of central Government—unlike anywhere else in the United Kingdom, where many of them are carried out by elected local authorities. In Northern Ireland, local accountability has been lost, and political talent has been unused.
That is why the Government are now putting forward plans for a new elected Assembly, with responsibilities for a range of subjects at least as wide as those in 1972. The proposals envisage that the Assembly might have a single chamber of about 90 members, elected for a four or five year term. To reflect the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, they would be elected by a form of proportional representation. Where appropriate, decisions in the Assembly would he taken by a weighted majority.
There would be a system of committees to oversee the work of the Northern Ireland Departments, and there would be a separate panel, elected from throughout the whole of Northern Ireland, with a consultative, monitoring and representational role.
The new Assembly would not have tax-raising powers, and would receive its funding from central Government. It would have legislative powers for the functions transferred to it, although it would be for consideration whether it would assume legislative powers from day one, or whether such responsibility would be transferred progressively.
The Assembly would have responsibility for functions that are, in many cases, devolved to local government elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including education and housing. Policing and security matters would, however, remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and of this Parliament, at least for as long as the terrorist threat makes the active support of the Army necessary in Northern Ireland.
I now turn to strand 2, the arrangements for north-south co-operation. We have today published a joint framework document, "Frameworks for the Future", which has been agreed with the Irish Government. That sets out a series of proposals as a basis for further discussion.
One crucial component is that, as part of an overall settlement, the Irish Government have committed themselves to introducing and to supporting proposals to amend article 2 and article 3 of their constitution. Those amendments would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 21 of the joint framework document spells out that they would
"demonstrably be such that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contrary to the will of a majority of its people is asserted".
That intention is unambiguous, and was reaffirmed by the Taoiseach this morning.
For their part, the British Government would, in those circumstances, enshrine in our legislation the principle that Northern Ireland's future should reflect the wishes of its people. That would be done either by amending existing legislation or by introducing new legislation. That would not affect the United Kingdom's sovereignty over Northern Ireland, which could only be changed by further primary legislation.

357
The joint framework document also sets out proposals for a new north-south body, which could carry out a range of consultative, harmonising or executive functions. It would not have free-standing authority: it would be accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Irish Parliament respectively. The Northern Ireland members of the body would be drawn from relevant elected heads of Department from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and would naturally reflect policies determined by that Northern Ireland Assembly.
Fears have been expressed that this body would, in effect, give the Irish Government joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland. That is emphatically not the case. It is a proposal for co-operation by agreement between Northern Ireland's representatives and their counterparts in the Republic. Decisions in the body could only be taken where there was agreement north and south. There is no question of a majority outvoting a minority. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament would each therefore have an absolute safeguard against proposals it did not approve of.
The north-south body would be established by legislation in this Parliament and in the Irish Parliament. It would discharge or oversee only such functions as were designated for it. There is no predetermined list of those functions: that would be decided only after discussion and agreement with the political parties in Northern Ireland. It would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament to decide whether any additional functions should subsequently be designated.
The document also sets out how European Community programmes might be handled in a north-south body. It envisages that the north-south body would be responsible for implementing and managing those programmes which are explicitly designed on a cross-border or island-wide basis. There are currently very few such programmes. Otherwise, the north-south body would have primarily an advisory role.
The House will wish to be reassured that responsibility for determining policy towards the European Union would remain, as now, with the United Kingdom Government.
Let me now turn to strand 3, where the joint framework document sets out proposals for future relations between the British and Irish Governments.
These envisage that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be replaced by a new agreement between the two Governments. As now, there would be a continuing intergovernmental conference, with a permanent secretariat. The intergovernmental conference would be the forum in which the two Governments would jointly keep the new arrangements under review.
It would be open to either Government to bring up concerns about breaches of the new arrangements and to discuss how they might be resolved. This is the so-called "default mechanism." But there is no question of this process giving the Irish Government the right to take action in respect of the internal government of Northern Ireland. The framework document explicitly sets out that
"There would be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government: each will retain responsibility for the decisions and administration of Government within its own jurisdiction."
358
As I have sought to emphasise, these documents are intended as a contribution to the talks process. They set out ideas that the Government believe represent a balanced and realistic way forward that could command support across a wide political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
The next step will be for further negotiations to take place with the political parties in Northern Ireland. In those negotiations, others will be naturally be free to put forward their own proposals. I very much hope that everyone will agree to negotiate seriously. There is too much at stake for anyone to stand aside from these discussions.
If agreement is reached in the negotiations, the outcome will be put for approval to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. I should equally make it clear that there is no question of putting proposals to a referendum before there is agreement between the main political parties.
There is a triple safeguard against any proposals being imposed on Northern Ireland: first, any proposals must command the support of the political parties in Northern Ireland; secondly, any proposals must then be approved by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; and thirdly, any necessary legislation must be passed by this Parliament. That provides a triple lock designed to ensure that nothing is implemented without consent.
The prize from a successful outcome to the peace process is immense. We want to see the people of Northern Ireland permanently free from the fear of terrorist violence. We want to see institutions that reflect the different traditions in Northern Ireland in a manner acceptable to all, and we want to enshrine the principle, both north and south, that no change in Northern Ireland's constitutional position can take place without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I believe that these documents make an important contribution to that process, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome it. As he knows, we have supported the Government throughout the peace process, in times of difficulty as well as in times of progress, and we do so again today without hesitation. People in Northern Ireland should know that, whatever party is in government, this process will continue, pursued, I hope, with the same patience and determination, and motivated by the same desire for peace.
I also applaud the courage and skill of the British and Irish Governments, and, indeed, all those politicians and people who have contributed to this process. In particular, I salute the courage and fortitude of the people of Northern Ireland, who, throughout all those dark years of terrorism, none the less kept faith with peace.
I emphasise too that these are documents for consultation; they are not diktats. They seek balance; they threaten no one's fundamental interests, and therefore no one should fear discussing or debating them.
May I put to the Prime Minister the following points of detail on the document which outlines the new institutions in Northern Ireland, and on the joint framework document? I would make one preliminary point. Although, of course, the Government will want to negotiate on the basis of their own documents, will the

359
right hon. Gentleman confirm that any other documents tabled by other parties will be seriously examined and taken into account in this process?
On the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, the Prime Minister will not, of course, expect me to agree with his assertion that devolution is suitable only for one part of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what legislative powers he envisages, not only executive powers, for the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, and over what specified areas? When he says that the funding will come from central Government, is it to come in block, or will specific sums be earmarked for particular areas?
As to the north-south body, again as a preliminary point, will the Prime Minister confirm—I think that it may be helpful—that the principle of cross-border co-operation already exists in certain areas such as transport and tourism and energy? It is therefore not an unknown concept.
Can we be clear about the functions of this new body? In respect of the executive functions, am I right in thinking that the new body will be responsible for European Union programmes, but only those designated as covering both north and south? In implementing those programmes, will it deal directly with the European Union or only through the Governments? In that connection, will it have its own executive officers and civil servants?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also spell out the difference between the north-south body's executive functions and what are called its harmonising functions? Is it right that, in respect of the harmonising areas, such as education or industry or agriculture, the obligation is to try to agree a common policy, but in specified parts of those areas only, and that, in any event, that implementation is through either the Assembly or the Dail?
As to the third strand, relations between the Irish and UK Governments, the document talks of both Governments seeking ways of enshrining the protection of civil rights in their respective jurisdictions. What does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the UK will do to implement that, and is it by way of legislation? Will he be a little more precise about the reciprocal constitutional change needed in the UK as a result of the package that he has announced? What will be the next step? When does he foresee talks beginning, and between whom?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of those proposals will come about at all without consent? Parties must agree, people must agree, Parliament must agree. Consent, as I think that he was saying, is of the absolute essence. It has at its core the principle of self-determination. The people of Northern Ireland will choose their own future. There lies the power and there lies, also, the responsibility—a responsibility to be exercised not just for today, but for future generations.
The house of peace has stayed shut and locked in Northern Ireland for too many years. The agreement is the key to its door. I have no doubt that entering in will pose its own risks and challenges, but how much better that will be than to stay for ever outside, battered by the elements of hatred and mistrust. Today, therefore, across the House of Commons, let hope shape history—the hope of the ordinary, decent people in Northern Ireland, of both
360
traditions, that they should be freed from the tyranny of violence, to enjoy the peace which they deserve and which we have all sought for so long.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and for the unqualified manner in which he expressed that support. He is entirely right to illustrate to the House that nothing in the document is a diktat—nothing seeks to be imposed, nothing seeks to be threatening, and everything is there to be determined by consent and agreement.
I shall deal with the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman has posed. Will the Government, in the talks yet to continue, be prepared to accept and consider other documents? The answer, in unqualified terms, is, yes, we will welcome other contributions to the debate, and we shall wish to explore them in the discussions that lie ahead.
The devolved Assembly will deal with many matters traditionally dealt with in local government, and some beyond. It will deal with education, health and agriculture—broadly, the range of responsibilities that existed in 1972 when Northern Ireland, for historic reasons, had its own Assembly. Funding is not for each individual aspect of responsibility, but will come in a block, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, cross-border functions currently exist.
The right hon. Gentleman's description of the executive element was entirely correct, so I need not reiterate that. The Executive will deal with the European Union through the Government and will have its own secretariat, drawn jointly from north and south—answerable to the body and to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Dail.
The right hon. Gentleman was entirely right about the obligation to try to agree, and I need add nothing more to that.
The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about civil rights is, yes, we shall seek to determine civil rights. That was a matter raised by each of the political parties—I think, without exception—with whom we had discussions. There is much work still to be done beyond the principle that we shall seek to enshrine such rights.
Bits of the document may require legislation, but it is as yet unclear precisely which ones. Where necessary, we shall proceed, with agreement, towards such legislation.
On the subject of reciprocal changes, we shall seek to enshrine the principle of consent in the joint declaration—which was echoed again in the documents this morning—in British legislation. That could be done by amendment to the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or by fresh legislation. It will not affect Britain's sovereign right to govern Northern Ireland.
I reiterate that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the principle of consent is writ large through every page, every action and every purpose that exists within the document.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most common criticism made of the Anglo-Irish agreement by people in Northern Ireland was that it was imposed, and that it would have been far better if it had been advanced on the basis of a contribution to further discussions between the parties in Northern Ireland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my

361
judgment, the basis on which he has announced the framework document today precisely meets the criticisms made at that time? I congratulate him on that.
Are not my right hon. Friend and all the brave people of Northern Ireland, to whom the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred, entitled to expect that the political leaders of those people should now carry out the undertaking that they claimed to me to be capable of discharging? They should now recognise the document as a basis for discussion and as an opportunity to negotiate and achieve a sensible and lasting agreement.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think that he is entirely right about the resentment and concern that was felt in Northern Ireland over the manner of the birth of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I think that that legacy has haunted subsequent efforts to move towards finding a better way forward in Northern Ireland.
As my right hon. Friend says, the new legislation will be discussed. I hope that it will remove the difficulties that existed at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement precisely because it will be discussed and, if legislation proceeds, it will proceed only after that discussion.
I am grateful that we have already received some written proposals from some political parties—the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party—for consideration alongside the framework document. Of course we are prepared to consider them. I hope that we will have the opportunity to consider them with the political leaders themselves, and consider also the propositions that we were asked to provide, and have now provided, in the framework document.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the Prime Minister confident that the Irish Republican Army has fully understood his message which is enshrined in the framework document: that, when it resumes its violence, it should not bomb the Baltic Exchange, since his Government have now distanced themselves from 90 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland who have eschewed violence over the past 20 years and who have vested their faith in the ballot box?
How can the Prime Minister endorse paragraph 9 of the document? It says:
"The primary objective … is to promote and establish agreement among the people of the island of Ireland".s
What does that have to do with Northern Ireland? How can the Prime Minister endorse harmonisation of policies between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic when Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom by the will of its people demonstrated at the ballot box?
When the Prime Minister comes to write his memoirs, does he believe that, like his predecessor, he will regret his part in driving Northern Ireland back at least 10 years by promoting this dishonourable blueprint for a united Ireland?
The Prime Minister: I understand the strong feelings that the hon. Gentleman has about this matter, but I beg him to examine more carefully what is in the document, and the way in which the document intends to proceed. I cannot accept that it drives Northern Ireland back 10 years to try to seek a peace which may be entrenched
362
permanently in Northern Ireland after generations of mistrust and hatred. That is the purpose which underlies all the actions in the document.
As far as the Irish Republican Army and a message to it are concerned, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone in Northern Ireland that our determination to resist terrorism has always been there, it is there now and it will remain there. That is why we have had British troops on the streets of Northern Ireland for a quarter of a century. That is why I increased the number of British troops in Northern Ireland. That is why I am prepared to say to the hon. Gentleman at this moment that, for so long as I am here, I will keep troops on the streets of Northern Ireland for as long as it is necessary to protect the people of Northern Ireland against terrorism, from whatever source it may come.
If the hon. Gentleman seeks my message to the Irish Republican Army, it is this. While it bombs and kills, it has an implacable opponent in Downing street and in the Government. If it is prepared to talk and return to democratic politics, we will offer it a ready ear. We will discuss with it how it may return to democratic politics, so that the next generation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency may not face the privations, the murders, the sorrows, the hardships, the deaths and the funerals year after year that he and his constituents have suffered in the past.
That is the game in which we are engaged at the moment. Where do I find myself in Northern Ireland? I place myself alongside 100 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland and believe that it is right to take action to move out of the spiral of despair that existed there and move towards the possibility of a permanent peace. I know that it will be difficult; I know that it cannot be done without difficulty, and perhaps it cannot he done without disagreements, setbacks and problems. But I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is right to try. I do not believe that any Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—Conservative or non-Conservative—could or should sit in Downing street without actively trying to find a way out of the problems which have existed for so long.
As for harmonisation, when the hon. Gentleman studies the document he will not find things in it which will cause him fear. I happily say to the hon. Gentleman that I will sit down with him and go through the document paragraph by paragraph, line by line and word by word to try to reassure him that there is nothing in it for him to fear, and everything in it which may make progress to what he wishes for his constituents and for Northern Ireland and what I and this House wish for his constituents and for Northern Ireland—a permanent peace and a prosperous future.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: As my right hon. Friend tries to reassure those with misgivings about the document, will he take every opportunity to emphasise that it imposes nothing but rather suggests a possible way forward, that its primary purpose is to promote meaningful debate between the political parties in Northern Ireland, and that those parties may, if they wish, during bilateral talks with each other or with the Government, bring forward alternative suggestions?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The document seeks to impose nothing, and its primary purpose is debate. My hon. Friend touches on a very important point when he talks about the possibility of

363
further bilateral discussions with the political parties. It will be necessary for further bilateral meetings with the parties, both to discuss proposals which they may have and to seek wherever necessary to take the parties through our proposals and discuss with them any fears which they may have about the proposals in the document. My door is open, as are those of my Ministers, for those bilateral discussions, which could start at any moment.
Mr. John Hume: Could I begin by placing on record on behalf of myself, my party and the people we represent our deepest appreciation to the Prime Minister and the Government for the enormous effort they have made, and for putting this problem at centre stage and at the top of their agenda, because this is the greatest human problem facing the Government and the peoples of these islands? May I also pay tribute to the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties for placing the matter above party politics—where it belongs—so that we can have a totally unanimous approach to tackling this serious problem?
Does the Prime Minister agree that, when all the words have been taken away from the document published today, the fundamental message is that the problem we must solve in Ireland is not that we are a divided piece of earth but that we are a divided people? Does he agree that that can be resolved only by agreement, and that all the resources to which both Governments are now committing themselves should be committed to promoting that agreement? Agreement threatens no section of our people.
I say to the Unionist people that I understand their fears and tensions, given the 25 years which we have been through. We have said before that this problem cannot be resolved without the participation and agreement of the Unionist people, because of their geography and numbers. We know that they do not trust Governments. All they are now being asked to do is trust themselves, and to come to the table. If they do not agree with this, they should come to the table and join all the parties and both Governments as soon as possible, to begin the difficult process of reaching agreement.
Let us all recognise that all our past attitudes have brought us to where we are, and have built those terrible walls in Belfast. If those walls are ever to come down, all sides must re-examine those past attitudes and come forward with new arrangements and relationships, which respect our differences but which at last harness all our energies to spill our sweat together, and not our blood, so that the next century will be the first century in the island's history in which we have no killings on our streets, and no young people have to go to other lands to earn a living.
The Prime Minister: I know that that has long been the dream of the hon. Gentleman, and the whole House knows the role that he has played in moving towards it.
The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the fact that there cannot be an agreement without taking the majority tradition in Northern Ireland entirely with it. Agreement cannot be imposed; it will not be imposed; it would not work if anyone sought to impose it.
One of the problems that one needs to try to deal with is the problem of old fears and of trust. That requires consensus, agreement and a lot of discussion. I know that some people are pessimistic about whether such agreements can he reached, and whether such progress
364
can be made. If those pessimists had been confronted two years ago with today's situation, they would not have believed the changes that have taken place in Northern Ireland in the past two years.
They would not have believed that the joint declaration could be agreed; they would not have accepted that the joint framework document would be agreed, or that we would have six months of peace, or that it would be possible for any British Government to sit down and talk to the political representatives of the paramilitaries of both sides.
These are but a small example of the changes in Northern Ireland over the past two years. Heaven alone knows, there are difficulties enough ahead, but if we look at what has been done in the past two years and take the hurdles in the future one by one, with patience I believe that they can be overcome, trust can be forged and the old fears can be diluted. That is how I hope we shall all be able to move forward.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend accept the wholehearted support of the members of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body, British and Irish alike, for this historic process? Will he firmly reiterate yet again that sovereignty is not at stake, and that the principle of consent reigns paramount? Finally, does he agree that it is now for the people of Northern Ireland to seize this opportunity, and to ensure that the changes that will secure the peace are made on their behalf?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and for the role that he has played for many years in Anglo-Irish relations. He is right to stress the fact that consent is paramount. I guarantee that it will remain so in the future.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that, while there are hound to be differences between the parties about the details of these proposals—we, for example, feel that a Bill of Rights should have been part of the framework—the discussion process is there to consider differences and to work out an agreement that will win the votes of the people of Northern Ireland? It is they who will decide. Is it not also clear that, when it comes to determination to maintain this peace process, the three largest parties in this House are—unusually, but absolutely—united?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had to say. The most clear-cut exposition of the fact that he is right—that the people of Northern Ireland must decide, for without them there can be no agreement—and of the fact that that is the view of the British Government, is the guarantee that I have given that, after the political parties have reached an agreement—if they can—we shall put the outcome of their discussions to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, so that all the people of Northern Ireland will have the chance to express their view on the proposals that will affect their future.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As this remains the sovereign Parliament of the people of Northern Ireland, can my right hon. Friend, whose

365
courageous persistence I salute, say what role he envisages for elected Members of this House in the parliamentary forum?
The Prime Minister: There is of course a parliamentary forum now; it will continue. As the talks process proceeds—this follows from what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) just said from the Liberal Bench—the Government are open to propositions that would be helpful to these discussions from every hon. Member. I hope that those with positive points to put will make them. In due course, provided we get through the first hurdles of agreement between the parties and the referendum, it will of course be for this House to determine the legislation that will be laid before it.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Although there is much in these framework documents that will not be welcomed by Unionists throughout Northern Ireland, I think it only right on behalf of my constituents to place on record our appreciation of the fact that the Prime Minister is giving such priority to the problems of Northern Ireland. In addition, I add the concern and interest that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition is equally taking in matters affecting peace in our Province.
In the Prime Minister's statement, he said that he was a Unionist. He has repeatedly said that throughout this morning. Can he therefore assure the people of Northern Ireland this afternoon, as the Union and the maintenance of the Union is the key to progress and peace within Northern Ireland, that, as a result of his new policy announced today, the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is more secure today than it was yesterday?
The Prime Minister: There are three points that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I would thank him for his initial words. Secondly, I would say to him that the guarantee of the Union for the people of Northern Ireland lies within their own will. For so long as the people of Northern Ireland share the view that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom, they will remain part of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman will also have heard the Taoiseach make it clear this morning that he was removing the claim to territory that exists in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. He set out the point about jurisdiction quite clearly this morning. That has been a source of great friction in Northern Ireland.
I believe and hope that we are now in a position where we shall be able to remove some of the old fears that have existed, as the immediate hubbub settles around the publication of this document, and look at a practical route forward. I am willing to do that. I think that it is clear from what the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Liberal party have said that there is widespread consensus among rt hon. and hon. Members across the House, who would be prepared to give as much time, trouble and interest as is necessary to try to solve the problems that have bedevilled Northern Ireland for so long.
Sir James Kilfedder: May I preface my question to the Prime Minister by stating my passionate dedication to reconciliation between the two sections of
366
our community in Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? But the Prime Minister will understand—the Leader of the Opposition referred to this—that many have died over 26 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland. My mind goes out to all those who have been murdered by the terrorists, men who now pose as peacemakers.
With regard to the last Northern Ireland Assembly, my right hon. Friend gave the date as 1972. The last Northern Ireland Assembly lasted from 1982 to 1986, when it was brought to an end by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was the Speaker of that Assembly. It was my regret that the SDLP and other nationalists boycotted that Assembly, which was, in fact, a good basis for political progress in Northern Ireland. If that had not happened in 1982 to 1986, imagine just where we would be today.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that the surest foundation for political progress in Northern Ireland, as indeed anywhere else in the world, is trust and good will as well as consent. Will he therefore consider the establishment of another Assembly as soon as possible, without all the details to which I see reference in the document, which would allow elected representatives to get together, to get to know each other and to work out their own problems? As a matter of good will—I believe that that exists today in Northern Ireland—they could develop good relations with their opposite numbers in the Dublin Parliament.
The Prime Minister: Of course, if that is the wish of the parties, we would respect and honour that wish. That is certainly a wish that may legitimately be put on the table for discussion in the manner that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
My hon. Friend mentioned the two sections of the community for which he has affection. I believe that the best thing we can do for the two sections of the community is to continue to try to remove the strife and the problems that have divided them for so long.
My hon. Friend referred to those who died in the many years of terrorism. We all feel strongly about that—hon. Members from Northern Ireland understandably more strongly, from more direct involvement than others. Our aim surely must be that no more people are killed in that fashion. I very much hope that we will be able to ensure that there are not.
My hon. Friend referred to the Assembly, in which, as Speaker, he played a distinguished role for a long time. Of course, the surest foundation for the future is trust and goodwill. Trust and good will is what I ask for and what I seek, and what I hope will carry these talks forward.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic signed the joint declaration on 15 December two years ago. They gave themselves an awesome responsibility when they committed themselves to remove the causes of the conflict, to overcome the legacy of history and to heal the divisions that have resulted.
Does the Prime Minister agree that those responsibilities have been furthered by the framework document, which was published today, which is based on consent and which can be implemented only through agreement? Does he further agree that that primary agreement—not exclusively—will be between those people represented by the Ulster Unionist party and by

367
our own party within Northern Ireland; and that, as two parties representing the vast majority of the people in the north of Ireland, of both traditions, we also have an awesome responsibility to pursue the noble objective of peace and to make the concessions which are going to be required, not just from Unionism but from nationalism as well; and that, if we pursue that line, then we will all be fulfilling those responsibilities?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and am grateful for what he had to say. He is entirely right that the principle determinants of a permanent peace, if it is achievable, will have been the political parties and the people of Northern Ireland. The role of any British Government, and the role of documents like the framework document, is the role of a facilitator. We will put in front of people ideas that we hope will bring them together, but it is for the political parties to decide whether those are the right ideas for their constituents and for their future, and that is what I hope that they will do.
I will make the point, if I may, even more clearly about the joint framework document. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman implied, there on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It is not a diktat. It is there for the political parties and the people to accept it, to reject it, or to change it. But it is there for discussion, to bring the parties together, in the way that the hon. Gentleman speaks of.
Sir John Cope: In supporting my right hon. Friend, which I do wholeheartedly, could I ask him to emphasise to the Irish Government that the changes proposed to the Republic's constitution are not only of the greatest constitutional importance, as has been emphasised, but are an essential prerequisite before any new north-south body can be set up, because that should be a meeting between representatives of equal administrations trying to co-operate and not with one side committed to trying to interfere in and take over the other, which is what some people fear?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and of course he speaks with great knowledge, from his own distinguished period at the Northern Ireland Office. I agree with him about the importance of the changes proposed in articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. I think that many people anticipated that there might be some change in article 3. I think that far fewer people imagined that there would be change in article 2. That is what has been agreed, and confirmed again this morning.
The change that is proposed will address both articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. The purpose of the change will be to remove any jurisdiction or territorial claim of right over the territory of Northern Ireland, and that will remain the position while it is contrary to the will of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Prime Minister referred to the need for the approval of the main—the main—political parties before any proposal is put to the people by way of a referendum. Will the Prime Minister spell out precisely what he means by "the main political parties"? Will he make it absolutely clear that the
368
threat of a boycott by any party will not be allowed to jeopardise this historic, and perhaps unique, opportunity for a peaceful settlement?
The Prime Minister: While I seek the widest possible consensus to this agreement, what I do not wish to do is seek to place any political party, large or small, beyond the pale of these discussions, providing that they are a legitimate and democratic political party. We seek this wide agreement for the very practical reason that, if we can get the wide agreement, we will win the peace.
What we have learnt from the history of Northern Ireland is that any significant part of the community, if it dissents, can in practice frustrate a move forward. We have learnt that from experience time and time again in recent years. It is for that reason that we will seek the widest possible agreement. I do not wish to specify which particular parties and run through them: I think that we know which the main political parties are. But there are other distinguished voices in Northern Ireland whom one might not regard as a main political party. We would seek to ensure that those distinguished voices were also heard.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his immense courage and determination in seeking to achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I think that I speak on behalf of not only everyone in the Chamber but those outside in wishing him success in his initiative and that of the Government.
However, can he perhaps explain to me, bearing in mind that those responsible for the killing and bombing in Northern Ireland during the past 25 to 26 years have stated through their spokesman, Mr. Gerry Adams, that their sole objective is to get the United Kingdom out of Northern Ireland, how the two objectives of the peace that we all want and the union in which I and, dare I say to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister of this country believes, can be achieved?
The Prime Minister: I think what needs to be done as far as the paramilitaries are concerned—the IRA and, indeed, the Protestant paramilitaries as well—is to disattach them from the legitimate support of the people of Northern Ireland; to disattach those who legitimately wish for a nationalist future from the violent men of the IRA. I think that that has significantly happened in the period since the joint declaration.
It is certainly equally the case that the joint declaration has made a remarkable difference in the support that the IRA had previously received from many sources outside Northern Ireland. There is a changing tide of opinion towards those who wish to pursue by violence an end that is not legitimate.
The other great change, of course, is that the change in the Irish constitution actually enshrines the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position. It is not easy to over-emphasise the significant changes that we have seen in Northern Ireland during the past few years. It is not all that long ago that the only people who would have agreed with the principle of consent in Northern Ireland would have been the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government. The principle of consent is now

369
accepted almost everywhere. That is one illustration of the changing nature of debate in Northern Ireland that I believe will meet the point that my hon. Friend raises.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and the Government of the Republic, and not least the former Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, on the work that they have done in achieving the publication of this quite historic document today.
Is he aware that, on reading that document, careful attention is paid to the dignity, the rightful aspirations and the integrity of each of the traditional communities within Northern Ireland and, on the basis of that document, nobody has anything to fear when entering freely into discussions with the right hon. Gentleman and his Government and with the other parties in Northern Ireland; that the essence of consent is very much there? Is he also aware that, should this brave initiative, this try which is well worth making, sadly fail, at the end of the day people will have to return to the same principles that are enshrined in the documents published today?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has to say. I agree that there is nothing to fear from continuing in these discussions, precisely for the reason that has been spelt out by hon. Member after hon. Member on both sides of the House—that we proceed with consent and by agreement. It is a rational way to proceed. I believe in the politics of reason, and proceeding in this way is an illustration of the politics of reason.
Mr. James Couchman: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office for their considerable achievement in producing the document. My right hon. Friend has stated wisely that the state of emergency will continue, and that law and order will continue to be administered by the British Government. Does he agree that the state of emergency can end only when all the weapons on all sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland are surrendered? Will he further reassure the House, as he did in his statement on the Downing street declaration in December 1993, that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I am happy to reaffirm to my hon. Friend that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland, and we do not accept that term in any sense. The purpose of removing weapons is crucial to ensuring that significant progress is made in future. That, of course, is not directly dealt with in the documents published today. It is a matter under discussion with the political representatives of the paramilitary groups in the discussions that the Government are having with them at present. We are moving towards discussing such issues as the decommissioning of arms, and my hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the central importance of success in that role.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I say on behalf of Plaid Cymru that we support unconditionally and wish well the important step that has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Government today?
370
May I press the Prime Minister to clarify the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly? He mentioned that it would have functions that belonged to local government, but he also said that it was to be a legislative assembly. Local government is not a legislative tier of government. Will he confirm that there will be full law-making powers in the Northern Ireland Assembly over the functions that fall into its remit, and that we are talking about a powerful assembly for Northern Ireland, not a glorified county council?
The Prime Minister: Yes, if that is what is wished. What we have put forward today are ideas for the political parties themselves to determine. I reiterate that it is not a prescription. The Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative functions, it would not have tax-raising powers, and it would bid for its money in terms of block grant and utilise that money.
For many of the functions that would be devolved to it—although the hon. Gentleman makes the point about legislation, as opposed to the order-making and byelaw powers that often exist with local authorities—the Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative authority, but it would need to bid for the money, and that would be provided to it in block grant form. It would not have the power to raise resources, and it would emphatically not be a tax-raising assembly.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from driving Northern Ireland back by 10 years, what he has achieved over the 14 short months since the signing of the Downing street declaration is to drive the peace process forward in a way which many people said was literally impossible at the time? He, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are to be congratulated on that. Although the north-south body refers to the designation of delegated functions, because that section also talks about the agreement of the parties, as the document does throughout, there is really no reason why all the parties should not participate in the talks on that basis.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, as he knows from his own period as a Northern Ireland Minister precisely how people feel about those issues, and precisely what the difficulties are; I am particular grateful to him for his comments with that in mind. As far as the designation of authorities is concerned, it is worth spelling out the point clearly, so that it cannot be misunderstood by people in Northern Ireland, and I would not wish it to be.
In the first instance, this would be discussed among the political parties. If they agreed, there would be a referendum. After the referendum, there would be legislation in the House. The Assembly would then be set up, and any changes—any further powers that might then be devolved to the north-south body—would be devolved by the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. Agreement in the north-south body could be reached only with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The fear that arose at one stage in the past that this would be an entirely independent, entirely autonomous, high-powered executive body that would rapidly change the mode of existence and way of life across a great swathe of functions in Northern Ireland is self-evidently wrong. I hope that that fear has been well and truly put at rest by the documents published today.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. I now bring this session to an end.

BILL PRESENTED
  CRIMINAL APPEAL
  Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Nicholas Baker, presented a Bill to amend provisions relating to appeals and references to the Court of Appeal in criminal cases; to establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission and confer functions on, and make other provision in relation to, the Commission; to amend section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and introduce in Northern Ireland provisions similar to those of that section; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

  Breast Cancer (National Plan)
  4.30 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to formulate a national plan for combating breast cancer.
  The incidence of breast cancer in the United Kingdom is the highest in the world. Government statistics show that each year there are 30,000 new cases. There are nearly 16,000 deaths from breast cancer per year, and the United Kingdom has poorer five-year survival rates than any other European country or the United States. Those statistics signal a clear need for action, and that is what my Bill is intended to achieve.
  The Bill will require the Government to call a conference to establish a national action plan on breast cancer, based on the plan that is now so successful in America. The conference to formulate such a response there was called by President Clinton shortly after his inauguration, following a great deal of pressure which resulted in the presentation to the White House of a petition with 2.5 million signatures. The conference that I want the Government to call must embrace and involve the full spectrum of individuals, groups and organisations concerned with breast cancer.
  In America, invitations were extended to 150 representatives—members of advocacy groups, breast cancer sufferers, representatives of private industry, academics, scientists, doctors and people from the media, education and specialist cancer units, as well as many others with a legitimate interest. The action plan that was drawn up at the conference stated:
  "these invited participants worked together in a unique and unprecedented partnership that combined scientific and technical expertise with social insights and personal and professional experience and commitment."
  I have no doubt that that experience could be repeated here: indeed, we have already seen many exciting new initiatives, such as the launch of the Macmillan breast cancer registry on Monday, and many others.
  The United States came up with its plan at about the time when the Army Medical Command diverted $210 million from the defence budget to breast cancer. Thus, the action plan had an immediate budget. Just imagine if we could use some of the money from the Trident programme to help women to combat this dreadful disease. In the United States the political commitment was there, and so was the money. That was very important.
  On 14 December last year, the all-party group on breast cancer held a seminar which many eminent professors and medical professionals attended, as did many user groups comprising those connected with breast cancer. The purpose of the seminar was to discuss the merits of a national plan. I believe that it was a huge success, and I pay tribute to all who attended and contributed.
  At the end of the seminar, people were unanimous in their support for a national action plan. It should be noted that hon. Members from all parties attended, and that all parties in the House support my Bill.
  As I have said, superb initiatives are already under way, and some excellent work is already being undertaken. Much of it, however, is fragmented. As we heard on Monday, services, in particular, are a lottery—the Macmillan document makes that clear.

  373
  The abolition of the regional health authorities is causing great concern. The British Breast Group recommends access to specialist facilities—it is a keynote of its recommendations—but uncertainty of funding remains. Who will guarantee, for instance, that purchasers will pay for the use of such facilities if they are established?
  The document produced in the United States of America is a blueprint drawn to highlight opportunities to advance and apply knowledge about the causes, diagnosis, prevention, treatment and ultimate eradication of this dreadful disease. That document has acted as a catalyst in co-ordinating actions relating to breast cancer. There is no reason why we cannot do the same here.
  The first part of such a plan would concentrate on improving access to services. That is at the core of British Breast Group's report, which is clear in its demands. It says that all patients with breast disease should have access to high-quality care. The characteristics of such care should include accurate and timely diagnosis, appropriate treatment and follow-up, effective communication, skilled psychosocial support, immediate access to other specialist facilities as required, and collection of data on outcome measures.
  The importance of improving co-ordination and information management among providers cannot be overstated. It is also vital to increase participation of under-served and at-risk populations in breast cancer programmes dealing with risk factors. Early detection, diagnosis and treatment are essential. That would mean targeting and working with educationists and the media, which would be important if the Government were to adopt a national strategy.
  Part two of a national plan should involve research into the causes and cures of breast cancer. That research must be properly funded. I would make the same demands of a Labour Government, were they in power.
  In the United States, the following plan was put into operation. It aims to identify and to foster promising new areas of basic research through interagency, inter-disciplinary and private and public collaboration; to facilitate collaboration among basic, clinical behavioural, epidemiological and health services, plus scientists across the disciplines—which has been successful in some ways; and to organise and support multi-disciplinary research and collaborative efforts, using a wide range of mechanisms that maximise individual and group efforts.
  Part three of the national plan would, as in the United States, establish comprehensive patient data registries and
  374
  material banks as research tools. That would need national funding. The infrastructure must be put in place; more important, it must be paid for.
  Part four of the plan would increase opportunities for research training in sectors related to breast cancer. The United States, for example, is expanding the scope and breadth of biomedical and behavioural research activities relating to breast cancer. It is providing adequate resources and mechanisms to speed the translation from the lab to the clinic of new therapeutic opportunities. It is making clinical trials more widely available to women with breast cancer, and women who are at risk from breast cancer.
  At our seminar in December, Alison Coates from Bosom Friends, a Bradford-based support group, commented:
  "I was diagnosed breast cancer at the age of 24. Personally, what I would like to know is what research and trials are taking place to prevent cancer occurring in women outside the screening age group. I have not been invited to take part in any clinical trials, although I have put myself forward on numerous occasions."
  My plan would utilise such women, who want to take part in finding the causes of breast cancer.
  Most important, the United States is supporting research on the prevention of the causes of breast cancer. Clearly, we need to persuade the Government that a national action plan is necessary. That means picking up the bill for research, and not leaving it to the charities. There is a serious need to support and fund clinical trials, and to support an infrastructure. The British Breast Group has made many recommendations that should be implemented, as has the Calman and Culyer report.
  I give the final word to a 32-year-old woman from Bosom Friends in Bradford, Sue Patterson, who told the seminar held by the all-party group that, after suffering this dreadful disease, she was told in follow-up advice to lie on her back and think of England. She told us:
  "I am thinking of England and we do have a public voice. Women are coming forward. We are prepared to be mobilised. We are prepared even to go on the streets. We really do feel we are being forgotten, that is why we call upon this Government to establish a National Plan of Action on Breast Cancer."
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Ms Liz Lynne, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Harold Elletson, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Jean Corston and Mr. Eric Illsley.

  BREAST CANCER (NATIONAL PLAN)
  Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to formulate a national plan for combating breast cancer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 March, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

  Value Added Tax
  4.41 pm
  The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move,
  That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1995 (S.1., 1995, No. 280), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the Value Added Tax (Protected Buildings) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 283), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 281), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 279), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 291), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are five value added tax orders before the House. I shall first introduce three of them and then speak to the remaining two separately. The first three are closely related and deal with VAT on the construction industry. It is a difficult and contentious area of VAT liability, but these measures together would deregulate, simplify and give greater certainty to the law. They also address many points of criticism made by VAT tribunals in recent years.
  The majority of the changes were the subject of an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21 July last year. Draft legislation was then exposed for comment and an extra-statutory concession was announced at that time which granted some of the main changes immediately.
  The initial reaction to the changes from the building industry was very positive, in that many issues that had been the subject of innumerable, costly and time-consuming disputes were about to be resolved. Indeed, the president of the construction industry joint taxation committee wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend in the following terms:
  "I and the whole of my committee were delighted with the news on the 21st July about these VAT changes to be introduced in your next Budget. It is particularly pleasing that the reforms have been given immediate effect by way of extra-statutory concession."
  Following the consultation exercise, the Government noted a number of good suggestions and also some legitimate concerns expressed by the industry. We have therefore made some suitable changes to the construction order which is now before the House.
  The present law allows for the zero-rating of most goods and services in the course of the construction of a new house or flat and certain other limited categories of building. That and other provisions mean that the sale of all new houses is effectively VAT-free. Conversely, any work to an existing building, with the notable exception of listed buildings, is taxable. That means that a person who enlarges his house pays 17.5 per cent. on the cost of the work, as does the entrepreneur who converts a derelict factory into flats or the couple who convert a disused barn into a house. That has been the position.
  376
  The major change in the new construction order is to extend zero-rating to the conversion of non-residential buildings into houses and flats. That is a significant and welcome boost to the hard-pressed construction industry. It would also help the regeneration of inner-city areas by the creation of new, affordable housing.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister take into consideration the position of some charitable organisations which acquire buildings that need to be adapted into day centres? Is the Minister saying that, under the changed orders for VAT on building, any charitable organisation that acquires a building which requires alteration so that it may be used as a day centre to accommodate disabled people, elderly people and so on will not pay VAT on those conversions?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new concession covers the conversion of a non-residential building into a dwelling or collection of dwellings or residential accommodation. Therefore, it does not extend to the creation of a day centre. It is a major concession, but, if the hon. Gentleman believes that it does not go far enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, he may catch your eye and explain how far he would like it to go, and I shall endeavour, at the end of the debate, to tell the hon. Gentleman of the further reasoning that caused us to stop at dwellings and residential accommodation.
  Usually, the benefit of zero-rating will be obtained when the property in question is sold for the first time, but we have made special provision for housing associations, which are often subject to restrictions on selling their housing stock. In those cases, the order will allow the builder to zero-rate his services. Likewise, someone who himself converts a building, such as a barn, into a dwelling will be able to recover the VAT that he has paid under an amended DIY housebuilders scheme.
  I have mentioned that we aim for all houses to be effectively free of VAT, but that cannot necessarily apply to the contents of those houses. It would be grossly unfair to the general public and retailers, and very expensive in revenue terms, if a new house could be sold with tax-free items such as carpets, curtains or white goods such as refrigerators and freezers. Since 1973, we have therefore blocked the VAT relief on certain items incorporated into a house.
  The order relaxes that list of blocked goods and now reflects the requirements of the building regulations. Whereas previously all electrical items were blocked, developers can now obtain tax-free installation in a new building of all ventilation equipment, and safety equipment such as burglar alarms, lifts, hoists and waste disposal units. Those changes have been warmly welcomed.
  The order changes the tax treatment of new charity annexes to an existing building. Currently, when a new annexe is built for non-business charity purposes which is detached from any other building and can function independently of that building, the construction is zero-rated for VAT purposes. Alternatively, if the annexe is built adjacent to the original building and connected by doors or corridors, the construction is deemed to be work to an existing building and is taxed. Effectively, the change of law will ignore the connecting door or corridor and apply the same tax treatment to both types of annexes. It is not, however, intended to give tax-free treatment to enlargements or extensions to charity buildings.

  377
  The order also addresses a particular difficulty that tribunals have experienced in deciding whether an existing building remained following dereliction or part demolition. If there was a building, the work to it was taxable, but if the tribunal decided that no building remained, the new building could be zero rated.
  There is no definition in law and tribunals have tried to rely on the facts of each case and their perception of the final building. The order gives a legal definition of when a building ceases to be an existing building. The original draft, published last July, required a clear site to be left following demolition. Following representations received from the industry, the order now allows one facade, or, on a corner site, two facades, to be retained if they are required by local planning permission.
  Because of the new rules on conversions, the bulk of the problem has been resolved. The effect of the change is, therefore, limited to work to existing dwellings. In the past VAT tribunals have been persuaded that zero rating is proper for the creation of a new house by, for example, incorporating a small house into a much larger one. That will no longer be possible and, generally, any work of whatever degree to an existing dwelling will be taxable.
  The second order deals with protected or, to use a more common term, listed buildings. A new order is necessary as this group has always reflected the main conditions contained in the construction group that I have just discussed. In addition, two changes have been made. Religious bodies that wish to alter a listed building are exempt from planning permission provided that they set up internal procedures that satisfy the Department of National Heritage. Other denominations must seek normal listed building approval from the local planning authorities. The order incorporates recent changes in this ecclesiastical exemption.
  The order clarifies the definition of approved alterations to a listed building. It has always been the case that repairs are taxable but that alterations are zero-rated. Some hon. Members will recall that when Chancellor Lawson abolished zero rating for alterations to most buildings in 1984, the House was persuaded that listed buildings should retain such zero rating. The borderline has always been difficult. Tax advisers increasingly claim that all work that changes the fabric of a building to any minute degree is an alteration, provided that it has been approved by the local authority.
  Some confusion now reigns because some VAT tribunal chairman have agreed with that argument while others have not. I can give the House a few examples of the difficulties caused. When a thatched roof is replaced with one of a different reed, it has been claimed that the new type of reed alters the roof rather than repairs it. In another case, the replacement of a leaky flat roof covered by a single lead sheet with a sectional roof using modern methods was claimed to be an alteration rather than a repair. An even more bizarre example is where the chemical impregnation of a wall for damp-proofing purposes, which changed the molecular structure of the bricks, was claimed to be an alteration not a repair and was therefore eligible for different VAT treatment.
  I have mentioned the tax-free new house and the need to tax some of the contents such as fridges, carpets and so on. The input tax order closes a tax loophole whereby
  378
  a procedure has been devised by tax advisers to allow commercial nursing homes in the private sector to acquire all their fixtures and fittings tax-free. I am sure that removing that avoidance device will excite little controversy in the House.
  The first three orders form a package of measures that have been widely welcomed by the industry. In addition to significant new concessions, a general tidying-up exercise has resulted in considerable simplification and greater clarity of the law, which will be most helpful to the industry and administrators and will reduce costs on both sides. Contentious and costly litigation to tribunals and the courts will certainly be reduced.
  The Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order results from a consultation undertaken by Customs with businesses and professional advisers to see how the VAT treatment of commercial property transactions could be simplified. The order makes significant changes, which will be welcomed by businesses large and small. It is deregulatory and will cause pages of complex legislation to disappear.
  I shall set out what the order seeks to achieve. In a sentence, the order makes simpler and more flexible the election to waive exemption, which is sometimes called the option to tax, and abolishes the self-supply of commercial property. The option to tax is a relieving measure. By allowing landlords to choose to tax supplies of their property, it permits recovery of input tax that could not otherwise be reclaimed.
  First, existing provisions do not allow the cancellation of an option. The order assists those who opt to tax in haste and those who, in the fullness of time, wish to change their minds. It will allow withdrawal of an option to tax within three months, if it has not been put into practical effect, and cancellation in any case after 20 years subject to Customs' permission.
  Secondly, the order offers businesses more discretion in determining the scope of their option. Currently, an option automatically covers most groups of buildings and entire estates. From 1 March 1995, businesses will be able to tax more selectively so that, for example, each building at a business park and discrete areas of agricultural land can be separately taxed.
  I have decided to discontinue the complicated special rules for determining how much tax is due when an option to tax is first made. The normal rules will now apply. I also propose that an option can no longer be used to tax the pitch rent for a residential caravan, or the mooring fee for a residential houseboat, and to put those charges on the same footing as the ground rent for an ordinary dwelling.
  Turning to the self-supply provisions briefly, the existing provisions require businesses making exempt supplies of, for instance, finance, insurance, health or education, to pay VAT to customs on the full cost of any building that they construct themselves. Usually that tax can be recovered only in part. The vast majority of responses to the Customs consultation asked for the abolition of those provisions and I have decided to abolish them altogether for any developments starting on or after 1 March 1995. Transitional provisions for existing buildings and those still under construction will continue until 1 March 1997. Those will protect in particular people who pointed out that they had secured funding for developments currently in progress on the basis of the existing rules.

  379
  The order greatly simplifies a difficult area of the tax within a framework that gives businesses the greatest possible choice. It abolishes a complicated and generally unpopular measure. The result is less regulation and greater flexibility for businesses, and I commend the order to the House.
  Finally, I turn to the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order. The existing payments on account scheme requires the largest VAT payers to make payments by monthly instalments of their VAT liability. The scheme was originally introduced to prevent an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement as a result of changes necessitated by the United Kingdom's entry into the single market. To maintain the PSBR position, it is necessary for the scheme to continue.
  The order updates the 1993 payments on account order so that entry to the scheme and the amounts payable for 1995–96 are determined by the tax liability in the year 1993–94 rather than 1992–93. It also provides that, in future, the scheme will roll forward automatically on an annual basis, thus removing the need to lay fresh statutory instruments before the House each year to update the scheme.
  In July last year, the Chancellor announced that the scheme would be aligned with the fiscal year so that businesses could start making payments on account for VAT periods beginning in April, May and June of each year rather than October, November and December. To effect that change, the current scheme was allowed to run for a further six months—to March this year-rather than being updated as previously. The Chancellor also announced that, when the scheme was next updated, the order would be amended to provide that future updates of the scheme would happen automatically each year. That would remove the need to lay fresh statutory instruments before the House.
  The Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1995 gives effect to the two changes, and I commend the order to the House.
  5.2 pm
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: As the House will have realised from the Paymaster General's speech, the series of five VAT orders is highly complex. Understanding the orders—particularly their impact on the building industry and housing market—is akin to trying to wade through treacle, but there are specific issues that we wish to raise involving the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1995. As the Paymaster General said, the orders result from tribunal cases, appeals and legal action, which can be fraught.
  I specifically wish to refer to the impact of the orders on public sector housing. The homeless or destitute are not frequently seen at VAT tribunals appealing against the impact of the legislation on their rent levels—they are not seen at such tribunals at all. I want to explain why we believe that the construction of buildings order is detrimental to housing associations and why the Government, in trying to resolve one set of anomalies, have created another. I know that Customs and Excise officials have worked hard on the orders and have done their best to take on a range of issues, but we are not satisfied on several points and we shall oppose the order for those reasons.
  380
  To demonstrate the impact on public sector housing it is important to stress a number of points. Public sector housing is made of two sorts of housing: local authority housing stock and housing association housing stock. Their relationship is important and it is being drawn more tightly by the Government's housing policy, which enforces the transfer from local authorities to housing associations of the management of that stock.
  Local authority housing stock is declining because it is being sold off through the right-to-buy scheme. Almost no new building is taking place in that sector. Housing associations account for 25 per cent. of all new dwellings in the UK and are developed partly through public funds, through the Housing Corporation, and partly through private finance. There are two sorts of housing association and the order affects them in different ways. There are those that are registered with the Housing Corporation under charitable rules and those that are registered under Housing Corporation rules as industrial and provident societies.
  Housing associations are competitive, but their ethos is to help other housing associations, which are known as embryonic housing associations—social housing that cannot initially secure the finance needed to develop premises. The embryonic housing association piggy-backs on the larger housing association in order to secure the private finance that it needs. It is that relationship which is in danger of being undermined and damaged by the order if it is passed today.
  Housing associations' core income is exempt from value added tax, which means that they cannot claim VAT on input costs. Housing associations suffer VAT on repairs, maintenance, major refurbishment and professional fees for developing new dwellings. That is a consequence of the VAT orders, and the same is not true for local authorities, which are excluded. That consequence has a detrimental affect on housing rent.
  In future, housing associations are expected to take on local authority stock as local authorities are expected to divest themselves of that stock. There will be an increasing role for housing associations. The movement has two distinct ways of trying to deal with the VAT environment and how it places its contracts.
  Housing associations are expected to cope with a VAT environment in which they are considered to be in the mainstream of VAT law. There are certain unique legislative concessions to their status. Because they are in the main stream, they are considered as businesses—the activity of collecting rental income from their tenants is their business. Their core income is exempt. Housing associations thus suffer from VAT. The ones that are VAT registered because of activities ancillary to their core income may claim credit or recover the tax only on costs associated directly or indirectly with generating that taxed income.
  I do not want to go into too much detail about the specific provisions of the order. I want to show its impact and give some examples of how it could undermine new developments in housing associations.
  Because of various factors, housing associations find that speculatively built housing is unsuitable for their tenants. Invariably, they are not converting a country barn into a country residence or worrying about different sorts of roofing but considering specific designs to meet the constraints of sites—which frequently involve

  381
  difficulties—or to meet the specific needs of, for example, disabled people or people with special needs. Although housing associations develop some green-field sites, most developments are in urban areas, and carry difficulties. Professional fees and on costs can amount to 10 per cent. of the development cost.
  The housing associations' traditional approach has been to opt for two sorts of building contracts. The first is the traditional contract, whereby one set of providers supplies professional services and a second set of providers undertakes the building work. That building work is zero-rated, but value added tax is imposed on professional services. The second type of contract is the design and build contract. Housing associations opt for a specific company which can provide all the professional and building services, and in that way the VAT can be absorbed.
  However, that distorts the housing construction market because only contractors who can fulfil both functions can tender for the contracts. At a time when the Government and the Opposition want to see expansion of the construction sector, it is remiss of the Government to introduce an anomaly which will lock out a section of the building industry.
  The legislation affects major interest for leases and will thus have a detrimental effect on housing associations. A "major interest" for leases is considered to be a period of 21 years or more. By granting a long lease, the developer of a dwelling can apply for a zero rate of VAT on the first rental payment, which allows all the VAT that is paid on professional fees to be recovered.
  However, housing associations come under the control of the Housing Corporation and its rules prevent the granting of a major interest lease, except for shared ownership and right to buy. Therefore, housing associations that have assured and secured tenancies are exempt from VAT because of their short leaseholds. There is an obvious way around that problem, but the Government choose not to see it.
  It is accepted that the current legislation is weak, and its interpretation has been stretched by various VAT tribunal decisions. However, the zero rating of dwellings has resulted in lower rental charges, and anything that disturbs or undermines that situation is clearly undesirable. By changing the legislation in effect to reverse tribunal decisions, which in many instances have provided the relief that the housing associations need, the Government are inadvertently damaging those associations. The strict interpretation of the new legislation could prohibit zero rating because the raft extends above ground level. That concerns the development and conversion of buildings as well as their rehabilitation.
  The effect of the VAT rules—particularly those in the building and construction order—will mean that, although local authorities could recover VAT, they are prohibited from raising the finance to redevelop their properties and they are expected to transfer some of their properties to housing associations. However, housing associations could be inhibited in developing that stock because the private lender will he concerned that, as a result of the additional VAT imposed on refurbishment, the level of rent that would need to be charged could make the property unviable.
  382
  The legislation also inserts the word "first" in item 1, which means that the first tranche payment for the freehold sales will be exempt from VAT, allowing no VAT recovery. In Scotland, the law prohibits the granting of a longer lease for a residential building. Therefore, the shared ownership developments in Scotland will not be able to recover VAT incurred on the initial development, while their English equivalents can. That seems to be an unnecessary provision.
  There are other instances where housing associations recover dwellings from long-lease holders as a contractual obligation. Those dwellings are then let on a further long lease and currently all the grants of long leases are zero-rated. In future, only the first will be zero-rated and the resultant cost could be as much as £400 per dwelling in irrecoverable VAT.
  I have already explained the detrimental effect that the legislation could have on embryonic housing associations. The process involves a lead housing association taking on the development of property—the purchase of the land and the building of the dwellings—and then allowing the smaller housing association to manage that activity. The ownership is finally transferred to the smaller housing association when it is able to raise the necessary finance. The order will require VAT to be passed on in the cost to the embryonic associations, which, in turn, would push up their costs.
  The question of homelessness and the role of housing associations as well as local authorities should be important to all hon. Members in the House. We regret that the Government are able to damage an already very fragile relationship through complex VAT legislation and, unfortunately, we believe that that is what the order does.
  The concept of VAT seems to be flawed in the Value Added Tax (Protected Buildings) Order also. The order is specifically aimed at buildings of national heritage significance and it requires that relief be geared at alteration rather than preservation. The concept of that section of VAT law seeks to encourage the alteration of our national heritage buildings in order to claim back VAT, rather than maintain them through repairs.
  The problem is that the zero-rating relief extends only to alterations. That is an historic problem and it is difficult to see how it could be solved. I am sure that many hon. Members have been lobbied recently by bishops, church wardens and others associated with the church about the terrible burden of paying VAT on repairs and maintenance. That measure has skewed access to our national heritage as many churches and cathedrals have now established an entry payment. The money is not collected particularly rigorously, but establishing the structure to collect it enables the churches to try to offset and reclaim some of their VAT payments.
  I ask the Paymaster General to re-examine that issue because we are out of line with our European partners who protect their national heritage. It seems ridiculous that we seek to protect our national heritage by encouraging people to alter it.
  In conclusion, the orders presented today—particularly the construction order—will damage housing associations, whether they are registered under charitable rules or not, and they could lead to higher rental charges. The Government have dressed them up as a series of technical changes, and technical changes are included in the orders as well. However, we intend to oppose the Value Added

  383
  Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order because we believe that nothing should be allowed to undermine our crusade to tackle the scourge of homelessness and poor housing in our society. By undermining housing associations, the Government make our task more difficult.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: May I first declare an interest that is not in the Register of Members' Interests? I live and have my constituency office in a listed building or, as Treasury-speak would have it, a protected building. I must say that, when the tide comes over our garden wall and the wind is in the north—the building sways with it—it feels extraordinarily like an unprotected building to me. I would prefer that the term "listed building" be used.
  My hon. Friend the Paymaster General and I have been in correspondence about the anomalies to which the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) referred. There appears to be a tax incentive to alter a listed building, rather than to preserve it. The most celebrated case of that recently was when His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh berated the local authority on the Isle of Wight for taking the Royal Yacht Squadron to task for fitting plastic windows into a listed building.
  The extraordinary anomaly is that the Royal Yacht Squadron could recover the VAT for fitting the plastic windows because it was an alteration to a listed building, but it cannot—like many of us who occupy listed buildings—get any help with the additional costs of maintaining a part of our nation's heritage.
  In correspondence, my hon. Friend prays in aid to me the fact that EC rules do not allow for an alteration to VAT once we have departed as a nation from the zero rate. He will recall the exchanges we had on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I am sure he appreciates that I fully understand that rule.
  The question about this order is whether he has actually tested that position with the EC. Has he suggested to the EC that, while we understand the rule that there should be no return, there could be a substitution? In the case to which I am referring, it would make so much more sense to substitute VAT relief for the maintenance of a protected building rather than for its alteration, for reasons which I am sure the House is aware of. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to answer that point when he winds up.
  I shall now transfer my attention to order No. 279 which, as my hon. Friend indicated, is known as the option to tax. The proposal is to retain the option as applying to buildings and all subsequent supplies, while introducing an ability to revoke the option after 20 years. The British Property Federation has sought to apply the option to individual supplies of a building, effectively at lease level. Revocation would automatically occur on expiry of the lease. The BPF also seeks revocation after ten years where the lease term is greater.
  There have in the past been significant problems in defining the extent of a building for the purpose of the option, particularly in the context of complexes of buildings. The current proposals perpetuate the problems, although an attempt has been made to clarify the definition of a complex. It is the BPF's view that the new proposals will not simplify matters at all, since Customs has had great difficulty in drafting the new rules and litigation likely to be necessary to define them.
  384
  The BPF put forward proposals—echoed by many commentators in the property world—for an option at lease level, as it would entirely remove this area of uncertainty, while at the same time offering the property industry far greater flexibility to negotiate lease terms freely according to economic factors such as the tenants' ability to recover VAT, as happens successfully elsewhere in the EC.
  The Minister's response to the proposal has been that it would be almost impossible to police. The BPF does not share that view. The necessary calculations to apportion input tax for buildings with mixed taxable and exempt supplies are already carried out for buildings of mixed commercial and non-commercial use, so many taxpayers and VAT control officers will be familiar with them.
  Furthermore, Customs has expressed concern that smaller taxpayers will not be able to cope with such arrangements. The BPF points out that the taxpayer could opt for all his supplies of a building if he considered a mixture too complicated or could not otherwise satisfy Customs' requirements. The change to an option at lease level could be introduced in a way which took gradual effect as leases expired or new leases were granted.
  Finally, the Minister's argument that revenue will suffer is—in the BPF's view—unfounded, since as many taxpayers are likely to opt in the knowledge that it would not bind them permanently as will de-opt. The 20-year revocation period currently offered will not take effect until the year 2009, and will therefore be of no practical value for many years to come. The BPF suggested a 10-year period would still not have immediate effect, but would allow scope for planning to meet changing economic circumstances in the shorter term.
  The reason for refusing the 10-year period has been the fear of avoidance schemes which have been experienced by some EC members, principally where a lease—which must be negotiated between the parties at arm's length—provides no significant rent flowing until after the expiry of an initial ten-year option period, thus permitting the recovery of substantial input tax, while attracting minimal output tax.
  The BPF's view is that the capital goods scheme contained in the general regulations enacted in accordance with article 20 of the EC's sixth directive which provides for input tax adjustments according to supplies made up to ten years after incurring the input tax affords protection for Customs.
  In addition, the new orders propose that consent for revocation would have to be obtained through Customs (Article 4 (b) (5) (c)). Therefore, in cases of perceived avoidance, Customs could withhold its consent and the revenue would effectively be protected. My hon. Friend sees the orders as a measure of deregulation. I have to say to him that, having recently had personal experienced of this particular VAT minefield, I believe the proposals will almost inevitably have the opposite effect.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) said that dealing with the orders was like wading through treacle, and I congratulate her on her perseverance. She highlighted a number of concerns, and there are one or two others which I wish to touch on.

  385
  It was also interesting to hear the comment of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) about the fact that the order has been introduced as a form of deregulation. It would appear to be a difficult nettle to grasp, because, as soon as Ministers bring in variations, they are in danger of creating other anomalies and confusions and altering the balance, which would not be their intention.
  Unfortunately, these are statutory instruments which are not amendable, which is the reason why—if we are dissatisfied with any of them—we are forced to vote against the whole instrument in an attempt to persuade the Government to come back with some revised thinking.
  There are one or two questions which I would like to address to the Minister which might help to clarify the situation. It has been suggested that housing associations could be disadvantaged by the measure, because they will transfer from being exempt to zero rating, and consequently will be unable to reclaim VAT.
  If that is the case, the first problem which arises is that housing associations are funded from the taxpayer. I hope that the Government acknowledge that it does not make a lot of sense to give those associations money from the taxpayer and then put them in a position where they have to pay, in effect, excess tax, in as much as they will be unable to recover what they otherwise would have done.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In order to stop this point gathering momentum and being based on a wrong premise, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the position of housing associations will improve as a result of these orders. They will be able to zero-rate conversions—that is not open to them now—and in no other way will their tax position deteriorate. So if the hon. Gentleman opposes this collection of orders, he must explain to the housing associations precisely why he feels that they are being disadvantaged.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister. If his assurance means that housing associations will in all circumstances be better off under the order, I obviously welcome that.
  In my constituency, there is an old mill, which, in spite of several attempts to revive it, is on its last legs and no longer producing. All the signs are that it is likely to be acquired by a housing association and converted to use as residential accommodation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) suggests that I am discussing Scotland, and that Scottish law on long-term tenure differs from English law. Can the Minister assure me that a housing association seeking to develop the mill will qualify for zero rating and thus be able to claim full relief? That would be a welcome assurance.
  Three hundred yards away the said mill is another empty building in the same town. It has been derelict for many years, and there is a wish to convert it to a day care centre for the elderly. I am sure that all hon. Members who take an interest have received a briefing from the Charities Tax Reform Group—I am sure that the Minister is aware of it—in which the group says that the exclusion of conversions of commercial buildings to non-residential relevant charitable use represents an unfair anomaly. One can only wonder why the Government have decided to implement it.
  386
  Across the country, conversions of old buildings to new dwellings or for community purposes are to be actively encouraged. They reinvigorate derelict sites and provide many benefits to the community—laudable activities which are at all times to be encouraged. In response to an earlier intervention the Minister seemed to confirm that such conversions will be at a disadvantage.
  I claim no expertise in this area. I have read the orders, but without knowing all the details of the background law, it is difficult to understand what they are getting at. Hence I rely on the people most directly affected to communicate their views to Members of this House—and they say that the order creates an unfair anomaly.
  I ask the Minister to respond to these concerns at the end of the debate. Why should not such conversions benefit; why cannot the Government extend to them the benefits that the order entails? If the Minister cannot give me a satisfactory answer, it will be quite legitimate to vote against the orders.
  The difficulty we always face with such instruments is that they are to be taken as a whole. It is quite legitimate to vote against them this evening, not because we disagree with the tidying-up measures and extensions in them, but because we say that they have not satisfactorily dealt with an anomaly, which I have described. The Government should go away and come back with improved orders, or at least assure us that another instrument may be in the offing to deal with the problem. That seems entirely reasonable.
  My last point relates to listed buildings. The Minister touched on certain anomalies that have resulted from VAT tribunal findings, to the effect that certain building works that most people would regard as repairs have been treated as alterations. When people repair old buildings, they will inevitably consider whether that can be done in a manner that is in character with what is already there, while improving on the old materials. Obviously, they consider whether the improvements will be in keeping with the old appearance. Suggesting that, in so doing, they should fail to qualify for relief seems to me to be applying the rules too strictly.
  Much more seriously, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, this may act as a positive encouragement not to preserve our heritage and to change it simply in order to qualify for VAT relief. The Government cannot really believe that to be sensible or desirable.
  It should not be too difficult to give directions to Customs and Excise officers or VAT officers, making it clear that there are reasonable boundaries. The point is that VAT relief for listed buildings should be designed to ensure that they are properly repaired, in character, not to encourage people to alter buildings' character simply to qualify for tax benefits. That clearly pushes in the wrong direction, and creates an unnecessary tension in the tax system, which the Government should remove.
  I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall curtail my remarks. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, and that he will understand that, if we vote against the orders, it will not be because of an objection to their fundamental reforms; it will be because some important points have not been dealt with.
  .35 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: Most of the points about the orders were fully ventilated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who dealt particularly with housing matters. I shall therefore not go over them again.
  Earlier I intervened on the Minister to make a point about the effect that the first order will have on charitable organisations. It is difficult to understand the Government's reasoning. They allow VAT to be disregarded when converting a derelict dwelling to a house or residential dwelling, but they deny the same concession to charitable organisations that want to convert derelict dwellings to day centres for the elderly, the disabled, the young disabled or the chronically sick.
  Many of those organisations work to provide respite care for the less fortunate people in our community. Most of them do the work voluntarily, thus helping health authorities and social services departments. Yet the Minister tells us tonight that these charitable organisations will receive no assistance under the order in the form of relief from VAT. I consider that shameful.
  We have no chance of amending the orders: they are a case of all or nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South correctly said—outlining the complications in this bunch of orders—that because of the unfairness of the first order we have no option but to vote against them. Had more Conservative Members been here to hear the Minister say that charitable organisations will receive no assistance for converting derelict dwellings to day centres, I assume that they too would have voted against the orders.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South also discussed large-scale repairs to church buildings and to historic buildings owned by local authorities, churches and other charitable organisations. Those who wish to repair and maintain historic buildings such as churches and cathedrals will face the imposition of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. In general, it is the community that cares for such buildings and promotes improvements. The Minister is saying that there will be no concession when repairs and improvements are undertaken.
  I have corresponded with the Treasury on behalf of the Bishop of Wakefield, who has made representations in the past. It is disappointing to hear the Minister reiterate his opposition to my arguments.
  My concern is heightened by the Minister saying that the Government do not intend to assist charitable organisations, churches and religious organisations in the maintenance and conversion of buildings that would be to the benefit of the community generally.
  If the Minister cannot give any assurances this evening, I hope that he will understand that we are saying that the orders do not help people who are in great need. Disabled and elderly people will suffer because the Government are not prepared to give any serious consideration to their needs.
  As my colleagues have said, we shall vote against the orders. I hope that in doing so we shall impress upon the Government the need to propose further orders to give relief to charitable organisations and religious organisations that are working hard to maintain communities and historic buildings while providing care and attention.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, relating to the
  388
  accountability of the Secretary of State for Health to the House. We debated health care on Monday and we spent all day yesterday on health care issues when debating the Health Authorities Bill on Report and on Third Reading. The Secretary of State spoke in both debates.
  This afternoon, in answer to a written question, the right hon. Lady has announced a rise in prescription charges of three times the rate of inflation. She could not possibly have made the decision this morning. She must have known about it on Monday and she certainly must have known about it on Tuesday, yet she did not share the information with the House. Perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will advise me whether the Secretary of State has sought to make a statement on this important matter. Perhaps you will also advise me on whether it was treating the House with due and proper respect for the right hon. Lady to have withheld a statement from us yesterday.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to dictate to members of the Government or any hon. Member what they should or should not say to the House. I gather that the announcement has been made in the form of a written answer, which is a well-precedented method of providing information to the House. There are Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and I have no doubt that they will convey the views of the House to the Secretary of State for Health. I am sure that there will be other ways of dealing with the matter. I am confident that hon. Members will try to find apposite ways in which to raise it properly. We cannot do more now.
  Mr. David Evans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?
  Mr. Evans: Yes. Would you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to talk about prescription charges when it was a Labour Government who introduced them in the first place?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point?
  Mr. McCartney: Yes; it is a genuine point of order.
  When I was a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team with responsibilities for health, the issue before us was raised on a point of order last year. I remember that a ruling was given by Madam Speaker on the way in which such information should be released. Until last year, there was a precedent that information about increased prescription charges was not released in the form of a written answer. Following Madam Speaker's ruling, I believe that the Secretary of State for Health made a statement. Perhaps a check should be made to ascertain whether Madam Speaker's ruling has been broken by the Secretary of State's written answer.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that any rule has been broken. However, in the light of the hon. Member's remarks, I shall have the matter checked.
  Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have spoken from my recollection. If I have misled you, I apologise in advance. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for taking up a serious and important matter.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Let us continue with the debate.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I shall take up the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench about housing associations. There is concern given the current climate. For example, only 500 local authority homes were built last year. The number of people on the housing waiting list in my constituency is rising all the time. They are waiting for homes to rent because they cannot afford to buy as the economy stands. In reality, their only hope is to look to housing associations, of which there are many in my constituency. The associations wish to develop new homes or substantially to improve existing properties.
  Only yesterday, the Committee considering the Finance Bill discussed Government policy, which sometimes, inadvertently, can have a detrimental effect on housing policies. We discussed rather complex matters, which included qualified indexed securities and how the withdrawing of the tax advantages that those securities enjoy could lead to additional costs for housing associations. There is a real financial problem for the associations. The reduction of housing association grant towards the costs of development has put pressure on the associations. The Government probably intended that to happen. They want the associations to go into the private sector to raise money.
  The additional costs that have to be borne by housing associations in raising more private sector finance have forced up rents to a point where the Government are becoming worried about the benefits that they are having to pay tenants. A poverty trap is developing. People can enter housing association properties as tenants only if they are on benefit or they can afford to pay high rents of £70 or more that the associations have to charge. Any measure that causes extra costs to fall upon the associations will ultimately bear upon their tenants.
  If the tenants are on benefit, they can pass the costs back to the Government, which means that the Government will not save anything. At the same time, some people who are not on benefit will not be able to pay increased rents. Our concern is whether housing associations will incur additional costs because of these orders and, if so, whether the Government understand what those costs are. If the Government accept that the costs exist—associations have given me evidence that they do—are they prepared to reconsider the matter rather than simply continue with orders that could have a considerable impact?
  I received a letter from Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd., which is very active in the Sheffield area. It provides a number of high-quality homes, from which my constituents and many others in the north benefit. It says that, having assessed its development programme, this year some £5 million of the programme will be affected by the order, which comes into effect on
  390
  1 March 1995. It concluded that, for a full development year, the order would cost it between £750,000 and £1 million.
  I am not sure whether the Paymaster General heard those figures or whether he is otherwise engaged on the Front Bench, so I shall repeat them for his benefit. Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd. says that the impact of the order on its finances will be £750,000 to £1 million a year in extra VAT, which it will have to pay. That is its own assessment of the complications of the order. The Minister must respond to that issue, because if that housing association is affected, I cannot believe that other associations will not have similar problems.
  Embryonic associations are, by their very nature, small. Many of them are just starting and they will not necessarily have people with the accountancy skills and expertise to interpret the orders to determine precisely the VAT impact for their own accounts. No doubt, once they begin to recognise the effect of the orders, the information given to us by Northern Counties will come through from the other associations and will show the costs, which will fall not only on the associations but their tenants. Those costs will restrict some people becoming housing association tenants in new properties.
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to you personally, but it is related to the point of order that I raised earlier. I have been to the Library, to assist the House, and have obtained a copy of the ruling that was made by Madam Speaker, in relation to a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
  Madam Speaker issued quite a stern warning and made it clear how she expected the matter to be dealt with in future. Madam Speaker had this to say:
  "The written answer given yesterday, which is in columns 95 and 96 of Hansard, is concerned almost entirely with the proposed level of prescription charges for the year 1993–94, and is described as 'pursuant to' an answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), which is at column 162.
  I have noted that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its third report of Session 1990–91, stated its belief that
  'the use by Ministers of "pursuant" answers is inherently undesirable.'
  The report goes on to say:
  'The offence is compounded when … an answer is given which claims to be "pursuant" to an earlier reply but which in fact has only the most tenuous link with it.'
  As we well know, the House has not had the opportunity to debate the Procedure Committee's recommendations on how the practice should be dealt with. But I wish to make it clear that I deprecate the use of the 'pursuant' device by Ministers to make written statements such as this without giving proper notice to the House. I hope that that clears up the points of order, and that we can now get on with our business."—[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 301–302.]
  Madam Speaker made it clear how she wished matters to be dealt with in future. I hope that that is helpful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Health will now come to the

  391
  House—the business could be rearranged—and make an appropriate statement to my hon. Friend who raised the original point of order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: As I just explained to the hon. Gentleman, I am causing my own inquiries to be made. I would not wish to make any further point on the matter at the moment.
  Mr. Betts: The point that I am making on behalf of the housing associations is that there appears to have been a change of practice. Housing associations fear that work that they had carried out that was previously zero-rated will now not he zero-rated because it is not covered by the order. I would like the Minister to respond to that.
  He seemed to be saying earlier, when justifying the order, that there have been examples in the private sector of people trying to claim that different reeds on thatched cottages meant that the property was being converted. Anyone can reach the rational judgment that that is not so. I presume that more substantial conversion works that have been carried out by housing associations have been zero-rated in the past but will not be in future as result of the orders. In an attempt to clear up one or two obvious anomalies, it appears that the Government are changing the approach, which will have an effect on genuine conversion works and mean they will he subject to VAT at the full rate in future.
  No doubt the Minister will tell us that these matters must be consistent with practice in the rest of the European Union, that the Commission will take a dim view of it or that the European Court will pass judgment if the Government act in any other way. I remind the Minister that, when the European Court looked into UK policy in 1985, it ruled that the Government's stated policy of facilitating wider home ownership was a legitimate social goal. It did not in any way challenge the zero-rating and relief on new buildings to be used for domestic, relevant residential or relevant charitable purposes. The Government probably have more room to manoeuvre in that area than they have so far led us to believe.
  I do not want to give the impression that zero-rating of conversions of non-residential properties to residential properties is opposed by the Opposition. There are many derelict ex-industrial and commercial properties that can be converted for residential purposes, and we support zero-rating of those conversions to encourage that process. I would argue, however, that, in many parts of the country, there are simply no such old industrial and commercial properties. They may be prevalent in the old textile areas, but they certainly are not in steel areas like my own, where ex-steel buildings were often little more than tin sheds, which certainly cannot be converted in any meaningful way.
  The conversion work that takes place in my area tends to be of residential rather than commercial buildings and therefore would be subject to VAT at the full rate. I ask the Minister to reflect on that, because it seems that zero-rating might simply encourage people who convert barns into luxury homes rather than provide for the needs of people who need rented accommodation in our city areas.
  I now deal with the issue of piggy-backing of embryonic associations and the point about leases, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South. It is a serious point; it could stop that practice. It is the only way in which many small associations can get
  392
  started, and I hope that the Minister will give it further thought. We cannot amend the orders, but at a later date the Minister could table some proposals to deal with that.
  The order could lead to a nonsensical position. Options are open to local authorities to deal with rundown stock. I can think of one estate in my constituency that has now been renovated, but where difficult choices would he posed by the order. It is an estate of old maisonette blocks, and a number of options could be available. If the local authority had the money, it could choose simply to repair those properties and put in new central heating schemes and new windows, in which case it would not pay VAT. It could top the maisonettes and convert them into single-storey houses—that process is quite common now—and that would not be subject to VAT. It could raze the properties to the ground and build on the concrete bases, which would not be subject to VAT. It could demolish them completely and start again and build new homes, if it had the resources, which would not be subject to VAT.
  If, however—this has happened—it wants to do a deal to raise money and sell some of the properties to a housing association and use the proceeds of the sale to refurbish its own properties, the housing association then has a different range of choices. If it demolished the properties completely and builds new properties on separate sites around the overall site, VAT would not be payable. However, if it simply made repairs or did small jobs such as installing new central heating systems that would be subject to VAT.
  If the housing association decided to take the top off maisonettes and convert them to single-storey properties, would such work be zero rated or subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent? If a housing association demolished properties completely and built homes on the concrete base that was left, would that be a conversion or a new build and would it be zero rated or subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent?
  It appears that housing associations' choices will he conditioned and directed by the VAT regime into which the order introduces distinctions. I am not sure whether those distinctions are helpful. I am not sure whether they help the process of rational choice for housing associations. Some of those choices will now carry full VAT where previously they did not and that means extra cost for housing associations. Will the Minister assure every housing association in Britain that the order will not mean any extra costs for them? Many of them believe that the costs will be substantial and that rents will rise as a result.
  6 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred to repairs to protected or listed buildings. I should like to restate what I set out at the start of my remarks about the distinction between alterations and repairs with regard to such buildings.
  In 1984, alterations to buildings generally were made subject to VAT, but at that time, the relief for alterations was retained for protected buildings. Hon. Members may regard that as an anomaly, although I do not think that during the course of the debate any hon. Member has called for the withdrawal of that zero rate.
  If it is an anomaly, it is one that is valued by the heritage lobby and it is quite distinct from the question about whether repairs to all buildings, whether listed or

  393
  not, should be zero-rated. At the moment, they are all subject to VAT at the standard rate. Because of the sixth Council directive, we cannot introduce new zero rates. That directive was negotiated and agreed in 1977 by the Labour Government, so Opposition Members would not wish to disown that.
  With regard to a possible reduced rate for repairs, we have no plans to introduce any reduced rates beyond that obtaining for domestic fuel and power. I, as Minister responsible, receive many requests for new reduced rates for all sorts of goods and services. Recently, we had such a request for energy-efficient goods and equipment.
  We resist those, partly because of the expense and the revenue lost, which would simply have to be made up elsewhere by taxing other people at a higher rate, but also because any reduced rate creates new distinctions and borderlines, which creates scope for disputes and litigation. Therefore, in the interests of administrative simplicity, we shall stick with our system of standard rates and a zero rate.
  We can introduce reduced rates only if they are on annexe H of the sixth Council directive. Repairs to churches and ecclesiastical buildings do not appear on that annexe. The matter is being reviewed, and the Commission was required to bring forward proposals for consideration by the Council of Ministers. The Commission has reported, and it is not recommending any substantial change to that list of permitted reduced rates. In any case, the reduction would require unanimity by the Council of Ministers, so it is extremely unlikely, given the facts that I have outlined, that a reduced rate for repairs, whether to all or only listed buildings, will be introduced.
  I do not have much time to answer the debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight raised the question of the option to tax, which he thought should be extended to individual leases as well as to whole buildings. I may not be able to answer all his points, and he will forgive me if I write to him about the detail, but I can say that to do as he requests would introduce a new element of complexity into the system at a time when we are trying to deregulate.
  These orders are deregulatory in intent, and if we were to try to permit the option to tax to apply to individual leases, complications would be created in a single building when some are taxed and some are not. For example, how would VAT be attributed to common services such as lift repairs or the repointing of brickwork? That would be complex and regulatory at a time when we are trying to move in the opposite direction.
  My hon. Friend complained that the revocation of the option of 20 years was too long. We shall continue to review that, but I think that he would be generous enough to agree that to allow revocation at all is at least an important first step, and that is provided for in the order.
  Several hon. Members referred to housing associations. I should say at the outset that the Housing Corporation is providing capital of about £1.2 billion a year for the next three years for housing associations, and that will also lever in about £550 million a year of private sector capital to promote housing association projects and enable them to go ahead.
  394
  The main point that I wish to make is that the orders give housing associations a new opportunity to take advantage of conversions for the first time. The new relief will help housing associations to convert non-residential dwellings into student accommodation, hospices, children's and old people's homes and so on.
  There would be some dismay in the outside world if a party in the House were to vote against the orders, because this is a relieving provision which has been welcomed by the housing association movement. I frankly could not understand the reasoning of the official Opposition or individual Opposition Members in apparently opposing this relieving order.
  It is true that small housing associations often use larger ones as agents to undertake large building or conversion projects, but they are not put at a disadvantage as regards VAT. Under the present law—this is carried forward in the new order in item 3 of the construction order—architects' and surveyors' fees are not recoverable—there is nothing new or unusual about that—but no additional liability arises as a result. There is no extra cost to housing associations here. I can give that assurance to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who asked me about that. This is a relieving measure.
  Housing associations are being given a giant new opportunity to help revive and regenerate in urban areas by the use of conversion. They can take rundown, non-domestic buildings, such as warehouses or mills, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) instanced, and turn them into dwellings, flats, or residential accommodation for the old or the sick.
  Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am trying to answer a point that she made.
  It is a new opportunity for housing associations, and for the first time it will all be zero-rated. If the order is not passed this evening, housing associations will not be able to take advantage of those new opportunities.
  To answer another point that was raised in the debate, it is true that, during the construction of dwellings, a certificate has to be issued by the housing association concerned, that in effect self-regulates the zero-rated status of the work in question. It is therefore a requirement that the housing association is registered with one of the national associations, of which there are four.
  In practice, that creates no difficulty, but in view of the hon. Lady's interest in the matter and because we all want housing associations to succeed, I shall ask Customs and Excise to keep under review registration and the working of the new concessions.
  As they are relieving measures that empower housing associations to undertake new work, it is obviously not our intention that there should be any problem in practice with the working out of the orders and we shall keep them under review. I assert with absolute confidence, however, that the housing association movement as a whole will benefit and would require some explanation if any hon. Members or parties were to oppose the measures in the House.
  The last point was raised by the hon. Member for Normanton who—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER

  395
  proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [17 February].
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 254.

  Division No. 82]

  [6.11 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dunn, Bob

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Ashby, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bates, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forman, Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forth, Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

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

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dover, Den

  Jenkin, Bernard

  396

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shersby, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Soames, Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spicer, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart Allan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mates, Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Ward, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waterson, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Willetts, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rathbone, Tim

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Richards, Rod

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Riddick, Graham

  397

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ainger, Nick

  Flynn, Paul

  Ainsworlh, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Alton, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Foulkes, George

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Fraser, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashton, Joe

  Galbraith, Sam

  Austin-Walker, John

  Galloway, George

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gapes, Mike

  Barnes, Harry

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godsiff, Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Graham, Thomas

  Bernn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Gunnell, John

  Blunkett, David

  Hain, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Hall, Mike

  Bradley, Keith

  Hanson, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Calaghan, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Home Robertson, John

  Caravan, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chidgey, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Doug

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chapham, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Coffey, Ann

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Keen, Alan

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dobson, Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Litherland, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Enright, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatehett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  398

  McFall, John

  Redmond, Martin

  McKelvey, William

  Reid, Dr John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  MacShane, Denis

  Rooker, Jeff

  McWilliam, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Maddock, Diana

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mahon, Alice

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mandelson, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marek,Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin Michael J (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Spellar, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mudie, George

  Timms, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Paul

  Touhig, Don

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Olner, Bill

  Wallace, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Parry, Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Pearson, Ian

  Welsh Andrew

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pike, Peter L

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Purchase, Ken

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  Raynsford, Nick

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 280), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that, while this afternoon's statement about the future of Northern Ireland was being made, the Government announced that prescription charges would be raised. That was a deliberate sneaky venture on the Government's part, to hide a move that was reprehensible and highly

  399
  controversial. I wonder whether a Minister has been given an opportunity to make a statement announcing just what is involved in today's proposals.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was clearly not in the House when the matter was first raised.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that points of order were raised with you earlier about precedent. Are you now able to clarify the way in which such matters have been handled in the past, and can you also tell us whether the Secretary of State has expressed her intention to make a statement in the House? She spoke in the House on Monday—and, indeed, yesterday" although there was no need for her to take part in yesterday's debate, because she had not served on the Standing Committee—but apparently did not feel able to raise an issue resulting from a question that can only have been tabled yesterday.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I should deal with the points that have already been raised.
  I have no knowledge of any intention to make a statement. No doubt Madam Speaker would be apprised of any such intention first in any event. As for the main issue that has been raised, I must tell hon. Members who have raised points of order in seeking a precedent that the present case is not on all fours with that precedent.
  When the Speaker deplored a particular practice, that related to using a question that had already been answered and, at some later stage, giving information pursuant to that. That has not happened today. The question concerned was tabled straightforwardly; it is on the Order Paper, and was replied to by means of a written answer. Even if the present case had been on all fours with precedent, the fact remains that the Speaker—although she said that she deprecated it—did not rule it out of order; I gather that the matter is still being considered by the Procedure Committee.
  I must therefore rule that what happened was perfectly in order, although hon. Members may not like that particular method of handling the provision of information.
  Mrs. Beckett: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to detain the House, but what worries Opposition Members particularly—apart from, as you say, the manner and the matter: a huge increase in prescription charges has been put through—is the fact that, although the question was tabled yesterday and it must have been known that it would be answered straight away, the House was not given the information.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear that the Chair is not responsible for the content of any Minister's speech, or indeed for the speech of any hon. Member.
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I return to the question of precedent? Have any British Government ever raised prescription charges
  400
  by more than 2,500 per cent. without sending a Minister to the House to make a statement to try to justify such criminal taxation of the sick?
  Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to your explanation of the position relating to precedent. Is it not the case, however, that last year, when a rise in prescription charges was sneaked out in the way that Madam Speaker so deprecated, the Secretary of State for Health had to make a full statement in the House? Should she not do so again this week?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to decide whether a Minister of the Crown should or should not make a statement. I understand, however, that this does not preclude the making of a statement.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the Speaker not have some right to tell the Procedure Committee that it should report on the matter as soon as possible? There is clearly concern, and a feeling that the procedure now being used is increasingly becoming an abuse of the rights of hon. Members to ask questions about important issues.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot answer for what Madam Speaker may or may not wish to do, but it is open to the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter directly with the Procedure Committee.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If prescriptions had gone up in line with inflation, they would now be 53p instead of £5.25. Is not it a discourtesy to the House and to yourself that the Secretary of State for Health has done this? Is not the decision a scandalous attack on the sick?
  Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An important issue is involved here. It is possible that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health could help us, because we need to know that the standards that are being followed today were followed precisely by the Labour Government when they introduced prescription charges all those years ago. In 1976, they cut the hospital—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that we are moving into a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the matter. That is not a matter on which I can rule, or on which I wish to take further points of order. I hope, therefore, that any further points of order will strictly relate to order and not to the merits or demerits of the decision.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance only in relation to the order. The next business of the House involves two one-and-a-half-hour orders, so an obvious opportunity exists for business to be interrupted and for the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement later tonight.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just heard that the Secretary of State for Health

  401
  intends to put 15p on prescription charges. Many of our constituents can ill afford medicine at present. Surely it is in order for Back Benchers to debate such a measure.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the ingenuity of all Members will ensure that the matter is raised in various ways, but we cannot continue with the matter now. We must proceed with the next business.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Protected Buildings) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 283), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 281), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 279), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 291), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

  Avon (Structural Change)
  6.32 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
  That the draft Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I convey to the House the decision of Madam Speaker to place a 10-minute limit on the speeches of Back Benchers. I am sure that she would also hope that Front-Bench spokesmen will not take too long either.
  Mr. Curry: Apart from a few minor points, the order implements the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Avon. Its effect will be that, on 1 April 1996, Avon county council will disappear and its powers will be taken over by four unitary successor authorities. The existing authorities of Bristol and Woodspring will be given unitary powers. Woodspring is to be renamed North West Somerset. The existing authorities of Bath and Wansdyke will be abolished and comprise a single new unitary authority, to be called Bath and North East Somerset. The existing authorities of Kingswood and Northavon will also be abolished. They will comprise a further unitary authority to be called South Gloucestershire.
  In the absence of clear agreement on alternative names for unitary authorities, we have concluded that we should not make any change to the names recommended by the commission. However, authorities retain the power to make changes to names if they resolve to do so. They may wish to consider that issue. There seems to be an increasing tendency—which I am not greatly in favour of—to give compass references to political names,
  The order is not a judgment on the performance of the existing local authorities in the area. I made that clear during the Cleveland order debate and I make it clear now. That is not what the review was called on to judge. It involved finding the best form of local government for the future in each area.
  In Avon, a generally constructive debate has taken place about reorganisation and the implementation of change. Of course, I have not agreed with every point put to me, but I have considered them all carefully and the debate has been conducted in a sensible and generally non-partisan way.
  Authorities that are to assume unitary status should be given a fresh, democratic mandate to do so. There will therefore be whole council elections to all four unitary authorities in May this year. All four authorities will then have responsibility for planning and budgeting for change before they assume responsibility for the full range of local government functions on 1 April 1996.
  In future, the three councils outside Bath will hold whole council elections every four years, although if local authorities wish to adopt a system of thirds, they may make representations. We do not hold any ideological view about which is preferable—we have always made that clear. Bristol will return to its current arrangements of elections by thirds from 1997. That follows Bristol's representations that it wished to remain elections by thirds

  403
  but that it did not wish to have an election in the year immediately after reorganisation. We have tried to accommodate what seems a sensible representation.
  Warding arrangements for the two new authorities are as recommended by the commission, except for the correction of a technical error in South Gloucestershire. There are no changes to the current warding arrangements for Bristol and North West Somerset.
  The commission also recommended the abolition of the county of Avon and its return to Somerset and Gloucestershire for ceremonial purposes. The order abolishes the county area of Avon and provides for Bristol to be a county in its own right, as it was before 1974, with its own lord lieutenancy and high sheriff.
  As in the case of Cleveland, we shall be making separate provision to put into effect the commission's recommendations for ceremonial arrangements elsewhere in the present county of Avon. We shall therefore provide that, for ceremonial purposes, Bath and North East Somerset and North West Somerset will be part of Somerset and that South Gloucestershire will be part of Gloucestershire.
  Once the order is made, all authorities in the area will have extra duties and powers to prepare for reorganisation. They will each be under a duty to co-operate in implementing change. Unitary authorities will have access to the information that they need. Once the new councils for the four unitary authorities have been elected, they will have further powers to make the necessary preparations, including setting budgets and recruiting staff for the functions that they take over on 1 April 1996. They will be required to consider whether any of their new functions would best be discharged through joint arrangements with other authorities. Taken together, those provisions will ensure that a smooth transition to the new structure takes place, with proper safeguards for essential services.
  I am mindful of Madam Speaker's injunction for Front-Bench spokesmen to be brief, so I should like to deal quickly with some of the questions that have been raised during consultation. Where an existing authority, as a result of reorganisation, assumes responsibility for new functions but its area is unchanged, that is a continuing authority. We simply have no powers to abolish it. However, where a unitary authority has new boundaries, that authority is classified as a new authority. So Bristol and North West Somerset will be continuing authorities, and South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset will be new. It all sounds very theological but it is an important aspect of reorganisation.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety of staff in, for example, a county authority, that they may not get a fair deal in applying for jobs in the new continuing authorities because, in effect, their existing staff are in a better position? The Minister said that he did not have the powers. I know that representations have been made for those powers to be taken.
  Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman has noted, it has been argued that continuing authorities will have an advantage and that they will have the inside track on recruitment. It is argued that they can get the recruitment process under way now, before the new authorities come into existence. I do not agree. All the authorities will be able to start planning for the reorganisation once the order
  404
  is made. All four unitary authorities will get extra powers, for example, to make appointments once the elections have taken place, and the elections are scheduled for this May.
  The existing authorities are being encouraged to think ahead on behalf of their successors. I could not stop them if I wanted to and it would be ridiculous to try. But that applies equally to continuing authorities such as Bristol, and authorities like Bath and Wansdyke, which are to be replaced by new ones. They cannot take decisions on behalf of their successors, but they can help, if they wish, to get them off to a proper start. There is nothing involved that sensible and honourable people cannot settle sensibly themselves. We have to make the assumption that we are dealing with sensible and honourable people in local government. I could not possibly justify placing artificial legal obstacles in the way of a sensible and well-planned transition from the old structure to the new.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister will he well aware that the two new authorities that are not continuing authorities are concerned about the point that he is making. Can he clarify the issue? Will the new authorities that are continuing authorities be unable to make decisions in respect of new services that they take on—for example, education—and of staff recruitment and appointment until after the elections?
  Mr. Curry: That is exactly the position. The order confers upon the new authorities—whether they be shadow authorities or the authorities that will discharge both the functions of the old councils and prepare for the new council—powers that will not be endowed until such time as those new councils are in existence. Of course, we want existing councils to do some preparatory work. The whole purpose of doing that now is that the uncertainty is ended as soon as possible. There is a clear legal break and the legal right is conferred by the order that establishes the new councils, which come into existence in May.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: I do not quite understand the distinction that the Minister is drawing between a preparatory plan and an actual plan and when the authorities can take over. Is he saying that, for example, Bristol should be taking no decisions whatsoever for the continuity of the services until after the election?
  Mr. Curry: I am saying that there are two classes of authority. I said earlier that this all sounds very theological, whether the authority is new or continuing. However, it is a material consideration, not a theological one. We are bound by the terms of the statutes to which we have to refer.
  If an authority is a continuing authority, which means that it is being reorganised within its boundaries, it has a certain competence to be able to prepare. However, it does not have the legal ability to prepare—that comes with the new powers endowed upon that council after the election in May. The argument is that, because the core of that authority is not going to change, it will be able to do its preparation work more effectively. The gap is a narrow

  405
  one in any case. There is to be an election in May, so reasonable people should be able to sort things out. It is a problem without a reason.
  Mr. Roger Berry: Is making appointments part of the preparation or is it not? I understood the Minister to say specifically that it would be wrong for appointments to be made before vesting day; before the new authorities are established. Is that the case? Can we have that reassurance?
  Mr. Curry: I shall try to clarify a complex issue.
  Ms Primarolo: Yes or no.
  Mr. Curry: There is a great tendency to ask for yes or no answers to complicated matters. I am trying to do my best.
  With a continuing authority, the council that currently exists will have to undergo a new election in order to exercise its new powers. In the meantime, it is able to do preparation work for that. The old authorities—that is, those that will be reorganised—will, by dint of that reorganisation, have the powers conferred upon them to begin that work. [Interruption.] I can now give the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) a yes or no answer. On whether the authorities can make any appointments before the election of the new authorities, the answer is that they cannot. The answer is no.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Dead simple.
  Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman said, it is dead simple, but difficult to remember. I am glad that I have managed to cast light upon that difficult area. If any doubt remains, when I reply to the debate I shall do my best to clarify the issue further. It took me quite a long time to understand the matter. Once one has understood it for about three hours, it is difficult to retain the information much longer. I am being very honest.
  We come to another theological subject in which the House is interested, but again it is a material theological subject. I have been asked why the authorities are to be unitary district councils, not unitary county councils. I sometimes wonder why people ask such questions. I genuinely do not understand this question. It makes no difference in terms of local services.
  The only significance—I hope that this is not regarded as a mischievous statement—is that it has some bearing on to which local authority association the new councils choose to belong. [Interruption.] I thought I might have spotted that one. However, my understanding is that the local authority associations are to form one big happy family soon, so it is a rather short-term preoccupation.
  Perhaps that is not to happen quite as soon as some thought it would. In any event, given that Bristol and North West Somerset are continuing and must therefore continue to be districts, it would be inconsistent and confusing to designate the other authorities in the area as counties. Therefore, all the successor authorities are districts.
  The order also makes specific provision in respect of a number of services. For the police, articles 12 and 13 provide for the representatives of the four unitary authorities to replace Avon county council's nominees on
  406
  the Avon and Somerset police authority from 1 October 1995 for certain purposes, essentially so that they can be involved in decisions on the budget for 1996–96 and on policing plans. Avon county council's representatives will remain on the authority for all other purposes until that council is abolished.
  For the fire service, the order provides for each of the unitary authorities to be fire authority areas. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will, in due course, be bringing forward proposals for a fire combination scheme, so that the fire service will continue to be delivered over the present area.
  As unitary authorities, the four Avon districts will be responsible for both strategic and local land use planning for their areas. We are determined that there should be adequate arrangements for strategic planning in areas where reorganisation takes place. In the case of Avon, the commission proposed that the four unitary authorities should maintain separate local plans but work together on a joint structure plan. We have accepted that recommendation.
  The draft order gives effect to that by transferring the county's strategic planning responsibilities to the four district councils. We look to them to make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan. We expect that the authorities in Avon will establish satisfactory arrangements to fulfil that important planning function.
  Our policy is that there should be statutory arrangements only where absolutely necessary; we believe that voluntary arrangements are more accountable. In addition, we do not think that we should tie the hands of the authorities which will be elected in May.
  The local government review and reorganisation in Avon have been the subject of a long and vigorous discussion. This has, of course, resulted in uncertainty for all those involved with local government in the area. This order will end that uncertainty. What is important now is that authorities set aside their past differences and work together to make a success of reorganisation and future local government in the area. I am confident that they will do so, and I commend the order to the House.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: As with the Cleveland order, it is probably worth reminding the House—especially those Conservative Members who either do not know or have forgotten—that this order from a Tory Government is intended to abolish the Avon county council, which was set up by a previous Tory Government. Some Conservative Members try to portray the Avon, Cleveland and Humberside councils as a Labour creation. However, they were created by a previous Tory Government, and they are now being dismembered by the party that brought them into being. We might describe what we are discussing tonight as a case of municipal infanticide.
  The order is also a product of the Government's local government review. We have said before—we shall say it again, because it is true—that the review was conceived in malice against several Labour county councils. The Government do not like Labour councils, irrespective of whether local people vote for them. Perhaps they dislike Labour councils even more because they know that the councils are popular, and the Government have finally

  407
  decided that, if they cannot win elections to councils, the only answer is to get rid of the councils. They did it with the Greater London council and with the metropolitan counties and they are now setting about wiping out in a malignant way those county councils that they do not like.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I served on Avon county council; I opposed it when the Conservative Government suggested it; I opposed it when it was controlled by the Conservative party to which I belong and I am delighted to vote for its abolition tonight, irrespective of who controls it.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman would do well to hide his consistency, because any consistency will obviously prevent him ever reaching the Conservative Front Bench.
  Mr. Wilshire: So I notice.
  Mr. Dobson: I should not like to bet on it, and I am sure that my hon. Friends would not either.
  Originally, the Government said that the review would cover the whole country. As the right hon. Gentleman who is now the President of the Board of Trade said in the House in January 1992:
  "We know that most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas."—[Official Report, 20 January 1992; Vol. 232, c. 37.]
  If the review turns out as it appears it will, 230 or more of the 296 shire districts that existed before will continue to survive as shire districts with a county council above them, so that 80 per cent. of the councils that the Government intended to reform and to turn into unitary authorities will remain as they were. How have the Government selected the ones that are for the chop?
  I return to the fact that the decision was obviously politically motivated, and go on from that to say that the conduct of the Local Government Commission for England, which should have been beyond reproach, has not been. It has not behaved in the quasi-judicial manner that one could expect from something called a Local Government Commission.
  Conservative Members may not know about it, but Opposition Members are familiar with the letter front the boss of the Local Government commission for England to the Secretary of State, saying how important it was that the Government and the Commission received "an early wind". That is not usually regarded as a quasi-judicial point of view. I should not like to appear in a court where the judge was asking for an early wind for him and for the police.
  That approach has been maintained throughout by the Local Government Commission. It has not conducted itself as it should have done. It has not taken a consistent approach in every part of the country. Its consultations have varied from place to place. As a result, there have been years of wrangling and vast expense. A great deal of money has been spent on court cases, and there has been a massive diversion of effort by local councillors, who would have done better, and no doubt would have preferred, to spend their time trying to ensure reasonable services.
  At the end of that process, there are grotesque inconsistencies in the recommendations, ranging from Rutland, which will be a unitary all-purpose authority with 33,000 people, to Warrington and Northampton, with
  408
  180,000 people, which will not be given unitary status. Those are the recommendations of the Local Government Commission, before the Secretary of State brings his bizarre judgment to bear on those matters.
  At least some progress has been made, in that the Government have conceded that they will bring all the final recommendations of the Commission to the House—a commitment that they previously refused to make.
  That brings me to the Avon (Structural Change) Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and other hon. Friends may wish to speak about its detail, and they will no doubt do so in some depth and possibly at some length—not more than 10 minutes, of course—but we do not believe that the order creating four districts provides a good basis for future high-quality local government in the Avon area.
  I am confident that councillors—not only Labour ones, but councillors of all parties—who are elected to the new authorities will do their best to make those arrangements work, but that will be difficult. For a start, it is significant that about 1,000 jobs are put at risk by the reorganisation. As we know from orders that the Government have passed through the House, the compensation terms for staff who may have to lose their jobs are less generous than those that prevailed in 1986 and certainly rather less generous than the severance arrangements that the boss of the Severn Trent water authority arranged for himself, getting about half a million quid for disappearing. That sort of money will not be available to the many staff who have put in a vast amount of dedicated effort on behalf of the people of Avon.
  I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will explain his anxiety about the future of services in the Avon area. Doubts about the cost effects have been expressed by the various contending parties. I join with the Minister in having some doubts about various parts of the order. I also have doubts about anyone's predictions about savings or additional expenditure that will result from the reorganisation of local government, because I cannot think of any set of predictions that has ever been made in the House that turned out to be right.
  My main worry is about the boundaries of Bristol. I am convinced that the boundaries of Bristol, as set out in the order, will leave Bristol too narrowly drawn. There are excellent Labour councillors in the city of Bristol.
  Ms Primarolo: Even the Government agree that the boundaries drawn for Bristol are not sensible, because they have given an undertaking that they will review those boundaries in a few years' time. The good citizens of Bristol might find themselves having to waste their council tax yet again on bureaucratic change and butchering of their services when it should be spent on building up local democracy.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Gentleman is too hasty in agreeing with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). He might like to study the details that the Government have announced, which show that there will be nothing other than minor, cosmetic change to the external boundary of Bristol.
  Mr. Dobson: I understand that, unless the law is changed, if the Government ask the commission to consider any local government boundaries, the commission can decide for itself the extent or otherwise of the boundary changes. I am subject to correction by the Minister when he has received his information from the civil servants in the Box.
  It is obvious that all candidates standing for election in Bristol would prefer the boundaries of Bristol to be wider than they are. The Labour council in Bristol accepts the proposition before us tonight, because it considers that it is confronted with Hobson's choice, so it is thanking the Lord for small mercies. It wants the powers returned to the city of Bristol, but it believes that the boundaries should be wider, so it accepts the best that is on offer.
  It is understandable that the Labour council in Bristol should accept what is on offer, but I do not think that that can possibly excuse either the commission or Ministers for proposing boundaries that are plainly ridiculous in the eyes of almost everyone concerned.
  That is not the opinion only of the Labour party. I quote from the opinions of the Bristol chamber of commerce. It says that it is
  "of the view that local government in Avon has a critical role to play in providing the infrastructure necessary for promoting and maintaining economic prosperity—in partnership where appropriate with the private sector."
  It says that it is concerned that
  "Bristol in its historic boundaries would not have the critical mass to tackle the key strategic issues such as transport and planning, or to deal with acute urban problems and inner city degeneration".
  In other words, it believes that the boundaries of Bristol will make it difficult for those elected to run that great city to do their jobs.
  The Bristol council of social services shares that view. The south western regional council of the Confederation of British Industry is, if anything, even more strongly of the view that the boundaries are wrong. It said:
  "It is vital that any restructuring of Local Government should produce a system which will facilitate the process of wealth creation for the benefit of the South Western Region."
  It went on to say, in its original evidence to the Local Government Commission, that it
  "favoured a division of the existing County of Avon into three unitary authorities"—
  not the four that the Government are proposing—
  "with the boundaries of the existing City of Bristol expanded to encompass the economic and social unit generally regarded as comprising Bristol."
  It said that that is an area much larger than the area covered by the city council. It was concerned that
  "full and specific consultation should take place on the exact location of the boundaries for an enlarged Bristol."
  After the commission's proposals were published, the CBI's response was that the commission's proposals did not meet those needs. It believed that
  "restricting the proposed Bristol unitary authority to the existing boundaries of the City Council would seriously inhibit economic growth and result in further inner-city degradation."
  410
  Since the publication of the recommendations, it has canvassed its members again. The CBI has been asked by its members to stress their belief that the commission's proposals would have a "damaging effect". It goes on to say:
  "We firmly believe that the Commission has not given sufficient weight to the economic interests of the area."
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point about his belief that the boundaries for Bristol are inadequate. He has quoted at length business interests in Avon that have made the same point. Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to outline where he thinks the Bristol boundaries ought to lie and whether a Labour Government would review those boundaries with a view to creating a much wider Bristol? That is of great interest.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) will deal with the question of where local people—[Interruption.] I am in favour of the people of Bristol and their locally elected representatives deciding where the boundaries should be. I do not have any doubt—scarcely anybody has any doubt—that the boundaries that the Government are putting forward leave Bristol "cabinn'd, cribb'd, confin'd". They are ridiculous boundaries and we should not vote them through.
  The boundaries are drawn in that way because this is a political fix. I predict that next week the Government will produce a political fix in the other direction with the proposals for York. Against the views of the people in the area, including businesses, they will create a greater York. This order will produce a lesser Bristol. Both those moves are for squalid party political purposes. That is why I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the order.
  We believe that the Government are still cherry picking. They are bopping the counties that they do not like. We believe that they should insist on annual elections for the new authorities that are being established. We believe that there is some sensible concern about the cost of reorganisation.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should insist on annual elections. He just said that the local people should decide where their boundaries lie, although he did not make it clear whether the people outside a boundary should have the same views as those inside. The current rules mean that if a local council wishes, it can ask to have the electoral system changed. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that in one instance the local people should decide and that in another instance the Government have to tell them? I do not understand.
  Mr. Dobson: Some basic principles are involved. It may be that some people who are currently running a council would like the idea of not having an election for another 10 years. We believe that a third or a quarter of the members of every council should face an election each year. It is a sound approach and it works well in the areas in which it exists already. We believe that it should operate everywhere.
  We are concerned that the estimates about the cost or savings that will result from the reorganisation are unsound. We are concerned about the inadequate protection that is provided for the staff, but, above all, we believe that the boundaries of Bristol are harmful. We share the views of those who believe that it will make it harder than is necessary in these difficult times for whoever is elected to represent the people of Bristol to do

  411
  their job of looking after the interests of the people of Bristol as well as promoting the economic and social well-being of that great city and the neighbouring areas.
  We expect that the Government will vote this through, but we are confident that Labour councillors will be elected to represent the people of Bristol and the other areas. We are confident that they will do their best, but it would be better if they were not doing it in such difficult circumstances.
  7.5 pm
  Sir John Cope: I welcome the order and the changes that it puts in place. The commission made the right recommendations and the Government are right to agree to them. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a partisan speech and I do not wish to do that. However, I must respond to what he said. I believe that the commission's recommendation for the boundaries of Bristol was correct and the Government are right to follow it because it is what the people of my constituency want. They do not want to be taken over by Bristol. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow what the people want, he should know that they want to be governed by South Gloucestershire. They support the proposals, as does the Northavon chamber of commerce.
  I want to look back, because it is important to consider why Avon has not worked well as a county and why it scored so low in the public consultation organised by the Local Government Commission.
  In the past I have criticised individual policies of Avon county council and its management, but I do not believe that the failure of the county to work is essentially a failure of the individuals involved—either the councillors or the officers—over the past 20 years. I believe that the fundamental flaw is the structure that was set up.
  Administratively, it makes sense to govern the area around Bristol with the area of Bristol and that is why, in some cases, business people and others have viewed this in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The truth is that it defied people's feelings of place. The clashes between Avon and the six districts in particular have been acute for that reason. There has been particularly intense rivalry between the county of Avon and the city of Bristol. It is important to remember that the city of Bristol was not merely a county borough. It had been a county in its own right since 1373—over 600 years. The Local Government Act 1972 deprived it of that status which it had had for so long.
  These matters, which are in some respects emotional matters, may seem unimportant when compared with administrative logic, but they are not. The deepest lesson of Avon's short life is that we neglect those roots at our peril. They go very deep into the fabric of British life. Today, 20 years after Avon was set up, people do not say that they live in Avon. They say that they live in Bristol, or Chipping Sodbury near Bristol. They do not say that they live in the county of Avon because that is not how they feel. The Local Government Commission proved that more scientifically through the opinion polls which it conducted. The old counties may be Anglo-Saxon in origin, but they are not outmoded in people's minds.
  At the same time, administrative problems remain. It is undoubtedly more difficult to govern the areas north of Bristol, which I represent, from Gloucester, which is 30 miles away, than from Bristol, which is on our doorstep
  412
  and far larger. That is why the right solution is the proposed unitary authorities. The new districts are an appropriate size and, apart from anything else, if Bristol were allowed against the wishes of the people concerned to extend its boundaries further north, it would leave a very awkward authority as a successor to South Gloucestershire. It is much more difficult to run a large, disparate authority with partial powers than it is a smaller, more geographically unified authority, with all the powers of local government.
  There are messages, I may say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, for those who want to foist on us an elected regional tier of government. The inhabitants of my constituency do not think that they live in the same part of the country as Bournemouth, even if both places are in the south-west economic planning district. That feeling is even more evident when comparing the inhabitants of Newent, for instance, in the Forest of Dean, with those of Newquay.
  As I have said, it is important to consider the administrative complications of separate authorities in the relatively small area that has been the county of Avon. It is very important to stress that the new councils being set up under the order must work together on matters of common concern and, indeed, with neighbouring councils in the adjacent counties. I have every hope that that will work well, as my hon. Friend the Minister suggested when he moved the order.
  There will be four councils instead of seven and they will be fully competent bodies dealing as equals with one another. In particular, there will he no more duplication of functions and overlapping rivalries, which have bedevilled the relationships between Avon and the districts within it. Incidentally, they will also be seen to be directly accountable to the electorate, with fewer excuses that their authority did the right thing and some other authority did not. If one asked the man in the street whether powers fell under the county council or the district council, he would have an awful job replying accurately.
  My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the question of what is a county and what is a district. For ceremonial purposes, South Gloucestershire will go back to being part of Gloucestershire. There has been some correspondence about the duties of the lord lieutenant. I think that it is right for Bristol to have a separate lord lieutenant, even though in the past, when it did, it was usually held in plurality with the lord lieutenancy of Gloucestershire. It has in the past also been held in plurality with the lord lieutenancy of Somerset, which would not be a bad idea now. Certainly, Bristol should have a separate position of lord lieutenant, even if it is held in plurality with one of the adjacent countries.
  I would like to say a word about the name of the district, to which my hon. Friend the Minister also referred. I believe strongly, as a result of my experience over the past few years, that old names are the best. I have found that, since 1983, when the name of my constituency was changed to Northavon, whenever I am more than a few miles away from the constituency and people ask me what constituency I represent and I reply Northavon, they invariably say, "Where is that?"
  People do not take on board all these new names all over the country. Indeed, they have not even been taken on board by whoever drafted the order. There is a misprint on page four, which describes the district as Northwood

  413
  as opposed to Northavon. That would not have occurred with Bristol, for example—the proof reader would have spotted it at once—but because of all the invented names that we have had to put up with over the past few years, such mistakes occur.
  I am therefore strongly in favour of using the old name where possible. The name South Gloucestershire used to cover the entire proposed authority. It should be the name of this district and I very much welcome the creation of it.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: I opposed Conservative policy on the previous reorganisation of Avon and I oppose Conservative policy on the current reorganisation for exactly the same reasons. In 1972, when the House debated the Local Government Bill, the Conservatives reorganised matters quite specifically to take control of services such as education, social services and public transport away from Labour city councils, including Bristol. Of course the purpose of that exercise was not to improve services or local accountability; it was to achieve precisely the opposite. That is what we have before us today.
  I could not imagine that anyone in the House or elsewhere would think that, after 15 years of the Conservatives attacking local democracy, reorganisation under this Government would do anything other than continue that process of service cuts and redundancies. We have had capping, we have had cuts in rate support grants then revenue support grants, we have had the poll tax, we have had the virtual dismantling of local education authorities and we have had compulsory competitive tendering. After 15 years of measure after measure designed to undermine local democracy, nobody can claim that reorganisation under this Government at this time is anything other than a continuation of that process.
  I do not oppose the motion because I oppose in principle unitary local authorities, although I note that Sir John Banham, who chairs the Local Government Commission, told the Association of County Councils in November:
  "I know of no evidence that smaller unitary authorities will be better placed than county councils to deliver effective and convenient local services".
  Sir John Banham was on television—I think—yesterday advising us all about the importance of performance-related pay for senior executives. I would like to see a little performance-related pay for Sir John Banham based on the way in which he has dealt with the local government review.
  Mr. Dobson: It would be a rebate.
  Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is right. It would be a rebate of gigantic proportions, which would help us preserve essential services.
  I emphasise that I am speaking against the motion not because I oppose the principle of unitary authorities, but because I am opposed, as all sane people must be, to further cuts in essential local services and yet more redundancies which this Government policy will bring about.
  414
  There will be cuts because of the substantial costs of reorganisation, which should be met by central Government, but which will not. That is not only my view and the view of local councils in Avon, it is the view of the local branch of the Confederation of British Industry. In its submission to local government commissioners, the CBI said:
  "In the event of structural changes being introduced, considerable transitional costs would be inevitable. Local revenue would not be in a position to absorb additional costs other than by means of an inordinately large increase in the Council Tax. This would entirely distort anticipated benefits of the structural changes and have the effect of discrediting any new arrangement."
  I am sure that the Government have thought about that. The CBI continued:
  "This paper summits, therefore, that the costs of changes should be funded by central Government."
  The costs of reorganisation, to which the CBI and others refer, are substantial. The bids that the local councils in Avon submitted when seeking credit approval to cover the costs of reorganisation totalled £24 million for 1995–96 alone. I pause to contemplate what local services could be improved, or at least protected, if that £24 million were to be spent on services, not reorganisation. But that £24 million is already significantly higher than the total transitional costs estimated by the Local Government Commission for Avon. It said that over all the years that it could anticipate, the costs would be £13 million to £18 million. The local councils say that, in the year before reorganisation, transitional costs will come to £24 million.
  Before anyone says, "They would say that, wouldn't they—they would put in bids on the basis of overestimates of expenditure," I should say that the people who are placing the bids are those who are likely to be responsible for running the unitary authorities afterwards. They are the people who believe in reorganisation. It is inconceivable that those who anticipate running a unitary authority and who want to make it work after reorganisation could submit bids that are overestimates. It is well known that, in Avon, the councils are collectively seeking about £50 million to cover the costs of local government reorganisation.
  What has the Government's response been? In 1995–96, instead of meeting the £24 million bid, the Government are allocating £6.8 million—a little over a quarter of the amount required to fund reorganisation. That shortfall—let alone the repayment of debt in subsequent years—will inevitably mean service cuts and more redundancies. It is undeniable that there will be substantial redundancies as a result of the reorganisation—at a time when local government staff are frequently stretched to breaking point.
  I have lost track of the number of senior officers in Avon who have left or retired, and the number of teachers and social workers who are leaving the profession for reasons of stress and overwork. The inevitable implication of not meeting the cost of reorganisation will be that Government policy will ensure further reductions in services and further redundancies.
  The councils in Avon are aware of that. As part of the bid, they have already included an estimate of £7.5 million to cover redundancy costs in 1995–96—before reorganisation. In case anyone thinks that the amounts come from the existing Avon county council, that is not true—some £2.6 million is from Avon and £5 million

  415
  from existing district authorities. They anticipate, collectively, that £7.5 million will be spent on redundancy costs before reorganisation. It is as inevitable as night follows day that there will he more redundancies after reorganisation.
  I spoke in the last debate on regulations on local government redundancy payments following reorganisation, and I do not want to repeat the points that I made—not least because I have only about two minutes left. The redundancy terms being offered to local government employees are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, worse than in 1986 when the metropolitan counties were abolished. They are worse than under Mrs. Thatcher. Much has happened since 1986—it is not just that Ministers have given themselves better redundancy payments, but there is more unemployment. That is a shameful way to deal with staff who have given good service to their communities.
  There are a number of technical issues that I should like to have commented on, but I clearly do not have the time. I am aware, as is the Minister, that Avon county council and the Association of County Councils have diligently pursued a number of technical points which I hope that the Minister will take on board. I pay tribute to the way in which Avon county council has pursued matters on behalf of services and the people who provide them. Councillor Valerie Davey and her colleagues deserve credit for dealing with difficult problems in the best interests of the services and those who provide them.
  I came into politics to secure better, not worse, public services. I wanted to secure more employment opportunities, not fewer. These proposals are a recipe for more cuts in services and more redundancies. They constitute another nail in the coffin of local democracy. I urge the House to oppose the motion.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I have never made any secret of the fact that, when I was first elected to the House for Bristol, North-West in 1983, I had been living in Bristol for only a few months. During my first general election campaign, at my final election meeting on the night before I was elected, I said that one of my ambitions during my time in Parliament was to see the return of the city and county of Bristol. Like any one embarking on a crusade, I did not expect to see that ambition realised in as little as 12 years. I am delighted to welcome the realisation of that ambition. Judging by the response to my comments, it was probably the most popular pledge of any that I made during that election campaign.
  Much has been said tonight on the technical aspects of the change. I should like to look back further and try to explore why Avon never worked—clearly, it did not. I think that there are two reasons, both of which are inherent in the reasons for the moves to the successor authorities which we are contemplating tonight.
  The first reason is that Avon clearly never had, and never had the hope of achieving, the consent of the people that it governed. As an authority, it was seen from its first day as being imposed on the people of Bristol and its surroundings. It was resented from the first day and, despite all the strong efforts of the officers and councilors
  416
  to achieve acceptance for the county of Avon, the problems that beset it were inherent in its nature and the way in which it subsequently developed.
  Many of the problems with us today—for example, the problems that I recently highlighted in the House on choice in secondary education—stem from the fact that a previous Conservative Government sought to impose on the people of Bristol and its surroundings a form of local government that they felt was alien to them.
  There is another reason why Avon was such a conspicuous failure. It has often been said by councillors and officers of Avon that it was formed with no financial assets; it was stripped by the district councils of any assets that it might otherwise have chosen to inherit. Avon has not noticed that the same is true of many more successful councils in other parts of the county. As a result of Avon's belief that it had been hard done by, it developed a financial inferiority complex.
  In my years in the House I have noticed that the effect of that attitude, which was developed in the early years of Avon's history, is that every year, without fail, instead of trying to plan financially on the basis of the resources that it had and knew it could achieve—as a more relaxed authority might have done—Avon put most of its effort into trying to obtain more. Like many fictional characters, Avon could not come to terms with the facts of its formation, particularly the financial facts. Every year, Avon's arguments for trying to find ways of obtaining more money for itself became more desperate, hopeless and unbelievable. Avon was doomed from its formation, and few people will mourn its passing.
  The system with which we are replacing it has a number of advantages, and we must ensure that they are not squandered. The first advantage—in direct contradiction to the point made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—is that the new authorities have the clearly expressed support of the people whom they are being set up to govern. The hon. Gentleman suggested—in a manner of which the current dictator of Iraq would have been proud—that, because certain people in Bristol feel that they have a divine right to rule the surrounding areas, that view should be heard. The last thing that the people outside Bristol want is to be ruled by Bristol, but the hon. Gentleman suggested that their view should be ignored.
  We shall be quoting the comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras during the local election campaign in May in areas that have made it quite clear that the last thing they want is to be taken over by a city whose style of local government they regard as wholly alien. I strongly deprecate the hon. Gentleman's opinion—and, by implication, that of the Labour party—that only the view of Labour-controlled areas count and that the areas that they seek to govern are not entitled to hold a view at all.
  I welcome the order. Tonight I am wearing a tie that bears the coat of arms of the city of Bristol. When the order is passed, I shall be wearing a tie that bears the arms of the city and the county of Bristol. I am the first Member for Bristol, North-West since the late Martin McLaren to be able to make that claim. Having achieved the abolition of the county of Avon, I shall go home and play a recording of Haydn's "Te Deum". As I listen to it, I shall reflect that, even after 22 years, it is possible for a Government to admit that they got something wrong and to make a determined effort to set it right.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: We have said before that the local government reform programme has turned into a shambles, but it is obvious that this case is one of the most shambolic of all. The Government admitted that drafting errors in some of the original legislation caused real problems when considering the question of Avon and its future, and clearly areas of concern remain to be resolved.
  We all agree that Avon is a very unpopular county, even after 20 years of existence. From the beginning, it was an artificial creation which was never well loved. As it moves towards its grave, the House should at least pay tribute to the valuable work performed by a number of Avon councillors and officers over the years. Their contribution should not be forgotten.
  Serious points and questions about the order must be addressed, one of which taxed the Minister in his opening remarks. For the first time, the reorganisation involves two continuing authorities and two new authorities. That is clearly still causing problems for the Minister, and I for one do not accept the points that he made in reply to earlier interventions.
  Mr. Don Foster: Is my hon. Friend concerned that, although the Minister appears to have moved in the right direction, he has not yet made it clear to the House whether any progress towards the appointment of new staff in either the new or the continuing authorities will be possible before vesting day? Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to put that question to the Minister.
  Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, and perhaps the Minister will respond to it straight away.
  Mr. Curry: I realise that time is limited, but I shall make the position clear now in case I am not able to do so in my winding-up speech. As soon as the order is made, all the authorities involved will have new powers and duties to start preparing for reorganisation. They must co-operate because the order enjoins them to do so—for example, Bath and Wandsdyke can start working towards reorganisation at the same time as Bristol.
  The decisions about how the new authorities will run their affairs should be made only after a new mandate has been obtained. The order says that authorities cannot make decisions or appointments until after the elections in May. In May, all four unitary authorities will have identical powers to do that. The essential point is that, when the new powers are provided, they are provided equally to all involved.
  Mr. Rendel: As it will clearly be more difficult for the two authorities which are joining to form one authority to make even preparatory arrangements before that authority is set up, I believe that the situation is clearly unfair. The new authority which will be created from amalgamating two existing authorities will be disadvantaged compared with the continuing authorities. It is unfair to the staff concerned and to the authorities themselves. It is odd that, in spite of opting for unitaries, the Government have managed to make an enemy of not only the unitary authorities but the Association of District Councils, which is concerned about that point.
  418
  Various estimates of the short-term costs of the transition are circulating. The costs are ill-defined; that is perhaps not surprising when we consider what happened in Cleveland, when much higher estimates were made immediately after the order was passed. The Minister should promise—I hope that he will refer to the matter in his winding-up speech—that, if the costs turn out to be much higher than the Government and the commission expected, the Government will help the new authorities to meet the extra costs.
  Consultation in this case was clearly inadequate and muddled. When the consultation process began, people were told that they would become part of Somerset or part of Gloucestershire, which later proved to be untrue. That must have been confusing for the people involved and the consultation process might have produced a different result if that point had been clear from the beginning. It is now impossible to gauge the extent to which that confusion might have affected people's view of the reorganisation, and I wish that the Government had engaged in more consultation after the point had been clarified fully.
  The question of whether South Gloucestershire and North Somerset will become real counties has muddied the water further. I am glad that the Minister discussed that point earlier, although I do not believe that he clarified it fully.
  The Government should have started from scratch in examining the role of the new authorities instead of simply talking about what areas they would cover. The fact that the Government did not consider the new authorities' role properly has led to other difficulties. They have not detailed how strategic services—strategic planning, transport, the fire service, the probation service and the police—will be managed or even how the coroner's office will work in the future.
  The Government said today that they want the services to be handled in a voluntary manner because that is more flexible. I suspect that they really mean that they do not know how the services will be handled and they intend to go ahead on a wing and a prayer. That will only increase the administrative burden of those who eventually become the unitary councillors.
  There are also points in favour of the order. It looks as though it will produce at least some long-term cost savings. I welcome the extra efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery which may be created as government is brought closer to the people. It is a long-standing principle of my party that government should be brought closer to the people and I look forward to seeing that happen with the new authorities.
  Mr. Berry: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Liberal Democrats in Avon do not support the order?
  Mr. Rendel: I am not sure to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. There are members of all three parties who are for and against every local government order we have had so far.
  Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman just said that it was a matter of principle.
  Mr. Rendel: It is a matter of principle that we should bring government down to the lowest possible level.

  419
  A further point which must be made in favour of the order—perhaps the most important point—is that there is clear public support for it. Some 72 per cent. of people made it clear that they were in favour of the principle of unitary authorities in the area, while only 16 per cent. were against. That is very telling.
  The fact that representations to the commission came out four to one favour was also a telling point in favour of the order. Some people said that that was a self-selected sample, and so it was. What was interesting in this case was that the self-selected sample was in favour of something. Usually, such a sample is unreliable only when it is made up of protesters.
  In summary, the Government have made a mess of the order, as they made a mess of the reform of Avon. It is also clear that the public in general are behind the order and want it to be passed. There are many uncertainties about the order and, therefore, as it is passed many of its supporters—including, no doubt, the Government—will say a silent prayer that the worst fears of those who oppose it will not come true.
  7.40 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: This is a day of great rejoicing for Weston-super-Mare. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on tabling the order. I also congratulate the Boundary Commission, and in particular the two commissioners responsible who took an immense amount of trouble to see that all the appropriate people were visited, and who came up with the right answer.
  In olden days, there would be dancing in the streets, the church bells would be ringing and the fountains would be running with best Somerset cider. Dare I say, if I could claim any credit, a small public subscription would have raised a modest statue to the Member in gratitude for the death of the ogre of Avon county council.
  Avon has been disliked and derided ever since it came into being in 1974. I am the only Member in the Chamber who was in the House at the time that local government was reorganised in 1974. As a junior and thrusting parliamentary private secretary, I abstained on the vote which brought the council into being. My only regret over many years has been that I did not vote against, and hand in my cards. This order means that my conscience is clear again.
  At long last, we will be back to running our own affairs. Weston-super-Mare is the largest town in Somerset, and it does not want to be run from Taunton. It definitely does not want to be run from Bristol. I believe that my hon. Friends have analysed most sensibly the reason for the failure of Avon—it was the domination of Bristol. When a town the size of Weston-super-Mare is made to feel like a second-rate suburb, it is hardly surprising that its residents would wish to make a change.
  I think that I also speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who, despite being silenced by his high ministerial office, will know that opinion also runs similarly in the north part of what is to be the new district.
  Of course, we do want a little more money for the costs of transition. We have had a supplementary credit approval for £2.5 million, but we asked for £5 million. I am told by those in the know that there is still £27 million in the national pot, so we are hoping for some more money.
  420
  There is a minor dispute in my constituency about second-tier councils. Having got rid of Avon, there was a recommendation by the Boundary Commission for a town council. I think that that was a misapprehension. Previously, the charter trustees were told that they could not survive, and they opted naturally for the only alternative. Town councils are normally only given to towns with a population of less than 20,000, and having three town councils would be disastrous for the town.
  I was delighted to learn that the Minister has allowed the charter trustees to continue. We need a mayor for a seaside town, and we need a body from which to elect him or her. If that body were to be consulted on planning permissions and have a touch more power, everybody would be totally satisfied. There is pressure to go for a town council on the basis that, if one asks somebody whether they want a town council, they will say yes. But there is no logic in having another tier of government in a town the size of Weston-super-Mare.
  Once again, I express my strong support for the introduction of this order. It is something which I have looked forward to for 20 years, and I am delighted to be able to speed it on its way tonight.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I consider myself to be very fortunate indeed, as I was born in Somerset and lived there for 30 years. That idyll was only blighted in 1974, when my bit of Somerset was moved into Avon. Every morning for the following 18 years until I moved, I had the discomfort of getting up, drawing my bedroom curtains and looking across my garden to the field next door, which was still in Somerset. That made me vow every morning to do everything in my power to wipe Avon from the map at the earliest possible opportunity.
  During my time in Somerset, I had the great privilege of representing Somerset folk as an Avon county councillor for four years and as a Wansdyke district councillor for 11 years, six of those as leader. At every election, I stood both as a Conservative candidate and as a Back to Somerset candidate.
  My mention of Wansdyke leads to me digress to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall). I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in hospital, and understands why he is not here tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is here, and, until he took his trappist vows, he too enthused about the abolition of Avon. If he could speak tonight, he might just make the point to the Minister that he would prefer Nempnett Thrubwell to be in north-west Somerset rather than north-east Somerset, but no doubt that debate can continue outside the Chamber.
  The order is not just about local issues; it raises a whole range of general issues as well. The constraints of time limit me to mentioning just three of those. First, local government only works well if it is structured on how people feel about themselves. Avon was imposed for administrative and service provision reasons. It was artificial and unloved, and it was never going to work. It proves the point that natural communities are what local government is all about, and I wish that the Local Government Commission had paid more attention to natural communities.

  421
  Secondly, the order abolishes two-tier local government in parts of Somerset and Gloucestershire. The results will be better services, clearer accountability and stronger local government. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reject all other two-tier solutions which have been suggested elsewhere.
  Thirdly, the changes recognise the importance of history. My home town of Midsomer Norton has been in Somerset for 1,000 years, just as my constituency of Spelthorne has been in Middlesex for 1,000 years. I would urge the Government to do for the people of Spelthorne what they are doing for the people of Midsomer Norton. They must restore us to the historic county of Middlesex and abandon the status quo proposals for Surrey.
  There are occasions when hon. Members do their duty with little enthusiasm, and when we vote out of loyalty rather than conviction. But tonight I need no persuasion. I do not need the help of the Whips, nor do I require any arm-twisting. I shall vote to abolish Avon with conviction and delight. Avon is unloved. It will not be mourned, and I rejoice at its abolition.
  Finally, I send a message to friends in all political parties in Wansdyke. I note that they will have more seats on the new authority than Bath and, in my biased view—I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will understand—that is exactly how it should be. I look forward to watching my friends restore pride in local government and pride in Somerset. I wish them well.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: One wonders where the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been. He accuses the Government of a conspiracy against Labour-controlled county councils, quietly forgetting that the county council on the Isle of Wight was Liberal-controlled and campaigned for a unitary authority. The Liberal Democrat spokesman seems now oblivious to the points that he made in the debate on that occasion.
  The Local Government Act 1972 clearly states that a council can he a county council authority or a district council authority. As has been explained many times, the Local Government Act 1992 stipulates that an authority can be a successor authority only if it is not to be abolished and reorganised—that is the glitch in the legislation.
  I promised the Minister when we debated the Cleveland order, and before that the Isle of Wight order, that I would try to attend each of these debates to make similar points about parish and town councils. Under this order, I am told that 131 parish and town councils are covered. Of that number, six are parish meetings and five are town councils.
  During the Cleveland debate, I promised to keep raising the matter with my hon. Friend until I got a result—and I think that I am getting close to a result now.
  I learn from the order that there is to be a different electoral cycle for Bristol, which has no parish or town councils; it will therefore not be affected by the order, because it will be on the county council election cycle, whereas all the other authorities affected will be on the district council cycle—1995 plus four years. The county election cycle is 1997 plus four years. As a result, all the
  422
  parish and town councils will, under the order, be able to come up for elections together with their local authorities, thus saving local taxpayers considerable sums of money.
  My hon. Friend has heard me say often enough that the election costs for many parish and town councils amount to more than their precepts; so combining the election cycles is a good idea.
  I await the day when the Minister will tell us how he intends to get out of the conundrum facing the Isle of Wight.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I urge Members on both sides of the House to support this order. It is essential for local democracy that we have unitary authorities and do not continue with a two-tier system that nobody understands. In 1977, as an adopted candidate for the Greater London Council elections, I went to see Conservative Central Office and said that, having discovered what the GLC did, we ought to abolish it. I was assured that mine was a disgraceful, heretical suggestion: under no circumstances would it be abolished. Now that the GLC has been abolished, things are better for all Londoners, and the benefits have been immediately visible.
  People understand what unitary authorities mean—a one-stop opportunity for local accountability and local democracy. I urge the Minister, as he sees this important flagship provision passing into law this evening, to remember that Torbay was recommended by the Local Government Commission for unitary status. I hope that he will bear in mind too that the Liberals, the Labour party and all Conservatives in Torbay are united—unlike those concerned with this order—in hoping that it will also receive unitary status, as recommended by Sir John Banham.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Curry: I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), and with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who spoke not as a Member representing this part of the world but on the basis of personal experience of it. I heard what he said about Middlesex. It is an example of a county that still exists in ceremonial and sporting terms and which usefully shows that a county can carry on even without a local authority being associated with its name.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) concentrated on the importance of service delivery. This move has been all about service delivery—bringing services to the people, rationally organising services and trying to overcome some of the difficulties of a two-tier structure. This solution would not commend itself in all circumstances, but the commission recommended it in this case, and we thought it the right thing to do.
  I well remember the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on the problem that he faced with the parish council, or the charter trustees. I am delighted that we were able to find an outcome that enabled the charter trustees to continue in Weston-super-Mare. I agree with him that it is important that such towns have their ancient traditions confirmed, and have people who can be seen to represent them in their ceremonial functions.

  423
  As many of my hon. Friends have said, continuity is an important aspect of local traditions and democracy. We are trying to reach down to ancient roots and give them modern shape so that they may continue to flourish. That is why local government has always been subject to reform and change, drawing on the best traditions and bringing it into a world in which it can use modern techniques to deliver the services that are now in demand.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare also mentioned resources. Of the £50 million that we have nationally for 1995–96, I have deliberately held back more than half, so that we can allocate it later in the year when the authorities have had a chance to develop their plans. So further resources will be allocated to the Avon authorities. Of course I cannot promise to meet in full what they estimate to be their needs, but some additional resources will be available. I thought it sensible to wait and see how their plans developed, and then make the allocations. We shall keep the matter under close scrutiny.
  We have made it clear that this reorganisation will be economically financed. We do not intend people to take the opportunity to see whether it would be nice to have a new town hall on the back of the reorganisation. Indeed, one local authority already decided that that would be a good wheeze. We shall ensure that authorities do what is necessary. As everyone agrees, the money needs to go to services. There is little point in reorganisation to improve services if the resources are diverted to structural agglomeration.
  Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that many people listening will be delighted to hear that. When should bids be made for the additional money?
  Mr. Curry: When the new authorities have been constituted—once the elections are over and the new authorities are in place—I would expect to receive the additional bids. That would seem to be the sensible time.
  I was intrigued by the speech made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and especially by the interplay between him and the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that he would defer to his hon. Friend, to allow him to provide us with much greater detail about where the boundaries of Bristol should lie. But answer came there none.
  The hon. Member for Kingswood offered no illumination; we were deeply disappointed. It is clearly a case of one general handing over to another, but neither gave the command—
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): One corporal to another, surely?
  Mr. Curry: I am being charitable. I am always willing to over-promote Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on about how wicked all these boundary notions were. We are not changing Bristol's boundaries, because the commission did not recommend such a change, but we have said that the Boundary Commission will be invited to look at anomalies in the boundary.
  I would, however, ask the House to imagine what the hon. Gentleman would have said if, contrary to the commission's recommendation, we had changed the local boundaries. Imagine the hon. Gentleman's Miltonic indignation—the peals of thunder that would have
  424
  emanated from him—had we interfered with the commission's recommendations on boundaries. Yet all the hon. Gentleman's indignation today was because we did not interfere. I should be interested to learn from him in what circumstances we ought to interfere and when we should not interfere in the matter of boundaries.
  The hon. Gentleman said directly that he believes that there should be a significant widening of Bristol's boundaries. I understood him to say that it should follow consultation with the people of Bristol. I should be interested to know whether he has any plans to consult people outside Bristol, and to find out where they think the boundaries should be. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to consult all involved. I have an inkling that the answers will not be unanimous.
  Mr. Stern: Such consultation did take place. The result was an overwhelming negative in terms of Bristol. It is clear that that does not matter to the Labour party.
  Mr. Curry: The Labour party's technique is clear. There are many Opposition Members who wish to see unitary authorities. They bring their delegations to us to ask for unitary authorities. Many local Labour leaders want to see unitary authorities. They come and ask for them. The Labour-led local authority associations also want to see unitary authorities. They say, "Please can we have more unitary authorities?"
  There is a great deal of private canvassing for unitary authorities. The only thing that Labour will not do is to be seen to vote for unitary authorities. Labour wants them, pleads for them and leads delegations to ask for them, but it wants to have it both ways. That is arrant hypocrisy. If Opposition Members believe in something, they should put their money where their mouths are, along with their votes in the House. They do not do that. That is dishonourable, and I hope that their electorates note it. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 202.

  Division No. 83]

  [8.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Boswell, Tim

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bowis, John

  Alton, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ancram, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Booth, Hartley

  Chidgey, David

  425

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lamont Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Maddock, Diana

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hague, William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Harris, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harvey, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  426

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Page, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thumham, Peter

  Rendel, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Richards, Rod

  Tracey, Richard

  Riddick, Graham

  Tredinnick, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trotter, Neville

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wallace, James

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whittingdale, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stephen, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Michael Bates.

  Sumberg, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Caravan, Dennis

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cann, Jamie

  Allen, Graham

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Church, Judith

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ann

  Beggs, Roy

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Blunkett, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dixon, Don

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cabom, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  427

  Enright, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Etherington, Bill

  Michael, Alun

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Miller, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Fit Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Galloway, George

  Mudie, George

  Gapes, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  George, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Godsiff, Roger

  O'Hara, Edward

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Olner, Bill

  Graham, Thomas

  Pearson, Ian

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hain, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Hanson, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hardy, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Henderson, Doug

  Purchase, Ken

  Heppell, John

  Hill. Keith (Streatham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hinchliffe, David

  Radice, Giles

  Hodge, Margaret

  Randall, Stuart

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Rooney, Terry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hutton, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Illsley, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ingram, Adam

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jackson, Helen

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jamieson, David

  Short, Clare

  Janner, Greville

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Spellar, John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Straw, Jack

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Touhig Don

  McAllion, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Turner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Vaz, Keith

  Macdonald, Calum

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  McFall, John

  Walley, Joan

  McKelvey, William

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Watson, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Wiliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mahon, Alice

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Marek, Dr John

  Worthington, Tony

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Martlew, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maxton, John

  Mr. Stephen Byers and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Meacher, Michael

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given notice to the office of the Leader of the House that I intend to raise a point of order. You will be aware that the business this evening is somewhat unusual in that we have three one-and-a-half-hour debates. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for Ministers, in exceptional circumstances or when something urgent needs to be said, to come to the House to make a statement without interrupting the flow of business. I therefore wonder whether you have had any response to the request made earlier by my hon. Friends that the Secretary of State for Health should make a statement to the House about the increase in prescription charges, which has been announced by way of a written answer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order for the Chair. As far as I am aware, the Chair has not been notified of any Government intentions whatever.

  Student Finance
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Bryan Davies: I beg to move,
  That the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3044), dated 30th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be revoked.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
  That the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3045), dated 30th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be revoked.
  The debate takes place against a background of worsening student hardship and an increasingly defective system of student support. Those facts are undeniable, yet the Government are determined to press ahead and make further cuts in the grant next year, increase dependence on a flawed and failing student loans scheme and abolish the allowance paid to mature students for the extra financial needs that they have.
  The Government have also clamped down on any increase in participation in higher education. They have frozen the number of places available. That is both economic madness and a social injustice. It represents a blunting of aspirations and a denial of opportunities for qualified students.. Even the CBI has called for a 40 per cent. graduation rate for young people. The Government have set their face against that advice and, just as with the economy, they demonstrate that they can organise a short-term boom, but in higher education, of course, that is followed by bust.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on higher education for a great many years, from his previous time as a Member of Parliament. He does not acknowledge the greatest single expansion of opportunity that there has ever been in this country in higher education. The number of people going into higher education has increased from one in eight to one in three. The only time since the war that the numbers and the percentage fell was when he was a member of the previous Labour Government.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is disregarding the record of the Conservative Government over 15 years. He should recognise that the Conservative party had been in power for almost a decade before it addressed the representations, which had been made right across the sector, of the necessity to increase opportunities for our young people. It then produced a short-term, five-year period of rapid expansion—I freely acknowledge that—not, I might add, bringing us up to the level of many of our competitors in advanced economies, but nevertheless creating a degree of expansion. Then we had the 1993 trauma of budgetary cuts, and instead of an education policy we saw an economic policy that caused a collapse of education provision.
  The student loans scheme, in which we have been asked to place our confidence, is totally flawed and failing. It is universally derided. It fails on every criterion by which it should rightly be assessed. First, is the scheme fair or equitable? Loans are not available to part-time students,
  430
  who must pay all their own fees and maintenance costs and make up 35 per cent. of the people in higher education.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): As the hon. Gentleman has now accurately referred to the participation of part-timers in higher education, will he please explain why earlier he said, inaccurately, that the participation rate was frozen, without respect and without reference to the part-timers whose participation is not frozen?
  Mr. Davies: The Government should be careful when taking responsibility for the expansion in the number of part-time students. The Government give precious little in the way of support or opportunity to part-time students; in fact, they have continually set their face against such participation, and—I shall refer to it later—there is one clear instance of a group of students whom the Government appear to be setting out to deter. The student loans system is also flawed in that it does nothing for the vast majority of postgraduates. Loans are concentrated on a minority in post-compulsory education.
  Secondly, the scheme requires graduates to repay loans at a time when their earnings are likely to be at their lowest—shortly after they have entered the employment market. Yesterday, at Question Time, the Minister said that the average figure for a monthly repayment at present is £14, but that is because he has included all the people who are paying now for courses that they completed when they could borrow only small amounts and therefore are repaying minimal amounts and bringing the average down. Already for many students the sum is far higher and is bound to increase in the future as Government plans to cut grant and increase the loans develop.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend find time in his speech to refer to the fact that not only is the student loans scheme inadequate in giving security to students but even when mistakes are made—students in my constituency have waited as much as a term to have any money at all—there does not appear to be an adequate system to deal with the problems?
  Mr. Davies: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being one of the first to bring to the attention of the House the flawed system that the Student Loans Company was operating and for identifying the large number of students before Christmas who were victims of the scheme's failure.
  The Minister is quite prepared to see the level of loan repayments increase. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals estimates that by the end of the century students will owe as much as £96 a month. Therefore, we are not talking about trivial amounts. Yesterday, the Minister sought to suggest that at present the figures were low, concealing the full position.
  The inescapable fact is that once graduates go above the low repayment threshold they must pay back amounts that bear no relation to their earnings. That is why there is no equity in the system. The latest figures show that even on the present minimal borrowings, more than 20,000 borrowers were in default status and more than 2,000 were subject to legal action.
  Only 47 per cent. of students took out loans last year, compared with a Government estimate of 80 per cent. when they designed the scheme. In the first year, the

  431
  take-up was only 28 per cent. The figure therefore has been creeping up only marginally. It is clear that a central plank of the Government's student support policy is just not delivering.
  The third flaw in the scheme is that it does nothing to widen access to higher education for all social classes. Increased access depends primarily on increasing the number of places available—the very feature that the Government have frozen. It is clear that relative social class participation rates have not changed significantly for many years. The CBI confirmed that last year.
  Finally, the loan scheme is grossly inefficient. It does not generate funds for higher education as the Government intended. Last year, only £19.8 million was repaid. That just about covers the running costs of the Student Loans Company. The administration of the scheme, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), has been appalling. My hon. Friend knows that I will reinforce his argument this evening.
  Last year, there was chaos in the processing of loans under a new fast-track application system. Some 35,000 students had still not received their loans by Christmas, of which the company admitted that at least 8,000 cases were its fault. The company was besieged by complaints. It received 11,000 calls each day from anxious students who had been left high and dry. The chairman of the CVCP was moved to white in the strongest terms to the Minister about the deprivation and suffering that that abject failure had caused.
  The assessor, a somewhat reclusive figure who is supposed to act as an ombudsman for students, has been paid £34,000 in the past four years, yet he has dealt with only three cases, in two of which he found in favour of the company while the third is still awaiting consideration. One of those was a case brought to my attention of a student who had withdrawn temporarily from a course because he had to undergo two serious operations. Despite being fully informed of the position, the company stepped in and activated a direct debit to withdraw funds from the student's bank account. The assessor found that the company had done nothing wrong. What sort of ombudsman is that?
  Meanwhile, the Department for Education has commissioned an investigation into allegations of malpractice and mismanagement at the Student Loans Company. The National Audit Office has also announced its intention to conduct a further investigation. This is a disgrace and it demands a full inquiry. Imagine the uproar if pensioners or the unemployed had been deprived of their livelihoods. Why should students be treated any differently?
  The Government claim that student poverty does not exist and that the resources available to students have been maintained in real terms. That simply is not the evidence of the figures or what experience tells us. Students are turning increasingly to part-time work. Some universities are beginning to look for jobs that they can create for students so that students can keep body and soul together. Where students cannot obtain part-time work, they increasingly have to have recourse to the banks and to friends and relatives. Those who are lucky can just about survive. Those who are not so lucky drop out.
  432
  Hon. Members have many surveys and the experience of their surgeries to tell them a completely different story from the one given by the Government. The CVCP conducted a survey last autumn which showed a worrying increase in dropout rates of 30 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1992–93 for reasons other than failure on the course. The chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England was reported recently as saying:
  "the system as a whole was under recruited last year, which indicates a fall in numbers in the late years of courses … My guess is that the reasons are financial, with people building up debts, looking around and saying 'I have to do something about this."'
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is ray hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, with a high percentage of students in one part of it, one can see the enormous pressure on mature students in particular to continue their courses? Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to comment on the difficulties faced by law students from families without substantial financial backing or professional wherewithal who find it impossible to finish their training because they have no financial assistance in the final year of the law degree to enable them to finish their practical work?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We have only one and a half hours for the debate and many hon. Members wish to speak, so long interventions of that nature do not help.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying a crucial area which should cause concern to which I hope the Minister will respond.
  The problem is destined to get worse. I have a letter from the treasurer of Somerville college, Oxford, which says:
  "Dear Parent or Guardian,
  The College would like to draw to your attention the finances needed for an undergraduate in Oxford … Government assistance, whether in the form of a grant or a loan, no longer provides sufficient funds to support an undergraduate in Oxford."
  I believe that Somerville was the college attended by the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. I wonder how her father, Alderman Roberts, would have responded to such a letter.
  The brutal facts are that the Government have progressively whittled away the value of the maintenance grant, excluded students from benefit entitlements and taken away the vacation hardship allowance. The total weekly resources available to most students are less than those given to someone on state benefits. To cap it all, students who seek to flee today's appalling increase in prescription charges by applying for free prescriptions on the grounds of low income will find that the student loan is treated as notional income, regardless of whether they have availed themselves of the loan. That effectively means that the vast majority of our students will receive no help at all with those costs. As one of my hon. Friends graphically expressed it earlier this evening, prescription costs are 2,500 per cent. above what they were when the Government first came to power.
  Perhaps the most pernicious, short-sighted and indefensible measure that we are debating tonight is the withdrawal of the means-tested older students allowance. It penalises all those who want a second chance at higher education. In a modern economy, people must be given the opportunity and encouragement to undertake learning

  433
  throughout their lives. Abolishing the older student allowance does precisely the reverse. It has no educational justification whatsoever; it is simply a Treasury-led cut.
  Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he is presumably not going to speak for too much longer, will he now put some figures on student grants? Will he tell the House what he thinks the right level of student grant should be? As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) pointed out, one in three young people become students at our universities and colleges. What should their grants be, and how would a Labour Government pay for them?
  Mr. Davies: As I pointed out this evening, the drop-out rates alone show that present resources are insufficient. Of course I am not prepared to give a figure now, but it is manifestly clear that the Government are serving students ill.
  If the Government do not believe that the cut will deter mature students' participation in higher education, perhaps the Minister will tell me how he would respond to a letter that I received recently. It said:
  "I have recently been offered a place at University which I was delighted to accept. This follows three years of studying at evening classes to obtain two A-Levels. As I work caring for adults with learning difficulties and have two small children it was not easy. You can imagine how devastated I feel to realise that I cannot, after all my efforts, accept this place due to the removal of the mature students allowance, which was to me worth £1,000 a year".
  It continues:
  "The ironic thing is that my local college contacted me today to tell me that I had been chosen as one of the nominees for student of the year."
  How would the Minister respond to that letter? Would he tell its writer to apply for access funds?
  The removal of the mature students allowance is a disgrace and the Minister should be ashamed of commending the order which contains it to the House tonight.
  Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend mentioned that, for mature students, it is their second chance for an education. Does he accept that it is often not their second chance, but their last chance, for an education, and their last chance of escaping poverty in communities such as ours, where a poll on job vacancies one day last May showed that the average hourly rate was just over £3 a hour?
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister will have heard his comments and I hope that he responds to the issues this evening.
  Student support is failing. Students are in poverty and some get no help at all. We need a comprehensive system of support for lifelong learning, not a shambolic mess of half measures that fails just about everyone who comes near it. The Government should think again. I urge the House to revoke the orders.
  8.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Even the best friends of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) would not regard that performance as a magical speech. The hon. Gentleman
  434
  missed his vocation as a magician. He sought to distract the House's attention with hair-raising and heart-rending stories of student poverty that had very little reference to the facts.
  Sir Harold Walker: I received an anguished telephone call today from one of my constituents who was induced to undertake a three-year course, the first year of which expires this September, when I understand that student will face a cut of £1,000 in grant and, having been encouraged to take the course, will no longer be able to continue it. That is horrendous and disgraceful. Although £1,000 may be marginal for the Minister, it represents disaster for a student.
  Mr. Boswell: I am always interested in interventions from the right hon. Gentleman. I shall investigate the case, but the figures that he has given me suggest that it almost certainly involves a non-mandatory award and may suggest some withdrawal of support by local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton sought to weave a tissue of concern about student poverty. He said that the system was failing, but he did not say a word about the proposals on which he based his principled opposition to the orders. That is perhaps understandable, because the failure rate of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on higher education is considerable.
  In the past, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) suggested that one possible option would be through
  "funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education."
  He then passed from the scene, but the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said just after Christmas that he would be prepared to consider a graduate tax. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) expressed interest by saying:
  "I am interested in the tax related to income which is progressive and I shall explore that, but we are a long way from taking a decision."
  We have heard very little about that tonight, for the simple reason that the Opposition do not wish to say too much about their alternative proposals.
  Tonight we are faced with a proposition to overturn regulations that will bring considerable benefits to students and that are essential for their welfare. The regulations validate for forecast inflation the main rates of grant and loan for the coming year and the supplementary maintenance allowances for students with additional needs such as disabled students and students with dependants. They are essential if students are to receive these increases, and they follow yearly increases since 1990–91 that have been consistently above the outturn rate of inflation. We did not hear that from the hon. Gentleman, but it is true.
  As a result, the support available to students through the total grant and loan package in the current year is more than 5 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1990–91.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The Opposition accept that there has been an increase in the number of young people going on to higher education. Our concern is that people from modest family backgrounds or with modest means have great difficulty in embarking on a university course. How will the Minister's proposals help those people? We already know

  435
  that students are having great difficulty. How will the Minister encourage people from poor backgrounds into higher education. Certainly someone from my background would not be able to enter higher education today.
  In respect of mature students, I have a letter from the university of Birmingham, which is extremely concerned about the effect of these measures—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already pointed out to the House that long interventions deny those who are waiting the opportunity to speak in the debate. In a short debate of this nature, they are not helpful.
  Mr. Boswell: Perhaps I can respond to the hon. Lady by saying that I entirely share her concern for the participation of less-favoured students or students from less-favoured backgrounds. It is a matter of record. The latest student income and expenditure survey, which is carried out independently, shows that the participation of those from relatively disadvantaged groups such as socio-economic class C1 or below is now rising above 50 per cent.
  Before being interrupted—I do not propose to give way extensively, because I want to hear the Back-Bench speeches—I was going to refer to the older students' allowance. It is easy for the Opposition to take no notice of financial implications, but funding is always under pressure and we must always weigh our priorities. The withdrawal of the allowance will save £5 million in the coming year, then £10 million and £30 million progressively.
  Mr. David Blunkett: It is disgraceful.
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman says that it is disgraceful. The allowance is means-tested—indeed, it is doubly means-tested. I suppose that this is a characteristic of Islington man, or whoever populates the Opposition Front Bench, which the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed. Unlike any other Government support, the older student's allowance is means-tested: students must have an income of £12,000 a year to qualify. It is not related to need; it is intended to cushion people experiencing a decline from a relatively more favourable salary.
  As for the needs side, there is provision in the access funds, as well as the overall student support package. We do not feel, however, that giving an exceptional allowance to those on the highest incomes can any longer be justified.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boswell: Almost for the last time.
  Mr. Welsh: May I ask a brief question about the mature student's allowance? To qualify for the allowance next year, a student must be in receipt of it this year. What will happen to those who were receiving the allowance but left their studies for a year because of illness or other reasons? Will they still qualify?
  Mr. Boswell: Yes, they will. We protect their position, as we protect the position of those currently on courses. I am talking about new students.
  The regulations set out new loan arrangements for students studying in London who choose to live away from the parental home, but who—in the view of the local
  436
  education authority—could conveniently live with their parents while studying. That special loan rate has been set above the parental home rate of loan, so students will still receive a cash increase compared with what they received this year.
  I have already mentioned the uprating of student support over the past five years. That real-terms uprating followed a 25 per cent. cash increase in the main rates of student support when loans were introduced in 1990, which was more than adequate to compensate most students for the withdrawal of benefit in the same year. I should remind the House that particularly vulnerable students, such as single parents, have a continuing opportunity to receive benefit; but to restore students' benefits wholesale—housing benefit, for instance—would encourage the dependence on the welfare system that we have properly sought to eliminate.
  Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister answer a simple question? If I cut his salary by 30 per cent. and offered him a bank loan instead, would he consider himself to be better off?
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that the total cash package available to students includes the 1990 uplift of 25 per cent. He needs to draw a distinction, as I thought his party was seeking to in other contexts, between those who require social support because they are particularly vulnerable—I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for such groups—and those who are investing in their future through the medium of higher education, and whose future earnings are likely to be substantially greater than the earnings of those who are financing their time at university.
  There are extra allowances for those who find it hard to stay at university, including disabled students, students with dependants and students who study for longer than the normal academic year. I take a particular personal interest in the fact that the access funds for higher education have been substantially increased for the third successive year, by a further £1 million to £22 million.
  Dr. Hampson: I have always supported the loans scheme, but we must accept that the vice-chancellors in particular argue that there are problems with the current position. One of the central issues has been the invariable repayment system—the mortgage-type system. Is my hon. Friend investigating that? Even if we keep the present structure, could it be related to income?
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because it enables me to pick up a point that was made earlier. We continue to keep repayments in the existing structure under review; if the figures escalate from the £14 that I mentioned to the House yesterday, we shall be prepared to consider whether and when it would be appropriate to vary the repayment periods.
  As for moving to a different structure, my hon. Friend will know that we are carrying out a review of higher education. All matters can be considered, but we have no immediate plans to act because we believe that the scheme is well conceived and is broadly meeting its objectives.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton was not ready to concede that there are more students in higher education than ever before. Nearly one in three of our young people now enter higher education, compared with one in eight when the last Labour Government were in

  437
  office. Student numbers will increase by some 22,000 in the year to come, and will continue at a record level in the planning period through to 1997–98.
  Our policies have helped to ensure, and will continue to ensure, that higher education is no longer merely the privilege of the wealthy; I share the concern of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) about that. That expansion would not have occurred if we not been prepared to grasp the nettle, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party, and find a means of widening opportunities.
  Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Boswell: For the last time.
  Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend say a word or two about what he is doing to shake up the Student Loans Company? Although in my experience students are rather in favour of loans—they accept that they will have very good opportunities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That point does not arise from the regulations.
  Mr. Boswell: I may deal with my hon. Friend's point in a moment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not do so; I have already ruled that the point does not arise from the regulations.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I need to make the point—because the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton did not—that total available public funding for English universities and colleges will increase by some 3 per cent. between the current year and next year, to a record £4.5 billion. That is the system that the hon. Gentleman considers to be failing, or to be on its last legs. Student support through grants and loans will amount to a further £1.7 billion, producing an overall public total of £6.2 billion. In a difficult public expenditure climate, that is a remarkably good show: it will ensure that the participation rate of young and older people is maintained within the target, which is already over 30 per cent.
  Respecting the point that you made about the orders, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now turn to the student loans to which one of them relates. I shall deal with both their quantity and the delivery of the system. The Student Loans Company certainly experienced difficulties last term; I acknowledge immediately that those difficulties caused real problems for students, and were not acceptable. They arose because of a new application process that was intended to speed up payments for repeat borrowers. The process did not work as well as it should have; nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that some 336,000 loans were paid by the company this year, compared with 246,000 last year. The system is not failing but extending itself, and it is increasingly accepted by students.
  The company has set up an urgent examination of the administrative difficulties, and—together with, at my suggestion, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the National Union of Students—is
  438
  considering what action is necessary to avoid any recurrence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have taken a close interest: we have asked for a full report from the board, and we are anxious for proper decisions to be taken to ensure that the problems do not occur again.
  I think, however, that it is wrong for the Opposition to confuse their uneasiness and equivocation about the case for changes to the loan system with the controversy that they tend to drag in—the oldest possible red herring—about the administration or, in a sense, the propriety of conduct of the Student Loans Company. There have been problems this year, which I have acknowledged, but we continue to believe that the system is fundamentally well designed.
  Indeed, the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton about the relatively low load on the assessor makes the point that the same demand, concern and failure did not exist in earlier years. The assessor will have to consider the points that have been made to him, although I hope again that the House will recognise that the first port of call for complaint is the company. That is as it should be.
  We hear calls for some more radical changes. It is easy, for example, to call for an income contingent repayment scheme. The existing scheme is already income contingent. Graduates need pay nothing until they are earning nearly £14,600 per annum. Figures from the incomes data service were quoted in the Financial Times today. They showed that the average graduate starting salary was £13,800 per annum, which is below that other figure. It is therefore not surprising that, as of 1 February, 45 per cent. of borrowers have taken advantage of the concession. They have deferred repayment of their loans. That is exactly as intended.
  The hon. Member for Brightside confused formal defaults with those of people who are not yet in that position. The figures are lower than he anticipated. The number of people who are not paying is clearly a small proportion of the total number of loans extended.
  It is easy to call for cure-all loans through a tax on the national insurance system. They would be complicated to administer and would have to be paid for. The hon. Member for Brightside is beginning to trail the idea of slinging graduate taxes around the necks of students indefinitely. On graduation, many of them will take out mortgages for house purchase at substantially higher rates than the projected or likely rates of student loans.
  Having said that, we are far from complacent about higher education. We care too much about it for that and it is too important to this country for that. Last autumn, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced a wide-ranging review in consultation with all the people who have an interest. We are considering the purpose of higher education and its future size and shape. In the light of views submitted to us on those fundamental issues, we shall move on to review funding and student support arrangements to ensure that they continue to be appropriate at the turn of the century and beyond.
  The guiding principle behind student loans—that students should make some financial contribution to the cost of their attendance in higher education—is finding increasing favour with the people involved. They include the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Royal Society, the Borrie Commission on Social Justice,

  439
  the National Commission on Education, and even, fleetingly, the Labour party. The number of students applying for loans continues to rise. The hon. Member for Brightside seemed to regard the increase from 28 per cent. to 47 per cent. as a marginal increase. I call it not far short of a doubling. The signs for this coming year are that participation will reach close to 60 per cent. The loans are a major part of the scene and students generally accept the principle of loans and their part in investing in their future.
  The system offers a fair deal for parents, for taxpayers and, because repayment terms are equitable, for students. I warmly commend the regulations to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the 50 minutes available for the rest of the debate, no fewer than eight hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that hon. Members who are fortunate to be called early will bear that in mind.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I regret that we are having this debate and that it is necessary. I accept your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the amount of time available. I shall address my remarks to the mandatory awards regulations.
  As I represent a constituency that contains two universities and six colleges of further and higher education, I am only too well aware of the effects of student loans. I served on the Committee that considered student loans. Many of the things that my colleagues and I argued against in relation to those regulations have come to pass.
  A constant stream of students complain to me about one aspect or another. They complain that they have great difficulty in pursuing their studies, which we never had to face. I suspect that the Minister, when he was a student at New college, Oxford, never had to contribute towards his education. I see no difference between then and now. We are of a different generation. The Government expect today's students to make a financial contribution when few of our generation faced that necessity. We were able to study at a time and within an environment that were much more favourable than today's. Hon. Members should remember that when they consider this matter.
  The shameful decision to abolish the older students' allowance is perhaps the unkindest cut of all. It hits students who have missed out on higher education the first time around and who are hoping to get a second bite at the cherry. They may have missed out through no fault of their own. Many will now have the door slammed in their face again. The decision is particularly perverse because the number of mature students receiving the allowance has increased dramatically in the past five years.
  Figures supplied to me by Ministers in the Scottish Office, Northern Ireland Office and the Department for Education show that dramatic increase. There are some 7,200 such students in Scotland, 500 in Northern Ireland, 32,500 in England and Wales. In Scotland, the figure has increased by 300 per cent.; in England and Wales, it has increased by 250 per cent. in the past five years. Clearly, that shows that demand exists for the allowance, contrary to what the Minister said. He says that students claim for
  440
  it, but that it is not necessary. Of course it is necessary. It is a means of entering higher education for people who have never had the opportunity to do so.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Watson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because of the restriction on time.
  The total cost of the mature students' allowance, aside from the administrative costs, which Ministers have told me they cannot calculate, is £34 million to £35 million a year. That will be the saving when it is abolished. We should put that in the context of the total education budget. The sum barely ripples the water. Clearly, the reason for doing away with the older student's allowance is to save money.
  All the evidence we can assemble shows that mature students in higher education have greater financial difficulty and suffer much heavier debt than their younger counterparts. We have recognised for some time that students over the age of 26, particularly those coming from employment, have difficulty in making the transition from a wage to a student income. In many cases, mature students are giving up a job in the hope of ultimately bettering themselves and their employment opportunities through achieving a degree.
  Since 1989, the number of mature students has increased. They now form 17 per cent. of students in higher education. I can hazard only a guess as to what that figure will be five years from now. I suspect that it will dramatically decrease. The abolition of the older student's allowance is a regressive step that can be only a disincentive to people hoping to enter higher education.
  An even greater injustice is being done to people hoping to enter education this year through the older students' allowance. They applied in good faith before December last year and in the belief that they would receive the allowance. The Government have turned around to them and said, "We gave you that guarantee, but we changed the rules of the game after the game was in progress." The applications are in and a number of potential students are caught in that trap. Whatever the merits, and I cannot see any, of the proposal, it is entirely unjust that people who applied in good faith will not receive the allowance.
  Another aspect of concern involves home students aged over 50. Such students are not even eligible for a student loan. Anyone entering higher education at the age of 50 will be especially badly affected. I hope that, if he does reply, the Minister will give some consideration to the people caught in that trap.
  I have tried to get some rationale for the cut—I got none from the Minister in his speech. The proposal is clearly an attempt to save money, albeit a relatively small amount. I managed to find two answers that he gave in December last year to questions on the savings that would arise. In one, he said that this was an additional allowance which was not targeted at any specific maintenance requirement that a student might have. As I have tried to demonstrate, that is not true. First, the older student's allowance is means-tested; and, secondly, older students tend to have extra commitments such as families and mortgages, which younger students do not have. The National Union of Students survey on value for money

  441
  found that the total average debt for students aged over 26 was £6,105. That compares with an average total debt of about £2,500 for those in the 17 to 21 age bracket.
  I throw back at the Minister the fact that, when we started studying, our generation did not leave university with a debt around our necks and the burden of having to pay that off. The main problem for us was finding a job. Of course, that problem still exists, but hanging over the heads of graduates now is the fact that if they get a job that earns them more than £14,000 a year—not a massive salary these days—they have to start paying back the debt. We must appreciate that students over the age of 26 have additional burdens over and above the loans which, if they want to go into higher education, they will be forced to take.
  The Minister also said in that parliamentary answer that, because of the continuing pressures on public spending, extra support could not be justified. He is saying that £35 million throughout the United Kingdom cannot be justified. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) may grin and think this is funny, but I wonder how many of his constituents will ask him how he voted when the mandatory regulations were discussed on 22 February. I hope that he will be able to say to them, "Yes, I voted to abolish them because I think that that is in your best interests."
  The regulations cannot possibly be in his constituents' best interests. The implications are clearly more important for the public sector borrowing requirement than for the future of education, yet they involve minimal savings.
  Dr. Spink rose—
  Mr. Watson: I cannot give way because I do not have time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Minister has already spoken in rather scathing terms about what he has described as hard luck stories about students who will be denied a place in higher education. He may not thank me for doing this, but I intend to refer to the case of one of my constituents, which made my blood boil when it came to my attention.
  The constituent is called Jane Pepper and she lives in the Langside area of my constituency. She is 29 years old and has worked in the civil service—the Department of Social Security—since 1986. She decided that she wanted to broaden her job prospects and opportunities, so this year she enrolled at the Glasgow college of food technology to do an access course. That course has no other purpose than to help people gain access to university. It has no value on its own. It does not lead on to another degree.
  While Jane Pepper is doing that course, she is receiving assistance through maintenance, course expenses and travelling expenses of about £3,000. When she applied for a university place—she has been offered places at three universities for the academic year starting October—under the old student's allowance she was entitled to about the same amount—just over £3,000. It was on that basis that she applied for a university place.
  As I said, the rules have been changed after the game has started. I want to refer to something, although it may not be within the Minister's direct responsibility. The further and higher education charter for Scotland, which
  442
  was issued in 1993, states that, before applying, a person would want to assess the costs of embarking on a course and how much financial support he or she might get.
  The Government trumpet their citizens charters. They tell us that it is all part of open government and enabling people to question the way that the Government govern. Jane Pepper asked those questions, was given answers, applied for a course, was accepted and now has been told, "We are scrubbing what we said; forget it and go back to square one." She cannot go back to square one because she has given up her job. She is left in no-man's land, where she will be considerably worse off. She believes that, over a three or four-year course, she will be about £4,000 a year worse off. I challenge the Minister to tell me how she is supposed to make that up other than through a loan, which will be an albatross around her neck when she finishes her course.
  I want to conclude my speech with a quote from Jane Pepper's response to the position in which she now finds herself. It is quite instructive and should be quoted in the House. She said:
  "I am now faced with the prospect of a grant of £1975.00 per academic year which I simply cannot manage on financially. I am very angry and bitter, and feel betrayed by a government whom I have worked hard for"—
  there is an irony there—
  "for many years. If I had known this before I left my post in the civil service, obviously it would have had a bearing on my decision to leave my job. It seems likely that if these grant cuts are imposed I will be unable to pursue my degree … What the Government will then be faced with is yet another individual claiming social security"—
  that is another irony—
  "adding to the ever lengthening list of government unemployment statistics. Consequently, the government, by their actions, are forcing individuals in my situation to become unemployed which seems ironic."
  That is the appalling position in which Jane Pepper and, I suspect, thousands of other people throughout the country find themselves, with the rules of the game being changed after they began to play it. It is unfair and unjust and the Government must reverse their decision.
  I end with what is, perhaps, a sting in the tail for my own Front-Bench colleagues. The Labour party is putting up a spirited campaign on the regulations. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will give a commitment that a future Labour Government will reinstate the money that is being lost. Mature students are entitled to it. They missed the boat first time around and they must be given a second chance. If the allowance is not reinstated, they may be denied that opportunity. This Government are at fault; it must be for a Labour Government to put matters right.
  9.5 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is ironic that, yet again, we are seeing the familiar shape of debate, where Labour Back Benchers are demanding more public expenditure and the Labour Front Bench is desperately ducking, diving and weaving to avoid giving any commitment. Labour Members talk about £35 million here and £35 million there as though that is the sort of money that we put in a charity box. The money we put in

  443
  a charity box adds up. Every single Labour Back Bencher is trying to persuade those on the Front Bench to commit themselves to further public expenditure.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the various options put forward by the Labour Front-Bench team are contradictory, to say the least. There was the suggestion of a graduate tax. What happens to the poor graduate? Is it every high earner who will pay graduate tax? For how long will a graduate pay tax? [HON. MEMBERS: "Life."] Yes, for life. Will it be on top of the normal tax that they will be paying? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, "That is a good idea, let's investigate it". Talk about putting off decisions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the hon. Lady to refer to the regulations that we are supposed to be debating. So far, she has not done so.
  Mrs. Lait: I shall come to the regulations immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was so provoked that I felt that I had to point out that a great deal of money is involved in the orders.
  Those of us who remember our student days and how we were supported have a somewhat rosy view. I was one who benefited from the Robbins expansion, when the new technological universities were established—one of which was in Glasgow. At that time, a number of hon. Members were living on student grants. Indeed, many of us were living on very little. It was almost part of the flavour of being a student. Today's students are pleading poverty when, in fact, they are much better supported than we were in the 1960s. I remember that I lived on £2 a week. If that were uprated in line with inflation, the equivalent now would he £25 a week. There is not a great deal to choose between what I lived on as a student and what students have to live on today. I managed it, I am here and so will they be.
  Students are broadly better off with the student loans system than they were. I for one would regard it as a total income package, not as an option for a grant or a loan. One takes the whole package and lives within that package.
  One need not pay back the loan until one has an income of more than £14,500, which is not what one would expect on leaving university, and the Student Loans Company's terms are that one pays interest at the rate of inflation. If I, or any other hon. Member, were offered interest rates at the rate of inflation, we would all jump at the offer. That system is especially generous.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: How big an overdraft did the hon. Lady have when she came out of university?
  Mrs. Lait: I had no overdraft, but my husband owed an overdraft of £150 to the Royal Bank of Scotland, which he was paying back then at genuine rates of interest, which were considerable.
  Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Lady had no overdraft.
  Mrs. Lait: There are plenty who did, and they have managed very well on it. That is part of growing up, part of learning to manage money, and it does no one any harm.
  Dr. Spink: If a student is not prepared to invest in his own future, why should the pensioner living in my
  444
  constituency, who pays a few pounds a week tax on her pension, be prepared to invest in the student's future?
  Mrs. Lait: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for mentioning that.
  There is no evidence that students are being deterred by the loans system. There may he an element of becoming used to the loans system, but there is no evidence of deterrence. An increasing number of students from social groups C1, C2, D and E are entering the system, which can only benefit our country in the long run.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would tackle an argument concerning discretionary grants. Those grants from local education authorities, especially for the performing arts, have decreased in the past five years. The higher education awards are now about 50 per cent. of those that were made in 1991. The director of the London Contemporary Dance school is a constituent of mine, and he brought that problem to my attention. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider some way whereby the discretionary element could be amended.
  One of the great successes of the past 15 years has been the enormous expansion in cultural activity, which is profitable and valuable to our society. Job opportunities therefore exist for an increasing number of people involved in the performing arts. It would appear sensible for our grant and loans system to adapt to that demand in the marketplace and to allow people who wish to take up awards in places such as the London Contemporary Dance school to have access to grants on the same basis as, for example, those who go to conservatoires.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend says. Under paragraph 10(1)(e)(ii) of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994, the Secretary of State has the power to designate courses. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) could include music when he was Prime Minister, should we not recognise both the dramatic arts and dance, as my hon. Friend says, and would it not be about time to give at least a limited number of such places, rather than giving so many places at universities, where people can do drama in their spare time rather than doing it properly?
  Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend reinforces my argument, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would peruse the report that I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received from the Arts Council for England, to reach some decision to help those schools which are providing high-class education in the performing arts, for which there is growing demand.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister was obviously not impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), but the Minister can at least claim credit for managing to produce a gasp of amazement from his audience during his speech. He certainly amazed many of us when he told us that we were here debating opposition—to paraphrase his words—to measures that will be of great benefit to students.
  In reality, we are discussing two orders that continue the breaking of a clear promise given by Conservative Governments. All hon. Members present know and recall

  445
  that the White Paper that led to the setting up of the student loans system said clearly that the maximum grant would be maintained at the 1990–91 level. In 1990, that was reaffirmed by the Education Minister of the day, Baroness Blatch.
  The orders that we are debating are obviously moving in the direction that the Government announced last year, whereby they are breaking that promise, because the level of grants and loans will be broadly balanced by 1996, which means a decrease in grant of 27 per cent. and an increase in loan of 120 per cent.
  It is important that the impact of these measures is considered in the context of what is happening in higher education now. The Minister is right to talk about an increase in student numbers in higher education. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) used to boast that the increase in the number of students was the equivalent of 12 new universities. However, both the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister have failed to admit that they have not provided the resources that would have been necessary for the creation of 12 new universities.
  I am sure that the Minister will not disagree with the figures that show that, in the past four years, public funding has decreased by 26 per cent. per student and, as the Minister said, student numbers have increased by 44 per cent. It is no wonder that there is a worsening of the staff-student ratio in higher education, that students are facing more and more problems when they try to find books in libraries, that there are overcrowded lecture theatres and that there is a growing backlog of repairs and maintenance for university and higher education buildings.
  While universities have had to cope with that, they have also had to cope with the problems created by the equivalent of these orders last year. They will now have to face the problems that will be created this year. More and more students will face increasing hardship and difficulty as they are unable to find the means to support themselves adequately.
  The Minister constantly fails to acknowledge that, even if we add together the maximum amount of grant and the maximum amount of loan possible under these orders, the combined amount still means that the vast majority of students will have an income that is less than they would have acquired had they been registered as unemployed. They are about £10 a week worse off.
  Another way of putting it is that, under these orders, students who take out the maximum grant and get the maximum loan will have about £50 to £20 left as disposable income to pay for food, heating, travel, books and sometimes even the council tax. It is no wonder that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—it is fairly independent in these matters—has estimated that the average annual shortfall of a student's income is well over £1,000.
  The growing problem of student poverty is set to rise as a result of these orders, which fail to recognise some of the greater than inflationary increases that students will
  446
  have to face. That includes significantly rising accommodation costs, the increased cost of domestic fuel because of—
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: I am happy to give way if the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) wants to make a serious point so that students can learn whether he supports measures that, in many cases, will leave them in poverty. The hon. Gentleman may care to say whether he believes that the orders should be altered to put increased money into the pockets of the vast majority of students who have learnt today that they face significantly increased costs for their prescriptions—well above the rate of inflation—because of the disgraceful way in which the Government have introduced prescription increases.
  The orders and the figures contained within them continue to break the Government's promise. They will continue to ensure that many students will have considerable difficulties. All the surveys that have been undertaken now show that a growing percentage of students are contemplating having to give up their university course because of financial hardship. Last weekend, I spoke to students at St. Andrews, where a survey showed that 15 per cent. are contemplating giving up. A National Westminster bank survey showed that 21 per cent. of students are considering dropping out.
  As has been said by many other hon. Members, the 5,400 full-time students over the age of 50 will be badly hit yet again. Last year, in a similar debate, I said that those people could not apply for loans and therefore suffered considerable reductions in their income. That is the case again. Last year, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) intervened on my speech and berated me. She said that what I was saying was putting off older students because I had failed to mention the older students' allowance. I shall certainly have to fail to mention it this year because, of course, the Government have abolished it. I wonder what the hon. Member for Lancaster feels about that.
  Hon. Members have touched on another problem that is important to mention again. More and more students, because of hardship, are having to take jobs during term-time as well as during vacations—I have no real objection to that. That is obviously undermining the quality of their work and affecting the quality of our higher education. Many surveys demonstrate that only too clearly.
  I also agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) that it is a great pity that the regulations do not extend provision to part-time students. I also agree with his noble Friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris in another place, who said in a debate on a similar issue last month:
  "The present system of financial support for students is chaotic, inequitable and inefficient."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 1313.]
  Unfortunately, it was a great pity that an opportunity to provide assistance for students by supporting a Liberal Democrat initiative to introduce the possibility of students receiving benefits during the long vacation in that debate

  447
  was not supported by Labour peers. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that we see articles such as that in The Times Educational Supplement.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Foster: As I referred to her, I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say how much the various things that he and his colleagues suggest would cost?
  Mr. Foster rose—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hang on a minute. He may have forgotten that, when he had the great honour of going to the Royal Lancaster grammar school, he was described as being muddle-headed and unable clearly to formulate his ideas. It seems that he has not improved as his tutors thought he could.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of that report. Indeed, I shared it with the hon. Lady at the time. Nevertheless, she is right to question how much such initiatives would cost. The Minister has said how much the reinstatement of the older students allowance would cost. That stands on the record and my party is committed to that reinstatement. My party has made an attempt to estimate the cost of the introduction of benefit support during the long vacation—about £250 million if there was a maximum take-up.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster is, however, unaware that her Government are unable to provide such a figure. When the Government removed the entitlement of young people to income support and housing benefit and were then asked how much they had saved, they were unable to tell us. Nor, subsequently, have they been able to say how much reinstatement would cost. So I hope that the hon. Lady will not be critical of my party's attempts at least to come up with some figure.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, because many hon. Members want to speak.
  It is important that we place on record the acknowledgement of the Minister that there have been problems with the Student Loans Company. The way in which the company has been administering student loans has certainly not been right. Many students have got into considerable difficulty because of that failure.
  Mr. Boswell: Just for clarification, does the hon. Gentleman accept that I said that I was not satisfied with the administration of the student loans scheme in respect of the autumn term? That remains my view and our position.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. Of course he is well aware that, by December, 35,000 students had not received their grant cheques, which caused appalling difficulties. It is not surprising that the Minister acknowledges that that is that totally unacceptable.
  It is crucial that we place firmly and clearly on the record that the amount of money available to students while studying is currently inadequate. It is hardly surprising that there is increasing hardship among our student population, that they are therefore taking on jobs
  448
  in term-time, which does not help their degrees one iota and that an increasing number are dropping out or considering it. Those and other problems in higher education will not be solved by the sort of measures being introduced by the Government tonight. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will vote against the orders.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I benefited from a full grant while at university and I do not relish supporting the introduction of loans, but I can genuinely see no alternative.
  There has been a dramatic increase in participation rates in higher education, which has been grudgingly acknowledged by the Labour party. The rates have risen to one in eight from one in three, and funding that increase is an enormous challenge for any Government. Maintaining the old grant system would have represented a massive call on the taxpayer and it was right that the Government should seek to strike a fair balance between the interests of taxpayers and the beneficiaries of the education.
  If there were any evidence that students were being deterred from entering higher education, I would be worried. But the evidence is not there. In the two years before the introduction of the loans system, the number of students entering our institutions of higher education rose by 10 per cent. per annum. In the two years immediately after the introduction of the loans system, the rate of increase was 20 per cent. per annum—hardly evidence of the scheme being a disincentive.
  If there were evidence that the orders had any disadvantageous effect on the lower socio-economic groups and their participation in higher education, I would be concerned. The House would do well to remember that in Germany, where the loan component of grants is higher than here, the proportion of students from lower socio-economic groups is three times higher than in the United Kingdom. What is more, contrary to what we heard from the Labour party's Front-Bench team, the position is improving. More students from less well-off families are entering higher education in this country.
  Among first-year students in 1992–93, the proportion of students from A and B social grades fell from about 55 per cent. to 49 per cent., with a similar increase in the proportion of students from C1, C2, D and E backgrounds. That good news contradicts the bad news that we heard from the Labour Front Bench.
  Our record internationally is good. The report of the Education Information Network of the European Community, known as Eurydice, published 18 months ago, said that there was a trend towards extending the system of loans in a number of member states. It said:
  "the percentage of students assisted in Luxembourg, the 'new' German Lander (former East Germany) and the United Kingdom is high (between 76 and 90 per cent.). The proportions of students receiving support in Belgium … Spain, France, the 'old Länder' of the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland are smaller (between 18 and 34 per cent.). The proportions of financially assisted students are smallest in Greece, Italy and Portugal (between 2.5 and 10–15 per cent.)."
  I would have more sympathy with the Labour party if the loans imposed on students had punitive rates of interest or terms of repayment, but they are the most generous loans that I have heard of in the financial system.

  449
  We cannot underestimate the rate of expansion of the higher education system. In 1993–94, there were 100,000 extra students—the equivalent of 12 new universities. It is only fair to ask students to join the taxpayer in funding that system as they will reap most benefit from it. The student will be the highest gainer.
  I would have more respect for Labour Members' opposition to the order if they had a realistic alternative, but they do not. They notably ducked the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) about how much money they would dedicate to their grand, brave new vision of student support. They are muddled on the possibility of a graduate tax on students.
  According to The Times Higher Education Supplement of 6 January, the office of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) recently confirmed that a tax to be imposed on students throughout their working lives was being considered. But the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies)
  "suggested this was a 'narrow and crude concept' which was unlikely to carry much support within the party."
  The Times Higher Education Supplement stated that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)
  "described Mr. Blunkett's remarks on graduate tax as 'a careless use of language. It was pure ignorance. It was quite clear he said it without thinking the whole thing through."'
  I say, amen to that.
  The chairman of Conservative Students, Andrew Reid, said in a letter in the same edition of The Times Higher Education Supplement:
  "What is typical, though, of the Labour party is that its first instinct is to tax the successful rather than to contemplate less punitive forms of financing our students at university."
  That is what the measures represent.
  We have heard a lot about vacation jobs and students taking jobs in term time. I wonder what Labour's plans for a minimum wage would do for the availability of work for students, during vacations or at any other time.
  I would like to raise a question with the Minister concerning section 10(e)(ii) of the mandatory awards order which gives the Secretary of State the power to designate new courses for which students will be eligible for mandatory grants. It provides statutory footing to address the problem of discretionary grants for students of dance and drama which obviously concerns many hon. Members in the House.
  Section 10 lists a bewildering array of subjects and courses which attract mandatory awards. Many of those subjects will benefit the country through the graduates who practice them. But dance and drama are excluded; they are left to the whim of local education authorities.
  Students of music receive mandatory awards, but students of dance and drama do not. A sociologist will receive a grant, but a dancer will not; a medieval historian will receive a grant, but an actor will not. Why is that so? The arts, including dance and drama, provide jobs and tourism revenue—which is more than can be said for many of the academic disciplines which attract automatic mandatory grants.
  Our dance and drama schools are among the finest-if they are not the finest—in the world, but student applications to them are drying up at an alarming rate because of the lack of eligibility for mandatory awards.
  450
  The order gives the Secretary of State the power to correct that state of affairs. It would be economic and cultural folly to let those disciplines die. I am encouraged by the new priority that Ministers seem to be attaching to that area and I hope that they will use the power conferred by the order to correct the position in time for the start of the new academic year.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1994 constitutes a further attack on students. The student grant has been reduced by 8 per cent. on top of the 10 per cent. reduction last year. As we have already heard, the mature student allowance will be phased out from 1995–96, which means that those students who are 29 years of age at the beginning of their courses will lose about £1,000 in grant. Those students tend to have families to support and other financial commitments. Tonight's order can have only one result: less people will enter higher education in the future.
  Student loans are the most unfair way of funding students. The system is morally wrong. Those students who have no real need of a loan can get one at very low rates of interest, but those who need financial help desperately and who have already accumulated large debts often find themselves in even more debt. The Government have destroyed the grants system which, although not perfect, was much fairer than the present system. They deliberately reduced the level of grants and then introduced student loans.
  The Government's record in the area of student financial support is absolutely deplorable. Since 1979 they have systematically eroded student support. The level of student support has never been generous, but at least before 1979 students could enter higher education without the threat of amassing huge debts and without constant financial worries. Students also had welfare benefits to fall back on, but the Government have destroyed that position and they continue to erode it further in the orders that are before us tonight.
  Through a series of measures, the Government have reduced students in the main to living below the poverty level. Student grants were systematically reduced in value by more than 30 per cent. and income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit were withdrawn. In 1990–91 loans were introduced to substitute the amount of money lost by students through the reduction in grants.
  The scheme was so bad—I was serving on the Committee which examined student loans at the time—that the major banks refused to have anything to do with it; they turned it down. As student grants have been reduced, student loans have increased and that trend continues in these orders. The huge reduction in the grant of 10 per cent. in 1994 and more than 8 per cent. this year is an absolute outrage. The full grant is virtually the same as it was 10 years ago and, therefore, in real terms it is worth much less.
  It is no wonder that students have acquired large overdrafts with their banks and are also in debt to the Student Loans Company. Before the general election in 1992, the Education Select Committee investigated student hardship. As far as I was concerned, it was quite clear from the evidence that we received that students

  451
  were finding it increasingly difficult to exist without getting into considerable debt. However, as that evidence was said to be anecdotal, it was ignored by Conservative Committee members. Consequently, the report fizzled out as the general election approached.
  But it was clear to those who were prepared to listen to the representations from students, student bodies and university staff—from lecturers to vice-chancellors—that tremendous hardship prevailed among many students. It was also clear that the accumulation of considerable debt was escalating, and that huge numbers of students were unable to meet the costs of accommodation, food, books, travel and so on out of the financial support which they were receiving. They just did not have enough money to meet their basic needs.
  We discovered that students were not only working in their holidays, if they could find work—I approve of that—but were having to work during term time to exist, and that is frankly scandalous. Under the orders, a student under 50 will receive a grant of £2,040 and a loan of £1,150, for a total of £3,190. That will provide a weekly income of £61.35. The weekly income of a person under 25 on benefit includes income support of £36.15 and housing benefit of £35, making a total of £71.15 per week. A young person under 25 is £9.80 better off on the dole than in higher education, while a student over 25 is £19.35 worse off than being on the dole.
  Huge numbers of students are living below poverty levels. While there is no doubt that many students manage very well because of their parents' contributions, there are many students who have substantial debts and who experience real hardship, particularly older students who will be devastated by the orders. A system which places thousands of young people in severe debt and hardship is fundamentally wrong, and is a deterrent to poorer would-be students.
  The Student Loans Company is dreadfully inefficient, and that also has a bearing on student hardship. Students get further into debt with their banks as they wait for their loans to be processed. The Minister recently told me in a letter that the present system of student loans eased the burden on the taxpayer. Perhaps he could explain how that works when, in 1993–94, the Government were owed £752 million in unpaid loans and had in fact received only £20 million in repayments. In Committee, I remember clearly that the then Minister told us that the scheme would not break even until after the year 2000. At this rate of non-payment, the scheme will never break even. So much for easing the burden on the taxpayer.
  The Minister told me recently that the student loans system had reduced in real terms the contribution expected from parents. That may be all well and good in theory, but I assure him from personal experience that it works in the opposite direction. If more students are underfunded and accumulate more debt, more will depend on parental help.
  The Minister claimed that students will have a good deal in 1995–96 because their total support will rise by 2.5 per cent. That is a joke. Their grant will go down, their loan will go up and their debts will increase. Is that good news for students? I do not think so. The whole system is morally wrong. It is unfair and, apparently, unworkable. Student support needs to be totally re-examined. Like everything else that the Government have done, privilege and wealth will determine opportunity, and not ability.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I shall be brief because of the time constraints, and not because I do not have a great deal to say on a subject about which I feel extremely strongly.
  As a product of the Scottish educational system, I benefited from—and strongly believe in—the democratic principles which encourage every child to develop as fully as his abilities will allow in an integrated system from primary to higher education, irrespective of income or social background. The Government seem intent on reversing a principle that has been entrenched in the Scottish democratic intellect and that has served my country well over the generations and centuries.
  The ability and encouragement of all to benefit from the education system has been a gift to the Scottish people, and the results have been a gift to the wider world. I am afraid that the Government are forgetting those lessons. I fundamentally disagree with the Government's educational finance policy which will eventually and effectively cut vast swathes of the population off from higher education.
  The November Budget not only made clear that the 30 per cent. cut was continuing, but proposed the abolition of the allowance paid to students over 26 years old from next year. I was a mature university student, and I am frankly disgusted that the present generation will not be allowed the benefits and the assistance which helped me to undertake a university degree course. Mature students clearly have greater financial burdens and commitments and they carry heavier debts than their younger counterparts. They now constitute 17 per cent. of students in higher education. So the abolition of the mature student's allowance is regressive, shortsighted and unfair to the many students who are committed to courses that began when it was available.
  I have heard no rationale for this move, apart from some apparent cash savings. I have certainly heard no educational reasons for it. The Government have offered no rationale for the abolition of the mature student's allowance, so I hope to hear one from the Minister tonight.
  For students more generally, the cost of the removal of benefit entitlement and the freezing of maintenance grants has been about £1,070 in lost benefits and about £810 from the freezing of the grant. That £1,880 loss compares with the maximum loan entitlement of £1,120, and it assumes that students do not find paid work during the summer.
  Surveys at Aberdeen and Edinburgh universities have shown the practical effect of the Government's policy. Student grant no longer covers the average yearly rent; even with a loan, students have to look elsewhere for money. According to the surveys, students work an average 12 hours a week in term time. That can only put pressure on their academic work and their health. The Edinburgh results show many students paying rents over the summer to secure accommodation for term time.
  Average rents have risen by 41 per cent. in four years—the Government have certainly not covered that increase—and 76 per cent. of all students work all or part of the summer, assuming that they can find work. Most students are therefore unable to cover their debts.

  453
  Government policy is placing in doubt the whole principle of equal access to higher education for all, regardless of background. My party rejects the Government's position. We believe that education is a right, not a privilege, and that everyone should have proper access to higher education, regardless of financial status.
  The SNP is making a commitment to abolishing loans and giving all students a decent grant, index-linked for inflation and independent of parental income. That fits well with Scottish educational tradition. Nothing less will ever be acceptable—a lesson that I wish the Government had learnt.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Boswell: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that I have listened with interest to the debate. We take seriously the problems that students may encounter and we shall carefully consider all the points that have been made. But I have not heard from the Opposition parties, in support of their claims for higher expenditure, any realistic appreciation of how it is to be financed.
  There has been a great deal of discussion of the older students allowance. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) referred to it at some length. We understand from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland that Jane Pepper, who is on an access course, may be eligible for the older student's allowance as a continuing student. We suggest that she pursue that with the agency.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central mentioned the sum of £35 million for the allowance. I should point out that it is not a small amount; indeed, it is greater than the sum of the access funds.
  In conclusion, I refer to the helpful and positive contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Worcester (Mr. Luff). I listened carefully to them, particularly to their suggestions for more funding for the arts. There are some practical problems with the route that they have suggested, not least the considerable expenditure involved in extending provision for the mandatory award. But we are concerned about the practical outcome—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of it, pursuant to order [17 February].
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 284.

  Division No. 84]

  [9.45 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Beggs, Roy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Alton, David

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Boyes, Roland

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  454

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Caborn, Richard

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Callagnan, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Caravan, Dennis

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cann, Jarnie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Enright, Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  McNamara, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McWilliam, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maddock, Diana

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foulkes, George

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Meacher, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Meale, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  George, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Goding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Gunned, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hain, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hil, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, Bill

  455

  O'Neill, Martin

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Pearson, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Pendry, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pike, Peter L

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Radice, Giles

  Timms, Stephen

  Randall, Stuart

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Redmond, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Reid, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Rendel, David

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wallace, James

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Walley, Joan

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watson, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Simpson, Alan

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Stephen Byers.

  Skinner, Dennis

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butler, Peter

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Butterfill, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amess, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkins, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baldry, Tony

  Colvin, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Conway, Derek

  Belingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dicks, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan, Alan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Dunn, Bob

  Burns, Simon

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Burt, Alistair

  Dykes, Hugh

  Butcher, John

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  456

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Darne Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Luff, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hague, William

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howel, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  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)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, Sir David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  457

  Soames, Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sproat, Iain

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stem, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whitney, Ray

  Sykes, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Thumham, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Tredinnick, David

  Question accordingly negatived.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (CODES OF PRACTICE)
  That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 3) Order 1995, dated 27th January 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  Rapid Transit Link (Fareham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: My purpose this evening is to give parliamentary exposure to an innovative plan to develop a new transport system in south Hampshire, initially running from Fareham to Portsmouth by way of Gosport. In doing so, I hope to obtain a preliminary view of the Government's attitude at this stage, to canvass support for the scheme and generally to promote awareness of the issue.
  There is no doubt that Gosport needs better road access. The constituency is a peninsula between Portsmouth and Southampton looking across to the Isle of Wight. It has an attractive seaside location, but shares with its Portsmouth neighbour a considerable density of population.
  Unlike Portsmouth, which has motorway access direct to the centre of the city, Gosport has to rely on one A road, the notorious A32, and one B road for its access. Poor road access brings a range of problems. It deters industrial and commercial investment and it makes it less attractive for shoppers to visit the High street and Stoke road areas of Gosport which are traditionally the centre of the town. But my greatest sympathy is for those who are compelled to sit in traffic twice a day as they travel to and from work.
  Much has been done to improve the road access. I formed the Gosport road group some years ago comprising county councillors, councillors of all parties and local business representatives, the object being to act as a ginger group to put pressure on all those involved, the county council, the Government and local authorities, to press for action on the road.
  Action has been taken and much can be done by way of traffic smoothing, measures such as co-ordinated traffic lights, improved road junctions and so on. Traffic flow has improved, but any improvements are rapidly overtaken by increased car use. The fact remains that road access at off-peak periods is poor and at peak periods it is bad ranging through to appalling.
  Since the area is a peninsula, it is difficult to plan a new and totally satisfactory road access, and the obvious route, across Fareham creek, is probably barred for environmental reasons. There is really no easy way to improve access by road, although much has been done.
  Moreover, even a major new spinal road would not solve all of Gosport's travel problems because other internal roads, such as Brockhurst road and Bury road, have such a density of traffic that they are near to saturation level for several hours a day. There is a local joke in Gosport, which no one finds in any way amusing, that anyone who goes for the first time to Gosport for a meeting always arrives late, apologising that he had not realised how bad the traffic would be from Fareham to Gosport and his journey took him much longer than expected.
  The Gosport road needs further improvement and the Gosport road group takes every opportunity to make that point to the relevant bodies. I now draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will take it on board and take back to his Department the fact that road access to Gosport is unsatisfactory.

  459
  Not only are Gosport roads under pressure, but Hampshire county council studies show that 5 per cent. of the county's strategic road network is currently over capacity and that by the year 2011, 46 per cent. of Hampshire's strategic road network will be over capacity, partly because Hampshire's car ownership is slightly above the national average at 0.41 of a car per household compared with the national average of 0.38 of a car per household.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Mr. Viggers: Should there be anyone in the Public Gallery this evening, I am sure that the 10 o'clock motion will have completely baffled them, as it always does.
  I was about to make the point that, interestingly, Gosport's car ownership is reflected in the fact that 29 per cent. of households do not have motor cars compared with 24 per cent. in the rest of Hampshire. That poses the intriguing possibility that a means of transport that does not rely on cars might be attractive to local residents.
  Against that background, Hampshire county council has been making its plans and is currently at the consultative stage of its review of the Hampshire county structure plan which takes the present planning period from the year 2001 through to the year 2011.
  The consultative document quotes my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as saying:
  "We need to put urban structures into place today which face up to the environmental challenges of tomorrow. One challenge will be persuading people to make the right transport choice. We shall seek to influence those choices through various initiatives."
  The document continues:
  "These initiatives will include reducing the length and number of motorised journeys which people need to make; encouraging alternative means of transport".
  That is exactly where this evening's Adjournment debate comes in, with the proposal of an alternative system.
  Within the guidelines that I have just recited, Hampshire county council has formulated the south-east Hampshire transportation strategy to comply with the Government who wish to see bids for funding in a package deal. Hampshire has done that.
  One proposal that has been put forward is for a regional metro, which is a much more ambitious rapid transit link than the one I am talking about. It would included transit links between Portsmouth and Southampton as well. but I should stress that, although the Gosport plan for a rapid transport system would be an integral part of that regional metro, the Gosport proposal stands alone. It does not stand or fall by being part of the regional metro system.
  The Gosport scheme would run from Fareham station with a loop in Fareham. It would go through Gosport and to Portsmouth town station. I have, of course, discussed the issue with my colleagues. My right hon. Friend the member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) are all extremely interested in the project and wish it well. I am delighted that they have supported the scheme by their presence here in the House. I appreciate that very much.
  The present scheme would start from Fareham station. It would run for 5 km along a partially disused rail freight line that is used rarely by the Ministry of Defence and a
  460
  further 4 km along a disused railway line running alongside a cycle way and a pedestrian footpath. It would then go to Gosport town centre, the High street area and under Portsmouth harbour in a new immersed tube tunnel, to emerge near Portsmouth harbour railway station before moving on to Portsmouth town.
  That is a densely populated corridor, with 23,000 households within 600 m of the route of the proposed system. There is no doubt that the system, if implemented, would be of massive benefit locally. First, it would help all those who travel to work between the Fareham and Portsmouth axis, with many places of work being on the route or close to it. Secondly, it would help shoppers, providing access to shops in Fareham and Portsmouth—and, even more important from my constituency point of view, to shops in Gosport, which currently suffer from the lack of good road communications. Thirdly, it would be helpful to schools: the proposed route would be near to a number of large schools.
  Finally, the system would be very beneficial to tourism. We in the Portsmouth-Gosport area are keen to promote tourism, and we have some major attractions—HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, to name but two. There are many other attractions, including in my constituency the submarine museum, Priddy's Hard museum and Fort Brockhurst. We do not want people to visit south Hampshire for one day, perhaps visiting HMS Victory before going home; we are keen to promote the idea of visiting the area for a long weekend, and taking full advantage of all the attractions. The presence of tourists for several days at a time would build up hotel and restaurant capacity, making the Portsmouth harbour area a natural holiday resort. Such a development would be considerably aided by a light rapid transit system.
  The present scheme proposes 12 vehicles making some 15 stops on the 14 km of the route. It would take some 28 minutes to make the total journey, and maximum capacity would be about 3,600 passengers an hour. That would mean between 30,000 and 40,000 passengers a day—about 9 million a year, according to the current projection.
  Schemes of this nature have been studied since the 1970s, but it was not until the 1980s that real progress was made. In 1989, a pre-feasibility study looked into demand, costings and engineering aspects; in 1990, a private sector consortium examined the project. In 1991, Hampshire county council sponsored a study of whether a light rapid transit system based on trams, a guided bus system or a partially guided bus system was preferable, and concluded that the present system of trams was best. That was followed by public consultation, and in 1993 merchant bankers and transport planning consultants were employed.
  A total of £100,000 has been spent on trial borings under Portsmouth harbour to test the acceptability of the soil for the proposed tunnel. Hydrological studies have been conducted to ensure that Portsmouth harbour will not be unduly affected by the tunnel. An operational audit has been carried out by a French team, which is responsible for running comparable systems in Grenoble and Nantes. Gosport now has a team of six people, headed by Mr. Fraser Smith, who has relevant experience with the Hong Kong mass transit railway and with Ove Arup and Partners. A serious proposal is now seriously being studied.

  461
  The mission strategy is:
  "To have received approval by the Secretary of State for Transport of an order through the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure before 31st March 1997."
  The project team will also seek the best funding method. The latest cost estimate for the whole scheme is about £104 million, of which private capital might provide about 50 per cent. The team will of course consider the best manner of integrating private capital into such a scheme before asking for the Minister's assistance, and much detailed study and negotiation will be needed. The vehicles themselves, or even the tunnel, may well be franchised or leased. There is much work to be done.
  Public sector support would be by way of a section 56 grant under the Transport Act 1968. An earlier study in 1992 led the Department of Transport to write on 16 June 1992:
  "We consider that, although the analysis will require further refinement, at this stage of the appraisal the economics of the scheme look relatively robust."
  That was encouraging, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that nothing has happened to make the Department feel less confident than it did in 1992.
  My final point concerns perceptions—how public transport is seen. Public transport had suffered for many years from under-investment and restrictive union practices. Much public transport has been dirty, cold and unreliable, and accordingly has a bad reputation; but the Government have invested a great deal to improve the position—and rightly so, because the capacity of roads to absorb further cars is not absolute. The light rail transport system would be a dramatic force for good in south Hampshire, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to extend his good wishes to the project.
  10.10 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing this debate on the proposed light rapid transit line, which would link Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham. I acknowledge in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who I know have an interest in the project.
  I shall try to deal with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport in the time that is available. In March 1988, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), wrote to my hon. Friend in reply to a proposal for a light rail scheme linking Fareham and Gosport. He gave my hon. Friend the same answer that I can give the new proposals today: it is for local commercial interests or local authorities to pursue local public transport projects. In that letter, my hon. Friend added:
  "it cannot be denied that implementing light rail proposals takes time and is more complicated than may at first be realised."
  He was, as ever, a master of understatement.
  In 1989, Hampshire county council commissioned its pre-feasibility study. One of the corridors that it examined was the subject of today's debate—the Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham corridor. Discussions
  462
  between the Department of Transport and Hampshire county council officials continued and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said, in November 1991 the council commissioned transportation planning consultants to investigate the scope for obtaining section 56 grant. The preliminary report showed that an outline economic case existed for a rapid transit system along the Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham corridor.
  Hampshire county council has continued to progress the scheme, including putting it out to public consultation. Its dialogue with my officials continues. It plans to confirm its 1992 case for grant in the next few months, to apply for powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in mid-1996, and to examine the scope for private sector involvement.
  I understand that Hampshire county council is awaiting results from the south-east Hampshire transportation study, which is under way and scheduled to finish at the end of March this year. That will be an important study because its results will enable us to test the patronage forecasts on which the light rapid transit option is based, and the figures in the 1991–92 study. That could, ultimately, be an important part of the section 56 appraisal. The study should also allow us find out whether light rail is the best option in terms of an overall transport package for south Hampshire.
  Let me discuss the process of introducing a light rail scheme. There are three elements: the appraisal of the scheme to see if it qualifies for Government grant, the need to obtain statutory powers under the Transport and Works Act and the application for funding if the scheme passes the appraisal test. In all this, the most important element is to establish in general terms whether a scheme is worth funding before spending large sums of public money in getting powers and in getting into the detailed appraisal of the case for grant.
  If Hampshire county council wants to make progress, it needs first to establish that the scheme is "in principle" worth funding. It also needs to get on with involving the private sector, not only in the development of the scheme but in establishing the case for attracting developer contributions and for locating other sources of local finance.
  I was interested in the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport quoted about the informal estimates for private sector involvement. Clearly, the lower the overall cost of the scheme to my Department, the more likely it is that we will, ultimately, be able to afford it. That is not just a truism; it points to the considerable need to ensure that every opportunity for involving the private sector is taken in terms both of operations and of commercial development. My hon. Friend referred to such opportunities.
  I would like this to happen: before Hampshire embarks on obtaining powers under the Transport and Works Act and commissioning further work on a full economic case, it should collaborate with the private sector in developing the outline case for the scheme and exploring funding approaches which will reduce the call on the public purse.
  Private finance brings many advantages to light rail innovation, improved management, the transfer of a considerable degree of risk and, not least, a reduction in the level of public sector support required. There is no set

  463
  percentage of private finance over which the Government will support a scheme; each scheme will be different and each will need to be examined in detail on its merits.
  We are expecting the private sector to play its part. Light rail can make a healthy operating profit; the current systems in operation in Britain amply demonstrate that. Where a transport scheme brings benefits which are primarily local in character, it is not unreasonable to suggest that central Government should not be expected to foot the whole bill.
  I should like to make some general points on the policy context in which light rail schemes are set. There is no doubt about our commitment to the general principle of supporting light rail schemes. We know that they can play a role in relieving urban congestion in some of our major cities. Government funding has already supported schemes such as the docklands light railway, the Greater Manchester metrolink and the south Yorkshire supertram. On 13 December 1994, in the last settlement, we set aside funds for two new schemes—the Croydon tramlink and the midland metro line 1.
  Other towns and cities are developing proposals for light rail projects, but one of the most important things to remember is that these schemes are expensive and are not the only answer to urban transport problems. Even in Manchester, where metrolink has been a great success, its overall contribution to reducing congestion is to remove just three cars in a thousand from Greater Manchester's roads. Manchester metrolink is an excellent system and is very effective at serving passengers on the Bury to Altrincham line, but it illustrates the fact that no single light rail line can be the whole solution to a city's congestion problem.
  That said, this Government see light rail as well worth support where it can play a significant part—and every car removed is significant. The presence of such a scheme allows the local authority to think of sensible vehicle restraint measures allied with the light rail scheme, which can have a substantial effect on the levels of congestion to which my hon. Friend referred on the spine road from Fareham to Alverstoke.
  If light rail is to receive Government support, it must contribute to the Government's overall policy aims for local transport. Those are, broadly, a policy for urban areas to make cities better places in which to live and to improve the quality of urban life. To underpin that, we need to reduce car use wherever that is possible. We are trying to do that not only by reducing traffic congestion but by encouraging the use of alternatives to the private car, while, at the same time, preserving access to traditional urban centres.
  There is no doubt that to bring about a reduction in car use there needs to be a modal shift—a transfer from cars to public transport. If that does not happen, we are merely suppressing economic demand and social activity in a way that the community will not accept. There must be a balance. We also need to improve facilities for walking and cycling. In the longer term, we are looking to policies that put the places where people live, work, shop and enjoy their leisure time closer together, so obviating the need for travel.
  464
  In 1994–95, the then Secretary of State introduced what was called the package approach to local transport funding.
  Mr. Michael Trend indicated assent.
  Mr. Norris: That is something on which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) is an acknowledged expert and master, and I am glad to see my hon. Friend in his place and taking such an interest in tonight's debate.
  The package approach is an important development in the way in which the Government support spending on transport by local authorities. It says to local authorities that they should not bid simply on the basis of individual schemes that are specific to one local authority. Instead, recognising the fact that most of those transport issues are wider strategic issues, it tells local authorities to bid, as part of a package of authorities, for a package of schemes that allow us to develop strategic alternatives.
  The approach has been very much welcomed by local authorities of all political persuasions, and it has produced some very effective and imaginative conclusions this year. It is essentially about the strategic approach that considers transport in the round and demonstrably gives us better results than those that continue to consider measures in isolation.
  It is for local authorities to decide the detail of those transport strategies. They need to consider all forms of transport and they need to tailor their plans to the circumstances of the district. Sometimes, that will mean light rail, but often—I say that in the general context of considering such schemes—other policies and schemes will be more effective, and considerably cheaper, than light rail.
  It is important therefore that one should consider the light rail scheme as growing out of a local authority's coherent overall transport strategy, not simply as a nice piece of froth superimposed on top of it. A problem must have been identified for which light rail is the best solution. It is not enough that local authorities think that it would be a nice idea to have some shiny new trams.
  That being the context in which one regards those light rail schemes, I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport that, as we have previously said, there is, at this stage at least, an outline case to be made for the Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth line to which he refers. No event that has transpired since he received that earlier assurance would cause the Department to change its mind in that regard.
  Let me say a word about the processes that it will be necessary to pursue from here on in. Since the passage of the Transport and Works Act 1992, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport referred, the promoters have needed to seek an order under section 1 of that Act to obtain the necessary powers—that Act essentially replacing the private Bill process with which we were all previously familiar.
  I understand that Hampshire officials have held discussions with my Department's processing unit about the Transport and Works Act procedures, and I can confirm that we shall be happy to provide any further help that Hampshire requires in that respect.

  465
  Briefly, those procedures require the application to be made to the Secretary of State. It must be accompanied by several supporting documents, including full plans, and an environmental statement, which is obviously important in any scheme of that type these days, and the notices must be published in the London Gazette and in one or more local newspapers.
  Objectors have their rights. They have six weeks in which to lodge objections and, if there is a sufficient number of objections, a local public inquiry would be held by an independent inspector. The Secretary of State would then have to decide whether the scheme should be approved, having taken into account the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector.
  It is difficult, in all honesty, to predict how long in practice that process takes, unless one has any idea of what type of objections may be circulating. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, in the case of a scheme such as the one that we are discussing, which generally is likely to be extremely well received locally, objections can, in effect, still be petitions from those with property interests in the area or with other commercial interests that they feel will be affected by the scheme.
  Until one is aware of the totality of the objections, it is difficult to give a more concrete guidance on how long the procedure will take. Given that the inquiry might last about a month, it should be possible for a decision to be announced in about 18 months from the date of the application.
  In view of the quasi-judicial nature of the Secretary of State's role in the process, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment specifically on the detailed merits of the council's scheme at this stage. That is why I have taken the time available to outline the process and show our general interest in allowing that process to continue.
  The promoters have to establish whether the LRT scheme is worth building. An outline financial and economic case leading to a bid for Government support needs to be prepared. Because light rail systems are so expensive, detailed assessments of individual schemes must be completed before a decision is made on whether assistance from public funds is appropriate. Given the prohibitive level of capital costs, it is highly unlikely that anyone would be able to build and operate an LRT scheme profitably without grant.
  My hon. Friend was right to refer to section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 which permits the Secretary of State to give a grant for certain large new public transport infrastructure projects where there are exceptional reasons for using specific grants to spread the cost beyond users and local charge payers. The grant is used to fund these light rail schemes and the other schemes to which I referred.
  It is for the promoters to establish whether the light rail system is the best possible option. They have to look at patronage, potential local benefits and at the reduction in congestion. Underpinning all that is the question whether
  466
  the benefit to the economy will be greater than the cost. Light rail schemes are appraised on the basis of commercial viability and are supported by a full cost-benefit analysis covering benefits to users as well as to non-users. The non-user benefits are particularly important.
  I have already said that light rail is expensive. It has high costs compared with roads, new railway stations, public transport interchanges, bus-based park and ride, and so on. However, expensive though that may be, Manchester has shown that, in many cases, it can be worth it.
  As I have said, the funds which we have will depend on competition from all other local transport projects. It stands to reason that, if we can increase the level of private and local finance for the schemes, we should be able to support more light rail schemes over a shorter time scale.
  When a local authority is promoting a scheme, the Government will expect it to examine the scope for private sector involvement in construction and in the operation of the scheme. The Department will also expect local authorities sponsoring projects to use the competitive tendering process wherever possible. In some cases, it might be appropriate to have a single contract for the design, build, operation and maintenance—the DBOM concept—and for the whole of that single contract to be put out to tender.
  In those cases, the amount of grant will be based on the amount required by the successful tenderer. Normally, that tenderer will be the bidder requiring the least public sector subsidy. In other cases, it may be appropriate for different elements of the scheme—design and build and operation and maintenance—to be treated as separate projects. There is sufficient flexibility in the section 56 arrangements for that to be taken into account.
  The advice that my hon. Friend was given in 1988 was and still is correct. It is because light rail systems are so expensive that that sort of long and detailed assessment of individual schemes has to be performed before a decision is made on whether assistance from public funds is applicable.
  My hon. Friend has put his case with great clarity. He has made it clear that he does not expect me to produce a signed cheque from my pocket this evening—I am grateful for that, because I fear that I do not have it with me. I hope that he will have gathered that we recognise that the concept of light rail has real value in solving some of the more deep-seated problems of urban congestion and that we recognise that the Hampshire study has revealed a case that can realistically be taken forward. I hope that that is the assurance that my hon. Friend sought.
  I am sure that Hampshire will want to examine the record of tonight's proceedings and I must say that it is important to try to do as much of the work as possible to establish the—
  The motion having been made at 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 accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of 67 letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I sent a total of 89 letters to hon. Members last month while my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, sent a total of 40.

TRANSPORT

  Nuclear Material (Sea Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the International Maritime Organisation code of practice on the sea transport of nuclear material of November 1993 was incorporated into United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Norris
  The International Maritime Organisation's code for the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high level radioactive wastes in flasks on board ships, agreed in November 1993, has not been incorporated into United Kingdom law. The code is voluntary and few states have incorporated it into law. Ships carrying such cargoes to or from United Kingdom ports will be expected to comply with the code's requirement. In the case of United Kingdom-registered ships carrying such cargoes, letters of compliance with the code would be issued by the Marine Safety Agency if it was satisfied that the ships so complied. Foreign flagged ships are required to have letters of compliance issued by their marine administrations.

  MOT
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the number of lives which have been saved by the MOT system during the last 30 years;

  (2) what estimate he has made of how much it has cost, and how much extra mileage has been travelled to carry out MOTs in the last 30 years;

  (3) how many people have been employed by the MOT system during the last 30 years.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested can be provided, if available, only at disproportionate cost.

  Bus Operations, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he holds about the number of occasions on which bus operators in Greater Manchester have been(a) warned about safety defects on their buses and (b) ordered to cease operation of buses because of safety reasons for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Pay)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  Mr. Norris
  Four NDPBs sponsored by my Department have paid staff. The pay arrangements for all of these will be unchanged in April 1995.

  For April 1996 the Trinity House Lighthouse Service, the Northern Lighthouse board and the London Regional passenger committee intend to follow the Department's central pay arrangements arrangements.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the Minister of State cancelled his presentation to the west coast main line all-party committee; what is the current position regarding the west coast main line feasibility study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  I am currently awaiting advice from Railtrack on the implementation strategy for the project. Once I have that advice, I will be in a better position to discuss the way forward with the committee.

  The planned meeting was cancelled after I had consulted with the joint chairmen of the committee. I have written to all members of the committee who attended the cancelled meeting.

  P-plate
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to introducing a system by which newly qualified drivers are required by law to display a P-plate on their vehicle to identify to other drivers that they are still inexperienced; what representations he has received on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The introduction of probationary plates—P-plates—was one of the options included for comment in the new driver safety consultation paper of August 1993. This option received a mixed response from consultees and it was decided to consider it further when the full results were available of a study into the of "Restricted" plates in Northern Ireland. This study has recently been completed; it concluded that "Restricted" plates did not have a discernible effect on accident reduction.

  Railways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of railway track are in areas of the country where train drivers are un to communicate with signal boxes by telephone.

  Mr. John Watts
  At present, no more than 500 miles of the rail network—representing approximately 5 per cent. of the route mileage—are in areas not covered by the national radio network which enables these communications to take place. Within the next 12 months, as a result of a substantial investment programme, this will be reduced to 200 miles—representing approximately 2 per cent. of the route mileage—excluding tunnels and cuttings. Complete coverage by the national radio network is not reasonably practicable.

  Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce proposals for the future of the taxi and private hire vehicle trades.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have today published their response to the Transport Select Committee's fourth report on taxi and private hire vehicles. The response, Command Paper 2715, forms the Government's official statement on the outcome of the taxi review.

  The most important features of the response are:
  Taxis will continue to have the exclusive right to ply for hire—that is, be hailed—in the street and at ranks. Private hire vehicles, including minicabs, will not be allowed to ply for hire in the street. They will have to be booked in advance as now.
  For reasons of public safety, particularly of vulnerable passengers, private hire vehicles, minicabs, in London will be subject to a form of control similar to that operating outside London. This will include criminal record checks for drivers, and may include a test to ensure they have an adequate knowledge of the roads in the area whey they are based.
  A requirement will be introduced that all taxis shall be accessible to people who are wheelchair users. However, this requirement will he phased in over a period of several years, to give taxi owners time to replace their vehicles. In those places where there are existing target dates for taxis to become wheelchair accessible, they will still be expected to meet them. This requirement will not mean that all taxis will have to be London "black cabs"; local authorities will be able to license any vehicle which is wheelchair accessible and which meets such additional requirements as are considered necessary to meet local conditions.
  The power of district councils to restrict taxi numbers will be phased out over a number of years to give some protection to those who have made considerable investment in taxi plates—licences. However, there will be no reduction in quality control. Licensing authorities will be able to apply for a derogation from abolition of number control from the Department of Transport in exceptional circumstances.

  The aim is to replace the existing legislation in due course.

  Copies of the response are available from the Vote Office.

  Aircraft Noise Levels
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the noise levels on take-off created by(a) the Ilyushin 76 and (b) the Antonov 12.

  Mr. Norris
  Noise certification data provided by the Russian Civil Aviation Authority show that at a190
  certificated take-off weight of 170 tonnes, the IL-76TD with D-30KP engines has a noise level of 102.7 EPNdB—sideline—and 103.1 EPNdB—flyover. Equivalent data do not exist for the AN-12 but its estimated performance is within the range 93 to 95.9 EPNdB at a take-off weight of 61 tonnes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Norris
  In January this year, 1,290 letters were received in the Department of Transport from hon. Members.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Norris
  In January this year, 1,935 letters were sent to hon. Members by Ministers in the Department of Transport. This breaks down by Minister as follows:

  Ministers

  Number of letters sent to hon. Members in January

  Dr. Brian Mawhinney

  109

  John Watts

  1,045

  Steven Norris

  679

  Viscount Goschen

  102

  Total

  1,935

  Rail Projects
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the details of the rail and light rail projects to be given capital financial assistance by his Department in 1995–96; and what proportion of total expenditure on such projects will he spent in Scotland.

  Mr. Watts
  Financial provision for the national railways in 1995–96 is expected to provide for some £1 billion of investment, of which about three quarters will be publicly funded. It is for the railway operators to allocate resources across the rail network in Great Britain.

  On light rail we will continue to fund the South Yorkshire supertram project, and we have set aside funding for two new schemes—Croydon Tramlink and Midland Metro line 1—subject to satisfactory financing arrangements being agreed. The Secretary of State for Transport is not responsible for light rail schemes in Scotland.

  Rail Privatisation (Fees)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date, and for what reason, information concerning fees paid to companies and partnerships employed by his Department to provide advice or assistance with rail privatisation became commercially confidential.

  Mr. Watts
  Information about specific fees paid on individual commissions has always been commercially confidential.
  191
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received from(a) consultants, (b) other outside organisations or (c) individuals concerning the publication of information detailing fees paid to companies and partnerships employed by his Department to provide advice or assistance with rail privatisation.

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Driving Test
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be able to offer guidance on the nature and content of the theory test element of the new driving test.

  Mr. Norris
  Soon.

WALES

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what accumulated balances are currently held by each of the grant-maintained schools in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 February c.610]: Two of the schools listed should have shown deficits in the accumulated balances. The schools are as follow:

  Schools

  £

  Pen-Y-Bryn, Clwyd

  1,546

  Cwmcarn, Gwent

  18,510

  Council House Receipts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will release the receipts from the sale of council housing on to Deeside to Alyn and Deeside district council to build homes for rent and repair council houses, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Councils in Wales can use some or all of their new right-to-buy receipts depending on their indebtedness. If they are still in debt, they have to use only 75 per cent. of right-to-buy receipts to reduce debt. The balance is available for new capital spending. When they are debt free, councils can use the full amount of new right-to-buy receipts for capital spending. There are no plans to change section 64 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as it applies to the reserved part of capital receipts.

  At 31 March last year, Alyn and Deeside district council had usable capital receipts of £1,000,000 and council housing debt of £23,000,000. Welsh district councils had total council housing debt of £1,203,000,000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.
  192
  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 257.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  During January 1995, I sent 102 letters to individual Members and one letter to Welsh Opposition leaders. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) sent 190 letters to individual members and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) sent 143 letters to individual members and two letters to all Welsh members.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Sweeny
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will make an announcement about the reorganisation of community health councils in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am grateful to all those who responded to our consultation paper last year regarding the reorganisation of community health councils in Wales. Having considered all the responses, I am now able to announce revised proposals.

  CHCs have an important role in ensuring that the health service is responsive to patients' needs, and attentive to their complaints.

  I am no advocate of reorganisation for its own sake, but changes to health authority boundaries will make some adjustments necessary. Where CHC and local authorities boundaries can be matched up easily it is worthwhile to do this too, but where it would mean redrawing the map completely and disturbing arrangements that work well at present it is not.

  I have decided on boundary changes that will be useful but will not cause unnecessary upheaval. I want CHCs to be able to concentrate on their job in the months ahead, not worry about reorganising themselves.

  Subject to consideration of any further representations I may receive, I shall therefore propose regulations to bring about, by 1 April 1996, the boundary and name changes listed as follows, and neither to create any wholly new nor merge any existing CHCs.

  (a) Minor boundary changes between the following CHCs:

  South Clwyd and Montgomery CHCs;

  Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend CHCs;

  Swansea-Lliw Valley and Neath-Port Talbot CHCs;

  Cardiff and East Glamorgan CHCs;

  Following the boundary changes, the CHCs will correspond with the new LA areas.

  (b) Transfer the responsibility for representing people in the present Borough of Islwyn from South Gwent CHC to Rhymney Valley CHC to create a new CHC covering all of the new Caerphilly LA area:

  (c) Transfer responsibility for most of the present Borough of Colwyn from North Clwyd CHC to Aberconwy CHC to create a new CHC covering all of the new Aberconwy and Colwyn LA area:

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much United Kingdom funding has been made available for the third
  193
  international airport at Eldoret, Kenya; and what is the total cost of the project;

  (2) what representations have been made by him to the Kenyan Government concerning a third international airport at Eldoret, Kenya;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to suspend British Government donor support to Kenya if the Kenyan Government proceed with the construction of a third international airport in Eldoret, Kenya.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The total cost of the proposed Eldoret airport is believed to be $85 million. We have no firm information about the source of financing. We, and other donors, have raised with the Government of Kenya the priority of this project. No United Kingdom aid funds have been, or will be, made available.

  This project is likely to be one of a range of issues discussed during forthcoming missions of the IMF and World bank, the outcome of which will be an important factor in deciding future aid levels.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month;

  (2) how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Newton
  In the course of January, I received from hon. Members 12 letters, some of which were dealt with informally, and sent seven. I have today replied to the hon. Member's own letter of 20 January.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Waste Paper Recycling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what is the policy of the House on the recycling of waste paper.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Non-confidential waste paper from the House is sent for recycling under arrangements made by the Serjeant at Arms.

  Westminster Hall
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has to install a large television screen in Westminster Hall for any future debates on disablement for those disabled wishing to attend such a debate to follow the proceedings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  None. Although the Administration Committee is the appropriate body to initially consider a proposal of this kind, any extension of the arrangements whereby the use of Westminster Hall is permitted for lobbies of disabled people, and to provide access for those with disabilities attending mass lobbies, is ultimately a matter for the authorities which control the Hall.

  Minister Without Portfolio
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make provisions to enable the Minister Without Portfolio to answer oral questions about the matters for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

TREASURY

  Life Insurance (Tax)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what public explanation was given by Ministers at the time that savings through insurance companies accumulated after a 25 per cent. tax charge when PEPs and TESSAs accumulated without tax.

  Sir George Young
  The fundamentals of the current tax regime for life insurance predate PEPs and TESSAs by a long way. Life insurance companies are taxed year by year on the income and gains accruing for the benefit of their life insurance policyholders. The nominal tax rate is 25 per cent., the same as the basic rate. But a deduction is allowed for the expenses of managing the business, including the costs of commissions to intermediaries and other costs of acquiring business, so the true rate is somewhat less than 25 per cent. The aim is to tax saving through life insurance in the same way as other types of taxed savings.

  PEPs and TESSAs are much more recent innovations. Each was introduced to serve a particular need; PEPs to channel more investment into industry and TESSAs to encourage more people to take up the savings habit and to make the deposits of ordinary savers less liquid. A persuasive case has not been made out for altering the tax rules applying to save via life insurance following the introduction of PEPs and TESSAs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A total of 1,523.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters were sent to the hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested for January 1995 is as follows:

  Minister

  Number

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  116

  Chief Secretary

  48

  Financial Secretary

  286

  Paymaster General

  656

  Minister of State

  205

  Income Tax
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures comparing the income tax threshold for a single-wage married couple with their weekly supplementary benefit/income support allowances at each benefit uprating date since 1979,
  195
  including April 1995 and also showing what the figures in April 1995 would be if the married couple's allowance has already been phased out.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The table shows the annualised supplementary benefit/income support scale rates and the annual income tax thresholds, during the period concerned. There is no logical relationship between the two: the tax threshold reflects allowances which are a mechanism to distribute the tax burden, while supplementary benefit/income support is a payment designed to provide a basic level of subsistence.

  The married couple's allowance has not been phased out, so no alternative figure for April 1995 is shown.

  Married couple with one income1 and no children

  Uprating dates

  Supplementary Benefit/income Support annual rate £

  Income Tax Threshold £

  November 1979

  1,554.40

  1,815

  November 1980

  1,799.20

  2,145

  November 1981

  1,963.00

  2,145

  November 1982

  2,168.40

  2,445

  November 1983

  2,262.00

  2,795

  November 1984

  2,368.60

  3,155

  November 1985

  2,488.20

  3,455

  July 1986

  2,516.80

  3,655

  April 1987

  2,566.20

  3,795

  April 1988

  2,675.40

  4,095

  April 1989

  2,849.60

  4,375

  April 1990

  2,995.20

  4,725

  April 1991

  3,237.00

  5,015

  April 1992

  3,463.20

  5,165

  April 1993

  3,588.00

  5,165

  April 1994

  3,728.40

  5,165

  April 1995

  3,796.00

  4,815

  1 Up to 1990 the assumption is that only the husband has earnings.

  Income support replaced supplementary benefit in April 1988. The ordinary annual rate has been used for supplementary benefit and no premiums have been included under income support.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has issued to non-executive members of boards of non-departmental public bodies and to the chief accounting officers of those bodies as to whether payment to such board members should be normally classified as self-employment or employment for tax purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 21 February 1995]: No special instructions have been issued. In common with all individuals, the employment status for tax purposes of non-executive members of boards of non-departmental public bodies and chief accounting officers of those bodies depends on the facts of the case and is determined by applying general law to those facts. Such individuals would normally be regarded as office holders and chargeable to tax under schedule E on the emoluments of that office. Tax under PAYE should he deducted from such emoluments in the normal way.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, columns 479–80, what advice he has received from the Council of Mortgage Lenders as to the likely effect of the proposed changes to income support towards mortgage repayments on the level of repossessions.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Council of Mortgage Lenders has advised that it expects the number of repossessions to increase as a result of the proposed changes. We are listening carefully to its concerns but believe that these proposals will result in the development of comprehensive quality insurance and will provide better protection for all home owners, not just those who currently get help from income support mortgage interest.

ENVIRONMENT

  Opencast Coal Mining, Oxfordshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the contractors wishing to development opencast coal mining in Oxfordshire had submitted planning applications up to 31 December 1994.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bids under the single regeneration budget were received by his Department; and how much money is to be allocated.

  Mr. Curry
  Some 469 bids for support from the first bidding round of the single regeneration budget were received by my Department, of which 201 were successful. Those 201 bids are expected to receive, subject to satisfactory performance and the availability of resources, some £1.1 billion in SRB resources over their lifetime of up to seven years.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. William O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; and if he will list those recommendations he proposes to implement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Health and for Transport have welcomed the RCEP's report as a major contribution to our work in promoting sustainable development in the transport sector but have pointed out that we would need to look very carefully at the implications of its recommendations for individuals and the economy.

  We are currently considering the terms of the Government's response to the report and have sought a broad public debate on the issues raised. We shall consider all these points fully before making a response.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether under article 21 of the draft Avon (Structural Change) Order the county council will require the agreement of all transferee authorities affected in order to continue with consultation on preparation of any plans effected after 8 May.

  Mr. Curry
  No. However the county council will need to bear in mind that the duty to consult on plans relating to the exercise of county level functions after the reorganisation date will rest with the successor authorities and that all authorities will have the duty to co-operate.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a statement setting out his intentions for the future of local government structure in the Goole area and the specific powers under the Local Government Act 1992 under which he proposes to implement these.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend intends, under powers in section 131 of the Local Government Act 1992, to direct the Local Government Commission to undertake a review of the boundaries between Selby, Boothferry, Glanford and Doncaster districts with a view to considering a full range of options for the future of local government in Goole. Pending the results of that review the town of Goole, and rural Goole, will remain in that part of Boothferry district which will form part of the new East Riding unitary authority when that is established.

  Incineration Installations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from local authorities for financial assistance to ensure that incineration installations are(a) safe and (b) comply with European Union regulations regarding emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware of any such representations having been received.

  Fast-stream Entry
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The proportion of female fast-streamers accepted over the last four years for which my Department is responsible is as follows:

  1991: 5 out of 9 (56 per cent.)

  1992: 1 out of 8 (12.5 per cent.)

  1993: 4 out of 8 (50 per cent.)

  1994: 3 out of 7 (43 per cent.)

  Waste
  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the volume and the proportion not recycled of(a) coal waste, (b) domestic waste and (c) nuclear waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest figures we have for coal waste are from Arup's report in 1991, "Occurrence and 198
  Utilisation of Mineral and Construction Wastes" which gives a figure of 45 million tonnes of annual arisings of colliery spoil of which around 94 per cent.—42.2 million tonnes—is not recycled.

  The consultation paper "A Waste Strategy for England and Wales" published earlier this year, gives a figure of some 20 million tonnes of household waste being produced annually, of which 90 per cent. is landfilled, 5 per cent. is recycled and 5 per cent. is incinerated.

  Information on radioactive waste produced in the United Kingdom can be found in the "UK Radioactive Waste Inventory 1991" which is in the Library. There is no separate figure for the proportion or volume of radioactive waste which is not recycled.

  "Shopping Centres and their Future"
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Government's response to the Environment Committee's report, "Shopping Centres and their Future".

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government's response is published today. Copies have been presented to the Chairman of the Environment Committee and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's records show that 1,463 letters were received from hon. Members during the last month.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by Ministers in the Department.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's records show that the number of letters sent by each Minister in the Department to the hon. Members during the last month, is as follows:

  Minister

  Number

  Secretary of State

  161

  Lord Ullswater

  64

  Mr. Atkins

  215

  Mr. Curry

  734

  Sir P. Beresford

  346

  Mr. Jones

  405

  Bathing Water Directive
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Department's study into the costs of implementing the European Commission's proposed revision of the bathing water directive has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultants' cost study commissioned by the Department has now been completed. It shows the estimated costs of meeting the standards in the
  199
  Commission's proposed revision of the bathing water directive and a number of other possible outcomes of the forthcoming negotiations. Any such expenditure would be in addition to the estimated costs of implementing the existing bathing water and the urban waste water treatment directives.

  Discussion of the Commission's proposal in the Community is still at the initial stages and the United Kingdom's cost study should help to inform future negotiations.

  Copies of the cost study will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Site Type

  Location

  Pollutant

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Automatic monitoring

  Bridge Place, Westminster

  ozone

  11 ppb

  11 ppb

  13 ppb

  nitrogen dioxide

  39 ppb

  34 ppb

  35 ppb

  carbon monoxide

  1.0 ppm

  0.9 ppm

  0.8 ppm

  sulphur dioxide

  9 ppb

  8 ppb

  6 ppb

  Non-automatic nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubes

  Intercontinental Hotel, Park Lane

  nitrogen dioxide

  —

  29 ppb

  —

  North Westminster Community School, North Wharf Road

  nitrogen dioxide

  —

  26 ppb

  26 ppb

  33 Belgrave Gardens

  nitrogen dioxide

  —

  17 ppb

  21 ppb

  Drury Lane

  nitrogen dioxide

  —

  —

  24 ppb

  Non-automatic smoke and sulphur dioxide monitoring*

  Public Mortuary, Horseferry Road

  sulphur dioxide

  17 ug/m3

  23 ug/m3

  —

  smoke

  13 ug/m3

  13 ug/m3

  —

  * Monitoring undertaken in co-operation with local authorities.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of financial support the Local Government Commission received in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; and what is planned for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Local Government Commission incurred expenditure of £2.056 million in 1992–93 and £5.146 million in 1993–94. We are making £8.3 million available to the Commission in 1994–95 and intend to make available £2.508 million in 1995–96.

  Rural White Paper
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations that have(a) sent a submission and (b) indicated that they intend to send a submission for the rural White Paper; and if he will place copies of all such submissions in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  A list of organisations from which my Department or that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had received written submissions by 20 February and which have not requested confidentiality has been placed in the House Library. A number of individuals have, in addition, submitted their views.

  Both Departments expect to receive a number of further submissions. The names of organisations making such submissions which do not request confidentiality will he made known after submissions have been received.

  Air Pollution Monitoring
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the nearest air pollution monitoring point to Parliament square; what was the level recorded at the latest date for which figures are available; what was the level one year previously; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 February 1995]: Annual average concentrations of pollutants measured at monitoring sites in the vicinity of Parliament square are presented in the table.

  Copies of submissions which we have not been asked to keep confidential will be made available for inspection in the departmental library in due course. In line with normal departmental practice, a list of those who have up to that point made such submissions will be placed in the House Library.

  Sanitary Ware and Tiles
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which there is sufficient production capacity within(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union to meet demands for the production of sanitary ware and tiles.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Sanitary ware and tiles are items which are traded internationally. Decisions about production capacity and location are taken by industry on the basis of their own assessments of demand for their products.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Jordan Defence Package
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the compliance of the interest rate support offered by the Ministry of Defence since 1986–87 to the Jordan defence package
  201
  with the OECD consensus arrangements for export support.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None. The consensus guidelines for export credit support do not apply to contracts involving military equipment.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries for which export licences were granted in respect of heading PL 5001 of the 1989 and 1994 Export of Goods (Control) Orders and the number of licences issued for such countries.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The following licences were issued from 1 January 1989 to date:

  Country

  Number of licences

  Algeria

  1

  Argentina

  1

  Australia

  1

  Belgium

  2

  Bermuda

  3

  Brazil

  1

  Canada

  1

  Cyprus

  1

  Czech

  1

  Finland

  1

  France

  7

  Gambia

  1

  Ireland

  2

  Jamaica

  1

  Jordan

  3

  Macao

  2

  Malaysia

  3

  Malta

  1

  Mauritius

  2

  Mexico

  1

  Norway

  1

  Poland

  2

  Portugal

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  3

  Singapore

  1

  Solomon Islands

  2

  South Africa

  1

  Sri Lanka

  2

  Switzerland

  1

  USA

  1

  Zimbabwe

  1

  Cable Companies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cable companies currently provide free feeds to educational institutions.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 February,Official Report, column 108.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Some 987 letters were received by Ministers in the Department from hon. Members last month, of which 126 were eventually transferred to other Departments. A further 98 letters were redirected from other Departments to Ministers at DTI. In addition, 12 202
  letters from hon. Members were received by chief executives of departmental agencies.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In total, 711 letters were sent to hon. Members last month by Ministers in the Department, broken down as follows:

  Minister

  Number of letters sent to hon. Members

  President of the Board of Trade

  72

  Minister for Small Firms and Consumer Affairs

  84

  Minister for Trade

  40

  Minister for Industry and Energy

  73

  PUSS for Corporate Affairs

  132

  PUSS for Industry and Energy

  178

  PUSS for Trade and Technology

  132

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 1004, what is the current state of the review into insider dealing, and when he intends to report on his findings to Parliament.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 21 February 1995]: The hon. Member may have misunderstood my hon. Friend's reply to which he refers. My Department is reviewing the law on disclosure of interests in shares as part of a wider review of company law. The law on insider dealing is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Trade Associations
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 341, if he will list the lead employer, industry and trade association or organisations so far referred to him in respect of proposals for a single trade association.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have made it very clear that I wish to encourage a process which leads to more powerful, better resourced and more effective trade associations. Many industrialists share this objective, and officials have been asked to consider with their industry and trade association contacts how best this can be achieved.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are 364 letters from hon. Members recorded on my Department's parliamentary correspondence database as having been received in January 1995.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what was the total cost to the legal aid fund of serious cases for each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not readily available. For criminal legal aid in the Crown court and above it is not possible to identify either the prosecution agency or "serious fraud'' offences from information held centrally. However, it is possible to identify payments made in respect of final bills for the most serious types of fraud offences, namely fraud and false accounting, involving more lengthy trials. Expenditure in the higher criminal courts in respect of those offences, involving trials of 10 days or more, in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Expenditure £ million

  As percentage of total criminal higher legal aid

  1989–90

  5.1

  3.8

  1990–91

  8.9

  5.7

  1991–92

  11.2

  6.0

  1992–93

  20.3

  9.2

  1993–94

  15.8

  6.7

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans he has to make legal aid available, subject to eligibility restrictions, for defamation cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Children and Families
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans his Department has to publish family impact statements with all major policy announcements and new legislation to make clear their intended effect on the welfare of children and families.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no such plans. The intended effect of policy and legislative proposals is made clear in Government publications relating to the family, in particular in consultation papers and reports.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what part his Department plays in the Government's efforts to co-ordinate policy on the law relating to children and the family across different Ministries.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department chairs, and provides the secretariat for, an inter-departmental working party, the family law and administration working party, which oversees work directed at improving family law and administration. In addition, the Lord Chancellor's Department participates in frequent consultation with other Departments about issues which touch upon the family.

  Defamation Cases
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans he has to make it 204
  the responsibility of the presiding judge, rather than the jury, to determine the level of damages for successful plaintiffs in defamation cases that go to trial.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. However, we shall be introducing a new summary procedure, so that the judge will have power to dispose of straightforward claims summarily, instead of sending them to trial.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans he has to impose a limit on the level of damages that can be awarded in defamation cases other than those which are dealt with summarily.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. However, since 1990, the Court of Appeal has had the power, when it finds that the amount of damages awarded by a jury was excessive, to substitute the amount which appears to the court to be proper.

  Complaints
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many complaints his Department has received from(a) members of the public, (b) members of the legal profession and (c) hon. Members about apparent conflicts of interest between the Lord Chancellor's three roles in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A search of my departmental records has revealed no evidence of complaints about apparent conflicts of interest between the Lord Chancellor's three roles.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many complaints from(a) members of the public, (b) members of legal profession and (c) hon. Members his Department has received in each of the last 10 years with regard to the conduct of the judiciary in each different court level.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to provide the information requested except at disproportionate cost.

  Serious Fraud (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what was the total cost to the court system, excluding legal aid costs but including judicial costs, of prosecution for serious fraud in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department does not keep figures on the prosecution of serious fraud cases. The figures can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Crossville Wales Ltd. v. Tracey
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will make a statement on the timetable for hearing the case of Crossville Wales Ltd.v. Tracey in the Court of Appeal; if he will take steps to ensure that the case is heard without delay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The appeal hearing is due to take place at the Court of Appeal on 28 and 29 June 1995. My position as a Minister precludes me from intervening in individual cases; however, it is open to the parties' legal advisers to apply to the court for an expedited hearing date.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many changes there have been to statistics calculating the numbers unemployed since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Like most developed countries the United Kingdom publishes both an administrative and a survey based measure of unemployment. In the United Kingdom the administrative source involves a count of people claiming unemployment-related benefits. The monthly claimant count is more frequent and more timely than the survey-based measure and also gives figures for very small areas. However, in common with other statistics based on administrative systems, the monthly claimant count has inevitably been subject to changes in coverage whenever there have been changes to the administrative procedures on which the statistics are based. These changes are taken into account in the consistent, seasonally adjusted series published by the Employment Department. The latter series allows consistent comparisons over time which are free from distortions and properly adjusted for seasonality.

  Since 1979 there have been nine changes to the coverage of the monthly unemployment count which have had a discernible effect on the figures, three of which have taken place since 1988.

  Details of these changes are given in an article in the December 1990 issue of Employment Gazette entitled "Monthly Unemployment Statistics: Maintaining a Consistent Series" and on page S16 of the April 1994 Employment Gazette; copies of both these documents are available in the Libarary.

  The survey measure of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey is based on ILO guidelines and is entirely independent of the benefit system. Data have been available consistently since spring 1984 on an annual basis and since spring 1992 on a quarterly basis. The LFS provides an internationally comparable measure of unemployment and also provides detailed information on the characteristics of the unemployed not available from the claimant count. In addition, the LFS provides an articulated source of information on employment, unemployment and economic activity.

  Further details of both official measures of unemployment can be obtained from the booklet "How Exactly is Unemployment Measured?", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Training
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places are being provided on training schemes in the northern region in the current year by individual training and enterprise councils; and what was the overall number of Government-sponsored training places in 1978.

  Mr. Paice
  The following number of entrants into training are planned for 1994–95 in northern region:

  TEC

  Number

  Tyneside

  14,047

  County Durham

  9,073

  206

  TEC

  Number

  Sunderland City

  6,505

  Teeside

  10,148

  Northumberland

  4,631

  Total

  44,404

  Information which identifies the overall number of Government-sponsored training places in 1978 is not available at regional level.

  Delegated Pay
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following decisions have been taken so far:

  a) NDPBs that intend to follow the pay arrangements of the Employment Department:

  —Equal Opportunities Commission;

  —Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  b) NDPBs that are pursuing independent arrangements under the delegated pay option:

  —Health and Safety Executive (from April 1995).

  Employers' Liability
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what recent representations he has received from the Health and Safety Commission and others concerning the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969;

  (2) what plans he has to establish a review of the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; if the Trades Union Congress will be represented on the review committee; and if he will list the proposed membership of the committee;

  (3) if he will list the numbers and the names of those individuals and organisations who have made representations to him concerning the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 who have (a) supported and (b) opposed (i) the suggestion that the £2 million minimum cover provided by the Act should be changed and (ii) the decision by the Association of British Insurers no longer to recommend providing unlimited cover to its members.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Following the decision of the United Kingdom insurance industry to cease providing unlimited cover for employers' liability insurance, I received a number of representations that some large industrial and commercial concerns would be unable to comply with the law as it stood from the beginning of this year. After consulting the Health and Safety Commission, I laid before the House amending regulations to ensure that all employers could comply with the law from 1 January 1995. I also announced on 22 December 1994 my intention to carry out a review of the legislation.

  I propose to issue a consultative document shortly seeking views on possible changes to this legislation. It is

  207
  my intention to circulate this widely, so that all interested parties have the opportunity to put their views forward. The Trades Union Congress and HSC will be among those consulted. I will send a copy of the consultative document to the hon. Member.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month;

  (2) how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  During January, the Department received 512 letters from hon. Members. In the same period, 448 ministerial replies were sent. Of these, 19 were answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, 107 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Cambridgeshire, South East (Mr. Paice) and 152 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). I have answered 170 letters.

  South London TEC
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Solotec will agree new contracts with the former providers of training services to South Thames training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Paice
  Solotec is currently drawing up its proposals to undertake training and enterprise council responsibilities in the boroughs of Greenwich and Lewisham. It is for Solotec to determine with which providers it wishes to contract to provide services in the two boroughs. The timing for the agreement of new contracts will depend upon the progress of negotiations between the parties.

  Wakefield TEC
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress Wakefield training and enterprise council is making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence.

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce that Wakefield training and enterprise council has now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standard we set for the award of the new three-year licences. Its licence will be effective from April 1995.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the statement made to the United States Congress House Appropriations Committee on 25 January by Frank Ruddy concerning the United Nations operation in Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to the reply 8 February, Official Report, column 281]: My Department has now seen a copy of the statement submitted by Mr. Frank Ruddy to the sub-committee of the Committee on Appropriations of the US House of Representatives. We
  208
  understand that the UN has now sent a team to the Western Sahara to investigate the allegations made by Mr. Ruddy.

  Western European Union
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the recommendation of the Assembly of Western European Union that the Council of the Western European Union should study the conditions in which the Council might meet as a European security and defence council, either as necessary or on the occasion of meetings of the European Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This recommendation is under consideration by the Permanent Council of the Western European Union, which will evaluate the desirability of holding a WEU meeting at summit level.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken in response to recommendation 538 of the Assembly of Western European Union on security in the Mediterranean; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The WEU Council has set out its views on this issue in its response to recommendation 565 of the Assembly.

  The Council has also considered and endorsed relevant elements of work done in the CFSP framework on the implications for European security of the situation in neighbouring regions including the Mediterranean.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for the participation of the Wastern European Union in missions of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Military units of WEU member states, acting under the authority of the WEU, can be employed for humanitarian and rescue tasks, as the WEU Council of Ministers decided in its Petersburg declaration of June 1992. The Council of Ministers also declared the WEU's willingness to consider any requests for assistance from the OSCE, then CSCE on a case-by-case basis. The OSCE has, as yet, made no formal requests.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the establishment of a multinational European humanitarian intervention force under the auspices of the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is one of the roles of the WEU to provide for a European instrument of reaction in cases where, due to the dimension or urgency of a humanitarian crisis or the need for military protection, military rather than civilian means must be employed.

  United Kingdom forces would be provided on a case-by-case basis, rather than committing ourselves to a standing intervention force which might not be tailored to the requirements of a specific humanitarian crisis.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the Permanent Council of the Western European Union in taking forward the commitment gradually to develop the Western European Union Institute for Security Studies into a European Security and Defence Academy; and if he will make a statement.
  209
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At its meeting on 11 November 1994 in Noordwijk the WEU Council of Ministers reiterated its commitment gradually to develop the Institute for Security Studies into a European Security and Defence Academy and requested the Permanent Council to take this matter forward as a priority.

  Details of the proposal were presented to the Permanent Council of the WEU by the director of the institute at its meetings of 24 January and 7 February 1995.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the European Community to play a more positive role in pressing the Indonesian authorities to ensure human rights.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are in regular contact with our European Union partners about the human rights situation in Indonesia and East Timor and, where appropriate, make known our concerns directly to the Indonesian Government and in such bodies as the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge President Suharto to repeal the anti-subversion law.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The repeal of the anti-subversion law is one of the recommendations of the UN special rapporteur on torture. The UN Commission on Human Rights, of which the United Kingdom is a member, has called repeatedly on the Indonesian Government to take the necessary steps to implement these recommendations.

  Morocco
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the United Kingdom Government are taking up over the proper extent of Moroccan territorial water to be included in the EU-Morocco fishing agreement; and if he will make it his policy that no disputed territorial waters will be so included.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As with all EC fisheries agreements, the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Morocco will not be defined. The United Kingdom Government do not consider the renegotiation of the EC-Morocco fisheries agreement the appropriate place to address the issue of the sovereignty of the former Spanish Sahara.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure a successful conclusion to the conference of state parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty opening in April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our aim at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference is to secure the treaty's indefinite and unconditional extension by a substantial majority. We are lobbying at ministerial and official levels, both bilaterally and as part of an EU joint action, to achieve this aim.

  Fast Stream Entry
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of those accepted for fast stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The percentage of women accepted for fast stream entry to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration in each of the last four years was:

  1991: 29.2 per cent.

  1992: 26.1 per cent.

  1993: 19.2 per cent.

  1994: 30.8 per cent.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Pay)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The British Council is developing proposals for separate pay arrangements from April 1996.

  We expect the following NDPBs to follow the FCO's pay arrangements in April 1996:

  The Britain-Russia Centre

  The Great Britain-China Centre

  The British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  The Foreign Compensation Commission

  The Marshall Commission and the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission are supported by a secretariat provided by the Association of Commonwealth Universities to which the FCO pays a management fee. The staff of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy are retained on short-term contracts. We see no reason to change these arrangements.

  It would be premature to comment on pay arrangements for the Commonwealth Institute before its business plan is submitted in July 1995.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Nations reports the Government have received about the supply of products to the Iraqi plant at Ad Dwar and Salman Pak by United Kingdom-based companies or their subsidiaries over the last five years; if he will name those companies and what they supplied; what prior knowledge or approval was given by Her Majesty's Government; and what measures he proposes to take in this matter.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is not our practice to comment in detail on information given to us by the UN Special Commission on companies which have traded with Iraq. Any information about potential offences will be investigated and, if substantiated, will be a matter for the courts.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters
  211
  were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Baldry
  During January 1995 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office received 1,502 letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ministers in the Department sent the following numbers of letters to hon. Members last month:

  Minister

  Number

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  65

  Minister of State for Overseas Development

  196

  Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Hogg)

  254

  Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Davis)

  93

  Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Goodlad)

  134

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Baldry)

  202

  The correspondence unit of the migration and visa department answered 503 letters from hon. Members. Forty-three letters from hon. Members were sent to other Government Ministers for reply, and 50 are still receiving attention.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month;

  (2) how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  The Attorney-General
  Sixty-one letters were received from and 50 letters were sent to hon. Members in January. Of the 50 letters sent to hon. Members 17 were written by the Attorney-General and one by the Solicitor-General. The remaining 32 letters were sent by the private office informing hon. Members that their letters were being transferred.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the cost of running the Serious Fraud Office for each year since its establishment, and what is the projected cost for the next financial year.

  The Attorney-General
  The SFO became operational in April 1988. Running costs are most readily ascertainable by reference to financial years ending 31 March. The cost of running the Serious Fraud Office is given in the table. The provision for 1995–96 will be published in the departmental report for the Lord Chancellor's and Law Officers' Departments, which is expected to be presented to Parliament on or about 7 March 1995.
  212

  Serious Fraud Office

  Year

  Running Cost Expenditure (£000)

  1987–881

  509

  1988–89

  4,641

  1989–90

  5,687

  1990–91

  6,771

  1991–92

  8,931

  1992–93

  10,508

  1993–94

  10,548

  1994–952

  11,317

  1 This figure is for part year only; the SFO being established in June 1987.

  2 This figure is the 1994–95 running costs provision.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Adaptations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for assessments by occupational therapists in respect of housing adaptations were made during the years from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1994 in the Eastern and Southern health boards; of these how many were(a) processed (b) approved for adaptation and (c) rejected.

  Mr. Moss
  Information on the total number of applications for assessment by occupational therapists for housing adaptations is not collected centrally.

  Since 1 April 1993 information has been collected centrally only in respect of referrals to occupational therapists from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Some 2,263 such referrals were made to the Eastern and Southern health boards in the year ended 31 March 1994 and 1,512 assessments were completed.

  Information on the outcome of these assessments is not collected centrally.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those zoos which are owned by local authorities.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are five zoos in Northern Ireland which are owned by district councils. These are:-

  Belfast zoo—Belfast city council

  Ward park, Bangor—Bangor borough council

  Craigavon leisure centre—Craigavon borough council

  Exploris sealife centre, Portaferry—Newtownards borough council

  Pinebank community centre, Craigavon—Craigavon borough council

  Fast Stream Entry
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The proportion of fast stream entrants to the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office who were women is as follows:

  1991: 33 per cent.

  1992: 20 per cent.

  213

  1993: 14 per cent.

  1994: 50 per cent.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many clients have been admitted by each residential and nursing home in(a) the Armagh and Dungannon and (b) the Newry and Mourne units of management since 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The information requested is set out in the following tables. The figures do not include those people who have made their own arrangements to enter homes and pay for their care or admissions by trusts/units of management in other board areas.

  Persons admitted to residential/nursing home care from 30 September 1993 to 17 February 1995

  Armagh and Dungannon Unit of Management

  Private nursing homes

  Number of admissions1

  Armagh PNH (Sandown)

  15

  Castledillon

  34

  Castlemanor

  5

  Chestnut Lodge

  15

  Collegelands

  6

  Copperfields

  7

  Corkhill Lodge

  13

  Dungannon PNH (Sandown)

  3

  Fairlawns

  29

  Glenview

  18

  Greenpark

  35

  The Haven

  6

  Hockley Lodge

  15

  Manor Court

  50

  Nightingale

  31

  Rathowen

  2

  The Retreat

  14

  Sanville

  4

  The Valley

  19

  Total

  321

  Residential Homes

  Benvinda

  1

  Glenview

  18

  Hebron House

  1

  Monique

  2

  Roughan House

  2

  Sunnymead

  7

  Total

  31

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  Private Nursing Homes

  Number of Admissions1

  Ardmaine

  16

  Arnosvale

  12

  Avila

  12

  Cairnhill

  1

  Coolbawn

  16

  Glencarron

  11

  Kilbroney House

  19

  Lisnaaran

  32

  Our Mother of Mercy

  2

  Rathfriland Manor

  8

  214

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  Private Nursing Homes

  Number of Admissions1

  Rockfield

  19

  St. John of God

  40

  St. Joseph's

  4

  Total

  192

  Residential Homes

  Glencarron

  1

  Kilbroney House

  3

  Moneydarragh Lodge

  3

  Mountain House

  1

  Our Mother of Mercy

  12

  Peacehaven

  3

  St. Joseph's

  16

  Sennen House

  5

  Total

  44

  1 Figures include both permanent and temporary admissions.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Second World War (Anniversary)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 161, what considerations underlay his Department's decision to disclose the fee paid to the firm Lowe Bell Communications in respect of its organisation of the programme of events to mark the 50th anniversary of D-Day in its release of 24 January 1994.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Messrs Lowe Bell Communications were appointed to advise the Government on the D-Day commemorative programme and to assist in the implementation of the programme. Messrs Lowe Bell agreed that publication of the fee paid to them would not raise issues of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 161, what is the Department's total budget for the organisation of the programme of events to commemorate the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A sum of £4.75 million has been voted in 1995–96 to this Department for work on organising commemorative events. In addition, funds will be required in the current financial year, and parliamentary approval is being sought for the necessary expenditure. The pattern of expenditure between this year and next year is not yet clear.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 161, how many other firms were involved in tendering for the contract to organise events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Fourteen firms in all were invited to submit outline proposals for the Hyde park contract and nine firms did so. Of these, five firms in addition to Messrs Unusual Industries tendered for the contract.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,
  215
  Official Report, column 161, if the firm Unusual Industries submitted the lowest bid for the contract to organise a programme of events to commemorate the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes.

  Delegated pay
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Many of the 35 executive NDPBs sponsored by my Department will be establishing separate pay arrangements and will do so from April 1996. English Heritage, the National Maritime Museum, the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board aim to establish separate pay arrangements this year.

  Privacy
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to publish his Department's White Paper on privacy law.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Responsibility for publication of the White Paper on privacy and media intrusion rests with me. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) on 30 January 1995,Official Report, column 667.

  Wreck Sites
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment of the value of the published and archived historical and archaeological information resulting from licensed work on protected wreck sites has been made by(a) his Department and (b) the archaeological diving unit at St. Andrews.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: None. Bibliographical references to published work on protected sites are detailed in the ADU's "Guide to Historic Wreck Sites".

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will now commission a review of the working of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The existing provisions of the 1973 Act have served well in the protection of our underwater heritage.

HEALTH

  Patients (Northern Region)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in the northern region in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Sackville
  For in-patients, the number of finished consultant episodes for Northern regional health authority 216
  is published in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England" for each year from 1982 to 1993–94. Figures before 1986 refer to discharges and deaths. For 1978 to 1981, figures are published in SH3 national and regional summaries for the relevant year.

  For out-patients, numbers of attendances at clinics are published in "Outpatient and ward attenders for England" for each year from 1982 to 1993–94. Earlier figures are published in SH3 national and regional summaries for the relevant year.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Communicable Diseases
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights parents have to be informed that there have been cases of a known potentially fatal communicable disease in their child's school.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1988, information obtained as a result of notification of disease can be divulged by the relevant health official if it is reasonably necessary for preventing the spread of the disease.

  NHS Patients (Charges)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what charges NHS trusts can levy on(a) in-patients, (b) out-patients and (c) persons admitted following industrial accidents.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service hospitals have no power to charge unless there is a specific statutory power to charge for a particular service or item of equipment.

  NHS Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for extending the arrangements set out in "Ethnic Minority Staff in the NHS: A Programme of Action" to primary health care staff employed by family health service authority and general practitioner practices.

  Mr. Malone
  None. "Ethnic Minority Staff in the NHS: A Programme of Action" applies to all staff employed by NHS authorities and trusts, including family health services authorities. It does not cover employees of general practitioners, who are autonomous employers.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the ethnic monitoring of NHS staff, which took place in September 1993, will be published.

  Mr. Malone
  Ethnic monitoring data on the national health service work force in England collected in September 1993 was published in the "Department of Health Statistical Bulletins" 1994/10 of September 1994 and 1994/11 of October 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mental Illness Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list those remaining large mental
  217
  hospitals, by region and district, which are still admitting (a) any in-patients and (b) any acute admissions;

  (2) if she will list in each remaining large mental hospitals, by district and region, in England, how many in-patients are long stay with over a year in hospital care and how many were admitted before 1971;

  (3) if she will list those large mental hospitals which have closed in England, by region and district, and the present use of their sites;

  (4) if she will list the remaining large mental hospitals still open, by region and health district in England, together with in each case the number of patients, their age, the number of available beds, and the estimated date of closure.

  Mr. Bowis
  Details on the remaining large mental illness hospitals, with over 100 beds, were published in the mental health task force report, "Survey of English Mental Illness Hospitals, March 1993", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the size range recommended by her Department for nursing homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have not made any recommendations about the size of nursing homes.

  Emergency Treatment Charges
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to end the right to health authorities, NHS trusts and general practitioners to collect charges for emergency treatment under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no plans to do so.

  Macmillan Breast Care Nurses
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Macmillan breast care nurses are currently employed by the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Care For The Elderly
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is proposing to take to improve the availability of care for the elderly.

  Mr. Bowis
  Every citizen has the right to receive health care on the basis of clinical need. The "Priorities and Planning Guidance for the NHS: 1995–96" requires authorities to identify needs and put specific actions in hand to ensure further improvements in services for elderly people, and to secure care in the community, including continuing health care, in effective collaboration with local authorities and other agencies.

  Continuing Health Care
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will be issuing guidance clarifying 218
  NHS responsibilities for meeting needs for continuing health care; and whether she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall issue tomorrow to health authorities, local authorities and other interested parties guidance on national health service responsibilities for meeting needs for continuing health care. This follows careful consideration of the responses we have received on the draft guidance on this subject which was issued for consultation last summer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be issuing parallel guidance in Wales.

  The guidance will make clear that arranging and funding a full range of services to meet needs for continuing health care is a fundamental part of the responsibilities of the NHS. In discharging those responsibilities the NHS needs to work closely with its partners in local authorities, building on the improved collaboration which has resulted from the introduction of the community care reforms.

  The guidance will set out a national framework of conditions which must be addressed in the local policies and eligibility for continuing health care which all health authorities will be required to develop and publish. We will also make clear the action which health authorities, working with local authorities, general practitioners and others, must take to implement the guidance, including specific action to address where significant gaps in services are identified.

  I shall be placing copies of the guidance in the Library.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish targets to reduce mortality from breast cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  In "The Health of the Nation—A Strategy for Health" the Government have set a target to reduce breast cancer mortality in women invited for breast screening by 25 per cent. by the year 2000.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase current NHS charges and the value of optical vouchers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  I shall shortly lay regulations before the House to increase national health service charges in England and Wales from 1 April 1995. The prescription charge will increase by £0.50, from £4.75 to £5.25 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed. The fees for prescription prepayment certificates will rise to £27.20 for a four-month certificate and £74.80 for an annual certificate. These represent considerable savings for those needing more than five items in four months or 14 items in a year.

  The new prescription charge is still significantly less than the average total cost of a single prescription item to the NHS. A charge is now paid only on around one item in five dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. When the Government took office, about two items in five attracted a charge. In 1993–94 the drugs bill for family health services was over £2.9 billion. The new charge will raise over £310 million for the NHS in 1995–96.
  219
  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and fabric supports supplied through the hospital service will he increased in line with the rise in the prescription charge.

  The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 1995 will increase from £275 to £300. Fewer than three in every 1,000 courses of treatment will attract the new maximum charge.

  I am pleased to announce that as from 1 April 1995, the overall value of optical vouchers issued under the NHS optical voucher scheme will increase by an average of 3.25 per cent. Optical vouchers may be used as full or partial payment for spectacles or contact lenses. People entitled to the most commonly used vouchers—which constitute about 85 per cent. of all vouchers—will find the value of their vouchers increased by about 3.5 per cent.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will lay regulations to increase charges and spectacle voucher values in Scotland by the same amounts. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland.

  Details of the revised charges and increased optical voucher values have been placed in the Library.

  VAMP Research Database
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans she has for the future of the VAMP research database.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since the Department of Health accepted the VAMP research database from Reuters plc on 8 September 1994, a number of significant developments have taken place:

  Professor David Lawson of Glasgow University has been appointed to lead an advisory group on the scientific and ethnical soundness of research projects;

  the Department has decided in principle to support research projects designed to improve its understanding of the capacity of the Database to aid policy making in epidemiological and other areas;

  two established researchers have sought and been granted licences to use the data for pharmaco-vigilance and other purposes; and

  existing research projects are being undertaken and new projects are being scrutinised by Professor Lawson, pending the formation of the full advisory ethics group.

  The Department of Health has also constituted an advisory management board to provide advice on strategic management of the research database. It comprises representatives of the doctors who contribute anonymised data, licensees, epidemiological researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and the scientific and ethical advisory group under Department of Health chairmanship. Taking account of the advisory management board's advice and the urgent nature of some enhancements of the system's hardware and software, it has been decided that the day-to-day management of the data collection, validation and support services will remain with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for the next two years under a service-level agreement with the Department of Health. It is expected that the database will be broadly self-financing as a result of licence and other fee income for the use of data in research projects.

  Mentally Ill People
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were placed on supervision registers for 220
  the mentally ill between 1 October 1994 and 31 January 1995; and what is the total number now on these registers.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the numbers of mentally ill people placed on supervision registers is not available centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 1,383 letters received from hon. Members during January.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Minister

  Number of letters sent to hon. members

  Secretary of State

  186

  Mr. Malone

  251

  Mr. Sackville

  327

  Mr. Bowis

  315

  Baroness Cumberlege

  340

  Children and the Family
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will(a) ask or (b) require all Ministers to publish family impact statements with all major policy announcements and new legislation to make clear their intended effect on the law relating to, and the welfare of, children and the family.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government make clear the intended effect of policy and legislative proposals in consultative papers and reports.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the Cabinet committees, ministerial groups and interdepartmental committees of officials, together with respective members, which have responsibility for co-ordinating Government policy on the law relating to children and the family.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on 22 November 1994 at columns 89–96, which gave details of Cabinet committees and their membership. The ministerial groups and interdepartmental committees of officials with a role in the co-ordination of Government policy on the law relating to children and the family are as shown:

  Family Law Administration Working Party;

  Inter-departmental Group on Child Abuse;

  Steering Groups on Child Evidence;

  Inter-departmental Consultative Group on Provision for Young Children;

  Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence;

  Official Group on Domestic Violence;

  Ministerial Group on Crime Prevention;

  Official Group on Crime Prevention;

  221

  Official Group on Reducing Criminality;

  Children Act Advisory Group.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report,
  222
  column 440, how many appointments to public positions have been made by her Department in the last year.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 February 1995]: The latest information is that for 1994, when 1,531 people were appointed to posts in Department of Health public bodies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Lee Clegg
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his office gave the governor of Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield clearance for Private Lee Clegg to give media interviews; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 February:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking whether the Home Office gave the governor of Wakefield prison clearance for Private Lee Clegg to give media interviews.
  Under Standing Order 5A 37 governors are advised that members of the press should not normally be allowed to visit prisoners in a professional capacity. Permission has not been given for any member of the press to interview Mr. Clegg, either in person or by telephone, although the governor has received a number of requests. However, a journalist recently interviewed Private Clegg on a domestic visit without permission, having used an assumed name for the purpose of the visit.

  False Identities
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals, in each of the past five years for which figures are available, have been caught acquiring or having acquired false identities for passport, DSS or other purposes by using official documentation obtained(a) by posing as a deceased person or (b) in any other way; how many false identities are known to have been acquired; and what was the maximum number known to have been acquired by any one individual in each of those years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The total number of fraudulent passport applications in each of the last five years was:

  Total number

  Number identified by United Kingdom Passport Agency before passport issued

  1990

  854

  671

  1991

  1,037

  569

  1992

  984

  764

  1993

  1,162

  845

  1994

  1,031

  846

  These figures represent less than 0.04 per cent passports issued annually.

  Separate figures are not available for the number of those applicants who used false identities either by posing as a deceased person or in another way.

  Figures for the Department of Social Security's Benefits Agency are available only for the last two financial years. They are:
  224

  Total false identities detected

  Largest number used by one person

  1992–93

  1,200

  not available

  1993–94

  2,117

  250

  The figures include multiple identity fraud detected by organised fraud teams. However the total value of multiple identity fraud was less than 1 per cent. of all detected fraud in each of the two years for which figures are available.

  Telephone Reference Service
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the terms of reference of the review of the Government telephone preference service; if he will list the persons carrying out the review; when the review is expected to be completed; if he proposes to publish details of the review and its recommendations; and if he will list those telecommunications services companies with which the Government have agreements regarding instituting telephone preference at a time of emergency.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The terms of reference for the working party conducting this review require it to assess whether there is still a requirement for a scheme to provide assured access for essential users; and, if so, to identify options and associated costs; and to make recommendations to Ministers. It is chaired by a Home Office official and its membership includes representatives of the other Departments involved in emergency planning and of the major telecommunications service providers.

  The intention is that the working party should produce an interim report by the autumn of this year; the date for the completion of the review will depend upon reaction to the interim report. Because some of the details in the final report are likely to be commercially sensitive, it is not intended to publish it; but the outcome will be made known to the House in due course. It is not the practice to provide details of a direction to a company under the Telecommunications Act 1984 which may include a requirement to provide an assured service in a time of emergency.

  Betting Shops
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines are issued which betting shops are legally obliged to follow;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce legislation to form guidelines for betting shops in regard to legal proceedings.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The statutory controls relating to licensed betting offices are contained in sections 9 and 10 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, Schedule 4 to that Act, and the Licensed Betting Office Regulations 1986.

  We have no plans to introduce legislation or guidelines for licensed betting offices in regard to legal proceedings.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require judges to discuss sentences with juries prior to passing sentence.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the sums assigned within the budget of the Metropolitan police for(a) additional costs of police officers attending magistrates-courts, if separately identified, (b) costs relating to the attendance of police as Crown prosecution witnesses; and if he will give the nature of reserves held to ensure that no case is abandoned or withdrawn due to financial constraints.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that funds to cover the additional costs of police officers attending magistrates courts during the course of their duty or as Crown prosecution witnesses are not identified separately within the force's budget. The actual costs of officers attending court as Crown prosecution witnesses are not collated. From April 1995, the Metropolitan police will have available a financial reserve and it would be possible to consider the use of funds from the reserve in cases where actual expenditure exceeds the sum allocated in the force's budget estimates.

  Immigration
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by European Union member state(a) the number of applications for citizenship of that member state which are currently being processed and (b) the number of applications for political asylum.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The number of applications for British citizenship which were outstanding at the end of January 1995 in the United Kingdom was 42,327. Corresponding information on citizenship applications in other EU member states is not available. Information on persons who applied for asylum was given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), on 3 February 1995,Official Report, column 899.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of legal immigrants accepted by each European Union member state in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information available relates to gross inward migration, including temporary migration, of non-EEA nationals into European Union countries in 1992, and is given in the table. Corresponding data for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Country

  Gross inward migration of non-EEA nationals in 19921

  Belgium

  27,000

  Denmark

  15,000

  France

  85,800

  Germany

  1,080,000

  Greece

  10,400

  Ireland

  4,600

  Italy

  n/a

  226

  Country

  Gross inward migration of non-EEA nationals in 19921

  Luxembourg

  2,740

  Netherlands

  58,700

  Portugal

  12,100

  Spain

  18,500

  United Kingdom

  50.8002

  Austria3

  n/a

  Finland3

  9,240

  Sweden3

  31,000

  n/a Not available.

  1 Source: Burostat (except for the United Kingdom figure) based on annual returns from member countries. Definitions will vary between countries but are likely to include temporary migration, mainly for six months or longer.

  2 Figure relates to non-EEA nationals accepted for settlement, that is, allowed to stay indefinitely, in 1992. The corresponding figure for 1993 was 54,200.

  3 Joined the European Union on 1 January 1995.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are available for people with hearing impediments seeking entry into the United Kingdom, with special reference to those seeking political refugee status at ports of entry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There arc no special facilities at immigration controls at ports for interviewing people with hearing impediments. The interviewing officer is required to confirm and record in writing that an applicant for asylum understands what is being communicated and that he or she is understood. If necessary, information will be obtained in writing using translator assistance as necessary.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal objections have been reported to him advising that for the police to withdraw passports from known troublemakers wishing to travel overseas would be illegal; in what way the powers differ from the powers of Immigration Service officers to retain passports from people wishing to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The police have no power to remove a passport from someone unless passport facilities have been withdrawn from him by my right hon. and learned Friend under the royal prerogative or a court has required surrender of the passport. The Immigration Service has power to retain the passport of someone seeking entry until the person concerned is given leave to enter the United Kingdom or is about to depart or be removed following refusal of leave.

  India (Torture)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture regarding evidence of torture in India to male Sikh asylum seekers.
  227
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There have been no recent discussions with the foundation on this subject.

  Police
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the current number of police officers per 1,000 of the population and (b) the current amount spent per annum on the police per person, in rank order for each (i) police authority and (ii) county police authority in England including average figures.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information for police to population ratios can be found in the appendix to the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for 1993. Details of police expenditure per head of population are set out in the table:

  Police expenditure per head of population

  Estimated expenditure 1994–95 £000

  Population 19931

  Average expenditure per head £000

  City of London

  56,186

  4,000

  14,047

  Metropolitan

  1,638,659

  7,420,000

  221

  Merseyside

  222,217

  1,441,000

  154

  Greater Manchester

  330,361

  2,579,000

  128

  Cleveland

  71,037

  559,000

  127

  West Midlands

  323,607

  2,634,000

  123

  Northumbria

  176,002

  1,445,000

  122

  West Yorkshire

  240,140

  2,102,000

  114

  Wiltshire

  66,362

  583,000

  114

  Cumbria

  55,697

  490,000

  114

  Surrey

  86,912

  770,000

  113

  South Yorkshire

  145,647

  1,306,000

  112

  Nottinghamshire

  112,458

  1,028,000

  109

  Humberside

  95,452

  884,000

  108

  Lancashire

  151,890

  1,421,000

  107

  Kent

  160,948

  1,540,000

  105

  Gloucestershire

  56,084

  544,000

  103

  Durham

  62,578

  608,000

  103

  Warwickshire

  50,510

  494,000

  102

  Avon and Somerset

  147,302

  1,447,000

  102

  Lincolnshire

  60,485

  601,000

  101

  Thames Valley

  198,813

  2,001,000

  99

  Essex

  147,572

  1,489,000

  99

  Northamptonshire

  58,624

  592,000

  99

  Dorset

  65,161

  667,000

  98

  Bedfordshire

  52,463

  539,000

  97

  Staffordshire

  101,365

  1,054,000

  96

  Devon and Cornwall

  143,917

  1,526,000

  94

  Hertfordshire

  79,097

  849,000

  93

  Derbyshire

  87,227

  951,000

  92

  North Yorkshire

  66,156

  722,000

  92

  Sussex

  130,749

  1,440,000

  91

  Hampshire

  155,219

  1,718,000

  90

  Cambridgeshire

  61,216

  683,000

  90

  Suffolk

  57,426

  646,000

  89

  West Mercia

  98,399

  1,109,000

  89

  Leicestershire

  80,672

  910,000

  89

  Cheshire

  85,533

  972,000

  88

  Norfolk

  66,561

  765,000

  87

  1 Population figures are provided by the OPCS. 1993 is the latest available estimate.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his decision on section 11 funding bids for 1995–96; what the total funding bid was in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It remains our hope that it will be possible to announce the outcome of the bidding round by the end of February. The following table shows the amount of grant sought by each applicant in relation to the 1995–96 financial year.

  Amount of grant sought 1995–96

  Applicant

  Grant sought in 1995–96 (£)

  Local authorities etc

  Avon

  584,488

  Barking and Dagenham

  265,750

  Barnet

  221,000

  Bedfordshire

  93,200

  Berkshire

  19,500

  Bexley

  49,261

  Birmingham

  487,636

  Bolton

  217,411

  Bradford

  3,723,014

  Brent

  775,500

  Bromley

  37,800

  Buckinghamshire

  1,138,021

  Burnley

  50,603

  Bury

  35,940

  Calderdale

  74,250

  Cambridgeshire

  185,000

  Camden

  1,506,763

  Cardiff

  24,093

  Cleveland

  180,056

  Clwyd

  139,968

  Coventry

  165,355

  Crewe and Nantwich

  35,627

  Croydon

  427,174

  Derbyshire

  347,176

  Devon

  83,000

  Doncaster

  54,654

  Dorset

  45,700

  Dudley

  811,318

  Ealing

  1,242,773

  East Sussex

  88,480

  Enfield

  561,647

  Essex

  113,716

  Gateshead

  27,000

  Gloucester

  49,160

  Gloucestershire

  83,608

  Greenwich

  1,043,000

  Gwent

  184,000

  Hackney

  531,692

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  488,876

  Hampshire

  66,750

  Haringey

  357,258

  Harrow

  26,989

  Havering

  35,484

  Hereford and Worcester

  175,500

  Hertfordshire

  29,000

  Hillingdon

  205,650

  Hounslow

  653,700

  Humberside

  127,480

  Hyndburn

  30,500

  Islington

  1,590,701

  Kensington and Chelsea

  175,370

  Kent

  172,600

  Kingston

  53,604

  Kirklees

  2,207,312

  Lambeth

  1,649,969

  229

  Amount of grant sought 1995–96

  Applicant

  Grant sought in 1995–96 (£)

  Lancashire

  1,214,630

  Leeds

  880,686

  Leicester

  148,420

  Leicestershire

  234,083

  Lewisham

  1,527,759

  Lincolnshire

  18,437

  Liverpool

  163,855

  London Boroughs Grants Committee

  22,210

  Luton

  136,004

  Manchester

  240.970

  Merton

  147,570

  Middlesbrough

  74,829

  Milton Keynes

  52,725

  Newcastle

  19,670

  Newham

  624,605

  Norfolk

  217,051

  North Tyneside

  33,513

  Northamptonshire

  293,846

  Nottingham

  80,000

  Nottinghamshire

  729,500

  Oldham

  207,500

  Oxford

  14,856

  Oxfordshire

  174,000

  Peterborough

  18,488

  Portsmouth

  93,830

  Preston

  23,902

  Reading

  25,704

  Redbridge

  323,000

  Redditch

  13,536

  Richmond

  25,200

  Rochdale

  97,000

  Rotherham

  393,384

  Salford

  99,110

  Sandwell

  494,395

  Scunthorpe

  19,750

  Sefton

  24,165

  Sheffield

  763,500

  Shropshire

  124,884

  Somerset

  34,273

  South Glamorgan

  91,943

  South Tyneside

  168,000

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  12,194

  Southampton

  47,110

  Southwark

  939,453

  St. Albans

  27,770

  St. Helens

  20,064

  Staffordshire

  320,000

  Suffolk

  40,100

  Sunderland

  52,920

  Surrey

  47,985

  Sutton

  126,343

  Tameside

  160,481

  Tower Hamlets

  1,198,519

  Trafford

  61,959

  Wakefield

  265,000

  Walsall

  1,462,469

  Waltham Forest

  290,749

  Wandsworth

  220,536

  Warwickshire

  863,500

  West Glamorgan

  237,244

  West Midlands FCDA

  53,250

  West Sussex

  15,165

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  50,586

  Westminster

  270,821

  Wigan

  80,000

  Wiltshire

  67,600

  Wirral

  54,300

  Woking

  35,513

  Wolverhampton

  1,323,600

  230

  Amount of grant sought 1995–96

  Applicant

  Grant sought in 1995–96 (£)

  Grant-maintained schools and City Techonolgy Colleges

  Alperton Common School

  46,626

  Anglo European School

  10,877

  Ash Green GM School

  8,527

  Avon Valley School

  10,000

  Beechen Cliff GM School

  20,000

  Beechview Middle GM School

  13,675

  Billericay School

  7,000

  Bishop Challoner RC GM School

  5,240

  Blessed Edward Oldcorne RC GM School

  3,599

  Brentside High School

  33,000

  Broomhill Infant GM School

  4,000

  Brushwood Middle GM School

  4,625

  Castle Hall School

  8,280

  Castlefield GM School

  97,527

  Chadwell Heath GM School

  20,979

  Claremont School GM

  40,924

  Copland Community College

  15,000

  Deacon's School

  27,302

  Desborough School

  23,000

  Dixons City Technology College

  4,000

  Djanogly City Technology College

  26,535

  Dormers Wells Infants GM School

  70,807

  Dormers Wells Junior GM School

  29,423

  Drayton Manor School

  25,000

  Dunraven GMS

  37,600

  Durand Primary GM School

  45,504

  Francis Bacon School

  13,000

  Gordon's GM School

  1,710

  Graveney GM School

  49,489

  Greenford High GM School

  74,460

  Greenwood Dale School

  23,568

  Hall Green GM School

  11,322

  Hamilton Combined GM School

  42,469

  Hendon GM School

  43,758

  Hollingwood 1st School

  1,200

  Holly Hall GM School

  29,250

  Holy Cross Convent GM School

  9,250

  Holy Trinity School

  12,000

  Holywell School

  2,973

  Hopwood Hall College

  9,625

  John Kelly Girls's Technical College

  11,366

  Kelsey Park GM School

  82,754

  Kingsbury High School

  42,000

  London Oratory GM School

  35,930

  Merrill Community School

  39,922

  Montagu School

  7,950

  Myton GM School

  18,413

  Northampton Boys GM School

  12,637

  Northolt High School

  20,000

  Norte Dame GM School

  9,000

  Oldfield GM School

  4,785

  Prospect School

  13,300

  Queens Park GM School

  79,500

  Radcliffe School

  23,000

  Raines Foundation GM School

  32,660

  Reading Girls School

  14,750

  Reay Primary GM School

  24,166

  Richard Challoner GM School

  8,500

  Scared Heart RC School

  5,718

  Small Heath School

  63,000

  St. Andrews RC GM School

  26,367

  St. Bartholomew's School

  2,500

  St. Benedict's Catholic High School

  4,000

  St. Bernadette RC GM School

  11,000

  St. Marks West Essex GM School

  5,000

  St. Martin in Field GM School

  12,271

  St. Thomas the Apostle GM School

  5,707

  Stantonbury Campus

  12,048

  Stopsley High School

  5,000

  Stratford GM School

  34,426

  231

  Amount of grant sought 1995–96

  Applicant

  Grant sought in 1995–96 (£)

  Surrey Square GM School

  16,340

  The Gilberd School

  14,752

  Weavers GM School

  24,000

  Wood End Junior GM School

  7,336

  Woodnewton Junior School

  4,750

  Wrenn GM School

  32,900

  Colleges of Further Education

  Amersham and Wycombe College

  20,000

  Arnold and Carlton College

  22,600

  Barnet College

  19,942

  Bexley College

  9,675

  Bilborough College

  51,058

  Birmingham Fe Consortium

  1,733,926

  Bolton College

  72,700

  Calderdale College

  49,500

  Cambridge Regional College

  15,000

  Charles Keene College

  333,000

  City College Manchester

  40,189

  City of Westminster College

  72,000

  City and Islington College

  88,000

  Clarendon College

  90,712

  Coventry Technical College

  70,000

  Crawley College

  4,113

  Croydon College

  36,352

  Dewsbury College

  4,268

  Doncaster College

  13,611

  Dudley College of Technology

  138,000

  Ealing Tertiary College

  213,000

  East Berkshire College

  17,616

  Enfield Fe College

  45,515

  Gateshead College

  36,000

  Gateway 6th Form College

  38,250

  Gloscat

  30,451

  Greenhill College

  293,063

  Hackney Community College

  57,750

  Hendon College

  105,000

  Henley College

  34,400

  Huddersfield Technical College

  57,000

  Huntingdonshire Regional College

  21,000

  Joseph Chamberlain Coll

  48,000

  Keighley College

  16,894

  Kensington and Chelsea College

  56,835

  Kingsway College

  86,000

  Language and Literacy Unit Southwark

  119,535

  Leyton 6th Form College

  43,352

  Manchester College of Arts and Technology

  79,070

  North East London College

  185,310

  Newcastle College

  37,236

  Newham Fe College

  447,000

  Newham Sixth Form College

  101,790

  North Herts College

  67,650

  Northampton College

  17,336

  Oaklands College

  96,000

  Oldham College

  55,123

  Park Lane College

  68,198

  Peoples College of Tertiary Education

  12,016

  Rotherham College

  13,650

  Runshaw College

  13,440

  Sheffield College

  272,150

  South Nottingham College

  21,000

  Southgate College

  72,900

  Southwark College

  22,000

  St. Francis Xavier College

  24,955

  Stoke on Trent 6th Form College

  12,000

  Stourbridge College

  21,000

  Swindon College

  11,100

  Tameside College of Technology

  32,000

  Thomas Danby College

  113,500

  Tile Hill College

  47,500

  Tower Hamlets College

  181,000

  232

  Amount of grant sought 1995–96

  Applicant

  Grant sought in 1995–96 (£)

  Tresham Institute

  50,000

  Uxbridge College

  48,500

  Wakefield College

  111,255

  Walsall College of Arts and Technology

  67,000

  Wandsworth Adult College

  42,000

  West Hertsfordshire College

  75,184

  Woolwich College

  21,737

  Probation Service
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the impact of the 1994 probation budget reductions on staffing levels with each grade of staff; and what assessment he has made of the likely redundancies within each grade of staff in the Greater Manchester probation service;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the 1994 probation budget reductions on (a) liaison with victim support, (b) work with victims, (c) staff terms and conditions of service, (d) the implementation of national standards for the supervision of offenders, (e) probation centre provision and (f) hostel provision in respect of the Greater Manchester Probation Service;

  (3) what was the effect of the November 1993 budget statement on the budget of the Greater Manchester probation service; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the November 1994 budget statement on the work of the Greater Manchester probation service.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the effect of the November 1993 budget statement on the budget of the South Yorkshire probation service; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the November 1994 budget statement on the work of the Greater Manchester probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave yesterday to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, (Mr. Morris),Official Report, column 156.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the impact of the November 1993 statement on the budget of the South Yorkshire probation service.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the effect of the November 1993 statement on the budget of the South Yorkshire probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) yesterday,Official Report, column 154.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed and at what grade, by the South Yorkshire probation service on(a) 30 June 1992, (b) 30 June 1993 and (c) 30 June 1994.
  233
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information is given in the table.

  Staff employed by the South Yorkshire probation service, in post at 30 June, whole-time equivalent1, by grade and type.

  Number of staff, whole time equivalent 30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  30 June 1994

  Probation Officers

  Chief

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief

  2

  2

  2

  Assistant Chief

  6

  7

  7

  Senior

  37

  40

  42

  Main grade

  176

  178

  180

  Total probation officers

  222

  228

  232

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services' Officers2

  81

  78

  78

  Clerical/Secretarial

  109

  120

  114

  Administrative

  34

  37

  40

  Other non-probation grade staff, excluding hostel staff3

  42

  40

  31

  Hostel staff

  64

  62

  46

  Total non-probation grade staff

  330

  336

  308

  Total probation staff

  553

  565

  541

  1 Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

  2 Formerly ancillaries.

  3 Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders were supervised by South Yorkshire probation service on 30 June 1994;

  (2) how many court reports were completed by South Yorkshire probation service during (a) 1992 and (b)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and others yesterday,Official Report column 154.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the impact of the November 1994 budget statement on the South Yorkshire probation service.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment he has made of the impact of the November 1994 Budget statement on the South Yorkshire probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), 20 February,Official Report, column 19–20.

  Drug Prevention Initiative
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria were used in determining successful bids from the south-east and 234
  south-west regions for projects under the drug prevention initiative;

  (2) which local authorities in the south-east and south-west regions made bids under the drug prevention initiative; what was the amount sought in each case; and which were the successful bids;

  (3) what assessment he made of the extent of the drugs problem in each of the local authorities in the south-east and south-west regions which sought to participate in the drug prevention initiative.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  From 1 April, there will be one Home Office drugs prevention team in the south-east region, covering the counties of East and West Sussex, and one team in the south-west region, covering the counties of Avon and Somerset. These areas represent extended coverage for the present teams in Brighton and Hove and Bristol. It was not possible to provide teams in additional areas in these regions, as was explained to Southampton city council when it inquired in December about inclusion in the drugs prevention initiative.

  England v. Ireland Football Match
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were issued with tickets for the England v. Ireland football match in Dublin by the England Travel Club; what was the total number of tickets issued to the Football Association; how many tickets were returned to the Football Association of Ireland; and what discussions took place between the Football Associations and the British and Irish police about the allocation of returned tickets;

  (2) what reports he has received about the transfer of police intelligence about known troublemakers travelling to Dublin for the England v. Ireland football match; to whom in Ireland such information was made available; on what dates information was issued; and what steps he has taken to ensure that there was full and proper assessment made of intelligence by responsible bodies in the United Kingdom;

  (3) if he will call for reports from the police on varying use of powers to stop people travelling to attend the England v. Ireland football match in Dublin (a) at Holyhead and (b) elsewhere;

  (4) how many British police travelled with persons travelling to Dublin (a) the day before and (b) on the day of the England v. Ireland football match in Dublin.

  (5) if the advice of the British police was sought by the FAI and or the Irish police over the kick-off time of the England v. Ireland football match in Dublin, the seating and segregation arrangements of English and Irish fans and the reallocation of tickets not taken up by the England Travel Club.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have asked for reports from the police on the assistance given to the Irish authorities and other action taken in relation to this match. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 16 February,Official Report, column 1125, the Football Associations of England and Ireland are conducting a joint inquiry into the events in Dublin and this will also look into some of the matters which the hon. Member has raised. I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment in advance of the results of the joint inquiry.
  235
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlay the decision of the police not to use, to stop known troublemakers travelling to attend the England v. Ireland football match in Dublin, the powers used during strikes to stop persons joining pickets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The police may limit numbers in any particular place in order to prevent breaches of the peace and it was under this common law power that the police stopped and turned back pickets during the miners' dispute. This power is not available to the police in situations where breach of the peace is likely to occur outside this jurisdiction nor have they any other such power to stop known troublemakers travelling abroad.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy initiatives he is taking as a result of public disorder at the England v. Ireland football match, involving British citizens before and after the match in Dublin and by persons wishing to travel to the match who were prevented from taking ferries to Ireland at Holyhead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Over the last few years, we have introduced a range of measures to counter the threat posed by football hooliganism both inside and outside the ground. I will consider—in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage—what further measures may be necessary in the light of the events which took place in Dublin, of reports from the police and of the joint inquiry being undertaken by the Football Associations of England and of Ireland.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what policy action he is taking, jointly with ministerial colleagues from appropriate Departments, to address the threat posed to public order within the United Kingdom and overseas by fascist groups based in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I ensure that the police have the resources and powers that they need effectively to discharge their responsibility to assess and counter threats to public order from any quarter. The police pass information about threats to public order overseas to their counterparts in the countries concerned.

  Facist and Paramilitary Groups
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries he is making, jointly with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, and the British and Irish police, to ascertain what links exist between Combat 18, the British National party, and other British-based fascist groups, and Unionist paramilitary groups including the UDA and the UFF.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for gathering information about extremist organisations and their members, and for the investigation of specific criminal offences, rests with the police. They exchange relevant information with their counterparts in the Irish Republic as necessary.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will convene, jointly with Foreign Office Ministers, meetings with European Union ambassadors, and the American ambassador, to discuss the links between British-based fascist groups and fascist groups in Europe and America.

  Mr. Howard
  My ministerial colleagues, my officials and I have regular meetings with our counterparts from 236
  the other member states of the European Union on police co-operation matters, including illegal activity by extremist groups and possible international links between them. The Justice and Home Affairs Council on 30 November and 1 December 1994 approved a report on work within the third pillar to combat racism and xenophobia. The police exchange relevant operational information with their counterparts in other member states and in the United States of America and the security service has also confirmed publicly that it continues to monitor the possibility of contact between extreme right-wing nationalist and racist groups in this country and overseas.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange to meet the American ambassador to discuss what action can he taken to close down post office box numbers, held by the Dixie Press in North Carolina, used by Combat 18 in the United Kingdom to disseminate information covertly to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  Until the Metropolitan police have completed their investigation of the publication and distribution of written material by Combat 18, it would not be sensible to decide whether separate action or inquiries might he warranted.

  Passports
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports have been reported(a) missing and (b) stolen in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 25 October 1994,Official Report, column 513.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds his Departments has provided for Victim Support since such funding began: what other help is being provided for victims of crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Home Office funding of Victim Support has grown at a rate unprecedented for a voluntary organisation. Grant in the coming financial year will amount to nearly £11 million, an increase at 8 per cent. over the current year's figure. The record of Home Office funding of Victim Support is as follows:

  Year

  Grant(£)

  Year on year increase

  Percentage increase

  1979–80

  5,000

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  10,000

  5,000

  100

  1981–82

  18,000

  8,000

  80

  1982–83

  16,000

  -2,000

  -11

  1983–84

  38,000

  22,000

  138

  1984–85

  62,000

  24,000

  63

  1985–86

  126,000

  64,000

  103

  1986–87

  286,000

  160,000

  127

  1987–88

  1,763,000

  1,477,000

  516

  1988–89

  2,740,000

  977,000

  55

  1989–90

  3,910,000

  1,170,000

  43

  1990–91

  4,735,000

  825,000

  21

  1991–92

  5,670,000

  935,000

  20

  237

  Year

  Grant(£)

  Year on year increase

  Percentage increase

  1992–93

  7,260,000

  1,590,000

  28

  1993–94

  8,375,000

  1,115,000

  15

  1994–95

  10,016,000

  1,641,000

  20

  1995–96

  10,817,000

  801,000

  8

  The additional funding given in 1994–95 and 1995–96 will enable Victim Support to complete the programme of establishing witness support services in all 78 Crown court centres by the end of 1995, and to develop further the work of its 365 local schemes and branches which provide emotional support and practical help to over 1 million victims of crime a year throughout England and Wales.

  We published the victims charter five years ago today, the first charter to be published. Most of the 50 standards in the charter have been, or are well on the way to being met. This has done a great deal to improve the way victims are treated by the criminal justice system, and we will build on this by publishing later this year a statement of service standards for victims of crime. This will be a charter-style document telling victims more clearly what they can expect of the criminal justice system and what they can do if they do not get it.

  The Government have taken a range of other measures to help victims of crime. These include giving them better information about progress in their case, and ensuring that their views arc taken more into account at all stages of the criminal justice process. A good example of this was the establishment in December of a victims' helpline so that any victim concerned about an inmate's possible temporary release can tell the prison authorities. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contained a number of measures designed to help victims and witnesses, including the abolition of committal proceedings and the creation of a new offence of witness intimidation. These, and many other measures, are firm evidence of the Government's concern for victims of crime and their continuing desire to improve services for them.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the arrangements governing the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers.

  Mr. Howard
  I am today publishing a consultation document setting out proposals for wide-ranging changes to the present arrangements. Copies of the document and of the report of the departmental scrutiny carried out last year of which my proposals take account are being sent to a wide range of interested bodies and are being placed in the Library.

  I propose to sweep away the barriers to the recruitment as probation officers of people who have relevant skills and experience to offer but who lack the social work diploma qualification which is at present required by law. Under the proposals set out in the consultation document, probation committees will be able to recruit from a much wider range of sources; and the initial training prospective probation officers undertake to equip them with competence to practise will be made more flexible to take account of mature candidates' previous work. On this
  238
  basis, I am proposing to terminate the present scheme under which the Home Office sponsors students on selected social work courses after students joining this autumn have qualified; and to fund area probation services on the basis that they will meet their own training requirements. This change will be arranged so that it is not to the detriment of those committed to existing courses.

  The scrutiny report highlights strengths as well as weaknesses in the present arrangements; and I am determined that standards of training and recruitment should not be compromised. On the contrary, I believe that there is scope for more rigorous assessment of individuals' training needs and competence to practise to be introduced. The social work dimension of probation officers' responsibilities will not be ignored in these arrangements and it is not my intention to discourage applications from suitable candidates with social work qualifications. But the work of probation officers and social workers is different, so there is no good reason for a common training qualification. Now that core competences for probation officers have been published, and are to be used as the basis for performance appraisal, training arrangements should be specifically geared towards those competences. My proposals envisage greater ownership of training and the maintenance of standards by the probation service itself. I shall over the next three months welcome comments on these proposals, which are intended to ensure that the probation service has a firm long-term foundation for the provision of high quality services to the courts and to the community.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State for the Treasury on 6 February, Official Report, column 69.

SCOTLAND

  Community Hospital, Forfar
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the new community hospital in Forfar; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State has recently received correspondence about the proposed new community hospital in Forfar from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and from GPs in Forfar and others.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Greater Glasgow health board and Lanarkshire health board to discuss the effect of the Government's community care policies in their area.
  239
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to meet with either health board to discuss community care policies.

  The Greater Glasgow health board is consulting until 28 February on its joint community care plan. Lanarkshire health board is consulting until 24 March on the joint community care plan for its area.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the loss of highly skilled jobs in Scotland.

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the development corporation chairmen to discuss wind-up.

  Mr. Kynoch
  I will meet the board of Glenrothes development corporation on 10 March, and expect to meet the boards of the four other corporations later.

  Maternity Hospital, Rutherglen
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of building a maternity hospital to deal with the births currently being dealt with at Rutherglen maternity hospital.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It would he inappropriate to anticipate a possible outcome of the Greater Glasgow health board public consultation on maternity provision, the results of which will not be known until after 30 April. There are many aspects to be taken into account in any reprovision costings, including location, size and design considerations.

  Carstairs State Hospital
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a report from the Carstairs state hospital management committee into the recent breakdown in security at the hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes. Consideration of the findings and recommendations are of course subject to the conclusion of the related police inquiry, which is continuing.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the future boundaries of local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of Scottish Enterprise regularly. He has asked Scottish Enterprise to consult interested parties about the possible implications of local government reorganisation for the 240
  boundaries of local enterprise companies, and will consider its findings before taking any decision.

  Water
  Mrs Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairmen of new water authorities to discuss charges for consumers.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to meet the chairmen of the new water authorities to discuss the future of water supply in Scotland.

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend gave today in an oral answer to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).

  National Health Service Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to make national health service trusts more accountable to the communities they serve.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  NHS trusts are accountable, through the. NHS executive, to me and to Parliament. Their directors are required, as a condition of appointment, to subscribe to codes of conduct and accountability; and through the establishment of the Health Appointments Advisory Committee my right hon. Friend has made the process of appointment of non-executives more open. Trusts are required to publish an annual business plan, and an annual report and audited accounts which are presented to a public meeting. I will shortly be issuing a code of practice on openness, setting out the public's right to information, which has recently been the subject of wide consultation with interested parties.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product is currently contributed by Scotland.

  Mr. Kynoch
  In 1993, the Scottish share of United Kingdom—less continental shelf—gross domestic product was 8.7 per cent.

  Economic Regeneration
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for regenerating the Scottish economy with particular reference to alleviating unemployment.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government's economic policies provide the right framework for the regeneration of the Scottish economy exemplified by a record level of manufacturing productivity, record levels of exports, record levels of inward investment, a larger number of employees in employment, increasing business confidence and a steadily reducing unemployment level.

  Farming
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to ensure that Scottish farming interests are taken into account when discussing the future of the common agricultural policy.
  241
  Sir Hector Monro
  Policy on the common agricultural policy is the collective responsibility of the United Kingdom Agriculture Ministers. My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with a wide variety of bodies to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly taken into account in formulating UK policy on the future of the CAP.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet chairmen of health boards to discuss the provision of national health service dental services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State regularly meets chairmen of health boards. The Government are currently considering responses to its consultation paper on the future of NHS dentistry, including those received from all 15 Scottish health boards, before deciding the way forward.

  Housing
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority houses have been built in Scotland since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities built 31,757 houses in the period from July 1979 to September 1994.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of public expenditure per head in Scotland; and what comparison he has drawn with other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on 2 February,Official Report, columns 1199–1200. In 1993–94 the identifiable general Government expenditure per head in Scotland was £4,185. This figure is 16.8 per cent. higher than the equivalent UK figure.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the uses to which public money is put in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the departmental report of the Scottish Office and associated Departments "Serving Scotland's Needs". This year's report will be published on 10 March.

  Manufacturing
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the decline in manufacturing industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Kynoch
  Manufacturing in Scotland is not in decline. Manufacturing output and exports are at record high levels. During the four quarters to quarter 3, 1994 manufacturing output rose by 5.3 per cent. Productivity in manufacturing rose by 5 per cent. in 1993 to a record level.

  Primary School Pupils
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the figures in 1978–79 at constant prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 273.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those zoos which are owned by local authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  According to our records the following zoos in Scotland, which are licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, are owned by local authorities:

  Calderglen country park children's zoo, East Kilbride;

  Camperdown wildlife centre, Dundee;

  Palacerigg country park, Cumbernauld;

  Pittencrieff park animal centre, Dunfermline;

  The Aviaries, Woodhead park, Kirkintilloch.

  Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations will be eligible for financial support for capital equipment under the new apprenticeship scheme in Scotland.

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has not yet complete his consideration of the comments made on the consultation paper "Training for the Future". However, he expects to do so shortly and will make an announcement at that time.

EDUCATION

  Qualified Indexed Securities
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which higher education institutions have taken advantage of qualified indexed securities; what was the value of the capital project supported and the subject matter concerned; and what estimate has been made of the additional cost to each university of the qualified indexed securities package ceasing to be available.

  Mr. Boswell
  From the information currently available, the higher education institutions in England involved in qualifying index securities schemes are: London school of economics, Kings college London, University college London, University of Greenwich, University of Westminster, University of Bristol, University of Durham, University of Manchester, University of Portsmouth, University of Sheffield. Full details of all schemes are not necessarily kept centrally. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has estimated that some £300 million has been raised by about a dozen UK universities through QISs, to finance general building development and student accommodation. Universities concerned have estimated that the savings to them of QISs, by comparison with other available forms of funding, are about 2 per cent. per annum of the value of
  243
  the loans. Assuming an average loan of £25 million, this represents £0.5 million per annum for each university.

  Non-admission Appeals
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many appeals were received in the academic year 1993–94 from parents against non-admission of their child to school; how many were withdrawn before the appeals committee stage; how many were settled to mutual satisfaction before the appeals committee stage; how many were decided in the parents favour by appeal committee; and how many were rejected(a) in each local education authority and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Forth
  Information for the academic year 1993–94 will be available this summer.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month;

  (2) how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not collect individual statistics on the number of letters received from, or sent to, hon. Members. However, in January the Department received a total of 1,222 letters which were marked for ministerial reply, including all letters from hon. Members, and signed a total of 1,103. The number sent by each Minister is shown in the following table:

  Value of the standard maintenance grant and grant plus loan: England and Wales

  Academic year

  Standard maintenance grant £1

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan £2

  Standard maintenance grant as a percentage of average earnings3

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan as a percentage of average earnings3

  1990–91

  2,265

  2,685

  15

  18

  1991–92

  2,265

  2,845

  14

  18

  1992–93

  2,265

  2,980

  414

  418

  1993–94

  2,265

  3,065

  13

  18

  1994–95

  2,040

  3,190

  n/a

  n/a

  1 The standard maintenance grant rate is that applicable to students living away from home and studying outside London. In 1994–95 the corresponding London rate of grant is £2,560 and the parental home rate of grant is £1,615.

  2 Since 1990–91 student support has included grant and loan; the grant was frozen at the 1990–91 level (ie £2,265) until 1994–95 when it was reduced to £2,040. Figures include grant plus full year loan for students living away from home. The full year loan for students studying in London in 1994–95 is £1,375 and £915 for those living at their parents' home.

  3 Average annual earnings approximated from weekly earnings in April from the New Earnings Survey on full-time employees whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence. The survey may not include bonuses paid at other weeks than the survey week and does not capture seasonal work. Earnings are compiled on the basis of employees on adult rates.

  4 These figures correct those given in reply to the hon. Member for Newport West (Mr. Flynn) on 25 October 1994, Official Report column 527.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income and Wealth
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if Her Majesty's Government will undertake to(a) study and (b) report to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation inquiry into income and wealth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We are studying the report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's inquiry into income and wealth.
  244

  Number

  Secretary of State

  288

  Minister of State

  186

  Mr. Boswell

  268

  Mr. Robin Squire

  361

  Cash Limits on Votes
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has for the cash limits on votes within her responsibility for 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cash limit for class X, vote 1, schools research and miscellaneous services will be reduced by £3.5 million from £787,796,000 to £784,296,000. The reduction will be used to offset an increase in the non-voted cash limit Department for Education/local authority capital—DFE/LACAP—for local authority capital for school building projects. The local authority capital cash limit DFE/LACAP will therefore be increased by £3.5 million from £42,898,000 to £46,398,000.

  University Student Grants and Loans
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the rates of university student grants and loans in each of the last five years; and what proportion of average earnings do they represent.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State commented on the report during the debate on Tuesday 14 February, Official Report, columns 812.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will detail for the latest available year the value of stolen order books;
  245
  (2) how many income support order books were reported stolen while in transit in the last year for which figures are available.

  (3) how many claimants reported the loss of income support order books in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The recording of instrument of payment losses is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Frank Field, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the value of all stolen order books, the number of Income Support (IS) order books stolen in transit and the number of IS order books reported lost by customers.
  In 1993/94, order books with a potential value of £26.6 million were reported stolen.
  In 1993/94, 29,817 IS order books were reported lost in transit. Losses in transit may occur between the issuing office and the post office, between the post office and the customer, or between the issuing office and the customer. This figure will include stolen books, though there is no separate record of thefts.
  In 1993/94, 52,931 IS order books were reported as lost or destroyed by customers while in their possession. There is no separate record of how many customers made these reports.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials of his Department in each of the last 30 years have been prosecuted for making fraudulent benefit claims.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The figures requested are not available for any of the past 30 years. However, the Benefits Agency recently conducted a special survey to ascertain how many staff were prosecuted for benefit fraud during 1994. There were 16 such prosecutions.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what study he has made of the role of targeting reductions in national insurance contributions to aid employment.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 16 February,Official Report, column 733–34.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of whether the Netherlands system for national insurance contributions could be successfully employed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No formal assessment has been made of the Netherlands system for national insurance contributions by this Department. However, we do keep abreast of developments in social security systems which operate in many other countries.

  Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total expenditure on the discretionary social fund for(a) the district offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) the Lothian, Central district office and (c) Scotland for each year since 1988–89;
  246
  (2) what were the total returns in the budget for the social fund for (a) the district offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) the Lothian Central district office for each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 21 February 1995 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking for details of expenditure since 1988/89 on the Social Fund (SF) for the district offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow, the Lothian Central district office and for Scotland; also for information since 1988/89 on the total returns in the SF budget for those offices.
  With the advent of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, the former local offices of the Department were grouped into Districts. The Greenock and Port Glasgow offices formed Clye Coast & Cowal District, with the Edinburgh City and Edinburgh North offices forming Lothian Central District.
  The information requested is not available for the years 1988/89 and 1989/90. I have provided, at Annex A, SF expenditure for the year 1990/91 by local office; for the years 1991/1992 to 1993/94 information is provided at District level and for the whole of Scotland for the period 1990/91 to 1993/94.
  Expenditure on grants for Scotland for the year 1991/92 was less than that for the year 1990/91. This is because, in September 1990, offices received an in-year allocation of funds to help them meet costs resulting from a High Court judgement. Following amended legislation there was no reflection of the High Court judgement in the allocation for the 1991/92 financial year.
  I have provided at Annex B information in respect of loan recovery for the year 1990/91 at local office level and at District level for 1992/93 to 1993/94.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: Expenditure for the year 1990–91 for Local Offices Edinburgh City, Edinburgh North, Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Year

  Local office

  Type

  Expenditure £

  1990–91

  Edinburgh City

  Grants

  337,824.00

  Loans

  578,464.82

  Edinburgh North

  Grants

  173,655.00

  Loans

  492.790.00

  Greenock

  Grants

  321,907.45

  Loans

  785,627.34

  Port Glasgow

  Grants

  174,583.99

  Loans

  415,487.98

  Expenditure for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 for benefits agency districts of Clyde Coast and Cowal and Lothian Central

  Year

  District

  Type

  Expenditure £

  1991–92

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  Grants

  493,975.05

  Loans

  1,228,805.08

  Lothian Central

  Grants

  456,009.00

  Loans

  1,092,362.99

  1992–93

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  Grants

  518,682.69

  Loans

  1,337,320.81

  Lothian Central

  Grants

  486,047.00

  Loans

  1,201,102.00

  247

  Expenditure for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 for benefits agency districts of Clyde Coast and Cowal and Lothian Central

  Year

  District

  Type

  Expenditure £

  1993–94

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  Grants

  544,618.13

  Loans

  1,404,186.95

  Lothian Central

  Grants

  502,749.00

  Loans

  1,269,565.00

  Expenditure for the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 for the whole of Scotland

  Year

  Type

  Expenditure (£)

  1990–91

  Grants

  13,883,235.58

  Loans

  31,265,101.53

  1991–92

  Grants

  13,102,422.85

  Loans

  32,571,933.75

  1992–93

  Grants

  13,981,015.30

  Loans

  35,250,252.65

  1993–94

  Grants

  14,629,296.24

  Loans

  37,215,640.22

  Annex B: Loan recovery data by office 1990–91 and district 1991–92 to 1993–94

  Year

  District £

  Recovery £

  1990–91

  Edinburgh City

  392,637.19

  Edinburgh North

  403,199.63

  Greenock

  594,882.44

  Port Glasgow

  306,772.61

  1991–92

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  1,037,612.72

  Lothian Central

  897,890.74

  1992–93

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  1,086,162.59

  Lothian Central

  1,003,600.49

  1993–94

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  1,247,536.72

  Lothian Central

  1,058,299.28

  Industrial Injuries Benefits
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants were awarded(a) weekly industrial disablement benefit and (b) reduced earnings allowance in each of the last six years for which figures are available in the North Tyneside district.

  (2) how many claims for industrial disablement benefit and reduced earnings allowance were allowed in each of the last six years for which figures are available; and what were the total amounts of (a) lump sum back payments and (b) gratuities awarded in each year in the North Tyneside district.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of industrial injuries benefit and reduced earnings allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
  248
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 21 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about awards of Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit (IIDB) and Reduced Earnings Allowance (REA) in the North Tyneside District.
  Information about awards of IIDB and REA is not available for all of the past six years because collection of the data did not begin until October 1991; the information that is available has been provided at Annex A. The figures for 1991–92 cover a period of 5 months and the figures for 1994–95 cover a period of 10 months, that being the year to date.
  Information about lump sum back payments and gratuities is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: Industrial injury disablement benefit and reduced earnings allowance claims at the North Tyneside district

  Year

  IIDB

  REA

  1991–92

  159

  71

  1992–93

  219

  103

  1993–94

  139

  111

  1994–95

  166

  93

  Note:

  1. These figures are provisional and are subject to amendment.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Hague
  A total of 3,863 letters were received within DSS HQ and its agencies from hon. Members in January.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Number

  Secretary of State—Peter Lilley

  187

  Minister of State—William Hague

  276

  Minister of State (Lords)—Lord Mackay

  45

  Parliamentary Under Secretary—James Arbuthnot

  404

  Parliamentary Under Secretary—Alistair Burt

  319

  Parliamentary Under Secretary—Roger Evans

  388

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many national insurance numbers were in existence in 1965; how many have been issued since; how many in each category have been cancelled by the death of the owner or for other reasons; and what is the total number of people currently(a) eligible for and (b) holding a national insurance number.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There were approximately 28.5 million numbers in 1965. Up to 16 February 1995 a further 36.9 million have been issued.

  National insurance numbers are not cancelled following the death of the owner because the record continues to he needed for a variety of reasons, for example to support payment of a widow's pension. The record is noted with the date of death. We currently hold approximately 9 million such records.
  249
  Information is not held on the number of national insurance numbers cancelled for other reasons.

  Information on the total number of people eligible for a national insurance number is not maintained. However, figures supplied by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys advise that at mid 1992 the adult population of the United Kingdom was an estimated 46.6 million.

  There are approximately 56 million national insurance numbers in issue. This figure includes numbers issued to people:

  (a) who live abroad and are in receipt of retirement pension;

  (b) who live abroad and have not notified the Department: and

  (c) who may now be deceased but whose death has not been notified to the Department.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if a national insurance number is cancelled once it is shown that the person to whom it has been issued is fictitious;

  (2) in what circumstances a national insurance number may be cancelled.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  For security purposes, national insurance numbers are not cancelled when it is shown that the person to whom it has been issued is fictitious. This is to prevent applications for a national insurance number being made under the same fictitious identity details at a later date. All such records are collated and held centrally.

  National insurance numbers may be cancelled when:

  (a) a juvenile has died prior to age 16; or

  (b) a national insurance account has been set up erroneously.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the verification procedure for issuing national insurance numbers, detail the changes in verification since 1965 and the minimum level of proof which is required of identification before a number is issued.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The verification procedure for allocating national insurance numbers can be divided into two main elements, namely:Establishing a person's identity and
  establishing that the person does not already have a national insurance number.

  Everyone who applies for a national insurance number is interviewed by a DSS officer in order to establish their identity. At the interview the customer is asked to provide documentary evidence to support their application. The level and scope of the interview is determined by the amount and type of documentary evidence the customer provides.

  Whilst the acceptability of certain documents has altered since 1965 the basic procedure for establishing a person's identity has not.

  In September 1994 the Department introduced a new guide to establishing a customer's identity, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The handbook, entitled "Evidence of Identity", introduces a change of emphasis. Whilst recognising the value of certain documents such as current valid passports, it encourages staff to adopt a broader view and suggests a method for building up a picture of the person and their circumstances rather than relying solely on documentary evidence. This was seen as essential as some customers legitimately have no documentation at all.

  Given that the Department's customers come from a wide variety of backgrounds it is not possible to prescribe a minimum level of proof in terms of the types of
  250
  documents that are acceptable. It is only possible to ask officers to make a judgment on each customer's circumstances.

  Having established a person's identity a variety of clerical and automatic checks are made to ensure that the person does not already have a national insurance number.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 739, how many people in work were claiming (a) housing benefit and (b) council tax rebate at the latest available date.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest available information is set out in the table:

  In work recipients

  Total number of recipients

  Housing Benefit, without Income Support

  288,000

  1,676,000

  Council Tax Benefit without Income Support

  321,000

  2,233,000

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, one per cent. sample, without Income Support, at the end of May 1993.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The figures are where either the claimant and/or partner has declared earnings, which may be part-time or full-time.

  3. The figures are for benefit units which may be a single person or couple.

  4. There will he an overlap in the figures, as many claimants receive both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

DEFENCE

  Military Vehicles
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) numbers, (b) types, (c) ages and (d) manufacturers of vehicles in the current inventory of his Department's fleet of B vehicles.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has some 92,900 B vehicles divided into around 15 generic categories. Examples of these are: motor cycles, cars, minibuses, coaches, vans, truck utility light/medium, truck utility heavy, 4–8 tonne trucks, 10 tonne plus trucks, recovery vehicles, fuel tankers, tank transporters, trailers and miscellaneous vehicles.

  There are more than 150 manufacturers of B vehicles. Detailed information on the manufacturer and age is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-missile Defence Programmes
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy on the establishment by the Western European Union of a European space-based defence system; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement about co-operation with(a) the United States Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation and (b) other member states of the Western

  251
  European Union on the development of European anti-missile defence programmes.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom continues to enjoy a close relationship with the US Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation and other United States authorities involved in ballistic missile defence issues. This relationship is founded on a 1985 US/UK memorandum of understanding. Additionally and more widely, ballistic missile defence issues are discussed with other allies in NATO forums and bilaterally. There are no plans for WEU to establish a European space-based defence system.

  The UK is currently engaged on a two-year national programme of pre-feasibility studies into ballistic missile defence options for the UK. Once this is completed, we hope to he in a position to make a definitive decision on whether we have a requirement for such a capability.

  European Armaments Policy
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the informal group of Government experts of member states of the Western European Union, the Western European armaments group and the European Union to study options for a European armaments policy.

  Mr. Freeman
  The informal group of Government experts was set up in October 1994 to undertake a fundamental review of European armaments policies, centring on an examination of the means of ensuring security of supply within Europe and within the framework of a competitive industry; harmonisation of defence export policies; and standardisation of equipment requirements and procurement practices. The group has held three meetings to date and is expected to complete its work later this year.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location of tracts of land owned by his Department which arc surplus to requirements, noting the acreage at each such location; and which of these locations contain land which cannot he offered hack into general civilian use because of unexploded munitions, radiation and chemical hazards.

  Mr. Soames
  Some 216 sites, totalling 11,779 acres, have been passed to the defence lands service for disposal. No sites have been identified on which the presence of unexploded munitions, radioactive material or chemical hazards would preclude their disposal. In accordance with current Government policy, the level of remediation required will depend on the proposed future use of the sites.

  Officer Entitlements
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many two-star officers and above are entitled to a dedicated staff car and driver; where the officers are based; what make of car is provided. and what is the total annual cost in salaries, maintenance and car replacement.

  Mr. Soames
  At two-star rank and above, there are 114 posts in the armed forces and my Department. including civilians, who are entitled to a dedicated staff car and driver. These are:252

  Staff car and driver

  Posts open to more than one service

  Offices

  5* Posts

  1 Chief of the Defence Staff

  London

  2 Chairman of the Military Committee

  Brussels

  4* Posts

  3 Vice Chief of Defence Staff

  London

  3* Posts

  4 United Kingdom Military Representative

  Brussels

  5 Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Commitments)

  London

  6 Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel and Programmes)

  London

  7 Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Systems)

  London

  8 Chief of Defence Intelligence

  London

  9 Surgeon General

  London

  10 Commandment Royal College of Defence Studies

  London

  2* Posts

  11 Commander British Forces Cyprus

  Episkopi

  12 Commander British Forces Falkland Islands

  P. Stanley

  13 Head of British Defence Liaison Staff

  Washington

  14 Commandant Joint Services Defence College

  Greenwich

  15 Commander Immediate Reaction Force (Land)

  Heidleberg

  16 Commander Multinational Division (Centre)

  Brussels

  17 Military Deputy/Head of Defence Export Services

  London

  Royal Navy

  4* Posts

  18 Chief of the Naval Staff

  London

  19 Chief of Naval Home Command/2nd Sea Lord

  Portsmouth

  20 Commander in Chief Fleet

  Northwood

  21 Controller of the Navy

  London

  3* Posts

  22 Chief of Fleet Support

  Bath

  23 Deputy Commander in Chief Fleet

  Northwood

  24 Flag Officer Plymouth

  Plymouth

  25 Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland

  Pitreavie

  26 Flag Officer Submarines

  Northwood

  2* Posts

  27 Director General Naval Personnel Strategy and Plans

  Portsmouth

  28 Flag Officer Portsmouth

  Portsmouth

  29 Flag Officer Training and Recruiting

  Portsmouth

  30 Flag Officer Surface Flotilla

  Portsmouth

  31 Commander British Forces

  Gibraltar

  32 Flag Officer Sea Training

  Portland

  33 Flag Officer Naval Aviation

  Yeovilton

  34 Naval Secretary

  Portsmouth

  35 Commander United Kingdom Task Group

  Portsmouth

  36 Commandant General Royal Marines

  Portsmouth

  37 Medical Director General (Naval)

  Gosport

  Army

  4* Posts

  38 Chief of General Staff

  London

  39 Adjutant General

  London

  40 Commander in Chief United Kingdom Land Forces

  Wilton

  41 Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe

  Mons

  253

  Staff car and driver

  Posts open to more than one service

  Offices

  42 Quartermaster General

  Andover

  3* Posts

  43 Master General of the Ordnance

  London

  44 Inspector General Doctrine and Training

  Upavon

  45 Commander United Kingdom Field Army

  Wilton

  46 General Officer Commanding Southern District

  Aldershot

  47 General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland

  Lisburn

  48 Commander ACE Rapid Reaction Corps

  Rhinedahlen

  2* Posts

  49 Director General Military Survey

  Feltham

  50 Engineer in Chief (Army)

  Minley

  51 Director General Land Warfare

  Upavon

  52 Director General Army Training

  Upavon

  53 Commandment Staff College

  Camberley

  54 Commandment Royal Military College of Science

  Shrivenham

  55 Commandment Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

  Camberley

  56 Director Royal Armoured Corps

  Bovington

  57 Director Royal Artillery

  Woolwich

  58 Director of Infantry

  Warminster

  59 Director Army Air Corps

  M. Wallop

  60 Military Secretary

  London

  61 Chief of Staff HQ Adjutant General Corps

  Worthy Downs

  62 Director General Logistics Support (Army)

  Andover

  63 Director General Engineering Support (Army)

  Andover

  64 Director General Army Medical Service

  Mychett

  65 Commander Medical United Kingdom Land Forces

  Wilton

  66 General Officer Commanding 2nd Division

  York

  67 General Officer Commanding London District

  London

  68 General Officer Commanding 5th Division

  Brecon

  69 General Officer Commanding Scotland

  Edinburgh

  70 Commander 3rd Division

  Bulford

  71 Commander United Kingdom Support Command Germany

  Rheindahlen

  72 Commander 1st Division

  Hereford

  73 Chief of Staff HQ ACE Rapid Reaction Corps

  Rheindahlen

  74 Chief Combat Support Ace Rapid Reaction Corps

  Rheindahlen

  75 Director Support Land Centre

  Heidleberg

  76 Commander British Forces

  Hong Kong

  77 Commander Land Forces Northern Ireland

  Lisburn

  78 Chief of Staff HQ Quartermaster General

  Andover

  79 Governor of Gibraltar

  Gibraltar

  Royal Air Force

  4* Posts

  80 Chief of the Air Staff

  London

  81 Air Officer Commanding in Chief HQ Personnel and Training Command

  Innsworth

  82 Air Officer Commanding in Chief HQ Logistic Command

  Brampton

  83 Air Officer Commanding in Chief HQ Strike Command

  High Wycombe

  84 Deputy Commander in Chief Central Europe

  Brunssum

  85 Controller Aircraft

  London

  86 Commander HQ Allied Air Forces North West Europe

  High Wycombe

  254

  Staff car and driver

  Posts open to more than one service

  Offices

  3* Posts

  87 Chief of Staff HQ Strike Command

  High Wycombe

  88 Chief of Staff HQ Logistic Command

  Brampton

  89 Deputy Commander Allied Air Forces Central Europe

  Ramstein

  90 Director General Saudi Al Al Yamaha Project

  Saudi

  2* Posts

  91 Air Secretary

  Innsworth

  92 Chief of Staff HQ Personnel and Training Command

  Innsworth

  93 Assistant Chief of Staff (Policy)

  Mons

  94 Air Officer Commanding Information Systems

  Brampton

  95 Air Officer Engineering and Supply

  High Wycombe

  96 Air Officer Commanding 1 Group

  Upavon

  97 Air Officer Commanding 2 Group

  Rheindahlen

  98 Air Officer Commanding 11 Group

  Stanmore

  99 Air Officer Commanding 18 Group

  North wood

  100 Air Officer Commanding 38 Group

  High Wycombe

  101 Air Officer Training

  Innsworth

  102 Air Officer Maintenance

  Brampton

  103 Commandant Staff College Bracknell

  Bracknell

  104 Commandant RAF College Cranwell

  Cranwell

  105 Director General Medical Services (RAF)

  Innsworth

  106 Director General Policy and Plans

  London

  107 Air Officer Administration

  High Wycombe

  108 Director General Support Management (RAF)

  Brampton

  MoD Civilians

  109 Permanent Under Secretary of State

  London

  110 Chief Scientific Adviser

  London

  111 2nd Permanent Under Secretary of State

  London

  112 Chief of Defence Procurement

  London

  113 Deputy Chief of Scientific Adviser

  London

  114 Command Secretary Logistics Command

  Brampton

  The total estimated cost of the driver posts for the financial year 1993–94 is approximately £2.3m. Entitled officers have the use of a Rover 800 car. The total costs of car maintenance are not separately identifiable, however, the available data suggests that the likely annual cost is in the region of £300 per vehicle per annum. The total annual cost of car replacement for the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Vehicles bought

  1992–93

  131 costing £1.7m

  1993–94

  7 costing £100k

  1994–95

  0

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month:

  (2) how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  During January, my Department received 657 letters from hon. Members on constituency business. Over the same period we sent 536 such letters
  255
  to hon. Members. Letters on a number of other issues will have been sent to and received from hon. Members, including correspondence between Ministers in other Government Departments, hut the number of these is not recorded.

  Security (Central Europe)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the consequences of the US NATO Participation Act of 1994 on the security of central Europe.

  Mr. Soames
  Allied Heads of State and Government have made it clear that they expect and would welcome enlargement that would reach out to democratic states to its east, as part of an evolutionary process taking into account political and security developments in the whole of Europe. Active participation in the partnership for peace will play an important role in this. In common with other Allies, and in conjunction with partnership for peace, the US maintains its own bilateral co-operation programmes with states of central and eastern Europe; the US NATO Participation Act of 1994 provides for US assistance to appropriate partnership for peace countries to facilitate eventual transition to full NATO membership.

  "Partnership for Peace" Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries participating in the NATO "Partnership for Peace" programme have requested the transfer of military equipment from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Albania has made a request for some limited logistic support equipment which is currently being considered.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what troops or logistical support he intends to provide for the proposed Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe peacekeeping force for Nagorno-Karabakh.

  Mr. Soames
  The OSCE is still planning a possible peacekeeping mission for Nagorno-Karabakh; a decision to deploy such a mission would be taken only after the conclusion of an agreement on a cessation of hostilities and an appropriate mandate. Any UK contribution would he judged against a range of factors including our other military commitments.

  Baltic Peacekeeping Battalian
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military equipment he intends to provide for the Baltic peacekeeping battalion.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the Baltic peacekeeping battalion initiative comprises infantry training conducted by a team of Royal Marines and English language training provided by the British Council. English will he the working language of the battalion. We have no current plans to provide military equipment, though some is being provided by our partners in this initiative.

  The Army
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the numbers in the Army over the next three months.

  Mr. Soames
  The trained strength of the Army at I January 1995 was about 112,000. In line with post "Options for Change" restructuring and the outcome of the defence costs study, we expect the trained strength of the Army at 1 June 1995 to he about 108,000.

  Haymes Garth
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) of 10 February,Official Report, column 466, if he will identify the budget holder for Haymes Garth.

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1 April 1994, spending on Haymes Garth has been met from the top level budget of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Personnel and Training Command. Before that date Air Officer Commanding RAF Support Command was the budget holder.

  Manpower Reductions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for further redundancies among senior Army officers.

  Mr. Soames
  There arc no plans further to those announced in my answer to the hon. Member for Bolton. North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 870.

  Government Art Collection
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many paintings lent to his Department by the Government art collection have been officially classified as missing; if he will list them with their painters; what action is being taken to investigate how they have come to he missing; what is the estimated market value of the missing paintings; if they were insured; and what evidence he has of theft.

  Mr. Soames
  A list of 205 works of art which the Government art collection was unable to locate was circulated throughout my Department at the beginning of the year. I shall arrange for a copy of this list to he placed in the Library of the House.

  The list was circulated with a request that individual members of staff check works of art for which they are responsible and report any which appeared on the list. As a result, 19 works have been located so far.

  The Government art collection does not provide my Department with valuations of the works of art it lends. In accordance with Treasury guidelines on Government property, my Department does not insure these works of art.

  The losses of 13 of the works on the list have been investigated by the Ministry of Defence police as apparent cases of theft. Unfortunately, in 12 of the cases the work has not been recovered, nor has the institution of criminal or disciplinary proceedings proved possible. A further case is under investigation.

  Golf Courses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how much the golf courses at(a) Whittington barracks, Lichfield, (b) RAF Binbrook, (c) RAF Swinderby and (d) RAF Halton were (i) valued at prior to sale and (ii) sold.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to disclose the sale price of sites which is commercial in confidence to the purchaser.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which aspects of military training involve the use of land on which golf courses are situated.

  Mr. Soames
  The training aspects carried out are: navigation and map reading, fieldcraft, distance judging, fitness training, low-level tactics and surveying techniques.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the composition by rank of each of the golf clubs sited on his Department's land;

  (2) how many members are there at each of the golf courses sited on his Department's land;

  (3) what is the management structure and what remuneration for management is involved in respect of those golf courses sited on his Department's land which are not leased out to private golf clubs;

  (4) how much is the subscription fee charged for membership of each of the golf clubs situated on his Department's land for (a) service personnel, (b) civilian staff and (c) civilians otherwise unconnected to his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  No central record is held of the membership details, subscription fees and management arrangements of the clubs which use golf courses sited on land owned by my Department. It will take a little time for this information to be assembled. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member when the information is available and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the golf courses sited on his Department's land in the United Kingdom are leased to private golf clubs; and, of these, how many cater exclusively for civilians otherwise unconnected with his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  Two of the courses sited on land owned by my Department, at Tenby and Canterbury, are leased to private golf clubs. The membership of those clubs is not a matter for my Department.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom the golf course at(a) Whittington Barracks, Lichfield, (b) RAF Binbrook, (c) RAF Swinderby and (d) RAF Halton were sold.

  Mr. Soames
  The course at Wittington barracks was sold to the Whittington barracks golf club; the course at RAF Binbrook was part of a larger site sold to S.U.N. (Binbrook) Ltd. and C. J. M. Cottingham Ltd., and the RAF Halton course was sold to the Chiltern Forest Golf Club Ltd. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member about the course at RAF Swinderby.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which golf courses are at present being considered for disposal.
  258
  Mr. Soames
  The courses at Tenby, North Luffenham and Strensall near York are being considered for disposal.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at how much each of three golf courses being considered for disposal have been valued.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to discuss the commercial value of sites being considered for disposal as this could prejudice negotiations on their sale.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which section of his Department receives the £63,000 accrued from the leasing to private clubs of golf courses sited on his Department's land.

  Mr. Soames
  Receipts from lettings and licences for use of facilities on the defence estate accrue to the budget holder with management responsibility for the site.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and locations of the 23 golf courses sited on his Department's land in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  The following golf courses are sited on land owned by my Department in the United Kingdom:

  Tidworth Garrison Golf Course, Tidworth, Hants

  Upavon Golf Course, Upavon, Wilts

  Canterbury Golf Club, Sandwich, Kent

  Tenby Golf Club, Penally, Dyfed

  Catterick Garrison Golf Club, North Yorkshire

  York Golf Club, Strensall, York

  Bassingbourne Golf Course, Royston, Herts

  Waterbeach Golf Course, Cambs

  Wattisham Golf Course, Ipswich, Suffolk

  Wimbish Golf Course, Carver Barracks, Essex

  Army Golf Club, Aldershot, Hants

  Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment, Chertsey, Surrey

  Royal Military College of Science Shrivenham, Swindon, Wiltshire

  RAF Benson, Oxon

  Woodhall Spa, RAF Coningsby, Lincoln

  RAF Cottesmore, Leicestershire

  RAF Henlow, Bucks

  RAF North Luffenham, Leicestershire

  RAF Odiham, Basingstoke, Hants

  RAF Waddington, Lincoln

  RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk

  Southwick Golf Course, HMS Dryad, Southwick, Hants

  Royal Naval Aircraft Yard, Fleetland, Hants

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the security implications of allowing civilian golfers otherwise unconnected with his Department to use golf courses sited on land owned by his Department

  Mr. Soames
  I am satisfied that the security arrangements in place for the use of golf courses on my Department's land are satisfactory.

  Expenditure Reductions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the actions, together with their relevant savings, his Department is taking to reduce defence expenditure in 1996–97 by the sum agreed with the Treasury.

  Mr. Soames
  An extensive range of measures is being taken to contain the costs of defence while continuing to maintain and enhance the front-line capabilities of the armed forces. It is, however, our practice not to publish
  259
  details of the contents of the Department's annual long-term costing. Major proposals and decisions that have been announced in Parliament are set out in the annual departmental report and the statement on the defence estimates, as well as in other publications, notably last year's report on the outcome of the defence costs study.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimated percentage change in defence expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product between 1994–95 and 1999–2000.

  Mr. Soames
  Defence expenditure is expected to fall from 3.3 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. of GDP between 1994–95 and 1997–98. Defence expenditure plans beyond 1997–98 have not yet been set.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Apiculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in the United Kingdom have(a) a milk quota but no longer have a herd

  The retail prices index: potatoes

  January 1987=100

  July 1994

  August 1994

  September 1994

  October 1994

  November 1994

  December 1994

  January 1995

  Raw Potatoes

  131.7

  197.8

  171.8

  169.4

  169.9

  177.6

  183.8

  Percentage of change over 12 months

  25.8

  53.3

  46.1

  51.7

  51.0

  58.7

  60.7

  All Potatoes (including Processed)

  132.6

  161.4

  150.0

  149.2

  151.4

  154.5

  159.0

  Percentage of change over 12 months.

  8.7

  22.6

  19.6

  20.8

  24.1

  26.3

  29.7

  Source:

  Retail Prices Index.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what volume and value of potatoes have been imported into the United Kingdom over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  Provisional figures for imports of fresh potatoes into the United Kingdom for the period 1 January 1994 to 30 September 1994, the latest available information, are as follows:

  Imports

  Weight (tonnes)

  Value £000s

  Total

  392,835

  79,173

  of which

  from EC

  272,939

  45,622

  from non-EC

  119,896

  33,551

  Source:

  Customs and Excise.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.
  260
  of cows producing milk, (b) a milk quota larger than their actual production, or (c) sold their total quota or partial quota in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Intervention Board keeps a record of individual producers' milk quota but not their milk production, so the information needed to answer(a) and (b) is not available. Since 1 April 1994, when the Intervention Board assumed responsibility for the administration of milk quotas, 2,280 producers in the United Kingdom have sold their quota, either in whole or in part.

  Potatoes
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list details of the increases in the price of potatoes in the west Yorkshire area over the past six months.

  Mr. Jack
  Details of movements in retail prices are not available at an area level. The retail prices index represents the most accurate indicator available of price movements and is for the United Kingdom as a whole. Information on movements in the indices for potatoes for the period July 1994 to January 1995 is shown in the table.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of letters received by Ministers in this Department from hon. Members and peers in January 1995 was 1,127.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Jack
  The total number of letters sent to hon. Members and peers by Ministers in this Department in January 1995 was 962. Disaggregated figures for individual Ministers are not recorded.

  Rural White Paper
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations that have(a) sent a submission and (b) indicated that they intend to send a submission for the Rural White Paper; and if he will place copies of all such submissions in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of organisations from which my Department or that of my right hon. Friend the
  261
  Secretary of State for the Environment had received written submissions by 20 February and which have not requested confidentiality has been placed in the House Library. A number of individuals have, in addition, submitted their views.

  Both Departments expect to receive a number of further submissions. The names of organisations making such submissions who do not request confidentiality will be made known after submissions have been received.

  Copies of submissions which we have not been asked to keep confidential will be made available for inspection in the departmental Library in due course. In line with normal departmental practice, a list of those who have up to that point made such submissions will he placed in the House Library.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the 262
  Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 20 and 21 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council.

  The main item on the agenda was a proposal to improve the protection of farm animals transported within the Union. I reported on this to the House earlier today. A presidency compromise remains on the table, though it is not acceptable to me in its present form.

  The Council had a first discussion of the proposals for 1994–95 farm prices. It will return to this item at its next meeting.

  I advocated that arrangements should he put in place allowing for the leasing of milk quota across national boundaries. This will now he finther considered at official level so that the Commission can decide whether to take the matter forward.

  The United Kingdom raised the question of veal crates. The commissioner said that he expected to make an interim report well before the end of the year.

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

Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill
Mrs. Elizabeth Margaret Smith, having been created Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, of Gilmorehill in the District of the City of Glasgow, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord McCluskey and the Lord Richard.

European Treaties: Mode of Publication
2.48 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether and, if so, on what date they propose to publish and make available their official version of the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Treaty of Maastricht properly consolidated.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, in line with normal practice we published the Maastricht Treaty as a Command Paper both following its signature by the UK and following its entry into force. But we have no plans to publish a text of the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht Treaty. Such a text is published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities and is available from HMSO.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that quite extraordinary reply. I have, of course, obtained a copy of the document to which she refers from which I observe that economic and monetary union is already in operation because the document is priced at 24 ecus which, at the current rate of exchange of 1.248 ecus to the pound, amounts to £18.91. Is it not a fact that the Government really are seeking to avoid making public that publication which relates to something they carried out with the passing of the Single European Act, which was consolidated with the Treaty of Rome, because they wish to avoid argument and legislation in this place? Is the Minister aware that many of us would propose to make amendments to some of the provisions of the consolidated treaty, and that it is most difficult procedurally to move amendments to a European document and to adopt its pagination and paragraphing? Will the Minister kindly explain why that extraordinary
1112
decision was made, and will she seek to persuade her colleagues to conform in future to normal parliamentary practice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have always had a little sympathy with the noble Lord when he seeks to avoid unnecessary cost. Since the cost of such a publication could be well into five figures, I am not sure that to publish—just for the sake of publishing—the same text which I have here, perfectly easily contained in a handbag-size edition, is necessarily a good use of resources. I have never known the noble Lord to be lost when comparing texts, but I shall look at what he has said because he sometimes has good ideas.
Lord Peston: My Lords, between my noble friend and the Minister, I hope that I may be forgiven for being totally bewildered by whatever we are talking about. Can the Minister at least tell me whether the handout document is the official version, and whether "handout" means "handout"—
Noble Lords: Handbag!
Lord Peston:—and if so, can I have one please?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that a noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench would be able to get a copy at no cost to himself and keep it wherever he wants—in his pocket or his handbag. The texts would be the same, but I understand the point that is made, namely, that some cross-comparisons car. be difficult. That is why I said that I would be prepared to consult with my colleagues on the matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, quite apart from the fact that there is enough paper flowing through this place as it is, does my noble friend agree that it would make a nice change if all of us were to concentrate for a while on the reasons which first led us to go into Europe and the reasons why we should stay there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. It is also important that we look at our future in Europe and ensure that we have a good basis for future co-operation, which is based not on theory, but on our good practice.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend's statement mean that the document is now available in the Printed Paper Office because its predecessors never were? The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has a sound point, although he perhaps does not make it with the clarity that might be desired.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will be extremely grateful to my noble friend. I know that some HMSO publications have to be applied for through the PPO. This may be one such. If that is the case, I am sure that the office will take note and have some copies in reserve for noble Lords who wish to obtain them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon,My Lords, will the Government consider publishing the treaty in a form that everyone can understand? Is it not necessary for people in this country to know how our basic constitution has been undermined; how Parliament has ceased to be able to legislate over a wide and ever increasing range of matters; and how the House has ceased to be the highest court in the land and is now subordinate to another court sitting in a foreign capital? Finally, people will understand that we have apparently even lost the right to say who shall, and who shall not, enter this country.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Lord for nearly three years in this House and for many years previously in another place. I do not believe that any further publication, or non-publication, would do anything to help his prejudices. Treaties must be in proper treaty language so that they are beyond legal doubt. What he said in the second or third part of his question is way outside the scope of the Question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Maastricht Treaty is now quoted as being more authoritative than the original Treaty of Rome? If that is to continue to be the case, is it right that there should be two separate documents with neither showing how the other is amended as a consequence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not a question of being more authoritative; it is surely that it is more up to date. However, I note that some noble Lords, including my noble friend, may have a difficulty with these documents, which is why I answered the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as I did in the first place.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is in fact only one version of the Treaty of Rome which demonstrates clearly our relentless drift towards federal union, and that is The Maastricht Treaty in Perspective as published by the British Data Management Foundation? I say that because it is the only document which sets out separately the original Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. Does my noble friend therefore agree that it might be very helpful for all Members of your Lordships' House who have not yet indulged in the pleasure of reading the Treaty of Rome if that document were available in the PPO? Will she also invite Ministers of the Crown, who, I deduce from a Written Question I tabled recently, may not yet have read the Treaty of Rome, to consult the version I have commended to your Lordships?
Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the one thing I shall never do is to add, in what I regard as an unnecessary way, to the costs of government. At the same time, I shall always fight for openness. That is why requests for the release of documents are considered so carefully. I do not believe that there is any need for the publication that my noble friend quotes.

Falkland Islands: Oil and Gas Exploration
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are assisting the Administration of the Falkland Islands to benefit from plans to explore for oil and gas in the adjoining seas and from the production of any hydrocarbons that may result.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are in close contact with the Falkland Islands Government to provide advice on legislating for and running an exploration regime for hydrocarbons so that the Falkland Islands Government can benefit from any exploration and subsequent production while ensuring that the area remains attractive to potential investors.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reassuring and welcome reply. As there may be valuable reserves of oil and gas, although in deep water requiring expensive exploration, does she agree that the Falkland Islands and neighbouring countries could benefit if the necessary arrangements could be agreed with sensitivity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that arrangements will be made with sensitivity. If oil is found in that area it should be of considerable benefit not just to the Falkland Islands but to their neighbours. I take the point that my noble friend makes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree with British Gas that exploration in the South Atlantic cannot begin until a political settlement between Britain and Argentina has been agreed? If she does agree, can she tell the House what progress has been made in reaching a settlement? If she does not agree, does that mean that exploration licences will be granted without Argentine involvement or consent; and can she say when they will be granted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, let us start at the beginning. First, I do not think that the noble Baroness is quite right. I certainly do not agree with what she quoted British Gas as having said. Secondly, while we are seeking to reach agreement with Argentina on commercial co-operation, it will be up to the islanders—and only the islanders—to agree the manner in which the oil industry will develop. There is no need for agreement with anyone else. The other point that must be considered is that we are quite sure that there is the absolute right to administer the Falkland Islands in accordance with international law, which means that the Falkland Islands can decide upon this matter.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the huge potential income relative to the number of people in the Falkland Islands, can my noble friend say whether Britain will benefit on a licensing basis in any way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are not yet in a position to answer that question finally. I do not know what the revenues might be or how they would

1115
be distributed. All I can tell my noble friend is that Falkland Islands councillors have made it clear that they expect the Falkland Islands Government and Her Majesty's Government to benefit from any oil reserves.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in the light of the ever-increasing and improved trade relations with Argentina and investment, does my noble friend agree that it is important that we avoid any unilateral statements and that all matters concerning the South Atlantic should be agreed between ourselves, Argentina and the Falkland Islands Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in this matter it is the Falkland Islands Government who are the deciding government. We now have a regular exchange with the Argentine Government on a wide range of issues. I believe that they share our desire to maintain the improvement in our bilateral relationships, and we work away at that. But there is no way in which Argentina can decide the future of the Falkland Islands. Only the Falkland Islanders can do that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister telling the House that the Falkland Islands, as a dependent territory of the UK, will go ahead and issue licences for exploration in the South Atlantic without the agreement of the UK Government? If the UK Government's agreement is involved, can she tell us what the Government's current position is on this, as I do not think she entirely answered my original question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. She asked me a number of questions and sometimes it is not always as straightforward as the questionner may think to sort out the detail for the answer. There is no way in which the Falkland Islands is likely to go ahead without consulting the British Government, but it is the Falkland Islands which has to act and administer any matter like this in accordance with international law. So consultation, yes. But this is something which is quite a long way off, I suspect, at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the United Kingdom's experience of nearly 30 years in the offshore industry be made available in what could prove to be a significant new province of undersea hydrocarbons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. British companies, particularly those which have such experience in the North Sea and in other offshore areas, should be able to give very valuable advice and I hope have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from exploration in the Falklands area.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any exploration licences have yet been granted? There have been rumours that some have been authorised. If so, have any been given to organisations which are connected in any way with the Argentine?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am certain that the answer to the second question is definitely no and that no licences have been given. I know that the DTI has offered advice on the preparation
1116
for and the running of the licensing round. But there has been no progress of the kind mentioned by my noble friend.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Baroness talked about consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the Administration in the Falkland Islands. Can she clarify the matter with regard to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone? Is the Falkland Islands still a dependent territory of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It is, my Lords, but the consultation I was discussing was what I went on to say in answer to my noble friend just now. Not only has the DTI offered advice on the preparation for and the running of the licensing round, but the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have given advice on the formulation of the fiscal regime, the Health and Safety Executive has been approached to assist in the implementation of health and safety measures, the Foreign Office has provided financial assistance for the baseline nature surveys and we have given legal advice to the Falkland Islands Attorney-General. That is a fair old degree of co-operation and consultation at this stage.

Health Education Authority: Funding
3.6 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What impact their decision to withdraw central funding from the Health Education Authority will have on health education nationally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, funding for the Health Education Authority is not being withdrawn but in future will depend on the successful winning of contracts. We are confident that the new arrangements will strengthen both health education and promotion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she not agree that all our great national institutions have to be examined from time to time and that the NHS is no exception? Does she also agree that the vital element of education in our NHS means so much to all the professions and all the ordinary people who are the patients of this great institution? Before anything of this nature is undertaken will she at least be prepared to seek the views of the people who are concerned—doctors, nurses, and other elements within our NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, but I think that the noble Lord may be under a misunderstanding. This is not education in terms of medical education. This is education in terms of health promotion.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that many people are extremely worried about the decision which the department seems to have taken? Why should it be supposed that those who can get contracts—who can win them in the market—will be better judges of health education with regard to issues

1117
such as AIDS, smoking, drinking and so on? Why is it supposed that this will be better done than it has been under government supervision and under the Health Education Authority? Does she agree that this is an important task? Should not both Houses have the opportunity to discuss the matter before a decision is taken by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, many of the contracts will be awarded by the Government to the Health Education Authority. When this decision was made, the chairman of the authority welcomed it. He saw it as a great opportunity for the Health Education Authority, in that it could compete for contracts to carry out programmes not only for the Government but for voluntary organisations, local government, health authorities and other organisations. The decision has been widely welcomed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that since 1987 the Health Education Authority has played a major role in controlling the spread of HIV and AIDS in this country, with the result that the incidence in this country is far lower than among our Continental partners? With that in view, can she tell us how the commitment in section D.14 of The Health of the Nation for continuing public education campaigns for which specific responsibility is laid on the HEA will be carried forward after the change of status of that body next year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it will depend on the HEA winning contracts for the work it is doing. I agree with the noble Lord that our progress in containing HIV and AIDS has been remarkable. If one looks at the Paris region alone, it has more AIDS cases than the whole of this country. Much of the credit for that goes to the HEA and, if I may add this, to the committee chaired by the noble Lord.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the organisation does not enjoy the universal approbation which it appears to be accorded in this House? When I held the office which the Minister now holds, there were many complaints about the way that it was interfering and nannying. Some of its work was good, but it was not universally good. Will not the new system help to make it better than it has been?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct in what he says. That is why the review was undertaken. It was felt though that the Government needed a health education authority but that it should be much more sensitive to people's needs and, indeed, carry out work which was responsible and felt to be of great value.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the merging of health districts and FHSAs and the running down of regions, who will be responsible at the local level for ensuring that, whoever gives it, health education is carried out?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if the Bill that has gone through the other place is passed by this House and becomes an Act, then it will be done by the combined FHSAs and the health authorities.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable interest in the effectiveness of spending on health education? What systems are in place to measure that effectiveness? Will that work be affected by the new regime planned for the HEA?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, that will form part of the contract. We would expect every campaign to be well researched, pilot tested, put into practice and carefully monitored afterwards. The health of this nation improves year on year. Diphtheria and neonatal tetanus no longer occur and, indeed, measles and whooping cough are rarities in GP surgeries. It is interesting that the average length of life has increased—79 years for women and 73 years for men. However, I believe that that is reversed in your Lordships' House and that men outlive their wives.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, in its new guise will the Health Education Authority be able to contract for any health promotion research?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in so far as it supports campaigns, but its main purpose will be to educate the public in ways based on research but not research in its purest terms.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Health Education Authority. As the noble Lord said, in the past the authority has been looked upon as an agent of the nanny state, of whatever colour. Oddly, this detaches us slightly from the Government—something which we welcome. Will the Minister assure us that that detachment is indeed welcome?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I endorse what the right reverend Prelate says. Because the Government now have confidence in the HEA, I am delighted to announce to your Lordships this afternoon that we have reappointed Mr. Tony Close as the chairman of the authority. I should like to pay tribute to him and also to the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, who have put a lot of time into the HEA.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness stated that in its new guise, the HEA will be allowed to commission research in so far as that helps campaigns. Does that mean that it will not be allowed to commission research into what would be a good campaign to undertake?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. First, it would tender for a contract that was being offered by the Government or by some other organisation. Clearly, in that contract there would be a requirement for the campaign to be well researched and based on research.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is an extremely important issue at which the whole nation is looking? I am extremely grateful to the Minister for saying that she would be prepared to

1119
discuss this matter. I have received representations from UNISON, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. They are all important organisations. They had reservations about the old system but it had improved. They would like an opportunity to offer their support for the new system if they felt that it would work satisfactorily.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the new system will produce tremendous results.

Community Charge Arrears
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the number of warrants outstanding for the immediate imprisonment of men and women, many with dependent children, owing arrears on the community charge, what advice they are proffering to magistrates to impose alternative non-custodial sentences.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, where a local authority has sought unsuccessfully to enforce payment of the community charge, it may apply to a magistrates' court to commit the defaulter to prison. If the magistrates are satisfied that non-payment is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect, under the Community Charge Enforcement Regulations 1989 they have the following alternatives: they may remit all or part of the sum due; they may fix a term of imprisonment but postpone the issue of a committal warrant upon such terms as they see just; or, if they think fit, they may commit the defaulter to prison for not more than three months. It would be constitutionally improper for me to seek to advise the courts on the appropriate decision to take in particular cases.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply and also for his very great kindness in writing to me with regard to the Question. Perhaps I may draw to his attention some of the cases which currently come before the courts. For example, is he aware that the Leigh magistrates committed a woman to prison on 25th January? She has six children all under the age of 18. One of them is hydrocephalic and another has a severe heart condition. They were left in charge of the children because the woman was given only 24 hours to arrange other cover.
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the European Commission of Human Rights found that the refusal to grant legal aid was contrary to Article 6 of the convention? I hasten to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that that has nothing whatever to do with the European Union. Finally, I draw to the noble and learned Lord's attention the suggestion of the Audit Commission that for many councils the cost of recovering outstanding debt is greater than the amount which is recovered.
'The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Baroness has drawn my attention to the case to which she
1120
referred. That is my only knowledge of it. I am aware of the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights and in case it is necessary I confirm that that is an institution of the Council of Europe and not part of the institutions of the European Union. With regard to the third point, the Magistrates' Association intends to issue advice to magistrates in the near future. That is an option which it has.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend reassure me on one point? Although the House will be deeply appreciative of the fact that the noble and learned Lord is the appropriate Minister to answer on behalf of the Government, does not the form of the Question suggest that it is the business of the Government, to whom it is addressed, to interfere with the independence of the judiciary, however humble?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that in asking the Question the noble Baroness does not seek to interfere with the independence of the judiciary from its highest level to the magistrates' courts. On the other hand, it is a matter of concern and I therefore sought to answer as fully as possible.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is it not the case that the Lord Chancellor is able to advise magistrates? If so, will he advise them that it would be foolish to imprison women who have dependent children and who cannot pay what was a ridiculous charge imposed by the Government who have since admitted that it was a mistake in the first place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is right that from time to time my predecessors and I have expressed views on matters of a general character but it would not be right—and I do not believe that any of my predecessors did it either—to offer a view about how a particular case should be disposed of. Some may think that is what the noble Baroness was seeking in relation to the particular instance to which she referred. The community charge was levied under the law and I have sought to set out what are the relevant provisions as regards its enforcement.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Northern Ireland.
Health Authorities Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark rose to call attention to the importance of pupil and student achievement in schools and further education, and to consider the role of parents, teachers and schools; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity this afternoon to celebrate the achievement of pupils and students. Such achievement must be at the heart of all educational policy. It is crucial to the welfare of every individual: to the goal of full employment through a better skilled and educated workforce; and it is crucial to the creation of a successful and competitive economy.
Achievement is the benchmark against which all educational policy should be judged: whether the issue is of how much to pay teachers, how to deploy resources, or what should be the content of the curriculum, the first question to be asked should always be, "How will it help pupil achievement?" The revised Parent's Charter published last year made the absolute commitment to parents:
"You have a right to expect the school to do its best to make sure every child does as well as he or she possibly can".
It is against that commitment and that benchmark that the reforms of the past decade must be judged, and on that judgment they passed with flying colours.
Although, of course, the time-scales in education are long —a child may spend a minimum of 10 or 11 years in the system and perhaps as many as 17 years, so results do not appear within days or months—nevertheless we can today celebrate how much progress in the achievement of pupils and students has been made in the past decade.
When I first entered the teaching profession in the 1950s, I asked to be sent to one of the most deprived areas of the West Midlands, to a secondary school in what we then called the slums of Wolverhampton. I asked to teach there because I wanted to help to raise the aspirations and achievements of the young girls who lived there. I believed then, as I believe now, that educational achievement is the most valuable gift for the individual as well as for a society at large. It is for that reason that I want to pay tribute today to all those parents, teachers, schools, further education colleges and, above all, the young people themselves who have contributed to the surge in educational achievement of the past 10 years beyond even my wildest hopes and dreams.
I am not much given to looking backwards, but lest we hear today any notes of nostalgia for some imagined golden age of the past creeping in, perhaps we need to remind ourselves of where we were at the beginning of the 1980s against where we have come to today. To do so, I have looked back to the HMI reports of the late 1970s and early 1980s based on surveys involving thousands of visits to primary and secondary schools.
The system at the beginning of the 1980s was designed to create failure. Less than half of our pupils remained in the educational system after the compulsory leaving age. Only one-in-eight moved on to higher
1122
education. Three-quarters—76 per cent.—of young people left school with no marketable record of examination achievement to show for 10 or more years of their lives. That was not the fault of individual teachers. It is too easy to blame them for a system which was failing and not, on the whole, the professional people working within it. Low expectations were built into the systems and low expectations led, inevitably, to low achievements.
Primary education throughout the 1960s and 1970s saw teachers confused by the dogmas of progressive education: teachers who had been confident in class teaching methods were made to feel incompetent and insecure in the new orthodoxy. New teachers emerged from training which gave them more knowledge of educational theory than of the subjects that they were to teach. They had inadequate skills in teaching reading and arithmetic and little knowledge of science, mathematics or technology on which a modern economy depends.
Of course, many primary schools happily continued ignorant of, or ignoring, the new orthodoxy. They were staffed by skilled and intelligent teachers, with motivated children and good home-school links. They were heartening places to visit as HMI. But a sizeable minority became places of uncontrolled and wild confusion with demoralised, sometimes frantic, teachers and with very little learning taking place. The orthodoxy of child-centred education assumed that a model developed by a handful of brilliant teachers, with talent and time to make it work, could be generalised throughout the 300,000 or so other teachers in the country.
In retrospect, that form of primary education was a disastrous marriage of the politically correct with the educationally misty-eyed, unable to see beyond the social engineering ambitions of that political orthodoxy. Experts told us, unforgivably, that, "Teachers are in truth social workers". So the one true key to social engineering, which is the raised expectations and achievement of pupils, was lost in that ideology. Low expectation was introduced as a gift and "What can you expect?" was the theme of so many schools, especially in our inner-city areas.
At secondary level the system at the beginning of the last decade had become critical. Although the top 15 per cent. or so were still receiving adequate education, the system was disastrously failing not only the "bottom 40 per cent." but also the middle band who left school underskilled, under-educated, under-qualified and often with a low sense of their own worth.
The secondary school curriculum was left to the individual choices of schools, with very little help from local education authorities (as the DES survey of their policies for the curriculum in the late 1970s revealed). It was also a major cause for concern. Individual children were leaving school with no broad span of basic skills. Indeed, HMI found that the wider the choice on offer the narrower, often, was the individual experience. While heads would boast of 35 choices available at O-level, they failed to note that pupils could, and did, make their five-subject choice at GCE within one narrow area. One example was a boy who had

1123
chosen sociology, politics, social science, social history and European studies: effectively, he was studying one subject area from the age of 13.
Teachers in secondary schools who came through the B.Ed route had, even more disastrously than their primary colleagues, no specialist subject which they could teach. The "woman on the Clapham Tube" might assume that teachers were experts in the subjects that they taught. But the politically correct orthodoxy was, "we teach children not subjects"—a grammatical error, if I may say so. So the B.Ed degree of the 1970s put "Education Studies" as the main subject of study, rather than what the teacher was to teach. The curriculum was therefore, in its turn, necessarily distorted to match the teachers' lack of expertise; and the downward spiral began.
I remember talking to one boy who said to me as his visiting HMI, "I don't do subjects, only the bright ones do subjects, I do `studies'."—and so he did: environmental studies, social studies, European studies and so on. That was his total curriculum, while his brighter contemporaries were taught by the subject graduates and enjoyed a richer curriculum of physics, chemistry, history, modern languages, and so on, for subjects.
The examination system at the time was the single most divisive factor, designed to reward only one kind of academic achievement. It ensured that the majority of children failed rather than achieved. From the age of 13 (and, in some secondary schools, even earlier) children were divided into the "GCE" group, the "CSE" group or the "non-examination" group. That long shadow of certain failure stretched down to the 11 and 12 year-olds in the non-examination group. No wonder so many opted out emotionally and often physically from the early stages of their secondary schooling. Within this failing system what was the role of parents? All too often they were kept outside the school gate. Their experience and knowledge of their children was not used and their co-operation and joint partnership in the education of the future generation was an opportunity lost. Parents were frequently told nothing of the school's examination results or the values which it considered important. Little information was given to them on which to make the decisions critical to their children's future.
The schools themselves—those "living cells of the body educational" on whose robust health the life and wealth of the nation so depend—where were they? They had little control over their own destiny. The freedom they were given to determine the curriculum—a misplaced freedom which many resented—was not matched by freedom in choices about expenditure, resources and staffing. New teachers were "sent by the authority". Their allocation of money was rigidly determined and their ability to win resources was dependent on "being nice to the LEA inspectors and advisers". This is exactly the opposite position to that which we now have and which ensures maximum efficiency; that is to say, partnership and consensus with the community on what should be taught and professional judgment about how best to deliver it.
From this low base of increasing national concern it is encouraging to see how far we have come today. Of course problems still remain and the performance of individual schools and individual pupils is only recently beginning to respond to the reforms which have been put in train. There may be many years yet before all our children are able to achieve to their full potential. Nevertheless, so much has been accomplished.
The curriculum from infant stage through to school leaving age has at last been agreed in a clear and simplified form, and every child's entitlement to a broad and balanced education enshrined in legislation. After some traumas in its early introduction, the national curriculum is now having a clearly discernible effect on improved provision, as we see from the chief inspector's report of last year. Although there is still much to be done to ensure that the basic skills are embedded in the curriculum, and that children who still have reading difficulties as they move to the top of the primary school are given help, nevertheless there is every evidence that this far-reaching reform is having the desired effect.
A common system of examinations at 16 has, at a stroke, recognised the wide range of talents—academic, creative and practical—in our young people. Together with the national vocational qualifications it has given every pupil the opportunity to achieve, and to have evidence of that achievement, to take into employment or further study. The long shadow of failure which hung over pupils in the 1960s and 1970s has been replaced by the brightness of expected achievement. The dramatic change in the staying on rate at school and beyond is evidence of the strength of that expectation. From the 42 per cent. only who stayed on beyond 16 at the beginning of the previous decade, now 73 per cent. remain in full-time education and one-in-three, not one-in-eight, goes on to higher education. This balance of vocational and practical achievement alongside academic achievement has been a theme of much of the recent reforms, bringing us at last into line with some of our major international competitors and shaking off some of the inbred elitism and implicit academic snobbery of the previous system. No modern economy can survive without the practical and applied skills of its people.
The government initiatives of technical and vocational education, the highly developed system of national vocational qualifications, the expansion of further education and, above all, the measurable progress towards national education and training targets have succeeded in changing long-held attitudes. The vocational work of our further education colleges and the practical and applied work of our schools are now becoming the princesses of the system. Alongside the traditional academic qualifications, the national vocational qualifications and the general national vocational qualification—the vocational A-level —are increasingly seen as an attractive and positive option for our young people. They must be. Without achievement in vocational skills we cannot hope to match the success of the giants of the international global economy.
The national targets, accepted and maintained by government and implemented by the training and enterprise councils working with their educational and

1125
industrial partners, are a visible measure of the progressive achievement of our young people and of the educational institutions that help them. If we are to achieve the national targets—that four-fifths at least of our young people should reach the level of five good GCSEs, or their vocational equivalent, by the end of the decade and that in the same time span over half will be brought up to the level of two A-levels, or its equivalent—then the colleges and schools must continue to increase the achievement levels of pupils and students. In the past five years remarkable progress has been made towards those targets, as I shall shortly describe.
Within the framework of our educational system parents are now in their rightful place with direct access to the schools, and especially in the grant-maintained schools, with a direct say in the government of the school (though, quite rightly, not in its management). All parents now have a wide range of information available to them about the performance of the school and, through the Parent's Charter, a means of asking questions and registering concern where they believe things are not going well. It is my personal hope that schools will increasingly feel confident enough to bring parents into the setting of targets for pupil achievement to ensure that parents' views are taken into account when the school determines its level of expectations for its pupils.
Teachers are now able to move into their rightful professional role. They have the necessary avenues to achieve consensus and partnership with parents and with society at large about the aims of their teaching, and the targets for pupil achievement are now clear and explicit. The training of teachers has been revolutionised in the past 10 years. Since 1984, when the then Secretary of State, our much missed noble friend Lord Joseph, first announced new criteria for the training of teachers, together with new arrangements for the inspection and approval of all courses which train teachers, a steady upward path has been consistently reported, and it is good to see this continuing in the most recent chief inspector of Ofsted's report. The knowledge base of teachers in the subject they teach has been much strengthened, and more practical training is given school-based. More still needs to be done to help create the specialist teachers needed for primary pupils, particularly in their later years. But the increasing partnership between higher education and schools in the training is now further developed with the initiation of the teacher training agency. These reforms have ensured that educational theories are being rooted in practical educational experience. The professionalism of teachers has been recognised in their enhanced responsibility for the induction and training of new members of their profession.
We may perhaps hear from some speakers today of low morale of teachers, of shortage of money and of teacher redundancies. I am unimpressed by those arguments. The teachers I meet are as professional, as committed, and as delighted by the true rewards of their job as any generation of teachers in the 40 years since I first entered the profession. The progress of the past few
1126
years, the sheer productivity of pupil and student achievement, could not have been accomplished by a demotivated or underfunded profession.
Schools, too, are now in control of decision-making about their own resources, and about the employment and development of their teaching staff, thanks to the devolved budgeting policies of recent years. Grant-maintained schools, and to a lesser extent local authority schools also through the local management of schools initiative, now have a real and welcome opportunity to decide how best to provide for their pupils, to put their resources where they see their own priorities, rather than having them dictated from outside. As one who previously ran an institution delivered from the shackles of local authority control, I cannot speak too strongly in praise of government policies which have released first the polytechnics, then the further education colleges and now the grant-maintained schools, to be in control of their own destiny in this way.
Overall, the reforms have been comprehensive and far-reaching. They are: a national curriculum; regular testing of pupils and publication of their results; regular inspection and reporting on every school; greater autonomy through devolved budgets for all schools; opportunities for self-government for schools; direct parental involvement in the governance of schools; tighter control over the training of teachers; wide recognition of the importance of technical and vocational education and a system of vocational qualifications developed in partnership with employers, and targets nationally recognised for the achievement expected of young people in both academic and vocational qualifications to achieve a workforce skilled for the coming century.
As we know, there are still many problems to be tackled. But now, through regular inspection of individual schools, these are being exposed and addressed. Failing schools are identified and action taken to rescue the educational opportunities due to their pupils. The achievements of successful schools are published and good practice is widely disseminated.
I said that the criterion for the success of any educational reform should be its effect on the achievement of pupils and students. On that criterion the last decade of reforms passes the test. Let us look at the facts of pupil and student achievement.
In the past five years alone the number of young people achieving five GCSE passes at the highest levels or its vocational equivalent has risen from 47 per cent. in 1988 to 64 per cent. in 1994. The number achieving two A-levels or their vocational equivalent has risen from 26 per cent. in 1988 to over 39 per cent. in 1994. That is indeed a remarkable achievement. Similarly, in the two years since the publication of performance tables for schools and further education colleges performance in one-quarter of our secondary schools has risen overall by 10 per cent. and in some individual schools by even larger percentages. The inner city Fartown High School in Huddersfield increased the number of its pupils achieving five GCSEs from only 15 per cent. to 32 per cent. in a single year. That is success in the only terms that matter.
Our children are sometimes described as the arrows we shoot into the future. How important it is that the aim of those of us who bend the bow and place the arrow should be straight and true as we launch those precious arrows into a future which is still largely unforeseeable but in which they will have to live, work and thrive. We owe it to them to have patience, to take the political infighting out of their education and to allow the reforms which have been put in train, with wide consensus, to embed themselves and bear fruit. I beg to move for Papers.

Northern Ireland
3.41 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Northern Ireland. The Statement reads as follows:
"Almost every day brings new evidence of the benefits of peace. The conditions taken for granted elsewhere in the United Kingdom are gradually returning. But a return to normal life in Northern Ireland requires much more than just a paramilitary ceasefire, important though that step is. It requires a permanent end to violence, and it requires a balanced political settlement under which all parts of the community can live alongside each other without fear or antagonism.
"That is the purpose of the talks process started in 1991. We need to seek new arrangements for the internal government of Northern Ireland, and for the relationships between north and south and between the two governments.
"The British Government have discussed these matters at length with the Northern Ireland political parties and with the Irish Government. I should like to pay tribute to the role played by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my right honourable friend the Minister of State. Today we have published proposals in two framework documents, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
"Let me make clear from the outset that nothing in these documents will be imposed. The aim is to assist discussion and negotiation with the parties in Northern Ireland. It is not an immutable blueprint.
"I urge all honourable Members, and people across Northern Ireland, to read the documents carefully. The proposals in them have been the subject of a number of leaks and misrepresentations which have resurrected old fears. When people study the documents they should see that those fears are unfounded. They will see that these proposals are based throughout on the principle of consent. It is made absolutely clear that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom for so long as that is the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. I am a unionist who wants peace for all the people of the union. I cherish Northern Ireland's role within the
1128
union. I have no intention whatever of letting that role change unless it is the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland to do so.
"Let me turn to the documents published today. I will begin with strand 1, which sets out the Government's ideas for restoring local democracy in Northern Ireland as part of a full political settlement. This paper has been prepared after consultation and talks with the main political parties in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government played no part in its formulation.
"The circumstances in Northern Ireland are unique within the United Kingdom, as has long been recognised. There are two traditions with very different political aspirations. What is needed is a structure of government that combines democratic legitimacy with a system of checks and balances. This calls for mechanisms different from those appropriate in the rest of the United Kingdom.
"It was these historical differences which meant that until 1972 there was a Northern Ireland Assembly with a wide range of functions. But since then those functions have been the direct responsibility of central government unlike elsewhere in the United Kingdom where many of them are carried out by elected local authorities. In Northern Ireland local accountability has been lost and political talent unused.
"That is why the Government are now putting forward plans for a new elected assembly there with responsibilities over a range of subjects at least as wide as in 1972. The proposals envisage that the assembly might have a single chamber of about 90 members elected for a four or five-year term. To reflect the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, they would be elected by a form of proportional representation. Where appropriate, decisions in the assembly would be taken by a weighted majority.
"There would be a system of committees to oversee the work of the Northern Ireland departments. And there would be a separate panel elected from across the whole of Northern Ireland with a consultative, monitoring and representational role.
"The new assembly would not have tax-raising powers and would receive its funding from central government. It would have legislative powers for the functions transferred to it, though it would be for consideration whether it would assume legislative powers from day one or whether such responsibility would be transferred progressively.
"The assembly would have responsibility for functions that are, in many cases, devolved to local government elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including education and housing. Policing and security matters would, however, remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and of this Parliament, at least for so long as the terrorist threat makes the active support of the Army necessary.

1129
"I now turn to strand 2, the arrangements for north/south co-operation. We have today published a joint framework document which has been agreed with the Irish Government. This sets out a series of proposals as a basis for discussion.
"One crucial component is that, as part of an overall agreement, the Irish Government have committed themselves to introducing and supporting proposals to amend Articles 2 and 3 of their constitution. These amendments would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 21 of the joint framework document spells out that they would,
'demonstrably be such that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contrary to the will of a majority of its people is asserted'.
That intention is unambiguous and was reaffirmed by the Taoiseach this morning.
"For their part the British Government would in these circumstances enshrine in our legislation the principle that Northern Ireland's future should reflect the wishes of its people. This would be done either by amending existing legislation or by introducing new legislation. This would not affect the United Kingdom's sovereignty over Northern Ireland, which could only be changed by further primary legislation.
"The joint framework document also sets out proposals for a new north/south body which could carry out a range of consultative, harmonising or executive functions. It would not have free-standing authority: it would be accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Irish Parliament respectively. The Northern Ireland members of the body would be drawn from relevant elected heads of department from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and would naturally reflect policies determined by the assembly.
"Fears have been expressed that this body would in effect give the Irish Government joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland. That is emphatically not the case. It is a proposal for co-operation by agreement between Northern Ireland's representatives and their counterparts in the Republic. Decisions in the body could be taken only where there was agreement north and south. There is no question of a majority out-voting a minority. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament would each therefore have an absolute safeguard against proposals it did not approve of.
"The north/south body would be established by legislation in this Parliament and in the Irish Parliament. It would discharge or oversee only such functions as were designated for it. There is no predetermined list of those functions. That would be decided only after discussion and agreement with the political parties in Northern Ireland. And it would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament to decide whether any additional functions should subsequently be designated.
"The document also sets out how European Community programmes might be handled in a north/south body. It envisages that the north/south
1130
body would be responsible for implementing and managing those programmes which are explicitly designed on a cross-border or island-wide basis. There are currently very few such programmes. Otherwise, the north/south body would have primarily an advisory role.
"The House will wish to be reassured that responsibility for determining policy towards the European Union, and for representing Northern Ireland in the European Union, would remain as now with the United Kingdom Government.
"Let me now turn to strand 3 where the joint framework document sets out proposals for future relations between the British and Irish governments. These envisage that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be replaced by a new agreement between the two governments. As now, there would be a continuing intergovernmental conference with a permanent secretariat. The IGC would be the forum in which the two governments would jointly keep the new arrangements under review.
"It would be open to either government to bring up concerns about breaches of the new arrangements and to discuss how they might be resolved. This is the so-called 'default mechanism'. But there is no question of this process giving the Irish Government the right to take action in respect of the internal government of Northern Ireland. The framework document explicitly sets out:
`There would be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government; each will retain responsibility for the decisions and administration of Government within its own jurisdiction.'
"As I have emphasised, these documents are intended as a contribution to the talks process. They set out ideas that the Government believe represent a balanced and realistic way forward that could command support across a wide political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
"The next step will be for further negotiations to take place with the political parties in Northern Ireland. In those negotiations, others will be free to put forward their own proposals. I very much hope that everyone will agree to negotiate seriously. There is too much at stake for any group to stand aside from the talks.
"If agreement is reached in those negotiations, the outcome will be put for approval to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. I should equally make clear that there is no question of putting proposals to a referendum before there is agreement among the main political parties.
"There is a triple safeguard against any proposals being imposed on Northern Ireland. First, any proposals must command the support of the political parties in Northern Ireland; secondly, any proposals must then be approved by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; and, thirdly, any necessary legislation must be passed by this Parliament. This provides a triple lock designed to ensure that nothing is implemented without consent.

1131
"The prize from a successful outcome to the peace process is immense. We want to see the people of Northern Ireland permanently free from the fear of terrorist violence. We want to see institutions that reflect the different traditions in Northern Ireland in a manner acceptable to all. And we want to enshrine the principle, both north and south, that no change in Northern Ireland's constitutional position can take place without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
"I believe these documents make an important contribution to that process, and I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. I welcome the publication of the new framework for agreement document which concerns the future relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between the United Kingdom and the Republic. The Labour Party also welcomes the publication of the strand 1 document which relates to a structure of internal devolution for Northern Ireland. The publication of those documents represents an important further initiative in terms of promoting a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. In effect they constitute a significant framework for developing the peace process. We wholeheartedly support that process which offers the best opportunity for restoring peace in Northern Ireland and ending the tragic cycle of sectarian violence which has cost so many lives.
In this context, the Labour Party reiterates its support for the Downing Street declaration. We also believe in the need for a consensual approach as the best means of securing a peace settlement. We recognise that any constitutional changes emerging from this process must have the support of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Such an approach, in our view, is vital to the whole future of Northern Ireland itself.
It is therefore essential that all the political parties in Northern Ireland participate in the peace process. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether other documents produced by other parties will be now considered as part of that process. It would also be helpful if he could provide further details on how the proposed north/south body will work.
If I may say so, it is a little disingenuous of the Prime Minister merely to say on, I think, page seven of the Statement that these documents are a contribution to the talks. With respect, the framework set out in the documents is rather more than just a contribution to the talks. It sets out the way in which both governments see the future developing; and it sets out a framework within which they hope that that future can be safeguarded.
As I understand it, three bodies will be set up as a result. First, there is the internal assembly inside Northern Ireland itself, about which I shall have one or two words to say in a moment. Secondly, there is the
1132
north/south forum which is a totally new institution. Thirdly, there is the intergovernmental conference which is in existence but seems likely, from the terms of the document, to be somewhat beefed up over its present constitution and possibly given further functions. We support that as a framework. However, it is important that we should be clear as to precisely what it is that the two governments are recommending.
As regards the first—namely, the assembly—I should like the Lord Privy Seal to give further information as to how the panel will work. As I understand it—based upon sight of the documents only within the past few hours—parallel with the assembly itself there is to be a panel of three wise men. It is said that they will be elected. I am not quite sure how they will be elected, whether it is to be a political election, whether they are to emerge from the political parties, what their constituency will be, and the precise way in which they will be elected. And perhaps much more important, nor am I clear as to precisely what their functions will be. Are they longstops to ensure that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not do things which the Government—or I suppose one should say governments—would find too outrageous and which would not fit in with the rest of the framework? It is important that that part of the Government's thinking is exposed a little more. Frankly, I do not quite understand what the object of the exercise is, nor who those people will be. I do not understand precisely what they will do, nor how it fits in with the rest of the process.
One might have different views on the details of the assembly. One can discuss the length of term for which it is elected, the manner of the election, the size, and the functions the assembly will have. Those are all important matters but matters of relative detail which should not deter us from expressing our broad support for the thrust of the document.
I turn to the north/south forum, perhaps the single most important element of the whole package. The Lord Privy Seal will, I am sure, confirm what the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions: the three elements are to be seen as a package. In other words, the three institutions are to be created as part of the framework as a whole. It is not a matter of saying, "We agree with points one and two but we are not prepared to have three".
The north/south forum will have three functions, as I understand it: it will be consultative; it will harmonise; and it will be executive. Reading the documents, my impression is that it will be rather more than just a consultative institution, representatives who sit on it being drawn from the assembly in Northern Ireland and the parliament in the south.
From paragraph 32 of the document it is clear that in terms of harmonisation the powers envisaged for the north/south forum are great. I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to quote from paragraph 29 which says that,
"in respect of these designated responsibilities there would be…an obligation on both sides"—

1133
this is the obligation—
"to use their best endeavours to reach agreement on a common policy and to make determined efforts to overcome any obstacles in the way of that objective, even though its implementation might be undertaken by the two administrations separately".
By way of illustration, the kind of policies that will be considered are enumerated: aspects of agriculture and fisheries, industrial development, consumer affairs, transport, energy, trade, health, social welfare, education and economic policy. It is the whole range of governmental activities on both sides of the border. Again, as I understand it, the north/south forum will be there to try to harmonise policies between what goes on in the north and what goes on in the Republic. Not only do I not object to that, but it seems to me that it would be a fruitful way forward. So far as we are concerned, the institution of the north/south forum is something that we support. However, I do not quite understand how the forum fits into the framework of the assembly in the north and the Dublin Parliament in the south. At some stage in the document, it is said almost that the parliaments on either side shall have a veto on what the north/south forum does. I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal could expand on the way in which they intermesh constitutionally.
The Minister also referred to important constitutional developments. Perhaps he could clarify the precise nature of the constitutional changes which will be required, both in this country and in the Republic, to give effect to the proposals. I wonder whether the measures required would include, for example, a Bill of Rights, or whether that is something which the Government have considered and already rejected.
I have concentrated, I hope not overmuch, on the details because it is in the details that this type of proposal and suggestion will succeed or fail. We hope that it will succeed. But it is important that the Government and those people who have to make it succeed are clear about exactly what they are being asked to do.
I believe that the framework announced by the Government in the developing peace process provides the people of Northern Ireland with real hope that an end to sectarian conflict may finally be within sight. It is now up to the political parties in Northern Ireland to develop the process in a constructive manner and to secure a political framework which has the support of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we support the efforts that the Government are now making.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, my object today is to support the Prime Minister. I congratulate him on the consistency, courage and conviction with which he has pursued his Irish policy. I cannot refrain from saying that if he had shown the same qualities in other aspects of policy, he, the Government and the country might be in a better position today. But those are matters for other occasions; let there be no carping today. I only hope that the Prime Minister's initiative meets with the success that it deserves.
1134
I shall ask only one question and add two comments. First, on page 7 of the Statement it is stated that there will be,
"no question of putting proposals to a referendum before there is agreement among the main political parties".
Can the Lord Privy Seal clarify how far the adjective "main" extends in that context?
Secondly, I turn to the comments. First, no one should look for differences between us and the Government on the issue. There are differences of emphasis but they are small. My second comment is that perhaps it would be appropriate for those who are keen to unfurl the banner of unionism to appreciate that the word is meaningless and perverse unless there is some outside body of opinion with which one wishes to be united; and that implies a decent respect for the views of Her Majesty's Government and all parties in Great Britain. I hope that the policy and initiatives which have been taken meet with the success that we all wish for them.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will welcome the wholehearted support which the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, have shown for the documents which he launched today in Belfast. I shall ensure that my right honourable friend is made aware of the terms in which they have welcomed his and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland's initiative.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, in particular remarked—although he did not use the phrase, I am sure that he would not dissent from it—that the devil would be in the detail. I do not believe that any noble Lords would dissent from that sentiment. The support that he expressed in particular for a consensual approach and for the importance of ensuring majority support in the Province is one that I particularly welcome. He asked whether other documents would be considered. I assume that he meant documents produced in particular by constitutional parties within the Province. The answer to that is an unequivocal yes.
The noble Lord also asked how the north/south body would work. Underlying this whole document, and indeed my right honourable friend's presentation of it, is the word "consent". It is a sentiment that the noble Lord himself identified. There can be no question that, although it would be highly unconvincing to deny that the British Government feel bound to commend this document for consideration, particularly after two years' negotiation with the Government of the Republic, to all the parties in Northern Ireland, nevertheless Her Majesty's Government clearly recognise that there is no part of these proposed documents (either Part I or Part II) which is not open to negotiation by the parties concerned. Therefore, the nature of the north/south body in particular and the mechanics by which it would operate are merely suggested. In that context the list that the noble Lord read out of possible subjects for the north/south body to concern itself with was, as it were, a shopping-list. It would be for negotiation to determine whether those subjects would be suitable or acceptable; whether they should be fewer in number to begin with and added to; or, indeed, whether they should be reduced. I am sorry that I cannot be more specific to the

1135
noble Lord. But I am sure that he will appreciate that it is very much in the spirit of the document to make it clear that these are no more than suggestions.
As regards the assembly, the noble Lord asked me how the panel would be elected. With the permission of the House, I refer him to paragraphs 18 and 19 of Part I of the first document. I appreciate that the noble Lord cannot have had time to do anything more than glance at the document, which was inevitable under the circumstances of today. But I am sure that in both paragraphs he will see that there is a fairly general suggestion for the nature of the work of the panel. Later, on page 9, it is clearly set out that the panel would be elected by proportional representation and could intervene and act as a facilitator in matters of interest in order to balance the activities of the assembly. These matters are necessarily general at the moment. It is important, if this is to work, as the noble Lord said, that the general sentiments should be backed by rather more specific agreements as time goes on. I think Her Majesty's Government would recognise that if it were left at this rather vague stage we would lay ourselves open to all sorts of difficulties.
The noble Lord also asked me in particular about a Bill of Rights. In Part II of the document he will see at paragraphs 50 and 51 a reference to the question of a guarantee of fundamental human rights and a comprehensive protection; and that that particular paragraph states that each government,
"will discuss and seek agreement with the relevant political parties in Northern Ireland as to what rights should be specified and how they might best be further protected, having regard to each Government's overall responsibilities including its international obligations".
Paragraph 51 specifies that,
"both Governments would encourage democratic representatives from both jurisdictions in Ireland to adopt a Charter or Covenant, which might reflect and endorse agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in Ireland",
and it specifies what those rights might be.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also expressed support in a manner which my right honourable friend will be very pleased to receive. He asked me in particular which main parties would constitute the effective bar under what has come to be known as the "first lock". At the moment, those are the principal constitutional parties which have renounced violence. As the noble Lord will be aware, they at the moment include the two principal unionist parties, the Alliance Party and the SDLP. It is open, of course, to Sinn Fein to join that number if there is to be a successful outcome to the exploratory, and possibly subsequently substantial, talks which we hope will follow from the existing talks at Stormont. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with me that it would be wholly inappropriate for Sinn Fein to take part in those talks until it had firmly shown itself to be committed to the democratic process and not the path of violence.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I have listened to many Statements over many years in which we have endeavoured from this side of the water to put forward solutions to the problems that exist in Northern
1136
Ireland. I do not think that any previous document has gone as far to reconcile for rational purposes the different aspirations of the people of Ireland, north and south, as this document does. Indeed, I would go further. Although the noble Viscount the Leader of the House asked that the document should be read carefully, perhaps I may be allowed to say on a first, quick reading of it that this is the most thorough and thoughtful document that has been put forward for consideration by the people of Northern Ireland as well as those of the south since the 1921 treaty. It deserves the fullest consideration by all those who are involved.
In adding congratulations to those that have already been expressed, we ought also to say that Mr. Dick Spring has made a most constructive series of proposals. There is no doubt that what is said in this document represents a tremendous leap forward for the people and the government both in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. Mr. Spring is to be congratulated, too, on the way in which he has conducted his part in these negotiations.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I should like to add one more point and ask one question. The point is this. I say to the people of Northern Ireland that if these proposals are considered carefully, I hazard a guess—I would go so far as to say —that most citizens of Great Britain on this side of the water would support them as the most rational way forward while protecting the aspirations of all the parties concerned in this matter. I hope that they will be considered in that light.
Can the Minister say whether the Government have any view about what they mean by a "majority" of the people? We have seen some unfortunate examples of what "majority" can mean, especially in the region of devolution. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have formed any view in that regard.
Finally, though it is no doubt of great concern to us all and we are right to ask questions about the matter, the most important thing we can do now is not to stir the waters. We must allow the parties to get on with the detailed negotiations of this matter and trust that they will come to a solution. I believe that it will be in both their interests if that solution is based on the broad outline of the paper.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the House always listens with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I do not say that in any spirit of oleaginousness, but particularly in view of the fact that he was Home Secretary at the beginning of the troubles and therefore at that time had responsibility for the Province. His period as a statesman spanned the latest period of the Irish tragedy and I hear what he said in relation to the role of the Irish Foreign Minister in this matter. I am sure that the House will have noted it also. I note too the clear diagnosis he gave as to the views of the inhabitants of Great Britain regarding this difficult problem. I certainly support the view that they are impatient of any impediment that may be put in the way of peace.

1137
The noble Lord asked me to give a closer definition of "majority". He implied that that is sometimes a rather more delicate matter than perhaps would seem evident to men of good .will at first blush. Perhaps the easiest way I can expand on that is to use the phrase that became current in the Province during the course of the negotiations; that is, "the greatest number". How that phrase is defined and how the powers of the greatest number are interpreted will be at least as important as the expression, the "majority" or "the greatest number".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the Prime Minister the congratulations of many of us in this House on a considerable and what may well be an historic achievement? Can he say whether the improvement expected to be brought about in the situation in Northern Ireland will enable there to be some withdrawal of our forces from the Province?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, again, I am sure that my right honourable friend will be grateful for my noble friend's congratulations. I should emphasise that the diagnosis of the level of security forces needed for the Province is one that is left to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who acts exclusively on the advice of the commander-in-chief and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
I should emphasise also—and I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to do so—that the considerations which motivate my right honourable friend in coming to his conclusions are purely those of security. To the greatest degree possible the security of the inhabitants of the Province should be protected and no low-down political considerations—if I can put it that way—should play a part in his coming to that judgment.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, like other speakers today I congratulate the Government and wish them well. I say that not simply because I believe it, but also because, if one looks outside in the corridors of this building, this House in particular of the two Houses has been convulsed on the Irish question at times when political partisanship took over from the needs of Ireland. One must never allow that to happen again.
Is the Minister aware that in the face of history the best thing we can do is simply to wish the people of Northern Ireland and the two sovereign governments well and to hope? There has been hope before on many occasions. There was Sunningdale; it failed. There were the elections to a convention; they failed. I rehearse those and others simply because good intentions are not enough. Northern Ireland is a place apart. That is not always understood in Dublin and certainly not in London. The best thing we can do is let the people of Northern Ireland and their political representatives talk. My advice is that we should not rush the situation. This is an excellent document but we must give it time to sink in and not expect quick results.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the House rightly listens to all former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland with keen attention, the noble Lord in particular. But the difficult part now begins.
I have no doubt that the publication of the document will be greeted in certain quarters with acute disappointment. But whatever views may be expressed, those who are outraged by its contents should approach the talks in a thoroughly constructive frame of mind. They should be prepared to negotiate with Her Majesty's Government in a way which does not put them in the wrong should the talks fail. That is a matter of crucial importance for our friends in the Province. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say so.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those already expressed to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This is a remarkable occasion. We are assembled here today with Northern Ireland having been at peace for six months and before us a proposal agreed between the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic. There seems a good chance —I put it no higher—that the political parties in Northern Ireland will sit down and think about it.
I know how painstaking a job it must have been to bring the parties to the present position. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and others who say that this is the moment to let the parties get on with it. However, I have two questions. First, can I take it that the Government do not expect the proposals in the paper to happen? The paper is a framework for discussion. Am I right in supposing that the Government have produced what are actually ideas? Some people speak of them as though they are set in concrete. But they are not. They are ideas. It is my guess that what finally emerges will not accord exactly with what is contained in the document. I hope that the Government understand that and are prepared to accept such an outcome.
Secondly, my noble friend spoke about the triple lock—approval by the parties, the people and Parliament. Is it envisaged that it will happen in that order? If it does, and if a scheme is agreed by the political parties and then by a referendum in Northern Ireland, Parliament will not be able to do much about it, will it? It will have to accept it. Will there be an opportunity for Parliament to say, "Look, you political parties in Northern Ireland have produced a scheme, but we are not sure that we like it very much". I do not know whether that has been thought of. I shall be grateful for my noble friend's observations.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend asks two very important and pertinent questions. We do not necessarily expect it to happen like that. It is perfectly possible that it will not happen at all. The subtitle of the document reads:
"A shared understanding between the British and Irish Governments to assist discussion and negotiation involving the Northern Ireland parties".
Therefore, my noble friend is right in his supposition. As regards the order of the so-called triple lock, I say to my noble friend that the order is perfectly clear; namely,

1139
parties, people and Parliament. It will be for Parliament to judge—if and when we get there—how it wishes to value the opinions of both the parties and the people as expressed in the second part of the lock, the referendum.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I want only a minute. I apologise to the noble Viscount for missing the opening minute of his remarks. Like others, I welcome the document and its production. I congratulate all those concerned. A great wealth of knowledge has gone into the background of its preparation.
I have one or two reservations. I have not had a chance to study the document, but I read the part which states:
"The Irish Government will introduce and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution"
so that there is,
"no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland".
That appears under "A New Framework for Agreement". We all know that this idea has been pushed around. It is almost put forward as a panacea that if the south gives up or reneges on Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, that will solve the problem. That was never the problem and it has never been quoted as such. What has always been stated as the problem is Section 75 of the 1920 Act which gives Britain complete jurisdiction over the six counties in the Province of Ulster.
Another part of the document states that,
"the British Government will propose changes to its constitutional legislation, so as to incorporate a commitment to continuing willingness"
and so forth. It does not say, "So that there is no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction". If we are to start on a level playing field, would it not be better if the offer to adjust the Irish constitution to withdraw territorial claims was matched by withdrawing Section 75 which has always been the cause of the trouble? If that section were withdrawn from the 1920 Act we could probably get down to a level discussion straightaway.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before I try to answer the substance of the noble Lord's question, I emphasise what my right honourable friend has continually emphasised since the beginning of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of the population of the Province wish to remain members of the United Kingdom. It is in that context that the Government are approaching this extremely difficult and contentious question.
As regards the specifics of the noble Lord's question, paragraph 20 of the joint framework document addresses that particular part of the problem. It is perfectly possible that the section of the 1920 Act to which the noble Lord refers can come into play and be altered. But I emphasise the answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook a moment ago. This is the beginning of what could be highly complex negotiations in which everything is up for negotiation. It is perfectly possible that that matter can be an element of it. I am sure that the negotiators will note what the noble Lord said.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I ask my noble kinsman two questions. Am I correct in assuming
1140
that further progress on these proposals is dependent on the Eire Government taking the necessary legal action to abolish their claim to Northern Ireland? Do Her Majesty's Government still accept the answer given to me on 23rd June 1994 that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely relieved to be able to say to my noble kinsman that the answer to both his questions is yes.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister convey my own modest congratulations to the Prime Minister and the Government on what looks like a most extraordinary breakthrough in this agonising situation? Perhaps I may ask him a question which arises from something which the Minister said and from something which was said from the Benches behind him. The Minister said that the IRA had to be firmly committed to the democratic process before any further serious steps can be taken. He was then asked about the possible withdrawal of security forces from Northern Ireland. These seem to me to be two matters which come together as regards the continued possession by the IRA of considerable stockpiles of explosives and firearms. I am not going to ask the Minister at what stage this matter will be addressed because that clearly would be a foolish thing to do at this stage of the process. Does he agree that there is no balance here? The question of the possession of arms and ammunition by the IRA is not to be equated with the presence of the security forces and the Army. Does the Minister agree that some idea of total demilitarisation is a fallacy and that there is no question of moral equivalence being accepted here?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am delighted to be able to give him the reassurance that he needs. It is a most important question and I am delighted to be able to answer it in the way I hope he would expect.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the Minister referred to an overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Does that indicate in a referendum anything different from a simple majority of those taking part in it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the terms of the referendum still have to be determined. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am that in referenda the question is as important in obtaining a result as anything else. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to wait until, we hope, a position is reached where a referendum can be undertaken.

Education
4.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, although it seems some time ago, I am grateful to my noble friend for opening the debate on education so very well. The qualifications, experience and wise counsel of my noble friend are well known and highly respected by so many both inside and outside this House. She adds greatly to our debates.

1141
The level of education achievement of our young people is rising. Look at the trend in qualifications. The proportion of 17 year-olds achieving two or more GCE A levels has doubled over the past 15 years, rising from 14 per cent. to 28 per cent. and at the end of compulsory schooling in 1993 41 per cent. of 15 year-old pupils gained five or more GCSE grades A-starred to C compared with almost 33 per cent. in 1989.
These are real achievements by thousands of individual young people and we should be proud of them. But the Government are not complacent in the face of the ever-present need for a highly qualified workforce. Standards must continue to rise if we are to meet the challenges of the 21st century. At the same time, these qualifications must represent real achievement, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced a comprehensive package of measures to underpin standards of GCSEs.
Educational achievement can be demonstrated in many ways. It is not limited to traditional academic forms. The Government recognise that fact and have put in place a framework of qualifications for all types of student from the age of 14. Job-related national vocational qualifications and broad general national vocational qualifications now stand alongside GCSEs and GCE A levels to offer a richer menu of options to our young people in schools and colleges.
General national vocational qualifications are the latest arrival on the scene and are proving popular with students. There has been an impressive take-up: almost one quarter of a million students have signed up since the first courses began in 1992. The Government are matching this personal commitment by thousands of our young people by making available £23 million of new money to support development of those new qualifications.
Before the age of 16, we are also tackling the problem of how to challenge and motivate not just academic but all pupils through the Part 1 GNVQ for 14 to 16 year-olds. Pupils will study for that qualification alongside a core academic curriculum and will be able to broaden their experience of different kinds of study before important decisions have to be made at 16. It is a new development and we are conscious of the need to guarantee standards in that crucial stage of the education system. That is why we are setting up a full and careful pilot from September of this year to see how Part 1 operates in schools of all kinds.
The new focus on achievement is most obvious in performance tables. After three years they are now an important part of the information revolution that has been brought about in education, helping parents and young people to make informed choices. The regular publication of information about achievement is helping to change the culture in our schools and colleges. Expectations are rising. The 1994 table shows that almost 60 per cent. of schools have increased their score of GCSEs grades A-starred to C between 1993 and 1994.
There are those who see the publication of actual results as an unfair concentration on raw data, but the Government do not see it that way—and neither do
1142
parents or employers. Schools and colleges take the tables seriously as they allow direct comparisons between local institutions and with local and national averages. They must also be seen as part of a bank of information, which combines to give a comprehensive account of the performance of each school—for example, annual reports to parents, school inspection reports, and annual governors' meetings. Those who consider that raw data to be unfair should see that it would be a greater injustice to try to keep the results out of the public domain in some way. In the real world, we are all interested in actual outcomes. The popularity of performance tables cannot be challenged and, in due course, we shall extend their coverage to include the results of the national curriculum assessments of 11 year-olds when those tests, which take place for the first time this year, are bedded down.
Nevertheless, we continue to look at ways of making the tables more helpful to parents and others. One idea on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed to consult is a kind of improvement index which looks at one year's results for an institution as compared with another year for the same school or college. We know that a number of local authorities are interested in such measures. There may be a place for something similar in the national tables.
I have said that we need to know actual performance and the school and college tables provide, and will continue to provide, that information. However, we must also recognise the need to reflect on the value added by schools and colleges. That is rather different from simple improvement. Perhaps everyone agrees on the principle of value added, but there is a wide range of views about exactly what that term means in the context of education. What we are looking for here are reliable measures of what schools and colleges add to the knowledge and understanding of a particular pupil or student from one age to another. The Government believe that such measures must be based firmly on the differences in actual achievements as measured by national tests and examinations.
At the national level the indicators must be simple to collect, so as not to add to the administrative burden on schools and colleges. Above all, value-added indicators must be easy to understand for parents, employers, Ministers, and others interested in our educational system, making sure that ultimately it is serving our young people. The principle and practice of measuring achievement matters equally in further education. Universities are also interested in developing performance indicators, and will be publishing a report later this year.
Noble Lords will be aware that we now have national targets for education and training. Indeed, my noble friend referred to them. They, too, can act as a spur for individual achievement within the national context. One target is for 80 per cent. of young people to reach the equivalent of five good GCSEs or an intermediate GNVQ. In 1994, 64 per cent. had reached that target. Schools and colleges have a crucial role to play in that process and we encourage them to participate in their own target-setting exercises to help to raise the achievement of their pupils and students. As a nation,

1143
we cannot afford to set our ambitions in that area at too modest a level. The targets are being reviewed to see whether they are keeping pace with international competitiveness.
The emphasis on raising achievement is essential. We have put a great effort into laying out a framework within which our children can show what they can do. I refer, of course, to the national curriculum, now revised to strip away bureaucracy and excessive content. There will now be more time for teachers, especially in primary schools, to teach the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Rigorous tests at the ages of seven, 11, and 14 will ensure that the focus on pupil achievement is to the fore. I cannot emphasise too much the importance of those basic skills, especially reading-the cornerstone of all learning. No child should pass the age of seven not able to read, unless there is a good reason, such as a particular learning difficulty. Certainly no child should pass the age of 11 unable to read. Rigorous testing will expose positive achievement, but it will also expose areas of weakness. Building on children's strengths and addressing their weaknesses will be more focused and is, of course, a job for the teacher.
At the same time, the Government have set up the new inspection regime under the Office for Standards in Education. This has started well, and by the end of this school year about half of all secondary and a significant minority of primary schools will have been inspected by independent teams. We can see already that that process, by which every school in the country can expect an independent inspection on a regular basis, is stimulating schools to improve.
Inspections cover all aspects of school life, not least pupil achievement. In his recent annual report, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector highlighted the need to continue to strive to raise standards in that area. There are still too many pupils being taught badly, with around one-fifth of all lessons judged to be below an adequate standard. How can our children raise their personal levels of achievement in that situation? We must all do more to help: teachers, governors, local authorities, parents and the Government. I welcome Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's proposed action to promote effective teaching.
The Government are concerned with achievement in all schools. We are therefore promoting measures designed to improve school effectiveness—measures such as financial benchmarking, advice to governors, and a register of consultants able to help schools with serious weaknesses.
One area in which Ofsted has identified weaknesses is in planning. The Department for Education and the inspectorate are organising a series of regional conferences to provide practical help to schools and local authorities in that area.
However, we all know that there are some schools which are failing to provide properly for their pupils. The new inspection arrangements introduced by this Government clearly identify such schools. If a school itself or the local authority cannot improve matters, my right honourable friend can appoint an education association to bring about the necessary improvements
1144
in the state of the school concerned. This is more evidence of our genuine commitment to raising achievement even in the most difficult of circumstances.
There are those who doubt that commitment and complain about rising class sizes as a constraint on pupil achievement. I am glad of the opportunity to deal with this criticism today. First, the facts. Since 1990 there have been slight increases in average class size: from 25.9 to 26.9 pupils in primary schools, and 20.3 to 21.4 in secondary schools. That is hardly the massive deterioration that some would have us believe.
The pupil:teacher ratio is actually better than in 1979. Moreover, it is the case that while pupil numbers are rising, so are the numbers of teachers (by 1,300 full-time equivalents in 1994), and support staff (by nearly 5,000 full-time equivalents).
Many people believe that smaller classes must automatically lead to pupils achieving more. I have to tell your Lordships that there is no evidence from inspections or research in this country that proves that alleged causal link. Of course, it may be that if one were to reduce average class sizes from, say, 27 to below 20, an effect would be noticed, but we do not know that for sure, and the costs would be prohibitively high. What we do know is that more significant influences on pupil achievement are the quality of the teacher, the quality of the teaching, and the techniques employed.
We are all aware that some commentators are observing that the age of the information super-highway is upon us and we are concerned to ensure that our schools and colleges can play a full part in that process. Again, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has announced that the Department for Education will issue a consultation paper in the spring which will address the opportunities for access to high quality teaching, training and materials presented by the convergence of information, telecommunications, broadcasting technologies and broad band networking.
It has been said that education is no longer a secret garden. Our reforms have increased the role of parents, creating an environment where a virtuous cycle of rising achievement, built on active parental support, can be developed. At the same time, parental power has been enhanced by greater access to information, not least through the Parent's Charter which was updated last year. It was distributed to all parents in the most cost-effective way—to every household in the country—but such is the interest in our reforms that the DFE has still received, in addition to that, requests for over 50,000 more copies.
We now have a greater diversity of schools for parents to consider for their children's education. The very existence of over 1,000 grant-maintained schools has put LEAs on their mettle to raise standards. That new type of school is popular with parents and, it would seem, with a number of the Opposition Front and Back Benchers in another place. We now see grant-maintained schools producing better results than comparable LEA schools. We look forward to universal acceptance of choice in education by all political parties.
We recognised the diversity of educational achievement through the introduction of the CTCs, now with over 13,000 pupils across the ability range. And

1145
the CTCs have been the model for the specialist schools initiative. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced new money for that programme—£15 million in 1995–96, rising to £25 million in 1997–98, allowing for over 200 specialist schools within three years. Building on the success of nearly 70 new technology colleges that initiative is being opened up to all maintained secondary schools which will be eligible to apply for designation. At the same time, we are broadening the programme to encompass not just technology, science and mathematics, but also to allow schools to specialise in modern foreign languages.
This is perhaps the point to acknowledge the constraints of finite resources. In a tough public expenditure round, the Government have given priority to education. The DFE and Ofsted budget is rising by over 4 per cent. in cash terms in 1995–96 to almost £11 billion. That is a 1 per cent. increase in real terms. Total local authority spending allowed for education is over £17 billion, a 1.1 per cent. cash increase over the equivalent figure for 1994–95. The total expenditure on education in 1994–95 is over £28 billion.
Of course, noble Lords will be aware of the current debate over the adequacy of that provision, but education cannot be immune from economic reality. To help, LEAs can cut their costs on their central bureaucracies and surplus places. Many schools can help themselves. HMCI pointed out in his recent report that some schools—it is some schools—are carrying forward large sums of money from one year to the next without any clear idea of how that money is to be used. I quote from paragraph 20 of the report:
"Although there may be good reasons for individual schools to carry forward large sums of money from one year to the next, some schools do so without any clear idea of how this money is to be used".
It is clear that local authorities and schools can mitigate the effects of a tough settlement by drawing on reserves and balances.
I include teachers' pay in this. The Government have accepted in full the pay increase of 2.7 per cent. recommended by the School Teachers' Review Body. But that award has to be met from within existing funding. It is a fair settlement. The average teacher's pay, following the 1st April pay award, will be about £22,200, but the Government are determined to control public spending to help reduce the PSBR. We all have to contribute to that, and as I have said, education, representing such a large part of public expenditure, cannot be immune. Whatever the merits of the arguments being deployed on that issue, the breadth of the debate and the number of people taking part highlight how much parents and governors are now involved in education at the local level. That is a new phenomenon, and it must be a good thing for education in this country.
In the current debate on educational expenditure we should remember the comment in the recent HMCI report that, in overall terms, the provision of resources is satisfactory. And we should also note that, in international terms, education in this country is by no
1146
means a poor relation. OECD figures show that the UK government invest more in education than many of our main competitors. Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP is higher here than in Germany or Japan.
One of the most dramatic changes we have witnessed in education over the past 15 years is the increase in post-school participation. The figures are impressive: a 55 per cent. increase in 16 year-olds' participation in full-time post-compulsory education over the past 10 years. Now, most of our young people aged 16–19 stay on in full or part-time education and training. Indeed, the UK participation rate of 94 per cent. of 16 year-olds in some form of education or training puts us well up with our major competitor countries. That expansion has been assisted by the Government's creation of the new further education sector independent of local authority control.
In higher education we have already virtually reached the target of one in three projected in the 1991 White Paper. Some 30 per cent. of young people now enter full-time HE, compared with only 12 per cent. in 1979. Part-time participation is up, too. These students are part of an efficient HE system with lower drop-out rates and shorter courses than elsewhere. By 1991, our graduation rate had become the highest in the European Union.
For students in colleges, quality pull from customers rather than governmental push from the centre is helping to sharpen the focus on individual achievement, but government still have a role to play by setting in place arrangements to reinforce employers' influence on the further education sector. The White Paper Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win did just that. The strong relationship between further education colleges, TECs and the business community will help to ensure that students acquire the skills and qualifications needed by employers.
A great strength of our HE system is its diversity. A wide range of institutions now exists dedicated to different missions, and entrants to HE now come from a much wider range of the population with a wider variety of entry qualifications. Universities are responding to that through devising new course structures often built on a modular pattern and increasingly with opportunities for credit and transfer. Institutions have responded well to the increased freedom given to them by the Government by identifying and meeting a wide range of demand from students and employers.
No doubt we shall hear during the course of the debate that more resources are the answer to good education. The level of expenditure on education is very important and this Government's record on according priority to education bears favourable comparison with any previous opposition government. However, it is simply wrong to believe that more money is equal to higher educational achievement. One needs to look no further than the ILEA which spent at a much higher level than most parts of the country and produced some of the worst educational results.
Our children's education is the single most important task for us all, starting with parents. We have put in place the national curriculum, regular assessment and

1147
testing, systematic inspections, a rich menu of qualifications in schools, FE and HE to develop the skills and talents of all our children. A rich combination of academic, cultural, art and music, physical challenges and the spiritual dimension through RE is provided through that framework. On a good education depends a wholesome, healthy and successful economy. Its importance cannot be understated.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris:: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. The young people of this country are, as has just been said, its greatest asset because, as Goldsmith put it in The Deserted Village:
"Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay".
Yet one can only wonder at the sagacity of a government who announced recently their intention to appoint an image-maker to change the public perception of teachers. This functionary, we are informed, will rejoice in the style and title of "The Chief Contractor", an ominous dignity suggesting that he can run the system down faster than anybody else. A DFE spokeswoman is quoted as saying:
"The main job will be to improve the image, present teachers as the experts and help recruit dedicated professionals".
One cannot but remember Quem Iupiter vult perdere, dementat prius—whom God wishes to destroy, he first sends mad.
There are so many more important and more difficult things which urgently need to be done than to appoint a chief contractor. Let it be conceded among us that it is difficult to measure educational achievement. Examination results alone will not do it; the concept of "value added" is complex and is open to subjective judgment; so are school reports or "student profiles"; and probably nothing can measure spiritual, emotional or cultural development. Teachers can often recognise it, but you cannot mark it out of 10. Yet some measure or measures of achievement there must be, and some instruments are better than others.
Plainly, the school performance tables devised by the Government so far are blunt and misleading instruments. We have had tables based on examination results alone. But teachers and, above all, parents need to know far more about any school than its GCSE results. The Government have published truancy rates, but those told us very little about any school, especially as so many teenagers go to school, sign in, and then walk straight out again, or stay in the building but do not attend lessons. But the first prize for a really crass list must surely go to Ofsted's array of 52 improving schools published this month. In Ofsted's table "improvement" means a 10 per cent. improvement in A to C grades at GCSE over three years: nothing more, nothing less. A socially deprived child from an ethnic minority whose first language is not English, in an inner city school, who reaches a shining grade D against all the odds, is not recognised as contributing to a school's "improvement". Yet, as Choice and Diversity puts it,
1148
"pupils with only a few GCSEs may have derived far more from school than those with two 'A' levels".
The crudity and incompleteness of the table has been exposed by Mr. Charles Bell's analysis of it for the pressure group Article 26. We shall need to study it carefully, but it seems clear that in 20 of the HMCI's "improving" schools the percentage of pupils who got no GCSEs or who got fewer than five GCSEs actually increased. And in the worst of them the number of pupils who got no GCSEs increased by 11 percentage points and those with fewer than five GCSEs increased by three percentage points. It does indeed look as if Ofsted identified these 52 schools simply on the basis of a computer search which looked for a difference of 10 or more in two figures, the 1992 and 1994 figures, for pupils scoring more than five grade C GCSEs. This is not a serious, responsible statement about improvement.
An improving school should be achieving improvements right across the ability range for all pupils and it should surely also be sustaining those improvements year after year, which some schools in the HMCI's list were not. Any teacher will tell you that "improving" a highly intelligent child from a highly-motivated middle-class family in a class with others of the same ability is dead easy. They need very little teaching. The real teaching achievement is to enable and empower a depressed child, conditioned to failure by below average ability, to achieve more than anyone ever thought possible. That requires expert teaching, and it is jolly hard.
We must look at the whole picture. The new vocational qualifications are a good thing. It is good that most LEAs registered a significant rise in the number of pupils passing at least five GCSEs with grade C or better. But in the vast majority of LEAs the numbers failing to achieve any GCSEs at all also rose last year. Only 20 out of 109 English LEAs registered an improvement in the number of school-leavers with at least one GCSE last year. The most serious deteriorations were in Kensington and Chelsea, almost doubling from 6.6 per cent. to 12.3 per cent.; Rotherham, rising from 6.1 per cent. to 10.1 per cent.; and Newcastle, which rose from 14.1 per cent. to 17.5 per cent.; while the national average rose from 7 per cent. to 7.7 per cent.
The reason is simple. If DFE publishes, and trumpets, the "Five Cs" table, and implies that schools who score well on that table are good schools, then teachers and headteachers (whose money depends on these things) will see to it that they score as well as they can, by shifting resources into that area of work, to the detriment of the less able pupils. Just as, in this country, the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer, so, by such tables, the ablest will do better and the least able will do worse. Mr. Bell pointed to,
"an increasing polarisation of achievement induced by the publication of performance tables".
If the Government are interested in telling the truth, and the whole truth, even about the GCSE results, there are two things they should do. They should seriously consider Article 26's suggestion about publishing two further pieces of information now: first, the GCSE

1149
average pupil score indexing all the GCSE grade achievements of all pupils, alongside the current three partial indexes of GCSE achievement; and, secondly, the percentage of pupils in each school who are entitled to free school meals, since this is a very sensitive index of real poverty, and does, I believe, correlate very closely with academic achievement. It would distinguish between schools which improve their examination results by selecting academically capable pupils from those which are improving provision for all pupils, regardless of background.
I must allow that establishing the facts and trends, telling the truth, in this area is very difficult. But the Government have no one to blame but themselves. Introducing the national curriculum and its many, many changes between 1988 and 1995 not only cost some £744 million and alienated the entire teaching profession; it also made statistical analysis very difficult. I am relieved to learn that the DFE has realised at last that it is incapable of solving the performance table problem alone and that SCAA is commissioning research from Professor Carol Fitzgibbon of Newcastle University, though even she cannot promise to report before December 1996.
At all events, the DFE and the Secretary of State have enough trouble. Precisely when we desperately need to create partnership between parents, teachers, schools, governors and government, we find ourselves in a Mexican standoff over the local government "cuts". It is quite different from the wearisome battles of earlier year. Until 1995 it was the local authorities or the teachers' unions who tried annually to convince Whitehall that there was not enough money to preclude sacking staff. Now parents and school governors have joined the campaign, and there are serious threats of rebellion and illegal activity in some, though not all, areas of the country.
In Derbyshire, Conservative councillors voted with their Labour colleagues to make a special appeal to the Secretary of State over the £23.5 million cut in their education budget, which threatens 400 teaching posts, and may put some schools on a three-day week. In Warwickshire, governors in 92 schools have pledged to set illegal budgets, rather than sack 250 teachers, and they are being backed by a specially formed pressure group of parents, Fight Against Cuts in Education. In Oxfordshire, more than 3,000 demonstrators, including teachers on strike, school governors, and children, lobbied county councillors discussing cuts of over £23 million. And in Cambridgeshire, a 16th century charity trust had to step in with £70,000 to help children, in school, who had special educational needs.
We on these Benches deplore all forms of violence, including violence in language. But we must confess to a certain rueful respect for that chairman of an education committee who wrote to the Chancellor, describing him as "smug, complacent and stupid". He challenged the Chancellor to find savings to fund the award within 72 hours, and said,
"otherwise we will know that you are what we see, a blather of lard in the melting pot of hot water generated by the sweat you create doing nothing, knowing nothing and thinking you know everything".
1150
Tut! Tut! But the irony is that these strong words come not from some loud-mouthed lama of the loony Left, but from none other than Mr. Jonathan Taylor, chairman of the education committee in Trafford, the flagship Conservative council in Greater Manchester.
He, and the governors, and the teachers and the parents, are angry as never before because they care about the quality of the education their children receive, and they know that achievement in our schools is threatened as never before. The Secretary of State has acknowledged the difficulty. She has invited local authorities to make a case to her for special help. She is reported as saying, "I promise I will listen very carefully to what they have to say". As the honourable and knowledgeable person I know her to be, I am sure she will. But my advice to her is that, armed with that information, she should go back to her Cabinet colleagues, and bang the table, and swing her handbag until she gets justice for our schools.
The Government are yet again in a crisis of confrontation; this time with teachers, governors, local authorities and parents. What a waste! The Labour Party is totally committed, in print, to partnership in education because it works.
Last week I read the annual report of Parent Network. On an income of £266,000, mostly from trusts and the DOH, it does splendid and extensive work teaching parenting skills and encouraging links between parents and schools. That is partnership. Other organisations, like the City Literary Institute, do excellent work providing teachers who can teach and accredit parents. There are only a few hundred such teachers in this country, and, as sure as fate, they will be high on the list for the axe next year. Yet think what they do for parents in the ethnic minorities, many of whom cannot read English sufficiently well to help their children read. One such woman said to a teacher:
"It hurts me in my heart when my child brings home a book".
Those teachers should not have to spend (as they do) nearly 50 per cent. of their time looking for funds, from charities, from jumble sales, to do their vital work.
The need is great. As Milton said:
"The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed".
And what a flock! At the end of BBC Education's "Read and Write Together" week, last Saturday, viewers and listeners were invited to ring a special line if they wanted help with their children's reading and writing. Nearly 340,000 calls were received. Officials at the DFE will have to dig deep into their pockets to find the extra Read and Write Together packs to send out—340,000! It is staggering that so many should ring. It is staggering that so many should need this help. It is staggering that all they are going to get is leaflets.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, for introducing the debate, although I cannot share all her views. In particular, I find her attitude towards LEAs quite foreign to my experience. I was a member of my county's education committee for several years and I have been a school governor for 10 years. Perhaps I

1151
should declare that as an interest, but I am sure that I do not need to tell your Lordships that it is a non-pecuniary one.
In the course of those 10 years spent close to my county's educational life I have been extremely impressed by the initiatives which the county has started and brought to a successful conclusion to improve standards. In case your Lordships may have heard of it, I mention the Reading Recovery Programme, which is an absolute pathmaker in this country, and our new Reading for Younger Pupils Programme, which is not just for those who have fallen behind but for pupils as they come into our schools. LEAs do understand the importance of achievement and of literacy. It is rather unfortunate that they tend to be swept aside in certain people's criticisms of the past as though they no longer have a useful part to play in the present and in the future.
I found it strange also that governors were not mentioned in the list of people or organisations referred to in the Motion for the debate who play a part in achieving standards. The considerable burden of time which now accrues to everybody on school governing hoards is not always recognised by those who are not school governors. There is also responsibility to such an extent that it is becoming more, rather than less, difficult to find people to serve in that very demanding role.
Governors lack somewhere to turn when things get really difficult. We should consider what resources we could make available to them. Sometimes those resources must be outwith the local education authority's gift. My local education authority puts a great deal of effort into training governors. But sometimes there may be disputes to which the local education authority, for good or ill, is a party. Therefore, the governors need an independent source of advice. They are trying to do a good job; they are listening to what they are told; they are taking an interest in school plans and all the matters which the two noble Baronesses on the Conservative Benches mentioned.
During the past 10 years I have witnessed and been involved with a number of events which bear upon the role and importance of schools in achieving higher standards of education. Perhaps I may refer to the reforms of the examination system, which is the only measure, unsatisfactory though it may be, of performance in schools. It was not a bad idea to start thinking about how that measure should be structured. But what sensible person would have started with the 16-plus examination, which is right in the middle of the education process? One might have started at the beginning or by altering A-levels and asking universities what they require. But no, the process started in the middle. Later, along came the national curriculum, which I always supported, and the testing of seven, 11, 14 and 16 year-olds. For a long time there was confusion as to whether that was the same as GCSEs or different. That was followed by seemingly interminable arguments and counter-instructions about who would test what and, above all, how at each stage.
The process has not stopped even today. The Minister referred to stripping away excess requirements in the national curriculum. GCSE English is part of the core curriculum. The 1994 cohort of examinees was the first
1152
for which the written/oral coursework was reduced to 40 per cent. of the total of English language marks and 30 per cent. of the total of English literature marks. Now consultation is taking place which may result in an increase in the maximum percentage of coursework in both those syllabuses, which will first be examined in 1998.
It is very difficult for schools, when told one thing for one set of cohorts and another for another set, with a very quick turnover, to cope in the way that they would wish. At present the possible reform of A-levels is being discussed.
Secondly, there has been a constant stream of instructions, often printed on the sort of glossy paper which few schools or local education authorities could afford. Often those instructions arrive late. For example, when the 14-plus curriculum for English was introduced into secondary schools, it did not arrive on the desks of teachers until about June of the year in which it had to be introduced in September—and yet anybody who knows about schools will know that the main order for books for the following year goes in in May. That was not in accord with ordinary school practice. Every now and again those instructions are recalled or reissued, and they have covered an enormous range of subjects.
Thirdly, teachers have been subjected to an unprecedented torrent of abuse, often orchestrated and stimulated by the Government. I should stress that I was particularly glad to hear a very different tone of voice from the Minister when she spoke in today's debate. It is very much time that teachers were accorded the respect that they deserve. If there is something wrong with their training, I take leave to point out that that is a part of the education system in which the Government control what is going on; and, indeed, have always done so. Therefore, one might have thought again that a different approach would be taken to the training of teachers rather than slamming them once they got into schools.
Some of those criticisms appear to be what one might call "totally uninfected" by any actual contact with teachers or schools, which of course display the variety inherent in all humans and in all human institutions. When one considers the pressure under which teachers have been placed, it seems to me that we ought to be commending them for their part in the increased performance of schools at examinations which has been recorded with such pride by previous speakers. It was very difficult in a period of enormous upheaval, when teacher morale certainly did sink to a severe low two or three years ago, for teachers to keep their sense of proportion and, above all, their pupils' interests always in the forefront of their attention when they had to make such rapid changes under such difficult circumstances.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I have to ask whether we should be concentrating so much on achievement in exams. Large numbers of young people still leave school without any qualifications. What about the introduction of trained-on-the-job-only teachers? Will that contribute to high pupil achievement? Does competition between schools for pupils really assist under-achievers? The rapidly growing number of exclusions suggests that it does not.

1153
Do growing class sizes augur well for future achievements? The noble Baroness suggested that they were irrelevant. I cannot believe that anyone who has sat in a school and watched a teacher trying to teach, single-handedly, a class of over 30 five, six or seven year-olds could be in any doubt whatever that their achievements depend to some extent on the size of the class.
Who—and this is a curious point—is interested in addressing the under-achievement of boys? I do not refer to girls; I refer to boys. For years I have been banging the drum for women and their access to education. However, today it is not women who are under-achieving; it is boys. That is something to which we should pay attention. It is precisely the sort of thing that LEAs are well placed to take a lead in. An individual LEA, looking at its exam results and knowing the head teachers in the schools, is very well placed to put together programmes which will assist in redressing that balance and ensuring that our young men are as well qualified as they ought to be.
Various speakers mentioned CDT. However, everything is not rosy in that area. Even well-supported schools like those in my county are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for the very expensive new machinery which is required today and to keep on updating such equipment, for example, for computer-aided design and so on. The Government may be correct in their self-congratulatory mood, but I suggest that for many of the things that I have mentioned the jury is still out.
I spoke about where we might have started to improve the education system. I would have directed some of my money at the younger age group. I believe that I would have done a great deal more to improve nursery education and to broaden its accessibility to the ordinary young child. To me, it was a disgrace that in my own county we had only eight nursery classes up until very recently. We then began to bring into our schools rising-fives, and now we are helping to fund rising-rising-fives. I hope that noble Lords are managing to follow the technical language. I mean that the children coming into many of our schools are getting younger and younger; indeed, some of them are only just over four years old. In addition, last year we funded five new nursery classes and we intend to fund five more during the forthcoming year. I believe that there are many other local authorities which take nursery education very seriously.
Not so very long ago it would have been true to say that nursery education was more available in the north of England than in the south and more available in urban than in non-urban areas. I do not want to make the kind of generalisation which I am not quite fitted to make, but that was my impression. In other words, local authorities at present, and in the past, have actually led the way in the provision of nursery education, although it is not a statutory obligation upon them: they have seen the need.
Recently the Prime Minister trumpeted his commitment to improve education. A friend of mine inquired about how that policy was going and received
1154
a quite interesting letter, one paragraph of which said, more or less, that studies were going on but that nothing had been ruled in and nothing had been ruled out; that no decisions had been taken; and that a statement would be made soon. I hate to take away from Mr. Major's very understandable triumph in Ireland, but it sometimes seems to me that on some subjects he is rather like the Duke of Plaza Toro in that he prefers to lead his regiment from behind: "He [finds] it less exciting".
Other speakers briefly mentioned money. Money is not the cure of all the problems which face any human activity. I do not believe that there is anyone on either side of the House who would claim that it is. However, there is no doubt that it can make a difference. I certainly was educated at a public school, and I dare say that there is perhaps a preponderance—if everyone were present—of Members of the House who were educated in the private sector. One has to consider the balance of cash which goes into the public and into the private sector.
My good education authority spends approximately £3,400 per annum on a secondary school pupil—that is the ball park figure. One would not get very far if one was trying to purchase any form of private education, even day-school education, with £3,500 per year. That difference regarding the money which goes into education in the private sector is seen every time one visits a private school. One sees the quality of the equipment with which teachers are delivering a curriculum to a body of pupils which, on the whole, is extremely well motivated and very well supported by parents.
I should like to see the same emphasis—indeed, greater emphasis—placed upon the education of those to whom the noble Lord, Lord Morris, drew our attention as is placed upon the education of those who are, in any event, privileged in the field of education because of their privileged background.
I believe that we ought to be enabling equal choice and access for all to high quality education, irrespective of financial resources or, indeed, even the IQ of the pupil or child. A Rowntree Trust report recently laid stress on the role of education in bridging the increasing gap between the rich and the poor.
We have in the past—we have continued it to this day—made a commitment to increase the amount of money which goes to education. I believe that that was a commitment which was well understood by the electorate and which has been maintained in subsequent shadow Budgets and so on. What do we look for in the future? We look for well motivated pupils and students. Dare I say that the prospect of a job at the end of their education might be one thing which could motivate them rather well? We look to parents who really support their kids. We look to teachers who are well trained, decently paid and enabled to continue to update their craft and who strive to assist their pupils to achieve their best in every way that the individual pupil can. We look to schools which are well maintained and well equipped. We look for governors who understand and accept and are able to perform their tasks. We look for local authorities still able to provide their expertise and in

1155
particular to deal with the day to day problems of education; and we look for governments who give education truly the priority it deserves.
5.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for placing this subject before your Lordships' House and for the able way in which she introduced it. I join with her, and also with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who has just spoken, in expressing appreciation to those who are working within the educational system, both to staff and to governors.
In speaking of governors I recognise that many of my clergy are governors of schools. Indeed I suppose the majority of them chair at least one governing body. This afternoon the intervention I should like to make is perhaps of a rather more exploratory nature. In making this intervention I must make it clear that, although I am mandated by the Churches to speak on behalf of them in educational matters, this afternoon I make a private contribution to the debate.
I remember 30 years ago being in Sri Lanka and being accosted by those in education there who were talking about the system then in place in this country. They painted a picture of unwilling youngsters, misbehaving classes and stressed staff. They asked me how people in England could show so little regard for education. I had to say that I could not understand it either but that nevertheless the picture they painted was largely an accurate one and contrasted of course strikingly with the way in which education was viewed in Asia. I wonder whether 30 years on very much has changed. The eager, enthusiastic youngsters of primary schools become the reluctant, rebellious young people of secondary schools. I exaggerate to make the point. I am well aware that there are schools which could not be included under that heading. Nevertheless I believe it to be a general picture.
I quote from Mr. John Abbott, the director of Education 2000, who asked in an address to the annual conference of the Confederation of British Industry,
"Why is it, I am often asked, after years of conventional teaching do so many young people appear to have little personal initiative, seem so unwilling to accept responsibility…after all, at the age of eleven so many of them left their primary schools alert, excited, inquisitive"?
The clue, he suggests,
"is in the word teaching. Good primary schools encourage children to want to learn, to explore relationships, to treat the world as their expanding oyster…the child becomes excited—and motivated.
Secondary schools have been saddled with the artificiality of single subject disciplines, each with a heavy load of content—the teacher takes control, the pupil does as he is told…'it is the only way to cover the syllabus'.
The integrated view of knowledge is easily lost…very many pupils lose interest, they do as they are told because…'teacher knows best'…not because they any longer feel responsible. A vital attribute—that of responsibility—is destroyed; many never recover—learning is associated with failure, and this bugs them for all time".
A number of his hearers at the CBI conference recognised themselves in the picture painted there. Indeed I dare to say that some of our best achievers have managed to achieve in spite of the educational system rather than because of it. I suggest that the word
1156
"achievement" might be translated by what young people learn. What they learn, as has already been said in your Lordships' House, is, in part but certainly not in whole, measured by examination achievement. What they learn begins in the first place in the home.
I shall return to schools later but I wish to begin with the notion of parents as first educators. It is from parents that children learn how to speak and learn their language. It is from good parents that children learn curiosity. There are marvellous educational methods in the very simplest of operations such as sorting clothes for the washing machine or buying food in the supermarket. From all of this attention and learning in the very early years children gain self-worth. The point has already been made —I reiterate it—that at the base of all learning is a sense of self-worth and self-esteem and if that is lacking learning does not take place.
I would therefore dare to suggest that we need to place emphasis on parents not just as first educators but as educators throughout the period of their children's learning. Do not let nursery schools become a way of drawing our attention away from what I believe to be the absolutely crucial role of parents, particularly in these early years. If I had control of resources—which I do not—I would allocate substantial resources to this area of the first years in a child's life. We recently had in your Lordships' House a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Many of your Lordships made contributions on the theme of the enormous significance of parents as educators of their children.
The schools, of course, pick up the theme of learning, which I believe to be a natural activity. The capacity of the brain to learn is extraordinary: for example, the way we pick up a language in the early years and the way we learn to be social beings. All this demonstrates the enormous capacity of the brain to learn. It is the task of schools to harness that activity and I believe also to allow young people steadily, through the years of schooling, to take increasing responsibility for their own learning. If there is a weakness in the present system, I believe it is precisely at this point that it does not encourage that sense of responsibility which, once accepted, continues throughout life. We are well aware as we move into the new world that we are all required to be learners throughout life.
Of course there are basic competencies that have to be acquired at primary school such as numeracy, literacy, calculation and communication, but primary schools do more than this. They encourage exploration, they excite and they motivate. I would argue, as other noble Lords have already argued, that the resources necessary at primary level to achieve this effectively need to be larger than they are at the moment. However, I would dare to suggest—I realise this will be a highly unpopular suggestion—that the corollary of that is that resources at secondary level may need to be smaller. If we are encouraging young people to take responsibility, they do not need teachers in the same way as they do in those early stages. The figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, earlier illustrated the discrepancy between primary and secondary education. Perhaps if those figures were reversed that would be a more proper application of resources.

1157
The problem of secondary schools is, of course, that they feel they must cover the subjects. As I have already said, they must get through the syllabus. But I would suggest that perhaps in the new age the task of teachers will not be so much to impart knowledge as to encourage young people to think for themselves. I shall have more to say in a moment about knowledge acquisition. But I would dare to suggest that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge than simply sitting at the feet of a teacher and hearing the teacher speak.
My own experience of education has been in the higher education sector. I always felt when lecturing that I was wasting my time. Those who sat at my feet could just as well have acquired the information from elsewhere. However, I felt that when I was working with them in seminars or on essays they had prepared I was doing something profoundly important because I was helping to stimulate and encourage them.
The system we have now begins with the parent as early educator in a one-to-one or two-to-one situation. It finishes in universities with a large number of students and a very much smaller number of teachers. In universities today the system might be described as "go off and find out for yourself". In between we have a system which does not encourage that steady independence and control of one's own learning which ought to lead towards the situation that we have in universities.
If we followed that line we would need not only reallocation of resources but also a change of attitudes. That is very difficult to bring about. How might that be driven? The one thing that was missing from the introduction to the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was an emphasis on the community. I felt that she spoke too much of education as institution bound. I am told that 80 per cent. of what we learn is acquired in the community as a whole, not in our educational institutions. Therefore, we need to see the community as a primary educator and as a driver of what happens in education.
We are well aware that the future will require young people who are flexible, collaborative, innovative and continuously learning. It is not at once evident that the present examination system encourages all those attitudes. But a community which is obviously concerned about the future will function in that way and will help schools to enable youngsters to learn some of those skills. When members of a community
—parents, business people and a whole variety of people—participate in schools, attitudes begin to change.
The other driver of change, and perhaps the most important one, is technology. I was most interested in what the Minister had to say earlier and her emphasis on information technology. Of all the changes in knowledge acquisition that have taken place over the centuries, the introduction of information technology is the greatest since the arrival of printing. One would suspect, therefore, that changes in education would be as great as that which followed the arrival of books.
That is not merely a matter of the skills required to handle a keyboard or a visual display unit, it is also a question of the way in which young people are able to
1158
use IT to obtain the knowledge that they need. CD-Roms are available on an immense array of subjects. That releases the teacher from being the knowledge provider to undertake the far more important role of inspirer. That has been the traditional role of teachers throughout the ages. I believe that teachers have to give young people not so much knowledge as inspiration. Sometimes we have a model of teachers as knocking into unwilling heads the information that pupils need. I do not believe that that is a proper model. The teacher should be a stimulator, enabler and, above all, inspirer. I suggest that those two drivers may bring about the kind of changes which in future our world will inevitably require.
I shall not speak at any length about Church schools. I point out simply that it needs to be remembered that one third of the schools in our educational system are Church schools and among many of those which are highly sought after.
I should like briefly to mention the matter of values. It is in such schools that value systems are not only taught but are embodied in the life of the school and in the curriculum. The subject of values in the curriculum is one to which we shall have to return.
I should like to speak at slightly greater length about another area which I believe to be of enormous significance. That is the interior life of the spirit. It was alluded to most marvellously a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I am grateful for what he said.
What matters is how we are motivated and what inspires us. That is what will enable us to learn and to achieve. The first dimension of the Education Act 1988 was that of spiritual education. That embraces a wide variety of activities. I have in mind religious education. That provides young people with ideas which they can relate to themselves about interior motivation and the life of the spirit. I believe that collective worship has a central part to play. But I also believe that there is a whole range of other activities such as poetry, literature, drama, music and art which stimulate young people's interior life.
Last month the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York gave an address at the northern educational conference which he entitled "Maps and Dreams". The maps were the ways in which we relate various kinds of knowledge to other knowledge, which is connected to the neural networks in our brains which enable such relationships to take place. He also spoke of dreams and the ways in which we are fired up, excited and motivated. We are not functional entities. We are not machines which can somehow be fed so that the right functions come out at the end. We are people who feel, achieve and suffer. Any educational system has to come to terms with that truth.
The creation of wealth is not merely the acquisition of money. It is a much wider concept. It is something in which all share and in which all find fulfilment. In that sense the interior life of the spirit has a great deal to contribute towards the creation of wealth. As we look at this matter of education, we need to pay great attention to the life of the spirit and to spiritual education.

1159
The prophet Joel painted a picture of a society renewed by the dreams of its older people and the visions of its younger people. Perhaps our teaching staff may be regarded as the older people dreaming dreams which they communicate to the younger people, who then have visions which they will embody in the society of the future.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am among the many who are grateful to the noble Baroness for the terms of the Motion before us, dismayed as we are by so much that is appalling in our education system.
Of course, it would be nice to think that the bitter complaints we hear spring only from that familiar masochistic urge to denigrate ourselves. And certainly, as some of your Lordships have already said, many of us have had little to complain about—we in the lucky 15 per cent. who were well served, perhaps through a grammar school scholarship.
But for the remaining 85 per cent., education in this country has indeed long been deeply unsatisfactory—and is judged internationally to be so still. Earlier this very month the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung warned against the danger of falling standards in some of the German Länder by citing specifically the atrocious performance of British 14 year-olds in reading, writing and sums.
Work last year by Professor S. J. Prais and others in the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, compared us with France, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. They showed England to be seriously inferior, not only in the key areas of literacy and maths, but also in classroom organisation and management, as well as in teacher skills and educational methodology. All this, moreover, strictly comparing like with like, matching inner city schools, class sizes, ethnic minorities, social deprivation and single parent families.
It is essential that we increasingly study and respond to such international comparisons, both so that we can try to catch up with our continental neighbours with whom our youngsters will be competing for jobs, but also to have an external check on our own progress at home, where there may be some danger of misreading grade inflation in public examinations with genuinely improved achievement.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr Chris Woodhead, has recently made it clear that in his view our educational failure is (in part at least) to be attributed to an influential minority of the teaching profession. Professor Prais of the National Institute has no doubt about it and says he has little hope,
"that substantial improvements will be made without a fundamental rethinking of teaching methods".
A generation ago it was thought that the answer was to make teaching an all-graduate profession. Well, it now virtually is, my Lords. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, noted in another connection in this Chamber, on 1st February, a lower second,
"from the University of Loamshire [is no] guarantee of high intellectual preformance".—[0fficial Report, 1/2/95, col. 1554.]
1160
Of course, if all graduate teachers had what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on the same occasion (at col. 1531 of the Official Report) called the,
"articulateness, both on paper and in speech",
together with the,
"critical methods of thought",
associated with an Oxbridge degree, it might be a different story. Our current problems may indeed be related to the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, went on to give: the proportion of Oxford graduates becoming school teachers has fallen from 30 per cent. 50 years ago to only 2 per cent. today.
But in the Motion before us we are rightly urged to look beyond the teaching profession: to parents, for example, and, I would certainly add, to school governors and school inspectors (both in short supply, where, arguably, they are most needed—for inner city primary schools). And we should take account too—and I am the first, I think, to mention this today—of the views of employers, who look to our education system for properly equipped recruits.
A few months ago, Sir Ron Dearing completed what he called,
"the largest formal consultation exercise in education",
ever mounted in this country. It was striking that three groups consulted (parents, governors and employers) spoke with one voice, insisting on rigorous standards in English and maths, whereas the fourth group—the teachers—had sharply different priorities. More than half of the thousands of teachers responding demanded less emphasis,
"on correctness, standard English, and grammar".
Yet it is known that deficiencies in such areas trap the least affluent in continued deprivation and hamper them in their attempts to find work. Let me quote from material submitted by three major employers. The first reads as follows:
"It is a great surprise and disappointment to us to find our young employees are so hopelessly deficient in their command of English".
The second speaks of failure to recruit junior staff,
"who can speak and write English clearly and correctly".
The third concludes sadly that,
"the teaching of English in present-day schools produces a very limited command of the English language".
Job applicants,
"do not appreciate the value of shades of meaning, and…show weakness in work which requires accurate description, or careful arrangement of detail".
The tenor of such complaints may be depressingly familiar, but these are not from the evidence to Sir Ron Dearing last year. They were submitted by Messrs. Lever Brothers, Vickers, and Boots respectively to Sir Peter Newbolt's Board of Education inquiry 75 years ago. They were reprinted some 50 years later when the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, (then Sir Alan) noted with dismay that his committee on the same issue was receiving from employers the same sort of complaint—often virtually word for word. He further noted that many contemporary teachers (that is, teachers of the early 1970s) were reluctant to treat English lessons as the occasion for,
"direct instruction in the skills of reading and writing".

1161
Rather they had absorbed fashionable educational theory and,
"prefer English to be an instrument of social change".
For them,
"the ideal of 'bridging the social gap' by sharing a common culture is unacceptable…as implying the superiority of 'middle class culture'."
No wonder that in 1976 the then Prime Minister felt it necessary to take a personal initiative and thus was launched at Ruskin College, Oxford the Great Debate—for which to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, we remain indebted.
Another dozen years and several Secretaries of State later, another committee was set up in 1988 to look yet again at the teaching of English. Its chairman, the eminent mathematician, Sir John Kingman, was astonished to find teachers of English belligerently asserting that,
"any notion of correct or incorrect use of language is an affront to personal liberty".
The Kingman Committee's work was immediately followed by a working party charged with manipulating its findings into curricular form for teacher use within the emergent national curriculum. Since the resultant English Order survives to the present day and will in effect be still operational until the much sounder Dearing curriculum starts to be implemented in August this year, I hope I may be allowed to quote from it. I should add, however, (to adapt the warning used with television reports from disaster scenes) that your Lordships may find some of what follows disturbing. Teachers are told that they should never treat "non-standard" as "substandard" but should recognise "the damage to self esteem" that can be caused by "correction". (And this last word "correction" is put in quotation marks, in apology perhaps, or even contempt).
But in case not all teachers are au courant with the politically correct marginalising of standard English as just one dialect among many that are equally valid, the document explains the position in grim detail. It presents the examples, "we was", "he ain't done it", "she come here yesterday" and "they never saw nobody", and goes on to remark,
"All these are grammatical and rule governed…but the rules are different",
different, that is, from those observed in some other varieties of English.
Recently in this Chamber (at col. 1493 of the Official Report of 1st February) the noble Lord, Lord Pym, referred to English as,
"one of our most valuable national assets",
and as,
"gradually becoming the language of the world".
Is there not a cruel irony that, when children around the world, from Antwerp to Osaka, are vigorously perfecting their command of standard English, its teaching here is regarded by some of the most influential teachers as a class-based intrusion and, to quote Kingman again,
"an affront to personal liberty"?
1162
How different from the corresponding curricular document issued to teachers in France. There, so far from thinking it desirable to shield disadvantaged groups and ethnic minorities, the standard language is forthrightly prescribed as:
"le premier instrument de la liberté et la réussite",
that is, of success, as the curriculum goes on to say:
"in social as well as occupational life; in particular for those children whose dialect at home or among friends is far removed from the standard language of school".
The contrast with a still fashionable orthodoxy in this country could not be more stark, nor the lesson for us more clear.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lady Perry very much for introducing the debate today and going right to the heart of the educational debate, which, above all, is about standards. Her speech was so clear in setting out the difficulties of the past and the great efforts which have been made to raise standards that it will be something worth studying at length when one has more time to read it.
I take as my starting point this afternoon my memory of speaking at the Second Reading, when the education Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House in 1988. I started then by saying that the backdrop to the Bill was the real concern about standards, those standards quoted—as the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, has just said—by Professor Prais which showed that the average or less than average pupil in this country was something like two years behind his equivalent in either Germany or Japan, as well as in France. Those are alarming figures and, of course, as we know, the real sufferers at the end of the day are the children themselves, growing into adults, unable to compete adequately for jobs, not only in this country but in the world.
My noble friend Lady Perry set out clearly the important steps which the Government have taken to try to set those matters right: the national curriculum; testing and assessment; examinations; regular inspections of schools—Ofsted must inspect every four years. As we know, previously primary schools were lucky to be inspected once in 240 years. Further steps include giving a much greater choice, variety and diversity of schools. I was interested to hear from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon not only about Church schools, but also of the great importance which parents attach to those schools and the great demand for them because they set a real standard in the spiritual and moral side of life and discipline, as well as in academic attainment.
In a moment I shall say something more about grant maintained schools. I am, of course, absolutely delighted that the party opposite has decided that they are now a good thing, considering how hard the Opposition fought against them only a short time ago. I am pleased to think that they have undergone a conversion and recognise how valuable the schools are.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I now discover that noble Lords opposite are against them. Is that right? Perhaps they will clarify the point. We are never quite sure who in the Labour Party is speaking on the matter and whether they are for or against. However, one point on which we all agree is how valuable it is to have the choice of where you would like to send your child to school, and to be able to exercise that choice.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if it would help the noble Baroness, we on this side of the House are committed to bringing grant maintained schools back under local democratic control.
Baroness Young: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not think that that is a satisfactory answer. Never mind.
Lord Peston: It is the best the noble Baroness can have until I speak!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall think of an answer to that too. The importance of all those matters—the national curriculum and testing and assessment—is to try to meet the real issues which the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, identified and also the concern which we all feel about helping the least able and the average child. The fact is that they all have to study the same curriculum. It is extremely disappointing to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said about the English curriculum, because I very much share his view that it is no help to any children to bring them up to think that if you speak ungrammatically and write without grammar or punctuation you will help yourself in the world into which you are going. The object of all the reforms is to help all the children to set a standard in which all may benefit, and to set a series of objective measures. I would be the first to recognise that we have a long way to go, but we have made a great many improvements, as the recent Ofsted report shows. Even if there are failures which we all regret, we must hope that as year succeeds year, standards will rise, provided we keep on the course that we have set ourselves. Also the work of the teacher training agency, set up to raise standards of teachers—one of the criticisms in the Ofsted report is that a great deal of teaching of reading is not as good as it should be—is one way in which we shall help that.
It is also encouraging that the NVQs are developing well. As some noble Lords may know, I serve as a non-executive director on the board of Marks and Spencer. I was interested to hear how many of their staff have now decided to take NVQs, not just the young staff coming in at the beginning but older people who realise quite suddenly that it is a qualification that they can achieve which will help them towards promotion. In five years' time we shall have the first national results, all schools will be inspected by Ofsted and we shall have a real measure of where we are going.
Those are important matters and I say to those who have been critical today—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—that all those reforms were fought line by line, by the parties opposite. Many of us recall sitting up all night over them. It is
1164
extraordinary that so few Members on the opposite Benches have troubled to take part in the debate today. I always understood that education was something they believed in and that education and training, above all, would help people back into employment—a view with which I have considerable sympathy. I am only surprised that more Members opposite do not feel that it would be worth while to contribute to a very important issue.
As regards teachers, I should like to pay my tribute to what they have done. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, standards have been rising and that is a measure of the success of teachers. Good teachers produce good standards. I very much regret the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, when she suggested that those of us speaking on these Benches somehow abused teachers and that that abuse was stimulated by the Government. I do not believe that that is a fair comment. What we have all said is that the majority of teachers do an extremely good job in a very difficult world today, far more difficult than when I was at school. If a minority do not do so well, we want to improve standards for the benefit of the children quite apart from anyone else. I believe that we shall.
I was very interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon had to say about the role of parents. One provision which the various Acts of Parliament have introduced is the role of parents as elected parent governors. It has given parents the right to know through publication what the school results are, and to be informed about schools so that they may make a sensible choice for their particular child. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the importance of the role of the parent in the early years simply cannot be overestimated.
I agree, too, about governors and the greatly increased powers that they now have, especially as regards the local management of schools. They have a very responsible job. I am afraid that sometimes they have extremely difficult decisions to take. That is what responsibility is all about. I am, again, very pleased to say that, of the employees of the two companies on whose boards I serve, hundreds are school governors up and down the country. The employees of banks in particular can be very valuable to schools, bringing with them, as they do, financial expertise.
The criticisms today have centered, as one might have expected, on the subject of money. If we look at what has happened in education since 1979, teachers' pay has risen by 59 per cent.—that is in real terms—and spending per pupil has risen by 50 per cent., also in real terms. The present Government are spending half as much again as the last Labour Government did in 1979. As has already been pointed out, we spend more of our GDP on education than either Germany or Japan. Of course, we might all like to spend more on education, but it is worth while to have a look at what is happening in local authorities before we accept the belief that there is simply not enough money.
If local authorities are concerned at their inability to pay for education, the remedy is to a large extent in their own hands. And if schools are concerned that the local authorities are not paying enough, the remedy is to a

1165
certain extent in their hands. Let us look first at the local authorities. What did the Audit Commission report that was just published have to tell us? It stated that non-manual staff employed by councils went up by 90,000 between 1987 and 1993; that is to say, £500 million was spent on the extra manning. On page 15, at paragraph 23, the report states that,
"The extent of the growth of the non-manual paybill since 1987 will surprise many in local government who have become convinced of ever tightening restrictions. In reality, resources available to local government have increased, often to reflect extra duties, even if that has not always been the perception of members and service providers".
Over 60 per cent. of the extra money that local authorities have had is not related to extra services that they are required to provide but is needed simply as a result of growth.
There has been a very interesting example described in the local paper in Oxfordshire. One councillor wrote in—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, quoted Oxfordshire when he spoke about parents—indicating that not only had the numbers of teachers gone up by 100 the year before, but that another 100 had been added during the past year, and that did not include others who could not be taken into account in September. So the idea that the whole of the education service is in a kind of collapse is quite untrue. I believe that the money to fund the teachers' pay settlement is there; what is missing is the will to do something about it.
I should like to say a word about what schools could do. There are now 1,000 schools that have grant-maintained status. Other schools could opt out of local authority control and become grant maintained. Those that are still controlled by local authorities have local management funds, under which something like 90 per cent. of the budget is apparently in their hands, while the remaining 10 per cent. is kept back by the authority for central services. By simple logic, if they are to be better funded, they should opt out and claim that 10 per cent. as well. They could then decide for themselves whether or not the central services give them value for money. The truth of the matter is that there are countless examples to illustrate that they do not give value for money. In school after school that was visited by representatives of the funding agency, there are accounts of dramatic improvements in the maintenance of buildings and grounds at half of what the cost had been under local authority control. So there again is another issue in which schools could help themselves.
In conclusion, we have come a very long way in setting a framework to raise standards. That is something that we all want to see. Of course, we have a long way to go. The idea that you can raise standards overnight and get an instant result by Act of Parliament is ridiculous. You cannot. It takes a long time and a lot of patience. But I believe that the whole framework of the national curriculum, of testing, assessment, measuring, performance tables and league tables does matter. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who seems to be against all these things. They may not measure everything, but examinations measure something. They represent one of the few accurate objective measures that we have. When
1166
it actually counts in a serious situation, we take examination results very seriously. After all, who wants to be looked after by a doctor who has not passed any exams? When the chips are really down, we think that they matter. I believe that they matter all the way through. We must find other measures as well. That is why it is very important that we now have the measures on truancy.
What will not take us anywhere was what I felt was a slightly patronising attitude taken by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, when he said that poor children, children from the ethnic minorities and from one-parent families (the noble Lord gave a list) obviously cannot do so well. If we start off by thinking that they cannot do so well, that is in itself a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why should such children do well in Germany, France and other places? They do well there because there is a culture that expects everybody to do well. That is the culture that we have to introduce into this country. If we have that culture, then we shall succeed. What really matters at the end of the day—here I believe that we are all agreed—is what happens to our children. In my opinion, education is the most important subject that there is. Not only do all the individuals who are growing up matter, but they are growing up into a highly competitive world where they will live most of their lives, in the 21st century. It is very important that we should get this matter right. We must struggle continuously to improve the situation. We have made great improvements already, and I confidently expect those improvements to continue.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has done a great service to the House by raising this issue in this form today. All of us in the parliamentary process are under a compulsion to cry up our own wares and to cry down our opponents. But even were that not the case I would start my contribution by welcoming the many signs in the chief inspector's annual report that the painful turmoil that our schools have undergone in recent years is beginning to have a good effect. The political temptation is to do that and then do no more. But we are not an entirely political House, and I am not an entirely political person. Noble Lords will therefore please understand that I pay a full, welcoming and genuine tribute to what—had the phrase not already been withered by recent history—I would have called the green shoots of success which the chief inspector reports to us.
My second temptation is an academic and personal one. The Motion invites us to consider the role of parents, teachers and schools together. I chaired the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools which reported to the Government in 1989 and I could speak with enthusiasm about the need for home-school links and in great detail about the skills and abilities needed by our teachers in their enormously important task. But I could not do so in an acceptable period of time. So I merely state that the report remains highly relevant and is available from HMSO under reference ISBN 0 11 270 665 7.

1167
One aspect of the Motion chimes very closely with the report and deserves close attention. The importance of pupil achievement is very great, and not only in ways your Lordships may most readily recognise. Many noble Lords may feel that the importance of achievement relates to pupils' careers after they leave school and to the economic wellbeing of our country. I accept absolutely both premises. We must recognise the great importance of pupils' achievement within schools and as a contribution to the social wellbeing of our country. Before too many of your Lordships decide that social wellbeing is an abstract, namby-pamby concept and slide away to the bar, let me make it clear that this issue has a direct linkage to public order and to the criminal justice system. The fruit of ineffective schooling is not simply placid ignorance. It starts with disruption in the classroom, continues with truancy, and finishes up all too often in criminal offending.
Table 3.16 of the 1995 edition of Social Trends shows, from 1975–76 to 1991–92—sadly, the latest year for which figures are given—a continuous reduction in the numbers of pupils leaving school with no GCSE passes at any grade. Those are the people of whom the noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke earlier. That is good news. Nevertheless, from Table 3.15 we see that in 1991–92 nearly 23,000 boys and about 18,700 girls—over 41,000 pupils in all—left without a single grade. That may amount to only 7 per cent. of school leavers in that year but it represents a lot of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, there was a small increase in the number last year.
We have to recognise that there will have been good and acceptable reasons for many of those pupils' failures. But we also need to recognise—I warmly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said—that academic achievements are emphatically not the only valid or valuable achievements of which children are capable, achievements which schools can and should help them to attain and whose efforts in so doing should be commended.
The figure is nonetheless dauntingly large. Following that, one is drawn irresistibly to Table 1 in the second annex to the chief inspector's report. It shows that at key stage 4, 17 per cent. of lessons in all schools were unsatisfactory or poor, as were 19 per cent. in key stage 3, 20 per cent. in key stage 1 and a massive 26 per cent. in key stage 2. The figures in Table 8, which relate to the quality of teaching, are even more disturbing.
Therefore, the chief inspector is right to look to improvements in initial teacher training for a long-term remedy and right to suggest that the number of teachers having insufficient knowledge of the subjects they are trying to teach is so great in some areas that recruitment to the profession must be much more rigorously controlled. That must surely be already under way, given his very encouraging report on initial teacher training. My right honourable friend and her department deserve congratulation.
But perfect subject knowledge of itself does not produce even competent teaching. The cleverest man who ever taught me presided over a bear garden for two years and then "retired hurt". The best qualified man with whom I ever taught as a colleague suffered a
1168
similar excruciating experience. Therefore I welcome the inclusion of the initial teacher training programme in Ofsted's remit. Ofsted's report bears out all that my noble friend Lady Perry said about its achievement. Again, I congratulate the Government. It is gratifying to read that the quality of secondary ITT in both HEIs and schools was satisfactory in nearly nine-tenths of sessions. I even welcome the fact that, apparently, Ofsted has teeth. Paragraph 208 of the report concludes encouragingly that,
"approximately 3/5ths of such provision was judged to be good or very good";
and that,
"one provider was assessed as unsatisfactory overall; this HEI has ceased to recruit secondary ITT students".
If the judgment was correct, the sentence was appropriate.
However dramatically good the quality of our ITT may become, we must remember that a teacher's career can last for up to 40 years. As my noble friend Lady Young said, getting improvement is a slow business. It will be a very long time before all the new brooms have swept their way through the system. In so doing, I hope that they will acquire some of the wisdom and skill so well represented among the very many good teachers in post.
Furthermore, the world does not stand still. It changes all the time, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. So, in some respects, does the task of preparing children for it. There is therefore a large and crucially important job to be done in in-service training, both for the old hands and for the new. We should encourage my right honourable friend not just to keep up her admirable work on ITT hut to extend that effort urgently to INSET.
I said that the result of ineffective schooling is not simply placid ignorance, but that it starts with disruption in the classroom, continues with truancy and finishes up, quite possibly, in court. There is evidence to bear that out and link it to your Lordships' earlier discussions of nursery education.
In a lecture given last year to the RSA, Professor David Farrington made the connection linking low IQ and low school attainment to delinquency and suggested possible remedies. He pointed to the Perry pre-school project—no connection with the firm next door, I believe—in Michigan, targeted on 120 disadvantaged black children, randomly allocated to the experiment and to a control group. Those in the experiment followed a daily pre-school programme, designed to provide intellectual stimulation and increase cognitive ability for two years at ages three and four. They had weekly home visits. The results were very striking. Those who completed the programme,
"were significantly better in school motivation, school achievement at 14, teacher ratings of class room behaviour at 15 and self reports of offending at 15".
Professor Farrington reported that a later study of the same group showed that at age 19 those in the experimental group were more likely to be employed, more likely to have graduated from high school, more likely to have received college or vocational training and less likely to have been arrested. Overall, the

1169
experimental group accumulated only half as many arrests on average as the controls. There is the linkage that I spoke of.
That was the only experiment that analysed criminality. However, the professor quoted ten other programmes and said:
"With quite impressive consistency, all studies show that pre-school intellectual enrichment programmes"—
I apologise for the phrase, which is his and not mine—
"have longterm beneficial effects on school success, especially in increasing the rate of high school graduation and decreasing the rate of special education placements".
Merely to say that those results suggest that we ought immediately to provide nursery schools for all would be simplistic. But they suggest that we should concentrate our attention in that area.
I repeat that in some respects the world changes and with it the teacher's task; but not in all respects. One novelty in the report, which flows from amendments made in this House, is its reference to spiritual values. Those do not change and it is important that they are not neglected. We must, of course, recognise that much of the most valuable spiritual teaching is done outside any curriculum and much of it outside any classroom. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate nods his head. However, a good deal is contained within the two specifically religious components of the school day; the daily act of worship in assembly and religious education lessons.
The chief inspector reported that the,
"great majority of secondary schools failed to provide a daily act of collective worship for all pupils".
He added, by way of explanation, that,
"many staff did not wish to lead worship".
That reluctance is very understandable. A teacher who has neither the training nor the conviction to lead such worship should not under any circumstances be required to do so. More damage could be done by an agnostic teacher conducting an assembly of children in what he or she believes to be the paths of religious righteousness than by countless purely administrative assemblies. But it remains a great pity and a matter for concern that our current teaching force apparently lacks sufficient members to meet that statutory requirement and that there is neither access to sufficient outside resources to meet it nor the initiative to tap them. Can we ask that in preparing his next report the chief inspector examines the extent to which clergy of different denominations, and other qualified people, have been available and approached. I would expect that in a number of cases the mere making of the necessary inquiries would establish the connections needed to start this sort of fruitful outside participation.
But significant numbers of schools should not be forced to recruit outsiders in order to meet the obligations. The present position reflects a clear shortage of specialist RE staff. My noble friend will be familiar with the depressing contents of the Ofsted report on religious education and collective worship in 1992–93, published last year. After telling us that RE was badly managed in most primary schools and insufficiently supported by INSET, the report shows, in
1170
paragraph 51, that the ratio of specialist teachers fell from 1:525 pupils in 1990–91 to 1:698 in 1992–93. In those three years the number of pupils to each qualified specialist teacher rose on average by 163—or about five reasonable sized classes. The target intake to ITT for secondary RE specialists, revealed by the department in a letter to the RE Council for England and Wales on 29th November last, is therefore a matter of real concern. It is a mere 510; 80 fewer even than music. Just to put the figure in perspective I should perhaps say that the target for science is 3,400.
I gladly acknowledge that the target intake figures in all subjects are set to rise over the subsequent two years. But RE will still be at the bottom of the heap then, as it is now. Nor is that all, as the RE Council for England and Wales made clear in its aptly named report Time for RE & Teachers to Match in 1993. It shows a far larger proportion of RE teaching being done by teachers with no qualification of any kind in that subject than is the case for any other subject. The figures for England showed 50 per cent. of RE teachers with no RE qualification and only a quarter with relevant degrees. In mathematics, still regarded as a critical subject, those proportions were almost exactly reversed.
Time does not permit me to show your Lordships just how serious the situation is. Suffice it to say that in language constantly—and often unconsciously—enriched by biblical imagery, your Lordships have frequently agreed, and later with votes confirmed, that a sound foundation of religious knowledge is an essential part of the education of a British child. That view is shared by another place. Parliament also accepts the importance of securing our children's spiritual development.
Teaching the basic facts of Old Testament history and New Testament revelation is an invaluable medium in which to foster the spiritual development of the vast majority of our children, just as teaching about the principal beliefs and practices of other religions is an invaluable medium in which to teach them an appreciation of, and respect for, their contemporaries who subscribe to them, and vice versa. Properly taught, that subject can contribute crucially to the happiness and stability of our country in the coming difficult years. We have a duty to our successors that it should be taught well. It is a tragedy that Ofsted should have to tell us that it is not being done well. Can my noble friend tell us what is to be done to put that right?
I close as I started by recognising and welcoming the significant advances signalled by the chief inspector and welcomed by my noble friend. I repeat that recognition and welcome. But I ask my right honourable friend, through my noble friend, three things: first, to put resources into the recognition of the importance of RE; secondly, to put into INSET the same vigour and enthusiasm that so successfully went into ITT; and, thirdly, to read the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and act on it—it weren't 'arf marvellous work!
6.35 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House is right to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for introducing this debate and for the question which she posed, which lays

1171
out so many lines of study that we can all effectively follow. She and I share a name that is almost the same and as a result we sometimes receive one another's correspondence; but hers is far more interesting than mine!
However, had the noble Baroness intercepted my correspondence yesterday she would have found a facsimile letter sent to me late yesterday afternoon by the Director of Education for Dyfed—spelt Dyfed, pronounced "Dovey", but the director is not making dove-like noises. He certainly does not share the appreciation that is clearly felt by the noble Baroness and some of her noble friends with everything that has happened in the past 10 years. In fact, addressing himself to the question, quite strangely, he says, first, that the Dyfed education authority welcomes the principle of the provision of greater information being made available to parents and the public provided it is comprehensive, relevant, intelligible and purposeful. I shall come back to that. I do not want to base my speech on that of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry; I wish to make my own contribution.
For the past 20 years in this House, in various debates on education, I have occasionally quoted the contention of Ralph Waldo Emerson, that education was any two people sitting on a log. The contention comes close to some of the things said by the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, picks up certain comments made around the House. I believe that one of the finest speeches made in this House tonight—this is no detraction from the speeches of other noble Lords —was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, standing as she did so close to recent experience within the educational framework.
The point being made by Ralph Waldo Emerson was that education is the affecting of two minds and, in the best teaching situation, the teacher learns as much as the taught. The right reverend Prelate was right to point out that originally the teaching was done by the parent. Then into the situation—when the parent could perhaps not afford the time, but could afford to hire someone else—came a second figure standing in locum and acting on behalf of the parent in the education of the child. A long time ago E.H.Carr said that it was the duty of the parent, and therefore he supposed of the teacher, to help to determine the direction in which society developed. It is from that point that I want to start addressing this question.
I have said before in this House that every one of the reports that I have read on education during my many years of service made the point that the greatest influence on the education of a child is the attitude of the parents to the school in which that child is taught. Deeply fundamental—and, in a democracy, savagely important—it is essential that the schools, the pupils and the teachers are backed by the parents. We know that a great number of our school population do not have the benefit of the backing of two parents because of the growth of single parent families, for reasons into which we cannot delve tonight. Many also have parents who do not understand the system; do not have the qualifications, the vocabulary, the language and
1172
personality to represent the children whose education concerns them as vitally as my daughter's concerned me and your Lordships' children concerned your Lordships.
I make no point about those who buy education for their children. The way in which people dispose of their money in relation to their ambitions for their family is their business. My point is that it is possible in this House to isolate ourselves from events that are happening; to congratulate ourselves on the small things that we do and not to realise that things are going wrong even now. New things are going wrong with the education system, which your Lordships are devoted to changing and to which I have devoted my life to serving. Things are going wrong and we are missing that fact.
Let me give an example. Some noble Lords will have seen that accompanying me this week in this House have been two young people. They are 17 year-old students who, in 10 weeks' time will be taking their advanced level exams. They are interested in history because they have some aspirations to know about politics; and what a relief that some young people are still interested in the politics of democracy in this country at this time. Because they are interested they have been with me. One of them is with me tonight. Chris Rogers is the deputy head boy of his school in Haverfordwest. Whether I am supposed to mention him or not, I am doing so. I have also had with me a young lady, Susan Parnell-Davis, who is being educated at Amersham in Buckinghamshire. They will pay tribute to the quality of the teaching that they are receiving and to the fact that their schools are doing their utmost to teach them. They make no criticism of the way in which they are taught.
But is it not interesting that at the Sir Thomas Picton School in Haverfordwest the sixth form is now nudging on 200 pupils? In the school in Amersham, the number is 400 sixth form pupils in a school of 800. When I was at the county intermediate school at Pembroke Dock, all those light years ago, the school had less than 300 pupils and I was in the sixth form, which never got above 20 pupils. I remember discussions with two political friends, R.H.S. Crossman and Desmond Donnelly. One went to Eton and was never taught in classes which had more than 12 pupils. The other went to school at Bembridge in the Isle of Wight and was never taught in classes of more than 20 pupils. I was taught in classes of 32 pupils until I went into the sixth form where the group was 14 strong. It is only then that a young mind begins to realise its own capacities and to take real advantage of the teaching system, and perhaps change the direction of the ambitions that he or she has inside them. If the grammar of that is wrong I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. I only taught English!
The system is developing. It is not enough to say that more people are staying on in sixth form education. We have to ask why they are staying on. There is one very good reason, and that is that they want education; and thank God for that. But some are staying on because they have nowhere else to go because there is no employment. In the rural areas of Wales where I have

1173
all my life there are very few opportunities indeed. Some of the pupils are staying on because they hope that there might be better benefits.
I am not being critical here in a party political sense. Let us put all the items into the balance when we weigh up this matter. Meanwhile, the teachers within the system consist of the good and, very occasionally, the bad. In the whole of my teaching life I came across a few who crucified themselves because they were so bad. As the noble Lord who debated education in this House with me 20 years ago said, they have fallen out of the system. The system broke them because if you are not a good teacher it sometimes becomes intolerable when you have minds better than your own wanting to be helped by you.
We have problems. The head teachers of schools are presiding over boot sales and members of staff are now being recognised for their contributions towards raising funds. It is also a fact that staffing ratios in schools are now being affected by the amount of money which the headmaster has to recruit new staff.
Perhaps I may put that in detail. Any headmaster who wishes to set up a special unit or who wishes to bring a particular ability into his staff room has to look at how much an experienced teacher of 36 to 40 years of age, male or female, will cost him. In place of employing a suitably qualified teacher he can employ two or three young people who may make it and who may be excellent, but who do not have much experience.
In such circumstances, none of us can be self-congratulatory. With the greatest possible sympathy, I take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He said that the painful turmoil of the past years is beginning to abate. The noble Lord may very well be right in the particular circumstances to which he addressed himself. But there is still very great disillusionment in the classrooms. The noble Baroness was quite right to anticipate that I would react to what she said in this way. There is a great deal of disillusionment in the staff rooms in people who have found it impossible in the circumstances to continue to apply their great knowledge and ability, and the desire to inspire and inform.
While we still grant the right of pride in achievement, it is certainly not enough to quote figures that imply that the classroom ratios are improving even in specific cases. Far too often the better the teacher the faster that teacher gravitates out of the system. If you are a good teacher and you are required to manage a school without management training, you can still find yourself running a primary school in Pembrokeshire and be drawn down by the business of doing someone else's work while your expertise in education is trapped in doing all the things that a head teacher has to do without having been trained to do so.
The Statement about Northern Ireland has delayed us a little. I also have to attend an important committee meeting which I hope will not be before the debate ends. If I have to leave, I hope I shall be back.
By tinkering here and there, do not let us believe that we have created such a steamroller of success—if any at all —and that it will go rolling on. My good friend
1174
the noble Baroness, Lady Young, cannot get away with inferring that I and some of my noble friends said things that we never said about funding and costs. Very little was said on that from any part of the House. No one has proposed throwing more money at this or that. But we have the right to say that, in the noble Baroness's terms as well as in ours, the education system of Great Britain is underfunded. It is underfunded to the extent that it is running into danger. An education system in a democracy has to be consenting to the democracy itself. If I were a dictator I would make pretty certain to teach the ethic of the society, or the opposite of whatever I was trying to set up.
This country cannot afford a disillusioned teaching force and a disintegrating classroom system, which still continues in certain places. Take your plaudits for what you have done and give us credit for what we support you in, but do not think that the problem is in any way solved.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Perry upon the splendidly comprehensive way in which she introduced a topic which is so important and so timely. My noble friend drew attention to many of the improvements that we can appreciate, but she also drew attention to continuing concern. Indeed, there is wide-ranging concern among many people, including teachers, parents, employers and indeed pupils and students, over continuing deep-rooted problems in our education system.
I shall focus on two of those problems because they influence all other aspects of educational attainment. I refer to the disturbing numbers of young people failing to achieve essential competencies in literacy and numeracy. I must of course first emphasise that there are many good schools, both primary and secondary, and many dedicated teachers who continue to maintain high standards in all spheres of education. I pay tribute to them for their achievements, and they are all the more significant given the trends which are reflected in declining standards elsewhere. The challenge confronting the education system today is to enable all schools, teachers and pupils to attain standards comparable to the best achieved in equivalent schools with similar pupils.
Research has shown that it is not funding which is the all-important factor in school attainment; nor is it the socio-economic or ethnic background of pupils. It is the quality of the school itself: the leadership of the head, teacher expectations of pupils, teaching methods, the setting of homework, and discipline. Often, less well-funded schools achieve better results for their pupils, and consequently a better start in life for them, than those which receive more resources.
So I wish to draw attention to the need for a rational, research- and evidence-based analysis of school effectiveness in enabling pupils to realise their potential through achieving the essential skills in literacy and numeracy. However, I must first declare an interest and offer an apology. I should mention that I am a member of the board of the Teacher Training Agency. I serve on

1175
its research and quality sub-committees, but I hasten to stress that I am not speaking on behalf of the agency. My apology is due because I have an engagement of six months' standing which necessitates my leaving your Lordships' House no later than 7.15 p.m. I am truly sorry, but I shall, of course, read with avid interest in Hansard those contributions that I miss.
I now turn to the problem of the under-achievement of too many pupils in too many of our schools. There is a growing volume of evidence showing an increasing number of pupils unable to read at the age of seven, and many transferring from primary to secondary schools at the age of 11 still deficient in reading abilities. That is a very grave situation. If children cannot read, their whole education is stunted. Moreover, they often become frustrated, bored, humiliated and alienated from school. The importance of self-esteem was rightly emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. An inability to read is a significant factor in low self-esteem and in under-achievement.
Research by Martin Turner has shown a significant and continuing increase in the number of pupils who cannot read by the age of seven. A study by Jenifer Chew has found that many 16 to 17 year-old students studying A-level English, who had obtained so-called "good" grades—that is, grades A to C—in their GCSE English were much less competent in spelling than a sample of Zulu-speaking South African school children, studying in classes with a pupil:teacher ratio of more than 40 to one. We can make what we want of those figures, but Mrs. Chew makes this comment:
"Class sizes and spending are held by many in England to be crucial factors in affecting standards, but the South African example shows that they need not be. The Zulu-speaking children had not only learnt to write English and to spell rather well: they also produced neat, legible hand-writing (a great deal neater and more legible, at the lower end of the ability range, than that of English sixth-formers), and there was no sign that their strength in the fundamentals of literacy has been acquired at the expense of breadth and creativity".
That is a damning indictment, not only of our education system, which has failed so many of our 16 year-olds, born and bred in Britain, by not enabling them to write their own language comprehensively; it is also a serious indictment of an examination system which has given so many of them a false confidence arising from good results despite their manifest lack of ability in basic spelling, punctuation and powers of verbal expression. I shall place a copy of Mrs. Chew's research in your Lordships' Library and I dare to suggest that any noble Lord who looks at it will be as shocked as I was.
I know that comparisons are invidious, and international comparisons are especially difficult because there are many variables which cannot be taken into account. But comparisons can be revealing and sometimes show a human dimension behind the statistics. Therefore, perhaps I may invite your Lordships to compare the writing of English by British pupils with letters written in English by 12 year-old Armenian pupils in the war-torn city of Stepanakert, the capital of the bombarded, beleaguered, besieged enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
1176
Perhaps I may explain. I was delighted when a primary school in South London offered to establish a relationship with children in Karabakh, and I took a package of friendly letters and photographs from children in Streatham to their counterparts in Karabakh. These were received with great joy by pupils in School No. 8, Stepanakert, a bombed-out, blackened building, half of it still gutted by fire. The pupils were sitting huddled in one of the repaired classrooms, with no heat and virtually no teaching materials. But within one hour, those 12 year-old Armenian children had each written an individual letter to individual British pupils, in superb English, with excellent spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Those Armenian children had spent months in 1992 living underground in cellars and basements, under constant bombardment, with no light, heat, ventilation or sanitation. A study of their physical condition 18 months ago showed that, on average, the children of Nagorno-Karabakh were in worse physical condition than the children of Bosnia. Yet, despite having suffered the tragedies of war, interrupted schooling and studying in a school which is little more than a ruin, those 12 year-olds could each write personal letters to British children in English. All those children speak and write Armenian, which is a unique language, with a unique script. They also speak and write Russian. English is their third language and their third script, yet they can write as follows. I quote from one letter:
"Dear Mario,
Hello. My name is Anna. I have got your letter….I learn in 7 form and go to school No. 8. Our enemy bombed Stepanakert and our school suffered very much from it. We study Russian, Armenian, English, Geography, History, Literature, Armenian History, Geometry, Algebra, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Physical (education)"—
not much sign of a narrow curriculum there—
Lord Parry: My Lords, is the noble Baroness absolutely certain that that was the child's creation? Each Christmas I receive about 50 letters from Japan that are identical with one another.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord that I was in that classroom when the children were writing those letters. That youngster continued—and I can relate to this:
"I hate physics very much. I like literature, Armenian history and English.
By By. I wait for your letter, Abiahaunyan Anna".
Perhaps I may quote again:
"Dear Friend,
My name is Tanya. I live in Stepanakert … I am twelve years old … Our family isn't large"—
the apostrophe was in the right place—
"I have a mother, a father and a brother and a grandmother. My brother is sixteen years old. His name is Vanya. He wounded….I read books of foreign authors such as Mark Twain, Goerge Sand, Alexander Duma. Can you write your letter in English"—
I think that letter had been written in the mother tongue. The letter continued:
"I shall wait for your letters with great impatience. I'll be very glad to make friends with you".

1177
I have to ask how many British 12 year-olds can write as well as that in English, let alone in a third language and a third script. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord who intervened that those youngsters could also speak English fluently. I was there—
Lord Parry: My Lords, I accept it.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I had a very lively and spontaneous discussion with them. Their English flowed easily and spontaneously. The discussion touched on many issues, ranging from my age to current geopolitical problems.
I believe that there are serious lessons here. As Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Chris Woodhead, pointed out in his recent excellent lecture: we have to take very seriously the evidence that we in this country have failed too many of our young people by adopting attitudes to education and methods of teaching which have left them sorely bereft of educational attainments of which they are capable: low expectations; failure to set homework; failure to challenge pupils to give of their best; and ideological commitment to methods of teaching reading which manifestly have not worked for too many children. All these deficiencies in many schools have left too many of our young people in a different league of knowledge, skills and attainment from their counterparts in war-torn Karabakh—and in many other parts of the world.
It is a similar story with mathematics. As long ago as 1979, the Institute of Mathematics published a disturbing study showing an alarming proportion of 16 year-olds—those of school-leaving age—incapable of accomplishing the simplest mathematical tasks. One quarter of pupils in London secondary schools who were tested in that survey could not even multiply 79 by six—with a pencil and paper. Other parts of the country also showed disturbing numbers of 16 year-olds incapable of carrying out the simplest calculations needed for everyday life. That study should have sent alarm bells ringing through the system and instigated urgent remedial measures. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and others have already said, research by Professor Prais shows that we are still lamentably behind in mathematics. In a recent study, Schooling as Preparation for Life & Work in Switzerland & Britain, Professor Prais shows:
"the scores attained by the top 40 per cent in England would be attained by the top 65–70 per cent. in Switzerland".
Those situations bespeak a crisis—a crisis for our young people, who are being lamentably ill-prepared for life; and a crisis for our country, as so many of the next generation will enter national and international arenas woefully incapable of appreciating the priceless treasures of our and others' cultural heritage, and disadvantaged in the inevitable competition for employment, which will increase as national boundaries disappear.
As I have used personal experience to illustrate the poignant reality behind statistics, I draw to a conclusion by offering one other telling vignette. Only last week I was in Moscow, and my Russian interpreter told me that she had been studying as a postgraduate student in
1178
Oxford and had been invited to continue her studies there. She had declined, because she had a son, now aged 12. He had attended a middle school in Oxfordshire—Oxfordshire has already been referred to—and she was so alarmed by the lack of education he was receiving in that middle school that she felt she had to take him back to Russia.
My interpreter described how she kept hoping that her son would study Shakespeare in the land of Shakespeare; but whenever she inquired she was told that the class would "do Shakespeare" by the end of the year, but it never did. It was still reading books for young children, and in her words, "I felt he was old enough to read more grown up books than stories about rabbits and butterflies". She said that in England he always came home with his schoolbag empty and with no homework. So she has reluctantly terminated her studies at Oxford to take her son back to Moscow to study Shakespeare there and to bring home a schoolbag with homework in it—homework that he wants to do.
I finish with a plea. In 1972, the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, wrote a report on nursing in which he argued that,
"Nursing should become a research-based profession".
The time is overdue for teaching to follow suit. The scene is well set. The Government deserve great credit for establishing procedures to make that possible. To quote HMCI again:
"Recent legislation has created a new and coherent framework within which schools can work".
Perhaps I may mention a few examples of recent legislative and policy reforms which set the scene for significant improvement: first, successive measures have been taken in recent years to make information about schools available to parents and to the public in accordance with the principle of accountability—those have made available important information on school performance; secondly, the streamlined national curriculum should help to ensure that all pupils attain at least minimal knowledge and skills in key subjects; thirdly, Ofsted can highlight, through its inspection procedures and reports, good practice which can be emulated, and less good practice which can be remedied; fourthly, systematic research into the effectiveness of different methods of teaching children to read has been published, is now available, and should be made available for teachers and for those responsible for teacher education; and my last example is the establishment of the Teacher Training Agency. That should help to enhance the preparation of student teachers for their professional responsibilities.
It is my hope that we shall now learn the lessons of the past; rigorously assess the present; and build a firm foundation for the future, so that we can give each and all of our children the education which they need in order to realise their potential and to enjoy lives which are as fulfilled as possible. They deserve no less, and, as a nation, we cannot afford to give them less.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by asking for your Lordships' indulgence if I am not in my place for the wind-up speeches. I apologise for that

1179
discourtesy, but I have a long-standing engagement. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Perry for the clear way she described the considerable advances that have been made. She has given us an opportunity to debate this important matter.
It is now four years since I had the great privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. My maiden speech was on a subject which has been of particular interest to me over many years. My chosen topic was the role of education in the life of our nation's women. Today's debate is an ideal occasion for me to turn once again to that concern and to consider the Government's progress in that vital field.
Over recent years, major strides have been made in ensuring that greater equality of opportunity exists between the sexes. In Britain, women have long been encouraged to believe in their capacity to achieve. Britain was the first Western country to elect a woman Prime Minister. In recent years, the first British astronaut was a woman. Today we hear of the appointment of the first woman Tornado pilot, and, dare I say it, we are all now aware of the position achieved by Mrs. Stella Rimington. It is not surprising that there is widespread acceptance of the fact that women and men are equally capable of attaining success in their chosen careers.
The most effective way to reinforce that view is to start in the classroom by ensuring that children, regardless of their gender, are given their full entitlement to a good education. It is only then that they can enter with confidence through the door of opportunity. And what opportunities there are! In all aspects of education policy, pre-school, primary, secondary, further and higher education, the Government are offering our nation's young every possible means of achieving their potential.
It gives me immense pleasure to illustrate just how successfully women are performing in education. Let us remember that government are only the enabler who set in place the mechanisms through which girls can develop skills. It is up to women themselves to rise to the challenges offered by education. I must say that they are doing so magnificently.
Successive Conservative Governments have transformed our education system by introducing an extensive programme of reforms which have raised standards across the board and have encouraged choice and diversity in education. That commitment to parental choice means, for instance, that all parents wishing to send their daughters to single-sex schools can obtain the school of their choice, and once at school the majority of girls work hard and excel.
At GCSE level, girls now do better overall than boys. In 1993, nearly 46 per cent. gained five or more passes at grades A to C, compared with under 37 per cent. of boys. In subjects such as English and modern languages, the gap was even larger. After school, more 16 year-old girls and boys elect to continue in full or part-time education. At A-level girls continue to be high achievers. Girl entrants now score higher success rates than boys—in English, yes, but also in mathematics, physics and technology.
1180
The fact that such subjects were seen traditionally as a male preserve has proved no impediment to the present generation of young women. One development which gives me special satisfaction is the exciting growth in the range of vocational opportunities available to women. GNVQs have proved immensely popular. The Government's message to women is unmistakable: whatever your interests, whatever your aptitudes, our education policy exists to help you succeed.
The years since 1979 have seen a massive expansion in the number of young people entering higher education, and, as was outlined by my noble friend Lady Perry, it was one in eight at that time and is now one in three. Over the years the proportion of girls in the intake to higher education has steadily increased. In the past decade alone it has risen from 42 per cent. to over 47 per cent. Today, we are almost at parity. Gender equality in our universities is a real achievement, unmatched in most other European countries. Once again, in advancing equality of opportunity, Britain is leading the field.
I should like to say a word about graduate employment. I preface my remarks, however, with a word of praise. In one particular profession women greatly outnumber men. That is the teaching profession. More and more women are choosing to follow a career in teaching. Indeed, there are some 50,000 more women teachers and lecturers than men. To choose teaching as a career is to take on an enormous responsibility—the role of shaping and moulding the next generation. The role of teacher is crucial in determining the future of our nation. Thus I pay tribute today to the excellent work of so many young women who see in teaching their true vocation.
So how do other women graduates fare on the jobs front? As it happens, they are extremely successful in entering employment after completing higher education. In 1991 the employment rate among female graduates was 91 per cent.—much higher than the rate among men. Recent surveys have shown that the dramatic expansion in the employment rate of women graduates is continuing. In ICL, women occupied 65 per cent. of the graduate intake. At Abbey National, half of its 600 branch managers are women, compared with only a dozen 10 years ago. Twenty years ago, only one in 10 newly qualified accountants was a women. Now women number nearly half.
Finally, I must stress that, although education is a great tool, although it equips women for a career, it is also of incalculable value in other aspects of their lives. The joy and contentment, the sense of personal fulfilment, that are instilled through education should never be underestimated. What a good all-round education imparts, above all, is a sense of self-assurance, a training for life itself, and, as well as being necessary for the world of work, education should equally be seen as an essential preparation for the role of wife and mother, no less crucial as we approach the year 2000.
In every area of their education policies this Government are wholly committed to increasing equality for women. As I have suggested, over the past 15 years women have responded to their increased

1181
opprtunities with alacrity. Undoubtedly, there is still room for much greater recognition of the part that women can play in business, in the professions and, I am sure your Lordships will all agree, in politics. But we can be confident today of at least one thing—that in classrooms throughout the land the next generation of women are proving their ability again and again. They deserve our congratulations on all they have achieved. Their remarkable success at school is surely a heartening indication of their likely contribution to our national well-being in the years to come.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in echoing the thanks expressed by many of your Lordships to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate and in congratulating her warmly upon her opening speech, may I with great regret follow the last two speakers by expressing my apologies for the fact that, because of a long standing engagement, I, too, shall regrettably be unable to listen to the closing speeches, though I shall of course read them very carefully?
Since November 1993, when the report, Learning to Succeed, of the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education—I was privileged to chair the commission—was published, there have been, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, many encouraging developments in education. First, the Government have recognised the crucial role which can be played in improving achievement for all pupils, and even in reducing subsequent delinquency, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, by good quality nursery education. We have been much encouraged by the commitment announced by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to providing universal nursery education for four year-olds. We trust that the department's taskforce now studying this topic will soon report, that that objective will soon be achieved and that provision will later be extended to three year-olds. The benefits of such education are surely now beyond dispute.
It has also been encouraging to learn that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools has confirmed that Ofsted inspections and academic performance tables have shown that many schools are raising pupils' standards of achievement. The vision, commitment and expertise of the teachers who work in such schools deserve the greatest possible praise. In a break with convention, the inspector listed 52 secondary schools which received very positive reports and which had improved their examination results by 10 per cent. or more between 1992 and 1994. With every respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that is a hopeful trend. Happily, too, the slimmed-down national curriculum is now generally accepted and is being implemented, and the teaching profession now at last accepts that regular and appropriate testing of pupils in different age groups is a helpful and effective means of assessing progress.
The GCSE has also proved to be a considerable success. Two-thirds of 16 year-olds now take examinations in science to GCSE standard, compared with the 20 to 30 per cent. who took the equivalent 0-levels in 1980, and over two-thirds of them achieve
1182
results graded A to C. While some have questioned the educational standard of the GCSE when compared with 0-levels, there can, I believe, be no doubt that standards have risen. Happily, too, about 30 per cent. of students now go on to higher education each year—more than twice as many as 10 years ago.
It is also good to see that national education and training targets have been established and are being reviewed by the national advisory council. We in the commission wish to urge that the targets for foundation learning should be aligned with what our schools and colleges should plan to achieve. For example, our first proposed target relates to primary schools. We suggest:
"By 11 years of age, 90 per cent. of pupils will achieve at least a national foundation standard in English and mathematics".
Perhaps this is not sufficiently ambitious, but it would represent a great advance from where we now stand. Such targets need to reinforce and set goals for schools and colleges which they do not do with sufficient force at present.
The educational establishment must surely recognise that, in a knowledge-based society, education and training take centre stage. Only through these can any country hope to compete and prosper in an era of fierce global competition. The new importance assumed by knowledge permeates every aspect of national life—political, social and spiritual activities, health and leisure, the sciences, arts and humanities. Upon all these the economic success and even the future competitive viability of any nation crucially depend. As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said, employers now expect—even demand—and are entitled to expect, higher standards in English and numeracy.
Our report was entitled Learning to Succeed, as the vision and goals we defined were aimed at achieving a system of education and training which would enable every individual to fulfil his or her full potential. I accept, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Young, said, that in competitive terms we spend a smaller proportion of our gross national product on education than do Germany and Japan. But in both those countries, and particularly in Japan, there is a much greater provision of private education. The figures in this country are distorted. We spend a lower proportion, as the tables in Learning to Succeed demonstrate, in primary and secondary education and a much higher proportion in higher education, which is almost wholly due to the very generous terms we offer to students for maintenance support in higher education.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think it was a slip of the tongue but he said that my noble friend Lady Blatch and I said that we spend a smaller proportion of our GNP on education than do Germany and Japan. We spend a larger proportion.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, yes, I am sorry, we spend more than Germany and Japan but that is made up largely of an excessive proportion spent on higher education compared with primary and secondary education. There is evidence to suggest that we need to spend a great deal more on primary education.

1183
Following the famous Education Act of 1944, this country did not provide a range of educational and training provisions suitable for students with a wide spectrum of interests and capabilities. Grammar schools—I attended one—served the country, and in particular the most able in our nation, very well but little effort was made to develop technical schools properly. Regrettably, secondary modern schools, without any clear rationale or sharply defined objectives for the education provided there, were soon regarded simply as the places to which to relegate children who were not clever enough to go to grammar school.
As a reaction to that unsatisfactory situation came a rapid move to comprehensive education. That was excellent in theory and very effective in some instances but it failed to capitalise upon the talents of the most able or to develop fully those talents of individuals who were better suited to vocational education and training. And in primary education, the move away from didactic teaching to so-called progressive methods and child-centred learning, and the rejection of streaming, has seemed often to swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.
Despite the successes which I mentioned earlier, reports of Her Majesty's Inspectorate have shown that in as many as 27 per cent. to 37 per cent. of school lessons, teaching has been judged to be poor. That problem has been particularly prevalent in some disadvantaged areas. As many noble Lords have said, far too many children still fail to acquire the basics of literacy and numeracy by a stage when they should have mastered those skills.
The most crucial factor at the heart of high-quality learning is high-quality, inspirational teaching. Every pupil should be entitled in each lesson to be taught by a teacher with the knowledge, training, competence and commitment to teach it well. We now have a golden opportunity to raise the quality of teaching and to attract into the profession an increasing proportion of able graduates. One can only hope that the Government's recent rejection of the once-hallowed principles of central supplementation of nationally-agreed salary awards will not have a seriously adverse effect upon recruitment.
We trust also that the Teacher Training Agency will be able to implement methods of enhancing the quality of classroom teaching and that reducing class sizes, which I still regard as being important in primary schools, will ultimately be achieved, in particular in deprived urban areas and more especially in schools with a high proportion of children whose mother tongue is not English.
That all primary teachers must be well trained in teaching reading and fundamental numerical skills goes without saying. Perhaps above all, the status of the teaching profession needs to be enhanced in other ways. It is encouraging to learn of renewed efforts to establish a College of Teachers. While such a body, comparable in its objectives to the Royal Colleges in medicine, could do much to enhance the profession's status, expertise and professional development, I make no apology for saying again in this House that the establishment of a General Teaching Council is more
1184
vital than ever. It should have formal authority to define and oversee educational standards; to suspend or remove the registration of unsatisfactory teachers or those guilty of disciplinary offences; and to fulfil other responsibilities comparable to those of the General Medical Council.
It is surely not beyond the wit of man to formulate a constitution and electoral scheme for such a council, with a substantial number of non-teacher members, which would not allow any single teaching union to become dominant. The Scottish council has proved increasingly effective, and the establishment of such a council in England and Wales is, in my opinion, long overdue.
I am glad that the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, stressed the role of parents. As the national commission said in Learning to Succeed:
"The first and most important link is with the home. According to pupils who took part in the Commission's survey (a detailed questionnaire exercise) most parents are very supportive of their children's education. When schools exploit fully opportunities to involve parents in a productive way, parents, schools and children all gain. Evidence suggests, however, that these opportunities are often missed or underused. Sometimes this is due to the lack of a clear school policy for parental involvement. Sometimes it results from lack of teacher training or from insufficient non-contact time for teachers to devote to such work. The circumstances of lone-parent families and dual-career families may make it difficult to establish successful links. Parents whose own experience of school was negative are often hard to interest in active school involvement. Schools must nevertheless persevere in their efforts to develop good links with parents".
I trust that the chief inspector and his colleagues will examine such links in much greater depth in future reports, as schools which have not been successful in involving parents can learn from the good practices of those which have.
I turn finally to the pressing and ever-present problems faced by schools in disadvantaged areas, where all too often an anti-education ethos prevails in the local community, where teaching sometimes lacks vigour and inspirational quality, and where teachers and pupils alike become discouraged and sometimes even dismayed by disruptive or violent behaviour. In the face of multiple disadvantage the dice are loaded against educational success.
The National Commission has now embarked upon a major research project entitled "Success against the odds". That involves case studies of the features, problems, strategies and initiatives of schools both in disadvantaged inner cities and rural locations, to see what methods helped them to achieve in the face of perceived adversity. The project involves 12 teams from around the United Kingdom, each consisting of three members—one an educationist, one from the business world, and one involved in the regeneration of disadvantaged areas but coming from outside education.
Both primary and secondary schools are being studied. Each team is carrying out a detailed survey to determine how and why the school has become successful. Head teachers, teaching staff, pupils, parents and governors are all being interviewed. Detailed accounts of each school will be written, describing problems and challenges and the 10 features of success which we define in Learning to Succeed, and issues of

1185
school policy and resource allocation relevant to those features will also be described. Later this year the report will be launched, I hope, at a high profile national conference. We trust that the lessons learned from that project will ultimately be widely applied.
In discussing those issues vital to the future of British education, I could say much more. All too many school buildings are at present crumbling or inadequate. The chief inspector has pointed out that, for lack of capital expenditure, the delivery of the national curriculum will be constrained in about a quarter of secondary schools. Similar problems arise with resources such as libraries, books and computers.
Surely the time must come when the DFE will lay down minimum standards for class size, as the Scots already do, and for accommodation and resources which local authorities and the Schools Funding Agency must provide. Surely too we need much better guidance on such issues as the training and selection of head teachers. We must do everything possible to overcome those conditions which prevent education from reaching an acceptable standard. Central accountability must be crucial, as all too often in the past no single body has been willing to take responsibility when things go wrong. The nation's children and grandchildren deserve to be helped to learn to succeed.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, if any of your Lordships were to walk along Pall Mall on the left-hand side—and it must be a fairly frequent occurrence to walk along Pall Mall—your Lordships would see at the rear entrance of one of the buildings a large inscription: "This door is alarmed". The door may be alarmed but this Peer is very worried at the example of the misuse of the English language that that inscription, which has been there for some time, portrays and at the various other examples which were quoted to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk.
Therefore, while it is customary to thank the initiator of a debate, I am somewhat guarded in my thanks to my noble friend Lady Perry because today's debate has, on the whole, increased my worries. Part of that arises from the fact that, to my mind, the single most important thing in the Ofsted report was the suggestion that teachers might be given a few years of peace in which to get used to the important and, to my way of thinking, valuable innovations of the past few years. But with the possibility—and I hope that it is a remote one—of the party opposite taking office, it is quite clear that the schools will get nothing of the kind. The party opposite is obviously determined to turn the clock back to the origin of our current distresses.
When one of those socialist Ministers for Education, in a lamentable series of such persons, the late Anthony Crosland, said in a famous remark that he wished to get rid of every "expletive deleted" grammar school in England, it was clearly taken to mean that what he wanted to get rid of was "expletive deleted" grammar, and the result is that which was illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk.
1186
In other words, for two decades we had—and this persisted in some quarters—a curious link, but not necessarily a marriage, between socialism (the religion of envy is one way of putting it) and progressive child-centred education methods. I say that they are not necessarily linked because, as my noble friend Lady Cox reminded us, until very recently Russia, which was a good deal more socialist than socialists opposite, did maintain rather high educational standards. I am sorry that my noble friend was unable to stay but I am also rather pleased in a way because, otherwise, I should have had to tell her that when her friend goes back to Moscow with her child to get a better education than he has been receiving in Oxfordshire she will find that there, too, some of the things from which education suffers in our consumer society in the Western world—for example television, computer games and all the nonsense with which we clog up the lives of our children—are gaining ground there. Moreover, the devotion to the reading and knowledge of Russian literature which was a very important and central part of Russia's educational system is, alas, now on the decline according to most observers.
A good deal has been said—and again, the investigations of Professor Prais were cited by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk —about our failures in comparison with countries with which it is more natural to compare ourselves: our more immediate Continental neighbours. They are serious, but, if we are to understand the issues that we face, we should not overestimate the extent to which others' success is being maintained. For example, in France there is now a very considerable degree of discontent among both parents and teachers. After all, it was the classic country in which education was the great moulding force of the nation. I listened to the speech of the right reverend Prelate with great interest. He may have noticed a recent report which stated that French parents are switching their children to Church schools—not the church of the right reverend Prelate; but mostly the majority Church in France, the Roman Catholic Church—because they feel that the state system is letting them down.
In the Western world as a whole there appears to be a reaction against what used to be regarded as intellectual achievement and excellence. There is also a tendency for the teaching profession, not to be criticised or abused in the sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, suggested, but not to play the same part in leading society as used to be thought proper.
It may well be (and here, again, I believe that the example of Sri Lanka given to us by the right reverend Prelate is relevant) that what we are seeing is that, whereas the driving force of Western society from the Enlightenment and perhaps from even earlier, the belief in education as the solution to the problems both of the individual and of society, is now held in non-European countries, that belief is to some extent—and I believe that the consumer society and television above all, may be the principal culprits—being neglected in Western European societies.
After our period of, I hope, acclimatising ourselves to changes, we may need to look at where our weaknesses still lie. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of

1187
Detchant, could not stay, but he knows that I disagree with him on the following point. I believe that the accent placed by the noble Lord's commission—and indeed by other noble Lords—on nursery education as the big panacea is wholly misconceived. If we had limitless resources, why not? But if resources are limited—and even noble Lords opposite admit that that is so—that is not where I would put my money.
Compulsory schooling starts earlier in this country than in most countries of the European Union. Therefore, our children already spend more years at school. The idea that we should improve performance by adding on an extra year at the beginning seems to me to be avoiding the question of why, when our children already spend longer at school, they do not, as Professor Prais has shown, do as well as we should like in some vital respects such as numeracy and literacy.
On the whole, it is possible that within those constraints we have not always used our financial resources to the best advantage. I believe it is true to say that British schools have more computers than the schools of most Continental countries. Indeed, we have spent a great deal of money in that respect. No doubt information technology is the way of the future, but I would rather it remained in the future for the first generations of school children who really need, if it is to be of any use to them, to have something about which they wish to seek information. For that, they really need the grounding in literacy, literature and mathematics, especially mental arithmetic, which is the beginning of all sound learning.
For example, I should have preferred to see such money being spent on something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant; namely, on the physical buildings of schools. I believe it is wrong to allow or force children to study in buildings that are not weather-proof. Of course it can be done. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Cox reminded us, it is done in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, it seems to me to be something which, in an advanced country that is not at present under bombardment, we should have been able to avoid.
I would rather see more money spent on school libraries. The ultimate tool of education—IT notwithstanding—is the book. A child who is in a school which has an inadequate library is being denied something which is essential and which should be the core of his education. I think that we can and should see whether within these constraints we could not at times make more enlightened choices. I also feel that we have on the whole been rather unfair to our teachers, in that, whatever the class size may be, unless they can rely upon decent behaviour they cannot fulfil their function as teachers.
As noble Lords will be aware, I tried in vain to prevent Her Majesty's Government from accepting the absurd decision of the absurd Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to abolish corporal punishment. I think it was unfair on our teachers to remove that sanction against their will. The teaching profession was not in favour of that and to me the teaching profession's wishes rank higher than those of a bunch of lawyers unfamiliar with our own scene. We have now—we know that this has
1188
been brought to the Government's attention by one of the main teaching unions—the situation under the Children Act in which it is all too easy for children with a grudge (children are not little angels) to produce an accusation which can lead, perhaps not to the permanent interruption of a career but to harm to the standing of a teacher. I think, for instance, that magistrates have been far too kind to parents who, when sanctions are taken against their children, revenge themselves, or attempt to revenge themselves, physically on teachers.
If we expect a lot of our teachers, I think they can expect from us the conditions of civilised behaviour in the classroom. Although I subscribe to the praise which my noble friends Lady Perry and Lady Blatch and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have given to the achievements in the past few years, I think those achievements are precarious. I think they need closer examination and, if possible, consideration in the light of consultation with countries which I believe are undergoing some of the same strains. Noble Lords opposite may find it easier to put the clock back in education than I could put it back by disinventing television, but we ought to think about these things. On the whole, as I say, the door may be alarmed but I am worried.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lady Perry for her stimulating introduction to this wide-ranging debate I have a suggestion to make. Why do we not make tomorrow's Hansard required reading for all trainee teachers? I believe it would form a compendium of professional information, personal expertise and differing opinions eloquently expressed. As it is getting late I shall limit myself to two topics.
John Colet founded St. Paul's School in 1509. He wanted the best education for his pupils. They were of course boys but I shall not digress on that. The key words for Dean Colet were "severity, liberality and breadth". Severity needs a gloss. For John Colet severity meant rigour in studies and discipline in personal behaviour. Those three key words together sum up, as well as any modern mission statement, what a good school should stand for. I talk of schools for there my experience lies, having been a school principal for 25 years and, I have to admit, a teacher for 40.
My first point concerns one particular group of secondary schools—city technology colleges. I declare my interest as a founder trustee of the CTC Trust, started in 1987 by Kenneth Baker, then Secretary of State, with a co-founder in the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. I am also chairman of Landau Forte College in Derby. The CTC Trust network now comprises 15 CTCs, 67 technology colleges and 70 affiliated schools. The original 15 CTCs, of which Landau Forte is second youngest, were set up most often in the deprived inner city areas with which we have been so much concerned today in order to provide a sound, broad education up to the age of 16, and then, for 16 to 18 year-olds, specialist courses within an educational culture which is scientific, technological, vocational and international.

1189
pupils are accepted at age 11 not on their background or their academic ability but on their own and their parents' undertaking that they will continue in full-time education or training until they are 18. Moreover they must demonstrate some technological aptitude. CTCs are not elite schools. I can speak for my own college in Derby which has a powerful special needs department to help children with learning difficulties as well as those for whom English is not their family's first language. Of course exceptionally gifted pupils have special needs too which we also address. Everyone who visits Landau Forte comments on its happy and positive atmosphere. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that about 21 per cent. of our 11 to 16 year-olds are entitled to free meals and about another 10 per cent. receive grants for uniform.
In these times, when government funding is so restricted and CTCs are running on tight budgets in line with comparable grant-maintained schools, it is important to remember the amount of private sponsorship CTCs and their allied schools have drawn in. That is money which would not otherwise have gone to state-run education. So far private sector sponsors have contributed over £45 million to setting up and equipping these schools, benefiting over 100,000 pupils so far.
Why do I think well of CTCs? I have four reasons. The original 15 are providing valuable pilot lights. As in all innovative experiments there have been some mistakes but they have pioneered five-term school years which make much more sense than the traditional three-term year with long holidays. The five terms each consist of eight weeks. These are interspersed with four two-week breaks and one summer holiday break of four weeks. Most CTCs also run a longer school day providing supervised study and extra-curricular activities in school out of school hours, away from the distractions of television, siblings or even an empty home because the parents are away at work.
Curriculum innovations include offering the International Baccalaureate—at Kingshurst CTC in Birmingham—and combining GNVQs at various levels with the more traditional GCSEs and A-levels, as we do at Landau Forte. Projects include research; for example, teaching how to analyse, interpret and assess the performance and progress of pupils between key stage 3 (for 11 year-olds) and GCSE.
The CTC Trust is also looking at ways in which Internet and superhighway initiatives can help students and teachers in their work. We also hope to improve our libraries. Current projects include the Royal College of Arts schools technology curriculum project, the Smallpiece school-centred initial teacher training programme and the InterTech Europa programme combining technology and languages in England, France and Germany.
The CTC Trust has issued many publications. The recent paper on moral and spiritual development in secondary schools is, as the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, mentioned recently in your Lordships' House, particularly recommended, as indeed is Anyone for Science, written by a formidable husband and wife
1190
team—Dr. Philip Evans, who is headmaster of Bedford School and a member of the SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority), and Dr. Sandra Evans, former head of science at St Paul's Girls School.
Building on the pilot work of the 15 original CTCs, in 1993 the trust was designated by the Department for Education the lead non-governmental body to promote the new technology colleges programme and schools specialising in teaching languages.
The Education Act 1993 enabled industry to sponsor schools specialising in maths, science and technology through the appointment of four sponsor governors. All maintained schools, grant-maintained and voluntary aided, and local education authority schools are eligible to apply for technology college status. I hope that I have given some idea of the success of an imaginative partnership between the Department for Education and generous private sector sponsors.
After giving an example of good news I turn to a subject which worries me - museum education. Here too I declare an interest. I am a commissioner of the Museums and Galleries Commission and a member of the steering committee which is producing a national report on museum education. It is another education initiative which I applaud. The much needed report is coming about through the co-operation of the Department for Education and the Department of National Heritage.
I have a number of worries. The current local government reorganisation threatens the very existence of some of our finest museums, as described only yesterday in an article in The Times on the threat to the Yorkshire Museum in York whose collection is particularly rich in Roman, Anglo Saxon, Viking and mediaeval antiquities—all clearly relevant to the teaching of history.
Museums are already well used by primary schools and, to a lesser extent, by college students. But they are not being used anything like enough by secondary schools. The recent loosening of the national curriculum has, I am glad to say, afforded more space in the timetable in key stages 3 and 4. The new emphasis in the national curriculum on the use of primary sources means that museums have just the resources needed for, say, history, social studies and literature, not to mention art, design, science and technology.
I wonder whether SCAA could take over responsibility for liaison on museum education now that there is no longer an HMI inspector with special responsibility. Clearly, Ofsted does not have the time. In the past we were fortunate to have the expertise of Mrs. Hazel Moffatt of the HMI who had responsibility for museum education liaison.
GNVQs are a new challenge for teachers, calling for a much more practical approach. Here again museums are a potential resource. I ask the Department for Education for action to realise the full educational potential of museums. Teachers need help to use museums effectively, perhaps in the form of conference or training grants. In any event, guidance is needed. In initial teacher training emphasis could be placed on

1191
museum use, with appropriate links and dissemination of good practice. I could give a list of museums which already do well in this regard, but I shall not.
It is not only in the academic curriculum that museums can be so useful. I remember a recent visit I made to Northern Ireland with the Museums and Galleries Commission. We commissioners were struck by a brilliant initiative with the acronym EMU—in this case standing for Education for Mutual Understanding. This is based in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum and provides a week's residential course for school children. Two groups are taught together, one from a Catholic and one from a Protestant school. I am particularly pleased to be able to make that point today.
My message to the Department for Education today is twofold: congratulations on its encouragement of science and technology in schools using the experience of the original CTCs to benefit the much wider school population, and a plea to promote museum education. Please support and develop the existing examples of good practice. Remember the words of the great Hollywood philosopher Mae West—too much of a good thing is wonderful.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise with diffidence to speak in this debate. I am not a teacher and I am not in the education world. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Perry for giving me this opportunity to speak on a subject which has not yet been mentioned except briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I shall come to that.
I wish to make a plea for emotionally disturbed, disintegrated and delinquent children. I have been privileged to work with such children alongside teachers. I have the deepest sympathy with teachers who have a class of 30 children which includes one emotionally disturbed child who can completely upset the whole class and make life difficult both for the teacher and the other children.
I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the board of governors of a school in Kent—the Caldecott Community—which takes deeply disturbed, disintegrated children. I am also governor of an EBD school in Oxfordshire and I am patron of the Hesley Group in the North of England. Therefore, I have a picture of what teachers have to do with these deeply disturbed children.
The Warnock Report, which we all much admired and respected, was enshrined in Part III of the Education Act. That special needs section of the Act recommended that so far as possible and practicable children should be educated in their local schools and live in their own homes. The Act also stated—and I speak from the point of view of the children—that if their homes were so disintegrated and difficult those children could be placed in foster homes. However, some children are so difficult that they cannot be cared for either in their own homes or foster homes. They must be placed in schools run with a high ratio of highly skilled staff where the children can receive education, security, structure and discipline, and a special kind of therapeutic care.
1192
There is a difficulty about such children. The schools are run by voluntarily organisations, by charities. I admit that those schools are expensive to run, with two members of staff for every child, and with psychiatric and psychological help and all that goes with it. A reasonable building is necessary and an outreach service which deals with the children when they leave school, involving two hostels and social workers to help the children to obtain work outside.
There is this great difficulty. The Education Act was wonderfully taken through your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lady Blatch. She told us that if a child were to be assessed as being in need of special education it would be legal that that child should receive such education; and how right she was. But, alas, that is not happening. I received a letter from an education officer stating that although a child had been deemed to need special education, the child could not receive it because the city treasurer said that there was no money for it. My noble friend Lady Blatch is aware that I know that that is illegal, but that is what happened. As a result, these schools are run by money raised by charity. I pay special tribute to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild who is helping us with money for such a school. Nevertheless, we are not gaining those children because the treasurers of the local authorities say that they cannot afford the cost. I bring this matter to my noble friend's attention. I have given notice that I would raise this very serious issue. The group of children involved is small, but, my goodness, they are disruptive and difficult.
I take up a point raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff to give one example of the difficulties experienced by teachers. At one of the schools of which I am a governor a teacher opened the door of a fourth floor room and saw a small boy standing on the window sill. He had opened the window. Whether he really meant to jump, I do not know. But your Lordships can imagine how the teacher felt. The teacher crept slowly up to the child, and pulled him down. He was a skinny little thing, from Hackney. Of course, the child struggled. He therefore had bruises. Immediately, the teacher having put the child down on the floor, thankfully, and having closed the window, the child said, "You've assaulted me. I'll have you up". The teacher said, "Yes, I had to assault you in order to save you". The child said, "I didn't want to be saved. What did you do that for? You've assaulted me. I wish to charge you". The teacher led the child to a telephone, phoned the local police and said, "Constable, a complaint is coming through". The constable was very clever. He listened to the child and said, "I'm so sorry, sir"—that description upset the child—"but I'm very busy now. I've got four charges to make in the police station. I'll come tomorrow morning". By the morning the child did not want to see the police and it was all over.
I give that as a small example of how difficult it is to deal with those children. However, they must be dealt with; they must be helped. Such treatment is expensive but cost effective in the long run because those are the children who will become the mental patients or criminals of the future. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Blatch is present. She knows that when

1193
children are assessed for such treatment it is wrong when they do not receive it based on purely financial reasons.
My second point relates to non-school attendance. Under the Education Act the Department for Education issued regulations and guidance—and very good they are too. Nevertheless, the number of children not attending school, or excluded from school, has risen rather than fallen. I have several small friends. They are delinquents; they are breaking and entering. They want to be excluded from school because school time is the best time to break and enter and steal, when the other children do not see them and therefore do not grass on them. They say, too, that the ladies are all out shopping. The small boy to whom I spoke a little while ago had done 45 jobs and had not been at school for two years.
I have great sympathy with the teachers because one difficult child in the class can disrupt it. Nevertheless, our delinquency rate will continue to rise unless we take responsibility for what is being done with the children excluded from school. The council of Barnados ran an extremely good centre which my noble friend Lady Blatch visited. It was for non-school attenders in Birmingham. The children requiring special treatment and care attended, and returned to their original schools after 18 months.
Finally, parents need all the help and co-operation that they can obtain. I often think that there needs to be somebody in schools to whom parents can turn. With all the work that teachers have to do, they do not have the time, or perhaps the skills, to deal with the problems of parents. It is a matter which we must address.
My point relates to a small but difficult group of children. They cause many problems, both when small and as they grow up. It would be cost effective to help those children through the voluntary organisations which are giving a service. I hope that the Minister will understand why I have brought the matter to your Lordships' notice.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Perry for raising this important issue today. If it gives the House any comfort, I assure your Lordships that I have no long-standing dinner invitation tonight and I have every intention of staying for the winding-up speeches.
The National Commission on Education chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton—he obviously has one of those long-standing dinner invitations—reported in 1993 that educational achievement is strongly associated with parental background. Parental education, particularly that of the mother, together with parental interest and participation in their child's schooling, have all been found to be significant factors affecting children's academic achievement.
Also significant are the values to which a school is committed. Where there is a positive school ethos, pupils develop positive attitudes towards school and education and will inevitably achieve more. The school's ethos has a powerful impact on the
1194
effectiveness of teaching and learning and consequently achievement. Headteachers, teachers and school governors all play crucial roles in developing and communicating their agreed values to their pupils.
The school ethos, therefore, needs evaluating alongside other more measurable outcomes, such as examination results. The Scottish inspectorate has developed "ethos indicators"; Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in England and Wales are charged with reporting on the,
"spiritual, moral, cultural and social development of pupils".
Ofsted made it quite clear to schools that spiritual and moral development of pupils takes place across the whole curriculum in every subject and in every area of school life, not just in religious education and collective worship. That point was powerfully made by the right reverend Prelate earlier in the debate.
However, where religious education and opportunities for school worship are the Cinderella of the curriculum—under-resourced, underfunded, bottom of the list of priorities—crucial opportunities for spiritual and moral development of pupils are lost. Many schools struggle to appoint qualified teachers of religious education; indeed, in some areas schools have failed to appoint suitable teachers, even after repeated advertisements for vacancies. This situation needs to be addressed immediately, with enhanced funding in this area of the curriculum.
Opportunities for spiritual and moral development, together with relevant Christian teaching, are often lost because of the daily burden of providing it which falls on the headteacher or teacher responsible. May I commend the work of the hundreds of gifted and committed Church leaders and Christian school workers in towns up and down the country who, day in, day out, visit schools to help teachers with RE lessons and who lead daily school assemblies with Christian themes in ways that are relevant and meaningful to today's youth.
I was fortunate to meet such a group, "Walk through the Bible Ministries", and hear about the magnificent work that they are doing in schools. The Government need to give serious consideration to extra funding and resourcing of religious education teachers and teaching and to supporting the Christian groups who currently help many schools deliver meaningful Christian assemblies in schools on a regular basis.
8.12 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I too give warm thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lady Perry for initiating today's debate. It is appropriate that we should consider the impact of the Government's recent education reforms. This year's annual report from Ofsted states:
"Schools have welcomed the increase in autonomy brought about by the introduction of local management. It is generally agreed that we need a National Curriculum which defines the essential knowledge, understandings and skills pupils should be taught in each Key Stage … What is clear is that the reforms, collectively, are improving educational quality … OFSTED inspections together with academic performance tables show, moreover, that many schools are raising pupils' standards of achievement".

1195
Despite that, any casual observer analysing exam standards—however imperfect a yardstick some may consider them to be—might be forgiven for imagining that educational achievement is showing a marked decline. It is salutary to reflect upon the questions posed in the first 11-plus exam set by the London School Board in 1893. It was designed for pupils in elementary schools who would have sat in rows at iron-framed desks, 60 to a class—and I emphasise that.
Across all subjects, the 1893 exams were demonstrably more difficult than their 1993 counterparts. For example, the simplest maths question in 1893—albeit aimed at the most able 11 year-olds—was:
"Multiply six million five hundred and eighty-three thousand and twenty by six thousand three hundred and nine, and divide this product by seven hundred and one (Answer in figures).
By contrast, the hardest calculation required of 1993's above average 11 year-olds—and here I shall not try the patience of your Lordships by reading out the whole question for it is somewhat longwinded—was:
"Rob says: 'This means there are 225 x 75 worms'. Without using a calculator, work out how many worms there are in the area of grass".
For those noble Lords not of a mathematical bent, the respective answers are 59,247,180 and 16,875. For the record, I did not have to use a calculator to derive those solutions.
That is an indication of the change in standards since 1893. However, statistics demonstrate that since 1945, levels of pupils' achievement have broadly improved. As Professor Jim Campbell of Warwick University put it:
"The proportion of the population that is illiterate was higher in the 1950s than now. It is our own expectations that are being let down, rather than objective criteria".
Indeed, now that they have access to league tables and inspectors' reports, parents are demanding, quite properly, that their children be given the opportunity to achieve even better results.
At the same time, as mentioned by many noble Lords today, international comparisons suggest that the approaches of our economic rivals to education are engendering much more literate, numerate and motivated young adults than ourselves. Thus, recent research into mathematical skills shows that English nine and 13 year-olds now trail their counterparts in Italy, Korea, Hungary, Taiwan and many other countries.
What lies at the heart of the Ofsted report—and here I echo my noble friend Lady Cox—is the dilemma of how to steepen the curve of improvement in standards, given that it is relatively flat when measured against that of our economic rivals and our own expectations. In my view quite correctly, the report has identified the need to focus on those factors which make one school more effective than another—that enable pupils at individual schools to achieve more than at others—as one of the most pragmatic means of introducing best practice. I am pleased to have heard today of the Government's commitment in that area, if only because all the evidence indicates that effective schools can have a significantly beneficial effect upon the life chances of their pupils.
1196
In that context the report states:
"effective schools are well-run schools; where the teaching is purposeful and the teachers' expectations of children high; where progress is monitored systematically; and where parents are involved in a genuine partnership".
As put by Peter Mortimer, the director of the University of London Institute of Education, and reported in The Times of 13th February 1995:
"At its best, a positive ethos incorporates a self-reinforcing system in which high expectations and enthusiasm lead to positive and constructive attitudes to learning among both staff and pupils".
This, the self-reinforcing system, is the real power of the principle of achievement in our schools.
There is a further imperative that is required to make a school an effective one. We should never lose sight of the fact that the practice of education is not a precise science; rather it is one of the humanities. Thus, while the framework introduced by the recent reforms provides a much needed yardstick against which to measure general levels of attainment, we should not permit this to obscure the fact that, above all, children are human beings in their own right, each with their own individual abilities. As such, they should be allowed to expect both trust and respect from their schools and teachers.
I was talking recently to the headmistress of my local primary in West Sussex—a very happy and effective school—and she told me that it is this trust and respect at all levels and in all relationships that is the most fundamental element of her school ethos. This, after all, is the very essence of social interaction. It is that influence that is fostered as the central foundation underpinning the rest of the school's activities. Not surprisingly, this relationship of mutual trust and respect is extended to parents. The adoption of the principle that the school has a responsibility within the wider community has translated itself into the school being more than just a school. By a perfectly natural process it has become very much part of the life and soul of the community, as important in its own way as the parish church, the village pub or the village shop. I venture to suggest that that should be a role model for all schools.
That leads me to the issue of parental involvement, as opposed to empowerment, in education. To a greater or lesser extent, state schooling has created a climate of dependency. The simple reality is that there is a price that must be paid, an obligation—so eloquently summarised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon—that parents must acquit, not necessarily in monetary terms, but most certainly in terms of time. Schools which fail to recognise the imperative of consistent and proactive involvement of individual parents in the schooling of their children are perhaps as guilty of the sin of omission as those parents who assume that while their offspring are in the care of the education system their responsibilities are in abeyance.
One is aware of the old adage that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. Equally, the structure of society and working hours do not always make it easy for parents to commit as much time to the schooling of their children as they might wish. However, the benefits of proactive parental participation—particularly at pre-school and primary levels—are well

1197
known. Not only do children perform better and achieve more, but parents have reported greater self-reliance and self-esteem, thereby becoming more active and socially responsible members of the community. Thus, if only for social reasons, active parental assistance at pre-school and primary level must be encouraged vigorously as the means to effect the genuine partnership to which the Ofsted report refers.
It was freely admitted by the headmistress of my local primary school that, in the absence of such parental involvement, the premises on which the school ethos is based would be compromised and, bluntly, she just would not be able to afford to provide an effective education to her pupils. Clearly the commitment of parents' time to their children's schools can have a considerable financial impact. In playschools this is even more marked. For instance, in 1994 the estimated revenue that was derived from parental sources was ‖250 million, compared with contributions from public funds of some …10 million. That is no mean achievement, and is an absolutely fundamental role of parents. The challenge is to attempt to broaden the base of this involvement, particularly in those areas of the country, such as inner cities, that suffer social disadvantage.
Finally, pursuing the line of reasoning of a number of noble Lords today, I offer this thought. Only last week we were all reminded vividly of the deleterious effects of a lack of achievement in education. In media reports following the disgraceful incidents that caused the friendly international between Eire and England in Dublin to be abandoned, it was illustrated by a member of the National Football Intelligence Unit that the psychological profile of the average mindless football hooligan is a youth who has been at school, and continues to be in his adult life, an under-achiever. Thus, in a very real sense, those appalling scenes were attributable to a lack of pupil achievement.
This is the real danger that we face. While accepting the oft-stated premise that our schools and teachers should not be drawn into the profession of riot control, they nonetheless have the responsibility to be guardians of morality.
In a broader sense, one of the prime responsibilities of education—one which is too often ignored, or even neglected—is to prepare our children for their adult life, not simply to give them a background of knowledge. Careful and effective schooling, in conjunction with parental involvement, has immense power to shape the future lives of our children. Setting our expectations of attainment at appropriate levels, combined with essential moral guidance, enables individual children and parents to become achievers. This in turn inspires self-esteem and self-confidence and a greater propensity towards social and responsible behaviour.
The corollary to this—to permit our education system to create either non-achievers or under-achievers—is to store up problems for ourselves by engendering in more and more of our children disaffection and dissatisfaction
1198
with self in particular and with society in general. That is a recipe for ever more anti-social behaviour and thuggery.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Rennell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Perry for initiating this very interesting debate. I am delighted to see that a few noble Lords are still present. I look forward very much to hearing all the remaining speakers. Like my noble friend Lady Faithful, I have no qualifications to speak in this debate other than that I have four children under the age of 17.
For pupils and students to achieve in schools, there must be an efficient structure within which those pupils can work—hence the Government's educational reforms, of which I am a supporter. The reforms were much needed; they have been far-reaching; and they are brave. Because so much has been attempted, perhaps too quickly, mistakes have undoubtedly been made. The quality of teachers is the most important element in education. More teacher training reforms should perhaps have been on the agenda 10 or 15 years ago. First efforts towards the new national curriculum were overwhelming and unworkable. The Government should perhaps have been seen to have consulted more widely with head teachers, with ordinary teachers, and with other wise educationists—many of them here in this House. But it is much easier to criticise and destroy than to construct and be positive. I am optimistic concerning our children's education. But of course it will take time.
Grant-maintained schools are performing well. The recently published chief inspector's report states that the differences between LEA-managed schools and grant-maintained schools were insubstantial in most respects. He goes on to say that the standards in GM schools are somewhat higher, in part reflecting the generally more favourable socio-economic circumstances of those schools. I hope that I was not sounding too much like the shadow Chancellor in that expression.
We have heard many times of the importance of parental influence in education. Indeed, grant-maintained schools have been created as a result of that parental influence. Furthermore, through the media, we also know that the excellence of grant-maintained schools is perceived by many well-known parents.
Like my noble friend Lady Perry, I believe that there is confidence in many of the reforms that are taking place: grant-maintained schools; local education authority-managed schools; league tables—although they still need fine tuning; the national curriculum; parental choice, and so on. Dare I even suggest that noble Lords on the other side of the House might accept that some of the reforms have merit?
I mentioned that the reforms have been brave. The Government have taken steps in their education reforms which they believe are in the best interests of this and succeeding generations of children. They are determined to give the children of this country one of the most important things in life (it has been mentioned many

1199
times before): a good education. It is, after all, very brave and difficult to strive for improvement and change in a field in which so many entrenched ideological doctrines are held by so many different groups: teachers' unions; local education authorities; politicians; and university chancellors.
My greatest concern is the irresponsible attitudes taken by some in one of those groups, the local education authorities. I will not dwell on the deplorable campaign by some Labour-controlled LEAs against the creation of grant-maintained schools—although I have 50 or more examples.
A point which also concerns me very much is the inefficiency, the negligence and the squandering of resources in some Labour councils and LEAs, particularly when they waste educational resources. This squandering of resources was highlighted in the Daily Mail on 3rd February by Mr. Leo McKinstry. Mr. McKinstry was until recently a Labour Party researcher and councillor. Although I have the article here, I shall spare the noble Lords opposite any embarrassment by reading it out. I shall not do so.
But whereas I always take with a pinch of salt what I read in newspapers, I take more seriously the recent findings of the Audit Commission. It reports that it has found scope for saving on the pay bill for local authorities' administrative and clerical staff—a saving of some £500 million. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place has stated that £250 million can also be saved by eliminating surplus school places. He also said that there are some £150 million in unspent school balances available now to fund education services.
Funds allocated to education and associated facilities must be used for those purposes. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will let us know the remedies that are proposed to enable those currently-being-lost resources, as it were, to be used for the benefit of educating our children.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it is my duty and privilege to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for instituting this debate. I also thank her for making me aware of something that I had not realised until now. Her description of the state of schools in 1979 made me very glad that I was at one of the few schools of that period which had maths, English, history and science as part of the prescribed curriculum. In other words, that school was fortunate to have courses very similar to what is in the national curriculum and now regarded as best practice.
Indeed, there was a great deal of wrestling and dancing in getting right the national curriculum. We have recently established a manageable national curriculum. There is also a degree of testing with regard to the levels of attainment of young people. That is good educational practice. If there are tests and assessments, individual needs are ascertained; and, once ascertained, those individual needs can receive the correct help. It is a pity that the noble Baroness is not in her place at the moment, because the special educational needs code of
1200
practice is the best example of that. It makes sure that special and individual needs are recorded and taken care of.
Unfortunately, that takes time. Teachers need to spend hours doing it. Taking records of a class of 30 pupils involves a considerable amount of paper shuffling. That is why we are worried when we hear that teachers may be lost through financial considerations. I bring in the point about secondary education, upon which most of the debate has been focused, in order to emphasise that, "Quality don't come cheap in any department". If we want the best, we shall ultimately have to pay for it.
On many occasions the Government have stated that they believe in quality in education. They have taken some steps towards it. But they must be prepared to back up that belief, by whatever means are available. If that means additional taxation, we on these Benches are not frightened of it; we believe that quality comes first. If we want the quality, we have to spend the money. Resources may be limited, but they are needed. If we cannot succeed with our education system in the modern industrialised world, we shall not succeed—full stop. Our whole economic structure is based on the knowledge acquired by our people. One cannot rely on natural resources in the modern world. Saudi Arabia has recently found itself in financial difficulties, even with its natural resources. Even a country with such a small population and a huge amount of oil can find itself with problems.
One of the major problems that we have to face when dealing with education in this country is that we have inherited a culture which is anti-education and anti-training. It is very unfortunate. I do not know its source. The Celtic fringes have often been better served in their attitude towards education. There is an oft quoted remark: the Welsh worship education, the Scots respect it and the English have nothing personal against it.
If we are to encourage people to take up the educational opportunities that are open to them, we must concentrate on discouraging that culture. It is very difficult to do that. There is within all of us the feeling that, "What I did is right because I did it". We may not be used to training. In certain parts of our society, that is undoubtedly true and we do not look towards training as a natural by-product. Our successes in higher education are built round the fact that everybody has assumed that for certain people it is natural to go into higher education. Something similar must be effected for further education.
Further education is one of the most important parts of the educational process. It is not merely a link between compulsory schooling and higher education. It must be more than that. Otherwise, we should only need to have A-level examinations or some reformed version of them—perhaps Scottish higher certificate with A-levels on top of it. That would cover everything. But instilling certain practical skills—possibly "training" is the right term here—might be more appropriate in certain parts of further education. Practical skills need

1201
to be acquired. We should have access to such education at all times throughout our lives. The 16 to 19 year-old group require basic skills.
However, as we know, technical changes are taking place at an incredibly fast rate in our society. All the information that we have tends to indicate that the rate of change will not slow down; on the contrary, it will increase. Forms of further education and training—whatever term one wishes to use—will become more and more important. My own party suggests that there should be a two-year entitlement in the course of a working life to take time out for, say, part-time or distance learning in order to acquire new skills. That part-time learning should be funded by the state in a certain way. That is one answer. I shall listen to any others. My party's policies, along with everybody else's, are now in the melting pot before the next general election. If we are to encourage people to acquire new skills to make them employable, we must be open to all new angles and all educational opportunities that are available.
I shall restrict my words because of the time. One point that emerges from a discussion of technological change is that we must not be totally wedded to the educational methods of the past. We have heard today a great deal about the decline in written English. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, blamed television for a great deal of that decline. As a dyslexic, I feel vaguely put upon. My learning curve was of necessity different. I acquired most of my information from television. Possibly it is the quality of the television programmes that the noble Lord berates rather than television itself. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head.
However, I have often thought that when pupils are learning plays in schools, the video of a good production of a Shakespeare play—or any other playwright—will convey more information than sitting down and reading the play. Playwrights do not write plays to be read; they write plays to be performed. A video or an audio cassette offers a performance. I suggest that we resist the Luddite tendency within all of us—because no one likes change. We must take on new skills and forms of information. We must develop so that we are open to new ideas.
The hour is late and I shall draw my arguments to a conclusion. The whole debate has made me an even stronger fan of timed debates than I was before; indeed, many noble Lords who were not able to stay to the end will probably agree with me. However, unless we can open ourselves up to new methods of teaching and new structures of training, especially within the further education centres—which may mean putting our hands in our pockets—we shall be left behind. We do not have any real choice if we are to stay competitive within the world economy. The East, the southern hemisphere and the Far East are rapidly catching up with us in terms of economic performance. If we are to stay competitive, we must maintain our levels of skills and training. We do not have any other option.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, a few of us are still here. However, I am afraid that, speaking for myself, it is not
1202
a remark I make with any degree of happiness. I sat here and found a number of the speeches made by noble Lords opposite particularly disagreeable and most unsuited to the sort of education debates we are used to. I hope therefore that they will forgive me if I largely ignore them.
The debate is partly concerned with standards of achievement. Some useful background information on that topic is to be found in the current admirable Social Trends from which some noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted. I shall refer to both the good and the bad sides.
On the good side, Table 3.15 tells us that 30 per cent. of school leavers have one or more A levels and more than 60 per cent. obtain at least one GCSE, whereas only 6 to 7 per cent. have no graded results. That exaggerates the successes for it conceals the fact that many school leavers obtain very few GCSEs. But it is not bad, especially when we look at the progress through time.
In the middle of the 1970s 18 per cent. of school leavers had no GCE or equivalent qualification. But I have a concern when I look at such figures. Are we comparing like with like? I expressed the fear elsewhere that academic standards in higher education have fallen. I have less knowledge of schools. My worry is that assessment, including that by inspectors, is made with reference to average achievement which may fall in absolute terms. I must therefore ask the question: how confident are we that the criteria we use are as strict as they were? Will they, as they should, become stricter in the future? That is not a rhetorical question; it is one to which I should dearly like an answer.
I hope that I am not an old fogey, but I do not believe that spelling is all there is to English. I say that though I am well known to be a crossword puzzle addict and for that spelling is of the essence. I also do not believe that an inability to do sums in pre-decimal coinage is a disaster. But I am struck by the scale of failure in elementary mathematical and writing ability. I am also astounded—a point made peripherally by one of my noble friends—by how little the young people I meet know of our history.
In relation to the problem of mathematical and writing ability, Table 3.25 in Social Trends reports the scale of innumeracy and illiteracy among 20 year-olds. Apparently 40 per cent. have writing and spelling problems; over 20 per cent. have numeracy problems; and nearly 20 per cent. have difficulty with reading, writing and spelling. Table 3.26, which I particularly commend to noble Lords, provides further disturbing evidence of the extent to which 21 year-olds fail the most elementary numeracy and literacy tests. One thing we in your Lordships' House have in common is that we all agree that that is not good enough, either for the individuals concerned and for their roles in society. Also, as was remarked by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it implies economic failure. Our country requires a fully numerate and literate population. That is good in itself but our prosperity also depends on it.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords were at pains to emphasise the success of the Government's education policies, as reflected in the achievements of

1203
pupils and students. Certainly, there have been such achievements. Table 3.14 in Social Trends, as has been referred to, shows the rise in the number of adults with qualifications at or above GCSE grades A to C. Table 3.16 shows the decline in the percentage of school leavers with no GCSE or equivalent qualification, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, because of a desire on the part of noble Lords opposite—the first example of more than one to which I shall draw attention—to make political points and to attack so-called progressive methods of education, we were not told that in both the cases I quoted, based on figures in the Government's publication, the improvements since 1979 are simply a continuation of a trend established considerably earlier. That is apparent to anyone who wishes to present a balanced view of these matters. I could add that if I were in the business of political mischief-making, which noble Lords know I never am, the trend is certainly no better than its previous time path and in one of the cases to which I referred it is, if anything, slackening off. What I am trying to say, and here I admonish some noble Lords who have spoken, is that there is no need to denigrate the past in order to claim, rightly or wrongly, that the Government's changes are for the better. It is unnecessary.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to correct him on one point. My figure was from 1975–76 and 1991–92. I did go back before 1979 and said that the increase was continuous.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord. I must have been listening less than attentively, which is not unknown also among other children.
I wish to say a few words on local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, reminded us of this point. I was struck and saddened by the fact that the Motion before your Lordships did not mention them. It is especially upsetting because, if we look at the history of education in this country, most, if not all, of its achievements resulted from individual and local initiatives. I, for one, wish to pay tribute to the LEAs, both elected members and officials, for the contributions they have made and I hope will continue to make. From my recent contacts with them their morale is low. But because they are responsible people they soldier on, despite the disaster of the treatment of the teachers' pay claim and the apparent dominance of the Treasury in education matters rather than the Department for Education.
In that respect the chief inspector's report reminds us of the reduction in the personnel that the LEAs are able to hire, at the same time reminding us of their continued treatment. It refers to all the centrally retained services that they still have and says:
"These were extensively used and generally valued by schools, including GM schools which often purchased a range of financial and educational services from their former LEA".
I could quote at much greater length from the document. It is perhaps also helpful to quote what the same chief inspector's report says of GM schools. In my insistence on balance I was surprised that noble Lords did not quote the central proposition in the report which is that
1204
differences between GM and LEA-maintained schools were insubstantial in most respects, including the standards of achievement of pupils judged against their capabilities, pupils' personal development and behaviour, the quality of teaching, the efficiency of management of schools and links with parents. Why did no noble Lord opposite feel that that part of the chief inspector's report was worth quoting? Perhaps they will tell me why they did not quote those precise words. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, did not quote those words. As I heard him, he quoted later. Did he quote those words?
Lord Rennell: My Lords, I tried to point that out in the nicest possible way. If the noble Lord looks at the beginning of the quotation, he will see that I did say that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord was emphasising how much better the GM schools were. I must have missed what he said. I am indebted to him. I enter these debates in a spirit of inquiry and open-mindedness, and not in the spirit of daft politicking.
I turn fairly briefly to the question of resources. Typically, the Government refer to expenditure on education in real terms and they are right to do so. What they mean by that is actual expenditure adjusted by using the gross domestic product at the market prices deflater. That is a sensible calculation if one wants to look at the cost of education. However, it is misleading if one's concern is with the volume of resources used in education. That is because the prices of goods and services used in education rise more rapidly than prices in general. It is possible to use published figures to allow for this relative price effect. Indeed, that is what government used to do until the present Government took over. If one looks at education in real cost terms, drawing upon the Government's own publication, expenditure has risen by just over a quarter since this Government took power. Even then, that means that the ratio of expenditure to gross domestic product has fallen.
If we accept my interpretation of what this debate is about, namely, that education is desirable and that it is wanted by the public, a fall in the ratio does not make sense. Education expenditure ought to rise at least as rapidly as income and probably more so. However, much more serious is the volume of resources devoted to education in the lifetime of this Government. The increase is not the 25 per cent. in round figures which I referred to. The true figure on the volume of resources is scarcely half that; it is broadly 12 per cent. to 14 per cent.
With such a significant relative cut it is not surprising that education is in crisis. En passant, the same point applies to health. The volume of resources devoted to the NHS increased by less than half of the 68 per cent. in real terms that the Secretary of State claims has occurred. That of itself is sufficient to explain all the difficulties that have appeared in the provision of healthcare.
As regards Table 3.28 in Social Trends, two noble Lords opposite said that the UK's expenditure on education, as a share of GDP, is higher than that of

1205
Germany and of Japan. They are completely right, but, in my acerbic mood, let me ask this: why did they not tell us that it is lower than in Canada, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United States, Belgium and France and lower than the OECD average? What is there about our debate today that noble Lords, who must know all the figures in order to quote the two, did not feel the need to place them in the correct perspective? My own judgment is that noble Lords have a duty to set a standard of rational discussion especially when debating education.
The question of class sizes has been referred to. It is known that some crude statistical analyses failed to find a correlation between class sizes and improved performance. Many years ago I and others explained why that is so. If resources, notably teachers, are allocated more than proportionally to those most in need and with the greatest difficulties, as they should be, it is obvious that the observed relationship will appear to be one of smaller classes and poorer performance. But what it will also show is a causation from a poorer performance, reflecting need, to more resources rather than the other way around. I am absolutely certain that the Minister's advisers at the department are perfectly well aware of that argument. It has been around for at least 20 years and I am slightly surprised that it does not seem to have entered into anyone's speech on the other side of the House.
Echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, one ought to use one's common sense. If smaller classes do not matter, then why not save even more money by reducing class sizes further? Surely the Government ought to be proudly saying that they have discovered how unproductive teachers are and that they propose to reduce their numbers more and more. Possibly, in failing to fund the agreed pay rise, that is what they are really setting about without admitting it.
But we can go further. If additional teachers are so unproductive of education, why do independent fee-paying schools go for such small class sizes? Why do they emphasise the merits of teaching in small groups when they seek to influence parental choice? Fees are high and rising. Some schools are finding it difficult to survive. Independent schools are businesses operating in a competitive market environment. Why do they not compete by cost cutting, getting rid of teachers and charging reduced fees? The answer is that no serious person believes that reducing teacher numbers is a good thing. As I pointed out to the Minister last week, serious research allows for the difficulties I have mentioned and shows that reducing classes is helpful. I was going to quote all the research to your Lordships, but I suddenly realised that I am so enjoying my own speech it has already taken 16 minutes, so I must get a move on.
In the end I agree with the Minister that it comes down to money. We must not delude ourselves and say that a relative cut in resource provision does not matter. Instead we must ask how we want to spend our money. Since we are discussing public expenditure we have to ask ourselves this question: what is the taxpayer willing to pay for?
1206
I go further. If we believe in the value of education—and I believe that that is the one thing we all have in common—our task is not, and cannot be, the passive one of just listening to the electorate. It must also be an active one of persuading the electorate of the merits of education and how valuable it is to use public money for that purpose. I wait to hear the Secretary of State say precisely that. Maybe the noble Lord himself, in replying to the debate, will say it.
I also wait to hear from noble Lords opposite who sometimes act as apologists for the independent schools. I wait to hear from them an echo of Tawney's dictum that what is good enough for our children is good enough for all children. It should be a special moral responsibility on the part of those who support independent schools to speak out for more resources for maintained schools.
Noble Lords have heard enough from me—I certainly have—but I conclude as I started. I did not and do not believe that this is the most useful debate on education we have ever had, but having said that I really am looking forward to the Minister's reply.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are all most grateful to my noble friend Lady Perry for having moved this Motion and for having given us the opportunity for this debate. She made an eloquent and powerful speech which it is going to be very hard for me to follow with anything like the clarity which she employed. My noble friend Lady Blatch repeats her apologies to noble Lords opposite in particular for having to attend a Select Committee immediately after her speech. That gave me the time to concentrate on answering the questions which noble Lords have asked and also on getting my grammar right, not that I, as a physicist, shall manage it particularly well.
As my noble friend said, achievement is what education is all about. We all have a great deal to celebrate—pupils, parents, teachers (perhaps teachers most of all) and, indeed, the Government—because of what has happened over the past 16 years. Looking back to Victorian times, we thought that we did not need mass achievement. We thought that an educated elite was enough. But that is not true now. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out, that long legacy has left us with substantial elements of the population who do not really believe in education or its importance. That is a difficult background against which to work. We need understanding, flexibility and skills in most of our workforce.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, summed it up memorably in his Ruskin Speech of 1976, in which he said:
"Let me repeat some of the fields that need study because they cause concern. These are the methods and aims of informal instruction"—
I think that is the first reference to what has been called the "trendy orthodoxy" that had developed in teaching—
"the strong case for the so-called core curriculum of basic knowledge; next, what is the proper way of monitoring the use of resources in order to maintain a proper national standard of

1207
performance. Then there is the role of the inspectorate in relation to national standards and there is the need to improve relations between industry and education".
The noble Lord also mentioned the examination system, school governance and management, and the closer involvement of parents with schools. That was an agenda which the Labour Party did not have a great deal of time to put into effect, but we have done so. One thinks particularly of the late Lord Joseph in that respect, under whom education reform made a great deal of progress—and, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the Labour Party opposed us every step of the way.
I do not want to dwell on the past too much, but we should not be shy of listing what has happened. In 1979, only 24 per cent. of the school population got five grades A to C; now it is 43.3 per cent. The staying-on rate, which the noble Lord, Lord Parry, mentioned, was 58.5 per cent. in 1979; it is now 80 per cent. Things are a great deal better than they used to be, but we have a great deal left to do.
I should like to concentrate on what is being done now and on what we intend to do in the future to continue the trend of improvement that we have seen. Perhaps I had better pause briefly to deal with the present. When one thinks of the present one thinks of the Labour Party—partly because not many Labour Members are present. It is difficult to make a speech when one faces such empty Benches opposite.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He can count as well as any of us. The number is low, but I am sure he will agree that the quality is pretty high.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall come to that. On such occasions, I feel the need of a rearview mirror at the Dispatch Box. In fact, I feel the need of a rearview mirror whenever my noble friend Lord Beloff speaks.
The present is also apposite to the Labour Party because so much of what Labour Peers have said concerns the present. When the noble Lord, Lord Peston, launched into his speech, I thought that I would have to cut out of mine the rude bits about the Labour Party, but in the end the noble Lord made a political speech just as much as his colleagues had done. He was eloquent and erudite, but he did not spend much time looking back—and I understand why—because the Labour Party does not have much of a record on which to look back.
Looking back at our record must cause Labour Peers pain because of all the words that they have had to eat and all the words they have yet to eat—and doubtless will. Looking forward also causes them problems because they have no policy. If any of them essayed anything on what Labour Party policy might be, it could only be in the expectation of being contradicted the next day. Nonetheless, it has been depressing not to have had more contributions from the Opposition Benches. I hope that the next time we debate education we shall be able to have a broader contribution from that side of the House.
I should like to answer some of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, about the education settlement. As I have said in the House before, it was a tough settlement, but very few councils have yet to set their budgets. Every year we
1208
hear from councils about massive education cuts—they are an easy and emotive issue to cry about—but they never seem to happen. In the end, local authorities do what they should.
Let us consider what some have said this year. Cheshire, which has a 0.4 per cent. reduction in its education SSA, has said that it will find the cash fully to fund the teachers' pay rise, as has Birmingham, which has a 0.3 per cent. cut, and Leicestershire, with its 0.9 per cent. increase. Let us look at those which are crying the loudest: Devonshire has a 2.1. per cent. increase, and Somerset has a 2.5 per cent. increase. One has to take with a very large pinch of salt what local authorities are saying at the moment. Let us take two of the LEAs that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Cambridgeshire has a 2 per cent. increase in its education SSA, while Trafford has a 4.4 per cent. increase. One has to wait and see what those local authorities actually do. I am sure that most will be able to live within the budgets that they have been given.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain precisely what choice they have?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, they have a choice about what to spend their money on. A great deal of their budget does not relate to education.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, our funding of education has increased by 50 per cent. per pupil in real terms over 15 years. One hard year does not break that trend. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, quibbled about whether that was an increase, but an increase in real terms is an increase in real terms—and it is more than the Labour Party achieved when it was last in office.
To get back to the future, many of the advances that we have made are still in their early stages. It will take many years for their benefits fully to come through. In looking at particular areas, I would choose, first, the empowerment of parents. Many noble Lords have mentioned the importance to education of parents. That is something upon which I believe all sides of the House agree. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, agrees with me. He made a major point of that in his speech. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke mentioned it in relation to CTCs.
We welcome the current involvement of school governors in the discussion on education funding. It shows just how far our reforms have gone in increasing the consciousness and participation of people in their local schools. They may not agree with us at the moment, but the party opposite would never have given them the opportunity to disagree.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that 340,000 parents had rung in to say that they would be interested in additional help with reading for their children. That is not a bad thing; it is a wonderful thing. Does not the noble Lord realise that wherever parents send their children to school they care about such things? They are always looking for ways in which to support their children. The fact that 340,000 parents are prepared to pick up a telephone is a great deal better than it would have been 10 years ago.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Why is it that these parents have to ring the BBC? Why can they not go to their schools, go past the gate, talk to the staff and get the answers that they want?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that they will do that too. Another thing that the noble Lord, Lord Moms, appeared to run down was the amount of money which parents raise for their schools. My noble friend Lord Northesk quoted £250 million. I have no means of ascertaining whether that is true, but it seems a reasonable figure. Parents raise money for their children's schools when they believe in those schools. Let us look at the amount of money which Oxford and Harvard Universities can raise. They raise it because they are successful. The more successful the schools are, the more money they will raise from parents, and a very good thing that is too.
Of equal importance is a school's link with its community. That to our minds is what true accountability is. It is not through some remote LEA, but directly with the community, the parents and the pupils that the schools serve. Governors clearly play an important part in that process. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, praised the role of LEAs. So shall I. LEAs are now no longer controllers of what happens in education—a role which they often performed rather badly—they are now enablers. They have become one of a school's best friends and best helpers. I do not wish to mince words when I say that they are doing a great deal to support their local schools, and I welcome that. That has been due almost entirely to the local management of schools initiative giving the power over schools' governance and finance to the people most directly involved with it.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Surely the local management of schools was a local government initiative in the first place. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will agree that Cambridgeshire was at the forefront of that movement.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not deny that the local management of schools is something that has happened with the approval of some LEAs.
Baroness David: My Lords, initiative.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not deny what the noble Baroness says. I am saying merely that it has been supported, promulgated and put into effect by this Government. In general, that has had an enormously good effect on the schools which have the power to handle their own finances. I agree that there are difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, outlined some of them, but, in general, it has made schools much more efficient and effective and has enabled them to be innovative in a way we have not seen before. Of course innovation is the raw material of progress.
Another area of immense importance in increasing achievement is information: making information available to parents so that they can take the decision about their children's schooling. Inspection reports are
1210
now to be sharper and praising. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, should be upset that HMCI should list and praise successful schools. Praising is a most important part of the HMCI's functions.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I did not criticise HMCI over successful schools; it was about a list of 52 so-called improving schools. I was challenging the definition of "improvement" and saying that that concept should not apply merely to a few GCSE passes at special grades but to the whole achievement of a school, year on year.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the noble Lord restricts his praise to people who improve in every respect, he will not get much opportunity to praise anyone. A 10 per cent. improvement in the five A to C grades at GCSE is indeed an improvement worthy of praise.
Part of the importance of information is to enable measurement. Measurement is of great value for the nation, for schools and for pupils—not in everything, of course, but it counts for a great deal. The school performance tables form a very important part of that. Raw results are child-centred. They are what counts for the child—what qualifications or achievements he or she carries away from education. The tables provide a benchmark for schools. They can see what other similar schools are achieving. As we have seen from the contributions of my noble friend Lady Cox and others, international comparisons play a similar role for us as a nation. They show us what is possible. Once one knows something is possible, it becomes worth spending a lot of effort in getting there.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to a report by Article 26. I have not seen the original report but I have seen some extracts from it. We welcome the report and we welcome the publicity which it has given to a column in the performance tables showing the number of pupils achieving one GCSE or better. That is an enormously important piece of information for parents when they are looking at a school—what are the chances that my child will emerge with no qualifications? We very much welcome Article 26 having drawn some attention to it, in contrast to the general run of the media who, as the noble Lord says, concentrate exclusively on the five A to C grades. It is equally important that we look at what is happening at the lower end.
I slightly quibble with the content of the Article 26 press release because it draws attention to a small decrease in the percentage of people achieving one GCSE or better in the current year. That comes at the end of a long upward trend. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, the position has been improving gradually. There is still a great deal of variability between one local authority and another. The best appear to achieve about a 3.5 per cent. rate of pupils achieving nothing. We shall put a great deal of effort into helping the rest of the school system improve—the results schools are getting for what one might call the lowest 20 or 25 per cent. of the achievement range. As my noble friends Lord Northesk and Lord Elton pointed out, it is extremely important from a social point of view

1211
that these pupils achieve something in education. They are the people who, if disaffected, go on to become criminals.
Our emphasis on people at that end of the education spectrum is well known. Our policies on special educational needs have been widely praised across both sides of the House, and I think deservedly so. My noble friend Lady Faithfull drew attention to the particular problems of what she called the delinquent disintegrated. We have, from September last year, put into place a whole new set of policies designed to make sure that people who come into that category receive a proper education. Ofsted is in the process of making sure that that is happening. Local education authorities have a duty to do that. They have a duty to provide education that is set out in statements. It is foolish and destructive of them to do anything else. It is an absolute duty and there is no reason why they should avoid it.
At this point perhaps I may mention the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has been involved in the launch of something called "The learning for life pack" to support the teaching and learning of young people with profound multiple disabilities. The Government support all such initiatives to help people at the lower end of the achievement spectrum. When we look at what happens in other countries, it is quite clear that we can effect a very large improvement in our performance in this area—or rather we can continue to effect such an improvement.
Many noble Lords referred to teachers. We would agree with them that teachers are the key to improvement in our education system. Research, of which I am a great addict, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will know, lists the key features for future school improvement as school culture, teaching styles, teacher training, involvement with parents, strong leadership, discipline, direction, high expectations, monitoring progress and pupil responsibilities. All those depend on teachers. It is clear that teachers can achieve excellence in all those areas, because many are achieving that excellence. Our focus must be on spreading that good practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, and there is great scope to do so. We shall concentrate on that.
We see great opportunities lying ahead. That is one of the principal reasons why we established the Teacher Training Agency which, with my noble friend Lady Cox aboard, will be giving impetus, focus and status to teacher education. I am sure that in time the party opposite will come to welcome it, as it has the rest of our innovations.
We are giving particular emphasis at the moment to the training of head teachers and, as my noble friend Lord Elton asked, to insetting to the continuing in-service training of teachers. We see those as being extremely promising pathways for continuing school improvement.
I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to some extent on class sizes. If he refers to the latest issue of the Oxford Review of Education, which he perhaps has there, he will find a very thorough survey of all the research which has been done in the UK, the US and elsewhere in Europe on class sizes. The
1212
evidence clearly shows no major effect until there are class sizes of about 15. As the noble Lord points out, that is why people send children to private schools, because when you are looking at classes smaller than 15 you start to see major effects. At the moment our average class size is 27. It has risen by about one in the course of this Government.
Lord Parry: My Lords, is the noble Lord happy that the figures which he is quoting are based on sizes within the classroom or is it the simple division of the number of qualified teachers into the number of pupils?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, that would be the pupil-teacher ratio. No, this is very much to do with the way that classes actually operate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the matters with which I felt we did not have time to deal. He is right to say that those figures refer to class sizes. What is impressive about the research is that when the right class size is reached, it is incredibly effective. The point which I wanted to make but did not—and I shall make it now so that the noble Lord can say that he agrees with it—is that those small-sized classes are particularly useful for pupils from ethnic minorities. That is another reason why one would push that very strongly. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord because we all want to go home. We must debate that on another occasion.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the issue of class sizes could form a small debate on its own; I am quite sure about that. There are issues on the fringe, but, by and large, we provide extra funds for those circumstances to allow smaller class sizes among other things.
The principal conclusion of the research is that there are more effective ways of spending money than reducing class sizes. I should be happy to go into that at great length on another occasion, particularly if the noble Lord asked me a question about it.
I can see that I must hurry on through this. I could have done with about an hour to answer all the points that have been made in the debate. Inspection is clearly proving to be an enormous success as a source of information—a growing list of reports from Ofsted, the accumulation of a database which will be the source of much research in the future and all the work that is going on in school improvement and in dealing with failing schools, which for many years have never been tackled properly. The involvement of industry and commerce in education is also enormously important.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, questioned whether we are maintaining examination standards. Yes, we have put a great deal of effort into maintaining examination standards. We recognise, as I am sure the noble Lord does, that there is a natural pull from the schools which are putting children through those examinations to try to find ways of boosting their results by, if they can, finding examinations which are slightly easier to get through. We have put a great deal of effort into making sure that that does not happen.
We also greatly welcome industry's involvement because industry pulls in the other direction. It looks at what is coming out of education and demands that it

1213
meets its standards. I hope that there will also be a pull in that direction from the university sector, which complains sometimes about the quality of people leaving schools with A-levels. The universities are the customers of those people. It is up to them to exert their influence to make sure that people are coming to them with the skills that they require.
I was delighted to note that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, is going in for work shadowing. I do, too. It is an excellent example I hope to set to many noble Lords. I do not see nearly enough students around here.
I turn now to the national curriculum. Many noble Lords made reference to the importance of personal, social and moral development and to religious education and worship within the curriculum. We have restated the law in our Circular 194 and we shall continue to put pressure on schools to improve in that respect, as in others. In our latest reforms of the national curriculum we have also put great emphasis on basics. A basic education in mathematics and English should be a right for a child. If a child is equipped with such knowledge it empowers him to do well in the world afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Beloff put particular emphasis on that. We believe that it is an enormously important step to have taken with the national curriculum. We look forward to these results coming through within the next 10 or so years.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke asked about the role of museums in support of education. I can confirm that SCAA will be producing a guide for museums to help them to plan their work in support of the national curriculum. A very important element in improving achievement is expanding our definition of what achievement is beyond the academic and offering children with particular skills the chance to pursue them further than the chance they currently have. All that we have done in vocational education is a prime example.
However, I should also list the specialist schools initiatives; the introduction of CTCs, as my noble friend Lady Brigstocke mentioned; the introduction of choice for parents which, with all its limitations, is nonetheless a great force for improvement; and the assisted places scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said that it cost her county £3,400 to send a student through secondary education each year. As the cost of the average assisted place is £3,000, perhaps the noble Baroness should consider saving some money. I see that she wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am much obliged. I should point out that I made a mistake. The £3,400 that. I mentioned was for the older children in our secondary schools. It does not refer to the average of children all the way through their secondary school career. Therefore, I dare say that the relevant figure is a good deal less.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course, we do not think that private education is necessarily better than state education; indeed, it is now some 30 years since we felt
1214
the need for a privately-educated party leader—something to which both parties opposite are still attached.
We shall also be making progress in other areas. As my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, NVQs are enormously important in improving the lifetime education of our populace. We may not be able to change the minds of their parents, but we can certainly catch them as they come out of formal education and persuade them to continue with it.
There has been an enormous release of innovation as a result of the independence of the further education sector. The introduction of national targets for education and training have raised the sights of everyone involved in the area to achieving, for example, 80 per cent. of young people obtaining five good GCSEs, or the equivalent, by the year 2000. We are up to 64 per cent. and we expect to reach the target. I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, some comfort about the education of boys. When we reach that stage of education, the boys are up there with the girls: they just seem to be a little late in developing. As regards nursery education, I believe that noble Lords should wait until the summer to ascertain the nature of our proposals.
Achievement means achievement on a child's own terms, making the best of each child's particular talents. We believe that no one has nothing to offer. We have come a long way, greatly to the credit of teachers, parents, students and even ourselves. We know that we have a great deal more to do and we are set on finding out how to do the rest and complete the task. We believe in what we are doing—as do most parents—and we are delighted that the Labour Party is joining us in that at last. Gospel Oak grant maintained and private schools, all of which have been in the news recently, demonstrate that they want for their children what we have provided. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, quoted Tawney, perhaps I may just echo that back to him—why not for the rest of us?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it remains for me to thank most warmly all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As always the House has shown its tremendous interest and expertise and deep concern about the subject of education and I think we have had a long but rich debate. I am delighted to know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wants another debate. He feels there is need for two. I am particularly glad that so many noble Lords joined me in celebrating the very real achievements of all who work in the education system; most of all, of course, the young people themselves.
To those few noble Lords who expressed deep concern—of whom I think the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, was the most impassioned—I would simply say one thing. Of course we have a long way to go. We have decades of underachievement behind us and reforms in education take a long time to begin to produce dramatic changes in children's performance. But please, please, when we get improved performance may we not say, "It shows that standards have dropped"? I weep when I hear people say, as the exam results got better, "Clearly the standards have gone down". Unless we really believe

1215
that children in this country are less able to achieve even than children in Scotland, then can we please believe that year by year we are getting more and more of them up to the standards that we all wish? I thank everyone very much for the long and interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Blasphemy (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
9.31 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Not many generations ago we burned people at the stake here in England for holding the wrong beliefs. Edward VI, Elizabeth I and James I all burned heretics, the last of whom perished at Smithfield in 1610. Although we stopped executing people for religious offences, even as late as the 18th century attacks on the Church and religion were considered to be attacks on the state.
As Lord Diplock said,
"to cast doubt on the doctrines of the established church or to deny the truth of the Christian faith upon which it was founded was to attack the fabric of society itself'.
In the early 19th century it became lawful to deny the claims of established religion, though it still took a lot of courage to do that, as the case of Darwin showed. It was not until 1884 that avowed atheists were allowed to sit in Parliament, and by then the rule had been established that —as Lord Coleridge said in Ramsay v. Foote,
"if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without the writer being guilty of blasphemy".
From that point onwards, in order to incur penalties blasphemy had to include an element of scurrility, of vilification, ridicule or extreme irreverence, as well as or instead of the denial of some doctrine.
But in the 20th century, after the case of Gott in 1922 when the defendant was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for comparing Jesus with a circus clown, most people thought that the blasphemy law had fallen into disuse. That was the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who said in 1949, in a lecture on freedom under the law which is so often quoted,
"the offence of blasphemy is now a dead letter".
It is indeed one of the main arguments for this Bill that it eliminates the uncertainty of a law which can be cranked into life again after being dormant for more than 50 years, and amended from time to time by judicial decisions rather than by Parliament, as the blasphemy law was in the Gay News case of 1978.
We cannot tolerate a criminal law which, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on the last occasion we debated the matter,
"can hang over the wrongdoer as a vague, numinous threat, inducing caution".—[Official Report, 23/2/78; col. 291.]
I hope that most of your Lordships will agree with the Law Commission's proposition that,
1216
"offences, the elements of which are defined by reference to judicial decision rather than legislation, can have no place in a modern codification of the law".
In other countries there are still drastic blasphemy laws. As chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group I have been critical, for example, of Bangladesh and Pakistan. In the former country Miss Taslima Nasreen, the famous writer, was charged under that country's penal code with uttering malicious public statements outraging the religious feelings of the people. Her offence was to say that the Koran should be interpreted in the light of changes in the social background which have occurred since the 7th century AD. That is a good illustration of the fact that what is found to be grossly offensive or scurrilous is culturally determined, because most Christians would think it innocuous to suggest that biblical stories need to be read in the context of the social mores of their time.
In Pakistan recently there has been a notorious case in which a boy—Salamat Masih—has been sentenced to death with his uncle Rehmat Masih, for writing allegedly blasphemous slogans on the wall of a mosque. Salamat was 12 at the time of the alleged offence. The Pakistan High Commissioner explains that the defendants have the right of appeal to two higher courts and that nobody has ever been executed under that law. However, its very existence is a threat, as is the common law offence here.
Of course, the penalties in those countries are far more severe and the scope of the offence is much wider than in Britain, but those are differences of degree, not of principle. I submit that if we are to criticise the law of blasphemy in other parts of the world it is best not to have any such law here at home. That is my main motivation in introducing this Bill now.
It is 10 years since the Law Commission reported on offences against religion and public worship and published the draft Bill which is now before the House. The commission was unanimous in wanting to abolish the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, although a minority wanted to create a new statutory offence which would penalise some of the material now dealt with by the common law. If that were done, consideration would have to be given to the definition of things sacred which are to be recognised by the state as deserving protection. That was admitted by the two signatories of the minority report to be a task of peculiar difficulty, and they wisely did not attempt it.
Many people are surprised to learn that blasphemy has a much narrower meaning in the law than in ordinary English usage:
"profane speaking of God or sacred things; impious irreverence"
as the dictionary has it. In law, blasphemy is what it is declared to be from time to time by the judges. In the Gay News case the trial judge said that blasphemous libel is committed if any writing is published concerning the question of God, Christ, the Christian religion as a whole, the Bible or any subject sacred to Christians, using words which are scurrilous, abusive or offensive, which tend to vilify the Christian religion, and which therefore have a tendency to lead to a breach of the peace.

1217
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that the risk to public order was not part of the offence but a reminder of its essential character; that the words had to be grossly offensive or insulting and were thus inherently likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The mere denial of any of the doctrines of Christianity, mocking or poking fun at Christian beliefs, or the portrayal of sacred persons or objects in a profane setting would not be enough to satisfy the test. Bad taste—as in the "Life of Brian"—is not a crime.
The main arguments for abolishing the common law offence of blasphemy are the same as they were 10 years ago. I need to summarise them only briefly: the paramount importance of freedom of speech; the uncertainty of the offence; the coverage of most of the ground by legislation on public order and obscenity; and the inequity of giving special protection only to the Christian religion in a multi-faith society.
In addition, the lawyers object to the character of the offence, which is one of strict liability and without an element of intent. The absence of that mental element runs counter to the principle of English law; that intent is an essential ingredient of all crimes. Because the publication of the blasphemous words is an absolute offence, the defendant is unable to give any evidence of his beliefs and purpose, and however sincere the motives of the alleged blasphemer that would not be a matter for the courts.
Let us consider what blasphemous speech or writing would already be covered by other legislation. The use of words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, and are intended or likely to stir up hatred against any group of persons because of their ethnic origin, are among the offences covered by Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. An amendment to extend that provision to religious groups was proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on the Criminal Justice Bill, and received a not unsympathetic reply from the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. However, it was pointed out that an equivalent provision exists already in Northern Ireland, which has been used only twice, and that unsuccessfully, in the past 20 years.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act also catch words or behaviour that are threatening, abusive or insulting, and the likelihood of a breach of the peace no longer has to be established. I believe that that is a change since the matter was last dealt with in 1978. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 (as it then was), re-enacted in the 1986 Act, had the ingredient of a breach of the peace deducted from it at that point. Section 4 states that if words are uttered, or distributed or displayed if they are in writing, whereby it is likely that violence will be used, or provoked, that is an offence punishable by up to six months in prison. Section 5 makes it an offence punishable by a level 3 fine if a person within sight or hearing of the utterance or display is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. If blasphemous material is offensive enough to create those effects, it is caught by the Public Order Act 1986, unless it is privately circulated. So it is narrower than blasphemous libel, where the mere publication of the material, without regard to the
1218
possible effects it may have, is enough for an offence to be committed—and your Lordships may think that this is one of the most important points to be considered this evening.
Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace such that violence would occur is also covered by the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 and this ancient law is still in use. A case was reported as recently as December 1994 of a woman who entered the RAF base at Alconbury and it was suggested that the US air staff personnel on that base might have reacted violently towards her presence there, although she was not convicted of the offence.
The difference between the words "threatening abusive or insulting" in the Public Order Act, and "scurrilous abusive or insulting" in the words of the trial judge in the Gay News case is probably not material. But the Law Commission Working Paper No. 79, Offences against religion and public worship, said that because three adjectives lacking in precision have to be applied by a jury, without regard to intent, in blasphemy cases it is impossible to say in advance whether or not any particular publication is blasphemous. That creates serious consequences for publishers, as was found in the Gay News case.
Material which is broadcast is subject to far more restrictive rules. The Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 prohibits the use in programmes of material,
"which offends against good taste and decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling".
The BBC has undertaken to be bound by the same standards. Whether or not those conditions are properly observed is constantly monitored and, I think your Lordships will agree, there is no risk that broadcasters would transmit grossly offensive material about any religion, not just Christianity.
Those who are concerned about the maintenance or resuscitation of moral standards in our society should direct their attention, as regards broadcasting, to the insidious effects of violence in the media, which may well be undermining the fabric of society, whereas profanity or blasphemy on the air certainly does not have that effect.
Thirdly, there is the Obscene Publications Act, which prohibits material tending to deprave and corrupt readers. Again, some grossly offensive material nevertheless gets on to the shelves of some newsagents, and it may be that the continued diet of violence in publications has done infinitely more harm to society than putative disrespectful or insulting references to sacred things.
Some of the respondents to the working paper argued that special reverence for what is deemed sacred requires protection. Certainly, people may be grossly offended by crude attacks on their religion. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, repeated that point in the debate on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lester to the Criminal Justice Bill on 16th June 1994. The noble Lord said that blasphemy differs from other kinds of libel because for Christians who love God it is deeply upsetting for Him to be insulted. But if the words are so

1219
extreme, they will be caught under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will have that in mind when he speaks. If he can imagine circumstances which are not covered by Section 5, that would be a material argument for the extension of the blasphemy law to all other religions, as the two minority signatories to the Law Commission report argued.
In the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the parties undertook to take appropriate measures to protect persons who may be subject to threats or acts of discrimination, hostility or violence as a result of their religious identity. Presumably a blasphemous libel is always a manifestation of hostility to the Christian religion. We thus have a situation where the majority is protected against that hostility in a specific way and all the minorities other than Christians are left unprotected. The Copenhagen Declaration of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe of June 1990 also provides that,
"persons belonging to national minorities have the right to exercise fully their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law".
It cannot be denied that members of the religious minorities in England and Wales do not enjoy full equality before the law because the law of blasphemy does not apply to their religions. I hope that the Government will agree that this is a matter which needs to be put right.
If it is accepted—and I think that it is almost universally accepted—that all religions should be treated equally under the law, but that some offence needs to be defined which is not already covered by the other statutes mentioned, how is one to define that which needs to be protected? The two members of the Law Commission who signed the note of dissent offered three possible solutions. Either the religions to be protected would be listed in the statute or the definition could be restricted to the groups having places of worship certified under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, or the term "religion" could be left undefined. None of those proposals is satisfactory, as I think your Lordships would agree. The first two would discriminate against the house Churches which, I understand, are the fastest-growing religious movement in Britain. Some members of the Church of England therefore favour the third choice of leaving the term "religion" undefined. That, I suggest, would be an encouragement to groups like the Scientologists or the Rastafarians, who are not counted as religions in other contexts, to gain recognition by persuading the courts to accept them as complainants under any new law.
If there is a case to be made out for a new statutory offence, then surely the protagonists have an obligation to point out speech or writings that they believe should have been punished. Moslems consider that Salman Rushdie ought to have been dealt with by the courts and, as your Lordships may recall, there was a case in 1990 in which the litigants attempted to show that The Satanic Verses constituted a blasphemous libel. Is that what your Lordships wish to see? The enormous risks of creating a general offence of blasphemy which would apply to
1220
all religions must be obvious to all. It would encourage litigation and fan religious antagonisms, and it could lead to interference with freedom of expression. The best way forward is simple repeal, in the light of those dangers, and in the absence of any clearly demonstrated need for a new offence. St. Matthew tells us,
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof'.
I shall say a few words on the rest of the Bill. There have been no reported cases under the common law offences that are mentioned in Sections 1(b) and 1(c), and it is doubtful whether they still exist. The minority of the Law Commission had nothing to say on that matter. Section 2 deletes references to the common law offences which appear in two Acts, and is consequential on the acceptance of the principle of the Bill. The statutory provisions regarding disturbance of religious services, which seem to apply to all Christian denominations and particularly Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act, which was successfully applied as recently as 1988, are left undisturbed. The Law Commission did recommend some repeals of obsolete statutory provisions and these could be considered if the Bill goes into Committee.
I know that some noble Lords believe that the law has a hortatory effect on the public, and that seems to be the view of some Church leaders. In the paper by the committee under the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, commenting on the Law Commission report, it is observed that changes in the law concerned with social behaviour since 1945,
"have led to the acceptance of patterns of social behaviour which exonerate individuals from moral responsibility for conduct which had previously been endorsed by the criminal law as immoral".
On this view, the behaviour patterns of people are determined, or at least influenced, by legislation; and the only restraint on what has been called,
"licentious and contumelious abuse against sacred subjects",
is the threat of Parliament's displeasure or punishment by the courts. Would that joyriders, football hooligans, child abusers, burglars and muggers would conform with that model. Those are all growth crimes, whatever is the view of noble Lords in this place, and they can only be stemmed by long-term changes in the family, the education system and the general values of society. The disrespect for things that are sacred and important to people, also, cannot be curbed by stricter laws; nor will it be stimulated by the repeals in this Bill. If we would be,
"saying something quite inviting to many of those people who are looking for opportunities"—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1895.]
as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York put it, the signal has to cross the light years of intellectual space which separate this Chamber from the lives and habits of ordinary people. Unhappily, as your Lordships may think it, the readers of the Sun, or even of the Independent, are not hanging on your every word.
Let us also be realistic about the fate of this Bill. If it surmounts the first hurdle of the delaying amendment which is about to he moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, it will not be given time in another place anyway. The most that can he expected is that it goes into Committee here—and this I hope that your Lordships will allow—so that alternatives can be more

1221
thoroughly examined. Nearly 10 years after the Law Commission reported, the view of the Church and of every other person who considers this matter seriously is that the common law offence should be repealed. So let us get on with that. Those who believe that an alternative statutory offence can be drafted to cover blasphemy against all religions can then have their say, and we can see whether any of their views command widespread support. The one thing that we cannot and must not do is to leave this fossil offence alone.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Avebury.)
9.53 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Our proceedings tonight are a replay of those that we had almost exactly 17 years ago, on 23rd (rather than 22nd) February of that year. We had to debate under some constraint at that time. The well-known case under the law as it then stood of Mary Whitehouse v. Gay News had been taken over by the Attorney-General. A decision in favour of Mrs. Whitehouse—or the Crown, as it became—had been pronounced and was the subject of an appeal. So under the sub judice rules we had to be rather watchful of what we were saying at that particular time.
Since then, events have moved in different directions in different places. We have the report of the Law Commission, which was not as unanimous as it sounds. On the main point the commission divided two to three, and the two included the chairman. I think one can consider that as near a dead heat as one can get between an odd number of people. Again, we had a scamper over the course last summer on the Criminal Justice Bill. There were a number of amendments dealing with the substance of this Bill, all of which were withdrawn after having been freely considered.
I want to start by making sure that your Lordships clearly understand how far the law as it stands is an interference with the right of free speech and the rights of the subject. You can defend any thesis that you want. You can say, "I am an atheist" and give the reason, or you can say, "I am a deist, a theist, an agnostic, a mystic or anything", and give the reason—provided that you do it with academic good manners. Is that too much to ask? What you are forbidden to do is invent non-factual phantasies of a disgusting character and attribute them to personages for whom the religious have great consideration, as happened in the Gay News case 17 years ago.
In order to emphasise the outrage that blasphemy performs upon the individual, I should like to recite a traveller's tale. It is the tale of a travelling magician who goes from village to village promising to do great magic. That is always accompanied by the warning that the magic will not work if anybody in the village who is
1222
watching it dares to think of a red monkey with a green face. The trick does not work, at which point the magician has a well feigned epileptic fit and accuses the village collectively of having thought of a red monkey with a green face, which of course every single one of them has done. So the villagers round on the least popular member of the village and say that it is all his fault. That allows the magician to depart with the gate money, plus a resolution not to play that trick on the same village for the next 10 years or so.
There is much wisdom in that traveller's tale. You cannot forbid yourself from thinking of something unless, by thinking of it, you have reminded yourself of what it is you have forbidden yourself. That is the outrage that people perform through blasphemy on the innocent minds of their audience.
I want now to account for why there is a kind of bifurcation of opinion among lawyers on this matter. It very much depends on the type of practice in which two different types of lawyer are engaged. One lawyer is a perfectionist who wants to see every jot and tittle of the law tidied up so that he can give his lay clients an absolutely clear indication of which side of the law they are on. He does not want any kind of ambiguity if he is to conduct his practice as he would like. The second type of lawyer is of a more philosophical disposition. He believes that the ghost of a moribund statute or a moribund doctrine is, as I have described it on an earlier occasion, a vague, numinous threat which persuades people not to take the kind of action that the first type of lawyer would like the freedom either to forbid or to enjoin.
At this point I should like to pray in aid one of our legal luminaries, my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, with the judgment that he made on these matters in the case that I described to your Lordships. He said:
"I do not subscribe to the view that the common law offence of blasphemous libel serves no useful purpose in the modern law. On the contrary, I think there is a case for legislation extending it to protect the religious beliefs and feelings of non-Christians. The offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the Kingdom"—
the purpose of law: to safeguard the tranquillity of the kingdom. He continued:
"In an increasingly plural society such as that of modern Britain it is necessary not only to respect the differing religious feelings and practices of all but also to protect them from scurrility, vilification, ridicule and contempt".
Later he added this to his judgment:
"I will not lend my voice to a view of the Law relating to blasphemous libel which would render it a dead letter, or diminish its efficacy to protect religions from outrage and insult. My criticism of the Common Law of Blasphemy is not that it exists but that it is not sufficiently comprehensive"
That is the opinion of one of the most distinguished lawyers in the land—my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. I wish he were here tonight so that he could add his voice to my quotation of his opinions. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
10 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, standing between the noble Earl who has just spoken with such authority against the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who will be listened to with close attention.
I speak entirely for myself, as indeed will my noble friend Lord McIntosh who speaks last on this side of the House. I have come to admire him as a sincere and effective humanitarian in another field. I am sure that on this occasion he will be well aware that the leader of the Labour Party today is a Christian Socialist. It may be said that half a dozen other members of the shadow Cabinet are also Christian Socialists, and I am sure that my noble friend speaking from the Front Bench will make sure that those views are well reflected in his final remarks. He is a man of honour; I am sure he will.
No Christian can doubt that widespread blasphemy would be damaging to the Christian religion, and no Christian could fail to regard that as a most damaging fact and something inimical to the best interests of this country. No Christian would doubt that. We must therefore ask what a Buddhist such as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may think. Can we win the Buddhists over? Perhaps not tonight. Again, there are others who are not Buddhists and not necessarily Christians. We must ask how they look at these matters. I venture to submit to those people who do not like to call themselves Christians that what is damaging to Christianity is damaging to Christian ethics. I repeat that. What is damaging to the Christian religion is damaging to the maintenance of Christian ethics. And where would this country be without Christian ethics?
We all recall, because he has been often quoted—not least by myself—what Lord Attlee said on this matter. I admire him more than any statesman of our time. When he was asked, "Are you a Christian, Lord Attlee?" he replied, "I accept the Christian ethics. I cannot stand the mumbo-jumbo". When asked, "Are you an agnostic?", he replied, "I don't know." Asked, "Do you believe in the afterlife?", he said, "Possibly". That was the way Lord Attlee looked at things and maybe many other people too.
I take one moment more to make the submission that Christian ethics would be imperilled and fatally undermined if Christianity suffered the kind of damage that would be created by widespread blasphemy. Therefore, in my eyes blasphemy must be tackled firmly by the law. I have been long familiar with the arguments about freedom of speech; we had all those during the debates on pornography. In the end, however, all the great liberals draw the line somewhere. They want to prosecute people who attack things which are dear to them. Quite rightly, they want to prosecute those guilty of racism and anti-Semitism, but they all draw the line somewhere. The question is whether they are ready to defend widespread blasphemy. If they do not want to
1224
see it and recognise it as a great evil, not only theologically but ethically, they should support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
10.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, when I first learnt of this Bill, one of the initial questions I asked was this: what does the crime of blasphemy actually cover in English law today? The answer, I understand, is that it is very narrow in scope—far narrower than blasphemy in the religious sense and in the sense in which it figures in some other legal systems. I am assured that it does not prevent anyone from denying the truth of the Christian religion, or indeed criticising religion in general, provided that it is done in a reasonable and temperate way "within the limits of decent controversy". Rather, the essence of the criminal offence is something relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the doctrines of the Church of England which, as the lawyers put it, is "contemptuous, reviling or scurrilous" and therefore may have a tendency to lead to a breach of the peace. Indeed, as your Lordships will be aware, there has been only one successful prosecution for blasphemy in the past 70 years.
I think it is clear from this that the current law does not present any real threat to the reasonable exercise of freedom of speech. There are some who have drawn a comparison between our law and the current case in Pakistan. However, the crime of blasphemy in Pakistan is based, as I understand it, on Islamic law, which would certainly not be comparable with our English common law. The implications and significance of our own law are surely demonstrably different.
I appreciate that, at first sight, one might think that, since the law is apparently not a great deal of use to anyone and since the majority of the Law Commission recommended in the latter's report in June 1985 that the crime of blasphemy had unsatisfactory features and should be abolished, then there is no real reason to keep it.
Since the Law Commission reported, there has of course been a new development sparked off by the book The Satanic Verses, to which reference has already been made, in that people in this country of some faiths other than the Christian faith have found it unacceptable that the law protects the religious feelings of Christians, and particularly members of the Church of England, from contempt and reviling but does not give similar protection to the members of other faiths. As a result, what some have asked for is for the present law to be replaced with something which puts all faiths on the same basis. What they do not ask for is that the law of blasphemy be abolished altogether.
This concern is something the Church of England takes very seriously, and I am certainly not here this evening to insist that the Church of England, or indeed the Deity, is in particular need of special privileges in this field. The search for an alternative to the present law has been going on for some time—indeed, I know your Lordships' House considered two possible alternatives in debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill last year. So it is not as though your Lordships' House has been unwilling to consider the

1225
matter. But so far it has not produced any new criminal offence which could be generally accepted as satisfactory, and in this respect the Church of England has moved on since the reports in 1981 and 1988 by a working group under the chairmanship of my predecessor as Bishop of London. The more carefully we have examined the various options, the more obvious, it would seem, have the difficulties and drawbacks become. But the Church is still very willing to engage in a constructive debate about the way forward, though there is unfortunately no reason to think that success is just around the corner. In fact, it appears to me that there is really no consensus yet, either for abolishing the law or for any particular proposed alternative.
When the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York spoke in your Lordships' House last year in one of the debates that I have mentioned, he pointed out that, at the height of the problems over The Satanic Verses, he and the then Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, met a group of Moslem leaders, and that one of the things they found was that there was no enthusiasm among that group for abolishing the law of blasphemy altogether, as opposed to replacing it with something better. I believe that that is because there is an important principle at stake here that is recognised by people of all faiths and many people, it has to be said, of no faith. It was recognised clearly in the powerful Note of Dissent by two of the five members of the Law Commission when it produced its report.
That principle is that, if our society is to hold together, yes, it must have some shared values, and one of them is that spiritual things do matter—that we cannot simply live our lives on the basis of "the material" alone—and that it is right and, indeed, essential to treat with reasonable and proper respect and reverence those persons, things and concepts which those who accept the teaching and disciplines of religion, Christian and other, regard as sacred.
We may not all recognise precisely the same things as sacred, but I believe that as a society we should see to it that that sense of "the sacred", as I have described it, is something which is to be recognised and safeguarded by the state
"as deserving of such protection as the state can give without impairment of the rights of others".
Such protection in law is surely in the interests of our society as a whole.
At the same time, however, I do not believe that even in a multi-faith society we can ignore the particular and historic position of Christian faith, culture, history and heritage in this country, and so I would not wish to lose any specific reference to the Christian faith in any changes which may yet properly be made. There is surely a very real sense in which Christian beliefs and values—the Judaeo-Christian tradition—are part and parcel of our way of life, thought and culture, and are thus of special importance still in giving cohesiveness to our society.
1226
In the same way, I believe that the law rightly recognises disturbing religious worship in a violent or riotous way as something different from the general run of public order offences.
It seems to me that the most appropriate way to proceed in this matter is not through a Committee stage of this House on an abolition Bill. Such a course of action would, I believe, send a very negative signal which I do not believe we should send and which would be unacceptable to a great many people, Christians and non-Christians alike. It would certainly be abolishing something without any sign or prospect of agreement on a more acceptable and satisfactory way forward. Until that is achieved, I am of the opinion that the present law on blasphemy should remain.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, to follow the right reverend Prelate is a privilege, if a somewhat daunting one, but this debate involves acute matters of law as well as matters of faith. I shall address the matter from the point of view of a lawyer.
Perhaps I may begin by advising the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who has tabled the amendment, that the Law Commission was unanimous on the question of abolition. The minority report was simply on the question of whether there should be a replacement. The majority thought that there should be abolition and no replacement. I repeat that the Law Commission was unanimous on the question of abolition.
The question for the House tonight is twofold. First, is the present law as it stands appropriate and effective or is it a bad, ineffective and archaic law and should it therefore be got rid of? The second question is: if that is so, should there be a replacement or are we better off with no law of blasphemy? It seems to me that there are those two questions. It is not merely a matter of getting rid of the whole idea of a law of blasphemy.
I hope that the House will feel that this is a subject worthy of consideration and going to Committee, because if the Law Commission, after detailed thought and evidence and a great deal of time spent on it, came to the conclusion that it is not a good and effective law, and is one which should not remain on the statute book, surely that is a matter which should be discussed, and discussed in some detail.
I approach the question as one who profoundly respects the Christian tradition and the susceptibilities of those who support that faith, but also as someone who has spent a professional life seeking to apply the criminal law to the unpredictable, arbitrary, often eccentric and sometimes wicked, behaviour of my fellow human beings. The attempt to apply the ordinary criminal law to a war situation in Northern Ireland, for instance, has succeeded only in bringing upon it a general loss of respect. It is a serious question, not just for the Christian religion, but for the law itself, as to whether it is appropriate in the 21st century to apply criminal sanctions, which are unlimited in their instance, to the protection of the feelings of Christian believers alone. Could it be that persuasion is a better protection than coercion?

1227
It is the history of the blasphemy law which is decisive, and should be decisive, in our deliberations tonight. It is to that history that I should like to refer. In the Gay News case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, described that history as, "long and, at times, inglorious". It is a history of judge-made law, and as Lord Sumner said in a case in 1917:
"There is nothing in the general rules of blasphemy and irreligion which prevents us"—
that is, the judges—
"from varying their application to the particular circumstances of the time".
Aye, there's the rub.
Your Lordships may well remember the Quaker, William Penn, and his exchange with the Recorder of London when he was charged with the wholly bogus offence of preaching in a public place and causing a tumultuous company to assemble. "By what law?", he pertinently asked the Recorder. "The common law", thundered the Recorder. "And where is that common law?", said William Penn. The nonplussed judge could reply only, "You are an impertinent fellow—It is lex non scripta, which many have studied for 30 or 40 years to know —Would you have me tell you it in a moment?"
As we have heard, when the king's courts in the 17th century assumed jurisdiction from the ecclesiastical court, Christianity was held to be,
"parcel of the laws of England".
Mr. Taylor was set in the stocks because to say that religion was a cheat was,
"to dissolve the obligations whereby civil society is preserved".
Even then, there were contrary views. For instance, Bishop Jeremy Taylor said:
"You may as well cure the colic by brushing a man's clothes or fill his belly by a syllogism as prosecute him for blasphemy. Instead of erecting a trophy to God, you but build a monument to the Devil"—
words which perhaps the persecutors of Salman Rushdie might take to heart.
In 1841 Chief Justice Denman shifted the law. The judges are always shifting the law in this common law offence of blasphemy. The irony of invoking the law of blasphemy against free thinkers such as Tom Paine or Darwin was appreciated even by the judiciary. To prosecute a man for propounding a philosophy which asserted the existence of God but based on reason rather than revelation was hardly acceptable. Denman moved the offence from a simple attack on the faith to the mode of the attack, about which we have already heard. However, an attack on the whole Roman Catholic faith was held to fall outside the law. A humble vicar publicly protested, I know not on what evidence, that a local nunnery was no more than a brothel for the priesthood. The judge said:
"You may attack Judaism, Mohammedism or any sect of the Christian Church. Only the established religion is protected by the law".
Chief Justice Coleridge, as my noble friend was pointing out, shifted the law again in 1883. The intention of the offence was now to be an essential element, which it had not been up until then. As my noble friend has already said, more than 40 years later the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that the
1228
offence was a dead letter. But before that the judiciary went over the top, as it sometimes does, in developing the common law, for a Mr. Gott came before Mr. Justice Avory, who was the most terrifying judge I ever saw—thin lipped and parchment skinned—for describing Jesus Christ as,
"entering Jerusalem like a clown on the back of two donkeys".
Avory sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment for that observation. After the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, had said that the law was a dead letter, so it remained. I suggest to the House that it is of the greatest possible relevance that for 50 years in England and Wales and Northern Ireland the law was never once invoked; and in Scotland, not for 150 years.
It was not the Attorney-General and it was not the DPP but the wicked fairy, Mary Whitehouse, disguised as Princess Charming, who brought blasphemy back to life in the Gay News case. Once again the judges shifted the law; and they shifted it where? Back to where it had been 300 years before. Out of the window went intent; out of the window went breach of the peace; and so on. In that case the defendant, Professor Kirkup, who wrote the offending poem, was forbidden, as indeed he would be today, from explaining the purpose of his poem, which was,
"to give comfort to homosexuals by making them feel there is room for them within the Christian religion".
No public good defence was, or is today, available in this offence, as it would have been had the prosecution, as it could easily have done, proceeded under the Obscene Publications Act.
In that case, yet again, the judge went over the top and imposed a nine months' suspended sentence. That top was quite a climb because in his autobiography the learned judge tells us that throughout the trial he felt suspended over the trial rather than part of it and was convinced that he was under the guidance of some superhuman power when writing his summing up. Geoffrey Robertson, defence counsel in the case, later reviewed the autobiography and said drily:
"If there was such heavenly guidance it is surprising to find so marked a bias towards the prosecution!"
Again, that is a danger of that form of common law offence.
Where does all that history lead us this evening? I suggest that the following is clear—and some of these points have already been well made by my noble friend Lord Avebury. First, the offence is uncertain to a quite unacceptable degree. Secondly, it can be judged only ex post facto; that is, by guessing what the subjective view of the judge or the jury may be in future. Thirdly, it is made, quite unjustifiably, an absolute offence; that is, there is no intent, no mens rea, as we call it, and the purpose of what is written or said is wholly irrelevant. Fourthly, defences under the Obscene Publications Act are denied. Fifthly, it protects the tenets of only one faith in a multi-ethnic and increasingly secular society. Lastly, it is altogether too heavy-handed as a protection.
I quote Geoffrey Robertson again from his book Media Law. Surely he is right when he says:
"Democracy today demands that the criminal law should originate in the legislature rather than in the antipathies of the judiciary".

1229
The old ecclesiastical offences of apostasy, adultery and immorality are now gone. The right of the most reverend Primate to cite a person for heresy went only 30 years ago but at least but that has also gone. Is it not time now to complete the process and remove the last remnants of the ecclesiastical laws?
Should we replace them? Speaking personally, I should not attempt to do so for the reasons given by the Law Commission. To extend the law to cover all religions would surely encourage intolerance and divisiveness. It is simply not possible to define religion to make it justiciable with secular humanitarianism at one end and the Moonies at the other. Surely it is the strength of their own belief which is the defence of Christians against abuse.
If we are to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—of course it is always difficult not to agree with him but I remind the noble Earl that he was in a minority also in the Gay News case—then surely the new offence should be in the form of a small amendment to the Public Order Act, as my noble friend suggested, because that could be achieved by the simple addition of three words, or it should be made a branch of the law of nuisance carrying a limited financial penalty only, with no imprisonment. In that way the antipathies of the judges can be avoided and the emotion which inevitably surrounds this sort of matter can be extracted from the proceedings. It is a fundamental mistake to pitch too high offences which are essentially subjective in the end.
I end by quoting the words of Lord Macaulay in 1833 on this question. He said:
"If a man exhibits at a window in the Strand a hideous caricature of that which is an object of awe and adoration to 999 out of 1,000 people who pass down that great thoroughfare: if a man in a place of public resort applies opprobious epithets to names held in reverence by all Christians—such a man ought to be punished—not for differing in his opinion but for committing a nuisance which gives pain and disgust. He is no more entitled to outrage our feelings and, obtruding his impiety on us, to say he is exercising his right of discussion than he is to establish a yard for butchering horses close to our houses and to say at the same time that he is exercising his right of property".
Even if, today, it is more like 500 people out of the 1,000 who would be passing down the Strand, I suggest that he got it just about right.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, the matter under debate this evening is whether or not the criminal offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel (and certain other offences against religion) should be abolished. I propose to focus on the issue of blasphemy and of blasphemous libel.
Blasphemy consists of the publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the Christian faith. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian faith or to deny the existence of God if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not as to the substance of the doctrines themselves.
1230
Those who propound the views that it should be abolished do so because, they say, it serves no useful purpose in a multi-cultural and multi-faith society, protecting as it does the Christian but no other.
The reason why the law of blasphemy protects only the Christian faith is historical. When the law was first laid down, to attack the doctrines of the Christian faith was to attack the fabric of society itself. That was seen as subversive and the offence existed primarily to safeguard the state against subversion. Nowadays, insulting the Christian faith is no longer seen as subversive.
However, even in a pluralist society such as that of modern Britain it cannot be right that a person should be allowed with impunity to cause pain and distress to others—perhaps leading sometimes to civil disorder—by insulting deeply and sincerely held beliefs which have been the foundation of our country's civilisation and stood the test of centuries.
If the law of blasphemy is overthrown, then anyone can vilify the Christian faith. The offence should stand and the Bill should be rejected. Perhaps I may quote from Ezekiel:
"It is not for your sake oh House of Israel, that I am about to act but for the sake of my holy name which you profane among the nations and I will uphold the holiness of my great name".
10.34 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, perhaps those of us who hold to the Christian faith and a belief in an all powerful loving God should declare an interest in this debate tonight. But I believe the law on blasphemy is not only a religious issue, although it is of course of great significance to Christians and the Christian ethic. That aspect of the debate has been well covered by earlier speakers. I would like to make the point that the subject of this Bill raises much wider issues impinging on the whole question of personal relationships in our community and of living in peace and harmony and mutual respect.
As has already been said, civilized discussion on different religions is helpful in promoting better understanding among people of different faiths. But that is a far cry from making offensive and hurtful attacks on strongly held beliefs of others. Freedom of speech is of course one of the great pillars of any genuine democracy, but freedom without consideration for others is abuse of freedom and harmful to our society and to a healthy consensus based on mutual tolerance.
Over the past 40 years or so there have been huge changes in all kinds of censorship and control of what can be published and broadcast. Perhaps earlier regimes were too restrictive, but can we honestly assert that the quality of life has been improved by the almost total relaxation of standards in the interests of free speech? No, responsibility must be a partner of freedom. To pass this Bill would not only be offensive to the Christian faith on which so much of our life is based; it would also send out from this House an entirely wrong message, encouraging extremists of any faith or of none to stir up

1231
trouble and disunity in our society. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
10.36 p.m
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the proposer of the Bill for his history at the beginning and for the exposition of the law over the years. I would take the House back to rather earlier history. The concept of blasphemy is essentially a political one in that after long years of division the nation became one and the religion of the nation, which was the Church of England, was part of the nation. Therefore to preserve the nation, but joined together recently, against both Protestant and Papist incursions one would hold to that religion. To defy the Church of England and to bring it into calumny was equivalent to defying the Monarch and bringing him into calumny, or this House.
This has left those of us like myself, members of the Church of England, extremely embarrassed in that the law of blasphemy seems to home in on us and pass everybody else by. I feel this embarrassment not essentially for the new religions, or the great world religions which have come here in recent years—although I feel that—but much more perceptively for those great Christian bodies which have been here a long time, for the Roman Catholics and for the great historic Free Churches of every sort of shape. It seems awkward to live in such a society where the blasphemy in the end is narrowed down very much towards our own Church. Plainly, therefore, I think we may need some change. Where I am bothered is that we have now a proposal to ban this measure without any thinking publicly in this House or elsewhere about an alternative. I recognise the difficulty as regards an alternative. Everybody who has tried to propose alternatives has rather bit the dust in this place and has been turned down, as I have seen in the debates which have been sent to me. Nevertheless, I think we ought to try.
I am concerned that we should not simply throw this out for two major reasons. The first is to do with religious persecution. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was absolutely right in saying that Christian ethics have their basis ultimately in Christian doctrine and Christian belief. This century has a desperate record of one religion persecuting another. I am reminded of the speech of Spurgeon to a great Baptist assembly when he said,
"We Baptists have never persecuted anyone".
This remark was received with prolonged applause. He then said,
"We have never had the opportunity".
That remark was treated with total silence.
It is a basic characteristic of human beings that they will eventually home in on others who are different from themselves. I therefore do not want to create some kind of free-for-all by removing any form of protection, as may happen if the existing provisions are thrown out. I am uneasy about that.
1232
I am also uneasy at a deeper level. The concept of God is written deep into our history. One cannot understand English life unless one understands the history of religion and the place of the concept of God in it. The fact that as a religion we are unfashionable in this century is neither here nor there, because we did very badly in the 18th century. We did rather well in the last century, and we shall do splendidly in the next. But at the moment we are out of fashion. Therefore, an important assembly such as this should be very thoughtful before passing anything which moves the idea of God to the periphery.
I recognise that people do not go to church, but the English have never been to church. At the height of Victorian churchgoing, when Horace Mann made his assessment of all the churches, fewer than 40 per cent. of the people went to church. There has been a steady decline since. We do not go to church in the same way as the Celts or others. After 40 years of ministry, it is a source of embarrassment to me that I have not cracked the problem.
That is neither here nor there when one talks to the English about God. Every sociological survey tiresomely turns up the fact—however clever the questions—that, by and large, the idea of God is deep within people. They have it in them. They do not express it in ways that I would like or that are acceptable to religious people, but it is there.
Because history says that about us, because of the great western European tradition and because the people still have that concept of God, I am very hesitant about passing anything here which seems to be dismissive of it. I would much rather support the amendment and hope and pray that in the six months granted before the Bill comes back, as it ought to come back, there will be a series of proposals which would safeguard that which matters not simply to people like me, or to protagonists of other faiths or other Churches, but matters deeply to people who feel about England and about God, of whom there are many more than we sometimes imagine.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me whether I still felt the same as I did a year ago about the need for people who perceive the majesty and love of God and hold it close to their hearts to have protection from the offence of blasphemy. The answer to that is yes, I do.
The noble Lord went on to ask me whether that defence was not provided by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The answer is no, if one follows the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as represented by the noble Earl, and more specifically not in any case which occurs in a dwelling place. Nor, I believe, would any blasphemous libel be caught, because Section 5 applies only to the display of any writing, sign or visible representation. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord's question is no. A number of cases fall outside Section 5.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He should look at subsection (1) (a), which refers to the use of threatening, abusive or

1233
insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour. Subsection (1) (b) concerns display. Therefore, there are two legs to the offence in Section 5, one of which consists of using words in a public place and the other of displaying writing in a public place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, both relate to a public place. It remains the case that matters which occur in a dwelling are excluded. I believe that there are also wider exclusions, but I shall go back to the books after the debate. It is slightly academic, because I believe that it would be an atrocious error for such a small gathering, at such a late hour, to take what to many of us would be a fundamental step and change the law of this country. However, on the assumption that that is what some noble Lords wish to do, perhaps I may conclude briefly.
The question that then arises is this. Does the legislation cited in the Bill provide the protection to which the noble Lord refers? Those noble Lords who have addressed that question have always seemed to me to have stopped at the point where the Law Commission raised the objection regarding the difficulty of identifying mens rea. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, that difficulty was removed by the judgment in Whitehouse v. Gay News ex parte. Therefore the law gives a measure of protection which is wider than the Public Order Act and of the nature that we wish.
Is the fact that it does not protect non-Christians a reason for removing the protection from Christians? Plainly in logic, no; and I note that when we last debated the issue it was clearly stated that the Moslems did not wish it to be removed for reasons which chime in very much with what the right reverend Prelate said. I refer to a general perception of the sanctity of God and the necessity of all mankind to recognise that. Any removal of that protection is the wrong signal, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote said.
We then go to this question. Should non-Christians be protected? The answer self-evidently is yes. That is difficult, and no one has yet discovered how to accomplish it.
I add only one other reflection. I do not see it as necessary that the protection should be afforded by the same legislation. The protection afforded by the blasphemy Act is afforded to people who subscribe to a faith which came to these islands before St. Augustine set foot on the island of Thanet and has remained the religion of this state and its institutions ever since. It is fitting and proper that it should be distinguished in some way in legislation. That in no way means that the protection and respect given to others should be less. In the debate on education today your Lordships emphasised the importance of the fact that our religious education should not only recognise the primacy of the Christian religion but bring up our children to respect the faiths of others.
I regard it as self-evident that there is but one God and that his Son, Jesus Christ, redeemed us all—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as well as me, if he wished to take advantage of it. But I do not feel that I should be protected in that view, which he believes to be
1234
wrong, and that he should not be protected in his views, which I believe to be wrong. Finally, what I believe would be wrong would be to remove the protection from everyone altogether in this precipitate manner. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, there are a number of reasons why I do not like the Bill. I shall confine my remarks to just one aspect of the matter; namely, that it would send out a highly undesirable message. To pass the Bill would be to proclaim to ourselves and to the world outside that we do not mind if God is vilified and his name dragged through the mud. We would be acknowledging that we do not mean a thing when we pray at the beginning of each day's business,
"Our Father…. Hallowed be thy name".
Furthermore, we would be denying that all authority comes ultimately from God, as is recognised by the words, "By the Grace of God", in the very title of our monarch.
In Britain we have a multiracial society in a Christian country. Christianity permeates virtually all our institutions and heritage. For example, just as in Islamic countries the law is based on the Koran, so in this country most of our law has its roots in the Bible. A 22 year-old Moslem said to a friend of mine recently, "This is a Christian country. Never mind what the Government may say, or what the BBC and the press may say. Yet you have more mosques in your towns than you have churches. Why has this happened? What has happened to the Christians? Why don't they all rise up as one man and proclaim the Christian faith all over the United Kingdom? Why ever don't they?"
We have a chance to do so tonight and to show that our Christian heritage still matters to us. God requires us to look after and protect all sections of our community, including ethnic and religious minorities. I cannot see that the Bill does anything for them—quite the reverse. To legalise blasphemy would result in more blasphemy all round, not only for Christians.
We live in an increasingly dangerous and unstable world and our need for God's protection and His protecting hand over us is greater than ever. No one who has even a minimal acquaintance with the Bible could be surprised if unchecked blasphemy were to result in the withdrawal of God's protecting hand from our country. I dearly want to see our nation remaining in God's love and protection. That requires us to do all we can to see that God is honoured at least as much as under the present law. That is the message that I hope will go out from this debate. I therefore urge your Lordships' House to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
10.51 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too share the concern of other noble Lords that we are debating this issue once again after the full consideration we gave to it just eight

1235
months ago. Sometimes I feel we can debate certain subjects so much that the life goes out of the debate and the purpose becomes unclear.
I am not aware of any widespread and continuing campaign about our blasphemy laws. As the old adage goes, "If it isn't broken, why fix it?" There is the separate issue of protection against incitement to religious hatred for religions other than Christianity, but I do not think we need to tamper with the blasphemy laws to meet that concern, and certainly not tonight.
Some may feel that because the blasphemy laws in other countries are getting a bad press—I think of the horrific case of the death penalty being applied for actions by a 12 year-old Pakistani Christian boy—we should get rid of our own law. But a few moments' reflection show the folly of that suggestion.
Our blasphemy law is not about heresy or theological debate. I may not like the views of other religions or even of other Christians, but I accept the right in our multicultural society for people to express their views. If they scrawl them on a wall, I think we would be more concerned about the graffiti than its content. I am reminded of the message on a Cambridge faculty building one summer: "God's not dead", to which a wag had added, "He's just revising!"
The English blasphemy law is about protecting something which we need to cherish and value; namely, the Christian religion and the risen Lord Jesus, on which so much of our society and its institutions are based. The blasphemy law, when tested in the courts—a very infrequent occurrence—has only ever protected against the most scurrilous kind of written, verbal or artistic abuse. My goodness, if our law meant that every mention of God's name taken in vain led to a prosecution, our courts would be brought to a standstill in no time at all! The BBC alone would be assailed by litigation.
Our blasphemy law is a safety net. God does not need our protection, but we do need to protect each other from chipping away at the very foundation of our society. I believe that the current law provides that protection and I shall be voting to keep it in place tonight by supporting the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
10.54 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, like some other noble Lords, I have received a whole sheaf of letters from people saying, "Retain the law of blasphemy". I do not often receive much mail on legislation in this House and I am intrigued that on this matter there is a feeling around—and I do not know the people who have written to me—that we should retain the law of blasphemy. I find that an interesting point.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in moving this debate. The distinction between the law of blasphemy in Pakistan and in the UK is a question of principle and not of degree. A legal system where a 12 year-old boy alleged to be illiterate can, on the accusation of one person, be convicted under the law and executed is for us a difference of principle and not
1236
of degree. The law of Pakistan should not have any bearing on what we are discussing this evening. It is not a reason for revoking the law of blasphemy in the UK.
My views are most admirably summarised in the remarks made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on 16th June. I should like to read a few sentences of what he said because it crystallises for me the argument that we are discussing now:
"The way these matters work now means that the protection afforded to one faith—a faith that is after all the faith of the established Church and a faith adhered to with varying degrees of enthusiasm by between 70 and 80 per cent. of the population—provides a sort of umbrella from which others can benefit; not directly through the law, but through the presumption against blasphemy which the existence of this ancient legislation still retains within our legal system.
If the crime of blasphemy were to be abolished, we should be saying something quite inviting to many of those people who are looking for opportunities. Let me stress that this is not primarily about protecting Christians. In the end it is about protecting the quality of our society from the erosion of values which we observe going on within it. Many of those values are encapsulated in those things we hold sacred".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1895.]
That endorses my view far more ably than I could express it.
As was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, on 16th June, the fact that this law is not often evidenced in the courts shows that the law is successful, and not that it is not needed. I believe very strongly that we should therefore retain the law of blasphemy and leave it alone. I would much rather that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, withdrew the Bill from Second Reading than that we accept the amendment. But if he is not prepared to do so, then I will vote in favour of the amendment.
10.58 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I rise from this Bench in the first speech after the gap. In doing so, I must make it clear, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, that my Party as such does not have any particular views on this subject. However, I believe all my colleagues on these Benches would agree that there is a very strong Liberal presumption in favour of free speech, and that any limitation to free speech must be made out wholly and fully. It is my judgment that in this debate—in spite of the splendid and almost convincing speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough—the case has not been made out. I therefore join, I believe, with most of my colleagues in saying that a repeal of the blasphemy laws is a valuable and necessary step on the path, among other things, towards disentangling religion from the ethical and prophetic functions which religion exists to promote and which religion, as often as not, strangles.
Ethical and prophetic ideals form the most important part of the life of a great many of us. They give us the goals to which many of us strive. They have pioneered all that we most admire in the religions of The Book, in Christendom, in Jewry and in Islam, and they are always in danger of being smothered by institutional religion, particularly in its most extreme form—religious fundamentalism.

1237
We must never forget that it was religion that persecuted Jesus of Nazareth, accused him of blasphemy and brought him to the gallows. It was religion which set up the Inquisition, torturing and burning human beings in the name of the same Jesus of Nazareth. It is religion—it may be said that the case is rather different but it is still religion—which condemns 14 year-old children to death for blasphemy in the Indian sub-continent. It is religion which enforces injustices in Israel in the name of the Torah.
It is religion which insists on blasphemy laws to protect its own image. Why? Surely it is not because God will be hurt by our idiocies. If he is capable of hurt, which is a very difficult theological and philosophical question much discussed at the present moment, the hurt done by blasphemy must be infinitesimal to the hurt done by so many other things that we do by other means. But, no, we are told by most of the intelligent people who think that we must keep the Blasphemy Act that no-one is foolish enough to pass blasphemy laws to protect God. We are urged to pass them or keep them in place to protect the sensibilities of His worshippers.
I suppose that the protection of sensibilities has its place. In fact, I am sure that it has, though I am often reminded of the words of that great Anglican saint and theologian, Charles Williams, who referred with some distaste to the,
"simple sheep who have trampled underfoot many of the most delicate flowers of Christendom".
But if those susceptibilities are to be protected, they should be protected along with others of our deepest susceptibilities.
Those who are rude about God can in some circumstances offend our deepest beliefs. So do those who are rude about our mothers or about capitalism; and in any random collection of adults in this country—as, for instance, in the normal membership of your Lordships' House; I say the "normal" membership of your Lordships' House because it is a select sub-group of it which is present this evening—it would be difficult to guess successfully which of those three rudenesses would most offend. This is an area, in fact, in which God and Mammon are on a par. It is Mammon who should be the most frightened, if we believe, as I do, that it is God who will win out in the end.
Of course we should protect people's susceptibilities, if we can do so without infringing the important principle of free speech, which is what protects prophecy, inspiration and the proclamation of ethics. But we should do so, as we do for the most part, by general laws and not by specific ones. The blasphemy laws of this country are typical monuments to the British tendency to hoard left-over relics of the past which are in no way applicable to the present day and which we are always horrified to find being applied by other countries and other religions.
I pay tribute to my noble friend in his unending battle against bureaucracy and intolerance all over the world. It is a battle which, I venture to suggest, would be highly approved of by most of the great prophets
1238
of mankind, whom these laws ostensibly exist to protect. I urge your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
11.5 p.m
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I begin my remarks as always by repeating that on Private Members' Bills anybody who speaks from this Dispatch Box speaks for himself and not for his party. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Longford challenged me to recognise that there is a powerful Christian socialist tradition in the Labour Party, and I gladly acknowledge that. My father-in-law was an active and deeply committed Christian socialist. But I must ask my noble friend to recognise at the same time that there are some of us who have no religion but who are still committed socialists and still committed in our humanitarian beliefs—to use the word he so kindly used about me.
I have had no religion all my life and I plan to die that way. I will on any suitable occasion—and this is not a suitable occasion—engage in debate with people of any religion, in which I will argue that for philosophical, moral and social reasons the decline, indeed the elimination, of religious belief would be for the benefit of mankind.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? If I say that tonight I shall pray for him that before the end some light will shine, will he be pleased or sorry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my reaction is concerned only with my respect and affection for my noble friend; the prayer itself is a matter of indifference to me. I am sorry; I am brought into this position because so many noble Lords declared an interest, as they said, and declared that their interest as Christians leads them to have a view about this legislation. My declaring an interest as a non-religious person leads me to be able to say that I am the last person in this House who is capable of committing blasphemy. In order to commit blasphemy, like committing heresy or apostasy, one must believe something in order to oppose somebody else's belief. One must believe another religion in order to oppose somebody else's belief.
I am temperamentally and philosophically the last person to wish to insult anybody's religion in the way that would be provided for by the law of blasphemy. We must recognise—and the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hutchinson, and indeed most recently the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made clear—that the existing law is adequate for all the purposes for which it is intended that the law of blasphemy should be retained. Indeed, any noble Lord who has respect for the coherence of the law—and I have a great deal of respect for the law, very often far more than for lawyers—must surely recognise the force of the arguments which have been made against this law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, made clear, it is a judge-made law in the sense that it has changed many times because of the views of the judges who sought to interpret the common law. It is therefore

1239
peculiarly uncertain in its effect. Nobody could have predicted the possibility of the prosecution of a poem written by a professor of English in Japan in which he expressed great affection for Christ but described him as a homosexual. Nobody could possibly have thought that that would be the only occasion in 17 years in which the law of blasphemy would be invoked.
It is a peculiarly defective law in that it does not allow for any issue of public good; any issue of motivation; any issue of intent; any issue of the effect of the so-called offence. It is a defective law because, as I said, alternatives exist. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough in what, almost till the last minute, was a speech with which I thought I would agree entirely, asked where the alternatives are. A number of noble Lords pointed out the difficulty which occurred to the minority on the Royal Commission 10 years ago in looking for alternatives in new law. I suggest to your Lordships that alternatives exist in the present law.
The fact that the law has not been invoked does not mean that it has been successful but that it has been unnecessary. It is hardly plausible to believe that those who wish to commit blasphemy have been deterred by thinking, "There is a common law offence which I might be committing if I were to say a particular thing". No, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was right.
Above all, we must maintain freedom of speech unless there is a very profound reason to go against it. We have protection against stirring up hatred and against abuse. We have protection against causing offence and against public disorder. We have protection against all the things which your Lordships would quite rightly wish us to be protected against. We do not need this law. The Bill should have a Second Reading.
11.11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the subject of this evening's debate is an extremely sensitive one which raises many important issues: the place of religion and the established Church in our society, the protection of beliefs which many hold most dear and freedom of expression and the proper role of the law.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seeks to abolish the current offence of blasphemy and other related offences. Blasphemy is a common law offence. Material is said to be blasphemous if it contains contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the formularies of the Church of England. One of the criticisms of the offence is that it protects only the established Church. Others criticise it on the grounds that it infringes the right to freedom of expression and argue that the law has no place in protecting individual beliefs or feelings in this way.
We have heard noble Lords argue that the offence should be abolished. Others hold the view that it should be retained and possibly expanded. The Government believe that it would be a mistake to
1240
seek to legislate on this sensitive matter of conscience in the absence of a broad consensus as to the best way forward. Therefore, we are not persuaded that it would be right to sweep away the current law.
There can be little doubt that the abolition of the blasphemy laws is a contentious issue. It is a subject most recently raised in this House during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Lester, proposed the abolition of the common law offence of blasphemy as part of a wider package including a new offence of incitement to religious hatred.
On an earlier occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, introduced a blasphemy abolition Bill in the wake of Mrs Mary Whitehouse's successful private prosecution of Gay News in 1977. The ensuing debates left little doubt as to the lack of consensus on the issue and it is perhaps significant that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, were subsequently withdrawn.
As recently as 1985 the Law Commission looked at the scope for reform in this area. In its report on Offences Against Religion and Public Worship the commission recommended by a majority, but not unanimously, that the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be abolished altogether and not replaced.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. As my noble friend pointed out, it was not the majority of the Law Commission who recommended sweeping away the common law offence; all of them did. The only question was whether it should be partially replaced by some other offence.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that that is inconsistent with what I said. I simply said that in its report on Offences Against Religion and Public Worship the commission recommended by a majority, but not unanimously, that the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be abolished altogether and not replaced. However, of the 1,800 respondents who wrote to the commission to express a view on the matter an overwhelming majority favoured retaining the law. The strong views which were, and are, held on all sides were illustrated by the fact that, very unusually, a minority of two out of the five commissioners made their own separate recommendation that a new statutory offence, extending to all religions, should replace the existing common law offences.
I accept that there are strong arguments against the current blasphemy laws. They date from a time when Christianity was inextricably linked with the law of England and when one could be punished for failing to attend church. There was discrimination in favour of the established Church.
There are also forceful arguments in favour of retention; for example, the unique place which the Established Church has in our society. Removal of the special protection which it is currently afforded would, in the view of some, represent another step towards a secular and unprincipled society in which

1241
religious belief is a matter of indifference. Indeed, others would argue that blasphemy represents an attack not just on particular religious beliefs, but also on society more generally. To quote from the Law Commission's report, vilifying the sacred beliefs of a significant number of people can,
"amount to an attack on the fundamental decencies and mutual respect on which society operates, and could damage the stability of a community".
It can also, of course, be an attack on individual feelings. In a previous debate in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, described blasphemy as,
"an act of violence to the mind and spirit and deeply spiritual feelings of very large numbers, millions and millions, of people capable of entertaining such feelings. It is an assault upon the mind and spirit just as much as mayhem is an assault upon the body".—[0fficial Report, 23/2/78; col. 290.)
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, proposes the simple abolition of the offence of blasphemy without replacement. That is certainly one approach but, as I and others have indicated this evening, it is by no means an approach which meets with universal applause, and that brings me back to the Government's position on this sensitive issue.
We recognise the strength of feeling on both sides and recognise that there are arguments both for and against the abolition of the blasphemy laws. But, in the absence of any clear consensus, we believe that it would be a mistake to seek to legislate on a matter as sensitive as this and we therefore favour the maintenance of the status quo.
I have responded to this debate on behalf of the Government and as this is a Private Member's Bill the Government would not propose to vote against it. However, it is a sensitive issue and one of personal conscience, as has been said by noble Lords on all sides of the House. Therefore, should the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, press a vote this evening, I personally shall support him.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate and who have remained until this late hour to see what the outcome will be. I should like to express my gratitude particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for the manner in which he spoke to his amendment. At the same time, however, I must respectfully point out to him that this is not exactly a replay of 1978. There are two material differences. One is the report of the Law Commission, which has been much discussed this evening. The second is the extension of the Public Order Act, which I tried to underline as being the most important event in the past few years as regards the scope for a separate offence of blasphemy. However, that factor does not appear to have been taken into consideration by many noble Lords who imagine that, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, it will open the floodgates to blasphemers who will undermine the whole fabric of our society.
We have heard some extreme exaggerations of what might happen. Perhaps I may administer a little corrective: the consequences of giving the Bill a
1242
Second Reading will be that it goes into Committee where the alternatives can be canvassed. The Minister repeated what has been said by a number of other speakers: that because there is no consensus, we should not proceed without knowledge of what kind of alternative offence, if any, should replace the common law.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Beaumont and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the existing laws are perfectly adequate. I am reinforced in that opinion by the fact that prosecutions under the Blasphemy Act are so rare. I think they would be made rarer still by the extension of Section 5 of the Public Order Act to offences which no longer require the ingredient of a breach of the peace being caused. That factor has been seriously underestimated by those who are seeking to kill the Bill by voting for its postponement for six months.
It is a matter that should be tested, because where are the hordes mentioned on a previous occasion -and repeated tonight - by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York who will commit the types of offences that have been suggested? What kind of conduct are they likely to commit which will not be caught by Section 5 of the Public Order Act or any of the other statutes that have been mentioned?
What has been most noteworthy in the whole debate is that those who wish to kill the Bill cannot produce any examples of the type of conduct which they believe would become legal as a result of the Bill passing on to the statute book but which is unlawful because of the common law offence of blasphemy. One of the reasons why they cannot do so is, as my noble friend Lord Hutchinson pointed out, that the common law is so uncertain. It is made up by judges as they go along, and if any further cases come before the courts, the decision might well be different or in conflict with previous decisions made by judges.
If we cannot think of any examples of the type of conduct which is caught by the common law offence of blasphemy and which is not dealt with by any of the numerous statutes which have been quoted, I suggest that it is not remotely possible that by allowing the Bill to get onto the statute book we shall be opening the floodgates about which people have been talking. But, if the danger exists, the right place to examine it in detail is in Committee. That is where minds will be concentrated upon the alternative solutions which might be acceptable to the Church, despite the fact that in the 10 years which have elapsed since the Law Commission reported—I do not agree with the Minister that that is a short space of time—there has been plenty of scope for consideration. We have had reports such as that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London which I have mentioned.
However, since no consensus has emerged, and since it is, as I think, vital to remove a protection which applies to one religion only in our country and leaves the rest of them out in the cold, and if any new offence is necessary, let it be considered in Committee where minds will be concentrated, and

1243
where, if there is any solution, it can be produced, and if there is not, we can leave matters to be dealt with by the existing statutes.
I hope that on reflection your Lordships will allow the Bill to go into Committee where all those alternatives can be properly and thoroughly considered.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it would be wrong for me at this late hour to detain your Lordships further by answering all the points that have been made with respect to the merits or demerits of my amendment. I shall not bandy legalisms with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I said that there were two types of lawyer: he identified himself as one of them. I can only refer him to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, whom I have identified as one of the other.
The time has come for me to test the opinion of the House, after thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate. I commend the amendment to the House.
11.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 14.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Harvington, L.

Ashbourne, L.

London, Bp.

Blatch, B.

Longford, E.

Brentford, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caldecote, V.

Nickson, L.

Carnock, L.

Palmer, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Durham, Bp.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Elton, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Fitt, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Avebury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Rea, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hylton, L.

Strafford, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Tope, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.

  Western Sahara: Referendum
  Western Sahara: Referendum
  HIV/AIDS
  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Bryce Taylor: Legal Aid
  Mr. Bryce Taylor: Legal Aid
  Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
  Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
  Fishing Fleet: British-owned Vessels
  Fishing Fleet: British-owned Vessels
  Probation Officers: Recruitment and Training
  Probation Officers: Recruitment and Training
  Victim Support
  Victim Support
  Bathing Water Improvements: Cost Study
  Bathing Water Improvements: Cost Study