Sitting of 21 November 1995

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

    Water Supply Disconnections
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the trend in water supply disconnections for non-payment of bills. [730]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The downward trend in disconnections is continuing. In the six months from 1 April to 30 September 1995, domestic disconnections were down 55 per cent. compared with the same period last year.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does it not show that disconnections under the privatised water companies are on a continuing downward trend, and that the privatised water companies have a caring, sensitive attitude towards their customers? Is it not a disgrace that the Opposition continually denigrate the privatised water companies on the basis of the number of water disconnections?
    Mr. Gummer: It is odd that, with very similar numbers in 1979, there was no complaint from the Opposition. Why are they complaining now? Because they want to smear the privatisation that works immensely well. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does not realise that there was an election in 1979, and we won it, as we shall win the next election.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is it not the case that any household without a regular supply of decent, clean running water is unfit for families to live in, and any disconnection is one too many? May I suggest that the Secretary of State's concern that Yorkshire Water does not leave houses without a proper running supply in the next few weeks actually shows that he agrees with our position on disconnections: they must not, and should not, happen?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady should note first of all that during the whole period in which the Labour party was in power, it accepted that disconnection as a last resort was necessary to ensure that people who could pay but did not were not encouraged to live off the backs of those who did pay. The situation is quite simple. Disconnections take place only where somebody has not paid when they could have paid. That seems to be
    444
    perfectly reasonable. When we go to ask the other customers, overwhelmingly they say that they do not want people who could pay not to pay, because in the end those who do pay, pay for those who ought to pay.
    Mrs. Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the position in Yorkshire at the moment, where Yorkshire Water is going to disconnect many people by introducing rota cuts every other day. Will he assure the House and my constituents in Batley and Spen that he will not allow that order to be implemented until every source of water allocation has been very well explored?
    Mr. Gummer: I willingly assure the House of that. It is the last resort of all last resorts, and the Government have ensured that we have regular reports from independent people to see that we give every possible piece of help to Yorkshire Water, which is also pressed to use every possible means of avoiding such action.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's policy on water is in a mess? In Yorkshire, people are not getting water, and the Government have no idea of the time scale for coming up with a payment system for future water payers. In the south-west, the chair of the water consumer committee, Jessica Thomas, has said that, if the cost of environmental improvements continues to fall solely on South West Water payers, £150 will be added to each individual's bill, rather than £15 if the cost were spread evenly across the country. Will not such a policy lead to more disconnections?
    Mr. Gummer: For the hon. Gentleman—whose party's scheme to connect water rates with the council tax policy would increase the cost of water for the poorest—to make such a comment is interesting. The hon. Gentleman has no policy on water at all, except to complain about the Government in circumstances where one has to say that the water companies have dealt better with the worst drought that we have had for 500 years than at any time when water was nationalised. He really talks nonsense.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Sir Michael Grylls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings have been delivered by compulsory competitive tendering. [731]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Savings totalling £400 million have been made to date. This allows the local authorities concerned to invest in services or to reduce bills.
    Sir Michael Grylls: That is a worthwhile saving. Is it not significant that the Labour party has consistently opposed competitive tendering policies, and, I believe, still does? On reflection, I do not find that altogether surprising, as four Labour Members are sponsored by trade unions and are therefore putting the unions before the good of local people.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I entirely agree. It is intriguing that, when it comes to propaganda, Opposition Front Benchers promote competition, but when it comes to the reality of Labour local authorities, they reject it at every opportunity.
    Mr. Bennett: How much has that saving cost central Government? Will the Minister confirm that, as a result

    445
    of compulsory competitive tendering, many people take home lower wages, thus qualifying for housing benefit and family credit? We want to hear the full figures, not just the saving to local government.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the local economy. The almost parasitic drawing of some direct labour organisations on the local economy has been offset; we have better business, better management and lower costs, and the general productive business in the community has therefore been able to improve standards.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who seek to get rid of compulsory competitive tendering will force local authority taxpayers to pay more, and bring about poorer services? They are concerned only with jobs for the boys in the unions that sponsor them.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has clearly lived or suffered under a local authority run by either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. The reaction of local authorities to the opportunity to serve their local communities rather than the unions is extraordinary.

    Local Authority Land
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines for good practice his Department provides regarding disposal of open space and undeveloped land in local authority ownership. [734]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Guidance to local planning authorities on the release of underused or vacant sites is set out in planning policy guidance note 4 on industrial and commercial development and small firms, and in PPG 3 on housing. Guidance on the disposal of open space with recreational value is set out in PPG 17 on sport and recreation.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister believe that, if a local authority decides—as Southwark did recently—that it wants to get rid of green space open land or other land in its ownership, it is right for it to make the decision in a secret meeting, treating it as a confidential item and neither giving information to the public nor engaging in consultation? Does the Minister agree with the proposition that any disposal of open space—particularly green space—and of council-owned land should be the subject of public consultation, and should feature on an open agenda for council meetings, before any proposal is made?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on a particular case, but I certainly agree with his general proposition that such matters should be dealt with openly. Indeed, PPG 17 makes specific provision for such a disposal to be advertised in local papers two weeks on the trot, and for the local authority to take into account any objections that are made.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome the initiatives taken by the Department to utilise and develop derelict and vacant land, especially in inner-city centres; but will my hon. Friend stress the importance of keeping a proportion of that land as open space for the amenity and enjoyment
    446
    of people living and working in the area? As national tree week is approaching, will he also stress the importance of planting trees in such areas in our townscapes, as well as in the countryside?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a long history of commitment to such causes. I certainly agree with his proposition. In fact, although it is clearly right in the interests of sustainable development for us to concentrate new development in existing urban areas, we also want to ensure the protection of open spaces, particularly recreational open spaces. However, it is not just a question of keeping what we have. We also want to encourage more open space in urban areas. It is interesting to note that, in an advertisement in The Times today, the London Docklands development corporation claims that docklands contains open space equivalent to 160 new football pitches. We are making progress.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister join me in congratulating a Labour local authority, that of Kirklees, on taking a piece of waste space and building, by way of a public-private partnership, a wonderful stadium that yesterday won first prize from the Royal Institute of British Architects for the best new architecture this year? Will he take a message and give it to his Front-Bench colleagues—that it would be impossible to start such a partnership today because of the regulations that the Government have since introduced?
    Mr. Jones: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point, because we have introduced more flexibility precisely to encourage local authorities to go down the partnership road. Of course I agree that it is right that the hon. Gentleman's local authority and others should utilise vacant space for developments that are of use to the community and, for that matter, to get new commercial development as well, because that is very much in the interests of sustainable development.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps he should have been more effusive in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) who, of course, initiated the campaign "Plant a Tree in '73" when he represented another constituency? Does the Minister accept that open spaces in urban areas are precious and that there should always be a bias against any development of them? I am not speaking about derelict land: the question does not relate to that. Will he give me the assurance that I and others seek, that school playing fields which become surplus to education requirements will not be developed for housing or similar projects but will be developed for recreation and other such purposes for the community?
    Mr. Jones: I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks that I was not effusive enough in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who certainly has a long and distinguished record. In reply to my hon. Friend's main point, of course we want to protect recreational open space. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recently rejected an otherwise excellent project in London precisely because it would have led to a loss of metropolitan open land. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we shall certainly take such matters into account every time we judge such an application.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the total capital receipts currently held by local authorities in England (a) from sale of council homes and (b) from sale of other properties and assets. [735]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): The stock of usable capital receipts from all assets stood at £1.5 billion at the end of March this year. About 90 per cent. of those receipts are held by authorities whose responsibilities include housing, but it is not possible to say exactly how much of the total derives from the sale of houses. No figures for set-aside capital receipts are available.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Is it not madness that this money sits idle when thousands of families live in squalid housing conditions? Is the Minister not aware that that money could build about 18,000 homes, which could house at least half of those who are currently in temporary accommodation?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman makes two fundamental mistakes. First, the money is not sitting idle: it is being used—for example, for capital projects. The idea that somehow a great pile of gold coins is under somebody's mattress is a fundamental misunderstanding. Secondly, only a proportion of the money comes from the sale of council houses. Local authorities are required to set aside money from their revenue accounts for depreciation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to lay his hands on that.
    All that the Labour party demonstrates by that argument is how little it understands about local authority finance. Opposition Members would be much more plausible if, instead of banging on about that matter, they would just once tell us how much of the capital receipts they would spend over what sort of period, and how they would deal with the problem that the overwhelming amount of these receipts is in the shire districts or the outer London districts. They will not answer any of those questions. All they do is whinge and that, like the rest of their policies, has no substance.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Have we not today had a display of the Opposition's total ignorance of accountancy, and of local government finance in particular, which shows why they are not suitable to govern? We have heard precisely from my hon. Friend that the sums involved amount to slightly over £1 billion, but the other side of the local government balance sheet shows £37 billion of local government debts. Therefore, the money is a mirage: it does not exist.
    Mr. Curry: The Labour party cannot come to terms with the fact that, if a local authority has got rid of its debt, it can spend the money on what it likes. It must be a fundamental first charge on any revenues to discharge responsibilities for debt. Once that is done, a local authority has complete freedom. That is merely prudent housekeeping.
    Mr. Dobson: Why will not the Government allow councils to invest those enormous funds to build new homes for the thousands of people who have nowhere decent to live? Last year, the Government restricted
    448
    councils in England to building just 414 houses and flats, compared with the 54,000 new homes that were started under Labour in 1979. If the Minister says that we are wrong in saying that those funds should be used to fund new building, why did the Deputy Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for the Environment, promise that that was exactly what would happen to those funds, and why is that exactly what has happened to them in Scotland throughout the whole period?
    Mr. Curry: The funds that are attributable to the sale of council houses, which is a proportion, but nowhere near the entire amount of the money, are not used for building new homes, because we do not believe that local authorities are the best providers of housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] There is no mystery about that. We have spelt that out for years. The best providers of housing are housing associations. It is interesting that we have just had a great success because Manchester Labour council has promoted the transfer of one of its major estates to a housing association, which shows that our view is being increasingly accepted.
    If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about housing, if that is such a Labour preoccupation, how is that it, in all the time devoted to discussing the Queen's Speech, Labour is not devoting one single minute to the subject of housing? It is all blather; it is all rhetoric. There is no substance, because the Labour party has no policy that it can defend.
    Mr. James Hill: Is it not true that the city of Southampton has £12 million on deposit, but is in debt to the Government in relation to housing for £90 million? Could it not be made clear to the public that councils that have spent, spent and spent must be brought under control and that capital receipts, from which they can receive interest, should be held until they balance their books?
    Mr. Curry: That is quite clearly the case, but my advice to councils such as Southampton is to follow the example being pursued by a number of Labour councils, and to recognise that transferring their stock to the housing association movement is a win-win deal for the council that receives the receipt and for the tenants who receive a major refurbishment programme. The last word lies with tenants. That is tenants' choice in action.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with business concerning the 1996–97 national non-domestic rate. [736]
    Sir Paul Beresford: I have received representations from a number of businesses.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that next week's rate support grant settlement will mean that businesses must pay higher business rates, that council tax payers must pay higher council taxes, all for fewer services, and that, year on year, under the Tories people must pay more and get less?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I find that extraordinary coming from an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches. If one considers Labour authorities and their behaviour, one would expect the scenario that the hon. Lady has spelt out. If one considers the period just before the uniform business rate, in Liverpool council, Labour-controlled, and Wirral council—which includes Wallasey— Labour-controlled, there was no concern by Labour local

    449
    authorities for business—none at all. In Liverpool, the rate was 38 per cent. above the national average. In Wallasey, it was 40 per cent. above that average. Where was the concern?
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to protect small businesses from local authorities such as Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which is interested only in spending money and not in the level of services that it provides? Does he agree that it is important for us to look at extra ways of helping to protect small rural businesses from the unified business rate? Does he agree that the announcement in the rural White Paper will be extremely important for those small rural businesses?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I agree completely with my hon. Friend, but I would not limit it to rural businesses. We can look back to another example from 1988, 1989 and 1990 to an area which includes Holborn and St. Pancras. We can compare Camden and Westminster. There were filthy streets in Westminster—[Interruption.] Sorry, there were filthy streets in Camden, but the business rate in Camden was 34 per cent. above that of Westminster.

    Homelessness (London)
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the measures that he intends to introduce to reduce homelessness in London. [737]
    Mr. Curry: Up to now, we have received 227 replies to our consultation on the future of the rough sleepers initiative and we shall outline our further proposals in the new year.
    Mr. Gapes: How can proposing to change the obligations on local authorities to provide housing for the homeless in any way assist the poor and their children? How can cutting the funding for the Housing Corporation or putting further restrictions on what housing associations do assist the homeless? Is it not true, as the Rowntree Foundation's recent study reported, that all that does is simply rearrange the scope of homelessness while doing nothing to combat it?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman follows these things, he will know that there has recently been a House of Lords ruling which states that there is no safety net for the homeless. The Government's legislation—we decided before the House of Lords ruling to invite the House to take the decision—will try to create a single route into housing with a philosophy and idea to which Shelter subscribes.
    We intend to create an obligation to house people for a year, which will be renewable, so that for those in need, irrespective of whether the need arises from homelessness or other circumstances, we will look at the underlying basic problems and everybody will feel that their needs are being assessed on a fair basis. I have had detailed discussions with Shelter and other parties to explain how it would work. I believe that many people have been reassured, but I believe firmly that it is in the interest of all those in need that they should feel that their case is being dealt with fairly and on absolutely equal terms.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as Shelter, the Salvation Army has done a good and effective job by taking homeless people into
    450
    hostels, some of them on a temporary basis, and then finding permanent homes for them such as flats or other housing? Does my hon. Friend agree that that has reduced homelessness in London by a substantial margin?
    Mr. Curry: I certainly pay tribute to organisations such as the Salvation Army and St. Mungo's. I was at a Drinks crisis centre in Bermondsey this morning. Such organisations do magnificent work helping the homeless. One must be cautious. For some who are in grave need— for example, those with drug, drink or mental illness problems and sometimes combinations of those problems—it is not sufficient just to provide accommodation. They cannot survive autonomously. They need continued sheltered accommodation and those organisations are particularly good at providing that, and we work in close co-operation with them.
    Mr. Raynsford: Why will not the Minister recognise that the number of homeless households accepted in London, as in the rest of the country, is double the level accepted back in 1978–79 when Labour was last in power? Why does he intend to make what is already a disastrous situation far worse by his proposed changes to legislation on the homeless? Those changes have been condemned almost universally by all the organisations, including those that the Minister has quoted, which represent tenants, local authorities, housing associations and the Churches. They have all condemned the proposals as being disastrous for the homeless, causing them misery and an appalling degree of deprivation that we have not seen since the era of "Cathy Come Home".
    Mr. Curry: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would end on that note. It is not the case. The people dealing with homelessness every day say that creating a single route into housing is the sensible thing to do. The argument then is how to deliver that; how to provide assessments of underlying needs so that people have all their needs taken care of; and how to ensure that, when housing allocations are made, the particular problems of the homeless are identified.
    When the hon. Gentleman examines the Government's regulations and the guidance that will go with them, he will see that we are determined to ensure that those underlying needs are looked after and that nobody finds himself in a situation where he is permanently without permanent accommodation. We shall ensure that that does not happen.
    Mr. Dunn: Does the Minister agree that homelessness in London would be significantly reduced if Labour-controlled local authorities managed their housing stock more efficiently and effectively, instead of allowing thousands of flats and houses to be empty for months and months?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that local authorities get to grips with the basic tools of sensible management—collect rents, ensure that they have the minimum number of voids and bring empty property back into use. If those things are done, that will make a significant contribution to housing in this country.

    Housing Strategy (London)
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to develop a housing strategy for London. [738]
    Mr. Gummer: Every London borough has its own housing strategy supported by significant taxpayers' investment. I have had no request from any leader of any London council to take such strategy out of their hands.
    Mr. Soley: Do the Government accept that leaders of the business community, as well as housing experts, have been saying that the lack of affordable rented housing in London, especially central London, is leading to recruitment and retention problems with employees, as well as to social problems? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to resource local authorities, will he allocate responsibility to the Housing Corporation so that someone can take overall responsibility for meeting housing needs in London?
    Mr. Gummer: This year, the total Government capital resources for London housing are over £800 million. Over one third of the national housing investment programme resources go to London local authorities, even though they have only about one seventh of the housing stock. The hon. Gentleman must accept that we are already making a particular effort in London, which is out of proportion to the rest of the country, specifically because of London's special needs.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key part of housing policy in inner London is to ensure that inner London boroughs manage their council housing stock properly, collect rents and reduce the number of empty properties, instead of whingeing and blaming the Government for their own errors?
    Mr. Gummer: All that list is right, but the collection of rents, in particular, is an important aspect. Local authorities that do not collect the rents are in fact removing their opportunity to help those in greatest need. Collection would help considerably.

    County Hall
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to safeguard the future of county hall; and if he will make a statement. [739]
    Mr. Gummer: The planning system and English Heritage are together safeguarding county hall.
    Mr. Banks: Oh, really? Is the Secretary of State aware that the riverside building at county hall is an empty shell from the second floor upwards and there is no sign of the hotel for which the Shirayama organisation put in planning permission? It is busily building an aquarium for which it has not yet applied for a license from the local authority, and it has not approached the Department for any Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species licence for the keeping of sea mammals. The whole thing is a catastrophe and a scandal for which the Government are entirely responsible. When Labour is in government, it will hang this round the neck of the right hon. Gentleman. If he wants to protect himself, he ought to do something about what is going on at county hall now.
    Mr. Gummer: The fact is that two contracts have been let, one involving the preparatory work for the aquarium according to the arrangements suggested by Shirayama and the second involving the initial work on the hotel. The hon. Gentleman should face the fact that considerable
    452
    works have to be done there, not least to get rid of the asbestos. I assure him that we are keeping a very close eye on the matter. English Heritage last visited county hall on Friday; I have been there myself and will certainly go again. I can also assure him that we are keeping a close watch on the valuables that he removed from county hall, which were on his mantelpiece but which are now in safe keeping.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the glorious buildings at Greenwich will not suffer a similar fate?
    Mr. Gummer: I am quite sure that the plans to make that exciting world heritage site even better will proceed as well as they can with the greatest partnership possible. My colleagues are now considering the opportunities that will become available.

    Ramsar Convention
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many locations have been nominated for consideration as protected sites under the Ramsar convention. [740]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The United Kingdom has listed more sites than any other member of the Ramsar convention—95 wetlands of international importance, including three sites in the United Kingdom's dependent territories. The Government are currently considering a further 32 United Kingdom sites, which have been proposed by the statutory conservation agencies.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local residents of Gosport and Portsmouth were pleased when the Portsmouth harbour area was designated a special protection area for birds and that we are proud to provide a home for so many red-breasted merganser, Brent geese and dunlin? However, the millennium funding of more than £40 million will provide literally one chance in 1,000 years to develop the Portsmouth harbour area. Should it be necessary for the local authorities to ask for some concession at the margins from the Ramsar convention and other environmental regulations, will my hon. Friend consider that request sympathetically?
    Mr. Clappison: I shall certainly give careful consideration to any such points and set them alongside the important nature conservation interests represented in Portsmouth. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the considerable progress and leadership that the United Kingdom has given to the Ramsar convention in this country and elsewhere.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the area cost adjustment factor; and if he will make a statement. [741]
    Mr. Curry: I have announced an independent review of the area cost adjustment.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend speed up his review of that most unjust subsidy, which is now costing

    453
    the people of the north more than £1.5 billion a year? Is it not high time that we northerners ceased subsidising southerners to quite such an extent?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will understand if I am not tempted into that particular form of global warfare. He will appreciate that the area cost adjustment is in place to try to compensate for the additional labour costs in London and the south-east. All those who get it think that it is inadequate, and all those who do not think that what is given is unjust. That is why the only way forward is to set up an alternative. Provided that it is robust and delivers the results that we want, and provided that the local authority associations are able to agree that it is robust, which is asking quite a lot, it can go into the formula for the revenue support grant the year after next.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister recall that, when I came to see him with an all-party delegation of councillors and hon. Members earlier this year, he gave us an undertaking that the research into the area cost adjustment would be effective for next year's settlement? Is that still the case? Will he take on board the fact that the people of Cambridgeshire are utterly fed up with the way in which their standard spending assessment is so much lower than that of neighbouring counties?
    Mr. Curry: No. What I told the hon. Lady, which is what I told the House, was that we were seeking an alternative and that, if it proved robust, it would be used. We considered whether a travel-to-work concept would work, and the Association of County Councils was also pursuing an alternative methodology. Neither stood up to robust analysis. That is why we have to look to an entirely different approach and why I set up the review. We hope to have the results of that next June so that they can go into the following year's settlement.
    Mr. Rathbone: When considering those matters, will my hon. Friend remember that the area cost adjustments were originally set up to compensate county councils such as East Sussex for the additional costs that they have to bear? Will he ensure that those additional costs will be met in future—provided of course that East Sussex county council is more efficient than it is at present?
    Mr. Curry: It is a basic misunderstanding to assume that the area cost adjustment is just £1.5 billion off the top, from which, if it were not applied, everyone else would be able to benefit. If one did not have the present method, one would still have to calculate the additional cost in London and the south-east. That would clearly have to come out of the total settlement. So people must be cautious before they assume that there is a bonanza available for redistribution. I am determined that the method we use will be robust, stand up and compensate the real costs. The purpose of the inquiry is to identify actual costs, wherever they are incurred, in a fair way.
    Ms Armstrong: Although the Minister has not yet established the review and identified members of the review body, will he ensure that they address not only the unfairnesses already mentioned, but those concerning the manner in which areas of deprivation are identified? Nobody, but nobody, accepts that Westminster is the fourth most deprived area in the country.
    Mr. Curry: I am sorry that the independent report which said that is inconvenient for the hon. Lady, because
    454
    it means that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has spent all these years peddling something that is patently untrue. I am afraid that that is just hard luck; it is untrue.

    European Community Directives
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many statutory instruments have been passed through Parliament as a result of European Community directives in the past year. [742]
    Mr. Gummer: For the period from 21 November 1994 to date, the total is nine.
    Mr. Steen: As European directives are drafted in general terms, and member states are left to implement them as they think best, will the Minister explain why we tend to gold-plate directives in this country, adding to them, and making non-compliance by individuals and companies a criminal offence? No other European country does it. Why do we do it? Will he see that his Department stops it?
    Mr. Gummer: I have a very strict rule that no European legislation is gold-plated in my Department. In addition to that, we impose only the same penalties as we would for internal national legislation. There are no exceptions to that and I am checking whether any might have been made in the past. I am prepared to point out to my hon. Friend how we look at each detail in every case to ensure that it is right.
    Mr. Barnes: What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that when one of his Ministers votes at a meeting of the Council of Ministers, it is recorded in this House so that we understand what they are doing in Europe? Democracy needs to be open and details must be reported back to hon. Members.
    Mr. Gummer: I am always willing to answer any question asked by any hon. Member on that subject. I am surprised that the Labour party has decided that, because it loses at Environment questions so often, it wants to knock another quarter of an hour off the time available. The day has been changed. The Labour party is afraid of the answers because it loses every time.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on EC environmental directives. [743]
    Mr. Clappison: The United Kingdom has led the way in Europe with directives covering a number of important areas, including integrated pollution control, air quality and packaging, as well as many other important areas.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister will be aware that the United Kingdom has the poorest record, matched only by Portugal, in implementing EC directives. That is regrettable enough. Indeed, some of the finest areas of the country, such as the fens area, Loch Lomond in my constituency and the Caledonian pinewood forests, are excluded from such directives. Does he not accept that that is wrong and that those omissions should be rectified? Will he at this late stage ensure that we add to the number of sites covered by the habitats directive, so that it applies equally throughout the country and to the most precious sites?
    Mr. Clappison: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise the very real progress that this country

    455
    has made in enforcing European directives here, bringing real benefits in terms of improving river quality and bathing standards, reducing greenhouse gases and curbing emissions. All those are important areas in which we have made real progress and it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise that this country is now well on the way to being the clean man of Europe.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is desirable that there should be increases in the purity of drinking water, it is even more important that supplies of drinking water should be guaranteed to consumers in West Yorkshire? Is it not appropriate that there should be greater local discretion in such matters?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of consumers in West Yorkshire. I am sure that he knows that drinking water quality standards in this country are high and that through our actions, they will continue to remain at a high level.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November. [760]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Taylor: Can the Prime Minister confirm that despite the Government's policy of not issuing entry visas to senior representatives of the Nigerian Government, on Sunday, the Nigerian Attorney-General, no less, and a senior legal adviser to the leader of the Nigerian military Government were admitted into this country? What signal does that send about this Government's determination to address the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues?
    The Prime Minister: The action taken at the Commonwealth conference has made it clear how we feel about the matter. On the specific point, I was not aware that the two people concerned were granted visas, and they did not see me. I will, however, make inquiries about the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Sir Donald Thompson: At the risk of sounding disloyal, does my right hon. Friend realise that, despite pressure from both sides of the House, he completely failed to make it rain in Yorkshire this summer? Will he therefore ensure that he and his Cabinet colleagues see to it that there is no impediment to prevent Yorkshire Water from filling the reservoirs by any means possible?
    The Prime Minister: I know that Yorkshire Water is making great efforts to ensure an adequacy of water. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is taking a close interest in the practical action that is under way.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as a result of the 21 different tax rises introduced by him since the general election, which he fought on the platform of cutting tax year by year, the average family tax bill has
    456
    risen by £800 a year or by at least 7p on the standard rate of income tax? Is that figure of 7p on the basic rate of income tax correct or not?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for I have said it in the House before, we increased taxes in the recession and we did so to protect people who were vulnerable. [Interruption.]I am bound to say that, if the decision to raise taxes to protect people who were vulnerable in the recession—I believe that that was the right decision—had not been taken, we would not have been able to get interest rates down from 15 per cent. to around 7 perz` cent. and we would not be in our present position this year, when people on average earnings will see an extra £250 a year in net disposable income.
    Mr. Blair: As the right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose was to protect the vulnerable, will he confirm that, in the 10 years from 1985 to 1995, with all the Tory tax changes, those on incomes of more than £100,000 a year have gained massively, whereas the vast majority of families on average income have either gained little or lost money? Does not that show that the real divide is not between high and low tax, but between fair and unfair tax, and that the Tories are the party of unfair taxation?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may try very hard, but he will never convince the people of this country that his party—[Interruption.] Hon. Members would be wise to wait. He will never convince the people of this country that his party will not spend more and tax more than the Conservative party. Alas, the deputy leader of the Labour party is not with us this afternoon, but a year or so ago he admitted:
    "There's … going to be a higher top rate than we have … High income levels are going to pay considerably more".
    That is not, I may say, what the leader of the Labour party told the Confederation of British Industry last week.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister wants to prove that he wants fair taxes, why does he not abandon his long-term objective of abolishing capital gains tax and inheritance tax, which would benefit only a few people at the top, who have already benefited greatly, and agree with us that the money could better be used to help lower and middle-income families through a lower starting rate of tax?
    The Prime Minister: We have widened the band dramatically, and people start at 20p. Many people in this country pay tax only at 20p in the pound. But
    "Britain needs successful people in business who can become rich by their success through the money they earn"—
    [Interruption.] I am surprised to hear some comments from the Opposition, because I was quoting what the leader of the Labour party said a few days ago.
    It is not credible for Opposition Members to ask day after day, in intervention after intervention, for more spending—in their speeches 40 per cent. of them ask for more spending—and then to pretend that Labour would even hold taxes steady, let alone reduce them. Labour is the high-tax party, and always has been—and it would be the high-spending, high-tax party in the future, if it ever had the chance.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing the sympathy of the whole House to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Betts, whose daughter Leah died last week? Will he confirm that the war against

    457
    drugs remains the Government's highest priority, and does he share the hope of Leah's parents that her death may serve as a warning, and may help to save the lives of other young people?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending sympathy to Mr. and Mrs. Betts for the appalling loss that they face. There are those who believe that Ecstasy in particular, but also other soft drugs, are harmless. I do not share that view. The vast majority of people who move on to hard drugs do so through the medium of soft drugs, and it is important that people up and down the country, especially young people, understand that. I hope that, as a result of Leah's tragic death, that matter will get the publicity that it deserves, and that young people will realise that there is nothing glamorous whatever about soft drugs. They are dangerous, not only in themselves but because they can lead on to hard drugs, which are potential killers time and time again.
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November. [761]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Purchase: The Prime Minister will know that the figures released yesterday for the third quarter show that the amount of unsold goods in industry is rising, that imports are growing faster than exports and that, unfortunately, unemployment has plateaued. The level of activity in the economy is slowing down, and construction figures are falling. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those facts illustrate clearly an economy running out of steam? Or does he believe that those figures represent merely a state of mind, just as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry believes that unemployment and the fear of unemployment are simply a state of mind?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the economy grew by 4 per cent. last year, faster than any other western European country; the economy is growing again this year, and it is forecast to grow faster than the others next year. Manufacturing investment is rising, export volumes are up by more than 6 per cent. and unemployment has fallen by more than 700,000. There are more people in work in this country than in any other major country in Europe, and we have a lower rate of unemployment than any major country in Europe.
    That has been achieved while underlying inflation is at low levels never dreamed of by the Labour party. The reality is that we have a platform for prosperity for the future that has been hard to achieve. We propose to sustain that platform, which offers an opportunity for long-term prosperity for all the people in this country.
    Sir Peter Hordern: If this or any future Government were to sign up to the social chapter, would not this country be bound by majority vote within the Council of Ministers? Would not that make it impossible to pick and choose the directives that should apply to this country? Does not that make total nonsense of the claims made by the Leader of the Opposition last week?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I fought for—and won—the right to opt out because I wanted to put British jobs and British business first. For that reason, I will not sign the social chapter. The social chapter
    458
    is not just a set of principles. It is not something that one can pick and mix, by deciding to have the bits one likes but not the bits one does not like. Most of the measures may be decided by qualified majority voting, and the British vote on its own would not be sufficient to block matters that the British Government may not like. It is for that reason that we are right not to sign the social chapter. Were we to do so, we would be creating unemployment for a lot of people who have jobs at present.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November. [762]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Prime Minister refuses to disown the President of the Board of Trade for his insulting comment that job insecurity is just a state of mind, will he be hiring a team of psychiatrists for himself and the Cabinet when we come to the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is determined, as I am, to continue with our policies to bring unemployment down and to ensure that people are in work, as they are in higher numbers not only in Scotland but right across the United Kingdom because of the policies that we have followed, and not the policies advocated by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November. [763]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's international status and prosperity depends upon our having a powerful and constructive role within the European Union? Does he further agree that the development of the Union must be based on control over Brussels bureaucracy, and that the synchronisation of economies—which may take years to achieve—is essential before a single currency can be contemplated or made workable by the leading members of the Community?
    The Prime Minister: I want to see a strong Britain in a strong Europe, and I believe that that means looking at the values in Europe that create jobs. We must ensure that Europe is competitive, and increase the existing job total. There are at the moment more than 20 million people unemployed in Europe, and we need to get that figure down dramatically. We must look at any proposal for a single currency in the light of Britain's own national economic self-interest. Last night, I spelled out some of the fundamental questions that underlie the implications of a single currency. Those issues must be answered within the EU before the decisions are made on whether anyone should proceed with a single currency or not. The price of error if those questions are not answered is very high for Europe collectively, and for each country individually.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is and will continue to be the policy of the Government that, before Sinn Fein-IRA can move fully into dialogue,

    459
    it must establish its commitment to exclusively peaceful methods by beginning a credible process of actual decommissioning?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary spelt that out in his speech at Washington. The hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to the Washington three conditions. That remains the Government's position.
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November. [764]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rathbone: As First Lord of the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend bang a few heads together there in order to stop the bureaucratic interference in the private finance initiative, so that more customers, clients and patients can benefit from it?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly be happy to continue doing as my hon. Friend has said. The private finance initiative is central to the plans for improving the country's infrastructure. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt about our determination to succeed. Later on this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make a speech on the PFI. I welcome his determination to increase the amount of contribution to the health service from private finance. I think a similar contribution can come from the PFI across the Government's programme.

Question Time
(Madam Speaker's Statement)
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. On 24 February last year, I informed the House that I intended to take action to ensure swifter progress at Question Time. I was concerned that there was a growing tendency to regard Question Time as an opportunity for debate rather than for question and answer. As a result, the number of questions reached on the Order Paper was gradually diminishing. I informed the House that I would seek to enforce the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in 1990 that the length of both ministerial replies and supplementaries should be curbed and that supplementaries should not become a dialogue of queries.
I sought the co-operation of all Members on both sides of the House in seeking to make better progress in order to protect the interests of those Members with questions lower down the Order Paper, who I believe have a legitimate expectation of being called.
The initial response was most encouraging, with a significant improvement in performance. More recently, however, we have slipped back. Therefore, I renew my appeal for co-operation from all Members, including Ministers and those on the Opposition Front Bench, in the expectation that we shall be able to make better progress this Session. For my part, I shall not hesitate to intervene when I consider that Members are abusing the spirit of Question Time. We are at the beginning of a new Session. Let us make some good progress in this area.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FIFTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Hurd.]
  Question again proposed.

  Social Affairs
  Madam Speaker: Before we commence, I have to tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had to restrict Back Bench speeches to 10 minutes.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at the end to add—
  "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech made no reference to developing a partnership between schools, parents, local education authorities, churches and others in the community to raise educational standards, gave no cast-iron guarantee of nursery places for four-year-olds and set no targets to provide places for three-year-olds, offered no proposals to improve access to training, higher education and work, provided no measures to prevent crime and tackle disorder, failed to encourage partnership between the police and local authorities, offered no legislation for a statutory crime prevention duty to be imposed on local authorities, proposed no measures to deal with criminal anti-social neighbours, set out no strategy for tackling youth crime, announced no plans to tackling delays in the Court system, contained no proposals for regulating the private security industry, outlined no new measures to help the victims of crime and sought to reinforce rather than diminish social division by failing to refer proposals on asylum and immigration to a Special Standing Committee of the House."
  In moving the amendment on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, I register my interest as a parent, as a citizen and as an active member of Unison.
  Britain faces the greatest peacetime challenge in our history. We have a choice of the kind of nation, the kind of economy and the kind of society that we wish to become. We have the choice which is faced by other nations across the world in developing knowledge-based economies which offer their people the opportunity of being at the cutting edge of economic and industrial change; of taking on the challenge of new technology; of offering their young people the prospect of jobs; of having a high-wage, high-added-value, high-tech economy. Instead of taking on that challenge, the Government, as spelt out in the Queen's Speech, are aiming for a low-wage, low-tech, low-added-value economy. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the House, which makes it extremely difficult to be heard, especially for Front-Bench spokesmen. I ask the House to come to order.
  Mr. Blunkett: Instead of the opportunity that is offered in other parts of the world, our Government, as exemplified by the Queen's Speech, offer the nation a low-wage, low-tech, low-added-value economy, based on the belief that we can attract investment only if we pay our people less than people are paid in other developed countries and offer them a less substantial investment in their public services; and especially in the way that we equip people for taking work and taking on the challenge of enterprise and innovation; in other words, the investment we place in education, training and the prospect of employment.
  As a nation, we face enormous divides, which are reflected in the division that exists between our successes and those of the nations that we compete with in Europe and across the world. France, Germany, Japan and many countries of south-east Asia achieve double the number of successes at GCSE and advanced qualification levels that this country achieves.
  Lacking opportunities, hope and expectation, many young men and women turn away from the education system and from the community in which they live: 70 per cent. of those under 25 who commit crimes have dropped out of the formal education system. They have no prospect of a job and no hope of contributing to the society around them, so they feel undervalued and disregarded. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that the existing divisions are exemplified all too tragically by what happens on our streets, and by the lack of hope in our schools.
  The league tables published this morning show an increasing divide between those succeeding and those failing—a divide which leads one in 10 young men to get no qualification at all at GCSE level, not even a grade G. The number of people who do not get any qualification whatsoever at the age of 16 has risen by 7 per cent. this year. The divide between schools succeeding and schools failing has grown again. There is a twelvefold gap between the top 20 per cent. and the bottom 20 per cent. in our schools. That gap is not seen in the same way anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. David Shaw: Would the hon. Gentleman state unequivocally that he fully supports the decision of the leader of his party not to send his children to Islington schools but to a grant-maintained school—the Oratory school in Kensington—some eight miles away from the terrible Labour-run Islington council's education system?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall answer that question, but I think that it is tragic that, when I am trying to spell out the fact that tens of thousands of children got nothing from the education system this year, and talking about lessening the divide for 7 million children in school, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is interested in scoring a cheap political point at the expense of one child in one school in this capital city. Let me answer his question.
  I have no problem whatsoever about any Catholic parents offering their child the chance of going to a Catholic school—a chance that, under the London Government Act 1963, brought in by the Tories, a child could have taken up at any time over the past 32 years. If the hon. Member for Dover wants to make cheap jibes at the expense of a sensible debate about how to lift standards and achievement in this country, let him do so; but it will be at the expense of his party in the general election.
  464
  I am talking about the major divide that exists in this nation between those succeeding and those failing, which is exemplified by the income that people can earn, and by their prospect of a job. The education that people receive has a direct bearing on their ability to get a job, the amount that they will be paid, and whether they are likely to keep that job.
  For every year in post-16 education, there is a definable 14 to 16 per cent. increase in the amount that one is likely to earn. For those who have no qualifications, the prospect of getting a job is sinking like a stone—the number in work who have no qualifications has sunk from 59 per cent. last year to 55 per cent. this year.
  Let me spell it out in terms of income. Disregarding housing costs, in the past 16 years the bottom 10 per cent. of earners have seen a 17 per cent. drop in their disposable income, while the top 10 per cent. have seen a 62 per cent. increase in theirs.
  The unfairness that exists all around us is exemplified in what is done by the Government and in the emphasis that they are placing in the Queen's Speech on the proposals before us. There is nothing to tackle unemployment, to overcome insecurity or offer people the chance to earn, rather than rely on welfare benefits.
  There are none of the type of changes that we need in training and the development of skills for technology. In fact, because of changes that the Government have introduced, in the past year the number of new starts achieved through training and enterprise councils for young people with special needs has dropped—in some TECs by as much as 50 per cent. On average, it is a 10 per cent. drop.
  The successful are getting more successful, and the vulnerable and those in need are being disregarded by the Conservative party's measures. It is a tragic explanation of the difference between that party and ours and of the opportunity that we seek to offer, compared with the denial that people face in their everyday lives, day in and day out.
  Nothing could better exemplify the difference than the Prime Minister's decision to double the assisted places scheme, so that 60,000 children can "escape"—the word used by the Deputy Prime Minister—from the inadequacy of inner-city schools. In disregarding the interests of 7 million children and being prepared to divert £220 million of public money to 60,000 children, the Government have shown exactly why we were right to say that we would invest in lowering class sizes and ensuring that no child between the age of five and seven is taught in a class of more than 30, so that they can have a chance of learning those basic skills—to read, write and add up—that are the birthright of every child and which offer them the real opportunity of succeeding.
  Instead, what do we have before us? The hint of the Prime Minister's promise on 12 September in Birmingham that all schools would have to face being forced into grant-maintained status.
  Mr. James Pawsey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened to his rhetoric with some interest, but will he now say exactly what are his policies and those of the Labour party, and how he intends to fund them?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have become used to the Conservative party treating us as the Government and itself as the

  465
  Opposition, but I was under the misapprehension that we were debating the Queen's Speech, which was drawn up by the Cabinet, not the shadow Cabinet.
  I should be happy to spell out our policies, and I will do so in a few moments, but first I will talk about the Queen's Speech, which I should have thought Conservative Members would have been proud to debate. If the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), the chairman of the all-party Select Committee on Education and a long-standing Conservative, is anything to go by, however, the policies of the present Secretary of State for Education and Employment do not meet his desire, or that of many other Conservative Members, for a change in education policy.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman explain, as he is moving the amendment tabled by the Official Opposition on the motion on the Queen's Speech, why such a large number of his own Back-Benchers are so dissatisfied that they have tabled an amendment of their own? An amendment has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Why do those Labour Members have to table a separate amendment?
  Mr. Blunkett: May I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker? Is the term "prat" unparliamentary? [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I would not recommend it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a very wide vocabulary, and he can do rather better than that.
  Mr. Blunkett: Let me answer the question in this way. Anyone who could put that question in the way that the hon. Gentleman did has no intention of debating the Queen's Speech, which his right hon. Friends have put together and moved. If a Government can suggest that the main priority for education, training and employment is to open up divisions that have already damaged the education of so many children by returning to grant-maintained status, by emphasising that the Government want to take away parental rights by denying parents in schools throughout the country the opportunity to vote on the status of their school, it is no wonder that Conservative Members are keen to get off the debate.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: No: I shall make a little progress, and then I will happily give way.
  Grant-maintained status, what might be described as GM, or "Gillian's misery", has no relevance whatever to the needs of children throughout the country. To suggest, as the Government are doing, that they should take away the right of Church schools to be able to determine, through the normal mechanisms, through the decision of parents, their status and their future is a disgrace.
  Let me remind Conservative Members what was said on 19 April last year. I shall quote, as I think it is important:
  "We have constantly emphasised the centrality of parental choice in our education reforms. It is built in to the legislation governing the arrangements for grant-maintained status and there must be no further legislation this Parliament. Parents decide. Governors and parents may initiate. But it is the body of parents who ultimately must decide."
  466
  That was said 18 months ago by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten).
  I never thought that I would see the day when the present Secretary of State outstripped her predecessor in right-wing ideology, but here we have a Government who are consulting—well, they use the term "consult"—on the suggestion that 4,000 voluntary aided schools should be forced to become grant-maintained; on whether parents should be denied the right to decide whether they should become grant-maintained or whether rights that they already have should be taken away.
  It is no wonder that the Anglican Church has condemned it and that the Catholic Church has described it as discriminatory and divisive, because that is precisely what it is. It discriminates. It divides. It undermines the education service and the partnership we applaud between Churches and local education authorities, among all schools, working together in the interests of their children and their community.
  Mr. John Carlisle: What would the hon. Gentleman say to my constituents, who are voting with their feet and are applying to Icknield high school, a grant-maintained school in my constituency, in such enormous numbers that its waiting list keeps rising each year? That school has achieved excellent results as a grant-maintained school in the league tables that were published this morning. Would the hon. Gentleman deny them the right, to which he so proudly commits from the Opposition Benches, to go to that particular school?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must have missed the point. We are not denying anyone rights; it is Conservative Members who propose to deny parents the right to choose, and Churches the right to operate in the system that they already have. As in "Alice in Wonderland", the word "choice" means what the Government say it means. It means "no choice": it means removing rights and diversity.
  It is clear from what the Prime Minister said in Birmingham on 12 September that he and his Secretary of State are completely at loggerheads about how to proceed.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: If there were as much activity in the hon. Gentleman's brain as there is in his legs, we should make much more progress.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: In a moment. I want to make some progress first.
  The Queen's Speech contains a proposal to allow grant-maintained schools to borrow against their assets. Well, only against some of their assets: they cannot borrow against core activities, or—according to the Prime Minister—against the playing fields that he has frequently appealed to them not to sell. Nor can they borrow against their major activity in delivering a service: they cannot borrow against more than 5 per cent. of their total assets.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, not now. I will in a few moments.

  467
  The proposal appears to be that the breach in the previous definition of the public sector borrowing requirement is to amount to a grant-maintained school's borrowing against the price of the front gates. That is about the measure of it. Let me make it clear, however, that by changing the rules and presenting their new proposals, the Government open up all sorts of possibilities.
  I am not talking about the possibility of dividing the education system, so that some schools are given opportunities that are denied to others, and some are given resources to invest in repair and maintenance—to restore a roof and stop leaks, for instance—while others must put up with the inadequacy of the borrowing permission from the Secretary of State. Instead, all schools could be united, with the possibility of a public-private finance initiative that would enable us to overcome the problem of the £4 billion—at a conservative estimate—repair and maintenance bill facing our schools.
  I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State, on Second Reading, how the new rules will apply, and how the Treasury's "finger in the dyke" has been pulled out in terms of the definition of the PSBR.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) first.
  Mr. Cohen: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to a reduction in class sizes to a maximum of 30 for five to seven-year-olds, but I for one fear that it may not be sufficient. Many schoolchildren may not have the basic skills defined as necessary by my hon. Friend by the time they are seven. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, if he becomes Secretary of State for Education in a Labour Government, he will not close his mind to the possibility of limiting class sizes to 30 higher up the scale as well?
  Mr. Blunkett: God forbid that I should have a closed mind on the improvement of standards, and the provision for all children of the opportunities available to those who buy private education for themselves and their children. In last week's report, the chief inspector said, choosing his words carefully, that class size alone—he used the word "alone"—would not determine the quality of education. Who could possibly disagree with that?
  However, class size clearly makes an enormous difference to the time that can be allocated to a child with special needs, or with access to particular opportunities; it makes excellence available to each individual in the classroom. We shall do our utmost as part of our commitment to standards and opportunities to offer the many what has previously been available only to the few.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman says that Labour opposes the sale of school playing fields for development. Will he support my strong opposition to Ealing Labour council's strenuous efforts to sell the playing fields of Dormers Wells high school for housing development? Will he support my efforts to stop that council, because my Government are giving me good support?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has the cheek of the devil. His Government have been pressing local authorities to sell their land and property to raise capital
  468
  receipts. The notes to the Gracious Speech on the issue of grant-maintained schools show that the Government are so keen on grant-maintained schools that they will allow them to keep 100 per cent. of the receipts from the sale of land, property and playing fields, whereas local authorities can use only 50 per cent. of such proceeds.
  If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to ensure that the people of Ealing are protected from his Government, he should approach the Secretary of State for the Environment and persuade him to ensure that Ealing gets sufficient allocation under the borrowing permission to ensure that it would not have to sell land and property in the borough.
  The centrepiece of the Government's proposals on education, training and employment are the nursery voucher proposals which were floated by the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference in autumn last year. He said that the delivery of the places through the voucher scheme would be "a cast-iron commitment".
  On 2 November this year, when the Department for Education and Employment issued its consultative guidance notes on the delivery of the voucher scheme and the pilot project, it said that it could not give a cast-iron guarantee to provide places under the system for four-year-olds. Therefore, while the Prime Minister guarantees it, the Secretary of State denies it. But that is not surprising, because she is on record as saying that she thinks the scheme would be "unwieldy" and "a dead weight", and that it was not the appropriate way to proceed with the delivery of the promise on nursery places.
  Who could have invented such a scheme? Some £545 million of existing local authority resources which are already providing places for four-year-olds are to be recycled at public expense under an expensive administrative procedure. It will be delivered through a piece of paper called a voucher that will provide £1,100 by way of a promissory note for a part-time nursery place, which in a nursery class costs an average of £1,300 to £1,500 and in a nursery school an average of £1,600 to £1,800.
  Who could have invented a scheme that spends £11 million on the administration simply of circulating the vouchers, of clawing back the money? Who could possibly have invented a scheme that takes from those who already have, recycles it theoretically to places that do not have provision, provides no capital resources for the provision of facilities, invests no money in training teachers or nursery nurses, and results in recycling the money from those who are providing to those who cannot provide because they do not have the places? That subsidises only those who have the places because they are buying them with their own resources in the private sector.
  The only people who could possibly gain from such a scheme are those who can afford to pay for places and are already paying. They will now receive a subsidy of £1,100, while everyone else will pay through the nose for the most convoluted administrative nightmare, which was invented not to deliver places for four-year-olds but to satisfy the right-wing ideologues who dreamed up the scheme in the first place. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, in the little villages of

  469
  Staffordshire, people regard this not as right-wing ideology, but as a practical way of getting nursery school education in small villages? The system that he is advocating could not work in rural areas.
  Mr. Blunkett: With all due respect, it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman knows as much about the operation of the provision of nursery education as he knows about parliamentary procedure, as exemplified in "The Final Cut".
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman calls one hon. Member a prat. He makes an insult to me. Is it not in order that, just occasionally, he should give an answer?
  Madam Speaker: All hon. Members are responsible for their comments in this House. I cannot put words into their mouths. It might be a good thing if I could sometimes.
  Mr. Blunkett: Fortunately, the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) does not get three bites of the cherry, as he advises Members can in the television programme.
  This is a tawdry little scheme. The pilot project alone will cost £5 million, operating in just four local authorities—£5 million that could have bought 4,000 part-time nursery places. The final scheme will cost £11 million to administer, which could have bought 8,500 part-time nursery places across the country, ensuring that children who are already getting nursery places are not threatened; that three-year-olds who are currently threatened by the scheme can continue to get them; and that special needs children are not denied the support they deserve because they receive no extra funding through the voucher scheme.
  I am prepared not simply to criticise an administrative nonsense, not simply to say that the Opposition would provide an entitlement so that we would set targets for all three as well as four-year-olds to have a nursery place, whose parents wished it, but to offer the Secretary of State a way out. I would like to offer her this afternoon the opportunity to sit down with me, with the Pre-School Learning Alliance, with the private sector and with local education authorities up and down the country to work out a way, within the amount of money that the Government have declared they are prepared to allocate, of offering in the next two years a method of delivering a nursery place to every four-year-old.
  I offer her the opportunity, without the voucher scheme, without capita management having to take up public expenditure that could go on nursery places, without the problems that she knows exist in the present proposals, to ensure that every child of four gets the opportunity that she and the Prime Minister have offered them and that we are totally committed to providing.
  I will guarantee the co-operation of every Labour education authority in this country in planning the delivery of those places and in ensuring that those resources are put directly into nursery schooling, and that every parent is guaranteed that basic entitlement. I ask the Secretary of State this afternoon to take up that opportunity.
  Mr. Fabricant: What about the rural areas?
  Mr. Blunkett: All the Secretary of State's Back Benchers can do is shout, "What about rural areas?" The proposal that I have just made, the guarantee that we are giving, and the entitlement that we are offering to all parents, stand for rural areas just as they do for urban areas.
  Mr. Fabricant: How will the hon. Gentleman pay for that?
  Mr. Blunkett: It will, of course, be funded. We will fund it not only with the money that already exists in the system, but with the money that the Government have laid on the table.
  We will do so not simply with the £150 million that is directly available but with all the administrative costs— the additional £20 million-plus that is available to operate and supervise the scheme. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, who is still burbling away, does not believe that that money can deliver the promise to all four-year-olds, how does he think the voucher system, using the same money—in fact, less than I am proposing—would be able to offer that cast-iron guarantee? Either he cannot add up, he is being mischievous or he is just very stupid.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman thinks that private education has a useful role to play. He has just given a commitment on behalf of the Labour party. Will he ensure that, under his new funding proposals, people will be able to cash his form of voucher at private nursery schools?
  Mr. Blunkett: Nobody will have to cash anything except their entitlement to a free nursery place. It is as simple as that. There is money on the table. We are told that a paper promise will deliver the same pledge. We are told that it can be delivered without the money that will be spent on the administration of the scheme. If we would have £20 million more available through my proposal, presumably it will be accepted that there is £20 million more to ensure that the guarantee can be met.
  The entitlement is absolute, but the availability of places can be guaranteed only by planning the facilities and by ensuring that there is a crash programme to train the teachers and nursery nurses. Without that, the paper promise that will be delivered through the door of every family with a four-year-old child just before a potential general election would not be worth the paper it was written on. That is the truth. I am calling the Secretary of State's bluff—either one believes that the scheme can work, in which case the places can be delivered, or one does not. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not give way again.
  Let us be clear about it. The entire sorry little package of measures in the Queen's Speech—which includes the off-balance-sheet student loans provision, which does nothing for access or opening up new opportunities and nothing to deal with the crisis that exists for students now with the Student Loans Company Ltd., which we will be debating next Monday—does nothing to address the future needs of our country or our education, training and employment systems.

  471
  This is a tired, worn-out and washed-up Government. They are a spent force, who ran out of steam a long time ago. They are a rudderless ship drifting starboard. The man in charge is issuing orders from the safe distance of the Admiralty, while the first mate expands his cabin as the decks are awash with the seas of fate. Captain Pugwash, blind-eyed and missing the signals from the port side, sails blissfully on into the rocks of Blair Point.
  This time, the clouds will not clear, and the sun will not come out for the Tory party. The Telegraph will not signal victory, because the British people are crying out for a change. They are crying out for social cohesion, social justice and co-operation in our education system. They want to lift standards by offering opportunities for all our people. They want a world worth living in.
  A Labour Government would offer everyone in Britain optimism and hope for the future, and that is why we condemn these tawdry little suggestions in the Queen's Speech. That is why the people of Britain will embrace our real promises and pledges for the future.
  4.9 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I welcome the chance to present to the House the Government's proposals for education legislation in the forthcoming Session. The proposals are consistent with the themes of all our education reforms of the past 16 years— competitiveness, standards, choice, diversity and encouraging aspirations.
  I feel that I must comment on the extraordinary contribution from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He presented an analysis that was steadfast in its ignorance of the facts. This year, the league tables show an overall improvement in all schools' performance, and the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that 39 per cent. of schools have managed to reduce the number of pupils leaving school with no GCSEs—an important task for all.
  The hon. Gentleman managed to ignore the fact of inward investment—90,000 jobs provided over the last year because of our flexible labour market and our well-trained work force. He managed to ignore the continued rise in standards in education and training. I had hoped to be able to say something complimentary about the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour, but I am afraid that he blew that in the last few minutes of his speech: he lurched from ships to Captain Pugwash to other things which, fortunately, there was too much noise for the rest of us to hear.
  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrated yet again that the Labour party continues to set its face against diversity, choice and aspiration. It believes in choice, of course, but only for some occupants of the Labour Front Bench.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Given that parents make choices for their children and that it is not always the fault of the children which schools the parents choose, is the Secretary of State aware that, out of 24 members of the shadow Cabinet, 18 were educated in grammar schools, in the private sector or in independent schools? Does she agree that the Labour party wishes to deny that choice to today's children?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted that their parents were able to exercise the choice that the Labour party wants to remove from other people.
  The hon. Member for Brightside should realise that, at this stage, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out in the context of consultation on the future of voluntary-aided schools. Unlike the Opposition, we are consulting the Churches. I believe that the Opposition did not do so before producing their so-called White Paper in the summer.
  We believe in considering seriously how best to extend the benefits of self-government in schools to all children, and we are doing that now. Sadly, in his whole speech, the hon. Gentleman did not answer one question, and he seemed to admit that he has not the merest clue about how to set about providing nursery education. I will help him—that seemed to be the invitation he offered to me— and I am happy to sit down with him any time to explain how a successful nursery vouchers scheme will work.
  For the hon. Gentleman's information, much the largest part of the £20 million that he mentioned is for inspection, not administration. We believe in quality, even if the Labour party does not.
  Mr. George Stevenson: In view of the statements that the Secretary of State has just made about nursery vouchers and the concern that has been expressed by Conservative Back Benchers, will she advise us how many additional nursery places in Staffordshire the voucher system will create—in particular in Stoke-on-Trent?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman should have given me notice of that question, because I do not know how many places exist at the moment. In due course, however, parents in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire will have the right for their four-year-olds to have three terms of good-quality nursery education.
  What did we hear from the hon. Member for Brightside? It was not a very good speech, I am afraid. Socialism still clings to him despite the best efforts of his leader to have him hide the fact. As The Sunday Times said, the jury is still out. After today's showing, I fear that that must be so.
  Recently, of course, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have announced some new initiatives. I believe that they announced some new initiatives on youth training measures. It seems that there is a split in the shadow Cabinet on the matter—nevertheless, an attempt was made. We have heard something from the Labour party about associate teachers and something about an aim for nursery education—no proposals, just an aim, but never mind. We have heard about tough inspection and technology on every school's curriculum. The only problem is that the Government have done them all. Of course the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would not have noticed. Why? Where were they at the time? They were in the No Lobby, voting against excellence, standards, choice and diversity.
  It takes some cheek for Labour Members, in their house magazine the Daily Mirror, to wring their hands about the tiny percentage of failing schools and poor examination results. The Labour party would not even know about those things were it not for the Government's reforms, all of which the Labour party opposed. All the measures to raise standards and promote excellence were opposed by Labour.
  Dr. Tony Wright: In relation to what the Government have done, will the Secretary of State confirm what I took to be a whiff of retreat in her earlier remarks on the opt-out of voluntary-aided schools? Will she confirm that in fact the Government are retreating on the fast-track route and, if so, why? Will she also tell us why she thought about that in the first place when parents are under-represented now in voluntary-aided schools? Instead of decreasing their representation, why should she consider depriving them of their right even to vote on the future of their schools?
  Mrs. Shephard: How the Labour party has converted to parental choice; how the Labour party hated it when we introduced grant-maintained schools; and how it loves parental choice now. Is it not wonderful to see so many people converted to our cause?
  As for the consultation on voluntary-aided schools, we have suggested seven options for those interested in them and the 4,000 relevant bodies to consider. The consultation is not complete; until it is, nothing is ruled in and nothing ruled out.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: On the question of who has been converted to what, will the Secretary of State explain why Cheshire county council refused to adopt the nursery voucher pilot scheme? Is that not odd for a Conservative-controlled authority? Perhaps the truth is that Cheshire county council was right and the scheme was daft from the outset.
  Mrs. Shephard: I think that Cheshire county council will come to regret its decision, whichever party controls it. It is depriving parents of four-year-olds in Cheshire of nursery education—the scheme could have been in place by April next year.
  I was referring to the attitude of Labour Members. When we discussed the national curriculum, testing and inspection, where were they? In the No Lobby. When we discussed grant-maintained schools, technology colleges and improvements to teacher training, where were they? In the No Lobby. When we discussed the guarantee of training for young people and training programmes for the unemployed, where were they? In the No Lobby.
  Where are many of the schools that are failing our children and denying them a decent education? They are in Labour-controlled authorities where years of socialist claptrap have allowed slipshod teaching to deny children the right to a decent education. They are in Hackney, where even a pupil-teacher ratio of 1:8 could not improve Hackney Downs school. They are in Lambeth, where secondary schools are so bad that Ofsted has to inspect every one. They are in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Bradford, the local authorities whose schools have more unauthorised absences than any others in England. They are in Islington, which has just come absolutely bottom in the table of GCSE results—the worst results of any local education authority anywhere in England.
  Talking of conversions, no wonder the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is using Conservative policies to send his own child outside that rotten borough. Yet he and it would deny parents without his level of income the right to send their children to schools of their choice. What a shame. That is Labour in office. That is its ambition. Although, of course, we heard nothing about Labour's plans from the hon. Member for Brightside, what Labour wants to do for Britain, it has done for Islington.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is it not a fact that the Government pledged money for teachers which was not forthcoming? On the assumption that it will be forthcoming next year to pay teachers the increase which is their proper due, will the right hon. Lady assure me that, despite the arcane matters of revenue support grants, area cost adjustments, and so on, she has cleared the way for that money to be paid after adjudication, and that there will be no undue rocks or difficulties in the legislative process?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman—it is surprising from him—has forgotten the existence of the independent review body that looks at teachers' salaries. As for the overall financial settlement, he will have to possess his soul in patience until next week like the rest of us.
  The contrast between the record of Labour Members and our record of consistent reform could hardly be more marked. As I said, for the past 16 years, four themes have underpinned our reforms: competitiveness, standards, choice and encouraging aspiration. In the Gracious Speech, we announced a number of measures to extend those themes. First, we announced the introduction of vouchers for nursery education, through which we shall deliver our commitment to increase the number of pre-school places for four-year-olds.
  Good-quality nursery education benefits children's academic, personal and social development. That is why we are planning for every four-year-old to have access to it.
  Mr. Blunkett: Why, then, is the Secretary of State on record as saying that the nursery voucher scheme was not "the favoured option", and that she was against it?
  Mrs. Shephard: Either the hon. Gentleman's memory of what I said or his memory of the press cutting from which he took what I said is faulty. I actually said that any scheme must be easily practicable; it must not be unwieldy. It must deliver the goods. The nursery voucher scheme answers all those points, and we shall be able to demonstrate that as the first phase comes into play.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: If the Secretary of State is so concerned to deliver good-quality nursery education to all four-year-olds, why is she not doing the sensible thing and putting additional moneys into training teachers and additional capital into providing facilities so that children can be taught in an appropriate environment?
  Mrs. Shephard: That was an authentic Islington voice, I believe. We want to put choice into the hands of parents—the kind of parent I am sure that the hon. Lady is. We do not want the choice to be made by institutions. Training is one of the issues on which we are consulting. We have had a large number of responses and we shall be making an announcement in due course. It is true that training is important—so is the range of qualifications that will equip people who will be delivering that nursery education to four-year-olds.
  Every parent of a four-year-old child, regardless of his or her circumstances, will be entitled to a voucher which will be exchanged for three terms of good-quality nursery education at a recognised establishment of his or her own choosing. The purchasing power will be in the hands of parents, and there will be real meaning to the notion of choice. Parents will be able to decide between the state, the private and the voluntary sectors as they judge best

  475
  and the voucher will give parents the wherewithal to demand the kind of places that will suit their needs. Choice in the hands of parents will also act as a stimulus in the state, the private and the voluntary sectors. However, the initiative is about education and not about child care.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: What advice can the Secretary of State give me to pass on to parents in my constituency, some of whom have children who are three and who are in nursery schools because we have a Labour-controlled council that is enlightened and tries to encourage and expand the whole nursery education system in the county? It looks as if those parents will be deprived of this opportunity, especially in areas in which there is social deprivation and in which children really benefit by being in nursery schools at the age of three. What advice should I give those parents?
  Mrs. Shephard: I do not entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's question. The initiative is starting with four-year-olds. Some £185 million of new money, additional to what local education authorities already provide, will be provided. If local education authorities so wish, that additional money will enable them to enhance the three-year-olds provision that some of them may already have chosen to put in place. Given that, they will have extra resources.
  Ms Joan Walley: Given the concern that has already been expressed about nursery school education in Staffordshire, how will the right hon. Lady's proposals ensure that parents throughout Staffordshire get access to the nursery places that they want? We do not have them at the moment on the scale that is needed, either in Stoke-on-Trent or in the rural areas. How does the right hon. Lady propose to have a level playing field and how will there be fairness? She knows, from the delegation of Staffordshire Members of Parliament, that we are at least £300 per child per year worse off than people in the south of the country.
  Mrs. Shephard: That is another RSG question, part of which will be answered next week. It is a thousand pities that the Staffordshire LEA did not choose to take part in the pilot scheme. If it had, four-year-olds in the hon. Lady's LEA would have had the benefit that my four-year-olds in Norfolk will have as early as next April.
  We shall put in place a quality assurance regime to which all establishments wishing to exchange vouchers will be subjected. They will all have to work towards the same learning outcomes and they will all be inspected on the basis of a single inspection framework which will combine rigour with the minimum of bureaucracy.
  Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the calculation of the standard spending assessments will mean, for example, that Solihull will lose 90 per cent., because the scheme covers only four-year-olds? According to my calculations, there are at least 42 local education authorities that will suffer in the same way but that already provide excellent nursery education.
  Mrs. Shephard: Indeed, Solihull is providing good nursery education, some of which I have seen, as my hon. Friend knows. I know that he understands that the scheme is a new way in which to provide nursery education. It puts the consumer and the parent, rather than the
  476
  institution, at the heart of the system. No LEA will be worse off if it continues to attract the same number of children of nursery age. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we should put the interests of children and their parents—their choice—before institutional interests.
  The guiding principle of the initiative will be good-quality education and value for money. Rightly, it will be for the Government to ensure quality and standards; for the providers, maintained, voluntary or private, to respond; and for the parents to choose.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State said in reply to a question that all parents of four-year-olds would be able to have three terms of good nursery education. How, for £1,100, could someone purchase or a local authority provide three terms of good nursery education? Clearly, it costs £2,500 to £3,500 to provide proper nursery education at the moment.
  Mrs. Shephard: The figure has been calculated according to the average of costs across local education authorities, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that matter. [Interruption.] I shall now make some progress.
  I shall now talk about grant-maintained schools, because choice is valued by parents. We know, of course, that the hon. Member for Brightside does not take that view, because a year ago to the day he said:
  "I am having no truck with middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area".
  I cannot imagine whom he could have had in mind.
  Of course the hon. Gentleman's strictures have been disregarded—by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and by his hon. Friends the Members for Peckham (Ms Harman), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Neath (Mr. Hain), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Barking (Ms Hodge), to name but a few. But that is the hon. Gentleman's problem, not ours.
  Mr. Blunkett: I ask the Secretary of State to say now why she named my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). What heinous crime has he committed in sending his child to the local school?
  Mrs. Shephard: I understand that the hon. Member for Walton exercised a choice in favour of a school with elements of selection, and selection has been condemned by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. If that is wrong, of course I am happy to withdraw my remarks.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I hope that the Secretary of State will withdraw her remarks, because, as has been made clear to no less a person than the Prime Minister, all my children have gone to local authority schools within the city of Liverpool. I exercised a choice so far as one was available within the confines of the system for selecting a secondary school for my son, who goes to a local authority comprehensive.
  Mrs. Shephard: Those are two things that the hon. Gentleman and I have in common: we both believe in choice and we both sent our children to local education authority schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have already said that I would certainly withdraw any accusation that made the hon. Gentleman feel uncomfortable.

  477
  We believe in new measures to help the development of grant-maintained schools, because we think that self-government puts power into the hands of those directly involved with the school—heads, governors and parents—and releases energy, enthusiasm and commitment. The control and management of resources, including a school's land and buildings, are crucial aspects of self-government.
  That is why we are introducing legislation to allow grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially. That will give them a greater say in their own development and more opportunities for managing their capital assets. The proposals are practical and the required legislation is straightforward, so grant-maintained schools may be able to borrow on the open market as early as summer 1996. They have already demonstrated their ability to manage their budgets effectively and it is right that they should have the option to borrow, as do other self-governing institutions such as colleges and universities.
  The borrowing will mean that more capital projects can be funded in more grant-maintained schools, and enable work to start promptly on projects that might have had to wait for traditional grant. It will also make it easier for schools to finance deals under the private finance initiative.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Secretary of State ensure that her colleagues who run other Departments, such as the Department of Health, contribute the necessary funding for special schools—for speech therapists, for example? For eight weeks the special unit in my constituency has been a speech therapist short for four-year-old children with receptive hearing difficulties. Such a loss is detrimental for a child, especially as the educational cover is for three years only. Co-operation between Government Departments is needed to ensure the efficient use of educational facilities, especially where children are already statemented.
  Mrs. Shephard: I agree that there should be the correct co-operation at ground level, and I am sorry to hear that that is not happening in the hon. Gentleman's area. I shall take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—but obviously encouragement needs to be applied at local level. I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that.
  The same theme of choice underlies our proposals for student loans. The student loans Bill will widen choice; we want to bring in the benefits of private finance and expertise. Adding choice, diversity and competition to the system cannot but benefit its users.
  Mr. Michael Lord: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way before she moves off the subject of higher education. She recently said that it costs no more to teach a bad lesson than it does to teach a good lesson, and many people would agree with that. Although many Departments want more money, what matters in education is how the money is spent and how teachers perform in front of classes. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will never remove the A-level and that the standard of that examination will be kept as high as possible?
  Mrs. Shephard: I began by explaining that our overwhelming concern has been with standards, from
  478
  nursery education—hence the £20 million devoted to inspection of the system—through to the excellence of A-levels, which we certainly have no intention of getting rid of. We are giving close attention to quality in both the further and the higher education sectors, and my hon. Friend has raised a very important point in that context.
  Students will be able to choose between a private sector loan and one from the Student Loans Company, and also between the various institutions involved. The private sector will provide a convenient and comprehensive service through the lenders' branch networks, and students will get a product tailored to their needs. The private sector, of course, will be part of a twin-track system. The Student Loans Company will still be there as a publicly funded body providing public loans for those who want or need them.
  The company will be part of a twin-track, and not a two-tier, system. Similar preferential loan terms will continue to be funded on both tracks by the taxpayer. Interest rates will be limited to no more than the retail prices index, and students will still be able to defer repayments if their income is less than 85 per cent. of average earnings. Student loans are here to stay. One in three of our young people now gets a university education, compared with only one in eight in 1979. But the loans system has a cost which the taxpayer cannot meet alone, and it is right that students—who, after all, will benefit the most in their future lives—should pay their share through loans. It is also right that personal lending at this level is best done largely by private sector firms. It is, after all, their business.
  I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. The reforms proposed in the Gracious Speech build on what has been achieved. We have a national curriculum, against which the achievements of pupils can be assessed. We publish examination results, and inspection reports are now available to parents. Of course, these reports identify failures as well as successes—that is what they are for. But we can raise standards only if we know what is happening and we can identify which schools and which teachers are succeeding and which are failing.
  We set up the Teacher Training Agency to ensure that teachers get even better. Only yesterday we were commended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the measures that we have put in place to improve failing schools and to identify poor teachers. We have promoted excellence by allowing schools to develop specialisms, and by the introduction of technology colleges and language colleges.
  The hon. Member for Brightside has tried to make something of what sees as deficiencies in the training systems; but the greatest benefit that any of us can give to our young people is to raise standards across the board in education and in training. Standards are rising now in what used to be Britain's Achilles' heel—craft training. Youth training delivers good-quality training and is meeting the needs of industry. Eighty per cent. of YT trainees go straight into jobs or further learning, while 73 per cent. get a qualification or a credit towards one. Four thousand young people are investing in their own future through modern apprenticeships. The prime purpose of education and training is to equip people for the workplace. We have invested heavily in education and training, and the dividend from that investment is being paid out in terms of jobs.
  Mr. Connarty: The Secretary of State has not mentioned special needs training, a subject to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred. The problem with special needs training is that, because its funding method is output-based, children and young people who have difficulty in achieving that first output are seen as a burden because there is not enough money put in at the beginning of their training. In Scotland, many people are pulling out of their training course because they cannot make it wash its face. Are there any plans to improve the funding method so that special needs training is delivered to young people?
  Mrs. Shephard: I hear cries from my left from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who deals with these matters in Scotland, that that is not true. I cannot comment on what is going on in Scotland. However, I accept that there have been some problems with the new method of funding in training and enterprise councils in England. We are dealing with that because it is an important matter.
  "The most competitive country in Europe today is the UK".
  Those are not my words but the words of Jan Timmer, the president of Philips, the Dutch multinational. That has not come about through accident. For 16 years, the Government have pursued sound macro-economic policies and delivered a supply-side revolution. Above all, we have deregulated the labour market. That is why unemployment in the United Kingdom today is below that in Germany. In France unemployment is 11 per cent. and in Spain, 22 per cent. That is no accident because those two countries have both the social chapter and a statutory national minimum wage, as the Labour party proposes we should have.
  In Britain, 68 per cent. of working age people have a job. That is more than in Germany, France, Italy or Spain and well above the European average of 60 per cent. More jobs are coming on stream. More than 230,000 new vacancies were notified to jobcentres last month alone, the highest number for six years.
  Some of those jobs have been created by long-established UK firms such as Tesco, which has just announced 700 new jobs at nine recycling centres throughout the country. Others have been created by major inward investors who do not seem to share the view of the hon. Member for Brightside. Siemens is bringing 1,800 jobs from Germany to north Tyneside. Fujitsu is bringing 500 jobs from Japan to County Durham. Chung Hwa is bringing 3,000 jobs from Taiwan to Lanarkshire. Those firms are free to locate anywhere in Europe, but they have chosen Britain because, in the words of the chairman of BMW's executive board,
  "structural change has made Britain by far the most attractive place to invest in Europe."
  While the Government have been putting into place these reforms and pursuing our aims of choice, diversity, excellence and standards, where have the Opposition been? They have been slouching through the No Lobby, where no doubt they will be again tomorrow night, opposing yet again the choice, diversity and excellence which enhance opportunities for individuals and the competitiveness of our nation and which the Government will continue to pursue.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
  Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I remind the House that there will now be a 10-minute limit on speeches.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: This debate combines education and Home Office affairs. While I intend to concentrate my remarks on Home Office matters, may I say initially that we all recognise from our postbags that a serious education crisis is facing this country. Parents, teachers, governors and pupils are showing their deep dissatisfaction with the education system. I very much regret that the Secretary of State again chose to denigrate Bradford. Is it any surprise that many of the young people in our district who face long-term unemployment, who come from families in which no one has been employed for years and who face serious urban deprivation get little satisfaction or reward from our education system?
  I would have been grateful if the Secretary of State had given a clear assurance today that the next teachers' pay award will be fully funded by central Government. In Bradford, the fact that this year's pay award was not funded has resulted in our losing a substantial number of teachers. The failure of the Government year on year to give us enough capital allocation has meant that we have not been able to renovate the many old and crumbling schools in Bradford or replace the hundreds of temporary classrooms, many of which the Secretary of State saw when she visited Bradford some time ago.
  I will be willing to heed the siren voices who tell us that large class sizes are not linked to education standards when schools such as Eton and Harrow tolerate for their pupils classes of more than 30. When they do that, other parents will be willing to accept large class sizes.
  I am glad that the Home Secretary is in his place this afternoon. Will he tell us in his reply to the debate when he intends to take decisions on the transfer of Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien to prisons in Northern Ireland? He is well aware of the compelling case for their urgent transfer on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I hope very much that he will be able to say, either later this evening or very soon, when he will take a decision on their case.
  The House is well aware that the prisoner issue is of great concern to both nationalist and loyalist communities in Ireland. Sadly, the Home Secretary seems to regard movement on such matters as a reward rather than something which could play a key and central part in building confidence and support for the Irish peace process. Therefore, I hope that he will take early decisions not only on the transfer of prisoners to prisons in Northern Ireland but on the repatriation of Irish prisoners to the Republic of Ireland now that the convention has been ratified and implemented.
  It is clear that, in being asked to accept the proposals on asylum and immigration, we are being asked to approve a definite move towards building a fortress Europe and a situation in which not only do we maintain frontier controls but we build more and more repressive and suppressive internal controls.
  The Home Secretary yesterday rightly said that we should adhere to the 1951 convention on refugees and that we should be concerned about those who seek asylum

  481
  because they fear persecution if they are returned to their home countries. We must also be concerned about economic migration, which is an enormous challenge, and will be for the world well into the next century. I was interested to see that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warned all of us in her recent report:
  "We live in a sophisticated world, but we are responding in a patchy and short-sighted way to problems of conflict and displacement".
  She warned that at present UNHCR was looking after some 27 million refugees around the world.
  I should have dearly liked the proposed legislation to reform what is widely recognised as an extremely restrictive immigration regime in Britain. For instance, I should have liked the primary purpose rule to be abolished. I should have liked to see the definition of public funds, the receipt of which would prohibit certain people from entering this country. I certainly should have liked to see family credit removed from the list of such public funds. Lastly, I should have liked to see the abolition of the so-called probationary year, which requires those who are allowed to enter this country legally to live with their spouse for at least a year before they become entitled to permanent settlement here.
  I shall now deal with the benefit regulations that are being considered by the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Home Secretary yesterday told us that Nigeria was not going to be on the white list; we were all glad to know that. He was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, that only one Nigerian had been granted asylum here this year. I was told yesterday in an answer to a parliamentary question by the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office that that figure had doubled, and that two Nigerians were given asylum in this country in the first 10 months of this year and that a further three have been granted exceptional leave to remain.
  I am extremely concerned to be told in another reply from the same Minister that—even though Nigeria has been suspended from the Commonwealth and is widely regarded as having committed serious and gross human rights violations—any Nigerian national who comes to Britain, applies for asylum, has an application refused and appeals to a special adjudicator will not be able to seek benefit during the period between the refusal of the application and the outcome of the appeal. That will also apply, if the regulations are approved and come into force in January, to a large number of other asylum seekers and their children.
  I am told that some 4,000 to 5,000 children who are dependants of asylum seekers could, early next year, be left with no income at all. Is the Home Secretary asking the House to approve regulations that will mean that those people have no income at all for what could be a year or more, given the slow pace at which appeals are arranged and heard?
  I move to the proposals that will affect employers who may be found guilty of employing an illegal entrant. As I spent considerable time today talking to the head of the immigration policy unit that is concerned with such matters, I have great reservations about the impact of the regulations. It seems that they will place substantial burdens on reputable employers.
  482
  The regulations will not be much of a problem for firms that have established personnel procedures and armies of personnel officers but for small businesses, they will impose a considerable burden and will certainly create a lot of big loopholes for the disreputable and unscrupulous to exploit. For instance, there is no need for anyone who is being paid less than £57 a week, or £247—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. John Patten: I warmly support the contents of the Queen's Speech in every respect but one. I warmly support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in the excellent programme that she has outlined this afternoon.
  I give equally warm support to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I believe that his tenacity will reap its rewards—and the country will reap its rewards—in future years in more peaceful and secure streets and communities.
  The one piece of the Queen's Speech that I cannot support is the proposals that it contains for divorce law reform, which are currently before another place. They are not party political in their nature. Indeed, it is unusual for any Government to legislate on divorce. In this case, it has been apparently done in response to the Law Commission's recommendations.
  I regard divorce as very sad for everyone involved— for husbands and wives, and for their children, too, if they have families. I am sure that no one goes up the aisle or up the steps of the registry office with anything other than a lilt in their heart and a conviction that it is for life. Sometimes, alas, people subsequently divorce and children suffer from the after-effects. For all those people, one can feel only compassion and an urge to try to help.
  We cannot hide the fact that divorce is one of the major social problems for the United Kingdom. We are the divorce capital of western Europe. I recognise, of course, that divorce is simply part of how we live now. Whatever my personal feelings, I do not seek to make divorce any more difficult than it now is. Indeed, I cannot recall one constituent in the 16 years that I have been in this place writing to me to seek a change in the divorce laws or coming to see me to suggest that divorce should be made easier.
  I am fearful of the effects that any further legislation will have on the number of divorces and thus on the families, children and social fabric of our nation. I note that others are fearful of other things. Some commentators have said that the proposals are an essay in political correctness driven by the Law Commission and put matters of legal process above anything else.
  Other commentators have remarked on the oddness of this Government, of all Governments, having come forward with legislation for which there is no popular demand of any sort. There is no demand for it from the ranks of the Government's supporters in the Conservative party and in the country, and it may thus alienate some of our supporters, while cheering only those who will never vote for us.

  483
  Yet further commentators believe that it is pretty eccentric that a Tory Government should make such legislation the centrepiece of the Queen's Speech in the last Session of Parliament before a general election, because it may well lead us to expend unnecessary ammunition up and down the Tory Benches which should be spent in proper and reasonable parliamentary battle with the Opposition. Friendly fire along the Conservative Benches is always to be decried.
  I am most fearful of the practical effects, on which I rest my case, of the proposed legislation. I do not intend on this or on any other occasion to address the moral implications of stripping the marital contract of all meaning and making it a provisional or probationary contract, save to remind myself of what Antoine de Saint-Exupery wrote in his wartime "Letter to a Hostage". He wrote:
  "Politics are meaningless unless they serve a spiritual truth".
  I think that he was right.
  The simple, practical fact, which is undeniable, is that every time since the second world war that the House has legislated on divorce, there has been an immediate surge in the number of divorces. This is apparently because the message sent out by the new laws has been perceived to be that divorce is meant to be easier and that the state backs marriage less and less. That fact has been brilliantly demonstrated by the principal of St. Anne's college, Oxford, Mrs. Ruth Deech, in a series of masterly surveys of post-war legislative experience. It is an empirical certainty that, if we legislate again, there will be another surge in the number of divorces.
  That certainty will be compounded by the introduction for the first time of true no-fault divorce on demand, which is what the legislation is apparently designed to bring about. In the United States, where no-fault divorce was introduced in 16 states between 1965 and 1985, the number of divorces in those states went up, on average, by 20 per cent. Australia had exactly the same experience when it changed the law to introduce no-fault divorce in 1975, as did New Zealand when similar measures were introduced there in 1980.
  To borrow and adapt a phrase from my right hon. Friend the Governor of Hong Kong, that is the double divorce whammy that I most fear. As far as I can find, there is no stated Government policy to reduce the number of divorces, yet the national interest would certainly be served by that policy, since all the available evidence from social analysts from left to right and back again right across the political spectrum is that in this country children who are brought up in unbroken homes do better at school, commit less crime, enjoy better health and get jobs more easily.
  Among those who carry out the research there is a clear consensus. These are uncomfortable and even harsh-sounding things to say, but they are facts. Uncomfortable they may be, but undeniable facts they are. In these times, however, they are too often judged to be too politically incorrect to be mentioned in polite society. Given that divorce is so easy, those are the real issues against which any divorce reform procedures should be judged.
  It is always wrong to proceed with changes in the legal process, be it in on divorce or anything else, in a social and economic vacuum. Without being set in such a context, the proposals will, alas, help turn us from the
  484
  divorce capital of Europe, which we are now, to the divorce capital of the world. They will also prime a terrible social and moral time bomb, which in my judgment, and without claiming the benefit of hindsight or the ability to foresee the future, will explode somewhere between 2010 and 2020.
  History will judge the proposals to be two things: first, relativism writ large and, secondly, the last and already deeply dated manifestation of the social thinking of the 1960s consensus, as embodied in the Law Commission. By the first decade of the third millennium, there will have to be a new consensus designed to pick up the pieces, which will stress that lifelong marriage is a proper policy for people and Governments of all colours to strive to promote.
  The married family is of central importance to the life of our nation. Just as no hon. Member in this Chamber should ever claim to represent the patriotic party, so it is foolish and wrong for any of us on either side to claim to represent the only party of the family. There are those who hold the married family dear on both sides of the House.
  Our boast as Conservatives that we are a party that is strongly supportive of the family is firmly grounded. I still believe it to be true, but we must judge the legislation on divorce contained in the Queen's Speech against that acid test.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: Following the Nolan report, the House may wish to know that, until we have clarified our rules, I have suspended my relationship with the two teacher associations with which I was involved.
  The Queen's Speech has been an enormous disappointment for many of us. Undoubtedly, it has shown a Government who are not only out of control but out of ideas. The parts of the speech that deal with education show that they are also out of touch. I should have thought that everyone would accept that action to improve the education system is urgently needed. It can be no coincidence that the last of the publications of the national commission on education was entitled "Success Against the Odds".
  I hoped that in the Queen's Speech the Government would find the mechanisms to reduce the odds for all schools. Earlier, the Secretary of State was fond of quoting the chairman of Philips. She would have done better to quote the recent world competitiveness report, which showed that our education system is 35th out of 48. Indeed, she mentioned recent league tables, but she will be aware from the analysis of such tables that we are even a very long way from the targets that the Government set themselves.
  What has been the Government's response? What is in the Queen's Speech? There was certainly not a commitment to boost significantly investment in education and training, which there should have been and to which the Liberal Democrats are committed. Instead, we have a series of gimmicks and, amazingly, their sole purpose seems to be to draw attention to the areas in which the Government have been least successful in their education policies.
  The three Bills proposed in the Queen's Speech fail to tackle the real issues. In one way or another, each is significantly flawed and will disappoint not only parents, teachers and governors, but everyone who wants our

  485
  country to succeed in the increasingly global market and who believes that, if we are to do so, it will be only by investing in the skills, training and education of the people.
  It is also clear that the Government are rushing in all three Bills. For example, they are proposing legislation on student loans while they are still in the early stages of consultation about their proposals. What is more, in their consultation document, they suggest a number of different propositions. They are not even clear about the direction in which they intend to go. It is fairly clear that they have not thought through their proposals.
  The House may wish to know that the consultation on the proposals for allowing grant-maintained schools to borrow money against their assets ended only yesterday. Clearly, the Government are rushing in again. So often, in recent years, they have rushed in with legislation and have had to make significant changes even while it is going through its various stages.
  The third proposed Bill concerns nursery vouchers. When the Secretary of State made her statement, we were promised that the proposals that would eventually come before the House would be based on the outcome of extensive trials. As the House is well aware, only four local education authorities throughout the entire land have sufficient confidence in the proposals even to be prepared to be involved in the trials. Yet again, there is a real possibility that failed, ill-thought-out legislation will come before the House.
  The three education proposals in the Queen's Speech are rushed and gimmicky legislation, which will fail to address the real issues that face the nation and every education service. As the House is well aware, the former Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, advocated the introduction of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds more than 22 years ago. Yet 22 years later, we are getting nursery voucher proposals from the Government. I happen to agree with Baroness Thatcher that nursery education for all three and four-year-olds is what this country needs—especially parents who want that for their children. I also agree with her that it makes not only sound educational but sound economic sense.
  To fulfil the dream that Baroness Thatcher and the Liberal Democrats have, we need a properly funded system that will truly provide high-quality early-years education for all three and four-year-olds. The Government are offering a scheme that is both bureaucratic and cumbersome and will do absolutely nothing for three-year-olds. Indeed, it could harm the existing provision for them. The scheme will not in any way expand provision, as no extra money is being made available within it for the development of much-needed new premises or to train the necessary additional teachers and ancillary staff.
  In effect, the scheme is a total con trick. Amazingly, just before the next general election, people might receive through their letter boxes a voucher with a large sum of money—£1,100—written on it, but immediately after the election, they will find that in many parts of the country there is nowhere to cash it in. It is a con trick.
  The Government are drawing attention to a policy that has failed. The opportunity for schools to opt for grant-maintained status was introduced in 1988. Since then, only one in 24 of our state schools have chosen to opt for
  486
  grant-maintained status, despite the bribes that have been on offer by the Government and the various inducements and pressures that have been put on the governing bodies of our schools.
  The Government are now consulting on yet another set of proposals, including a fast-track idea for Church schools to opt out without parents even being involved in a ballot. So fast track is it that the Government did not even take their own advice on the length of time that they should consult on the issue. They wanted the consultation to take place in a matter of just a few weeks, against their own Department's advice. They have already had to rescind that and agree to extend the period. It was hardly worth doing so, because I suspect that nearly all the responses that the Government received, even from senior officials in Church organisations, have been against that proposal.
  I was interested to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). He told us that there was only one aspect of the Queen's Speech with which he disagreed. I hope that, if it is proposed to have a fast track with no parental ballot on whether Church schools should be grant-maintained, he will vote against that idea, because he has spoken eloquently in the past about the vital importance of parental choice and involvement in making such decisions.
  In the legislation for grant-maintained schools, even if that idea is not added, will be a set of proposals to allow those schools to borrow money against their assets—the buildings, land and so on. What does not seem to have become apparent to the Government is that borrowing money is easy, but paying it back is difficult. I hope that some thought has been given to what will happen to a school that defaults on repayments. Will we see the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State present at the very first repossession of school buildings by a mortgage company? If so, what will be done to ensure the continued education of the pupils in that school?
  I question the set of proposals in relation to the Student Loans Company. The Government propose to transfer the risk partially into the private sector, removing some of it from the public sector borrowing requirement. I have no objection to that in principle, but the problem is that they are transferring a cock-eyed system that does not provide adequate support for students. They are not transferring a system that is equitable and fair. It will not provide secure recovery to the lenders.
  The Government, in their own consultation, describe a default rate of more than 20 per cent. as "catastrophic", yet the default rate on their own scheme is well in excess of that. I cannot see why anybody in the private sector would be interested in taking on the proposal that the Government have on offer. We shall have to wait to see the outcome of the consultation, as we do not yet know the details of the proposal. Sadly, neither do the Government.
  There is no doubt that the Queen's Speech fails to address the real concerns of the nation about education. It fails to offer the desperately needed commitment of increased investment in the education service. It fails, as have the Government's education policies to date, to make any attempt to address the underlying problems that we have in this country; it fails to improve investment in the education service in the way that I have described and to which my party is committed. Because the Queen's Speech fails in so many ways, it does not deserve our support.
  5.14 pm
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: Before I turn my thoughts to the Queen's Speech, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) on his contribution to the debate? Many of the things that he had to say will receive a great deal of support, not only across the Benches but throughout the country. It was courageous of him to say what he did. I thank him for it.
  In a very confident and assertive speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly set out her vision of the way in which education should be going. I agreed totally with her comments about the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the shadow education spokesman—platitudes, no answers. Where on earth, as my right hon. Friend said, have the Opposition been for the past 15 years?
  Perhaps one of the most notable achievements of the Conservative party in government since 1979 has been to bring the Opposition over into the common ground of education that we have sought to establish. That does not mean, of course, that there do not remain differences, but standards, inspection, quality, choice and diversity have been anathema in the past to a large element of the Labour party, at both local and national level.
  Those of us who go back—
  Mr. Edward O'Hara rose—
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: No, I shall not give way.
  Those of us who go back 30 years in local and national government can find many such examples. If any hon. Member wishes to see them, please write to me. I should be only too pleased.
  I shall address my remarks to two elements of the Gracious Speech. The first is nursery vouchers. There is a remarkable consensus on nursery education: on the need for high-quality, universal nursery education wherever possible. Successive reports have been there for all to see. The Select Committee, in two reports—one in 1988, and another that we briefly revisited earlier this year to fit in with the consultation procedure—stated clearly the all-party view that nursery education is a good thing in itself, and that it has education and social benefits that far outweigh the investment required at that stage. It gives tremendous value for money. There is widespread support for it.
  No one, least of all me, would turn his back on new money for nursery education, but as I have said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if new money is to be provided—I accept that it is limited—would it not perhaps be better to think of widening existing provision than to bring in a new scheme against the background of limited money?
  All members of the Select Committee who were privileged to see some of the nursery provision, which we visited during our inquiry, were impressed by its high quality. That in turn impressed on us the need for it to be central in any future provision. We have cast doubts, rightly, on the current system's ability to expand, without reflecting deeply on the need for good quality teaching and premises.
  I say to my right hon. Friend and her colleagues that this is essentially a pilot to see whether the scheme can work, whether it can provide what we all want: an
  488
  extension of nursery education. I ask her to look at it with an open mind; if it does not work, she should have the courage to say so and say that it should not be extended. If it does work, by all means let us have the extra resources to let it expand and develop. A pilot scheme must mean just that, not a commitment to introduce the idea in a blanket form in future regardless of the results that it may show.
  My second point concerns grant-maintained schools. We could debate the merits and constitutional, institutional and education implications of grant-maintained status until the wee small hours, but I want to concentrate on a specific aspect.
  The Secretary of State spoke of self-government for schools. I have yet to meet a head teacher or governor who would wish to return to the old days when the local education authority reigned supreme. The 85 per cent. delegation that we have today gives massive self-governance to schools, which are using it to expand provision, and enjoying more freedom and a greater say in their own affairs. Parents and other co-opted members of governing bodies are becoming involved in a way that was not possible before the introduction of local management of schools. The urge to go further is there, but I counsel caution for a number of reasons.
  At present, an average of 12 per cent. of core services is retained by the LEAs; there is a minimum delegation of 85 per cent. I call this the "15 per cent. issue". What would happen if we created a system tomorrow under which all schools were grant-maintained and all the money was dished out? What freedom would that confer? Let me give some rather interesting figures relating to 1995–96. They apply specifically to primary schools, because I believe that we should be thinking particularly of them.
  Primary school spending amounts to approximately £7,000 million. Local authorities' essential costs are approximately £850 million. Expenditure required by the Department for Education and Employment for such purposes as dealing with special needs, advisory inspections and delivery of the national curriculum—many of those requirements are statutory—is estimated at £350 million. The amount that might theoretically be transferred to schools is approximately £500 million.
  Additional costs, however, would fall on the Funding Agency for Schools. In the case of primary schools, that would amount to about £100 million. The net amount would be some £400 million. If we divide that among 21,000 primary schools, we arrive at a figure of between £15,000 and £20,000 per school. That will not cover the employment costs of one teacher. Each school would also have to find, from its budget, the money for all the essential services that are currently provided by local education authorities.
  If we are to provide freedom, let it be a genuine freedom; but I detect no enthusiasm for the idea of going much beyond where we are now. The debate has moved on since 1988. We have achieved most of what we set out to achieve. As we speak, LEAs are adapting to the new arrangements and trying to find a better way of working with schools to provide the quality of education that the country needs. Let us leave aside the other implications. Do we really wish to deprive parents of their right to choose? They are showing, in the way in which they are now conducting ballots—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Jamie Cann: My choice of subject may well clear the Chamber; if it does, I apologise. I want to talk about housing benefit, and the connection between it and homelessness. I intend to use the example of Ipswich—which I consider fairly representative of middle England—to illustrate the problem caused by those two factors, which I am sure other hon. Members experience in their constituencies.
  Of the 42,000 households in Ipswich, 17,000 are tenancies—private, housing association or local authority. Currently, 11,000 of those 17,000 households are receiving housing benefit at one level or another. Ipswich is not a "loose" authority; the Government have recognised its good showing in housing management and the management of benefit. It is also a fairly normal area, and I therefore believe that the figures I shall give are representative of the general position, and give us all cause for concern.
  From the time of the first world war until 1979, local authorities—and, increasingly, housing associations— were empowered to provide ordinary people with reasonably priced housing for rent, with the help of Government subsidies. In 1979, however, the Government decided that the subsidy should not finance the provision of buildings, but should be used to the benefit of those living in them—hence the term "housing benefit". The thinking behind that decision was that local authorities were warping the housing market, and that, if the housing market was freed by subsidies for ordinary people, the private sector would move in and build more properties for rent.
  Fifteen years on—given all the disquiet that has been expressed by the Department of Social Security, and by many of us, about the mounting level of housing benefit payments—I feel that it is time to look at the matter again. That seems appropriate, as the Queen's Speech contains a proposal to deal with homelessness, and we can expect more from the Secretary of State for Social Security on the subject of housing benefit.
  Between 1980 and 1993, the average earnings of a male manual worker in Ipswich have risen 2.47 times in cash terms. Council rents have risen 4.35 times, housing benefit to cover those rents has risen 6.91 times, and rent allowances for the private sector have risen 11.04 times. In other words, rent allowances have risen by five times as much as earnings under the present Government. Rents in Ipswich—a relatively low-paid area—are now £34 a week, on average, for a council house, £55 for a housing association property and at least £60 in the private sector. The burden of rental charges for all properties has risen much more than the average manual wage.
  The Government have incurred a cost as well, however. Between 1989–90 and 1995–96, housing benefit payments in Ipswich have risen from £9.9 million to £23 million: they are now 2.3 times as high. The number of people receiving housing benefit has risen from 7,500 to 11,250. Because of rent levels, the popularity of housing association properties among people on the housing waiting list has plummeted. A council house costs £34 a week, while a housing association property costs £55 a week.
  When I entered local government a long time ago in 1973, housing association properties were much more popular than council properties, but the reverse is now
  490
  the case. Housing departments are finding it increasingly difficult to get people to accept housing association properties because of the rents. That must cause concern, because it ties in with the issue of homelessness. People who become homeless and draw income support are the only people who can afford to rent housing association properties.
  We are building new ghettoes of people who depend on benefit, and that is the second element of the problem. People who can afford to live in housing association properties find it increasingly difficult to get a job and pay their own rent. I shall give an example.
  I know a man—when hon. Members hear about him, they may not like him—who lives in private rented accommodation. He is not in a housing association property, but the figures are near enough. He has worked out that, to come off income support and lose all his housing benefit, council tax benefit, prescription charges and so on, he would have to earn £260 a week. But no one could get a job in his trade in Ipswich that would pay that amount. That man is forced to stay in that property, and the Government are forced to pay out a fortune to fund the family.
  That man should be able to earn his own living, and that is precisely what he would do if he were given the opportunity. His situation is a direct result of the Government's policy of producing benefit for people rather than producing houses at reasonable rents so that people can move around and move in and out of the benefits system.
  The policy was designed to produce more private sector rented homes, but it has not done that. Of course a few more privately owned homes are available for rent, but essentially, they are being provided by people who cannot sell their homes because of negative equity, have moved to find jobs elsewhere and are renting out their properties. The explosion that was expected 15 years ago in the provision of privately owned property at reasonable rents has not happened.
  There is pressure on Government budgets. Housing benefit amounted to £7.9 billion last year, and it is climbing. There is also pressure on allocations, because fewer and fewer family houses are becoming available for rent, as a result of the right-to-buy scheme. People say, as I am afraid some Conservative Members are starting to say, that it is all the fault of 16-year-old girls who get themselves pregnant so that they can get a council house or a housing association property. That is the stereotype—weak authorities giving in to little girls who get themselves pregnant for a home—but it is not true.
  In Ipswich, 973 people presented themselves as homeless last year, and 89 of them were housed by the local authority, 92 were housed by housing associations and 102 are in temporary accommodation. That means that 690 people were not housed. Approximately a quarter of those people were housed, and three quarters were turned away. They were not little girls turning up at the council offices with a baby; they were people whose homes have been repossessed, or women who have been let down by men who have moved away and about whom the CSA has been completely unable to do anything, because they have no income and they are divorced and float about.
  There is such pressure on the allocation of properties that the Government must be careful in talking through their proposals on housing, because they are in danger of

  491
  pointing the finger at a hell of a lot of decent people that the system and Government housing policy are letting down. Let us not make scapegoats of homeless people. Let us re-evaluate housing and do a proper job.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills: I am concerned about aspects of the education Bill, and I may not have time to refer to other topics that have been mentioned in the debate.
  Grant-maintained schools are good, provided we follow through what the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said to me earlier and on other occasions about parental choice. There is a balloting procedure for that. I am not against the parts of the Bill that will allow grant-maintained schools to borrow money, but to consider going further—the Church schools in my constituency are concerned that we are considering doing that—and forcing parents and others to move to grant-maintained status would be a denial of their freedom of choice.
  We have gone far enough with grant-maintained or grant-aided schools. The local management system has been brilliant. In Solihull, of which I represent half, while the urban half is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), it has worked extremely well. To force schools into grant-maintained status would be wrong. I have one grant-maintained school in my constituency. Every other major school has held a ballot and has decided not to go grant-maintained. How can I justify to my constituents any measure that would force them to move further in that direction?
  I hope that there will be a definitive answer about Church schools, because my constituency contains several Church of England and Catholic schools, which provide excellent education. Metaphorically speaking, there are queues for places outside some of them. It is difficult to see why any demand management or market management should require any change in status for schools that are doing extremely well and are working hard, not only to be efficient but to develop sources of income apart from the LEA. They are doing that very well. I always present the prizes at the raffles. Perhaps raffles do not raise that much money, but they show the ability and willingness of the schools to raise money for themselves.
  In the context of market demand, I should now like to deal with nursery education in Solihull. The Secretary of State agreed with me when I said in an intervention that Solihull provides excellent nursery education. She has seen it for herself, and I assure her that what she saw is an example of the nursery education that is provided throughout Solihull. I have had many letters and petitions, and I have been overwhelmed by the number of chairmen of governors, governors and parents who have come to my advice bureaux over the past couple of months. Other people with burning questions and problems have almost had to wait while I dealt with those delegations.
  Bluntly, they were all concerned about why we should have a socialist, bureaucratic, central system of nursery vouchers dictated by the state, when individual local education authorities already have a good system. Why should a Conservative Government force a system upon LEAs? Why can there not be an opt-out, a "those who are not doing the right job" type of system?
  492
  Ministers shake their heads in disagreement. I shall read out a few concerns that are being expressed by my local education authority, which is one of the few Conservative-controlled authorities in the west Midlands.
  We are not talking about a Labour authority, just to please my colleagues on the Opposition Benches. These are Conservatives, and I share their views and have been convinced. Their concern is that an increasing number of parents are being affected by the funding method, as it is
  "principally by a deduction of existing Under 5's SSA using a methodology whereby only the current providers of education for 4 year olds"—
  including Solihull—
  "lose resources."
  I hope that the Minister will take the trouble to respond to that. I repeat: the deduction of the under-five SSA and the methodology mean the current providers of education for four-year-olds lose resources. The letter continues:
  "in Solihull, the deduction rate proportionally far exceeds the amount of SSA allocated for the Service. The effect of the methodology is that current low providers of Under 5's education actually retain their SSA, whilst their area receives a second injection of Under 5's funding, because the parents in their area also receive the £1,100 vouchers. Many LEAs retain 50–76% of Under 5's SSA while Solihull loses 90%."
  We have run a computer programme that shows that about 42 local education authorities and boroughs have a similar problem. I have talked to Ministers. I have two letters from the Under-Secretary of State for Schools. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who tells me I am wrong. My own people, including the chairman of the education committee, who is here today, have told me that they are not wrong. Yet again, Solihull is suffering.
  There is an additional problem. Earlier this year, I questioned the Secretary of State for the Environment about the settlement of council tax SSAs. He admitted that the calculation of SSAs on education for Solihull was unfair, so I reiterate that it is a blunt tool to use a national scheme on a local education authority that is providing good education.
  Why are a Conservative Government forcing an excellent Conservative-controlled local authority, which is doing a good job, which parents, teachers and governors want, to accept such a scheme? I cannot support the education legislation. I will do everything possible to oppose it, both in the House and outside. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can see that colleagues like that thought.
  Unless there is real explanation and some form of dispensation for councils such as Solihull, I cannot accept—unless the Government give me a complete answer—that such a scheme should apply, even if they say, as the Under-Secretary of State for Schools said to me earlier today, that it depends on one parent opting out of a four-year-old scheme and on all the arguments that I have in great detail on paper. Why on earth have we introduced a scheme that affects councils that are already doing a good job? Why not leave them to continue to do the job that they have been doing?
  As a colleague, probably from the Opposition, said, the difficulties created by the Child Support Agency do not decrease. I put a marker down that I shall be writing again to the Secretary of State for Social Security to say that I will not accept the operation of the system and the blunt nature of this centrist, socialist doctrine.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills)—not in a political sense, I hasten to add, but in the sense that he has at least listened to his constituents and to his local authority. I agree with his comments about the Child Support Agency, which is a nightmare for many hon. Members. Many surgeries are full of cases where, clearly, the amounts charged are excessive and exorbitant. When one tries to engage in correspondence with the CSA, one is lucky if one receives a reply. If one does receive one, it misses the point. The agency is obstructive and rude, and does not manage in the interests of the children involved.
  Often, there are children in the second marriage too, and the CSA forgets all about those. Of course it is not meant to take the new wife's income into account, but it does. Every rule we create in this House gets broken. Many Conservative Members would agree that the time has come for the whole system to be overhauled. It is a classic example of legislating in haste and repenting at length. Many people suffer as a result of our mistakes in the House, and I blame myself among everyone else when I say that.
  I hope that the example of the hon. Member for Meriden will be taken on board by the Home Secretary when he deals with the various Bills in the Queen's Speech. I intend briefly to deal with them. Disclosure is of considerable importance. I declare an interest at this stage as a practising barrister who has both prosecuted and defended, and therefore it is a subject that is well known to me.
  The problem with disclosure is that, sadly, there has been a wish to hide and to secrete away matters that could be of great value sometimes even to the prosecution, if they landed in the hands of the prosecuting lawyers, as well as often to the defence. Whether one is prosecuting or defending, there is nothing worse than having a long and detailed trial that collapses because something is suddenly disclosed. In such cases, there is such a great waste of money. When the legislation is introduced on this subject, I hope that we will consider it with great care.
  The Court of Appeal rulings in ward and others were a guideline to the direction in which we should go, but they were not the definitive answer. I do not want a paper chase developing, with masses of unnecessary paper being copied. There are ways of dealing sensibly with this matter.
  I hope that the House will take time—I make no criticism of any person when I say this—to debate the matters that arose in the Ordtech case and that will arise again in the Scott inquiry. Men went on trial—I do not know who is to blame, or point the finger on anyone at this stage—when documents that could clear them were clearly hidden for reasons of one sort or another.
  I do not lay any blame, because one wonders what the prosecuting counsel and the judge were doing in the Ordtech trial, whether the judge ever saw the documentation, or whether prosecution counsel ever realised its value. Those matters need to be considered. We will have the matter of public interest immunity before the House when Lord justice Scott reports eventually.
  I am extremely worried about the way in which the asylum and immigration legislation has been reported today. Not a single hon. Member wants the illegal immigrant, the guy who breaks the rules, to get in—I do
  494
  not think anyone wants that. That is not and should not be a party political matter, but we must always remember that, from time to time, there are places where events occur, regimes come into power, decisions are made, and people are persecuted because of their ethnic origin, their colour or their creed.
  There has always been persecution. In the early part of this century, the Jewish community in eastern Europe suffered enormous persecution and, before the second world war, this country took in 30,000 to 40,000 of those people. We took in some of the best brains and most skilled people that we have ever required because, often, with the immigrant come skills, brains and investment. We should never lose sight of that.
  In persecuting the few, and I say "persecuting" because some of our procedures involve, on occasions, persecution, not prosecution or investigation—
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bermingham: The Home Secretary shakes his head. With respect, he has not the experience that I have of this legal sector and of cases that I have attended. Cases involving persecution are a minority, but we must have provisions for dealing with them.
  To sweep a broad brush across all those matters, saying, "We will do this," is not always the right way to do things. That is why I ask the Home Secretary, before he rushes into legislation, to listen to the people who know, because hurried legislation is often bad legislation and bad legislation leads to injustice.
  We have a place for and a history of protection, and of taking in the persecuted and oppressed from all over the world. I say that as someone who came into this country at the age of seven. I was not born and bred here: I was born in the Republic of Ireland. I am probably one of the few surviving hon. Members who were born there, but, even in my community, I have seen the division and discrimination. There seem to be some people in this land who do not appreciate the fact that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God—whichever God one follows—and I ask the Home Secretary to look carefully at the proposals.
  I hope that the Home Secretary has had time to read The Times today, particularly the comments of the Lord Chancellor on page 4 about the problems of fixing minimum sentences. I have listened to the arguments in favour of the long brush. The Home Secretary knows my views only too well in respect of mandatory life sentencing and so on.
  There comes a time when we must stand back and look at the division of functions within our society. I make no secret of the fact that my view has always been that Parliament legislates, bureaucracy administers and the courts adjudicate, and there is a clear distinction between the three. Therefore, when we look at these matters later in the year, we should look carefully to ensure that one area does not stray into another—that politicians do not stray into the land of the courts, that judges are left to sentence and review sentences, and that the various agencies such as the Parole Board and others are allowed to fulfil their function in full.
  We must not go for the popular gimmick, the quick decision, because something has happened. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a classic example. It is a disaster, but regrettably it is not be reformed at the moment. If one legislates in a hurry, one repents at length.

  495
  I hope that I have kept within my time as usual. I raised those points because there comes a time when Parliaments must stand back and think. I hope that this will be one Parliament which, in one Session, will think about the matters that I have raised.
  I must make a final cri de coeur from my constituency. The north-west needs investment. We are entitled to European money, and we need Government or other moneys to match it. Would it not be a nice idea if we began to use all the grants and moneys that are available to us to invest in this country and to get Britain working again? We would then solve many of our ills.
  5.52 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: I wish to mention education, asylum and the construction industry. Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich(Mr. Cann), have been locked in Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill for some 60 days, so our presence has not been very noticeable in the Chamber. I am taking this opportunity while the Committee is not sitting to say a few words before returning to deal with that Bill.
  I want to talk about direct grant schools. I am worried by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) who was critical of the push for direct grant schools in his area.
  Mr. Dunn: Grant-maintained.
  Sir Anthony Durant: All right, grant-maintained schools.
  I have experience of Prospect school in Reading, which I have supported. It was in a humble area, mainly council estates, rather than a smart area. That school has now become a city technology college and it is doing extremely well. It has a dynamic head. The Labour party fought the project all the way and behaved extremely badly at all the parents' meetings. My opponent fought the proposals all the way and I am glad that the parents threw my opponent out of the meeting because he behaved so badly.
  Consequently, there is now an excellent school in which the attitude is remarkable. The children are enthusiastic and want it to succeed. They believe in it. The head has raised £500,000 from local businesses and has got them involved in buying equipment, and so on. It is becoming a dynamic school in an area that is not reputed to have high standards in education. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is over-nervous about grant-maintained schools. I believe that they are excellent and I want to see more of them. I support the Government's developments.
  I support vouchers for nursery schools. I have always strongly supported nursery education. It assists the child, it helps single parents and mothers who have to go out to work and it prepares children for full schooling. I have only two nursery schools in my constituency and, therefore, I welcome the idea of vouchers that can be used in private sector schools. There are some good private sector nursery schools where people could put their children if the vouchers existed.
  Berkshire has refused to be part of the experiment and I regret that because, until now, it has been go-ahead on education. I condemn the county for that action—
  496
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) may laugh at Berkshire refusing to take part in the experiment. The Liberal Democrats have powerful influence on Berkshire county council. It is no wonder that he is laughing.
  I want to deal now with the asylum Bill. As a Member of Parliament dealing with individual constituents I am concerned about the time the process takes. If people come into this country and stay here for two or three years while their case is considered, that makes it much more difficult to ask them to leave. They will have set themselves up and become established; they will have found work or be claiming social security; they will have created a home. That means that it is much more difficult to take them away and send them back to their original place. That is why we must speed up the process.
  I am chairman of the all-party construction group, which, funnily enough, meets tomorrow. I am worried about the state of the construction industry, because it is very flat. There is very little growth, particularly in the housing sector where there is very little movement. There are some areas of good news around the country where there is a stimulus, but it is very patchy. The industry needs a stimulus. I am saying this now in the hope that Ministers will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I asked for a stimulus. Although they cannot commit themselves here, they can pass on my information to the Chancellor before the Budget and we might get some help for the construction industry.
  The National Federation of Building Trades Employers said that, unless something happens soon, a further 100,000 people could be laid off in the construction industry. A total of 500,000 have already lost their jobs in the industry and I am concerned about that. I believe that there needs to be a concentration on private sector investment in construction work for the Government. It does not seem to have got going. It is a good idea and it is popular, but nothing seems to be happening. We should press for that.
  I welcome the housing legislation, but I am concerned about some of the homeless aspects. Homelessness is on the increase. There were 1,157 homeless people in Reading last year but that has increased by a further 280 this year. I believe that one of the reasons for that increase is the break-up of marriages, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). I have looked at the reasons for the sudden increase in homelessness and it is a fact that violence in the home and the parting of husbands and wives are creating more homeless people; therefore, I listened with great care to my right hon. Friend. Some homelessness is caused by loss of tenancy or perhaps inability to keep up with the mortgage payments, but mainly the cause is the break-up of marriages.
  There is mention of the Latham report in the Queen's Speech. It is a valuable report and I am pleased that parts of it have been introduced. Michael Latham was a colleague in the House. He produced a useful report on the construction industry. We have started by looking at debt and the payment of subcontractors. I welcome that, because subcontractors suffer from the long delay in obtaining payment from the main contractor. It is a move in the right direction and it will be interesting to see the wording in that Bill.

  497
  I am concerned also about the landfill tax. I hope that it will not be too punitive, because we want recycling. We will not get recycling if there is a punitive landfill tax, because people will dump their stuff anywhere they can. We will go back to cowboys driving around in lorries and dumping rubbish in the streets, and so on. The landfill tax should not be exorbitant.
  In general, I support all the proposals in the Queen's Speech. I shall vote for all of them, but I have reservations on the housing Bill—I would like to see what it actually contains. I hope that Ministers will remind the Chancellor that the construction industry is a big employer of people and it needs some stimulus.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Those of us of a certain age will remember an old popular song called "Three Wheels on my Wagon". I apologise to the House if that is banausic, but nothing is too banausic for the Government. In the song, cowboys are driving their covered wagons and being pursued by Cherokees. They lose wheel after wheel from their wagons and just keep rolling along. That is a good description of the Government, and nowhere is it more apposite than in those sections of the Queen's Speech that deal with education.
  The proposal for the semi-commercialisation of student loans is a cheap conjuring trick—two feats of prestidigitation for the price of one. It would remove a large sum from the public sector borrowing requirement at a stroke, and would give the illusion of commercial success; finance houses, which previously would not have touched the scheme, will buy selectively into it because the interest rates will be subsidised. The important word is "selectively", because commercial organisations would not consider bad risks. It would be like the social fund—students most in need of loans would be ruled out by such commercial organisations.
  The proposals are beside the point and have nothing to do with what is wrong with the student loan scheme, which is already inequitable and the cause of much student hardship. The proposals will not improve the situation.
  I am a member of the Select Committee on Education. After the student loan scheme had been in operation for a year, we looked at a mass of evidence and at the allegations of hardship caused by the scheme. Unusually, the Committee split down the middle. I pay tribute to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton)—we usually manage to produce an agreed report. We could not do that on student loans because Conservative Members thought that the evidence of hardship was merely anecdotal. The Opposition issued a minority statement because, in their view, there was ample evidence of hardship.
  The Government might have taken an interest in the emerging picture of hardship and corrected the shortcomings of the scheme. Instead, they pressed ahead at a dislocational rate with implementation. The scheme does not only cause student hardship; it causes student drop-out and some students do not even embark on higher education, including many from my constituency—for financial reasons and not on educational grounds. The scheme is a denial of opportunity; an impediment to social mobility
  498
  through education; a rationing of higher education opportunity at a time of retrenchment; and a waste of the latent pool of national talent. If the Gracious Speech had promised a thorough review—and an eradication of the shortcomings—of the present operation of the student loan scheme, it would have been more appropriate.
  Grant-maintained schools will be given the ability to borrow against their assets in the commercial market. That is a recipe for asset stripping, and for further inequalities and divisions in education. Those schools that are best endowed with property, in extent or in value, will be able to buy further advantage over those with less. That will widen the divisions of opportunity between schools in areas where property values differ. Even within Knowsley, a relatively poor area, there are vast differences between schools with constricted sites in areas where land values are low and those with relatively large tracts of land with a high value for residential development or retail shopping.
  Schools may choose to sell off land as well as risk it as collateral against loans in the commercial market. What right have they to do that? The schools are only the current trustees of public assets which have been handed over to grant-maintained schools by a stroke of Government legislation. The schools do not have the right to put their assets at risk or out of reach of their successors. There are ample, joint-financing arrangements that can bring private money into education without putting valuable assets at risk, as the proposals suggest.
  The big, unspoken issue concerning grant-maintained schools is the idea floated several times by the Prime Minister—the so-called fast-track route into grant-maintained status for schools in the voluntary sector. That is the most desperate proposal yet to try to breathe life into the failed grant-maintained idea, and it would be a betrayal of both diversity and choice. That proposal would, at a stroke of the pen, eliminate a valued educational option. In my constituency, certain areas have more voluntary schools than county schools.
  The proposal would also artificially inflate one favoured option. It would be a betrayal of choice because parents would be denied any choice in the matter. On the vast majority of occasions when parents have been given a say, they have given a clear thumbs down to the grant-maintained option. The Churches oppose that option. A Roman Catholic bishop in my constituency, when there was an opt-out ballot, went so far as to publish a letter to parents which said that a proposal to try to beggar one's neighbour by obtaining grant-maintained status was contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
  The proposal on nursery vouchers is the most cynical exercise in prestidigitation even by this Government of illusionists. "Never mind the quality, feel the width" might be a good description, but the situation is more serious than that. The Government know it. The scheme will stuff £1,100 promissory notes into the back pockets of recalcitrant Conservative voters in the shire counties, and shamefully, those £1,100 promissory notes will be taken from the budgets of local education authorities such as Knowsley, South.
  Will the scheme provide choice? Will the scheme provide equal opportunities? Will it improve standards? Is the scheme being introduced for the sake of diversity? The answers to those questions are no, no, no and yes. The scheme will not provide choice for parents already exercising the choice of private pre-school provision,

  499
  probably because their LEA does not provide nursery education. The only difference is that those parents will be given £1,100 to pay bills that they are already paying out of their own pockets.
  The scheme will not provide choice for parents in LEAs such as mine with a good record of nursery provision. Their choice of a place in an LEA nursery class will be taken away in many areas. Will the scheme provide equal opportunity? No, again. The £1,100 will not fully fund a nursery place. Some parents will be able to top it up, others who cannot will have to settle for second best and for what £1,100 will buy, especially if the LEA is not able to find funding to top up vouchers.
  Will the scheme mean improved standards? No, again. When the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced the scheme, to give the right hon. Lady credit, the words must have stuck in her throat. She talked of "revisiting standards" and having a "light touch" on inspection. In other words, the nursery vouchers scheme is a cowboys charter. It will produce diversity only of quality, just like all the diversity that the Government have introduced to education in schools in recent years. The truth about the diversity that the nursery voucher scheme will produce is that it will be patchy and divisive.
  Today's news sums up the sad facts about the internal dynamic of the market system that the Government have sedulously introduced into education in recent years. In the league tables published today, the gap between high and low achievers in education is shown to be widening. That will be socially divisive. I look forward to the day when we can finally say that we once had a Conservative Government but the wheel fell off.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. George Walden: The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) made an intelligent and incisive speech; my pair always makes intelligent and incisive speeches.
  This debate takes place against a background of historic events in the past few days—events that will, in one way or another, affect every citizen of the United Kingdom. I am speaking of yesterday's announcement by the Chinese President that he is moving his country decisively towards integration in world trade. It is notable that that announcement was not to be found in any British newspaper yesterday other than the Financial Times, which placed the story on the front page and printed an analysis and an editorial.
  We, of course, were engaged in more important events—our palace intrigues. The Chinese also used to have palace intrigues, with public humiliations and public confessions and all that goes with them, but they decided to put them aside because they were part of a backward phase in their history. In the future, the Chinese will export to us the video equipment on which we shall follow our palace intrigues.
  On education, and as I was talking about backward countries, it is extraordinary—the blame belongs to Conservative and Opposition Members—that we are arguing about a rather spatchcocked scheme to provide a little more partial nursery education to a few more people at the age of four. Although we are supposed to be a pragmatic people, it seems to take an awful long time for us to understand a simple fact about education: that it begins at the beginning.
  500
  A brief on the subject has kindly been provided for me. I was immediately struck by the figures. I understand that nursery education costs money. There were two sets of figures: the first shows that the Liberal Democrats were promising nursery education for all three and four-year-olds at a cost of £900 million, which is a large sum, and the second shows that our scheme will cost £750 million, of which £550 million has already been spent.
  The difference between providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds and the rather spatchcocked scheme that we have is amazingly slight. If the difference is only £150 million, let us cough up the money by taxing child benefit, for example, to provide nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. If we do so, perhaps we will not import quite so many Chinese videos as we seem destined to do.
  One point that concerns me about nursery education as it will be practised in the United Kingdom is that the Conservative party seems to fail to understand the basic philosophical point—it is a dreadful expression to use, but it is the only one that actually fits—that one can have market forces with telephones but that one cannot blindly apply those forces in the cultural sphere, whether it be in broadcasting or education. Culture is a fundamentally different domain, a mistake of category—again, I am sorry for the philosophical phrase. The effects on the ground, however, are not philosophical but they are very simple.
  When there are vouchers in this educationally backward society, people will use them to get out of the state system. They will do so for the very good reason that the state system is often very mediocre and is dominated by the wrong sort of egalitarian thinking. What I fear will happen with nursery vouchers is that the people who are hovering just below the level at which they can afford good-quality, structured private nursery education will spend that money in order to get out of the state system, or to get into a better system—which, by and large, I am sorry to say, tends to be the private sector.
  In the end, there will be a bit more nursery education, but there will also be a growing gap, which characterises this country uniquely in Europe, between the quality of private provision, which, by and large, is pretty good, and the quality of the state provision, which, by and large, is pretty mediocre. We now risk building that split into our education system right at the bottom, and thereby—the hon. Member for Knowsley, South mentioned this point—perhaps even widening it further up. That seems a pretty bleak educational future when other countries are moving geometrically ahead of us, not least in the far east. As the House knows, examination results in Hong Kong are already better than ours.
  As for grant-maintained schools, it seems a little distasteful that we should even be thinking of having education on tick, which is what the borrowing facility in fact means. I can just about accommodate it in my mind because I am very much in favour of grant-maintained schools, but let us not forget that those schools will have to pay back that money. Pace my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, these schools, unlike universities, do not have incomes from which they can legitimately get more funds.
  I am also afraid that some grant-maintained schools will go a little haywire with facilities. They get very excited about facilities—staff showers or anything else—but tend to get a little less excited about whether they are teaching grammar to the required standard.

  501
  Finally, and most important, what worries me most about the Government's education policy is the extension of the assisted places scheme, for which I shall not vote. It is presented to us as a bridge between the state and private sectors. In fact, it will widen the gap between the two. I am amazed that there has been no discussion and, apparently, no rudiments of any thinking about it. It is a one-way bridge.
  People will leave the state sector—many will be middle-class parents, and that is in itself a scandal—to go to the private sector. The scheme is a massive, and now doubled, subsidy to the private sector, which will maintain and even widen the gap, which is unique to this country, between the state and private sectors. It is the driving factor in the overall mediocrity that characterises our system. We shall never have high-quality state education in Britain while the richest and sometimes the brainiest 7 per cent. at the top of society have nothing to do with it and do not give a damn what happens there. Everyone knows that.
  What I should like—I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would agree if they were free from party pressure—is for the £200 million to be put on one side and reserved for private schools that will open their doors to everyone on the basis of selective examination. We might then start to wear down the difference. One of the tragedies of this country is that members of both Front Benches would agree with what I am suggesting but cannot do so, and we all know why—the problem for Labour Front Benchers is selection and, let us face it, for us the problem is self-interest. The notion is, "Those private schools are our schools. That is where we send our children; they are not for you."
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I must declare an interest as a consultant to the National Union of Teachers and to the Association of Educational Psychologists.
  I shall concentrate solely on nursery vouchers, the most deplorable proposal to come before the House in recent times. What I dislike about the system so much is the fact that the Government have never before had any commitment to nursery provision. For years, they ridiculed Labour Members who tried to persuade them that nursery education was important for the development of young children and constantly refused to acknowledge its benefits. In fact, some Ministers—especially ex-Ministers—were hostile to the very concept. Even now, I suspect that some are sceptical about it.
  In 1989, the Select Committee on Education produced a report on education provision for the under-fives. The Government's response was anything but enthusiastic; in fact, it was decidedly lukewarm. The report stated that it should be the objective of central and local government to ensure the steady expansion of nursery education until it is available to all three and four-year-old children whose parents desire it for them.
  Far from taking that advice, the Government merely took the credit for the amount of provision created—credit that should have gone to Labour local education authorities, which had increased provision for nursery
  502
  education. The Government have done nothing to improve provision since; they have depended solely on LEAs to do it—especially Labour LEAs.
  The Prime Minister's conversion on nursery education has nothing to do with the benefits to children: it is due to the fact that he now sees it as an important issue in the attempt to get the Tories re-elected. The benefits of nursery education were clear to everybody in education— especially to parents—and the Prime Minister's party was out on a limb as usual. Now that the Conservatives are looking for votes at the next election, he has capitulated on nursery provision.
  If the Tories had believed that nursery education was important to the needs of children, they would not have introduced this con trick of nursery vouchers. They would have acted sensibly, providing capital expenditure for local authorities to build nursery schools and provide nursery classes, and revenue to run those classes and schools. They have not done so because they are not committed to nursery provision.
  Further evidence of the Conservatives' hostility to nursery education can be seen by looking at where nurseries have been provided over the years. Figures clearly show that children aged three and four are three times more likely to have a placement in a nursery school or class in a Labour-controlled authority than they are in an authority under Conservative control.
  I shall quickly look at what is on offer in this appalling vouchers scheme. For every four-year-old in each local education authority, £1,100 will be top-sliced from the standard spending assessment and handed over to a new quango—surprise, surprise, another new quango. Vouchers worth £1,100 will be sent through the post to parents by using information from child benefit records. Parents may use the voucher for a half-day nursery education or school place or for education provided by a voluntary group.
  An inspection team—not the Office for Standards in Education—has to prove the eligibility of the organisation providing nursery education, but qualified teachers are not necessary. I wonder why. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it is a cheap method of providing nursery education. I leave hon. Members to think about that.
  Some new money will be given by the Government—about £165 million. The scheme will not involve three-year-olds but will involve all four-year-olds, including those at school until the term after their fifth birthday.
  Local education authorities will be reimbursed by an agency—again, surprise, surprise, another agency—which will send the vouchers to parents who will then return them to the LEA. What an absolute mess that will be. At best, it will be cost-neutral to LEAs currently providing nursery education.
  It may be in the short-term interest of LEAs providing little nursery education to volunteer to obtain some new money, but most LEAs will not benefit in the slightest. The scheme is not only flawed but is morally wrong. It can only ruin nursery education in this country.
  The Secretary of State has claimed in the House that provision in the state sector will remain free, but parents will have to top up the value of the voucher should they wish to buy provision in the private or voluntary sector where the cost exceeds £1,100. It remains—to me anyway—unclear who will foot the bill for a child who

  503
  continues in a maintained nursery class or school, or in a reception class in a primary school. What is clear, however, is that £1,100 for each four-year-old will be top-sliced from the local authority's SSA and handed over to a new quango.
  The scheme is nothing but a pre-election bribe. The Tories are banking on people believing that they have been given £1,100 to spend. They hope that, when the voucher arrives through the letter box in the run up to the next election, people will believe that they have won the lottery. It is a con intended to trick parents into thinking that their children have been given a new nursery place when, in many parts of the country, no new places will be created—in fact, existing provision will be threatened.
  Pre-school provision ranges from catering for around 22 per cent. of children in some parts of England and Wales to 97 per cent. in other areas, and there are more than 200 black spots in England where there is little or no nursery education and no provision available. Government plans skate over that. The reality is that local authorities that have invested in good provision will lose out under the scheme, whereas those that have not done so are unlikely to see any change in their provision.
  No capital is being provided to enable the building of nursery schools, and therefore areas that do not have LEA-provided nursery schools will not be able to build any. What good will vouchers be in those areas? I cannot see where places will come from, other than, of course, from the private sector.
  Nursery vouchers will provide a massive handout of public money—to parents who can already afford to send their children to private nurseries, to owners of those private nurseries and to the private company that will run the scheme.
  That company stands to get £20 million of taxpayers' money for administration and—of course—profit. That money could have been used to provide proper nursery education. There is no money in the scheme to allow local authorities to build new nurseries where they are needed, and there is no cash to train new staff or to meet start-up costs.
  This scheme could even result in the reduction of nursery provision in areas such as my local authority, Durham, which has a very good record of provision of nursery places, because every time a voucher is used for a private place the money given to the LEA will be cut by its value. A nursery place costs more than the value of the voucher. If a local authority's funding for nursery education is reduced to the value of the voucher, it will be forced to reduce provision. That is an obvious mathematical conclusion.
  Parents should also remember that the scheme applies only to four-year-olds; there is nothing for three-year-olds, among whom there is some of the greatest need. We must remember that 95 per cent. of children who attend nursery school started going when they were three years old. So there is a real danger that the withdrawal of funding from local government will result in a squeeze in the provision already being made for three-year-olds by many local authorities.
  We are told that £545 million is to be clawed back from local authorities and recycled through vouchers. The Secretary of State has pledged that no four-year-old will lose an existing place. She has not explained how local authorities will top up the cost of each place—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Winston Churchill: I should like to touch on two matters in the limited time available—the first and foremost being the responsibility of parents for the criminal acts of their children. At a time of rapidly increasing juvenile crime—despite misleading official statistics that tend to suggest that the incidence of such crime is reducing, when all our constituents know very well from personal experience that the contrary is the case—and when, for instance, in my Greater Manchester constituency there are only 10 police officers on duty of a night time to cover a population of more than 100,000, it has become urgent to invoke parent power in the battle against juvenile crime.
  In recent years, the Government have introduced a series of measures designed to extend the use of financial penalties against the parents of young offenders. In 1993, for example, parents were required to pay 6 per cent. of fines and 14 per cent. of compensation orders made against juveniles. It has now become urgent to extend that practice far more widely, to make it clear, especially to that irresponsible element of parents who do not match up to their parental responsibilities, that they will be held legally and financially responsible for the acts of vandalism and the criminal activities of their children who are under 18 years of age.
  Only where parents or guardians can demonstrate that they have done their best to exercise such parental control should they be relieved of financial responsibility. In cases where the family in question is on benefit, the time has come for up to 20 per cent. of that benefit to be docked to pay fines and compensation. Only in that way can parent power be invoked in the fight against juvenile crime. Only in that way will parents ensure that they know where little Jimmy is tonight, what he is getting up to and with which friends he may be consorting. Parent power is the last but best hope of deflecting many youngsters from a lifetime of crime.
  A key element must be the removal of the present absurd and outdated concept, which is central to existing legislation relating to juveniles, that children under 14 are presumed incapable of committing a crime unless the contrary is proved. In the face of the steep rise in the number of juveniles responsible for dozens or even hundreds of acts of burglary and theft, and in the face of the horrifying increase in the number of juveniles responsible even for crimes such as rape, that concept must be held to be untenable. The law must be changed, and I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will take urgent steps to change it.
  The second matter I address tonight is the immigration and asylum Bill proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which I broadly welcome in the terms he outlined in the House yesterday. However, there is a central and deeply disturbing point. Given that the cold war ended more than five years ago, it might be thought that, in recent years, the Security Service, for which the Home Secretary has a special responsibility, would have had some spare capacity to deal with the emerging areas of threat, specifically the terrorist threat to Britain's neighbours, allies and fellow democracies.

  505
  How has it come about that a Conservative Government have allowed our immigration and asylum procedures to be so abused that the United Kingdom has now become the acknowledged safe haven for a wide range of terrorist groups from different countries—groups bent on acts of terrorism against our partners, allies and friends? I ask that question because in recent months—
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Churchill: My right hon. and learned Friend shakes his head. I hope that, before our debate concludes tonight, he will explain how representatives of the Kurdish terrorist movement against our NATO ally, Turkey, have been admitted to the United Kingdom and are allowed to remain in this country despite their known involvement with acts of terrorism against Turkey. How is it that the radical—
  Mr. Howard: I assure my hon. Friend that, where we have evidence of terrorist complicity, we exclude people before they enter the country on the ground that their presence is not conducive to the public good. Where we have information, on which we can act in relation to people in this country, about any complicity in terrorist action, we can take action to remove them from this country. The difficulty with the group of people to whom my hon. Friend has referred and whom he has in mind is that there may be many who sympathise with the overseas activities of terrorists, but who do not themselves engage in terrorist action. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between the two groups. Where no information links those people to terrorist activity, we do not act, and I invite my hon. Friend to consider the possibility that it is right that we should not act.
  Mr. Churchill: My right hon. and learned Friend is sufficiently well versed in these matters to know the distinction between those who directly commit acts of terrorism and those who are active sympathisers, fund raisers and godfathers. I suspect that it is, above all, the latter roles that are the problem in this country. I refer not only to those involved on the Kurdish side against our Turkish allies, but to those involved with the radical Palestinian group Hamas, which is violently opposed to the recent moves to normalise relations between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and its Arab neighbours.
  Only this Sunday, The Sunday Telegraph reported:
  "Israeli officials say they have accumulated evidence which proves that orders for terrorist operations are being issued from London by military commanders of Hamas, the group responsible for the recent spate of suicide bombings in Israel and the Gaza Strip.
  The Israelis also claim that Hamas leaders are using London as a base to publish Islamic propaganda and raise funds to support terrorist operations."
  Furthermore, there is evidence that Algerian extremists who have been involved as godfathers in recent terrorist outrages in France are based in this country. That is all deeply disturbing. I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary what MI5 and the Home Office have been up to in allowing those who engage or strongly support such activities to be based in this country.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes some serious allegations. He says that there is evidence. If there is evidence, he should supply it to the authorities. I must tell my hon. Friend, for whom, as he knows, I have great
  506
  respect, that where there is evidence, we act. We recently deported from this country to France someone in respect of whom we had evidence of activity. We have taken action in relation to various Kurds present in this country in respect of whom we had evidence. Where we have evidence, we act. If my hon. Friend or anybody else with whom he is in touch has evidence in respect of people in this country, it should be drawn to the attention of the authorities and action will then be taken.
  Mr. Churchill: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that assurance. As he is well aware, it is obviously difficult to come up with clear-cut evidence in this area. All I ask is that he reinforces the resources available to him closely to scrutinise—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: It takes some doing to outflank the current Home Secretary on the ground of illiberality, but the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has done so. In so doing, he has raised the issue that I wish to pursue—the role of MI5.
  I refer to the part of the Gracious Speech from which will flow a proposal to let loose MI5 on to the streets of this country as a kind of British FBI. That proposal has created a frisson, if not of fear, of definite nervousness throughout the land—from members of all parties in the other place earlier this week, through the nation's chief constables, through the upper reaches of Scotland Yard, through the civil liberties lobby, through the trade union movement and through many sections of the media, by no means confined to the liberal left.
  There are two main reasons for that shiver along the national spine. The first is that the proposal has not been the subject of national debate. It has not been thought through properly and it is driven not by policing priorities, but by the need to find work for the newly idle hands in MI5 in the wake of the collapse of communism and in the wake of the Irish ceasefire.
  The idea is driven, too, by the need to find something to do in the enormous white elephant, the spooks' palace at No. 11 Millbank, with its lavish furnishings, its squash courts, marble staircases and chandeliers, its £25,000 rock face in the trophy room and all the other amenities, none of which are enjoyed by humble police stations all over the country, including that in Davyhulme in which, as we have just been told, there are only 10 policemen available of an evening to police an area with a population of 100,000. Those facilities are not for our undermanned and under-resourced police stations.
  The idle hands of MI5 are one of the reasons for the turn in Government policy, which has not been thought through. There has been no proper definition of the terms "organised crime" and "serious crime", which we are told that the "MI5/British FBI" will fight. No definitions have been laid, either, of the areas in which MI5 will be unleashed, and no structure has been agreed for the "new FBI". No relationship has been charted out between it and, for example, the national criminal intelligence service or the regional crime squads.

  507
  No wonder the chief constables are so uneasy about the development. Indeed, in the newspaper this morning we can read the following in a letter from the respected former chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, Mr. John Alderson:
  "the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, informed us that our secret political police (MI5) would also now be diverted to police duties."
  The writer says that to put such a building block of the
  police state into position
  "in one week must be a record, outside war."
  That is a serious charge.
  Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Galloway: Yes, but I only have a short time, so I hope that the Home Secretary will be brief.
  Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman know the difference between a chief constable and a former chief constable?
  Mr. Galloway: Yes I do, and I also know that the Home Secretary is aware of the anxieties about the proposals not only among serving chief constables but in Scotland Yard itself.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Galloway: The Home Secretary can shake his head as vigorously as he likes, but he knows that in Scotland Yard and in the offices of chief constables all over the country, there is anxiety about the introduction of the political policemen, unaccountable and untransparent, who will be injected into the policing system of this country.
  The second reason for the anxiety is the nature of MI5. It is quite an achievement to have changed the police in the 41 years of my lifetime from a force based on "Dixon of Dock Green" community policing, with public support and familiar faces down on the beat, with officers seeing where the crime was and being where the people were, to a system in which the buggers and burglars of Peter Wright's MI5 will take Dixon of Dock Green's place. Perhaps only the present Home Secretary could achieve that with the degree of arrogance that he is displaying this evening.
  MI5 and dirty tricks have become synonymous in the public mind. MI5 is unaccountable and of dubious loyalty to the democratic process at certain times and in certain sections, with a dubious relationship to the law. In yesterday evening's mesmerising television performance, which struck at the heart of the British establishment, Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales made clear allegations. She said that the tape recording of her conversation with Mr. James Gilbey had definitely been deliberately recorded and released into the public domain with a view to discrediting her.
  Who, anywhere, believes that Britain's security services were not involved in the commissioning and execution of that crime, either directly or by using what they call their "alongsiders", in an attempt to change public opinion about the Princess of Wales? Her Royal Highness also said that the telephone was tapped at the home of Mr. Oliver Hoare, her former friend. She said that that was done by the local police station, but that cannot be true, because local police stations do not tap telephones, do they, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  508
  Does anyone out there believe that MI5 was not involved in the tapping of that telephone, or in commissioning the Royal Marine who on "Kilroy" this morning said that he was deployed to spy on the Princess of Wales's relationship with Mr. James Hewitt?
  Does anyone believe any longer that MI5 was not involved in acts of subversion against the elected Labour Government of the late Harold Wilson? Certainly the subsequent head of MI5 conceded to Harold Wilson in 1975 that sections of MI5 connected with Peter Wright had indeed burgled the offices and homes of the elected Prime Minister of this country, and bugged his telephone conversations and those of his associates.
  Is there anyone out there who still believes that MI5 staff, including its present head, Stella Rimington, were not involved up to their necks in the subversion of the great miners' strike of 1984–85—a legal industrial action taken by hundreds of thousands of workers to defend their jobs? The strike was subverted by provocations and by the placing of agents in the miners union, all of which has been outlined in the brilliant work, "The Enemy Within: MI5, Maxwell and the Scargill affair", by Seumas Milne, the labour editor of The Guardian. [Interruption.] I commend that work to Conservative Members, who should read it before they pour scorn on what I am saying.
  Is there anyone out there who does not believe that MI5 and its present head, Stella Rimington, were involved in trying to break the miners' strike, or that MI5 was not involved with Mr. David Hart, who is now ensconced as an unpaid civil servant in the Ministry of Defence, whence he is subverting British defence and manufacturing interests? Does anyone believe that in those days that adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence was not involved, in his role as a conduit for both American and British intelligence, in the subversion of democratic legal trade union activity in this country?
  I put it to the House that such people—unaccountable and of dubious democratic loyalties—who were at large in MI5 then and, I believe, still are, are not the sort of people who should be introduced into the policing of this country.
  If there is organised crime, and there is, it should be dealt with by the police—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Thank you for inviting me to speak on the Loyal Address, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can say at the outset that I welcome all the contents of the Queen's Speech and shall vote for it. Incidentally, my support is not conditional on the results of an election on Thursday.
  I have fully supported the assisted places scheme both as a Minister and as a Back-Bench Member. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and I both served on the Committee on the legislation that enacted all its provisions. I believe that it is now time to see whether the application of the scheme should be specialised a little further.
  We should consider whether the benefits of the scheme could be extended to children who suffer from disabilities related to hearing or sight, or from other handicaps. Could such children, through the agency of their parents, gain

  509
  access to private schools and foundations dealing with those disabilities in particular, and supplying more specialised and focused education? That would be welcomed by many parents, who would see it as a real opportunity to extend choice at a time when some local authorities are politically hostile to the idea of funding places for local children in schools, and others do not have the necessary resources.
  We have heard a great deal today about training, jobs and education, and I wish to refer to nursery education and the voucher system. But I wish to speak for a moment about the implications for the House and for the country of the social chapter. Many thousands, if not millions, of people outside the House do not really understand what the social chapter is. They see it as something benign that is maligned by the Government, who do not support it.
  It is worth placing it on record that the Government decided in 1992 not to sign up to the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. The reasons why they did not do so were very simple and straightforward. The Government believed that the social chapter would impose heavy labour costs on industry and business, and would therefore contribute to the destruction of jobs for our young people who were leaving school or higher education. But what is the social chapter? I feel that all of us—both Ministers and Back-Bench Members—have a duty to spell out the implications of the social chapter to people who may not understand the practicalities of its proposals.
  First, the social chapter would compel companies to establish works councils. Secondly, it would lift the ban on the closed shop. Thirdly, it would lift the ban on "union labour only" contracts. Fourthly, it would abolish the legal requirement for trade unions to publish their accounts to their members. When it is spelt out in graphic and stark detail, we can see why the Labour party is prepared to sign up to the social chapter.
  Across the European Union, Britain's opt-out is envied. The socialist and former President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, said that, by opting out, Britain had become a "paradise for investment". Recent evidence has supported the Delors claim. Toyota, Xerox and Mazda from Japan have invested here. Two multinational companies from America have relocated jobs in Britain. In Europe itself, Rockwell, the print machinery producers, has moved jobs from Nantes to Preston. Black and Decker, the United States company, closed its plant in Germany in February 1994 and moved to County Durham. Hoover switched production from Dijon to Cambuslang.
  Unlike Labour, the Conservative party opposes a national minimum wage on the ground that it will destroy jobs.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but I cannot find anything in the Queen's Speech that deals with the social chapter. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
  Mr. Dunn: I was speaking about nursery vouchers, and trying to link this subject with the education system. My point is that there is no point at all in having an education system that turns out bright, well-equipped and talented young people if there is a national minimum wage that
  510
  destroys their job opportunities. There is no point at all in having a well-motivated and well-educated unemployed young work force.
  In European countries that have a minimum wage, the rates of unemployment are much higher. In France, one in four of all young people are unemployed as a direct result of that country's minimum wage law. In Spain, unemployment affects nearly a quarter of the entire population, with one in three young people unable to find work because of Spain's minimum wage law. The Labour party would embrace everything that comes from Brussels, including the minimum wage and the social chapter.
  Education has been a special interest of mine for some years, and I should like to emphasise my support for the choice and diversity of opportunity in our communities, and particularly in my constituency. Dartford's grammar schools have once again shown themselves to be committed to excellence, with an outstanding set of A-level and GCSE results. Those schools provide an academic education for pupils, regardless of income and background. Most local authorities are envious of Dartford's range of quality schools, and there is no reason to suppose that we shall not have equally good nursery schools under the voucher system as outlined in the Queen's Speech.
  The Labour party wants to destroy the very qualities that make a good grammar school. If a grammar school cannot choose its pupils by identifying whether they would gain from a highly academic education and if it has its right to interview prospective pupils taken away, that grammar school will become a comprehensive school. Under a Labour Government, Dartford would lose what must be its most precious asset—the grammar schools.
  We heard talk today—from Members on both sides of the House, surprisingly—about grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools have many qualities, and I have nine such schools in Dartford—four grammar schools and five secondary schools. All the schools benefit from their financial and institutional independence, which is why I welcome the opportunity for grant-maintained schools to borrow against their non-core activities for future capital developments.
  Grant-maintained schools also receive their funding directly from the funding agency, which allows them to control 100 per cent. of their resources. With those resources, they can and do employ more teachers and increase spending on books, equipment and resources. In grant-maintained schools, there is no wasteful bureaucracy and no political decision making, which provides better value for money and better education all round. Because of that, I shall be supporting the vote on the Queen's Speech, and I shall continue to support grammar schools in Dartford.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Greg Pope: The education proposals in the Gracious Speech were a disappointment to many people. They disappointed Opposition Members, and they appear to have disappointed many Conservative Members. The hon. Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills), for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) and for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made measured speeches that expressed their disappointment at the education proposals. I am sure that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who will probably be disappointed because the proposals

  511
  are not right-wing enough. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) ignored most of the proposals, but he was perhaps speaking to a wider electorate rather than to Opposition Members.
  One of the disappointments of the Queen's Speech for many people was the lack of any proposals to limit class sizes. In my county of Lancashire, about 40 per cent. of primary-age children are being educated in classes of more than 31 pupils. If the Government believe that class sizes do not matter, why do so many Conservative Members choose to educate their children not in the state sector, but in the private sector, where the ratio of pupils to teacher is much lower?
  John Coe, of the National Association for Primary Education, commented on the fact that the existing protection for children contained in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 could be removed if, as is widely believed, the Government repeal the regulations later this month. Mr. Coe said that it is
  "embarrassing for Government to have a standard and a deadline which many primary schools are unable to meet."
  The only logical conclusion is that, far from responding to parental concerns about class sizes, the Government are paving the way towards allowing class sizes to increase. There is no doubt that the underlying causes behind the rise in the past year have been the cuts in the education budget that were agreed a year ago and the Government's refusal to fund the teachers' pay rise in full.
  Last year, I went to see the then Minister for Schools—now the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment—and he was commendably frank. He simply said that the Treasury agreed a cut and passed the cut on to the Department for Education. The Department passed it on to the local education authorities and it was up to the LEAs to pass it on to schools. That must be a real comfort to governors throughout the country who are finding that the books do not balance in their schools. Not only in my constituency but everywhere else in the United Kingdom, many schools are having to fund teachers' salaries out of their reserves. That is obviously not what the reserves are for, and there is a limit to how long the practice can continue.
  Only yesterday, I went into St. Anne's and St. Joseph's school in my constituency, an excellent primary school. I spoke to the head, Mr. Keegan. He gave me a petition of 700 names, which I sent on to the Secretary of State. It objected to the cuts that the school has had to face in the past year. He also gave me a letter that he had sent to the Secretary of State, in which he said:
  "we are extremely concerned about the prospect of not being able to afford the teaching staff our children need.
  Over the past two years, the Governors of the school have been using reserves to maintain the provision established at the school. This action cannot be repeated as the reserves have been used up.
  I realise that there will be many schools facing far greater difficulties than us and I appeal to you, on their behalf and ours, to do everything in your power to ensure that our children's futures are not adversely affected because of inadequate funding".
  If that was an isolated incident, it could perhaps be dismissed. The blame could perhaps be laid at the door of the local education authority. Yet Conservative Members and Ministers must know from their experience in their constituencies that it is not an isolated experience. It is being repeated in every local education authority and every constituency in the country.
  512
  The words that I have quoted are not the words of some extremist or even a Labour party activist. They are the words of someone who has dedicated his adult life to teaching; someone who cares about what goes on in his school and now finds that he no longer has the tools to do the job to which he has dedicated himself. Even if Ministers ignore what we have to say, I implore them to take notice of what people in the teaching profession are saying.
  I notice that proposals to allow grant-maintained schools to retain all the proceeds from property disposals are included in the Queen's Speech, even though 50 per cent. of those assets are currently returned to the local education authorities for debt redemption. I always thought that the Tories were fairly keen on debt redemption, but obviously they are not that bothered when it comes to doing a favour for their friends in the grant-maintained sector.
  Perhaps more interesting is what is not included in the Queen's Speech, such as the proposal to fast-track voluntary-aided schools to grant-maintained status. The proposal is out for what passes for a consultation process under this Government. Although the consultation period is not yet over, it must be clear even to the set of Ministers on the Front Bench how determinedly hostile the Churches are to such a measure. The proposal is a sign of abject failure. Voluntary-aided schools have had plenty of opportunity in the past few years to opt out. Overwhelmingly, they have chosen not to do so.
  Last year, only 15 voluntary-aided schools even went to a ballot. Of those 15, more than half chose to remain in partnership with their local education authority. In the light of that hostility from the Churches and from schools, the Government are considering the simultaneous opting out of all 4,000 voluntary-aided schools unless the governors operate a veto. Another idea in the consultation paper is to scrap parental ballots.
  Whatever happened to parental choice? I sat through the Committee stage of proceedings on the Education Act 1993, in which Ministers parroted on about parental choice and diversity. We are entitled to ask: where is the choice and diversity in the proposals currently out for consultation? It appears that, if the proposals go ahead, parents of children in voluntary-aided schools will end up with no choice. If the Minister has his way, there will be precious little diversity either.
  Hundreds of thousands of parents like myself have their children educated in voluntary-aided schools. On behalf of those parents, I should like to make an objection. How dare the Government consider altering the status of our children's schools without even bothering to consult us? There is an historical partnership between Church schools and local education authorities. Most Church schools value that partnership and have chosen to keep it. That is what rankles with the Government. They have given parents choice. Parents have exercised it and overwhelmingly rejected grant-maintained status. That is obviously not good enough for the Prime Minister. He wants to make parents do his bidding. I warn the Minister on the Front Bench that, if he forces voluntary-aided schools to opt out without consulting parents, he does so at his peril.
  We now learn that the Government propose to allow grant-maintained schools to sell off surplus school premises. Given the dilapidated nature of most school

  513
  premises, we shall be interested to see how that works. I do not think that there is a huge queue of investors out there eager to snap up the leaky schoolrooms that are the one lasting testament of the Government. The same daft proposals extend to selling off school playing fields. It was once said that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. It is obviously clear that any future battles will not be won on the playing fields of grant-maintained schools, because the fields will have been sold off and turned into Tesco car parks.
  What is astonishing about all this is the sheer poverty of aspiration of the Government when it comes to education. Where is the programme that will give young people the skills that they will need in the next century? It is certainly nowhere to be seen in the Queen's Speech. Instead we have a student loans Bill which aims not to provide proper support for students but to bail out the fiasco of the student loans scheme. We have a nursery vouchers scheme that will not create a single new nursery place, but will create a huge bureaucracy of a kind which the Government have always said that they oppose.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pope: I do not have time; otherwise, I would give way.
  The Government's programme really is thin stuff, even by their standards. Young people deserve better. Sadly, I fear that they will have to wait until after the election.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, through the Queen's Speech, has set out three priority areas: to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe, to step up the fight against crime, and to increase choice in education still further. I strongly support all three of those objectives. I suggest that the success of the first is essential to providing funds for the second and third. Our success in creating an enterprise culture is amply demonstrated by the fall in unemployment and the increase in the number of those in employment.
  The subject of the debate tonight is education and home affairs. Although education will not be the main thrust of my speech, I welcome the proposal to increase the borrowing powers of grant-maintained schools. That is right. I support the nationwide scheme for pre-school nursery vouchers, which has been much criticised by Opposition Members. The scheme will be welcomed in Leicestershire. I know that, in my constituency, schools will be looking to expand under the new system.
  I support the proposal to double the assisted places scheme. I was at the Dixie grammar school on Friday, which to date has been excluded from the old scheme. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider that school and other excellent private schools in my constituency which are anxious to broaden the base of their intake. I shall be writing on their behalf to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  I wish to focus on law and order, and in particular the Criminal Procedures Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Bill. I shall suggest some measures that
  514
  should have been included. The Conservative party has been accused of playing the race card by introducing the Asylum and Immigration Bill. I spent some time at Oxford university looking at policing and public order in a multiracial Britain.
  I wish to refer to that a little later on. First, I want to look back at two landmarks in policing in the past 20 years. The first is the Edmund-Davies report. I remind the House that, under the last Labour Government, through bad pay and neglect, 9,000 men left the police service. That is a stark contrast with what is happening now, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister committing the Conservative Government to creating another 5,000 police.
  It was, of course, the Conservative Government that came into office in 1979 that implemented the Edmund-Davies pay recommendations in full, and stopped the haemorrhaging of the police. Since then, there have been 200 more police officers in Leicestershire.
  My second point concerns the defining moment of the Brixton riots and the Scarman report. It was on the basis of the riots and the report that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bills of 1983 and 1984, which subsequently became the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, were introduced. PACE responded to Scarman's fears about the police becoming detached from the public. Section 106 of that Act provided for the community consultative groups. The huge increase in neighbourhood watch schemes flows directly from that Act. There are 2,500 in Leicestershire, which I welcome.
  In Earl Shilton, for example, in my constituency, the village self-appraisals and village profiling that have taken place as a part of the move towards community policing are both popular and successful. The appointment of a new beat officer in such a village, and its access to a sergeant and six officers from neighbouring Hinckley, and the appointment of an officer specifically responsible for strategy, show that community policing is working well.
  One measure that I hope that Hinckley will benefit from is closed-circuit television. The town is on Watling street, and has Nuneaton across the way and Coventry not far away. I hope that Hinckley will become part of the new closed-circuit television camera scheme, and that that will be extended to Earl Shilton. I am amazed that the Labour group there opposes that proposal. Surveys across the country show the benefits of such a scheme: indeed, it is supported by the local police.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in a memorable speech at Blackpool in October 1993, set out 27 points on law and order that he intended to implement. He deserves to be congratulated as he comes to the Dispatch Box this evening, able to tell the House that he has completed action on those 27 points. I have no time to consider them—unless I had 27 minutes—but I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that soundings among my constituents show that there is a strong feeling, first, that criminals should always be forced to compensate their victims.
  Secondly, prisoners should be made to pay for their keep in prison, where possible. Thirdly—I refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)—we need much greater parental involvement if we are to stop crime. That is all tied up with the breakdown of the family, but parents have to be made liable for the crimes of their children.

  515
  Fourthly, I want identity cards to be brought in. I have no doubt that an identity card with a fingerprint or DNA sample on it would be of huge benefit in identifying criminals, detecting fraud, eliminating under-age drinking and identifying accident victims. It could also contain medical information. In a society that is worried about law and order, we have to bite the bullet and take that measure. I would not object to the Department of Social Security implementing the scheme.
  The Criminal Procedures Bill will assist with the rapid conviction of criminals. I welcome that, and anything that will speed up the justice system, which is a considerable concern. There is a feeling that justice is too slow. It is right that there should be retrials when jury nobbling occurs.
  I referred to research that I did at Oxford in the 1970s into race relations. I am surprised at the stance taken by the Labour party on the asylum and immigration Bill. I have always believed that it is essential that the majority of the population, excluding the ethnic community, understands clearly what is and is not allowed. At the moment, the law is ragged.
  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is in the interests of the ethnic community that the majority communities do not perceive them as made of up of a great flow of immigration—in fact, that is no longer taking place, but that is the perception—and being topped up by illegal immigration, bogus asylum seekers and people on the fiddle. That does not help race relations. The Bill, in the long term, will go a long way towards reassuring all sections of the population.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made his speech on MI5.I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who is not in his place, one of whose constituents has just died from taking ecstasy, would dispute the arguments of the hon. Member for Hillhead. I see no sense in officers of a security agency being unable to act against international drug traffickers. I welcome the moves that have been taken, but—and it is a big "but"—officers must be accountable to the normal process of law. Otherwise, the agency will be discredited and we will not be able to use it for the purpose for which it was created.
  There is one other matter. My constituency will be affected by the housing construction regeneration Bill. Much of the council housing there has been made over to a housing association. That has meant that the capital receipts flowing to the council from housing associations have kept the rents down. Under a proposal of the Conservative administration that has just left office—
  Mr. George Howarth: Did it leave voluntarily?
  Mr. Tredinnick: Sadly, it has left office, but only temporarily.
  The new administration has stopped what we call the trickle transfer scheme. I predict that rent rises will occur in Hinckley next year; they have to. I am worried that the housing associations will be able to sell properties in small villages. The threshold has to be lifted.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I intend to speak about drugs, which were mentioned in the Queen's
  516
  Speech. First, I must say that there is no way that any politician or anyone else could ever say that drugs should be legalised. That is for people other than politicians to say. Let me state clearly that there is no way that I would say that any drugs should be legalised.
  There could be a debate about decriminalising certain light drugs. I heard last week that the Durham constabulary had agreed only to caution teenagers who were found with class A drugs on their persons, provided that they sought help. The problem is trying to find help, because there not many drug centres in the north-east for them to go to. It will be interesting to see how that policy develops under the Durham police force.
  The question of drugs is one of supply. The Queen's Speech gave the Government's position on the supply of drugs. Of course, I welcome anything that will stop such drugs hitting the British mainland.
  Drugs often come from war-torn areas. We have many accounts of drugs being sold to pay for guns, arms and munitions. In the conflict in war-torn Lebanon, there was evidence that arms sales were connected with the drug trade. Even in Bosnia, people sold drugs to get arms. In the case of Turkey and Kurdistan, there was evidence that the Kurdish rebels were selling drugs to get arms. The Colombian drug cartels are now, it is said, linking up with people in Russia. That market is seeping into northern Europe and through to Britain. Even the Italian mafia are into drugs and that is for sure, as everyone will be aware. China is beginning to push drugs hard, and is looking for partners in Europe—criminal partners I might add—to supply drugs. It is a big organisation, and I wish the Government well in trying to stop the supply. There are evil forces about and a lot of money to be made out of drugs, especially in regions of conflict.
  We have to try to stop the flow and to hit demand, if possible. We have to take positive action, even if that means educating kids in schools and the medical profession. There is much that we can do locally to stop the spread of home-grown drugs.
  We have a needle exchange in my area. The idea is that one takes a needle in and brings a needle out. I have this story on good authority—the best authority of the lot because it is from the police, and the Northumberland police get my praise for the way in which they have handled the drug situation. They have done a marvellous job with the resources they have. Two or three weeks ago, they raided a house on a council estate and found heroin, methadone, other drugs and one or two other things, and caught the culprits red-handed. It was a great capture, because it was a supply house.
  Under interrogation—perhaps I should say questioning—the culprit was asked where they had got the 200 new needles that had been found in the house. The reply was, "From the needle exchange." He had gone in with 200 dud, used needles and was given 200 new ones. I suppose that that is new for old, but I cannot for the life of me see why a needle exchange should give someone that many needles. He was under questioning and is a criminal. He might be lying to the police, but that was the information that they gave me.
  The police also told me that methadone is being used in the community, which is more interesting. The police could not understand why there were two dozen bottles of methadone in that house. Under questioning, they found that it is being sold to kids for a pound or two, which is used to buy heroin.

  517
  How are people getting it? It is simple. They put a urine sample in a little bottle and give it to a young lad to take to the local doctors, where he says that he is on heroin and there is the urine sample to prove it. The doctors test it and find heroin in his urine, so they give him methadone. They were also registering with four or five doctors in and around the community. They went to each doctor with a different name to get methadone. At the moment, it is all over the place. A chemist told me that addicts come in all the time.
  I cannot understand what the health authorities are doing. There is an easy answer. The Home Secretary should demand that, when methadone has to be prescribed to heroin addicts, the daily dose is taken there and then in the clinic or on the premises—somewhere where they can take it without being seen, such as a pharmacy or a drugs centre, but it should only be the dose for the day. If they want another dose, they must come back the next day.
  We must stop giving people the whole bottle. That creates a knock-on effect. They are giving it to kids, who take a swallow and that is their introduction to drugs. Cannabis does not even come into the picture any more. It is methadone. I am pleased that we have stopped people buying tablets across the counter, but we must certainly do something about the methadone problem.
  There are also local drugs, which could be anything. We have lost 11 teenagers—young girls and boys—in my area. They died after taking a cocktail of drugs. With the help of local press and television, I have cried out for help but, sadly, the problem is on the increase. In the north-east, the drug problem is getting worse—perhaps because there is no work. Perhaps we need some employment to keep idle hands working. I do not know: it is for others to say, I suppose.
  Before I came here today, I found 17 drugs in my medicine cabinet, which belong to me and my family. All I need to do is to go to Woolworth's and buy one of the little books that I have here, which tells us what drugs are, what they are for and what is in them. All I need is the book, the drugs from the medicine cabinet, a little bit of nous and some knowledge of chemistry.
  All the school kids do chemistry, and nowadays they do not just get the Bunsen burners that we got; it is the real I am today. Any drugs can be crushed up, mixed together with a little bit of rat poison to make people a bit higher, and there we are with a home-made drug. We found that people are making drugs with ordinary tablets that one might find in the medicine chest.
  That has got to be a warning. We often have amnesties, but I hope that the Home Secretary will note the problems, and especially that of methadone, and do something about it.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The whole House will have deeply appreciated the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), which has lifted the tone of the debate. We much appreciate what he had to say about his constituency, much of which is reflected in our constituencies.
  This evening, I must make three constituency points. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the first is not related to the Queen's Speech. There was to
  518
  be a by-election in the Ridgeway ward in my constituency on Thursday, following the resignation of a Liberal councillor. Tragically, this morning, the Liberal candidate, Mr. Norman Simmons, died, so it will not take place. I must inform the House and, through it, my constituents, that we are deeply shocked in the constituency and the Conservative party at the death of Mr. Simmons. We pay tribute to his work for the community. The party, our candidate in the by-election, Major Gerry Harsant, and I will of course be doing no campaigning for a period as a mark of respect for Mr. Simmons.
  The second matter relates to the asylum Bill. Because of the by-election, I have been doing a lot of canvassing in that ward, which, like the rest of the constituency, is blessed with a rich racial mix. Many of my constituents have either family or first-hand experience of persecution and have come to this country as asylum seekers. Many—particularly those from Sri Lanka or Somalia—are worried sick about the fate of their families and friends in those countries. That is especially true of Tamils from Sri Lanka, who are worried sick about their relatives in Jaffna and about what I would regard as the campaign of genocide by the Sri Lankan Government against the Tamil people.
  What comes through to me when I speak to people from all sorts of communities in my constituency is that they want a fair asylum system where bogus asylum seekers do not get in the way and clog up the system, stopping the genuine people coming. I absolutely support the measure proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because I genuinely think that it will help genuine asylum seekers. I am certain that it will be widely welcomed in my constituency.
  My last point relates to the proposed broadcasting Bill and in particular our intention to amend media ownership rules to allow greater cross-holdings among newspapers, television and radio. The question that I wish to pose to the House is: what happens when the press distorts reality, intrudes into private lives or just plain makes up what is happening? I should tell the House that I am not interested in anything that the press has had to say about me; I have never made a complaint and I do not make one now. What confidence can we have in the Press Complaints Commission? If we are to look at cross-media ownership and allow more ownership of television and radio stations by newspapers, can we really rely on the PCC?
  I wish to talk about the experience of a constituent of mine, Mr. David Rudnick, who lives in Harrow on the Hill. He is a freelance journalist and wrote an article for the September 1994 edition of the magazine Euromoney, which is part of the Associated Newspapers group, which includes the Daily Mail. His article, about St. Petersburg, was badly mangled by the sub-editor and was subsequently published with serious errors in it. No one disputes that fact or that anyone reading the article as printed would have to conclude that Mr. Rudnick simply did not know what he was talking about. The original article was factual and correct, but as printed it made him look incompetent.
  Mr. Rudnick asked for an apology to be printed, but Euromoney refused. On 25 October 1994, he sent a detailed letter to the PCC. He explained in his letter that Euromoney, a financial magazine, had seriously mis-edited material that he had written. The changes included, for instance, a geographical area that wrote off as non-existent Russia's sea ports, which made his article

  519
  look a bit silly. The PCC agreed to accept the complaint under article 1 of its code, outlawing inaccuracy by the press. Two months later, it said that it would send the publishers a copy of the complaint to let the editor have the opportunity to settle the matter straight away. The PCC accepted that changes had been made to the copy, resulting in distortions, but rejected Mr. Rudnick's demands for a published apology in the monthly magazine, claiming that the distortions were
  "not significant as to require correction under code"—
  the PCC's code.
  The PCC's spokesman, Mr. Christopher Hayes, told my constituent:
  "The commission does not have a general duty to mediate in disputes between freelance journalists and editors."
  Yet in an article published by the UK Press Gazette, the PCC director, Mr. Mark Bolland, said:
  "I hope freelancers will be in touch with us if they think their copy has been seriously distorted."
  Mr. Rudnick then suggested that it would be fairer to make the magazine issue corrections, which resulted in the PCC agreeing to reconsider the case. However, in April of this year, the PCC shifted its ground and pronounced that his complaint was a contractual dispute, which was beyond its competence.
  In a letter to Mr. Rudnick, dated 19 April 1995, Mr. Bolland informed my constituent that the PCC saw
  "no special reason for it to adjudicate in this case."
  Yet the commission noted that the magazine accepts that the changes made to the copy resulted in some distortion, although it did not accept them as significant as to require correction.
  The PCC plainly has no clarity of understanding of its role. The membership of the PCC makes it a very suspect body indeed. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) once said, there can never really be an independent ombudsman while members of the PCC's jury have a vested interest in "not guilty" verdicts. Rogue editors know that and laugh at it. I absolutely agree.
  While the decision was being made by the PCC, Sir David English, whose company owned Euromoney magazine, was present at the meeting. I accept the word of my right hon. Friend Lord Wakeham when he says that Sir David English took no part in the discussion, but the fact is that he was allowed to be there. How can anyone have any confidence in a decision that is made like that? The commission reconsidered the decision without Sir David English at the meeting, but, surprisingly, reached the same conclusion.
  I think that the PCC needs to be judged on the way in which it treats cases involving ordinary people. The case of my constituent is that of an ordinary person who has been wronged by a magazine. That magazine refused to do anything and the PCC was completely unable or unwilling to do anything to help him. It should be judged on how it treats ordinary people, not necessarily on how it treats the reporting of an heir to the throne. Although I do not dismiss that, I remind the House that, even in the case of His Royal Highness Prince William, the judgment of the PCC did not last beyond the first good photo opportunity that presented itself to the press.
  Here we have a body that is muddled, toothless, self-interested and, worst of all—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I have a lot of sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on the Press Complaints Commission, but my comments today are about my disappointment that the Queen's Speech did not contain any significant policy on families and parenting. I shall come back to the proposed family law Bill in a moment.
  For the past 16 years, to the best of my knowledge, the Conservative party has often made critical remarks about parents: it has accused them of not being capable of looking after their children when they get into trouble, are truanting or whatever. It also complains about the break-up of the family. Whatever one thinks of the Government's policies—in my view, they have hastened some of the collapses in the family—the reality is that there is no family policy in this country.
  The previous Secretary of State for Health took it on herself to be the Government's spokesman for the family. When I took a delegation to see her, from the all-party parenting group, which I chair, we discussed the problem of the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments on family policy. I checked the Government's list of Ministers today, and no Minister is listed as having responsibility for the family. I hope to take another delegation from the all-party group and we shall again discuss that issue. One of the problems is that the Government seem to think that they co-ordinate policy on the family between Departments. Virtually every organisation that works with the family or deals with family matters does not think that the Government co-ordinate policy on the family.
  The biggest single point that came up in the hearings that I organised in the House last year was that there was no co-ordination between Government Departments. I shall give a simple example. It is not in the interests of families when people with children are in short-term accommodation, be it bed-and-breakfast or temporary leasing, yet literally hundreds of children are in that position.
  If we want to improve family relationships and ensure that families do not break down so easily, one issue that must be addressed is housing. We must address the issue of how children are brought up in temporary accommodation. One of the problems is that families who are just coping can be tipped over into disaster if they suddenly face long-term unemployment, loss of earnings or bad housing. If we really want to help families and promote good parenting, we should—among other things—take on the issues of poverty, poor housing and the prospect of unemployment. Those factors can tip a family that is carrying out what could be described as "just about good enough" parenting into bad parenting.
  The Government thought that they had a nice simple answer to the problem of crime. They believed, rather naively, that increasing punishment would cut crime, but of course it does not work that way. Similarly, the Government believed that there was no connection between crime and unemployment. There is—although it has never been the direct connection suggested by some, and many of us have never argued that such a connection exists. It is not true that an unemployed person is more likely to commit crimes; what is true is that members of a family that was just about coping but has been tipped over into crisis by unemployment, low income and all that

  521
  follows from it are more likely to become criminals. The most likely family members are children, which is why no direct link between crime and unemployment shows up in the unemployment figures.
  If the Government are not prepared to adopt the economic policies that I consider necessary, they could at least consider the need for parenting and family education in schools. The issue really relates to "social relationship" skills. The Government are making a fundamental mistake; indeed, I would argue that the Conservative party as a whole is making a fundamental mistake—and a very strange one, in a sense. It assumes that marriage equals family and good parenting, but there is no such connection. The fact that a person is married does not necessarily mean that that person's family is a good, happy family, and it certainly does not mean that he or she is a good parent.
  Common sense tells us that. A child whose parents are married but are deeply unhappy—perhaps fighting over the father's drinking—will experience bad parenting. The couple next door may not be married, but may get on very well together. I know that every hon. Member would choose to live with that couple.
  I emphasise that that does not mean that marriage is unimportant. Marriage is a contract entered into by two people to whom it is important, and if it is important to them it must be important to everyone else. That is why I am happy to support the divorce law Bill, to which I shall return shortly. Marriage is not, however, the answer to the problem of bad parenting and unhappy families.
  This is a strange mistake for the Conservative party to make, given that it claims to object to both social engineering and politically correct thinking. From time to time, the left has gone in for politically correct thinking and social engineering, but I must say that the right wing of the political spectrum does it far better: I have never seen such efficient social engineering and politically correct thinking.
  Apparently, the policy is now to drive people into marriage. Incidentally, no Government should be involved in such matters: the state should not take a view on the way in which people choose to lead their personal lives. If we are to embark on that dangerous road, however, social engineering suddenly becomes involved. If people can be persuaded to marry and—according to the far right of the Tory party—stay married longer, the problem will automatically be solved. I must tell Conservative Members that that is not the case. It may be politically correct for them to say that people should marry and stay married longer, but that will do far more harm than good if it results in children living in consistently unhappy circumstances, especially when abuse or violence is involved.
  If the Government really want to turn the clock back and return to the old days when marriages tended to last, they should change economic policy in a way that would put women back in the home and send men to work. Most of us would object to that, and the Conservative party would not be able to deliver such a change. The woman's role used to be clearly defined; she was locked into that role, and kept subservient to the man. That did not make the children any happier. When families were unhappy and breaking down, everyone—including the children—was trapped.
  522
  Let us stop thinking in terms of political correctness or social engineering, and recognise that people have a right to decide about the relationships in which they want to live. The role of the Government—any Government—is to do everything possible to support good parenting and happy families: if they get that right, we shall make a great deal of progress.
  It is time that the Government put over a strong message that they have been reluctant to send in recent years—a message that applies particularly to fathers. They should make it clear that violence towards children in the home—and I do not just mean extreme forms of violence—is counter-productive. Violence begets violence. One of the commonest factors in a child who grows up to be violent is violence towards that child by a parent. Inconsistency and lack of love are two of the most damaging influences on children; if violence is introduced as well, the parents are well on the road to creating a psychopathic personality.
  No parent is so good that he or she never hits a child—most of us have done it at one time or another—but the good parent knows that, when everything has broken down, it is better to apologise to the child and explain what has happened than to justify violence. That does not work.
  I am in favour of the reform in divorce law. There are many issues for us to debate, but I ask the Government not to assume that dealing with the question of marriage will produce a family and parenting policy. The country desperately needs such a policy. It does not need moral lectures, particularly from a party that found itself in such a difficult position in regard to its "back to basics" policy when it was no longer acceptable for the Conservative party to lecture people on how to bring up their children and how to behave in society. We know what the priorities are; let us go for them.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: The speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) struck me as one of the poorest Opposition speeches that we have heard. It was short on content, and dealt with none of the policy matters that we sought to raise with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, all that it majored on was fairly cheap abuse. I do not think that it did the hon. Gentleman's case any good at all.
  It is significant that the name of the shadow Chancellor is missing from the list of names attached to amendments on the Order Paper. I am not surprised. When I asked the hon. Member for Brightside how he intended to raise his funds, there was no answer. The shadow Chancellor clearly seeks to disassociate himself from the amendment that was moved today.
  I have more reason than most to welcome the Queen's Speech, which refers to two Bills dealing with subjects that are of particular interest to me. I chair the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—
  Mr. Fabricant: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his support.
  I also chair the Conservative Back-Bench education committee. The Queen's Speech referred to both subjects.

  523
  I applaud the fact that the Government have accepted the challenge of pre-school education. I also welcome the introduction of a voucher scheme, which will provide parents with additional choice. The scheme is imaginative, and will cost some £730 million. Parents will be given vouchers worth £1,100, entitling four-year-olds to three terms of good-quality pre-school education. There will be £180 million of new money; the balance of £550 million will come from the funds currently spent by local authorities on pre-schooling. That money will become immediately available to parents in the form of vouchers.
  The new measures build on previous education reforms introduced by the Conservative party—reforms that have deliberately sought to provide parents with additional choice. In this instance, parents will be able to decide whether to use state, private or voluntary providers. The principle of the voucher is being introduced for the first time in Britain; if it is successful, it will doubtless be extended. I welcome the introduction of a pilot scheme that will commence in April 1996, with the main scheme coming on stream in April 1997. The voucher can be exchanged for a pre-school place for all children, beginning with the term after their fourth birthdays.
  I hope that the Government will disregard the usual ill-informed and ritualistic Opposition attacks to which we have grown accustomed. We should remember that they opposed all the education reforms introduced by the current Administration. They opposed the national curriculum and testing, grant-maintained schools, Ofsted, improved teacher training and league tables. All those reforms had one thing in common—they were introduced in the teeth of opposition from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.
  The Gracious Speech refers to raising education and skill levels, and to do so it is necessary to have a well-motivated and—dare I say it?—a well-paid teacher force. That is why I am particularly anxious that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment should ensure adequate funding for the forthcoming teachers' pay award. Hon. Members will recall that last year the award was 2.7 per cent., and that it had to be funded by efficiency savings within LEAs. I say without equivocation that there can be no second bite at that cherry. Funding must be found: otherwise, there will be teacher redundancies, and as a result class sizes will increase.
  I now turn to legislation designed to extend the health service commissioner's jurisdiction. It would enable him to consider complaints from the public about two major areas of his activities that are currently excluded from his jurisdiction. The Bill proposes to enable him to examine complaints about family health service practitioners such as GPs, dentists, pharmacists and those who provide NHS optical services. Under the terms of the new legislation, he would also be able to consider complaints about matters relating to the clinical judgment of doctors, nurses and other clinical professionals.
  The Select Committee of which I am Chairman welcomes the new measures and believes that they will materially help patients. I am delighted to see in his place a distinguished member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who plays a valuable part in our deliberations. In the past, GPs and dentists have been outside the jurisdiction of the commissioner. All that will change, ensuring, I trust, that patients receive an even better service from the NHS.
  524
  I sound a warning note. If the commissioner's work load increases by the amount that I foresee, it will be necessary to ensure that adequate funds are made available. If the commissioner is to discharge his responsibilities properly he cannot operate on the cheap, and it would be a great mistake if the Treasury did not make the necessary funds available.
  I said earlier that I welcomed the contents of the Gracious Speech, but I was disappointed to note that it did not refer to aircraft noise legislation. Coventry airport is in my constituency, and it is an increasing source of night flights, which are a growing nuisance. I welcome the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I am pressed for time.
  Noise pollution is substantial and growing, and I should have thought that time could be found to introduce a relatively small Bill based on the Department of Transport document, the main part of which proposes to encourage the preparation of noise amelioration schemes and to review the existing ones. The Department would also have an enabling power over airfields to establish and enforce noise control arrangements, including ground noise. Those and other measures would do a great deal to reduce the inconvenience and nuisance of aircraft noise.
  I receive an increasing number of complaints from my constituents about aircraft noise. It seems that airports operate outside the normal constraints which affect—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene on a short speech, but I do so to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the Queen's Speech and that it does not refer to Coventry airport or airport noise.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am confining my speech to environmental considerations. The environment of my constituents will deteriorate substantially, as will that of the constituents of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, unless we are able to persuade the Government to provide time for a debate on this important subject. I am disappointed that it is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is not in the Gracious Speech, which is what we are debating.
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East and I met the Minister for Aviation and Shipping but, sadly, we were not able to persuade him that aircraft are noisy. I am anxious to see some proper control exercised in this area.
  7.55 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: The Government's programme for the coming year completely fails to address the momentous challenges that face our country. Unlike the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I believe that the failure is greatest in the sphere of education. The proposals in the Gracious Speech

  525
  are at best petty and irrelevant and at worst wasteful and divisive. In the short time that is available to me, I shall focus on the proposed nursery voucher scheme.
  It is a sobering fact that we devote a mere 2 per cent. of education spending to children in their early years. In Germany, the figure is 7 per cent., France spends 12 per cent. and Sweden devotes 17 per cent. to such children. We have our priorities wrong.
  Let us remind ourselves why early learning is important. Investing public money in the early years not only enhances educational and life opportunities for children but saves public spending later. There is plenty of evidence to support that. Perhaps the most convincing is the American research on the High Scope programme for disadvantaged children, which found that, for every dollar invested in children in their early years, $7 is returned to the taxpayer in savings on the cost of such matters as remedial education, juvenile delinquency, income support and unemployment.
  A year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked me to chair a Labour party inquiry team into early years education. I visited dozens of nurseries, playgroups and other centres around the country, in rural and urban areas, in areas of great poverty and in areas of relative prosperity, in the public, private and voluntary sectors. I met all the different experts, from nursery nurses to teachers to academics and campaigners and from employers to the most important stakeholders—the parents. What struck me above all was the remarkable consensus about the way forward for early years services in this country.
  The Britain of today needs high-quality early years experience for young children. If the quality is not good, the investment is wasted. Of course we should be expanding nursery education for four-year-olds and, indeed, for three-year-olds, but even that is no longer enough. We have to recognise that people's lives have changed. More than half the women with children under the age of five now work, and it is the duty of good government to facilitate and support the family as it changes. It is also the duty of good government to ensure the best possible start for our young children.
  We should start to integrate care and education to provide a comprehensive, high-quality seamless service that meets the needs of children and their parents. That makes sense to the 3.8 million children who are under five. The children of today will become the community of tomorrow, and on them our future depends. The consensus for such a service is matched by an equally firm consensus that the proposal for a voucher scheme is at best a distracting diversion and at worst damaging dogma. It is no secret that the proposals were forced on an unconvinced Secretary of State for Education and Employment by the Prime Minister as part of his lurch to the right.
  The proposal owes less to investing in the long-term hopes of a generation of four-year-olds than to investing in the very short-term hopes of a desperate and divided Tory party. Dogma has been allowed to triumph over common sense and it is our nation's young children and their futures who will suffer as a result.
  When vouchers were floated a year ago, I thought that they were essentially an irrelevance. Now that the details are emerging, I realise that they will be deeply damaging.
  526
  Most of the resources to fund the voucher scheme will be taken out of existing grant moneys that go to local education authorities to spend on under-fives. The way in which the funds will be withdrawn from local authorities is not widely understood, but it is utterly outrageous in its effect.
  Each local authority receives an allocation for spending on the under-fives, but it is free to decide locally whether to spend it on the under-fives. Good authorities do so. The best spend more than the Government's allocation, but others use the money for other purposes: to subsidise other services or to cut council tax.
  What on earth are the Government proposing? Authorities will lose £1,100 for each four-year-old in a maintained school, so the more places currently provided, the more money will be taken away from the council. What nonsense: punish the good performers and reward those who have failed. Ministers tell me that it is cash-neutral. Financial fiddle would be more accurate—a fiddle to benefit the rump of Tory councils that have failed to provide good nursery education for young children. The Government will penalise Labour Tower Hamlets, which has places for 84 per cent. of its three and four-year-olds,-to benefit Tory Bromley, which provides for only 33 per cent.
  The biggest losers of the scheme will be thousands of three-year-old children and their parents. Local authorities whose resources are slashed will have no option but to give preference to four-year-olds who attract a voucher, over three-year-olds who do not. Public funds that currently secure places for three-year-olds will be diverted to pay for years of neglect by Tory councils that have not invested in early years education.
  To make matters even worse, whatever the Secretary of State says, there could be a decline in the quality of education offered to young children. The sum of £1,100 buys barely two and a half hours a day of an appropriate quality service, but most parents want their four-year-olds in full-time nursery education. The only way in which schools can deliver that is to change the ratio of children to adults. Instead of one adult to 13 four-year-olds, there will be one teacher to 30 children. That is not quality nursery education, but cheap child care.
  What about raising standards? The Government propose the daft new concept of the "light touch inspection". That raises serious concerns about how rigorously standards will be upheld. I have seen some marvellous quality in all sectors. I have also witnessed poor standards of teaching and care, but parents have a right to expect decent services and a thorough system of inspection is a crucial means of delivering such services.
  What about children with special needs? Last week, I visited Bective lower school, a primary school in Northampton, which had a nursery class and special unit providing full-time education for autistic three and four-year-olds. Its work with those autistic children was extremely impressive. Their opportunities were enormously enhanced by working with them early, but the cost of a place in that unit is £8,000 per child. What on earth are the parents going to do with a voucher worth a mere £1,100?
  The only positive feature of the Government's proposals is that an extra £185 million will be injected into the system. What a shame that such a precious resource will go to fund such an ill-conceived scheme. We need more places for young children. That means

  527
  training more nursery teachers, providing good premises in which children can learn, play and develop, and working to break down the divide between care and education.
  The Government have abandoned the pledge given nearly 25 years ago by none other than the Tory Secretary of State for Education at the time, Baroness Thatcher, to provide nursery places for all three and four-year-olds. I am proud to say that the Labour party remains absolutely committed to achieving that, and to doing more, as we know and understand that it makes sense, not only for our children, but for our economy, our community and all our futures.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. David Faber: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I am somewhat spoilt for choice this evening, having served under his excellent chairmanship of our Back-Bench education committee and having spoken, I think, in most of the education debates in the House since I came here. I should, however, like to dwell on one aspect of the Gracious Speech as it refers to nursery vouchers.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the Under-Secretary of State responsible for schools, has temporarily left the Chamber. A few months ago, I took a deputation from a small primary school in the village of Edington in my constituency to see him. Those people were fighting to overturn the local education authority's decision to close their school. Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment confirmed the closure, ironically on the same day that the Government White Paper came out extolling the benefits of small, local and village schools.
  I should like to mention one point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) made earlier in an intervention. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how nursery vouchers can help some of the smaller village primary schools. Those of us who represent rural constituencies are keen that they should be safeguarded and helped. There must be ways in which vouchers can be targeted to help children in villages to start a little earlier at school, and to ensure continuity in their primary education.
  I want to speak principally on the Government's further welcome measures to fight crime as contained in the Gracious Speech. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on his success to date and, in particular, on the fall of recorded crime in the past two years. I recently carried out a poll in my constituency through a newsletter, to which more than 500 people, I am happy to say, replied, and it showed overwhelming support for the majority of his policies.
  Chronologically, the first duty of Government is, of course, to try to do all that they can to install crime prevention measures in villages and towns. I welcome the continuing commitment to crime prevention as contained in the partners against crime initiative. Some measures are obvious. The neighbourhood watch scheme is now part of the national psyche. Some 6 million homes play a role in that scheme.
  Representing a rural constituency, I welcome the proposed introduction of neighbourhood constables. This country's specials have a long and proud tradition, and
  528
  they will no doubt welcome the extra £4 million that is being made available to them. Why then not have them serve locally, in their communities and villages and on the streets that they know? I am delighted that, as an example of the benefit of neighbourhood constables, the rural White Paper mentioned a village in Wiltshire, where a neighbourhood constable is already in place.
  I also warmly welcome the Government's policy on closed circuit television and, in particular, the £5 million that has been made available this year through the closed circuit television challenge scheme. I am happy that West Wiltshire council was successful in its bid and I pay tribute to all those who were involved.
  Of the 1,000 new cameras that will be installed around the country this year, six will be in West Wiltshire. They will be mobile cameras that can be moved around the region. Dummy cameras will be left in sites where real cameras are not installed, and that should be a real deterrent to crime. I ask my hon. Friends to remember, however, that CCTV can be every bit as valuable in rural areas as in towns. I hope that they will consider that.
  In the recent survey that I conducted, a staggering 94 per cent. of people who replied supported the Government's policy on installing closed circuit television. I hope that my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who spoke earlier, will benefit from the 10,000 new cameras to be introduced over the next three years, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  I am pleased that the Government's policy for tackling drugs and drug abuse is again in the Queen's Speech. As many hon. Members know, I am closely involved in the war against drugs. I am proud to serve as a trustee of several drug charities and I warmly welcome the high profile that has been given to the fight against drugs in the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together". I have no doubt that the policy contained in the Gracious Speech of enabling the security service to assist the police in fighting organised crime will help greatly to tackle the drug pushers.
  I see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on the Front Bench. She is responsible for prisons. My hon. Friend may know that I am a trustee of a charity, the Addictive Diseases Trust, which is involved in the treatment of drug abuse in prisons. Her predecessor was kind enough to visit Downview prison where ADT has a pilot project up and running. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to visit in the near future to see the excellent work that is being done.
  However good crime prevention is, there will always be some who slip through the net and commit crimes. The public have a right to expect that they will be caught, convicted and subsequently punished. The Government have a proud record of support for the police and I am especially pleased that, over the years, Wiltshire has seen the benefit of increased police funding and officers on the beat. Since 1979 Wiltshire has seen a staggering real-terms spending increase of 154 per cent., the highest of any force in the country, which was translated into an increase in police numbers of 26 per cent.
  As my hon. Friends on the Front Bench know, this year the new funding formula was not kind to us in Wiltshire, producing a budget increase of just 2.5 per cent. I have already expressed my concerns about that matter in an Adjournment debate, but I remind my hon. Friends that

  529
  this year, once again, the funding formula does not take into account any rural sparsity factor and I urge them to look at that once again to see whether there is any way in which that can be included in future years.
  As in many other parts of the country, the total of reported crime in Wiltshire fell last year by 5 per cent. Crimes of violence against people fell by 16 per cent. and burglary, vehicle crime and theft fell by 5 per cent. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a warm tribute to the chief constable and to all the officers in Wiltshire who serve the people of the county so courageously and effectively.
  The public have a right to know that, once caught, the criminal will be convicted if guilty. Nothing demoralises the police more than seeing the guilty walk free. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has already reformed the right to silence rule and the criminal procedures and investigations Bill will play a vital role in helping to ensure that criminals are convicted when that is the right thing to do.
  The public will want to know that they will be protected from a criminal once he is caught and sentenced. Clearly, different offences merit different degrees of punishment. Prison provides that punishment and, undoubtedly, serves to cut crime. The chief constable of Wiltshire said:
  "The majority of crime is committed by a known small percentage of offenders, and custodial sentences take them out of the game and are a significant factor in the decrease [in the crime figures]."
  That is the chief constable acknowledging that prison does work.
  Being locked up is punishment in itself. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out, prison must be decent but austere. There is no place nowadays for slopping out, but nor is there any place for in-cell television.
  Last year, a local prison, Erlestoke, just outside my constituency achieved some notoriety. A convicted rapist was allowed out on day release to cycle unattended to attend a course at Trowbridge college in my constituency. He cycled through some of the most rural areas of the constituency. The tabloids nicknamed him the bicycling rapist. I was grateful for the speed with which my right hon. and learned Friend and the Prison Service acted to have the visits stopped and, subsequently, to announce a new system of temporary release on licence.
  Since the introduction of that new system in March this year, the number of grants for temporary release has fallen by 50 per cent. and, more importantly, the number of temporary release failures has fallen by an overwhelming 80 per cent. I know that my constituents are extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that.
  Parliament, at the instigation of the Government, has traditionally over the years significantly increased the sentences available to the courts. A life sentence is now available for rape, drug trafficking or going to a crime with a firearm. However, those sentences are pointless if the judges do not make any use of them. Did you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the maximum sentence available for burglary is 14 years, yet the average sentence handed down by a crown court to a burglar with 10 convictions is 18 months? That is a staggering statistic, which causes great concern to my constituents and throughout the country. There must be greater certainty in sentencing.
  530
  Given the reluctance to impose the sentences available, we have seen a growth in recent years of the resort to judicial review. I am not a lawyer, but I recognise the importance of judicial review and the role that it plays. A couple of weeks ago, we heard of the case of a man who had shot both his parents with a shotgun, having reloaded it once. My constituents and I felt that it was entirely appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to act within his powers to increase that man's sentence.
  I shall quote the views of Lord Irvine of Lairg, the shadow Lord Chancellor. In a speech to the Administrative Law Bar Association he said last month:
  "the danger with any extra-judicial claim of right to review the validity of any Act of Parliament is that to many it smacks of judicial supremacism."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I should like to mention a couple of things which are not in the Queen's Speech, but I shall not mention them at length. There is no Bill to give sub-contractors rights in the event of the bankruptcy of the major contractor. That has been subject to debate over many years. There is no specific proposal to pay interest on business debt although there is some comment about the need to introduce regulations.
  I join my colleague, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and say that it is about time that the role of the health service ombudsman, who reports to the PCA Committee, was extended to look at clinical matters and actions in primary care. I wish to compliment the present PCA, William Reid, and his staff, who work very hard, probably with fewer resources than they deserve. As the Chairman of the PCA Committee said, they need to be well resourced if they are to take on the new role.
  It is an important role, because we have seen that, in the United States of America, litigation is the way to deal with questions of clinical failure. It would be a great pity if we went the way of the United States and people were waiting outside hospitals with their lawyers ready to take on cases for profit. Hopefully, this will help to stem what could be an explosion of clinical litigation in this country.
  What is also missing—it is something that we have been looking at—is a freedom of information Bill and a privacy Bill. We have not just a tired old Government, but we live in a tired old state. It is flawed and out of date, it is secretive and is held in deep suspicion, not in high regard, by most of its citizens. Perhaps in the future another Government will introduce the freedom of information Bill that we require.
  There is also a proposal to give housing association tenants the right to buy. It is worth underlining that it is only proposed to give the right to buy to tenants in new stock. That is the proposal in the press briefing that I received following the Queen's Speech. I wonder why not all housing association tenants are included.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is sitting beside me, will confirm that the principle of a voluntary purchase grant plus full market value paid back to the housing association which

  531
  must be spent on new housing is the proposal in the housing policy document that she and I drew up for public housing for the Labour party in Scotland in the 1980s.
  If those principles are good enough for housing associations, are they not good enough for all public housing? Obviously, it is not in the Government's interest. It is their prejudice against public housing that will not allow them to give the same amount of capital back to the local authority with the clear instruction that it must be spent on building houses to prevent the depletion of housing stock.
  The proposals are half-baked. The market demand for such use may deplete the stock available to rent in any specific area. As we know from contact with housing associations, certainly in my 13 years in local government, the type of houses they build is often driven by what is trendy at the time and by special needs of one kind or another. They may not be willing to use the money to rebuild houses in the same area. There could be shifting populations because of housing association trends and because the forward plans of the associations do not respond to filling the gaps where houses have been taken into the private sector.
  There is no assurance in the Queen's Speech that special needs housing for people with disabilities will be ring-fenced. Will it be sold off, only to be replaced by local associations providing houses for single people or people emerging from mental hospitals or prisons, as seems to be the trend? The Queen's Speech is silent on that point.
  The Queen's Speech mentions protection for small communities with fewer than 3,000 homes. It is ironic that the Government should propose such a measure, having presided over the decimation of rural communities in Scotland, England and Wales, where public housing has been sold off and then second-time buyers—possibly not indigenous, possibly big-city commuters or people looking for a holiday home—buy them up. That is the result of the Conservatives' sale of council housing, so promising to ring-fence a few housing association houses is just bolting the stable door once the horse is off and running.
  The problem is how to revitalise rural areas and small communities. I suggest giving housing associations money and instructions to build homes for rent, and then purchase, or using staircasing arrangements for part-purchase, part-rent. That would be an improvement on proposals to ring-fence communities of 3,000 homes.
  At the weekend, I addressed what was supposed to be a youth forum but turned out to be a front for the Scottish National party, whose policy is now to abolish council house sales altogether. That is rather hypocritical, given that thousands of SNP voters and hundreds of their representatives on councils have used the legislation to buy houses at a discount. Thank goodness I do not have to oppose them in government. It is a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do." The message from the SNP seems to be: "If you want the same rights as SNP representatives of the past, don't vote SNP in future."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can find nothing in the Queen's Speech about the SNP.
  Mr. Connarty: There will not even necessarily be a Queen if the SNP gets its Parliament. I am just issuing a warning about a party that sits here under another guise.
  532
  The proposal to deal with anti-social neighbours is for a probationary tenancy period. Based on my experience, I would say that we must act throughout the United Kingdom before vigilante law erupts in our communities. A village in my constituency, which I shall call only the village of fear, was once a most desirable place for council tenants to live, with beautiful views and a rural aspect. Now four houses have been demolished leaving a gap site, five have been boarded up and two blocks of flats are empty. The eight flats have also been vandalised and everything worth selling has been ripped out.
  Five families who went to live in the village and tried to make something of it found that they could not and were driven out—they have all been to see me. Twelve complaints have been made to me in secret, all from villagers who did not want their names given to the police or the local authority, or to the families responsible for problem. One older lady told me that two or three families who arrived in the village more than a decade ago are responsible. They were in the street at 2 o'clock in the morning shouting and fighting among themselves. When someone looked out of a window and they saw the chink in the curtain they shouted, "We'll be the last family in this village; we'll drive you all out."
  I have written to the police; I have a complaints file more than an inch thick; I have written to the local authority. I am told that if no one is willing to come forward, to stand up and endure the vandalism, personal attacks and damage to property that go with standing up to these people, they cannot be taken to court. Clearly we need something more than a probationary tenancy period. The problem has existed for a decade and a half already.
  Everyone in the village knows who the three or four families and their offspring are. The police tell me that these people know how to use the law. If anyone tries to take them on, they first cause a confrontation and then one of them slips away to the house and phones the police. When the police arrive, they have to charge the people confronting these families. The poor proposal in the Queen's Speech clearly does not go far enough.
  Again and again, the Government have parroted their claim that class sizes do not matter. For many years, I taught in a school for children with special educational needs. Our classes were of 12 children, a number that was then reduced to 10. It is strange that high fee-paying schools have small classes as well. Are the Government telling us that only people with special educational needs and the rich need small classes?
  On a level playing field, if there is one left after all schools' assets have been sold off, people should realise that smaller classes make a difference to every child. There is an Achilles' heel in the Government's argument. Professor Achilles, who conducted the Tennessee study, has clearly shown, based on a survey of England and Wales with particular reference to Castlechurch school, that class sizes make a big difference and are the right way forward.
  How a nation performs clearly depends on how much it puts into education. That is what is needed—not just economic development but better education and skills.
  We do not have grant-maintained schools in Scotland, but we do have two equivalents. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), said that GM schools stood for "Gillian's misery"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: Most of my remarks will refer to the proposals in the-Queen's Speech concerning home affairs; but first I give a warm welcome to the contents of the forthcoming education Bill, particularly the further encouragement for schools to become grant-maintained. I have visited all the GM schools in my constituency; the universal message is that freedom from local authority control, greater flexibility and more funding have resulted in better schools and better results for pupils. That is acknowledged by all concerned: governors, parents and teachers alike.
  It is a tragedy that so few schools have taken advantage of such an opportunity—especially primary schools— often because of the campaigns of misinformation and scare tactics used by local authorities to preserve their own bureaucracy. Only one primary school has gone GM in my constituency—a voluntary-aided school whose headmaster told me that it was the best thing he had ever done.
  Hence I welcome the prospect of a fast track to GM status for voluntary-aided schools. Church schools already enjoy a degree of independence. That is why they are in such great demand from parents. I hope that more Churches will allow them the full benefit of freedom in their own affairs, without the need for parental ballots. I hope that more primary schools will want to follow their success.
  I also welcome the voucher scheme for nursery education. It is a shame that my Liberal Democrat-controlled LEA refused to take part in a pilot scheme that would have enabled our four-year-olds to enjoy the benefits of an extra year of education. The introduction of vouchers will enhance parental choice, and the resulting competition will raise teaching standards. I hope that vouchers will in due course be extended to higher education and eventually to all education, state and private.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being the first Home Secretary in living memory to preside over two successive years of falling crime, against a background of a seemingly relentless and irreversible rise in crime. I am sure that the measures in the Queen's Speech will further encourage that downward trend. I welcome the legislation to enable the security services to support the police in combating organised crime, which is becoming ever more international. The trade in drugs is well known; less well known is the growing threat from crime organised by the Russian mafiosi.
  To reverse these new and dangerous trends requires the utmost co-operation between the police and security services, nationally and internationally. Should Russia accede to the Council of Europe next year, as I expect it will, we must insist on its early ratification of the 1990 convention which outlaws money laundering and allows its proceeds to be seized.
  Although I welcome the Asylum and Immigration Bill, to stem the flow of asylum seekers from countries where there is no serious risk of persecution, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consult widely on the designated list of countries—the so-called white list. Christian human rights organisations are concerned at reports that Pakistan will be on the list—yet there is much evidence that Christians in Pakistan are at risk of persecution by Islamic fundamentalists, the most public
  534
  example of that being their use of the blasphemy laws. Christians are falsely accused of blasphemy and the resulting trial is used by extremists as a focal point for whipping up religious fervour and hatred.
  The recent cases of Gul and Rehmat Masih and Salamat Masih—a 12-year-old boy—all of whom have now found asylum in Germany, and the murders of Naimat Ahmer and Manzoor Masih, all of whom are Christians, testify to that. I met the families of those people last year when I visited Pakistan. Many of them are in hiding in fear for their lives. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree to meet the representatives of the human rights organisations that I have mentioned before laying his designated list before the House.
  I shall confine the rest of my remarks to the concerns of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) who attended the public meeting on crime in our borough last Friday. The simple justification for that meeting was that, whereas crime is falling nationally, it continues to rise locally—by 6 per cent. the previous year and by 4 per cent. to June this year. Against this background, there was understandable anger that police manpower in Dorset has been reduced by 34 officers because of this year's settlement, which was £2.8 million less than last year's.
  Of course, there was a welcome for the Prime Minister's recent announcement of 5,000 more policemen, 10,000 more closed circuit television cameras over the next three years and the current review of the area cost adjustment. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will ensure that Dorset receives its fair share of the extra police and cameras, and reverse the decline in our funding.
  Incidentally, my right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to know that the CCT cameras that he switched on last month in the Boscombe shopping precinct have already proved a success by leading to six arrests, rendering that precinct safer for shoppers, shop workers and residents alike. We thank him for his personal interest.
  Concern was expressed at the meeting about the continuing inability of the courts to pass sentences that match the crime, especially when dealing with persistent 14-year-old offenders, and about the premature release of prisoners long before they have served their sentence. My constituents will thus welcome the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Bill, which will provide for prosecution and defence disclosure and other measures to encourage justice, and the introduction of the secure training order for 12 to 14-year-olds who repeatedly offend. They will also welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to ensure sensible parole for prisoners.
  Finally, we in Bournemouth are looking to the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), to respond more positively to our continued appeals for help in funding the cost of conference security, which represents 5 per cent. of our police budget, especially now that the Conservative party comes to Bournemouth every two years rather than every four years for its annual conference.
  The cost of protecting our national leaders should be borne nationally by the Exchequer and no longer by council tax payers who also suffer a loss of police protection while the conference is on. My Dorset

  535
  colleagues were encouraged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's response when they raised the matter with him last week. We look forward to a positive outcome to his present review of conference security.
  8.32 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am glad that the Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber, because I want to address some comments and questions to him about his statement yesterday. In that statement, he said that the entire Asylum and Immigration Bill should be non-controversial because it was solely about ensuring that genuine asylum seekers were assisted in their aim and helped to reach and stay in this country and that bogus asylum seekers would be deterred.
  If that is the case, I wonder how seriously he has considered the proposals recently published by the Law Society. I shall not take up the House's time by examining them in detail, but it seems that there are many in that document, although it runs to only two pages, which would probably win the support of the whole House. They are non-controversial proposals for people who genuinely hope to help real asylum seekers. I wonder whether the Home Secretary has any plans to integrate any of them in the Bill.
  A particular proposal that appeals to me is that the Government should consider measures such as the Australian model of licensing immigration advisers, to curb the problem of bogus and unscrupulous advisers who are preying on genuine asylum seekers. They state that that problem is widespread.
  I also heard the Secretary of State say that the reason why the Prime Minister had rejected Labour's proposal that a Special Standing Committee be set up was that Special Standing Committees were for non-controversial Bills. That seems to contradict the Secretary of State's claim to the effect that the Immigration and Asylum Bill was a non-controversial Bill. He said specifically that the Special Standing Committee procedure was for Bills that were largely non-controversial. I see him shaking his head, but that appeared in Hansard only yesterday.
  Mr. Howard: The answer is perfectly simple. The Bill ought to be non-controversial, but the shadow Home Secretary has made it clear that it will be controversial. He has twice gone on record saying that he will oppose the Bill.
  Mrs. Fyfe: That is an interesting answer. The most recent occasion on which the House used the Special Standing Committee procedure was for legislation that I do not expect the Home Secretary to have known much about—the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Many of the proposals in that Bill were accepted by all parties, but there was genuine controversy and divisions on matters of principle in the Chamber and in Committee. The Home Secretary is making a distinction without a difference. Both sides are claiming that they want to deter bogus asylum seekers and help the real ones, but there will be divisions on specific issues. Precisely the same happened with the 1995 Act.
  The real reason why the Government do not want a Special Standing Committee is not the bogus reason that they are offering, but that such a Committee is allowed to hear witnesses. If the Committee heard independent, well-informed, knowledgeable witnesses from
  536
  organisations involved in immigration and asylum affairs, what the Government were doing would be clearly revealed.
  The letter sent by the Home Secretary to hon. Members on 20 November begins:
  "We have a proud tradition of giving refuge to those fleeing persecution."
  It is true that this country has a long history in that respect, but I draw attention to a recent case in my constituency involving an Iraqi Kurd who had managed to obtain asylum in this country. He came to me about the problem with his mother, who had also fled from Iraq to Iran.
  The British embassy there was telling her that it could not supply a visa to the sick woman and her daughter, and that she would have to apply for a visa either to Amman in Jordan, Karachi in Pakistan, Istanbul in Turkey or Nicosia in Cyprus. When I protested that it was unreasonable for a sick woman to have to travel such distances when there was an embassy in Teheran, the embassy would not listen at first. However, I give those people the credit for listening eventually when I, the Red Cross and the United Nations appealed. The embassy eventually acceded to the woman's request, and she is now safely in this country.
  Is that the Home Secretary's idea of helping people with a genuine case for seeking asylum? I certainly hope that he will tidy up the current procedures, as it was unacceptable to put that sick woman through such a trauma to get into this country. I must say that other cases have gone more smoothly, but it is cases such as that which I have outlined that give the lie to claims that we are going out of our way to help genuine asylum seekers.
  In the few moments that I have left, I shall deal with the nursery voucher scheme. I have recently spoken to people involved in private sector nursery education in and around Glasgow. They tell me that they are unhappy with the voucher scheme because it does nothing to provide them with the capital required to set up a new nursery, especially in the highlands and islands and other rural areas. In other words, parents could have a voucher but have nowhere to spend it.
  I also listened carefully to what was said about the cash being provided for the voucher scheme. A few months ago, the Scottish Office said that special needs would be considered because it was more expensive to provide pre-fives education for children with special needs. Yet yesterday and today I have not heard a further commitment to provide the cash for such provision. The money provided will obviously not be enough. Indeed, private sector providers themselves are worried that children with special needs could be pushed out and will not have access to pre-fives education unless the voucher scheme takes account of the extra cash needed to cater for their requirements.
  I should also point out that the claim is being made that all the changes are in response to parents' wishes. Again, I cannot expect Conservative Members present to know about the matter. Someone from the Scottish Office should be on the Front Bench when we are discussing those matters.
  None the less, there is an important point to be made. The parents of children who attend pre-fives education in all sectors in Scotland were surveyed by the Scottish Parent-Teacher Association, and a large majority of them said that their first preference was for local authority

  537
  nursery education. Instead of wasting money on an unwanted voucher scheme, why is not the Secretary of State for Scotland making that money available in the area where parents want it to be spent and giving it to the local authorities, which parents trust to do an excellent job for children?
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I want to concentrate on education, but seeing my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in his place, I cannot resist thanking him for his initiative on the provision of closed circuit television in Lichfield. We are to have a £250,000 system thanks to the remarks that he made—and the initiatives that he subsequently took—in the Queen's Speech, albeit last year.
  I welcome the education initiatives announced in the Gracious Speech. In particular, I welcome the expansion of nursery education for four-year-olds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) said, it will have tremendous importance in rural areas, not only in his constituency, but also in Staffordshire.
  I should have liked to see some reform of university entrance qualifications. In the three and a half years that I have been in the House, I have argued in favour of the Scottish system of highers—like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), I should have liked to see a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench—or any other broad curriculum that does not require students hoping for an academic career at university to be forced to start specialising in just a few subjects at the age of 15 or 16. That is one of the reasons why we have so many innumerate civil servants and so many inarticulate scientists.
  Someone may well ask why I might be interested in education and concentrate on it this evening. Before going up to university, I took a year out and taught physics and chemistry to 11 and 13-year-olds. Having then spent some seven years at university—not constantly retaking the same examination—I later formed a company that employed many arts and science graduates in the United Kingdom and in the United States. So for those reasons, I have a deep interest in education.
  I recognise the need for reform, so I welcome the announcement in the Queen's Speech concerning grant-maintained schools. There can be little doubt that the 1,000 or so schools that enjoy grant-maintained status have benefited by the change in their status. Direct and indirect pressure from local education authorities, such as that exercised by the Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council, and a very real fear of the unknown, have deterred many schools from opting to become grant-maintained.
  The present system of funding education via local authorities is becoming unsustainable in most parts of the country. In Staffordshire, schools are strapped for cash. That is partly a result of the application of the area cost adjustment, which unfairly favours the south-east, and is also a direct consequence of funding education through county councils.
  How can the area cost adjustment be fair when a typical primary school of 300 children in Hertfordshire will receive £61,500 more than a similar Staffordshire school, and while
  538
  a typical secondary school of 900 students in Staffordshire will receive in excess of £250,000 less than a Surrey school? There are no surcharges for employing teachers in Surrey or Hertfordshire. While Labour-controlled Staffordshire blames the Government for a shortfall in funding, the Government rightly blame Staffordshire for hoarding huge amounts of unused financial reserves— some of the largest of any county in the country.
  For the sake of our nation's children and our nation's future, we need to rethink education funding as a matter of priority. We need to introduce greater transparency. The political buck-passing between local and national Government must stop. That can be done only by funding schools centrally and directly from the Department for Education and Employment.
  By suggesting the central funding of schools, I am not advocating central control of schools. On the contrary, I want to see far greater local control than at present, by stripping away all the local government powers over education and empowering schools themselves through their head teachers and governors.
  Education reforms over the past few years, so bitterly opposed by the Labour party, and now so accepted by teachers and parents alike, such as local management of schools, the introduction of the national curriculum, regular testing by the Office of Standards in Education and the publication of league tables, soon to include value-added data, mean that Britain is ready for central funding.
  That does not mean that the grant-maintenance model as it stands at present is suitable were all schools to be funded centrally. Having spoken to many teachers, head teachers and parents, I believe that several questions arise. I should like to suggest a possible solution.
  Schools have genuine fears about going it alone and their fears fall under two main headings: operational and financial. Operationally, they ask who will provide advice and support services to schools if local education authorities are abolished. What will happen if a teacher or even a head teacher is taken ill and a supply teacher is needed urgently? Who will act as arbiters when complaints are made against head teachers or school governors? Who will deal with applications for discretionary grants?
  Financially, other questions arise. Who will decide how money is disbursed within a county or region? What happens in a financial emergency if the boiler needs replacing or the roof springs a major leak? One answer might be the provision of two parallel tiers assisting at county or regional level. The first tier, whose main concern would be the application of central funds among schools, could be a college of head teachers and chairmen of governors.
  That college would not be a regulator, but could have discretion over, say, 5 per cent. of funding, with the remaining 95 per cent. being awarded to schools according to a per capita formula based on a three-year rolling average of student numbers to even out financial peaks and troughs, which are the constant bane on the lives of head teachers and governors.
  That college of head teachers and chairmen of governors would be able to make key decisions on the special financial needs of individual schools in their area.

  539
  Who better can there be to decide local priorities? Both schools and the college should also have access to capital funding on the financial markets.
  But what about the provision of operational services? Many of those can be provided by groups of local professionals—probably many of them now working directly for LEAs—offering their services directly to schools once the LEAs become redundant. The success of Ofsted, despite all the fears expressed at the time, provides a useful model for that.
  In outlining one possible solution, I do not prescribe the course of action that the Department should take. I merely call on the Secretary of State to use her not inconsiderable talent in resolving those issues. In the coming months, there needs to be greater debate on the methodology of the funding of schools. If the political hallmark of the 1980s was privatisation and industrial relations reform, the theme for the 1990s must be local empowerment. We have already seen that model operate with the formation of local hospital trusts.
  Labour's perennial call—we have heard it this evening—of, "Make no change; everything must be set in concrete; Beveridge was right in 1944, so his credo must remain in place some 50 years later," is no answer. It is Luddite. It is unimaginative. It is Labour.
  I call on the Secretary of State to embark on the funding and operational changes that will be necessary over the next few years. We owe it to the professionals who run our schools. We owe it to concerned parents. We owe it to schoolchildren. Perhaps most importantly, as stewards of our nation's future, we owe it to the country.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: I am amazed by the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). He seems to argue that there should be more central control, but that there needs to be local control. He must know that one of the reasons why the areas that he represents do not have the same level of nursery provision as the areas I represent is that historically, the areas I represent have had a Labour administration that has provided nursery education. The Conservative administrations in the parts of Staffordshire about which the hon. Gentleman talks have failed to provide that education. It is astonishing that, as a result of Conservative failure, the hon. Gentleman attacks Labour administrations and policies. It is incredible.
  Mr. Fabricant: Although the hon. Gentleman was involved in buses before he became a Member of the European Parliament and then a Member of Parliament here, he is surely aware that my area is a rural area; that is why there are no nursery schools in the tiny villages. That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is an urban area.
  Mr. Stevenson: That comment seems to be an abject condemnation of the Conservative administrations that have ruled those areas for some time. The point that the hon. Gentleman made the basis of his speech was that the awful Labour administrations in Staffordshire had failed to provide education facilities, whereas the good Conservative administrations would do so. His argument defeats the point that he is trying to make. It is the Conservative administrations in Staffordshire that have
  540
  not provided nursery education and it is the Labour administrations that have. In my area, 97 per cent. of four-year-olds receive nursery education.
  In the Gracious Speech, the Government suggest that we should have a voucher system, yet it will provide no extra places. In an intervention in the speech by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I asked how many additional places in Staffordshire and in my constituency would be provided by nursery vouchers. I received no answer, because the Secretary of State does not know. She does not know, because no additional nursery places will result from the voucher system. That is the reality.
  The Gracious Speech also contained proposals on grant-maintained schools. There is one grant-maintained school in my constituency. It is amazing that, of the 40-odd schools in my constituency, only one is grant-maintained. Is it because the Government have failed to put their policy across? Is it because parents do not know what they are talking about or because they do not understand the advantages of grant-maintained schools? Is it because the Government do not understand what they are saying? I doubt it. The reality is that parents, governors and teachers know full well that this is not the way in which to proceed.
  In the first year, the one grant-maintained school in my constituency had a capital grant to develop a science block. That grant amounted to a significant proportion of the total capital available in Staffordshire. In the second year, the school got nothing, of course, because the second phase of the grant for the science block was refused by the Government. The school was disappointed, so the Government had to do something. They advertised the technology college proposal and, lo and behold, the one school in my constituency that became a technology college was the one grant-maintained school.
  According to the Government, this year, the school will receive £60 per pupil because of its new designation. The school will receive £100,000 because it is a technology college. That is all well and good. However, that one school could receive about £250,000 over a period. Why are all the other schools in my constituency suffering cuts? Is not that robbing Peter to pay Paul? Why is the Government's attitude such that one school in my constituency gets many extra resources while the rest of them suffer cuts? That is a fair question, which the Government have signally failed to address.
  I am interested in the Asylum and Immigration Bill because, from the reports I read that came out before the Queen's Speech, it seemed that Nigeria, for example, would be on the white list.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): It has never been.
  Mr. Stevenson: I am prepared to give way to a Minister.
  Mr. Howard: The only suggestion that Nigeria was on the designated list was in a singularly ill-informed article in The Guardian. That suggestion has never been countenanced by the Government, and Nigeria has never been considered as a candidate for the designated list.
  Mr. Stevenson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember "ill-informed" articles in The Guardian which proved to be correct and which meant that he had to suffer humiliation in the High Court. He must be careful.

  541
  My point—never mind the white list—is that, out of the tremendous number of applications from Nigeria, only one has been accepted. Will that position change? The political situation has forced the Home Secretary to react, and that is the danger. The Government are desperate and are attempting to play a card from which they will suffer.
  Miss Widdecombe: No.
  Mr. Stevenson: Yes. I have not yet mentioned the terrible R-word that the Government are worried about. The Government will suffer from the legislation because they will have to define the countries whose asylum seekers they are willing to accept. That will be an extremely difficult and dangerous process. We all know what the Government are about and we all know what the Home Secretary is about. The country at large knows what they are about. The Bill is a dangerous step.
  8.57 pm
  Sir Michael Shersby: I wish to declare the fact that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, in accordance with the Police Act 1964 as amended by the Police Act 1972. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I make my speech, which is one of the first such speeches to be made since the resolution of the House was passed on 6 November. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all Members of the House, that I intend to have close regard to the letter from the Leader of the House, addressed to all of us, about our conduct in the Chamber.
  I wanted to speak in the debate so that I could welcome the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Bill. For some time, there has been widespread concern about prosecution and defence disclosure in criminal cases, and about the responsibility of the law enforcement authorities concerning material for the purposes of prosecution disclosure and related matters.
  There is, I think, a general feeling that the law needs to be reformed, and evidence has been given to a royal commission on the subject. As hon. Members will know, I am a London Member, and I am told that last year in London alone, about 230 cases had to be abandoned by the prosecution on the advice of the law enforcement agencies, because the defence's demand for disclosure was likely to lead to the identification of an informant, usually an officer of the forces of law and order. I believe that in some cases informants' lives would have been put at risk; we must recognise that ruthless criminals think nothing of silencing witnesses, even if that means resorting to murder.
  Other cases have been stopped because the blanket demand for disclosure would have required thousands of documents to be made available, to enable the defence to hunt for something—perhaps almost anything at all—that might be contained in them. It seems to me, as to many people who are taking an increasing interest in such matters, that the real objective of such demands, especially in complicated commercial fraud cases, is to persuade the prosecution that the costs involved and the huge time delays are so great as to make its case untenable.
  Some hon. Members may say that the procedures outlined in the Bill are complex, but surely the important point for us as Members of Parliament is that the basic
  542
  principle of disclosure is protected. If something is known that would be of assistance to an accused person, he or she and his or her legal representatives are entitled to be told about it. Surely there can be no argument about that. But there is no reason why the British people should tolerate the right to disclosure being abused so that it becomes a criminals charter.
  I believe that the Bill preserves a proper balance between the interests of justice and the rights of the suspect. If the proposals are objected to, one might assume that that is because the Bill is likely to lead to the conviction of the guilty.
  I also welcome the reference in the Queen's Speech to the priority attached to the fight against crime, drug misuse, drug trafficking and terrorism. I welcome the proposed legislation to enable the Security Service to assist the law enforcement agencies in their work. I understand that those agencies have had some reservations about the proposals, but it has always been understood that where the security and safety of the state is at stake, the operations of the security services cannot be open to public scrutiny, or as accountable as those of the law enforcement agencies.
  However, I feel sure that the law enforcement agencies will welcome the contribution that the Security Service can make, especially through enhanced intelligence. That will work well if the primacy of the forces of law and order, which are responsible for the prevention of crime, is understood and continued. Experience in other countries, including America and France, has shown that inter-service rivalries can hinder the fight against crime. It is therefore important that the arrangements to enable the Security Service to assist the law enforcement agencies are such as to avoid any such rivalry.
  I hope that the Security Service will recognise the importance of agreement being reached on the extent of their participation in the work of the established law enforcement agencies. It may be important to have parliamentary supervision of the Security Service, so that all concerned—particularly the British people—can have confidence in and give their full support to the new arrangements.
  I wish to refer briefly to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a statement in the House yesterday. He has given powerful reasons why action needs to be taken, and I should simply like to add a constituency reason for dealing with the matter. My constituency is situated in the London borough of Hillingdon, which is spending about £1.3 million a year on caring for unaccompanied child refugees who come to this country, many of them illegally. It is expected that that figure will increase to nearly £2 million by the end of the year.
  Three years ago, I was grateful when my right hon. and learned Friend, in his previous capacity as Secretary of State for the Environment, was instrumental in assisting Hillingdon with a unique problem, as Heathrow airport is situated within its boundaries. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment will look at that, and assist a local authority that has a unique problem of caring for young people, which it does with considerable distinction. We must consider that aspect of the Bill on Second Reading, and perhaps in Committee.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I declare an interest as shown in the Register of Members' Interests. I commend what the hon. Gentleman had to say, particularly on disclosure.
  The right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), in the first speech in the debate today from the Conservative Back Benches, made some thoughtful and provocative remarks on divorce, and then criticised the Government by saying that "friendly fire" from Conservative Members is always to be decried. Well, decried or not, we witnessed friendly fire from at least five Conservative Members who spoke allegedly in support of the Gracious Speech.
  There came immediately a double-barrelled attack from the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, who blasted into the proposals for grant-maintained schools and the proposals for nursery vouchers. He said that, if new money was to be provided for nursery education, it would be better to widen existing provision than to bring in a new scheme. That was exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had said in his speech. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he saw no enthusiasm for the further extension of grant-maintained schools, and asked whether we were to deprive parents the right too choose by the way in which—as he suggested—the Conservatives were about to fiddle votes for grant-maintained schools.
  No sooner had the hon. Gentleman sat down than the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) stood up. So opposed is he to the proposals for nursery vouchers and grant-maintained schools that he announced to the House that, unless they were changed, he would not support the education measures in the Gracious Speech. He described the proposals for nursery vouchers as "socialist, centralised and bureaucratic". He is right about two of those—they are indeed centralised and bureaucratic, but those descriptions have now become the hallmark of the Conservative Administration.
  The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) can normally be relied on to be a loyal supporter of the Government in every conceivable circumstance, and he paid a customary tribute to the Gracious Speech. He then launched into a rip-roaring attack on the Government's housing policy, and told the House that unemployment among housing workers has risen by 500,000—we are grateful to him for that fact—and added that the figure was due to rise by another 100,000 if the Government did not do something about the state of the housing industry.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) announced that he did not support the assisted places scheme, while the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) criticised the possible inclusion of Pakistan on the white list. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) made a kind of supportive speech. His speech was mixed, rather like the advice he gave to the makers of "The Final Cut", with such extraordinary results. Then he said that there were a number of questions about grant-maintained schools that he had to raise. They were only fairly minor. They were operational and financial. He went on to construct—
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will in one moment.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is quoting me.
  Mr. Straw: That was not in "The Final Cut" either. I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He went on to describe a policy of abolishing local education authorities and setting up a far more centralised and bureaucratic structure than any of us could imagine.
  Mr. Fabricant: If the hon. Gentleman had been here while I was speaking, he would know that I did not say what he has just quoted me as saying. The questions that I posed were those that would arise if all schools were forced to be grant-maintained. That is not the present policy. Grant-maintained status has not been forced on any school. The questions that I raised were about enforced, not voluntary, membership of the grant-maintained system. If the hon. Gentleman had been here, he would not have made the point that he has just made.
  Mr. Straw: It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman is confused about whether he supports the Government's policy. He obviously does not know what it is. It is the Government's policy to try to secure the opt-out of all schools. The hon. Gentleman suggested a way through, with what he described as two tiers for administering education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has said, it sounded like the North Korean solution.
  Of the three home affairs measures in the Gracious Speech, the one that is potentially the most divisive is the Asylum and Immigration Bill. In opening his statement on the Bill yesterday, the Secretary of State claimed that his Government had always attached the greatest priority to preserving good race relations in Britain. He did not seem properly to appreciate that the nature of immigration control pursued and the motives perceived to be behind it can have a direct impact on those good race relations.
  If the controls operate fairly, if they strengthen families rather than fracture them, if changes are made for sound reasons, racial harmony will be sustained. But if the changes introduced are hasty, ill-considered or disproportionate to the problem or appear to have some extraneous object behind them, their consequence may be to stir up racial prejudice and tension. If, for example, emotive and exaggerated language is used, people may start to believe again the old saw that the immigrant flow is out of control. When such sentiment takes hold, people feel resentful about the presence of those in this country of a different race or colour.
  People forget why many of those of a different race or colour came here in the first place. They forget that the original immigrants to my constituency came in answer to advertisements placed in Indian newspapers by British mill owners desperate for textile workers. They forget that the original influx of people from the West Indies came to solve a British labour shortage on the London buses. They even forget that Enoch Powell, when Conservative Minister of Health, advertised for nurses in the West Indies to work in London hospitals.

  545
  If we do not acknowledge the contribution that so many immigrants have made to this country, race relations will be damaged. When the last such Bill was introduced in the House, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, the then Home Secretary spoke of people who came to this country wanting
  "to improve their quality of life."—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 731.]
  That is true, as a great many in the House can certify. I can, as a great-grandson of an immigrant. So can the Secretary of State for Defence and the Home Secretary. Those of us who come from immigrant families have a special responsibility in how we act and what we say in respect of those who follow in our parents' footsteps.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I intervene because I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. The use of language is very important. Does the hon. Gentleman now regret saying to the Labour party conference that his party would vote against the Asylum and Immigration Bill? Is not the more sensible line that he is now adopting a result of the fact that his leader has insisted on his taking a different view from his original view?
  Mr. Straw: Of course I do not regret saying that to the Labour party conference. If the Bill is as anticipated, we shall certainly vote against it. What we want, as I shall describe, is the issue to be taken out of party politics. There is no reason why it should not be. If Conservative Members want it taken out of party politics, they should repudiate, as they have not yet done, what Mr. Andrew Lansley had to say about playing the race card.
  Last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), one of the most distinguished men in the House and himself a former Home Secretary, made a powerful plea about the worries of thoughtful people about what he called the empty noise and phoney warfare of our adversarial politics. In our view, the Special Standing Committee procedure offers a way out of that empty noise and phoney warfare.
  The day after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made his proposal for a Special Standing Committee, the Prime Minister was plainly warming to it. In an interview in The Independent, he said:
  "I do not want to deal with the problem in a way … which may unsettle people who do not deserve to be unsettled".
  The two reporters from The Independent who interviewed him on Thursday commented that he was "leaning towards a yes" to that proposal.
  That, of course, was before the Home Secretary got back from his trip to America. When he did, he simply overruled this decent but weak Prime Minister. Instead, the Home Secretary sought to assert to an incredulous House yesterday that his proposals can be properly scrutinised in Standing Committee. The truth, which the whole House knows, is that Standing Committee scrutiny does not work. The Government's record of one bad and defective Bill after another shows that to be the case.
  When, in February 1986, the House debated the extension of the Special Standing Committee process, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon.
  546
  Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), launched a compelling attack on the old ways of scrutinising Bills. He said:
  "I hope that that procedure will be used much more than it has been."—[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1096.]
  Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, has written to the Leader of the Opposition today referring him not to a finding of the Procedure Committee in 1986 but to a finding of the Procedure Committee in the 1989–90 Session, which clearly demonstrates that that procedure would not be appropriate for this Bill?
  Mr. Straw: I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Honiton cannot take away the words that he used in the House in February 1986 in plain support of a proposition that the Special Standing Committee procedure should be used more than it has been. The Procedure Committee went on to say, as did the right hon. Member for Honiton, that every Minister who gave evidence to the Procedure Committee suggested that it had greatly helped his or her handling of Bills.
  One such Minister was the then Solicitor-General, who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary should talk more to him about this as about other issues. In his evidence, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told how his 1981 Criminal Attempts Bill had been recast as a result of evidence before a Special Standing Committee. He said:
  "I had the very salutary experience of cross-examining two of the leading authorities on criminal law … as to the likely effect of a Bill about whose provisions I was already experiencing a sinking feeling".
  With characteristic honesty, he added:
  "At the end of the final sitting of the Special Standing Committee, the draftsman informed me that not only did the Bill not do what it was supposed to do but that it could not be made to do it."
  The Special Standing Committee procedure was designed exactly for this sort of Bill, a point reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) in her excellent contribution about the way in which the Children (Scotland) Bill was greatly improved as a result of the use of the procedure.
  Mr. Spearing: Did my hon. Friend not hear the Home Secretary say yesterday that the procedure that he is describing is a diversion? Is he aware that 42 per cent. of the Newham population are of overseas background and that, on hearing of the possibility of such a Committee, the police community consultative committee wrote to the Prime Minister saying that it wished to give evidence? Surely a diversion is diverting such committees from the practical contribution that they could make to our proceedings in this place and not the opposite, as the Home Secretary is saying.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend emphasises that there is very widespread support outside the House, as inside, for that procedure. Most members of the public and organisations with an interest in the issue simply cannot understand why Ministers have refused to use it.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House that he wanted to take this issue out of party politics, but we then learnt of his approach to consensus. Instead of agreeing to the proper scrutiny of his plans, he effectively told the

  547
  House, "These are my proposals—like them or lump them." That is not a recipe for consensus; it is the road to conflict, and he knows it.
  This Bill needs far better scrutiny than a Standing Committee can provide precisely because so many in the ethnic communities and beyond are, in the Prime Minister's words, "unsettled by the proposals". Nothing that the Secretary of State has said so far has even attempted to deal with that concern.
  The Conservative candidate for Cheltenham, for example, Mr. John Taylor, recently complained of the Tory party:
  "They alienate ethnic minorities by pandering to xenophobic voters with promises of crackdowns on immigration".
  Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I will not do so, as I gave up part of this speech to allow his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to speak.
  I shall tell the Secretary of State some of the issues on which that scrutiny should take place. They are: on the reasons for delays when the point of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 was to reduce them; on the need for better regulation of advisers, which was an important point that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Maryhill also mentioned today; on the failure promptly to remove those who are here illegally; on the failure of the system proposed by which applicants will be forced to conduct appeals from abroad; on how employer checks can work in a non-discriminatory way; and on the whole principle behind the so-called white list. On top of that, there is the greatest anxiety about the fairness with which the present rules operate, even when a country is not and will not be on the white list.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State made light of the fact that, of the 1,495 asylum seekers from the brutal, inhumane regime in Nigeria, just one had been accepted for asylum last year. He said:
  "Those decisions are not made by Ministers … Every applicant has to establish a well founded fear of persecution."—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 340.]
  He must know more than anyone that officials base their judgments partly on so-called Home Office country assessments. I have Nigeria's assessment here. In September this year—three months after the then Foreign Secretary spoke of its "growing cruelty" and "summary justice" and while Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others were awaiting trial for their lives—the Home Office was advising its staff:
  "there is no evidence to suggest that Ogonis … face persecution from the Nigerian authorities"
  for membership of MOSOP—the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People. Yet that was the very organisation to which Ken Saro-Wiwa belonged before he was brutally and judicially murdered. That country assessment is not a white list; it is a whitewash.
  Do not people have a right to feel unsettled when they know of such stunning complacency in the face of the facts? If Britain is to be persuaded that the purpose behind the proposals is not to play the race card, let us have the case for them and let us have that case properly examined.
  The Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday that he has always believed strongly in racial tolerance in Britain. No one doubts that, but the problem is that the
  548
  Conservative party has long been split on the issue of race. We may and do trust the Prime Minister on race, but bitter experience has taught us that we often cannot trust those in control of his party. There was Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech in 1968 and Margaret Thatcher's claim in 1978 that the country would be "swamped" by immigrants. More recently, there were the 1992 and 1994 Euro-elections.
  We know that, for many in the Conservative party, the temptation to prey on people's worst prejudices is often too great to resist. What else are we to think of those chilling words from Mr. Andrew Lansley, who said that immigration has more potential to hurt? Is that the language of a party dedicated to good race relations and to the examination of important but sensitive issues? Or is it the language of a party ready to stir up prejudice in a desperate attempt to garner votes? I hope that, when the Secretary of State replies to the debate in a few minutes' time, we will hear from him, at long last, a complete repudiation of Mr. Lansley's views and of his candidacy.
  The Gracious Speech contains two other home affairs measures on disclosure and better national co-ordination in respect of the fight against crime. We shall support the principle of both measures, while, of course, examining their detail with care. The rules on the disclosure of prosecution and defence evidence have to be changed. Justice is not served if the innocent are convicted or if the plainly guilty walk free.
  We shall support, too, the new proposals on the nobbling of juries and witnesses. None of us wishes to see a national police service, but organised crime is no respecter of boundaries, and national arrangements must reflect that reality. As for the new role for the Security Service, provided that there are proper safeguards for its necessarily secret work, it is plainly sensible, given the reduction in its other tasks, for its skills and resources to be used.
  Neither of the two Bills realistically measures up to the scale of the crisis that now engulfs the criminal justice system. What is significant about the Queen's Speech is not what is in it but what is not. There is nothing in the Gracious Speech to tackle crime or the fear of crime, nothing to deal with criminal anti-social neighbours, nothing to cut court delays and nothing to stop our communities being torn apart by disorder and division.
  The Secretary of State will no doubt refer to the fall in crime over the past two years, and that is welcome, but he fails to understand that the public judge the Government's record not on two years but on 16, and in 16 years crime has doubled. Violent crime has risen even faster. Yet fewer people are being cautioned or convicted than in 1979. Under the Conservative Government, not only is there more crime but many more people are getting away with it—just one in 50 of the crimes committed result in a conviction.
  The consequence is that crime and the fear of crime now dominate people's lives in a way unheard of two decades ago: elderly people are trapped in their homes, women drive in fear and parents believe that their own neighbourhoods are unsafe. In a single decade, the number of children allowed to walk to school unaccompanied has more than halved. The Secretary of State knows that everyone is now affected by crime. When people call for more police on the beat, they do so

  549
  because they want to be safe on the streets, safe from crime, safe from disorder, safe from loutish behaviour and safe from racial harassment.
  Nowhere is the failure of the criminal justice system greater than in dealing with the problems of local disorder. We all know about decent law-abiding citizens whose lives have been ruined by criminal, anti-social neighbours who refuse mediation, intimidate witnesses into silence and ignore the law with impunity. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) a harrowing story about how one village in his constituency has been run to ruin as a result of such criminal, anti-social neighbours. But where is there anything on that in the Gracious Speech? Everyone knows that it is a major issue to be tackled—everyone, that is, except the Government.
  Mr. Howard: We did indeed hear a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), in which he said that the cause of the difficulties faced by his constituents was that no one was prepared to come forward to give evidence of those difficulties. How can anything that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggests have any effect in the absence of evidence? What is he suggesting? Is he suggesting some magical new change in the law that will enable people to be convicted without any evidence?
  Mr. Straw: I am delighted that I gave way to the Home Secretary, because his question showed complete incomprehension of the scale of the problem.
  Mr. Pawsey: Answer.
  Mr. Straw: I will answer.
  The Home Secretary sought to condemn our proposals for dealing with the problem before reading a single word of those proposals. Of course persuading witnesses to give evidence is a major problem; that is why we have built on the way in which Labour-controlled Coventry city council handled that problem. Rather than relying on individual neighbours who have suffered or been intimidated in silence, we make use of professional witnesses employed by the local authority.[Interruption.]
  The Home Secretary clearly considers this a laughing matter. The whole country will be delighted to learn that he believes that the problem of criminal, anti-social neighbours is a laughing matter. People do not consider it so in Coventry, Falkirk and Blackburn—and I bet that they do not in Folkestone, either. What they recognise is that the Home Secretary simply does not appreciate the scale of the problem that is affecting the country.
  We have proposed a new community safety order with tough penalties for a breach of that order. We have proposed more effective witness protection, and special measures to deal with racial harassment. Labour's plans have been welcomed by local authorities, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Police Superintendents Association and many others, and a consensus could easily be reached on them. However, we have heard not a word of support or even comprehension from the Government; we have heard only complacent claims that existing law is adequate. That merely shows how detached from the reality of daily life the Government are.
  Then there is the crisis in the court process. More and more is being spent on achieving less and less. The costs of criminal aid have rocketed; fewer cases are going to
  550
  court; the proportion of cases that are discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service has almost doubled; the number of prisoners awaiting trial accounts for a quarter of the prison population—there has been a 22 per cent. increase since 1992. Everyone knows that there is a problem, but the Gracious Speech is deafening in its silence about what is to be done.
  The Government's record on crime and disorder is appalling. It is the worst among the 16 western countries on which the Home Office provides comparable crime statistics. The record is there for all to see: a doubling of recorded crime; a greater risk of being a victim of crime; parents frightened to let their children go out to play; old people trapped in their homes. That is the reality of crime in Conservative Britain, and it is the reality that the Government have so comprehensively failed to address in the Queen's Speech.
  9.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): We have heard yet another preposterous, disgraceful speech from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It was disgraceful because of the racism that it introduced into discussion of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and because of the way in which it sought to mislead people in regard to the real and certain problem of anti-social conduct, to which the hon. Gentleman and his party have no solution whatever.
  The most significant feature of this debate is that it tells the nation loud and clear just how little prominence Labour gives to law and order. Three Home Office Bills are included in the Gracious Speech. They are at the forefront of our programme. We know how important the issues are to the everyday life of our citizens, but the Opposition have tried to hide them and have put them at the end of the debate. They have shown the country what they do not want to talk about. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We do not need mirth at this hour.
  Mr. Howard: The last thing that the Opposition want to talk about is the success of the police in the fight against crime. We congratulate the police on that success. The past two years have seen the biggest fall in recorded crime since records began in the middle of the last century. There have been 500,000 fewer crimes, fewer victims and less suffering. That is what is happening in the country, and it is the measure of the success of the police. We are determined to help them build on that success.
  The measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are beginning to bite. The new provisions on bail, which the hon. Gentleman impliedly opposed in his speech, are helping to protect the public.
  Mr. Straw: Not at all.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not at all." He complained about the number of people awaiting trial, so he cannot be in favour of measures that would tighten bail to ensure that more and more people are not released on bail to reoffend and terrorise the public. If people are refused bail, there will be more people in prison awaiting trial. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman can grasp that elementary fact.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State shows how misinformed he is about the problem in the Prison

  551
  Service. Numbers have risen so fast because the statutory time limits that were set by his Government to ensure that there are not too many delays in bringing cases to trial have been broken. The proportion of cases meeting the statutory time limit has gone from 15 to 25 per cent. The truth is that delays are getting longer.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if bail is tightened and if it is refused to stop people reoffending, the number of people in prison awaiting trial is bound to increase.
  The spread of closed circuit television is preventing crime, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The extension of partnership across the country, which is mentioned in the Opposition amendment but which was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn, is creating an environment that is increasingly hostile to the criminal. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for piloting through Parliament what is now the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995. It was strongly supported by the Government and it will enable the courts to confiscate the assets of persistent criminals—the professional burglars, the bank robbers and the pornographers.
  Last month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced important new backing for the police. We have recruited 16,000 more police officers since 1979–500 more in the current year alone. My right hon. Friend has promised to provide the money for another 5,000 over the next three years. In addition, he promised that resources would be made available to help to pay for 10,000 more closed circuit television cameras to help those police officers to prevent crime and bring more criminals to justice.
  Those are the matters that Labour wants to keep hidden and to ignore. Labour Members do not want to talk about them, so they relegate the hon. Member for Blackburn to the tail end of the debate—out of sight, out of mind.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a notable and compelling speech on the drug problem in his constituency.
  Mr. Campbell: It is on that matter that I want to put a question to the Home Secretary. As I said in my speech, the biggest problem in my area is the supply of legal methadone to young children who are reaching the age of the criminal element. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to do about that?
  Mr. Howard: As I have said, the hon. Gentleman made a compelling speech, in which he described in vivid terms the drug problem in his constituency. He will know that, in pursuance of the strategy that we announced in our White Paper earlier this year, we are setting up across the country 100 drug action teams that are designed to ensure that all local agencies work together to deal with the problem. As his speech clearly showed, it cannot be dealt with by any one agency or one measure alone. Everyone must co-operate and work together. That is precisely the purpose of the drug action teams that we are setting up. I hope that they will contribute to the solution in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but so will the part played by the Security Service in the fight against serious and organised crime.
  552
  The three Home Office Bills in the Gracious Speech are of utmost importance. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill was introduced in another place last week. It proposes a statutory scheme for prosecution and defence disclosure in criminal cases. It will help to even up the scales of justice and redress the current imbalance that requires too much of the prosecution and too little of the defence. I have lost count of the times police officers have said to me that the current rules are being exploited by hardened criminals and enable guilty men to walk free from court. I welcomed the informed support that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), with the wealth of his experience in the police service, gave to that measure.
  That Bill will reduce the unnecessary burdens of the present arrangements, without denying defendants access to the material that they need. It will narrow the issues in dispute before the trial and protect sensitive material more effectively. In short, it will help to make trials more a search for the truth and less a game of cat and mouse played out by lawyers.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: No one wants the guilty to go free, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the failure of the police and, sometimes, of the prosecution authorities to produce evidence that is inconvenient to their case has led to some extremely serious miscarriages of justice? Will such miscarriages be avoided under the legislation that he is proposing?
  Mr. Howard: The proposals that I make will not, in any way, increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Blackburn— although there had been a certain amount of confusion up to his speech this evening—that the Labour party apparently intended to support these proposals. [Interruption.] I will explain to him exactly why there was confusion. There was confusion because, in his speech last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that he supported the scheme proposed by the Royal Commission on criminal justice on this matter.
  I agreed with the principle behind the royal commission's proposal, but it did not adequately deal with the problem that it identified. The Bill's proposals, therefore—let there be no misunderstanding about this— go substantially further than those made by the royal commission. It was therefore utterly ridiculous—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Blackburn nodding his head—for the Leader of the Opposition to respond to our proposals by saying that he supported the royal commission's recommendations when they were two different things.
  Trying to find out where the Opposition stand on such matters is normally a futile affair. The Leader of the Opposition has elevated indecision to the level of a constitutional principle. He will do anything and go anywhere rather make up his mind on any of these matters. His attitude to decision making is to run away from it as fast as he can.
  The amendment to the Gracious Speech complains that there is nothing to help victims in our proposals. That is not true. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill will give judges a new power to prevent the reporting of unsubstantiated allegations by the defence, which would blacken the good name of victims, to get lighter sentences for their clients. That should significantly reduce the

  553
  distress experienced by victims, but, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman did not bother to check' his facts before drafting his amendment.
  The Bill will allow retrials where a jury has been nobbled or a witness intimidated. That measure will do most to deal with the problem that was raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), whose problems were caused by the fact that people were not prepared to come forward to give evidence. One cannot convict people in the absence of evidence. The Bill will encourage people to come forward and to give evidence, and it implements the last of the 27 pledges that I made at the Conservative party conference in 1993. It was one of the many royal commission recommendations that I have been happy to accept.
  Mrs. Fyfe: On the subject of indecision, is the Home Secretary prepared to tell us whether he repudiates the words of Andrew Lansley?
  Mr. Howard: I made it perfectly clear yesterday that I had never discussed the matter with Mr. Lansley. The Bill that I am proposing is a clear response to an identified problem. We need to hear whether Opposition Members agree that there is a problem and, if not, why not, and what they intend to do about it. Do they agree with our proposals? If they have some other way of dealing with the problem, let us hear from them about it. Let us have no more diversionary tactics. Let us talk about the issues and debate them on their merits.
  Mr. Straw: This is the fourth time of asking over two days and the Home Secretary must now answer the question. The entire country wants to know the answer— [Laughter.] It is hardly a laughing matter. Mr. Andrew Lansley made it clear that his advice to the Tory party was to play the race card, that immigration was an issue that played particularly well in the tabloids and that it had the potential to hurt. We want to know not whether the Home Secretary has discussed the matter with Mr. Lansley, which is his pat answer, but whether he will now repudiate the views of Mr. Lansley.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman slightly exaggerates the extent to which he has been able to excite the country about this matter. I have told him clearly that I have made clear proposals to deal with a clear problem and it is about time that we heard from the Labour party about its attitude to the proposals.
  Our second Bill will enable the Security Service to help to fight organised crime. Organised crime is big business on an international scale. The people involved are highly calculating, highly ruthless and highly organised. To deal with them we have to be just as calculating, just as ruthless and just as organised.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: I have already given way about five times as often as the hon. Member for Blackburn. I want to deal with this important measure.
  The Security Service has considerable expertise in collecting, collating and analysing intelligence. That expertise should be used to help the police, Customs and Excise and the National Criminal Intelligence Service to
  554
  fight crime. It is doubtful whether current legislation permits this, so we shall legislate to put beyond doubt its ability to do so.
  In addition, we intend to build on the success of the regional crime squads and the National Criminal Intelligence Service so that we can establish a more focused and better co-ordinated policing response, at national level, against organised crime. The police will, of course, continue to lead on this. They fully support the proposals.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Mr. Howard: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman waits until I have completed this passage; then I may give way to him.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made a speech about that aspect of the matter. It was characteristically mistaken. He was the only Opposition Member to mention it. Perhaps we will hear whether he speaks for his party on this matter. His speech was in direct contrast to that of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) who made a compelling speech about the drug problem in his constituency. I hope that, in addition to the measures that I identified when I gave way to him, the involvement of the Security Service in helping to intercept the flow of drugs to this country will help to deal with the problem with which his constituents are afflicted.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Howard: I want to finish this section of my speech. If I have not already answered his question, I will then give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  Concerns have been expressed about the accountability of the Security Service. Of course, it will not be acting independently; it will be working in conjunction with the police and Customs and Excise. The Director General of the Security Service will be accountable to me in relation to these additional functions just as she is now for the present work of the service. The existing safeguards—the role of the Security Service commissioner and the tribunal in investigating complaints about the service—will apply to its additional functions as they do to its existing ones. This will be a valuable reinforcement of our armoury in the fight against crime, and I hope that the Bill will receive a warm welcome.
  Mr. Beith: How will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the police are in operational charge? If the Act is simply amended to allow the Security Service to operate in the area of organised crime, the service will itself be able to choose which operations to mount.
  Mr. Howard: No, because the arrangements that we have made—agreed by the Security Service and the police and Customs and Excise—make it clear that the work done by the Security Service on organised crime will be in support of the law enforcement agencies: the police and Customs and Excise.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice rose—
  Mr. Howard: My third Bill is the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Yesterday I set out the genuine problems that we face and the actions that we intend to

  555
  take to deal with them. Asylum applications are rising sharply. In January last year we received 2,000 claims; last month there were 4,500, so the number has more than doubled.
  Mrs. Prentice rose—
  Mr. Howard: The trend here is in marked contrast to what is happening in Europe, where other countries have taken action, not against genuine refugees but against bogus asylum seekers. Asylum claims fell by more than 40 per cent. last year in the rest of western Europe but rose by 45 per cent. here.
  Most of the claims that we receive are bogus; only 4 per cent. are initially granted asylum, and only 4 per cent. of appeals are upheld by independent adjudicators.
  Mrs. Prentice rose—
  Mr. Howard: There are now 700 staff working on asylum claims, compared with fewer than 100 in 1988. In the 12 months to last June, they took 25,000 decisions, 10,000 more than in the preceding 12 months. In February I announced a £37 million increase in spending on more case workers and adjudicators over the next three years. These improvements will enable us to deal with 37,000 claims a year. But this year alone we look set to receive 40,000 asylum applications, and the latest month's figures suggest an annual rate of more than 50,000.
  Mrs. Prentice rose—
  Mr. Howard: Without firm action to deter bogus applicants, we risk getting caught in a vicious circle— ever-increasing delays attracting more abusive applications, making it more difficult to deal quickly with the claims of genuine refugees. The Asylum and Immigration Bill will enable me, with parliamentary approval, to designate certain countries where there is no serious risk of persecution. Claimants from those countries would face a rebuttable presumption against their claim, as they already do in Germany and the Netherlands.
  It has been asserted, quite wrongly, that such provisions breach the United Nations convention. They do not. Every application will continue to be decided on its merits, as international law dictates. I repeat what I said yesterday and earlier today: the list of designated countries will be laid before Parliament in due course, but Nigeria has never been considered for it.
  Mrs. Prentice rose—
  Mr. Howard: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East the assurance that he sought. I am happy to meet the organisations that he identified before the list is finalised.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mrs. Prentice rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) must have realised by now that she is not likely to be allowed to intervene—
  Mrs. Prentice: But Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady wants to talk to me afterwards I shall be happy to have a conversation with her, but not across the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why do you find it necessary to pick on just one hon. Member, when many are rising?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not need to hear comments like that. I am merely pointing out that if an
  556
  hon. Member keeps trying to intervene—on my count, 11 times—but is not allowed to intervene by the Member who has the Floor, it becomes a little tedious.
  Mr. Howard: I have already given way half a dozen times more than the Opposition spokesman.
  I must deal with the entirely bogus point raised in relation to the Special Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Blackburn referred yesterday and again today to a recommendation by the Procedure Committee going back to 1986. However, the Committee has considered the matter since then. In its second report in the 1989–90 Session, the Committee said clearly that the procedure was appropriate for Bills that were not controversial in party political terms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, has written to the Leader of the Opposition making precisely that point. Anyone who considers the matter objectively will recognise how inappropriate the suggestion of a Special Standing Committee is.
  We have debated six Bills relating to immigration since the procedure was introduced. It was not used for any of them. Like its predecessors, this Bill will receive detailed scrutiny in the usual way. If Opposition Members want to take the politics out of the issue, they should support the Bill.
  The Opposition's amendment to the motion refers to access to work, but the Labour party has shown yet again that it has no understanding of how jobs are created or how they are destroyed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should save his energy.
  Mr. Howard: Labour's proposalsߞ[Interruption.] I can see that Labour Members do not want to hear about the statutory minimum wage. That is the last thing that they want to hear about, but I shall remind them of it. Labour's amendment refers to access to jobs, but there can be no access to jobs if one destroys those jobs with a minimum wage. That is what the Labour party intends to do. The minimum wage and the social chapter— [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear about how they will destroy Jobs. They would guarantee to give strikers back their jobs. That is how they would destroy utterly the prospect of a pathway to jobs and the access to jobs to which their amendment refers.
  I deal now with the position of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Does he have a position?
  Mr. Howard: I want to express my sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. During the previous debate on prison policy, the Leader of the Opposition humiliated him. He told him when to make interventions and which to make; he told him when to take interventions and when not to. Finally, when he could constrain himself no longer, he shoved the hon. Gentleman aside and took to the Dispatch Box himself.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the Home Secretary's comments in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The contributions of all hon. Members should refer to what is in the Queen's Speech. So far, the contributions of all hon. Members have been in order.
  Mr. Howard: Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Blackburn, that was not the end of his humiliation. Last month he made what appeared to be a definitive statement about his party's—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Home Secretary referring to something in the Queen's Speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In so far as I could hear the Home Secretary, he made some reference to a speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I have not yet heard the content of it and I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition was referring to the Queen's Speech. If he was, the Home Secretary's remarks are in order; if he was not, I doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be going further down that route.
  Mr. Howard: The context is the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is in the Queen's Speech. The hon. Member for Blackburn said, "We should oppose the Bill." He said it again last month. He has constantly said that he would oppose the Bill. But along came the Leader of the Opposition and said, "No, no. We are going to wait. We are going to consider it on its merits."
  The Leader of the Opposition has humiliated the hon. Member for Blackburn again. I think that he should back the hon. Gentleman or sack him. He should make up his mind about the hon. Gentleman. We on the Conservative Benches will continue to propose measures that deal with the problems facing this country—
  Mr. Don Dixon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 297.

  Division No. 1]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Betts, Clive

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Blunkett, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith

  Alton, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Byers, Stephen

  Barron, Kevin

  Caborn, Richard

  Battle, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cann, Jamie

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chidgey, David

  Berry, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  558

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Harry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cox, Tom

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darling, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worlh)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCartney, Ian

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McCartney, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  Macdonald, Calum

  Etherington, Bill

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foulkes, George

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Diana

  Galloway, George

  Maginnis, Ken

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mildred

  Maxton, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Meacher, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gunnell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hanson, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hardy, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Mudie, George

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Hara, Edward

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

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoyle, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  559

  Pike, Peter L

  Spellar, John

  Pope, Greg

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stevenson, George

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stott, Roger

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Purchase, Ken

  Straw, Jack

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Redmond, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Reid, Dr John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rendel, David

  Touhig, Don

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Trimble, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Turner, Dennis

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tyler, Paul

  Rogers, Allan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wallace, James

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Salmond, Alex

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, Jimmy

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

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Eric Clarke.

  Spearing, Nigel

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Peter

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Churchill, Mr

  Bates, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coe, Sebastian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Congdon, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  560

  Duncan, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Elletson, Harold

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evennett David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Faber, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Legg, Barry

  Forman, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, lain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charies

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  561

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Braxbourne)

  Thomason, Roy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Sackville, Tom

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sims, Roger

  Walden, George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sweeney, Walter

  Sykes, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Timothy Kirkhope be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Graham Riddick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bates.]

  LIAISON
  Ordered,
  That Sir Nicholas Bonsor be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Michael Colvin be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Bates.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. James Couchman be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Andrew Rowe be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Bates.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at the sitting on Wednesday 29th November Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings) shall have effect with the following variations: in paragraph (1) in place of the words 'two o'clock' shall be inserted 'half-past eleven o'clock'; in place of paragraph (5) shall be inserted 'Not more than one subject shall be raised before eleven o'clock, and not more than one between that hour and half-past eleven o'clock'; and in paragraph (6) in place of the words 'at two o'clock' shall be inserted 'at half-past eleven o'clock'.—[Mr. Bates.]

  Cervical Cancer (Radiation Injuries)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  10.18 pm
  Ms Janet Anderson: I am grateful for the opportunity this evening to highlight the plight of a number of women who have suffered the most severe injuries resulting from radiation treatment for cervical cancer. Approximately one year ago, I was invited to meet a group of women in the Manchester area who had, during a period from the late 1970s to the early 1980s, received radiation treatment for cervical cancer at the Christie hospital in Manchester.
  In the normal course of events, the women would have been treated with the well-tried and trusted Manchester pack. However, they were told that they were to receive a new and different treatment which would cure their cervical cancer. The treatment was by way of a machine called a selection. It is important to point out the difference between the two treatments.
  The Manchester pack can best be described as a matchbox which surrounded the tumour and emitted radiation concentrated at the tumour. The treatment spanned three days, and had been successfully tried and tested.
  For women who were exposed to the selectron method, things were rather different. They were told that they were to be given a treatment which would cure their cervical cancer. This involved them being placed in a darkened room connected to a selectron machine and left there for 24 hours. We now know that, during the course of the treatment, the women received a radiation dose during 24 hours which would have previously been administered over three days with the Manchester pack. The women involved insist that at no time were they informed that they were part of an experimental treatment.
  The injuries that the women incurred as a consequence of the intense radiation therapy are simply horrendous. They have suffered bowel and bladder damage and damage to their internal organs, which has made their lives intolerable. Many have had to be subjected to ostomies of almost every kind. Some injuries have been so traumatic that patients have threatened suicide, family relationships have been shattered, and children have had to be fostered while their mothers were in hospital for long periods.
  The women I met were no longer able to enjoy sexual relations or to bear children. Their skins had taken on almost a translucent appearance, and they were obviously very ill. Many suffer constant pain from their injuries. I should like to refer to one of the women in particular, whose case will help to illustrate the extent of the injuries that the women suffered.
  In 1987, at the age of 26, Mrs. Vicky Parker was diagnosed as having an advanced stage of cervical cancer. The best treatment was radiotherapy. But when Vicky went into Manchester's Christie hospital, she had no idea what was about to happen to her. It was to be years before she learned the truth. Her radiotherapist had informed her that she was to be treated by a selectron. Vicky said:
  "I asked him literally hundreds of questions. At the time I had no idea that this was a new experimental treatment and that I was to be used as a guinea pig. I was told that the only side effects would be sickness and diarrhoea.

  563
  According to Vicky Parker, the selectron was a complete nightmare. She said:
  "In advertisements you see a woman apparently being treated. She is eating and looks completely at ease. The truth was a different picture altogether."
  Vicky spent the next 24 hours—the worst of her life—in a sealed room flat on her back with three tubes packed inside her. The selectron machine attached to the tubes fired caesium ball bearings at the tumour. Such was the strength of the radiation that, if a nurse entered the room, the pellets were automatically sucked out and the whole process stopped. For 24 hours, Vicky was unable to eat or sleep. After that, she underwent five weeks of conventional external radiotherapy.
  In January 1988, the treatment stopped. Over the next few weeks, Vicky learned that the cancer had gone. She went on a long holiday with her family, and returned to work in a new job. It was a time of real celebration. She had fought cancer and won. But her celebrations were short-lived.
  In September, Vicky started having pains in her bowels, and had to go back to hospital. Referred to a bowel specialist, she listened with horror as he explained that her bowel had been damaged by radiotherapy. There was no time to delay, and the endless round of bowel and bladder operations had begun. Vicky Parker never went back to work. She has been in hospital 100 times. She has had 25 operations—a colostomy, operations to repair, operations to deal with complications. She has had a thrombosis and a urostomy. She is constantly on morphine to cope with the pain.
  In such circumstances, it is easy to believe that one is alone in one's experience, but in 1989, when Vicky was in and out of hospital, she met another woman on the surgical ward who was in and out of hospital for similar operations. This woman had also been treated on the selectron. It transpired, as revealed by a BBC Radio 4 "File on Four" programme in 1991, that hundreds of patients had been damaged by the experimental selectron treatment. It was shortly after that that Vicky and others founded the action group RAGE—Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure—to which I have the honour to be a parliamentary adviser.
  It is hard to believe that in this country, and in this day and age, cancer patients were completely unaware that they were part of a clinical trial in which they had absolutely no say. Vicky, like all the other victims, was merely told that she would suffer some sickness and diarrhoea. Despite her in-depth questioning, she, like all the others, was not told that she was to be subjected to a most horrible experiment. In her own words, she feels that she has been "medically violated".
  In October 1991, 20 RAGE victims started individual legal actions against the Christie hospital. The cases are so complicated, dealing not only with legal aspects but medical rules and ethical questions, that they are still going on. However, nothing could ever compensate the victims and their families for what has happened.
  One victim, Kath Dillon, tragically died from her injuries in 1992. It was 12 months before an inquest could take place. The coroner said that internal problems that had led to her death had been caused by the treatment.
  RAGE now has 3,000 members. Not all its members have had injuries through a pelvic or abdominal cancer: some have been victims of radiotherapy for breast
  564
  cancer, and they have their own group, RAGE Breast. It is now apparent that it is not only women who have been abused in this way. RAGE now has a small number of men among its members who have radiotherapy injuries from treatment for prostate, bladder, testes and colon cancers.
  The women are now seeking an independent investigation into radiotherapy damage and compensation. The Government have decided to audit injuries on two breast cancer cases. Surely the Minister must now agree to a simultaneous audit for all radiotherapy injuries.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: As my hon. Friend knows, I have had a lot to do with the same group. As one of the few people in the House who has worked with radiation, albeit not in a medical sense, I claim some knowledge of the risks faced by the women in question. Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of consent, a form for which appears to have been introduced by the Christie hospital only in 1991, is critical? Many of the women were clearly experimental guinea pigs prior to that time. It was only after the damage had been identified that people were asked to sign that form.
  Ms Anderson: As ever, my hon. Friend has gone right to nub of problem. He is quite right. The whole case turns around whether the women knew they were part of an experiment. As he pointed out, the Christie did not introduce the consent form until 1991. The women that I am talking about received treatment in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I thank my hon. Friend for that well-timed intervention.
  Surely the Minister must agree to a simultaneous audit for all radiotherapy injuries, and most particularly those sustained during the period of experimental treatment for cervical cancer on the selectron machine.
  Finally, will the Minister tonight give us an assurance that he will agree to that, and that he will now take steps to set up a national register of victims? There are hundreds of women such as Vicky Parker and her colleagues who deserve to have their voices heard and their condition recognised. It is the responsibility of the Government to assess the scale of the problem, to give recognition to those women, and to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
  10.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I start by expressing my deepest sympathy for the women who have suffered severe adverse effects as a result of radiotherapy treatment for cervical cancer, many of whom were treated using the selectron, as the hon. Lady said, at the Christie hospital in Manchester in the 1980s.
  Let me first say something about the selectron treatment. Internal radiotherapy has been available for decades. The difference with the selectron is that, in old-style therapy, the radiation sources were inserted manually. The selectron is a way of inserting the source and removing it automatically by remote control. Such a system has the advantage of reducing staff exposure to radiation, because the radioactive sources could be withdrawn along pipes into a lead-lined safe at the foot of the bed.

  565
  In 1978, the low dose rate selectron system devised by the Christie hospital was introduced. It is now in use at other United Kingdom centres, including Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool and the Marsden.
  In its early days, the correct dose on the selectron had to be calculated because stronger sources were used than in the former manual—that is, non-retractable—treatment system. It must be remembered that, although it was a higher dose of radiation than before, it was still a relatively low dose.
  The treatment of women using the selectron during the 1980s was part of a randomised, controlled trial, designed to try to establish the optimum dose for patients with an early stage cancer. As I said, the selectron is still used in the treatment of cervical cancer, and the system developed at Manchester is used worldwide.
  Mr. Miller: Can the Minister advise the House how the calculations were undertaken in those early clinical trials and what the dose rates were? Furthermore, does he agree that it is unacceptable that the letter from the Christie to my hon. Friend dated 26 July stated that those patients had experienced difficulties and distress? It is far more than that. Those women have had their lives destroyed; the Christie ought to admit it, and so should the Department of Health.
  Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps not be surprised to learn that I do not have the information on his first, technical question. I will try to supply him with it in writing. On his second question, that was a highly regrettable series of events. As I said, we all have the deepest sympathy. Later, I will explain how I very much hope that ways will be found to avoid that situation recurring.
  The selectron is still in use, and we now have the benefit of experience of doses that have been found to have acceptable levels of adverse effect. I am aware that the women who received significant adverse effects, which they believed were caused by their treatment with the selectron, are taking legal action against the Christie hospital, on the grounds that they were given insufficient information as to the nature of the treatment.
  It is now clear Government policy that all patients have a right to consent to or reject treatment, and are entitled to a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks and alternatives. All treatments carry some level of risk, and patients must be allowed to decide whether they wish to continue with the treatment proposed. That is a principle that has been highlighted in the patients charter.
  Some of those suing the Christie are part of a support group, RAGE National, which, with its sister group RAGE Breast, is pressing central Government for recognition and compensation for radiotherapy-related injuries. Representatives from RAGE met my noble Friend Lady Cumberlege and the chief medical officer last year to discuss its members' concerns. Following that meeting, and at the Department's behest, the Royal College of Radiologists agreed to undertake a confidential clinical review of 126 RAGE Breast members to discover what—
  Ms Janet Anderson: I think that the Minister just said that Baroness Cumberlege had met RAGE National
  566
  members. With respect, I think that he is confusing two groups. I do not think that it is the case that RAGE National members—the women concerned with cervical cancer—have ever succeeded in obtaining a meeting with a Minister.
  Mr. Sackville: That is my information. Clearly, if it proves to be wrong, I will seek to correct it.
  At the Department's behest, the Royal College of Radiologists has agreed to undertake a confidential review to discover what common factors in treatment may have led to those women suffering adverse effects. I know that members of RAGE National, which includes about 700 people in the United Kingdom who have suffered such effects, is pressing for a similar clinical review.
  The review of breast cancer cases was commissioned because they are a relatively homogeneous group. Common factors are more likely to emerge than from a heterogeneous group, such as RAGE National members, who have had different cancers and undergone dissimilar radiotherapy techniques. The results of the breast review will be available soon. Once we have those results, we can then look to see whether, in the light of what has been learnt, further investigations would be appropriate.
  I fully realise, of course, that many of the women who are still suffering side effects following treatment in the 1980s would wish to have their injuries recognised and consideration to be given to their claims for compensation commensurate with the degree of injury, but it is important to be clear about the way in which such claims are pursued.
  First and foremost, we maintain the belief that it is right that people harmed in the course of clinical treatment should be able to seek compensation through the legal process, but that requires them to demonstrate not only that they have been harmed, but that there has been negligence and that the negligence caused the harm. Where negligence cannot be shown, however, there is no case in law for them to be compensated. From time to time, it has been suggested that that is not right, and calls have been made for the introduction of a "no fault" compensation scheme.
  Hon. Members will recall that this issue has been considered in the House before, most recently in the Second Reading debate on the National Health Service (Compensation) Bill, on 1 February 1991. On that occasion, as on every other when the issue has been raised, the House concurred with the Government's view that no-fault compensation would not be helpful. I shall briefly remind hon. Members of the main reasons.
  We are aware of some victims of clinical negligence who oppose no-fault compensation on the grounds that it would make it less likely that plaintiffs' non-financial concerns would be addressed. Many plaintiffs argue that their motivation for pursuing a claim is not to secure money but to obtain an explanation and an apology, and to ensure that what happened to them does not subsequently happen to others. Thus, a system designed to address financial aspects of medical accidents quickly, without regard to fault, could deflect attention from plaintiffs' most important concerns.
  Another closely related issue is accountability. Our legal system holds all individuals accountable for their actions and, arguably, has a deterrent effect on

  567
  malpractice. No-fault compensation could remove an incentiveto good practice, and make some health care professionals less careful.
  The Government must be mindful of the potential cost implications of any no-fault compensation scheme. Costs falling on the NHS could increase substantially. For example, a scheme in New Zealand that covers accidents generally is thought to cost about 1.5 per cent. of its entire gross national product.
  It has anyway yet to be shown why compensation in health care should be regarded as essentially different from negligence and compensation in other walks of life, where claims are resolved through the legal process.
  Finally, there is, I believe, a fundamental misconception in the minds of many that no-fault compensation would obviate the need for legal action. Experience in the current system shows that it can be just as difficult to establish that medical treatment had caused injury as it would be to prove that someone had been negligent. Under any system of no-fault compensation, causation would still have to be shown. The level of quantum would also have to be established. Legal action would not necessarily be avoided. The process could still be very lengthy.
  Mr. Miller: It is important that the Minister should cover the issue of no-fault compensation; I raised it with him in a meeting last year. The issue is surely that the hospital trust and the Department have acknowledged that, as a result of these clinical trials, some women suffered damage. The degree to which that happened in each individual case is quite varied. Some of the cases are extremely serious, as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen have described.
  If we simply leave it to the legal system to deal with the matter, it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis— because, as the Minister pointed out, the cancers involved are very varied—and we shall not be able to deal with the overall problem. Would it not be more sensible for the Department to instruct the trusts to release all the information, not just for the legal process but—more important—in the interests of research, to prevent this from happening again?
  Mr. Sackville: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's last point later. As for the release of information, he must bear in mind the fact that legal action is pending, and the trust has a right to coduct the case as it sees fit.
  I have spoken at some length about the reasons why we believe that no-fault compensation is inappropriate. The Government have concluded that where—sadly—clinical accidents have occurred, our most appropriate action is to seek to improve claims management practice within the current system, defending claims that should be defended but not causing expensive delays when claims should be settled.
  In his response to the National Health Service (Compensation) Bill, the then Secretary of State for Health undertook to consider arbitration as a possible alternative to the courts for the resolution of clinical negligence claims; the Department of Health subsequently consulted widely on a possible arbitration scheme for the NHS, but the outcome was inconclusive.
  Rather than dismiss the idea out of hand, however, it was decided to put it to the newly formed clinical negligence working group. That joint departmental and
  568
  NHS group was set up to consider how best to help NHS trusts to manage their exposure to clinical negligence claims, which are the main cause of litigation. The group considered the proposals put to it very carefully, but its firm advice was that arbitration did not represent a significant improvement on litigation, and should not be pursued.
  The group reached that conclusion for a number of reasons. It was convinced that arbitration would not appeal to plaintiffs; in particular, they were thought unlikely to commit themselves in advance to be bound by the outcome, which is a requirement of arbitration. In complex cases—and clinical negligence cases often are complex—arbitration would not necessarily be cheaper than the courts. A paper-based arbitration system, such as that put before the group, would require a better quality of written information than is often available.
  The group did feel, however, that mediation offered constructive possibilities for the resolution of clinical-negligence claims, which should be explored further. That advice was put to my ministerial colleagues in the Department, and was accepted. Since then, work has focused on mediation, and I am pleased to say that a good deal of progress has been made. Pilot schemes using mediation for that purpose have been set up in two English regions—Northern and Yorkshire and Anglia and Oxford.
  We believe that mediation offers a genuine alternative way of settling claims, in which the parties to the dispute come together to agree a solution. It is non-binding, but in suitable cases it is thought likely to be a humane and cost-effective way of enabling all aspects of a case to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Savings may be hoped for in legal costs.
  Where agreement is reached, compensation will be arranged in the same way as in any other out-of-court settlement. If, in some cases, full agreement cannot be reached, mediation offers a possibility of narrowing the issues for subsequent consideration. Of course, we do not expect mediation to be a panacea, but we hope that it may prove helpful in suitable cases.
  The pilot mediation schemes began operating in April, and the first mediation, which took place in September, was considered very successful by all the parties concerned. However, it will be some time before we are able to draw any firm conclusions from the schemes. When the outcome has been properly evaluated, we will decide whether mediation should be extended to the NHS as a whole.
  I make it clear that we see it as a priority to minimise the risk of any adverse effects from radiotherapy, although it is recognised that most treatments have some element of inherent risk. That is why we have issued guidance to health authorities on quality assurance in radiotherapy. We want to ensure that all radiotherapy units have in place the necessary systems to ensure a quality service.
  Last year, I launched a new document called "Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy" which has been disseminated throughout the national health service. In offering deepest sympathy to those who have suffered any accident as a result of this or any other cause in the course of medical treatment, it is appropriate to give a firm commitment on behalf of the NHS.
  Ms Janet Anderson: I look forward to hearing that commitment. I think the Minister said that mediation is to

  569
  be extended to all NHS patients. Will he confirm that, in the event of that happening, all the women who have been treated on the selectron machine and received radiotherapy injuries as a result, will also be covered?
  Mr. Sackville: I said that two trials are in progress, and that we are committed to two schemes in two regions. I also said that not all accidents will be amenable to mediation. It is a question of the parties concerned finding that that is a suitable way forward which may bring a solution. Obviously, good will is needed on both sides. Although it is non-binding, it is a way to find a solution. I have said that we do not intend that trusts or any other
  570
  part of the NHS should gratuitously resist claims. They should settle those that ought to be settled. All that is imprecise, because cases differ.
  Before the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen intervened, I said that, in any discussion of a case of this sort, it is right to give a commitment on behalf of the NHS. It is that we shall constantly seek to raise the standards of quality and safety of all treatment on offer. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that events such as the tragic events that have been described never happen again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those in his Office who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1401]

  The Prime Minister
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate departmental Minister. I have not myself, nor have others within my Office or the Cabinet Office, signed public interest certificates in the last five years.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received from the Governments of(a) Australia and (b) New Zealand prior to the French nuclear tests in the South Pacific regarding opposition to the tests; and if he will publish them. [1537]

  The Prime Minister
  We have had a number of contacts with the Australian and New Zealand Governments on this issue. These exchanges remain confidential between the Governments concerned.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November 1995. [1480]

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Opera Hats
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to increase the number of opera hats available for hon. Members' use during points of order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no such plans, but my hon. Friend may wish to draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee.
  46

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to introduce a parliamentary procedure to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to respond to early-day motions.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no such plans.

  Short Money
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what public funds the Leader of the Opposition receives to run Opposition political affairs.

  Mr. Newton
  Under paragraph 1 of the resolution of the House of 4 November 1993, financial assistance, known as "Short Money", is available to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their parliamentary business. The maximum amount which is available to the official Opposition for the year beginning 1 April 1995 is £1,408,448.12.

  Under paragraph 2 of the resolution, financial assistance is also available towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an Opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's parliamentary business. The maximum amount which is available to the official Opposition for the year beginning 1 April 1995 is £18,301.

  Campbell Soups
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will seek to place a ban on the procurement of Campbell Soups products by the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons. [680]

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  This is a matter for the director of the catering services. I have asked her to write to the hon. Member.

TREASURY

  Grant-maintained Schools (Borrowing)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if borrowing by grant-maintained schools is to be included in the public sector borrowing requirement. [1484]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Grant-maintained schools are not classified as public sector bodies in the Central Statistical Office's national accounts but as private non-profit-making bodies serving persons. Therefore borrowing by grant-maintained schools is not included in the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Insurance Policies
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to report on the results of the Inland Revenue's review of the taxation of insurance policies; and if he will make a statement. [90]

  Mr. Jack
  It would be inappropriate for me to comment on tax matters at this stage of the Budget cycle.
  47

  VAT
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount per week a married couple with two children on average male earnings is estimated to have paid in VAT, at today's prices, in the year 1978–79; and what he estimates a similar family will pay in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [86]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is estimated that the average amount of VAT paid by non-retired households with one or more children on average disposable income was £905 in 1979 and £1,495 in 1993, both at 1993 prices. Figures for future years will depend on the purchasing decisions of individuals.

  EC Salary Payment Errors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what material errors were detected in the EC Commission's payments of salaries in the EC's financial year 1994, irrespective of whether these errors were subsequently detected and corrected. [155]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A number of errors were identified by the Court of Auditors in its recent annual report—Official Journal, 14 November 1995. These errors affected the movement along salary scales of locally employed staff of European Commission delegations. The Commission is taking action to deal with the problem.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the gap between Britain's situation and each of the convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty(a) now, (b) by the end of 1996 and (c) by the end of 1997. [1100]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  We fully expect to meet the convergence criteria by 1997.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in the dairy industry(a) on 31 October 1994 and (b) on the last date for which figures are available. [202]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The most reliable information on jobs in the dairy industry is available from the periodic censuses of employment. The census shows that there were 29,800 jobs in the dairy industry in Great Britain at September 1993. Estimates from the smaller labour force survey suggest a small increase between autumn 1994 and spring 1995.

  Aviation Fuel
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rates of duty in pence per litre are charged on aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene in each of the 15 countries within the European Union; and how many litres of each fuel are consumed in the United Kingdom. [1499]
  48
  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  Aviation gasoline used by commercial and private aircraft is subject to excise duty at the rate of 18.07p per litre in the UK. No information is available about the rates of duty charged on aviation gasoline in other EU member states.

  Aviation kerosene used by commercial aircraft is subject to the nil rate of excise duty in all the European Union member states. Aviation kerosene used by private aircraft is subject to a nil rate of duty in the UK; no information is available about the rates of duty charged in other EU member states on aviation kerosene used by private aircraft.

  Some 39,179,000 litres of aviation gasoline and 9,257,964,000 litres of aviation kerosene were delivered for consumption in the UK in 1994.

  Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action public service pension schemes have taken to ensure that where redress is due under the Securities and Investments Board's pensions review, employees can be reinstated at reasonable cost. [1655]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I am pleased to announce that, on advice from the Government Actuary, the Government have now agreed the charges for reinstating the pensions entitlement of current public service employees who opted out of a public service pension scheme as a result of mis-selling. These charges are paid to the schemes concerned by the individuals or firms responsible for mis-selling.

  The charge for buying pension rights in respect of the period since the individual opted out of the public service scheme will be derived from the usual actuarially determined inward transfer value factors. These factors have recently been reviewed by the Government Actuary, and revised downwards.

  Where, in addition, a transfer payment was made for earlier pensionable service, the charge for reinstating pension rights for that service will normally take the form of repayment, with appropriate interest, of the outward transfer value—the payment made by the public service pension scheme to the personal pension provider when the individual transferred to the personal pension scheme.

  The Government Departments responsible for public service schemes are taking action to bring these changes into effect.

  I welcome their action. It is an important step towards ensuring that those who have suffered loss as a result of mis-selling are restored to a financial position equivalent to what it would have been the case if mis-selling had not occurred. This is being done in a way that is fair to other scheme members, ensures that those responsible provide the right redress and is fair to the taxpayer.

  I urge all occupational pension schemes in the private sector to follow the example of public service schemes by allowing current employees to rejoin for future service and also to buy back pension rights for previous service at reasonable cost.
  49

  Trustee Investments Act 1961
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at conclusions he has reached following consultation on the proposal to amend the Trustee Investments Act 1961 to increase the proportion of assets that all trusts are allowed to invest in wider range investments; and if he will make a statement. [1781]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In the short term, as proposed in the consultation document, the Treasury will make an order under section 13 of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 to change the split of wider and narrower range investments from 50:50 to 75:25, the maximum allowable under the Act as it now stands. This proportion was introduced for charities earlier this year by the Charities (Trustee Investments Act 1961) Order 1995.

  In the longer term, the Government have concluded, in the light of representations from a wide range of interests, most recently the deregulation task force in its first annual report, that a fundamental deregulatory reform of the Trustee Investment Act is now called for. The requirements for division of assets into "narrow" and "broad" investments and for consequent dual accounting are burdensome. The Government will issue by 1 May 1996 a consultation document on options for further deregulatory change, drawing on detailed work to be undertaken by the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission in conjunction with the independent trust law committee.

  Financial perspective expenditure ceilings

  Preliminary draft budget 2

  Parliament draft budget

  Council second reading draft budget

  mecu

  £ million1

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  Commitment appropriations

  Common Agricultural Policy

  40,828

  34,341

  40,828

  34,341

  40,828

  34,341

  40,828

  34,341

  Structural operations

  29,131

  24,502

  29,131

  24,502

  29,131

  24,502

  29,131

  24,502

  Internal policies

  5,337

  4,489

  5,267

  4,430

  5,324

  4,478

  5,198

  4,372

  External action

  5,264

  4,428

  5,157

  4,338

  5,252

  4,417

  5,174

  4,352

  Administrative expenditure

  4,191

  3,525

  4,132

  3,475

  4,130

  3,473

  4,104

  3,452

  Reserves

  1,152

  969

  1,152

  969

  1,152

  969

  1,152

  969

  Compensation

  701

  590

  701

  590

  701

  590

  701

  590

  Total Commitments

  86,604

  72,844

  86,368

  72,645

  86,517

  72,771

  86,288

  72,578

  Total payment appropriations

  82,192

  69,133

  82,015

  68,984

  81,360

  68,884

  81,603

  68,367

  Notes:

  1 Throughout this reply the rate of £1=1.889 ecu has been used (the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last month (31 October).

  2 As amended in Letter of Amendment No. 1 from the figure which appeared in the Commission's Overview of the PDB for 1996 to take account of the higher bid for agriculture under category 1.

  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget for 1996 at its plenary session in December. The 1996 Community budget is expected to be adopted by the Parliament on 14 December, to take effect from 1 January 1996.

  The Council took no formal votes, the presidency concluding that there was the necessary majority to establish the Second Reading draft budget for 1996.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the voting record of each member state on
  50

  EU Budget Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Union Budget Council, held on 17 November listing all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [435]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: I represented the United Kingdom at the Budget Council on 17 November. The Council considered the European Parliament's proposed changes to the draft budget, which the Council established in July—on which I reported in my reply to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 18 October 1995, Official Report, columns 278–80—and it established a Second Reading draft budget for 1996.

  The Council's Second Reading draft budget totals 86,288 mecu, £72,578 million, in commitment appropriations and 81,603 mecu, £68,637 million, in payment appropriations. The Second Reading draft budget is 316 mecu, £266 million, in commitments and 589 mecu, £495 million, in payments below the financial perspective ceilings and is within the existing own resources ceiling of 1.20 per cent. The following table compares the outcome of the Budget Council with the proposals in the Commissions's preliminary draft budget and with the proposals in the European Parliament's draft budget, with reference to the financial perspective ceilings:

  items agreed at the meeting of the European Community's ECOFIN Council held on 23 October; and if he will make it his practice to include details of all votes, including where there have been no votes, in the future. [440]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: There were no votes taken on items under discussion at the ECOFIN Council on 23 October.

  In the future, as is my practice, after each ECOFIN Council I will report the result of votes and will indicate if no votes were taken.
  51

TRANSPORT

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from organisations seeking changes in the requirements for the award of freight facilities grants to enable intermodal schemes to qualify; and if he will make a statement. [534]

  Mr. Watts
  In principle intermodal schemes qualify for freight facilities grant.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the period of advance notice required for security reasons to be given by terminal operators for the packing of an intermodal unit to be transported from Britain to France(a) by rail and (b) by road and ferry. [536]

  Mr. Watts
  No notice is required for security reasons for rail freight being shipped by security approved freight forwarders. Railfreight Distribution, currently the only company carrying channel tunnel rail freight, require 20 hours' advance notification in respect of non-security-approved forwarders. There are no security related notice requirements in respect of road traffic travelling on the ferries or through the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual budget allocated for the award of rail freight facilities grants and track access grants since 1992 and the number and value of the grants awarded. [535]

  Mr. Watts
  The annual budget for rail and inland waterway freight facilities grants is a joint one. In 1992–93, this was £6.571 million and in 1993–94 £3.265 million. From April 1994, the budget included the new track access grant and was £13.3 million for 1994–95. It is currently £14.4 million.

  Since 1992, eight rail grants have been awarded with a total value of over £14 million. No track access grants have yet been awarded but several applications are currently under consideration.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the differences in security requirements imposed on the passage of rail freight using the channel tunnel and the Severn tunnel and what are the reasons for these differences; [539]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the security risks posed by rail freight passing through (a) the channel tunnel and (b) the Severn tunnel. [546]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department regulates the security of the channel tunnel under the Channel Tunnel Security Order 1994. The measures imposed on operators are based on the security threat to the installation, as assessed by the Security Service, and the vulnerability of the system. It is not the practice to reveal details of security requirements.

  My Department has no comparable responsibilities in relation to the Severn tunnel.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the representations of the railfreight users group regarding the consultation paper on the security aspects of rail 52
  groupage issued by his Department's security division; and if he will make a statement. [537]

  Mr. Watts
  I have responded to the correspondence that I have received from the Alliance for Channel Tunnel Freight, which incorporates the Rail Freight Group, acknowledging its concerns. I have asked officials to look carefully at the alliance's representations, and I understand a very constructive meeting took place between officials and the alliance on 15 November. Discussions are continuing.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authorities outside London have taken up his Department's offer to take on the responsibility for traffic wardens. [6]

  Mr. Norris
  We have invited local authorities to apply to take over parking enforcement, which would be decriminalised. Traffic wardens would be replaced by local authority parking attendants. So far, we have received one formal application—from Hampshire county council with regard to Winchester. We have received drafts of two other applications for comment and a number of expressions of interest.

  Train Incidents (Reading)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incidents or accidents have occurred on both the South West Trains and Great Western railway lines in the vicinity of Reading station since July. [896]

  Mr. Watts
  The following accidents and incidents in the vicinity of Reading station have been reported to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate since July 1995:

  12 July 1995: Reading Depot

  A driver sustained a strain to his leg whilst climbing out of his cab.

  20 July 1995: Near Reading Station

  A track circuit failure caused delay to services.

  4 August 1995: Reading Station

  A Royal Scotsman charter train was delayed at platform 8 for two hours after smoke was observed coming from a defective coach. A tyre on the coach had shifted due to brake drag.

  15 August 1995: Near Reading Station

  A track man was struck in the eye by a piece of wire protruding from a bush.

  7 September 1995: Near Reading Station

  Fourteen sets of points fused, which resulted in platforms 6 and 10 being out of use.

  10 September 1995: Reading West Yard

  An employee fell over discarded rail chairs, sustaining bruising.

  4 October 1995: Reading Depot

  An employee fractured his hand after trapping it in a gate.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels of investment in new rolling stock the rolling stock companies agreed to undertake with his Department. [48]

  Mr. Watts
  All three passenger rolling stock leasing companies have confirmed to my right hon. Friend their readiness to invest on commercial terms in response to customers' requirements.
  53
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce the right of appeal for railway operators against private monopolies who increase the cost of rolling stock. [1614]

  Mr. Watts
  I do not recognise the circumstances described by the hon. Member.

  Heathrow Airport (Rail Links)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further rail links his Department estimates will be built to Heathrow airport; and what assessment he has made of the impact that rail privatisation will have on(a) delaying or (b) expediting plans. [49]

  Mr. Watts
  The Heathrow Express rail link, a joint venture between BAA, British Rail and Railtrack, is under construction. Heathrow Express is due to start services in 1998 and will operate a service every quarter of an hour with a journey time from Paddington to Heathrow of 16 minutes.

  Rail access to Heathrow airport is being considered within the London airports surface access study, which was set up in April by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State and is examining the opportunities for economically beneficial improvements in access to and between London's main airports.

  Rail privatisation should encourage rather than delay investment in infrastructure. Privatisation should allow greater use of private sector skills in encouraging investment and will also allow greater access to private sector finance. Railtrack's investment programme will be commercially driven, and will therefore be more directly responsive to the demands of its customers. Both operators and passengers will benefit because Railtrack will have incentives to use investment to increase efficiency.

  Locomotives
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail locomotives have been(a) scrapped since 1992 and (b) offered for sale; and if he will make a statement. [529]

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

  Noise Abatement Notices
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions over the past five years British Rail has been successfully prosecuted or served with abatement notices under noise or air pollution regulations. [16]

  Mr. Watts
  Complete records of the service of abatement notices or of successful prosecutions under noise and air pollution regulations are not held centrally by British Rail. The information available shows that there has been one successful prosecution in the past five years. Abatement notices have been served on at least two occasions.
  54

  Public Inquiry (A1)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the sampling of pollution taken by Mr. A. J. Hickman in the Ferrybridge area as submitted to public inquiry by the Highways Agency in respect of the A1 diversion. [1314]

  Mr. Watts
  We are satisfied as to the adequacy of the pollution samples taken by Mr. Hickman.

  Toll Road Contracts
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost to public funds of the first four shadow toll road contracts over the length of each contract. [1502]

  Mr. Watts
  Commercial negotiations have not yet concluded, but we expect to benefit from substantial private sector efficiencies.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1440]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has cut energy use cumulatively as follows:

  1991–92: -6.9 per cent.

  1992–93: -7 per cent.

  1993–94: -12.4 per cent.

  1994–95: -16.9 per cent.

  Transport, London
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of transport in London. [2047]

  Sir George Young
  The Government will publish a document setting out our transport strategy for London in the new year.

  I warmly welcome London Pride's action programme for transport in London. It is an important contribution to the transport debate. I believe London Pride is right to highlight London's excellent international links and the improved quality of public transport. The Government will consider carefully the recommendations made by London Pride in preparing our own strategy document.

  Speed Limits (Paddington-Plymouth Line)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport where are each of the speed restrictions currently in place between Paddington and Plymouth; for how long is each; and what the speed restriction is in each case; and in each case when he expects the track to be repaired so the restriction can be lifted. [1323]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that there are approximately 16 speed restrictions currently in place between Paddington and Plymouth. Information regarding the precise location, length, and speed limit for each speed restriction is not held centrally and can be obtained only
  55
  at disproportionate cost. However, Railtrack confirms that repair time scales are in accordance with both operational requirements and Railtrack's rigorous safety standards.

  Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have occurred in respect of the time scales set out in his answer of 13 December 1994,Official Report, column 549, for the implementation of the new Scottish air traffic control centre; and if he will list the parties responsible for achieving the objectives. [1325]

  Mr. Norris
  Primary responsibility for achieving objectives for the implementation of the new Scottish centre will lie with the successful tenderer for the contract. The National Air Traffic Service will, however, be responsible for the safety and operational aspects of the project.

  NATS expects the new Scottish centre to become operational in the winter of 2000–2001.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new en-route air traffic control centre at Swanwick will become operational; and to what extent this is in accordance with the original time scales for the project. [1217]

  Mr. Norris
  The CAA presented a case for a new air traffic control centre to the Government in 1987. The target date set for the centre to enter operation was the end of 1996.

  The Swanwick centre programme has met all its major milestones to date. It is now in its most testing phase, and some software integration problems have been experienced. This is not unusual in a project of this complexity. Currently, the problems are not expected to affect the plan for the new centre to be on line to meet the traffic demands of the summer of 1997.

  Air Traffic Control Delays
  Mr. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he holds on the amount of additional fuel used by aeroplanes subjected to air traffic control delays above(a) Heathrow airport and (b) Gatwick airport in each of the past five years. [1205]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  M66
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if contracts have been let for completion of the M66 motorway; and on what date he intends to announce successful bids. [447]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 21 November 1995:

  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking if contracts have been let for completion of the M66 motorway and on what date he intends to announce successful bids.

  As you know, the first two contracts are underway. We have let recently a contract for advance works for the next phase and that work will begin on 27 November. We are currently assessing tenders
  56
  for that next phase with the aim of starting work next year. You will appreciate that I cannot give a firm date for an announcement until we have finished assessing the tenders. Tenders for the final phase will follow on.

  Train Stock
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, under the titles of each of those leasing companies who own the former British Railways coach stock, the names of the operating companies who currently lease the stock, indicating its nature and approximate quantity for each lessee. [224]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: At 31 March 1995, the vehicles leased were as follows:

  Angel Train Contracts

  Number of Vehicles

  Lessee

  DMU

  EMU

  HST

  RR North West

  222

  77

  —

  South Wales and West

  105

  —

  —

  ScotRail

  139

  203

  —

  RR Central

  166

  —

  —

  North London

  26

  —

  —

  RR North East

  148

  63

  —

  Chiltern

  75

  —

  —

  Thames

  168

  —

  —

  Great Eastern

  —

  96

  —

  LTS Rail

  —

  84

  —

  WAGN

  —

  288

  —

  Network SouthCentral

  —

  336

  —

  South Eastern

  —

  550

  —

  South West Trains

  —

  120

  —

  Merseyside Electrics

  204

  —

  —

  Great Western

  —

  384

  —

  West Coast

  —

  31

  —

  InterCity East Coast

  —

  97

  —

  Cross Country Trains

  —

  19

  —

  Abbreviations:

  DMU = Diesel multiple units/diesel electric multiple units.

  EMU = Electric multiple units.

  HST = High Speed Train vehicles (Intercity 125).

  Eversholt Leasing

  Number of vehicles

  Lessee

  EMU

  Loco

  Coaches

  LTS Rail

  252

  —

  —

  RR Central

  57

  —

  —

  RR North West

  12

  —

  60

  WAGN1

  215

  —

  —

  North London

  217

  —

  —

  Great Eastern

  480

  —

  —

  ScotRail

  129

  —

  —

  South Eastern1

  452

  —

  —

  South West Trains

  444

  —

  —

  Network SouthCentral

  184

  —

  —

  Island Line

  16

  —

  —

  Cross Country Trains

  —

  16

  227

  West Coast

  —

  22

  241

  Anglia

  —

  13

  113

  Great Western

  —

  —

  13

  InterCity East Coast

  —

  31

  320

  Note:

  1 Figures for WAGN and South Eastern exclude 164 Class 365/5 vehicles currently on order.

  Abbreviations:

  EMU = Electric multiple units.

  Loco = Locomotives.

  Coaches includes driving van trailers and generator vans.

  57

  Porterbrook Leasing

  Lessee

  Number of vehicles

  DMU

  EMU

  HST

  Loco

  Coaches

  RR North East

  177

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales and West

  56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiff Valleys

  62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anglia

  25

  —

  —

  —

  6

  ScotRail

  120

  —

  —

  —

  83

  RR North West

  64

  51

  —

  —

  —

  RR Central

  61

  66

  —

  —

  —

  Cross Country Trains

  10

  —

  217

  28

  10

  South West Trains

  66

  392

  —

  —

  —

  South Eastern

  10

  424

  —

  —

  —

  Network SouthCentral

  30

  408

  —

  —

  —

  Thameslink

  —

  264

  —

  —

  —

  Midland Main Line

  —

  —

  148

  —

  —

  Great Western

  —

  —

  —

  4

  11

  West Coast

  —

  —

  —

  50

  344

  Gatwick Express

  —

  —

  —

  14

  84

  RfD

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Abbreviations:

  DMU = Diesel multiple units/diesel electric multiple units.

  EMU = Electric multiple units.

  HST = High Speed Train vehicles (InterCity 125).

  Loco = Locomotives.

  Coaches includes driving van trailers and generator vans.

  Ferry Disaster, Thailand
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the recent ferry disaster in Thailand and its consequences for future maritime legislation. [344]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: The Government have made no formal assessment of the accident because it did not involve a UK-flagged ship and did not occur in United Kingdom waters. However, under the international convention for the safety of life at sea, the appropriate responsible administrations are required to investigate casualties where they judge that this may assist in determining what changes in rules are needed, and undertake to supply the International Maritime Organisation with pertinent information. The IMO makes this information available to members.

SCOTLAND

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the outturn expenditure on regional selective assistance in 1994–95: and what was the amount originally budgeted for that purpose. [1328]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Gross outturn expenditure on regional selective assistance in 1994–95 was £77.128 million; taking into account receipts of £0.866 million, net outturn expenditure was £76,262 million. Planned gross expenditure for that year had been £77 million with planned receipts of £1.3 million, giving planned net expenditure of £75.7 million.
  58

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of booked movements into each low-level operational training area in each year since their establishment. [526]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of operational low-flying movements authorised into each of the three tactical training areas in each year since their establishment is set out in the following table.

  Northern Scotland

  Central Wales

  Borders

  1979

  664

  123

  —

  1980

  626

  171

  —

  1981

  601

  59

  —

  1982

  236

  4

  —

  1983

  1,616

  21

  285

  1984

  667

  64

  276

  1985

  259

  44

  173

  1986

  539

  63

  598

  1987

  518

  242

  626

  1988

  828

  60

  1,227

  1989

  817

  89

  1,788

  1990

  1,519

  265

  4,243

  1991

  468

  90

  1,256

  1992

  979

  174

  2,067

  1993

  468

  192

  2,389

  1994

  704

  89

  1,127

  19951

  285

  119

  1,144

  1 January-September.

  From July 1988 to September 1993 the borders TTA was divided into east and west sectors. Movements for the two sectors were counted separately so that sorties which crossed the border between the two sectors generated additional movements. The figures for the borders TTA from 1988 to 1993 therefore overstate the amount of activity in comparison with other years and TTAs.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the instructions to RAF police conducting covert surveys of low flying include a requirement to record instances of use of reheat by low-flying aircraft. [425]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF police personnel conducting covert monitoring are required to record the use of reheat by military aircraft flying at low level.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on(a) the nationality and (b) the types of the aircraft listed in his evidence to the Defence Committee, HC 314 of Session 1993–94, on operational low-flying movements in 1986 in the "other" category. [430]

  Mr. Soames
  All operational low flying in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1986 was conducted by UK military aircraft. Thirty-four of the movements listed for 1986 in the "other" category were conducted by F4 Phantom aircraft; the statistical information available does not record aircraft type for the remainder.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the aircraft types listed in his evidence to the Defence Committee, HC 314 of Session 1993–94,
  59
  on operational low-flying movements were (a) equipped and (b) authorised to carry out flying in the highlands restricted area. [429]

  Mr. Soames
  The Tornado GR1 is the only RAF aircraft equipped to fly in the highlands restricted area. Operational low flying is not permitted in the highlands restricted area when it is active.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if operational low-flying movements by aircraft types other than Buccaneer, Harrier, Hercules, Jaguar and Tornado have taken place since 1988. [527]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Exercise Air Warrior
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were flown by Royal Air Force Harriers during their deployment to Nellis Air Force base for the Air Warrior exercise in August 1994. [1312]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 202 sorties were flown by RAF Harriers during Exercise Air Warrior.

  Italian Tornado
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of support provided by the Royal Air Force to a training detachment of Italian Air Force Tornado aircraft at Goose bay, Canada, in April to May 1995; and what proportion of this amount was recovered from the Italian authorities. [1283]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Air Force incurred total costs of £118.36 for laundry services provided to the Italian Air Force. It was not considered necessary to recover this.

  Strike Command
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what means are used to ensure that locations or features selected for inclusion in the Strike Command list of simulated targets for toss or dive attack referred to in his answer of 18 October 1993,Official Report, column 54, have not been included in previous editions of the list. [1107]

  Mr. Soames
  Simulated targets are included on the Strike Command list on the basis of their current suitability whether or not they have previously been listed.

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [37]

  Mr. Soames
  No such Acts have been introduced by my Department since January 1994.

  Exercise Red Flag
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were flown by each type of Royal Air Force aircraft during Exercise Red Flag 94–2. [1311]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 298 Tornado GR1 sorties were flown during this exercise.
  60

  Flying Training
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the dates of arrival and departure of Royal Air Force aircraft deployed to Goose bay for flying training in the 1994 season; [1277]

  (2) what were the dates of arrival and departure of Royal Air Force aircraft deployed to Goose bay for flying training in the 1995 season. [1313]

  Mr. Soames
  Royal Air Force aircraft were deployed to Goose bay for flying training as follows:

  1994

  1995

  Hercules

  13–17 March

  23–28 January

  Tornado GR1

  14 April-27 June

  6 July-27 September

  1 August-26 September

  Operation Deliberate Force
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF aircraft participated in Operation Deliberate Force. [362]

  Mr. Soames
  Harrier GR7, Jaguar GR1B, Tornado F3, E3D, Tristar K1 and Nimrod.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying hours were involved in Operation Deliberate Force. [363]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 902.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier GR7s took part in Operation Deliberate Force. [367]

  Mr. Soames
  Twelve.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the bombs dropped during Operation Deliberate Force were dropped by Harrier GR7s in daylight raids; and what proportion were dropped on night missions. [368]

  Mr. Soames
  All of the bombs dropped by the RAF during Operation Deliberate Force were delivered by Harrier GR7s in daylight missions.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jaguars GR1Bs took part in Operation Deliberate Force. [365]

  Mr. Soames
  Three.

  School Places, North Devon
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department made of the extra number of school places needed in North Devon due to the Royal Marines moving from Plymouth to Chivenor; and if he will make a statement about discussions on this matter with Devon county council. [228]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of service families projected to move into the Chivenor area with children likely to require local schooling was assessed in the feasibility study. Discussions with the North Devon district council and with local headmasters commenced at the earliest stages, and these are continuing. Indications are that the number of children requiring places in local authority
  61
  schools will be of the order of 110. It is not possible to be precise since families will exercise free choice over educational provision for their children. Given the departure of a number of RAF families with school-age children, contacts with the relevant authorities in North Devon indicate that there is unlikely to be a need for any net increase in the provision of school places.

  Capital Works Costs
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capital costs have been incurred by his Department since 1990 at(a) Seaton barracks and (b) Coypool, Plymouth. [229]

  Mr. Soames
  The sums spent on capital works projects at Seaton barracks and Royal Marine Coypool since the beginning of the financial year 1990–91 are £1.916 million and £1.909 million respectively.

  Chivenor
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected annual cost of providing transport between Plymouth and Chivenor for marines who have been transferred to Chivenor but are quartered in Plymouth. [230]

  Mr. Soames
  A temporary bus service is currently in place, primarily for personnel whose families are awaiting a move into family quarters at Royal Marines barracks Chivenor. This interim arrangement is planned to last a matter of months, until the units settle into Chivenor, and it is estimated that it will cost less than £5,000. This sum was included in the investment appraisal attached to the consultation document published in July 1995.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the consultants appointed to advise his Department abut the transfer of marines from Plymouth to Chivenor; and if he will list their previous experience advising on military matters and the fees paid to them. [231]

  Mr. Soames
  The feasibility study on the use of Chivenor by units of the Royal Marines Command was headed by DHV Consultants Ltd. of Plymouth, a firm experienced in consultancy work for the Ministry of Defence. Assisting in the overall study were the architects Stride Treglown, mechanical and electrical engineering specialists Torpy and Partners, and quantity surveyors A.L. Currie and Brown, all of Plymouth. The advice given by particular consultants was strictly confined to their areas of expertise as described. Military judgment and views were supplied by members of the Royal Marines Command and other relevant MOD branches. The cost of the option studies carried out was of the order of £130,000, inclusive of VAT.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the cost of capital building work carried out at RAF Chivenor since 1987, indicating when the work was carried out; and if he will give an assessment of the cost of additional capital work that will be required to accommodate the Royal Marines. [232]

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1987, £5,223,000 has been spent on capital works projects at RAF Chivenor. Work was carried out in 1987, 1992, and 1993. As indicated in the 62
  published consultative document, the estimated cost of capital works required to adapt existing facilities and provide new buildings at Chivenor to meet the agreed technical statements of requirements for the two units is £19.5 million.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the additional cost to be borne by Devon county council for road improvements resulting from the transfer of Royal Marines from Plymouth to Chivenor. [233]

  Mr. Soames
  The ability of local roads to handle traffic from Royal Marines units moving to Chivenor formed part of the feasibility study which preceded the relocation proposal. Analysis was based on the use which the relevant units made of the roads in the Plymouth area and of the existing use made by civilian vehicles of the roads in North Devon. The North Devon authorities have been carefully consulted throughout. Overall, it was concluded that no road improvements would be needed as a direct result of these units moving to Chivenor.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of removing essential equipment from RAF Chivenor, following the decision to transfer the RAF; and what the cost will be of reinstating this equipment for use by the marines. [234]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Air Force and Royal Marines have worked closely together on the handover of Chivenor. Beyond such things as catering and domestic equipment, which has been left in place, there is no overlap between the equipment essential to the operation of an RAF unit with 44 jet aircraft and that of two Royal Marine Command units holding a variety of specialist battlefield logistic and engineering equipment. No costs are therefore foreseen.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Royal Marines transferring from Plymouth to Chivenor will occupy married quarters in North Devon; and how many will remain in the quarters in Plymouth. [235]

  Mr. Soames
  To minimise family disruption, it is left to individual families to decide whether to move when its service member is posted elsewhere—subject to their current family quarter not being required for higher priority purposes. Nevertheless, indications are that a total of 156 Royal Marine Commando families will have moved to Chivenor by early in the new year.

  Ships
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and dates of(a) the surface vessels and (b) the submarines which have been mothballed by his Department in the last five years; and if he will list the last refit date of each of these together with the cost of refit. [1335]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Royal Navy ships are routinely cycled through varying degrees of readiness—for example, when undergoing refit—but only one vessel, HMS Andromeda, has been placed in long term storage during the last five years. Andromeda entered this state in June 1993. Her previous refit took place between August 1990 and December 1991 at a cost of some £27 million. She was formally decommissioned in November 1994.
  63

  Army Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the decision to purchase ambulances to meet the Army's requirements; [1333]

  (2) if he will make a statement concerning the Army's future requirement for ambulances; how many ambulances are required; which companies are tendering for the contract; and what is the value of the contract; [1331]

  (3) what assessment he has made of (a) ambulances made by Land-Rover and (b) ambulances made by Steyr-Daimler Puch. [1332]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Army's requirement for a medium mobility ambulance to ensure casualty evacuation from forward areas was announced in 1992. It will replace the ageing fleet of battlefield ambulances.

  Iveco-Ford, Land-Rover and Steyr-Daimler Puch have submitted competitive tenders to meet the requirement. These are currently being assessed. It would not be appropriate to make any further comments while the assessment is in progress.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department purchased Pinzgauer Steyr-Daimler Puch vehicles to meet the Army's light vehicle truck requirement; how many vehicles were purchased; what was the cost of these vehicles; how the Army's requirement for these vehicles differed from that provided by the RB-44 light vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [1334]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The contract to supply 394 vehicles to meet the Army's requirement for the heavy duty version of the medium-sized utility truck—with a 1.4 tonne payload—was placed with Steyr-Daimler Puch in June 1994, at a cost of some £20 million, inclusive of support costs.

  This category of vehicle was a new requirement as a result of the changing role of the armed forces and the increased emphasis on flexibility and mobility, and provides a different capability from the 2-tonne payload RB-44 heavy utility truck.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the organisations and individuals who have submitted expressions of interest in taking a lease on the buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college in Greenwich, indicating in each case the nature of the organisation and the uses which it proposes for the buildings. [356]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: Eight expressions of interest have been lodged in respect of all of the buildings comprising the Royal Naval college, Greenwich, with a further three lodged in respect of parts of the complex. It is my Department's policy not to disclose the identity of sponsors of expressions of interest on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Sponsors are however free to reveal their own identity. The expression of interest will now be assessed and we will make an announcement in due course.
  64

  Ship and Submarine Sales
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) surface ships and (b) submarines sold by his Department in each of the last five years. [461]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: A list of surface ships and submarines sold in each of the last five years is as follows.

  (a) Surface ships sold in each of the last five years

  Ship name

  Ship type

  1990–91

  HMS Achilles

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Walkerton

  Minesweeper

  HMS Sandpiper

  Bird Class Patrol Vessel

  HMS Peterel

  Bird Class Patrol Vessel

  HMS Cormorant

  Spitfire Class Patrol Vessel

  HMS Hart

  Spitfire Class Patrol Vessel

  RMAS Dolwen

  Range Vessel

  RMAS Bembridge

  Fleet Tender

  1991–92

  HMS Penelope

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Danae

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Eskimo

  Tribal Class Frigate

  HMS Attacker

  Attacker Class Vessel

  HMS Hunter

  Attacker Class Vessel

  HMS Striker

  Attacker Class Vessel

  HMS Fencer

  Attacker Class Vessel

  HMS Chaser

  Attacker Class Vessel

  HMS Gavington

  Minesweeper

  HMS Kirkliston

  Minesweeper

  HMS Upton

  Minesweeper

  HMS Beaufort

  Minesweeper

  HMS Hubberston

  Minehunter

  HMS Kedleston

  Minehunter

  HMS Custon

  Minehunter

  HMS Fawn

  Coastal Survey Vessel

  RFA Tidespring

  Fleet Tanker

  RMAS Green Rover

  Small Fleet Tanker

  RMAS Manly

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Mentor

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Millbrook

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Throsk

  Armament Carrier

  RMAS Waterside

  SP Water Carrier

  RMAS Goldeneye

  Mooring and Salvage

  RMAS Mandarin

  Mooring and Salvage

  RMAS Kinbrace

  Mooring and Salvage

  RMAS Dorothy

  Harbour Tug

  RMAS Torrid

  Torpedo Recovery

  MFV Yarmouth Navigator

  Motor Fishing Vessel

  1992–93

  HMS Ariadne

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Phoebe

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Brereton

  Minesweeper

  HMS Wotton

  Minesweeper

  HMS Endurance

  Ice Patrol Ship

  RMAS Blue Rover

  Fleet Tanker

  RMAS Criccieth

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Watershed

  SP Water Carrier

  RMAS Oilfield

  SP Oil Carrier

  RMAS Oilstone

  SP Oil Carrier

  RMAS Regent

  Replenishment Ship

  RMAS Sentinel

  Support Vessel

  MFV Uriah Heep

  Motor Fishing Vessel

  RDV Crystal

  Research Vessel

  1993–94

  HMS Ambuscade

  Type 21 Frigate

  HMS Amazon

  Type 21 Frigate

  HMS Arrow

  Type 21 Frigate

  65

  (a) Surface ships sold in each of the last five years

  Ship name

  Ship type

  HMS Alacrity

  Type 21 Frigate

  HMS Active

  Type 21 Frigate

  HMS Avenger

  Type 21 Frigate

  HMS Jersey

  Offshore Patrol Vessel

  HMS Cleopatra

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Minerva

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Hecate

  Hecla Class Survey Ship

  HMS Lofoten

  Landing Craft

  HMS Challenger

  Seabed Operations Vessel

  RMAS Cartmel

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Ettrict

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Fotherby

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Datchet

  Fleet Diving Vessel

  RMAS Whitehead

  Experiment Trial Vessel

  RMAS Pointer

  Harbour Tug

  RMAS Alsation

  Harbour Tug

  1994–95

  HMS Andromeda

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Juno

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Argonaut

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Broadsword

  Type 22 Frigate

  HMS Battleaxe

  Type 22 Frigate

  HMS Brazen

  Type 22 Frigate

  HMS Brilliant

  Type 22 Frigate

  HMS Nurton

  Minesweeper

  HMS Herford

  River Class Minesweeper

  HMS Carron

  River Class Minesweeper

  HMS Waveney

  River Class Minesweeper

  HMS Dovey

  River Class Minesweeper

  HMS Helmsdale

  River Class Minesweeper

  HMS Humber

  River Class Minesweeper

  HMS Ribble

  River Class Minesweeper

  RFA Olmeda

  Large Fleet Tanker

  RMAS Clovelly

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Cromarty

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Froxfield

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Loyal Proctor

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Moderator

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Volunteer

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Beddgelert

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Gnat

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Cricket

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Denmead

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Elsing

  Fleet Tender

  RNXS Glencoe

  Fleet Tender

  TS Aberdovey

  Fleet Tender

  TS Abinger

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Garganey

  Mooring and Salvage

  RMAS Corgi

  Dog Class Tug

  Targe

  Target Vessel

  Magpie

  Target Vessel

  Bullseye

  Target Vessel

  RCL Agheila

  Ramped Craft Logistic

  RCL Antwerp

  Ramped Craft Logistic

  Various lighters and other unnamed vessels.

  (b) Submarines sold in each of the last 5 years

  Ship Name

  Ship Type

  1990–91

  None

  —

  1991–92

  HMS Odin

  Oberin Class Conventional Patrol Submarine

  HMS Onslaught

  HMS Onyx

  HMS Otter

  HMS Otus

  HMS Ocelot

  66

  (b) Submarines sold in each of the last 5 years

  Ship Name

  Ship Type

  1992–93

  HMS Osiris

  Oberon Class Conventional Patrol Submarine

  1993–94

  None

  —

  1994–95

  HMS Orpheus

  Oberon Class Conventional Patrol Submarine

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to hold centrally information by regional health authorities on the percentage of parents who decline to abort a pregnancy when told that their child may have a birth defect; and if he will make a statement. [61]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no such plans.

  Prescriptions (Students)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for free prescriptions have been made by students; and how many have been successful for the latest year for which figures are available. [1059]

  Mr. Malone
  During 1994–95, around 260,000 national health service low—income scheme claims were made by students, of which around 68 per cent. resulted in entitlement to free prescriptions.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to implement the report of the Defence Select Committee regarding Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [563]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  We will be considering the points made by the Defence Select Committee very carefully and will reply formally in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many liability orders have been placed on members of the armed forces by the Child Support Agency for each month since April 1993. [618]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 November 1995:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about liability orders.
  67
  No data on the number of liability orders granted during 1993–94 are available. It is unlikely that there will have been many during this period as few cases would have progressed to this stage from the start of the Agency.

  A total of 226 liability orders were granted during 1994–95. From April 1995, a monthly breakdown is available, and this is shown in the table attached.

  It is not possible to say how many of these liability orders have been granted against members of the armed forces—or any other employment group—as there is no business need for the Agency to collect this information. However, the vast majority of liability orders are directed towards the self employed, because non-compliant absent parents who are employees would normally be subject to deduction from earnings orders; nearly all members of the armed forces are employees.

  Liability orders granted 1995–96—Year to date

  Month

  Liability orders granted

  April

  63

  May

  125

  June

  115

  July

  108

  August

  153

  September

  134

  Total

  698

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Children's Play
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will announce the name of the organisation that will be carrying out work on children's play on behalf of her Department. [1665]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am grateful to all those organisations that submitted tenders to carry out work in the areas of information dissemination, playwork education and training and play safety. I have today informed the National Playing Fields Association that, subject to the successful completion of post-tender negotiations, it will carry out all three functions for my Department from 1 January 1996.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have recently been made to the Government of Sri Lanka. [565]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our high commissioner in Colombo is in frequent contact with members of the Sri Lankan Government. I refer the hon. Member to a declaration made by the European Union on 15 November. A copy is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which areas of Sri Lanka have been defined as safe for(a) Sri Lankan nationals and (b) others; and when he last reviewed this policy. [13]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our current travel advice for visitors to Sri Lanka is set out below. It is under constant review and was last updated on 15 November.
  68
  Peace talks between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—LTTE—broke down on 19 April and fighting is on-going in the north and east. Do not visit these areas. On 7 August, a bomb exploded in central Colombo, killing 21 people and injuring over 50. There were further similar incidents in October and November. More can be expected. Curfews may be imposed from time to time. Although foreigners are unlikely to be directly targeted, visitors should exercise extreme caution in public places. The south and centre, including all the main tourist areas and the cultural triangle, remain largely unaffected. Further information may be obtained direct from the British high commission in Colombo: Tel: 437336, Fax 430308.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current political, military and refugee situation in Sri Lanka. [567]

  Mr. Hanley
  We welcome President Kumaratunga's recent statements that the conflict in Sri Lanka can be resolved only through a negotiated settlement. We believe that the Government of Sri Lanka's devolution proposals form a basis for discussion on a settlement acceptable to all Sri Lankans.

  We have urged both the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—LTTE—to make every effort to protect the civilian population. We welcome the Government's recent statements concerning the shipment of relief supplies to the north.

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [42]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Arms Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what dates his Department was informed of contracts relating to(a) Project Babylon, (b) Baby Babylon and (c) Supergun propellant; and what was the response his Department made. [1033]

  Mr. Hanley
  It has not proved possible, in the time available, to establish the exact dates at which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was first informed of the contracts relating to the projects which subsequently became known as Project Babylon and Supergun. It is likely that the inquiry currently being conducted by Sir Richard Scott will comment further on these matters. Following the detention, on 10 April 1990 at Teesport by HM Customs, of eight steel tubes destined for Iraq, the FCO liaised with other interested departments and agencies while Her Majesty's Customs continued its inquiries.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the outcome of the investigations into possible offences by United Kingdom based companies or their subsidiaries in connection with the supply of products to the Iraqi plant at Ad Dwar and Salman Pak arising from information
  69
  passed to him by UNSCOM; if any of the investigations have indicated that Her Majesty's Government had prior knowledge or approved any of these trades; if all the documents and information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government relating to these matters have been passed to the Scott inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [329]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are aware neither of offences against UK export control legislation by any British company associated with these sites, nor prior knowledge by the Government of illegal trade. The Scott inquiry has been kept informed of all matters within its remit.

  We shall continue to support the UN special commission. Any allegations or evidence of wrong-doing by British companies will be investigated and, if appropriate, will be a matter for the courts.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many former right hon. and hon. Members have been appointed as governors of dependent territories since 1979. [418]

  Mr. Hanley
  Two

  Jonathon Moyle
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the Chilean authorities' investigation into the death of Jonathon Moyle; and if he will make a statement. [332]

  Mr. Hanley
  The investigation by the Chilean authorities into the death of Jonathon Moyle is continuing. The Chilean Appeal Court ordered further investigations in October 1993, as did the Chilean Supreme Court in April 1995.

  HM coroner for Exeter and east Devon is conducting a separate inquest, which has not yet been finalised.

  General Communications Headquarters
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the intended capacity of GCHQ after 1999, on the reasons for the proposed closure of the Culmhead station and on the arrangements for the personnel at present stationed there. [599]

  Mr. Rifkind
  GCHQ will maintain its capability up to and beyond 1999 but will be able to reduce its staff numbers to about 5,000 by 1999 by moving to more efficient methods of operation. The decision to close the composite signals organisation station at Culmhead was the result of a periodic review of resources and was in response to anticipated changes in requirements and technological advances which will enable GCHQ to become more efficient by consolidating some of its operations. As far as possible the run-down at Culmhead will be achieved through voluntary retirements and redeployments, but some compulsory redundancies appear inevitable. Full support to those affected will be provided by GCHQ's personnel and welfare service and an outplacement scheme.
  70

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are necessary for the ratification by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other nations of changes made to the convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty or of new criteria made or added by the 1996 IGC. [1099]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government do not expect discussion of the Maastricht convergence criteria to the 1996 intergovernmental conference.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legislation has been agreed by the European Union, arising from the social chapter of the Single European Act treaty or the work programme arising from the social charter agreed in Strasbourg by the European Council in 1989, which by virtue of the protocol on social policy in the treaty on European Union does not apply to the United Kingdom; what articles authorised such legislation; and what proposals in or likely to be in this category of legislation is before either the Council of Ministers or the Council of Permanent Representatives. [1495]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Employment today.

  Wilton Park
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent review of the Wilton Park agency. [1897]

  Mr. Hanley
  A prior options review has been carried out on Wilton Park, which has been an executive agency of the FCO since 1991. The review concludes that Wilton Park conferences organised on behalf of the FCO fulfil a valuable function, and that Wilton Park should continue to operate as a next steps agency. The review also makes recommendations for involving FCO geographical commands and departments more closely in Wilton Park conferences; for improving the marketing of the conferences among potential participants and for the market testing of the commercial—non-conference— operation at Wilton Park. The outcome of the review has been endorsed by Ministers, and action to implement it is in hand. A summary of the review's findings has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has reviewed his policy on placing visas for the United Kingdom in Taiwan passports. [1898]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have compared our practice of issuing visas with a number of other countries which, like us, do rot recognise Taiwan. I have agreed, with effect from 1 December, that visas for the UK should be placed in travel documents issued by the Taiwan authorities. We regard such travel documents as no more than confirming
  71
  the identity of the holder. Our change in practice does not involve recognition of Taiwan or constitute acceptance by the Government of a Taiwanese nationality.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures being adopted by Her Majesty's Government to persuade the Nigerian authorities to adopt democratic values and to safeguard human rights in Nigeria. [1501]

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of measures in force since 1993 were set out in a written answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 2 December 1993,Official Report, column 680. On 11 November 1995, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a full arms embargo against the Nigerian regime. We are considering further options with our EU partners.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of a room in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 17 October by the British-Nigerian Chamber of Commerce for a cocktail party; and how many Government officials were present. [1208]

  Mr. Hanley
  The reception was hosted and paid for by the UK chapter of the British-Nigerian Chamber of Commerce, not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Two junior FCO officials, and two from the DTI, attended the reception. No Nigerian ministers were present.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of all official visits of members of the Nigerian military regime to Britain since 18 November 1993. [1210]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since the European Union suspension of high-level visits to and from Nigeria in November 1993 there have been no official visits by members of the Nigerian Government (Provisional Ruling Council and Federal Executive Council) to Britain.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of all private visits of members of the Nigerian military regime to Britain since 18 November 1993. [1211]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since the European Union restriction of visas for members of the military and their families in June 1993, exemptions have been made only on rare occasions for pressing medical visits.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Overseas Trade Board
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will succeed Sir Derek Hornby as chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board. [1977]

  Mr. Nelson
  I am delighted to announce that Martin Laing CBE, chairman of John Laing PLC, will succeed Sir Derek Hornby as chairman of the British Overseas 72
  Trade Board—BOTB. Sir Derek will retire following this afternoon's meeting of the BOTB, after five most distinguished years.

  EU Industry Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Industry Council held in Brussels on 6 and 7 November. [1976]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Council adopted resolutions on the following issues: the role of small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—in the process of technological innovation; the industrial aspects of the information society; and the importance of the competitiveness of the European mechanical engineering industry. The Council also agreed conclusions on the following topics: the links between industrial competitiveness and business services; industrial co-operation with other regions and third countries; the feasibility of a European secondary capital market for SMEs; and the interaction between competition policy and industrial competitiveness. The Council reached political agreement, pending examination of the European Parliament's opinion, on a draft Council decision on an action programme to strengthen EU industrial competitiveness.

  The Commission made oral presentations on the work of the Commission research-industry task forces and on a forthcoming communication on the promotion of quality as a factor in improving industrial competitiveness. It presented a communication on the impact of international developments on the EU textile and clothing sector.

  Political agreement was reached on the text of a Council regulation implementing OECD rules on aid to shipbuilding, with a qualified majority in favour of extending existing Community rules for up to nine months—that is, 1 October 1996—if the OECD agreement had not come into force by then.

  On steel, the Commission made a presentation on the monitoring of article 95 cases. I welcomed the Commission's assurance that there would be no resort to article 95 in the future. I shared the Commission's concern about the expiry of the deadline for the 500,000 tonnes of capacity reductions in Italy. Italy promised to provide a new proposal on how this would be achieved within the following two weeks. There was a brief discussion on the Commission's proposal to amend the environmental provisions of the steel aid code.

  The most difficult issue on the agenda was the Irish article 95 request for Council assent to state aid to be made in relation to Irish Steel. We have serious concerns about the principle of further state aid to the steel industry. This request caused particular difficulties for the United Kingdom and Luxembourg, where steel plants compete with Irish Steel and where jobs could consequently be put at risk by the injection of the proposed aid. Some progress was made towards formulating possible conditions which could be attached to any aid, but it did not prove possible to reach agreement at the meeting. It was agreed that further discussions would take place.

  Finally, under other business, there was a short discussion on the follow-up to the Molitor report on administrative simplification. There was also a brief exchange of views on the Commission's plans to propose

  73
  a strategic environmental assessment directive, which would amend directive 85/337/EEC. I warned that it was essential not to undermine the competitiveness of key industrial sectors through the imposition of excessive regulatory burdens.

  No votes were taken at the Council.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the blocks to be offered in the 17th round of offshore oil and gas licensing on the United Kingdom continental shelf. [1552]

  Mr. Page
  I have decided to offer 275 blocks for licensing in 68 tranches or groups in the 17th offshore licensing round. We are entering real frontier territory with some of the tranches nearly as far west as Rockall. It is a reflection of the potential of the UK continental shelf that after 30 years of exploration, there are still exciting new areas to search.

  Tranches vary from two to 13 blocks, depending on perceived prospectivity, location and water depth, and are chosen so that companies can consider all of the different areas available. I am offering blocks in groups because relatively little is known about the areas being offered.

  Most of the tranches offered—41—are in the Rockall trough, located east of Rockall and to the south-west of the recent discoveries in the west of Shetland area. The trough is an area where little exploration has taken place but which has considerable potential for significant discoveries.

  Tranches are also offered to the south-west of England, to the north of Scotland and of the east coast of England. Some are in areas that have not been explored before or were once considered unprospective. The fact that these blocks are not of interest to the industry shows how new technology and ideas can challenge long-established perceptions.

  Since the areas offered are comparatively unknown, companies will have a year in which to prepare their applications. This gives them an opportunity to acquire seismic data during the "weather window" next summer and to process and analyse it before committing themselves. Instead of the usual six years, successful applicants for these tranches will have nine years in which to carry out their agreed work programmes. At this stage, I am asking companies to commit to a programme for the first three years only because of the uncertainties of exploring such new areas.

  Companies will be expected to show commitment to the future of the UK continental shelf by coming forward with new ideas, and keeping up the momentum for increasing competitiveness and cutting costs. The objective of the 17th round is to encourage exploration in new areas and so to continue the development of our oil and gas resources into the next century.

  Applicants must show awareness of available information on environmental resources in the area for which they are applying. They must assess the potential impact of their proposed work programmes on the environment and identify how any adverse effects can be avoided or minimised.
  74
  Conditions to be attached to licences in this round to safeguard the environment have been agreed with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Restrictions also cover the interests of other users of the sea such as fishing, defence and transport.

  We have conducted a wide-ranging consultation exercise on the 691 blocks which were nominated by the industry in march, involving other Government Departments, local authorities and environmental groups. In all a total of over 70 organisations have provided advice.

  The 17th round completes the three-round licensing cycle announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy in April 1994. The 15th round awarded blocks in established areas in the central North sea and southern gas basin. The 16th round awards, which I announced during the summer, covered areas to the west of Shetland and around the coast of Britain.

  Applications for the 17th round are required by noon on Wednesday 27 November 1996. Licence awards should be announced during the spring of 1997.

  I will now publish in the Official Journal of the European Communities a formal announcement giving the detailed terms for the 17th round, including the format of applications, the information required with the application and the basis on which awards will be made.

  Energy Technology Support Unit
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries the energy technology support unit has received from the general public about renewable energy(a) in total since the energy technology support unit was established and (b) on average per year. [201]

  Mr. Page
  The energy technology support unit has received some 70,000 inquiries of all types since 1 April 1989, when the Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau commissioned a database to record inquiries. Statistics for inquiries before that date are not available.

  Since 1 April 1989, inquiries have averaged 12,000 annually across a range of correspondent types, with roughly 18 per cent. of inquiries coming from private individuals, 30 per cent. from commerce and industry and 45 per cent. from education; 7 per cent. were from other inquirers.

  As renewable energy has moved to the marketplace, inquiries from companies have increased and, across the last two financial years—1993–94 and 1994–95—have averaged 39 per cent.—over 8,800—of the nearly 23,000 inquiries received.

  British Coal Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what revenues he expects to generate from the disposal of the British Coal pension fund management company and the British coal pension fund venture capital company. [533]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal. I understand that disposal of the British Coal pension fund management company is still being negotiated. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member once the two disposals have been completed.
  75

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times a month his Department liaises with the Ministry of Defence in respect of support for the aerospace industry. [1009]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has very frequent contact with the Ministry of Defence on a wide range of issues relevant to the aerospace sector including the support which both Departments provide to the industry. The exact number of contacts is not recorded.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his Department's policy to maintain the United Kingdom's total capacity in the aerospace industry; and what Government assistance is available to achieve this. [1011]

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom aerospace industry is a valuable contributor to the UK economy with a consistent trade surplus since 1980. My Department recognises the importance of the industry and has provided over £1.6 billion in support since 1979 for a number of major civil aerospace projects, mainly in the form of launch aid support. Aerospace benefits from a dedicated DTI budget for research through the civil aircraft research and demonstration programme— CARAD. Assistance for export projects is provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Decisions on capacity are a matter for individual companies; but the DTI works to promote the aerospace industry's competitiveness by supporting the Society of British Aerospace Companies' competitiveness challenge. It also supports the industry in forging international partnerships and pursuing major export opportunities and will continue to stimulate collaboration in technology acquisition through the national strategic technology acquisition plan—NSTAP—and the technology foresight initiatives.

  Airbus
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the British share of the Airbus consortium; how many jobs result from that share; and what plans the Government have to increase their share of the consortium. [1013]

  Mr. Eggar
  British Aerospace has a 20 per cent. share in Airbus Industrie. The Government have no share in the Airbus consortium; questions relating to BAe's share are a matter for the company. Over 25,000 British workers are directly involved in the Airbus programmes.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs the Airbus consortium expects to create by 2010. [1008]

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Aerospace and the other partners in the Airbus consortium.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the predicted rise of Airbus' fleet capacity by 2010, expressing the figures in terms of(a) real capacity and (b) world market share. [1007]

  Mr. Eggar
  (a) Airbus Industrie forecasts a world-wide requirement for about 13,000 new large civil aircraft, valued at about $1,000 billion, by 2014.

  (b) Airbus hopes to increase its share of the market over this period from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.
  76

  Bullying
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to combat bullying in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [1004]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Employees who are experiencing bullying in the workplace should in the first instance take this up with their employer, making use of any internal grievance procedures. The Health and Safety Executive's recently published booklet, "Stress at Work: A Guide for Employers", provides advice on preventing ill health though stress which may be caused by persistent bullying. Bullying could constitute grounds for a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal and under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 it is a criminal offence to cause intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff are currently employed in the Patent Office; and what are the staff projections for each of the next three years. [1199]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  At the end of October 973 staff were employed at the Patent Office. Forecasts of staff levels are set out in the 1995 corporate plan, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Relevant figures are:

  1996–97: 920

  1997–98: 900

  1998–99: 880

  A major factor in employment will be the level of demand.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to privatise the Patent Office, and if he will make a statement. [1201]

  Mr. Taylor
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade on 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 657–58.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the tender specifications applying to services to be contracted-out from the Patent Office. [1198]

  Mr. Taylor
  The specification for the London front office and facilities management are now at an advanced stage.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent patent and trademark work currently undertaken within the Manchester offices of the Patent Office is included in the contracting-out specification which will apply to the marketing and information directorate. [1200]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Manchester office is not within the scope of any study of the marketing and information directorate. Its future is however under separate review. The legal requirement to maintain an office in Manchester ended with the implementation of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
  77

  Assisted Areas Map
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to review the assisted areas map; if he will accept interim submissions from areas excluded in the last review; and if he will make a statement. [227]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have no plans to review the assisted areas map during this Parliament. The European Commission imposes an overall ceiling on the percentage of working population covered by the assisted areas map. It is not possible to review the status of individual areas outside a full review.

  Telephone Ownership
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of privately owned telephones by(a) region and (b) county; and if he will make a statement. [607]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: At end March 1994 there were approximately 20.94 million residential exchange lines nationwide. Overall data by region and county are not held. Telephone ownership has risen in the United Kingdom from 78 per cent. per household in 1984 to 91 per cent. today. I share the objective of the Director General of Telecommunications to increase that figure still further.

  In rural areas, access will be helped by use of the radio spectrum that was released recently.

  Nanotechnology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals he has to increase research into and application of nanotechnology. [346]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council manages a programme in nanotechnology which funds a variety of research in universities. The budget for new commitments by the programme was increased to £1 million per annum this year. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council funds a research project in nanotechnology but has no plans to increase its activity in this area.

  Telephone Disconnections
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of telephone connections cut off by British Telecom each year since privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [606]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: That is a matter for BT. However, following a request from the Director General of Telecommunications, monthly figures for BT disconnections covering the period July 1994 to September 1995 have been placed in the Oftel library. These show average total disconnections of around 64,000 per month, and average net disconnections of around 26,000 per month—the net average excludes cases where customers were rapidly
  78
  re-connected after payment of bills. Responsibility for the provision of universal telecoms service falls to the Director General of Telecommunications, who has taken a close interest in all telecoms operators' policies towards disconnection. He is working to develop more innovative approaches to affordable and equitable access to telecommunications, where outright disconnection of service would form a last resort used only in cases of wilful fraud.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Valley Site, Rhydymwyn
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish and deposit in the Library the Drivers Jonas report of May 1994 on the valley site at Rhydymwyn, Clwyd. [596]

  Mr. Boswell
  A copy of the environment assessment of May 1994 which was prepared by Dames and Moore but which was commissioned by Drivers Jonas on behalf of the Ministry has been placed in the Library of the House today.

  Fish Landings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to restrict fish landings to specified ports and regions for fish to be sold through auction; and if he will make a statement on measures to stop black fish landings. [987]

  Mr. Baldry
  The fisheries departments devote substantial resources to detecting and preventing illegal landings and appropriate enforcement action is taken where there is evidence of illegal landings occurring. Designated ports and approved auction sales are among the additional control measures which are kept under review.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the species which the Commission is proposing should be subject to quotas under the common fisheries policy. [1003]

  Mr. Baldry
  The following fish species are subject to quotas under the common fisheries policy

  Anchovy

  Anglerfish

  Atlantic Salmon

  Blue Ling and Ling

  Blue Whiting

  Capelin

  Catfish

  Cod

  Common Sole

  Greenland Halibut

  Haddock

  Hake

  79

  Herring

  Horse Mackerel

  Mackerel

  Megrim

  Northern Prawn

  Norway Lobster

  Norway Pout

  Plaice

  Polar Cod

  Pollack

  Redfish

  Roundnose Grenadier

  Saithe

  Sandeel

  Sprat

  Whiting

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [30]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has introduced two Acts of Parliament since January 1994.

  The Land Drainage Act 1994 amends the Land Drainage Act 1991 in relation to the functions of internal drainage boards and local authorities.

  The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 does not impose express duties on local government bodies, but any such body acting in the capacity of agricultural landlord or tenant will be subject to the provisions of the Act where applicable.

  Chocolate Directive
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement as to the effects on the traditional British chocolate bar of the EU chocolate directive; and what is Her Majesty's Government's position on the directive. [1324]

  Mr. Browning
  The existing EC Cocoa and Chocolate Products Directive, which was agreed in 1973, lays down, amongst other things, compositional standards for chocolate. Under this directive, the United Kingdom may manufacture, and sell as such, chocolate containing vegetable fat other than cocoa butter. The directive also specifies compositional standards for "milk chocolate" manufactured and sold in the United Kingdom and Ireland; this standard is different from that set for milk chocolate manufactured and sold in other member states.

  The EC Commission is undertaking a review of this directive but has not yet placed a proposal before the Council.

  Our objective is to see that the compositional standards in the new directive fully cover the wide variety of consumer tastes already established within the Community and that the directive ensures free circulation of all traditional styles of chocolate and chocolate products.
  80

  Carbaryl
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to revoke the approval for products containing carbaryl. [1218]

  Mrs. Browning
  As announced on 7 November, the Government have accepted the advice regarding pesticide uses of carbaryl from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. The ACP concluded that there was no cause for concern about the risk to consumers from the low levels of residues currently found in food. However, the ACP advised that action should be taken to reduce or remove long term exposure for the users of pesticides containing carbaryl.

  Accordingly, the Government have revoked all approvals for carbaryl-containing pesticide products intended for non-agricultural, garden or poultry house use. A one year period of grace will be allowed for stocks already in the supply chain to be used up. The remaining professional pesticide uses will be allowed to continue subject to the tightest practicable controls on the method of application and protective equipment and clothing.

  The issue of the safety of carbaryl in veterinary products is under active consideration by the Veterinary Products Committee.

WALES

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Acts of Parliament, including consolidation Acts, that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [25]

  Mr. Hague
  Since January 1994, my Department has introduced the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which received Royal Assent on 5 July 1994.

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times in the last year he has used(a) London Buses and (b) London Underground while on official business. [406]

  Mr. Hague
  None. I travel on London Underground in a personal capacity.

  Mid-Wales Airport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received regarding the establishment of a Mid-Wales airport and if he will make a statement. [1061]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There have been no recent representations about the airport. Mid-Wales airport was established some four years ago with the help of funds provided under the rural initiative scheme. ERDF funds were provided later for a taxiway, hardstanding and control room. Montgomeryshire district council made a bid in February for funds under the strategic development scheme for extending the runway but this was later withdrawn.
  81

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the organisations and individuals who have responded to his consultation on nursery vouchers, indicating whether they were for or against his proposals. [1203]

  Mr. Richards
  A list of organisations is given. Responses were also received from 375 individuals and school governing bodies, including two petitions. All comments are currently being analysed.

  RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT "PRE-SCHOOL

  EDUCATION: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VOUCHER SCHEME"

  County Councils:

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  West Glamorgan

  Unitary Authorities:

  Anglesey County Council (CC)

  (County Borough) of Blaenau Gwent

  Bridgend County Borough Council (CBC)

  Caerphilly CBC

  Cardiganshire CC

  Denbighshire CC

  Flintshire CC

  Merthyr Tydfil CBC

  Neath & Port Talbot CBC

  Newport CBC

  Pembrokeshire CC

  (County of) Swansea

  Wrexham CBC

  Town Councils:

  Llanwrtyd Wells

  Rhayader

  Teacher Organisations:

  National Association of Headteachers (NAHT)

  National Union of Teachers (NUT)

  NAS/UWT Wales

  Dyfed Parent Teacher Association

  Powys Parent Teacher Association

  Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru (UCAC)

  Miscellaneous Organisations:

  Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Audit Commission

  Children in Wales

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin

  Pre-school Playgroups Association

  The Welsh Language Board

  Women's National Commission

  Save the Children Fund

  Standing Conference of Women's Organisations

  Church Bodies:

  Monmouth Diocesan Council for Education

  The Free Church Federal Council

  82

  Emergency Medical Intakes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairmen of acute hospitals, trusts and health authorities in relation to the closure of acute hospitals to emergency medical intakes since 1 November; what statistics he has collected on the number of occasions of such intake closures; and if he will make a statement; [1329]

  (2) what consultations he has had with chairmen of acute hospitals, trusts and health authorities in Wales in relation to the assessment of the need for emergency medical intake beds, and the availability of such beds since 1 November. [1330]

  Mr. Hague
  The management of emergency medical intake is primarily an operational issue for health authorities and trusts, on which statistics are not held centrally by my Department. However, to assist with its management, the Welsh Office some months ago commissioned a review of referral practices and I expect the results to be available shortly. In the meantime, discussions between my Department and the NHS are taking place. I expect them to identify action which will address the issue.

  Residuary Body for Wales
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue additional guidance to the residuary body regarding surplus properties and disputed properties where an activity continues beyond 1 April 1996. [1899]

  Mr. Hague
  I have today issued, for consultation, revised draft guidance to the residuary body for Wales dealing with property which should be transferred to it. The revised guidance indicates that any property, other than administrative buildings, which is not required by the new authorities for the purpose of carrying out their functions or any property whose future ownership is in dispute should not be transferred to the residuary body where the property is used for an existing activity for the carrying out of which full or part-time staff are wholly employed.

  Such properties should normally be transferred to a successor authority or authorities for disposal or resolution of the dispute. In the absence of a local agreement the following will apply: where the property is owned or leased by a non-split district or county it should be transferred to the successor authority; where the property is owned or leased by a split district or county it should be transferred into the joint ownership of the successor authorities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mater Hospital
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline the subsequent changes to the 1971 deed of arrangement which brought the Mater hospital into the national health service. [68]

  Mr. Moss
  There has been only one subsequent change to the original deed of arrangement. On 30 August 1984, the Department and the trustees of the Mater infirmorum
  83
  hospital signed a "supplemental deed of arrangement", specifically designed to permit them jointly to fund the major scheme of reconstruction and modernisation which was officially opened in 1991,

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the current Roman Catholic Church trustees of the Mater hospital. [66]

  Mr. Moss
  No. Appointment of Roman Catholic Church trustees for the Mater infirmorum hospital is not a matter for my Department and a list of trustees is not held.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the remit of the Mater hospital trust board's joint consultative committee with the trustees. [65]

  Mr. Moss
  Under the terms of the deed of arrangement with the trustees which brought the Mater infirmorum hospital into the Health and Personal Social Services in 1971, the joint consultative committee shall consider any proposals by the body responsible for the management of the hospital relating to:

  the appointment of senior medical staff;

  the appointment of heads of service departments'

  ethical practices, particularly in obstetrics, gynaecology, geriatrics and psychiatry;

  the use of endowments and trust funds; and

  the use of any part of the hospital as accommodation for a nurses training school.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Mater hospital Church trustees have(a) representation on the hospital's trust board and (b) consultation rights with hospital's trust board. [67]

  Mr. Moss
  The trustees of the Mater infirmorum hospital are not represented on its trust board. Under the provisions of article 96 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, the deed of arrangement between the Department of Health and Social Services and the hospital trustees requires regard to be had in the general administration of the hospital to the preservation of its Roman Catholic character and association. I have already set out areas specifically affected by these consultation rights in the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman earlier today.

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times in the last year he has used(a) the London Underground and (b) London Buses while on official business. [427]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  None.

  Housing Bill
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is his policy that Northern Ireland will be included in the forthcoming Housing Bill. [75]

  Mr. Moss
  The matter is under active consideration. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once a decision has been reached.
  84

  Teaching Appointments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures the education boards in Northern Ireland have to ensure that selectors and applicants for school teaching appointments, and in related advertisements, are aware that discrimination on religious or political grounds is lawful when such appointments are made. [73]

  Mr. Ancram
  Such procedures are a matter for the education and library boards, and other employing authorities as appropriate.

  Funding and Planning Council
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a funding and planning council for further education in Northern Ireland. [1110]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government are considering a range of options for the future planning and funding of further education in Northern Ireland.

  Out-of-hours Service (GPs)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the amount for the development fund for out-of-hours service for general practitioners in Northern Ireland. [467]

  Mr. Moss
  My officials in the Health and Personal Social Services management executive are meeting the profession's representatives on 23 November to discuss the out-of-hours arrangements in Northern Ireland. The profession will be formally notified of the size of the development fund at that meeting.

  Murder Prosecutions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been prosecuted for murder in each of the past 10 years; and how many of these persons were prosecuted for murder related to the terrorist campaign. [10]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Number of persons prosecuted for murder 1985–1994

  Terrorist

  Non terrorist

  Total

  1985

  38

  1

  39

  1986

  24

  1

  25

  1987

  10

  9

  19

  1988

  12

  5

  17

  1989

  11

  4

  15

  1990

  8

  1

  9

  1991

  9

  2

  11

  1992

  7

  7

  14

  1993

  17

  1

  18

  1994

  13

  4

  17

  These figures refer to the number of persons prosecuted for murder in separate murder trials. A person facing two counts of murder in the same trial is counted once and a person prosecuted for two murders in separate trials is counted twice.

  The statistics in the terrorist murder column refer to prosecutions in non-jury Crown courts.
  85

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportation
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people who, when sentenced to prison, were also recommended for deportation at the conclusion of their sentence were detained in prison following the completion of their sentence; and what was the average period of time for which they were so detained for each of the last three years and in the current year to date; [984]

  (2) how many people who, when sentenced to prison, were also recommended for deportation at the conclusion of their sentence, are still detained in prison having completed their sentence. [983]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is given in the table. The other information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Persons recommended for deportation by a court detained in prison after completion of a custodial sentence as at 17 November 1995:

  Number

  Less than 1 month

  2

  1 to 2 months

  6

  2 to 3 months

  2

  3 to 4 months

  1

  4 to 5 months

  0

  6 months to 1 year

  2

  Over 1 year

  1

  Total

  14

  Prison Transfers
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were transferred from Styal prison for each month of 1995, indicating the reason for the transfer in each case, and the name of the prison to which the transfer was made. [142]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 21 November 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners transferred from Styal prison for each month of 1995, the reason for each transfer and the name of the prison to which each transfer was made.

  The attached table shows the number of prisoners transferred in each month of 1995 and the destination establishments. Information on the reasons for each transfer is not centrally recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Transfer of Prisoners from HMP Styal in 1995

  Destination of Transfer

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  Risley

  12

  39

  14

  8

  6

  Durham

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Low Newton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Winchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Pucklechurch

  —

  —

  1

  4

  2

  86

  Transfer of Prisoners from HMP Styal in 1995

  Destination of Transfer

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drake Hall

  1

  2

  16

  1

  2

  Bullwood Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Cookham Wood

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  New Hall

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Holloway

  2

  3

  5

  1

  3

  Askham Grange

  2

  1

  3

  2

  9

  Destination of transfer

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October/ November

  Risley

  8

  11

  10

  11

  8

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Low Newton

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Winchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pucklechurch

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Drake Hall

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Bullwood

  Hall

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cookham

  Wood

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  New Hall

  1

  1

  4

  2

  4

  Holloway

  —

  4

  1

  2

  4

  Askham

  Grange

  —

  10

  1

  4

  3

  Probation Officers
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received(a) for and (b) against his proposals to eliminate the social work training element for probation officers. [146]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Since the government's decisions about probation officer recruitment and training were announced on 2 October, 89 letters have been received, of which 61 were against and 28 were for a break with social work education.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who have been held in detention have been on hunger strike during the current year. [993]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A total of 40 people detained under Immigration Act powers have refused food or fluids at some stage during 1995 up to 17 November. Central records of people who have refused food or fluids do not distinguish between those who have applied for asylum from others, and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  As at 17 November only one immigration detainee was refusing food or fluids.

  Prison Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the projected private sector involvement in the Prison Service; and what was the basis for calculating this figure. [385]
  87
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 21 November 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about projected private sector involvement in the Prison Service.

  Our aim is to create a private sector able to provide sustained competition, to improve standards and cost efficiency. There is a commitment that, in the initial phase, about ten per cent of prisons in England and Wales (thirteen in total) will be managed by the private sector.

  This strategy is designed to secure continuing and lasting improvements in standards, quality and cost efficiency across the whole of the prison system in England and Wales. For these objectives to be achieved, the private sector must be large enough to provide sustained competition and involve several private sector companies.

  Prison Population
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the projected growth in the prison population as a result of measures he announced on 12 October. [137]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 26 October Official Report, column 755–56.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of(a) the total prison inmate population of prisons in each of the next five years and (b) the totals of prison places that will be available. [348]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 21 November 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the estimate of the total prison inmate population of prisons in each of the next five years and the totals of prison places that will be available.

  The most recent available projections were published in May as part of the Prison Service's 1995 Corporate Plan. Revised and updated projections will be published in the new year as part of the 1996 Corporate Plan.

  Police Constables
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the experience, briefing and training of police constables on the beat. [151]

  Mr. Maclean
  The way in which beat patrol officers are used is an operational matter for chief constables. The scope and content of the probationer training curriculum is currently being reviewed to ensure that new recruits are equipped with the necessary skills and abilities to undertake this key role.
  88

  Victimisation (Homosexuals)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the co-ordinated police initiatives on a United Kingdom or Wales basis intended to combat violence against homosexuals. [605]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: The prevention and detection of crime are operational responsibilities of chief officer of police. Forces co-operate with others where circumstances indicate that to be an effective approach to reducing crime of whatever form.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Late Payment
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how his Department publicises payment practices other than as percentages of invoices paid late.

  Mr. Newton
  Consideration is being given to the inclusion of a statement on payment practices in my Department's next annual report.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the average length of time it takes for his Department to pay invoices.

  Mr. Newton
  The practice of the Privy Council Office is to pay all invoices within 30 days.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charter Mark Scheme
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on British Gas's decision to withdraw from the charter mark award scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  Charter mark assessors were looking into standards of service at British Gas when the company relinquished its award earlier this month. This pre-empted any recommendation the assessors might have reached as a result of their investigation into standards of service at the company.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what increases to the total overseas aid budget would be required in each of the next three years to preserve the real value of the bilateral aid programme. [1592]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 8 November Official Report, columns 902–903.
  89

  Overseas Aid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the general agreement on tariffs and trade on overseas aid to(a) sub-Saharan Africa, (b) Latin America and the Caribbean, (c) south and central Asia, (d) middle east and north Africa, (e) other Asia and Oceania and (f) eastern Europe. [1541]

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no direct linkage between trade liberalisation and the volume of overseas aid. However, many developing countries have taken advantage of successive general agreements on tariffs and trade to achieve export-led growth and so have reduced their need for aid.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of a shift from bilateral aid to multilateral aid on nations which receive overseas aid from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [1549]

  Mr. Hanley
  As the share of multilateral aid, particularly that through the EC, rises it is all the more important to work to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of multilateral aid; to focus bilateral aid on activities where the United Kingdom has a comparative advantage; and to pursue the greatest possible complementarity between both forms of aid. Action is in hand on all these points.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change the level of expenditure on overseas aid and development. [1545]

  Mr. Hanley
  We shall maintain an effective and substantial programme focused on the poorest countries. Future levels of aid will be announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 28 November.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has had from business interests with regard to distribution of the overseas aid programme. [1539]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. But my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has regular discussions with the business community about the aid programme with the twin aims of explaining developments in aid policy, and exploring with them how expenditure through the aid programme can, as a secondary objective, lead to future United Kingdom commercial relations. The question of the distribution of the aid programme is one topic occasionally referred to.

  EU Development Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken, indicating any votes, at the EU Development Council in Brussels on 13 November. [1556]

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Development Council on 13 November. [1204]
  90
  Mr. Hanley
  The EU Development Council has been rescheduled to 20 December.

  Immunisation Programmes
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the overseas aid budget is allocated to immunisation programmes; and if this percentage will be increased over the next five years. [222]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: Immunisation against infectious diseases is one of the most cost-effective means available for improving human health. During 1994, the ODA contributed around £250 million, or at least 10 per cent. of the aid budget, directly to health and population aid. A further sum was provided indirectly, through British contributions to the European Commission, World bank and UNICEF.

  Funds were used to improve the effectiveness of health services in developing countries and countries in transition; to promote improved reproductive health including safer maternity; to reduce suffering due to communicable diseases, especially tuberculosis, malaria and HIV; and to improve access to essential health care in emergencies. In all these circumstances, United Kingdom funding contributes to improved population coverage with effective vaccines. Funds are routed through the ODA's bilateral country, emergency and technology development and research programmes, grants to UNICEF and WHO, and joint funding of non-governmental organisations like Save the Children Fund, Oxfam and MERLIN.

  Separate figures are not available for UK spending on immunisation work within these broader programmes.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Governments of(a) Vietnam, (b) Cambodia, (c) Mozambique and (d) other developing countries regarding the results of British research into the control and destruction of land mines. [108]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: None.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what public funds have been expended on research into the control and destruction of land mines for each of the past five years. [109]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: The Ministry of defence supports a programme of generic research into battlefield engineering, part of which is directed towards studies into the control and destruction of land mines. It is estimated that expenditure on such work in this financial year will be more than £150,000. Figures for preceding years are not readily available but are understood to be comparable for the past three years and lower prior to that.

  In addition, the United Kingdom participates in a number of programmes to the same purpose in NATO and in information exchanges with our allies under the technical co-operation programme.
  91
  The Overseas Development Administration has provided £104,928 to fund a short research programme by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to review the application of various techniques for mine detection against the operational requirements of humanitarian mine clearance programmes.

ENVIRONMENT

  Regional Government (North-West)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about regional government in the north-west. [744]

  Mr. Curry
  I have received no representations on this issue.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the area cost adjustment. [745]

  Mr. Curry
  I have announced my proposals for an independent review of the area cost adjustment.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on local government spending. [747]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend will be making a statement on the provisional 1996–97 local government finance settlement shortly after my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to changes to the 1995–96 capping criteria guidelines. [756]

  Mr. Curry
  We review the capping criteria every year. My proposals for criteria for 1996–97 will be announced with the rest of the local government finance settlement after the budget.

  Out-of-town Supermarkets
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has as to how many out-of-town supermarkets have been opened in the past five years. [746]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not have information on applications granted by local planning authorities.

  Housing
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants bought their homes under the right-to-buy legislation last year. [748]

  Mr. Curry
  In England, over 43,000 homes were sold under the right to buy between April 1994 and March 1995. The figure for Great Britain as a whole is more than 66,000.
  92
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will propose changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 following the decision in Howson v. Buxton and in relation to persons working in association. [415]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is not clear how the decision in Howson v. Buxton which was decided in 1928, gives rises to an argument for change to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce allocation of the single regeneration budget. [750]

  Mr. Curry
  My. right hon. Friend intends to announce successful bids under the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund by Christmas.

  Local Government (Candidates)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage more business men to stand as candidates for local government. [751]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Our aim is to encourage people with a wide range of backgrounds, including business men, to serve as councillors. The changes which we have recently made to the councillors' allowances system are designed to achieve just this.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further efforts will be made to preserve biodiversity within critical habitats in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [752]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government plan to submit further candidate special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive when the results of the recent public consultation on the proposed list have been fully considered. In addition, the steering group, set up by the Government to advise on biodiversity, will publish its report on 13 December. The report will contain proposals for targets and costed action plans for key species and habitats in the United Kingdom.

  Noise Controls
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about restricting noise. [753]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department receives representations about all forms of environmental noise on a regular basis. The vast majority of this correspondence relates to neighbour noise issues.

  Regional Government (West Midlands)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about regional government in the west Midlands. [754]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received no representation on this issue.
  93

  Social Housing
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he will give to local authorities to build affordable social housing. [757]

  Mr. Curry
  Housing Associations are now the main providers of new social housing. In total, in 1995–96 around 70,000 additional new lettings are expected to be provided through a mixture of public and private funding.

  National Parks
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to announce the creation of any new national parks. [758]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have no plans to designate any new national parks.

  Community Forests
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hectares of community forest have been promised to date by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [759]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have approved the business plans for 12 community forests in England. The aims of the forests are to assist economic regeneration by landscape and amenity improvements, and to provide recreation opportunities on the edges of towns and cities. Individual planting targets vary, but the overall aim is to increase tree cover in each forest to around 30 per cent. over the next 30 to 50 years. Since 1991, 2,347 hectares of woodland has been planted and over 2,000 hectares of wildlife habitat created.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the brief which his Department intends to issue to consultants advising on the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment. [314]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Consultants have been invited to tender for providing advice on the relative disadvantages and advantages of the options for transferring BRE to the private sector. I have placed a copy of the specification issued to them in the Library of the House today.

  Water Industry (Customer Satisfaction)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to commission any independent research into customer satisfaction with the water industry. [129]

  Mr. Clappison
  This is a matter for the companies and the independent regulator for the water industry, who carry out research as appropriate.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what cut-off date has been used for the collection of statistics relating to customer complaints about the water industry in the current year; [125]

  (2) what categories are used to identify the subject of a customer's complaints to a water undertaker; [128]
  94
  (3) if he will list the number of (a) written and (b) telephone complaints made to each water or sewerage company in each of the five years from 1990 to 1995; and what month they are calculated from. [899]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on the number of written and telephone billing complaints, and the total number of written complaints to water and sewerage companies, is published by the Office of Water Services in its annual "Report on Levels of Service for the Water Industry in England and Wales", covering the period 1 April to 31 March each year, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has the number of(a) written and (b) telephone complaints made to Ofwat regional committees in each of the years from 1990 to 1995. [900]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on the number of complaints made to Ofwat regional customer service committees is contained in the individual annual reports of the committees and in the Office of Water Services' "Review of Companies' Complaints Procedures" of October 1995, copies of which are in the Library.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the National Rivers Authority will report to him on the adequacy of water companies' plans to safeguard water supplies next summer; and what is the minimum time required if Government intervention is necessary to protect and provide water supplies if the water companies' plans prove inadequate. [409]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the National Rivers Authority to report to him by 15 December, following consultation with the companies, on the adequacy of water companies' plans to safeguard supplies next summer. The minimum time required to implement additional measures will depend on the nature of those measures.

  Power Lines (Safety)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers regional electricity companies have to access land designated as a site of special scientific interest in order to maintain the safety of power lines. [112]

  Mr. Clappison
  General powers of access are set out in paragraph 7 of schedule 6 to the Electricity Act 1989.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for countering the effect of vehicle emissions in city centres and if he will make a statement. [733]

  Mr. Clappison
  We are on course for a significant reduction from primary road transport emissions over the next 10 years.

  Nevertheless, we want to take every opportunity to press for further progress. This summer, the Environment Act 1995 set out a radical new framework for improving air quality.
  95

  Local Authority Staff
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are estimated to be currently employed by local authorities; at what cost; what were the figures in 1979; and if he will make a statement. [1479]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The total numbers of general services staff employed by local authorities in England were as follows:

  Thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total staff

  June 1979

  1,469

  876

  2,345

  June 1995

  1,092

  875

  1,967

  There have been various changes in general services employment in the period arising from changes in the functions of local government. Four major events caused significant reductions from the local authority sector:

  (1) Approximately 6,300 full-time equivalents—FTEs—due to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils in 1986.

  (2) Around 14,500 full-time equivalents—FTEs—due to changes in the status of local authority bus and municipal airport staff in 1986 and 1987.

  (3) Around 39,000 full-time equivalents—FTEs—when polytechnics and higher education institutions transferred from local authority control in 1989.

  (4) Around 97,000 full-time equivalents—FTEs—when further education institutions became the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) on 1 April 1993.

  Comparable figures for the cost of local authority employment are not available because of the various changes in function of local government and because of changes in the way estimates of employment costs have been compiled. In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, the total cost of wages and salaries for all local authorities, including law and order authorities, was £33 billion.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the numbers of people employed by each local authority in England in(a) 1979, (b) 1990 and (c) currently; and if he will make a statement. [358]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: The total numbers of general services staff employed by local authorities in England were as follows:

  Thousands

  June 1979

  June 1990

  June 1995

  Full time

  1,469

  1,327

  1,091

  Part time

  876

  955

  875

  Full time equivalents

  1,813

  1,709

  11,468

  1 Estimated.

  There have been various changes in general services employment in the period arising from changes in the functions of local government. Four major events caused significant reductions from the local authority sector;

  (1) Approximately 6,300 full-time equivalents—FTEs—due to the abolition of GLC and the metropolitan county councils in 1986.

  96

  (2) Around 14,500 full-time equivalents—FTEs—due to changes in the status of local authority bus and municipal airport staff in 1986 and 1987.

  (3) Around 39,000 full-time equivalents—FTEs—when polytechnics and higher education institutions transferred from local authority control in 1989.

  (4) Around 97,000 full-time equivalents—FTEs—when further education institutions became the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC on 1 April 1993.

  Tables covering figures for individual authorities have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Leaseholders' Rights
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a right to manage for leaseholders in flats. [1482]

  Mr. Curry
  I am aware that proposals on a right to manage have been put forward. Important issues of principle and practicality need to be considered carefully before any decisions are taken. My officials will be discussing these shortly with interested parties.

  Water Resources
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on and give his response to the conclusions of the National Rivers Authority report, "Saving Water", sent to him on 3 October. [1486]

  Mr. Gummer
  I welcome publication of the consultation document as a further contribution to the debate on efficient management of water resources. My Department is considering the proposals and will comment in due course.

  Environmental Pollution (Central and Eastern Europe)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment when he next intends to meet his EU counterparts to discuss environmental pollution in central and eastern Europe. [732]

  Mr. Clappison
  The next meeting of EU Ministers to discuss pollution in central and eastern Europe will be held under the Italian presidency in March 1996. The meeting will consider the follow-up to last month's Sofia conference of European Environment Ministers, in which the Secretary of State and his EU counterparts played an active part.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue the draft housing revenue account subsidy and item 8 determinations for 1996–97. [1896]

  Mr. Curry
  Local authorities have today been sent the draft housing revenue account subsidy and item 8 determinations for 1996–97 together with a consultation paper on proposed arrangements to discourage them from increasing their rents by more than the Government's guideline increase for next year. Authorities have been invited to let my Department have their views by 15 December 1995.
  97
  I am pleased to be able to say that we are proposing to freeze the average guideline rent for 1996–97, in real terms, at £34.70 a week. The increases on this year for individual authorities would range between 67p and £1.17 a week. This is good news for council tenants.

  The assessment of each authority's proposed guideline rent would, for the first time, explicitly include allowance for average earnings of manual workers. Authorities' guideline rents would be based equally on local capital values and earnings. This would improve the targeting of subsidy and would ensure that the pattern of rents charged by authorities nationally better represented the income pattern of tenants. It would help us ensure that local authority rents remained affordable for those on low incomes.

  We are proposing a change in the subsidy rules to encourage authorities to keep their rent increases within the guideline. Rent rebate subsidy would be limited and the limit would be linked to the guideline rent increase. Authorities which stay within this limit would be unaffected.

  To provide authorities with greater certainty about their subsidy entitlement and to reduce the administrative burden both for authorities and for the Department, the proposed subsidy determination has been streamlined and the calculation of subsidy considerably simplified.

  Total provision for management and maintenance costs will be £3.4 billion. The provision is slightly higher than this year per dwelling. We propose to update the distribution formula to include data from the English house condition survey and to include an allowance for social factors. About 10 per cent. of the maintenance component would be indexed to measures of social deprivation. These changes are designed to improve the allocation of subsidy so that it goes where it is needed most.

  In common with the remainder of the public sector, we want to see housing departments of local town halls constantly seeking greater efficiency. Up to now, spending has continued to rise while the number of council houses has fallen, with the cost being picked up by tenants and general taxpayers. Our proposals will encourage authorities to keep their rent increases down to the Government's guideline levels and will provide a spur for them to use opportunities, such as compulsory competitive tendering, to improve efficiency, bring costs down and provide tenants with better services.

  Goole
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision on the future of Goole and rural Goole. [1846]

  Mr. Gummer
  In light of the commission's recommendation and the representations I have received, I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be no change to the boundaries of Goole and rural Goole. As a consequence, the area will form part of the new east riding of Yorkshire authority provided for in the Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995.
  98

  Unitary Development Plans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information(a) is available and (b) will be made available to persons concerned about major changes to unitary development plans under the provisions of the citizens charter. [111]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The free booklet, "Development Plans: What You Need to Know", published by the Department of the Environment, contains a code of practice for development plans and sets out the procedures that are to be followed by a local planning authority when it proposes to make alterations to, or replace, a unitary development plan. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the authority to place those proposals on deposit for public inspection for a period of six weeks, during which objections or representations may be made by any member of the public. Notices of the deposited proposals are required to be advertised locally and in the London Gazette. Additionally, in planning policy guidance note 12, "Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance", the Secretary of State advises authorities to give adequate publicity at an early stage to the proposed alteration or replacement, and to give members of the public an opportunity to participate in the preparation of those proposals, prior to deposit.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Workstart Scheme
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what factors underlay the omission from guidelines sent to employment officials overseeing workstart placements of a requirement to(a) withdraw a client and (b) inform the employer immediately when a health and safety risk within the workplace is noticed; and what assessment her Department has made of the risk to workstart clients from the omission of this requirement; [978]

  (2) how many of the workplaces with people on the workstart scheme have been found not to meet health and safety requirements; [976]

  (3) how many of the workplaces with people on the workstart scheme have been inspected by health and safety officers; [892]

  (4) what provisions she is making to ensure that unemployed people on the workstart scheme are placed in working environments which meet all health and safety requirements; [890]

  (5) how many accidents have occurred involving people placed on the workstart scheme since it began. [891]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Heppell, dated 21 November 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about Health and Safety issues and the Workstart Employment Subsidy Scheme.
  99
  Workstart aims to encourage employers to take on long term unemployed people by the payment of a subsidy. Once recruited, subsidised people are employees of the employer concerned and their status is identical to that of any other employee. They are therefore covered as any other employee by health and safety legislation.

  As part of the audit procedures, Workstart co-ordinators from the Employment Service (ES) visit a percentage of the firms who are in receipt of a subsidy. The purpose of this visit is for the co-ordinators to satisfy themselves that the Workstart recruit is still employed at the firm.

  As the co-ordinators will be on the employers' premises, the ES sought legal advice regarding its position should they observe what appears, to a lay person, to be a health and safety problem during the course of the visit. The advice given was that the ES has no legal responsibility to identify or to act on any suspected breach of health and safety legislation. ES people undertaking Workstart visits are neither trained nor qualified to assess whether a situation is in contravention of health and safety legislation or is liable to constitute a danger. As such the monitoring visit can in no way constitute an inspection of the employer's premises. Nevertheless if the co-ordinator sees something of concern to themselves about the safety of the employer's premises they are advised to report the matter to the Health and Safely Executive. The ES has no power to 'withdraw' the employee as they are no longer employed.

  The Employment Service places importance on ensuring that employers are made fully aware that agreeing to the conditions of Workstart does not negate their responsibility for health and safety issues. We therefore insist the employer signs a declaration which outlines their intent to comply with all relevant health and safety legislation when a Workstart subsidy is agreed and would not allow subsidies to be paid to employers who refused to do so.

  Given that the responsibility for Health and Safety is solely that of an employer, no specific records are kept of accidents on the premises of employers in receipt of a Workstart subsidy or of visits by officials of the Health and Safety Executive to their premises.

  I hope this is helpful in explaining the position.

  Dance and Drama Students (Funding)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her policy on the funding of dance and drama students. [172]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are aware of the difficulties faced by some potential students of dance and drama in obtaining discretionary award support from their local authorities. We are continuing to look at whether anything might be done to help. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated number at January 1995 of primary school pupils educated in class sizes of 40 and above in the Dudley metropolitan borough; and what proportion this figure is of all primary children in England and Wales educated in these sized classes. [578]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of pupils in single teacher classes of 40 or more pupils in maintained primary schools in Dudley local education authority area in January 1995, provisional, was 1,027. This represented 5.6 per cent. of pupils in single teacher classes of 40 or more pupils in maintained primary schools in England.

  Information on classes in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  100

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to ensure that teachers are properly trained in the use of information technology. [18]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's criteria for initial teacher training require that newly qualified teachers should be able to make effective use of information technology as a learning resource. The Teacher Training Agency has identified support for teachers using information technology as one of the national priorities to be addressed through its action programme for continuing professional development.

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times in the last year she has used(a) London Transport buses and (b) London Underground while on official business. [421]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have not used either London Buses or London Underground on official business, although I often walk.

  Jobclub
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by area(a) the percentage of unemployed persons who attend a jobclub and (b) the percentage of those who attended who were successful in finding full-time work. [184]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 21 November 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobclubs.

  The information is not available in the form requested.

  I am, however able to provide details of the number of people who joined the Jobclub during 1994/95 by Employment Service Region, together with the total average number of unemployed people during the same period. The proportion of Jobclub leavers who took up any job is also shown.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Numbers of unemployed and jobclub performance April 1994-March 1995

  Average number of unemployed claimants in year

  Total number of jobclub entrants in year

  Percentage of those leaving jobclub entering work

  Northern

  139,011

  16,239

  40

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  221,085

  23,499

  44

  East Midlands and Eastern

  233,134

  23,087

  41

  London and South East

  795,377

  86,209

  44

  South West

  183,931

  21,162

  46

  Wales

  115,938

  12,263

  50

  West Midlands

  235,085

  28,073

  42

  North West

  297,695

  32,159

  38

  Office for Scotland

  224,287

  24,731

  46

  National total

  2,455,987

  266,422

  43

  101

  Remploy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the major companies to which Remploy supplies its products; [1027]

  (2) what Government funding will be provided to Remploy during the period April 1995 to April 1996. [1026]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 21 November 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the major companies to which Remploy supplies its products and about Government funding for Remploy in 1995/96.

  I am unable to list Remploy's major customers as this information is commercial in confidence to the Company. During the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 Remploy will receive Government funding of £94.161 million.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to contract out Remploy to the private sector. [1025]

  Mr. Forth
  We have none.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to increase literacy and numeracy among school age children. [17]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Raising standards of literacy and numeracy is at the heart of our school reforms, notably the national curriculum, regular testing, performance tables, regular inspection and improvements to teacher training. The chief inspector of schools has confirmed that our reforms are improving the quality of education.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many allegations of fraudulent claims she has investigated under the assisted places scheme, due to claimants understating their incomes. [21]

  Mrs. Gillan
  It is for participating schools, in the first instance, to investigate any claims by parents seeking help under the assisted places scheme which schools have reason to believe may have been made fraudulently. The Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995 provide that, if the parents of an assisted pupil do not duly furnish the school with supporting documentary evidence, or if they knowingly or recklessly furnish false information, they shall not be entitled to any remission of fees for that year.
  102

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the drop-out rate of undergraduates as a direct result of financial hardship. [180]

  Mr. Forth
  Our latest estimate of the drop-out rate of students from full-time and sandwich first-degree courses is 17 per cent. in the academic year 1992–93. This covers all those leaving because of exam failure, ill health, personal and other reasons including financial difficulties. It is not possible to identify the drop-out rate caused by financial difficulties alone, but recent research in one university suggests that financial difficulties are less likely to be the cause than personal reasons or students' coming to the view that their course is unsuitable.

  Teacher-pupil Ratios (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the teacher-pupil ratio in Durham local education authority in 1989–90 and the latest year for which figures are available. [183]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The overall pupil-teacher ratios in Durham local education authority in January 1990 and 1995, provisional, were 18:3 and 19:1 respectively.

  University Professors
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the posts of recently appointed university professors and their remuneration; and if she will make a statement. [382]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. As autonomous institutions, universities are free to determine the appointments of professorial staff and their remuneration. The nationally agreed minimum salary for professors from 1 April 1995 is £31,999.

  Apprentices (Manufacturing Industry)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of apprentices in manufacturing industry for each year since 1979. [454]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the table. Estimates for years prior to 1984 are not available.

  Number of people doing an apprenticeship in manufacturing industry 1984–95

  Thousands

  United Kingdom

  Number

  1984

  117

  1985

  112

  1986

  106

  1987

  94

  1988

  89

  1989

  102

  1990

  111

  1991

  92

  103

  Number of people doing an apprenticeship in manufacturing industry 1984–95

  Thousands

  United Kingdom

  Number

  1992

  89

  1993

  76

  19931

  78

  1994

  60

  1995

  48

  Note:

  1 A revised Standard Industrial Classification was adopted in 1993.

  Estimates on the new basis are not directly comparable with those for earlier years.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, spring of each year.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions she has had over the last year with trade unions on the subject of apprenticeships in the manufacturing industry; and if she will make a statement. [452]

  Mr. Paice
  We have had no personal discussions with trade unions on this subject. Industry training organisations have involved manufacturing sectors' trade unions widely in discussions about the development of modern apprenticeship frameworks.

  Higher Education
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to complete her review of the funding models of future higher education and to be able to make an announcement. [1417]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government's review of higher education is looking at wider issues than funding models. We recognise the importance of higher education to the country's future economy and society, and do not intend to rush the review by setting arbitrary deadlines.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the first special educational needs tribunal was held; how many appeals have been heard; how many are outstanding; and what is the average waiting time from an appeal being received to a tribunal being held. [1060]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not maintain detailed records about appeals to the special educational needs tribunal, which is an independent non-departmental public body. I have therefore asked the president of the tribunal, Mr. Trevor Aldridge QC, to write to the hon. Member.

  Information about the numbers of appeals to the tribunal will be available in the president's annual report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which will be placed in the Library when it is published.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what legislation has been agreed by the European Union arising from the social chapter of the Single European Act treaty or the work programme arising from the social charter agreed in 104
  Strasbourg by the European Council in 1989, which by virtue of the protocol on social policy in the treaty on European Union does not apply to the United Kingdom; what articles authorised such legislation; and what proposals in or likely to be in this category of legislation are before either the Council of Ministers or the Council of Permanent Representatives. [1481]

  Mr. Forth
  One directive, on European works councils, has been adopted by the other European Community member states under article 2.2 of their agreement on social policy. Three other dossiers, covering parental leave, part-time and temporary work and reversal of the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases, are currently being considered under the agreement and may result in further legislative measures.

  Welfare and Counselling (Students)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps her Department have taken to improve the welfare and counselling services to students in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [1206]

  Mr. Forth
  None. Colleges and universities are independent, autonomous bodies, responsible for managing their own affairs. Any arrangements that institutions make for the welfare and counselling of their students are for the governing body of each institution to determine; Ministers have no powers to intervene.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research has been undertaken in the last five years by her Department into the level of students suffering from stress and depression; and if she will make a statement. [1212]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has undertaken no such research in the last five years.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average grant received by students in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994; and if she will make a statement. [1213]

  Mr. Forth
  The average net maintenance grants after means testing received by mandatory award holders in England and Wales in the academic years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are set out in the table. Since 1990–91, eligible students have also had access to non-means-tested student loans.

  Average net maintenance grants to holders of mandatory awards

  £

  Academic year

  Average net maintenance grant paid by local education authorities1

  England and Wales

  1990–91

  1,480

  1991–92

  1,540

  1992–93

  1,610

  1993–94

  1,670

  1 To the nearest £10.

  105

  Hardship Funds
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students applied for hardship funds in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994; and if she will make a statement. [1216]

  Mr. Forth
  The purpose of the hardship funds, correctly known as the access funds, is to provide financial help to students whose access to further or higher education might be inhibited by financial considerations or who, for whatever reason, including physical or other disabilities, face financial difficulties.

  From the information provided by institutions, it is estimated that the numbers of applications for further and higher education access funds are as follows:

  Academic year

  Further education

  Higher education

  1990–91

  22,100

  116,0001

  1991–92

  30,000

  118,2001

  1992–93

  32,400

  67,440

  1993–94

  Not available

  77,060

  1994–95

  Not available

  Will be available later in the year

  1 Figures relate to the UK; other figures are not for England only.

  Figures for further education access funds may exclude some students at colleges who failed to submit returns.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many students 106
  applied for student loans in (a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994; and if she will make a statement; [1215]

  (2) how many students who graduated in (a) 1989, (b) 1990, (c) 1991, (d) 1992, (e) 1993 and (f) 1994 are still in debt to the Student Loans Company; and if she will make a statement. [1214]

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for the continuation of ethnic monitoring of school pupils following the consultation exercise earlier this year. [1975]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Our consultations of future arrangements for ethnic monitoring of school pupils produced a clear consensus for improving the usefulness of monitoring while reducing the burden on schools. We have therefore decided to cease the existing separate ethnic monitoring surveys and introduce instead a combination of approaches. First, the 1996 schools census will include simple new questions about the ethnic backgrounds of pupils. The three new questions will cover: the total number of ethnic minority pupils in each school; the names of the largest groups; and the total number of pupils for whom English is a second language. More detailed questions will be developed for inclusion in the 1997 schools census. Secondly, Ofsted will monitor the progress of ethnic minority pupils in individual schools, as part of its regular inspection process. Thirdly, research will be undertaken where necessary to investigate particular issues in depth. Details of the new arrangements were sent to local authorities and schools in September.

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

European Parliament Budget
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What powers are available to (a) the member states of the European Union acting as the European Council, (b) the Council of Ministers acting unanimously or by qualified majority decision and (c) the European Commission, in order to limit the expenditure proposed in the European Parliament's own budget (Section 1 of the draft General Budget of the European Union) or to effect changes in the budget's individual titles.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's three questions; first, the European Council is not part of the budgetary authority, secondly, there is an understanding between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament under which neither amends the other's draft budget—the reason being that since the parliament has the final word on all non-compulsory expenditure it would otherwise be at liberty to amend the Council's administrative budget as it wished—and, thirdly, the Commission may attach a divergent opinion to the estimates for expenditure put forward by each institution at the beginning of the budgetary process.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply? It reveals that Her Majesty's Government, who pay some £6.5 billion into Europe as their contribution, have absolutely no control over parliamentary expenditure despite the fact that on page 30 of the draft budget the total expenditure of the parliament is revealed. Can the noble Lord explain why one of the leading contributors at the heart of Europe—the United Kingdom—does not interest itself in the gross extravagances that have taken place in the European Parliament as regards buildings, expense, missions and informational expenditure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the total amounts of money spent by the European Union are controlled by the own resources provisions and so on. The total is controlled. But the noble Lord is right in saying that within that total the European Parliament must look after its own budget and make its own decisions about its expenditure. One would hope that the parliament would bear in mind when it makes those decisions that it has to take the people of Europe along with it in approving not only of the decisions but also
226
soof the parliament itself. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I am not answerable for the individual decisions the European Parliament makes.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend may be surprised to learn that I agree with him about the need to influence the level of expenditure in Europe but he may not agree with me when I ask the Minister this question. If the words in the gracious Speech about participating in the IGC are to be at all meaningful they mean that the Government have in mind to participate more fruitfully and more fully in seeking to influence what goes on in Europe. I hope that that is indeed what they have in mind. Can the noble Lord reassure me that the Government intend to play a greater part in European affairs?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we will play a major role, as we have always played a major role, in the considerations within the European Union. We are a major player. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, pointed out, we are also a major contributor. We will play that part. But we believe that to play a fruitful part means not just that we play a part in the Community itself but that we do so on behalf of, and in the interests of, the United Kingdom.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the noble Lord has told us a lot about formal regulatory arrangements but he has not told us what is the Government's view concerning the European Parliament's budget. Do the Government regard that budget as being appropriate in size and composition? If they do not regard it as appropriate, what would they like to see changed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear, but obviously I shall have to spell it out in words of one syllable. We are not responsible for the individual decisions of the European Parliament. As I said very clearly, we hope that the parliament will keep in mind the need to spend sensibly and to make sensible decisions about its own budget in order to give the peoples of Europe confidence in its procedures. It is separately and democratically elected and it is answerable for its affairs and its expenditure. I believe that that is the right way.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, we are accustomed to the noble Lord not quite understanding economic questions so perhaps I may repeat my question in words of one syllable. What is the Government's view as to the scale and composition—I am sorry, that is too many syllables—of the budget?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I had made it quite clear that we believe that the budget of the European Parliament is a matter for that parliament. I was interested to hear from the learned Lord opposite—by "learned" I mean as an economist—that he may take a different view. I did not actually mean that in the way that some noble Lords have taken it, although it can be taken both ways. The noble Lord may take a different view and feel that we

227
should intervene in the detailed running of the European Parliament and its budget. I do not believe that we should.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that under the new powers given to the European Court of Auditors, there is now much greater scope for that institution to examine much more closely the affairs of the European Parliament?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, yesterday, the European Court of Auditors presents an annual report on the way in which the European Community spends its money. It highlights those places where spending is abused or misused or where there is fraud. If any of the expenditure fell into those categories, I imagine that would include expenditure by the European Parliament.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister explain who determines the amount of money which the European Parliament is able to spend and whether the Government have a view on the totality as opposed to the apportionment of that money within the totality?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course we have a view about the totality. We have fought very hard to make sure that there is a ceiling put on the totality. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, in her days as Prime Minister, fought and won a very considerable battle at Fontainebleau in order to make sure that we did not overpay in our contributions to the European Union. The point about the parliament is that it has to respect the treaty provisions on the rate of growth of expenditure and on the expenditure ceilings, not only as regards the whole budget, but on the different parts of it. The amounts inside the totality are agreed between three Community institutions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, given the incredible waste, the democratic illegitimacy and the general irrelevance of the European Parliament, can my noble friend tell us whether he would invent it if it did not already exist?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that I would be nearly clever enough to invent it if it did not already exist. The point is that it is democratically elected. The Members of the European Parliament come from constituencies in this country and throughout Europe. I believe that it is one of their responsibilities to listen to the democratic views of the people who elected them and to remember that they have to take them along with them, not just for the sake of the European Parliament which, frankly, is a lesser concern of mine, but for the whole institution of the European Union.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I give the noble Lord notice that I shall return to this matter again?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that when we talk about democratic legitimacy, it
228
comes somewhat strangely from Members of your Lordships' House when compared with Members of the European Parliament who are directly elected?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that, but I would not have dared to say it. In reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I have no doubt that he will return to this matter. If he did not, I would be the first Minister who had managed to silence him on European matters.

Young Offenders
2.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to prevent repetition of crimes by young people who are too young to be detained after arrest and conviction.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, custodial powers are available, regardless of age, for serious offences. The introduction of the secure training order for young persistent offenders will widen these powers, and we have taken steps to strengthen community penalties and ensure their effective enforcement.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. When the present age limit on detention was decided, was it assumed that young teenagers would not become habitual burglars and thieves? Has the experience of Nottinghamshire police and others changed that kind of assumption? Is there not a risk that young people going from court convictions straight back to offending will form the unfortunate impression that crime does pay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is almost precisely because of what my noble friend has just said that the courts and the police have been given a range of powers to deal with young offenders. Therefore, it is important that they are fully used and to good effect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that not a single place has in fact been provided at secure training centres since the passage of the Act which made that possible? Is it not also the case that extra places in local authority secure accommodation, which were promised in 1991 but which were apparently superseded by the proposed secure training centres, have also not materialised? Therefore, is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is completely right in criticising the lack of availability of secure places for young people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Department of Health and the Home Office are jointly funding 170 new secure accommodation places, which will be delivered by local authorities. There will be joint funding by the two departments. As regards the secure training units, negotiations are coming to fruition, both in Kent and in Nottinghamshire, for those extra places. There is a third

229
institution in Northamptonshire where outline planning permission has been secured. Therefore, progress is being made.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may follow on the same point. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that there are no secure training places. Is it not the case that the 170 places in local authority secure accommodation to which she has just referred were promised in 1991 and that they are still not available?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not true that there are no secure accommodation places. We have said that we are making provision for additional places. The 170 places to which I referred are expected to come on stream next year, in 1996. In terms of the secure training units which were the subject of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, I advise the noble Lord that progress is being made on the negotiations for the first two tenders and that outline planning permission has been obtained for a third institution.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a matter of considerable regret that the amount of secure accommodation provided by local authorities has declined during the period of office of the present Government—a decline led by the London Borough of Wandsworth? Does the Minister agree that the lack of such accommodation has been a major contributory factor in terms of allowing young people who have committed a substantial number of criminal offences to go on doing just that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that there is tension about the availability of secure accommodation but, as I have already said, additional places are in the pipeline and will be made available. I must also remind all noble Lords opposite that they did not support the Government when they proposed that there should be secure training units for persistent young offenders. Therefore, it is to the Government's credit that they have put that provision in place. There is another aspect to putting people into secure training units. First and foremost, the behaviour of young offenders is a matter primarily for their parents. If parents were doing their job by their children, it is just possible that we would not need so many secure training places.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many secure training places there are now?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no; I cannot give a precise number now, but I shall write to the noble Lord and make sure that he has that information.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, can the Minister say where the parents of those children stand? Can the victims of crimes committed by children claim against those children's parents?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is an important point. I have said that the primary responsibility for the behaviour of children must lie with their parents. When a child or a young person is prosecuted for a criminal
230
offence, under the additional powers brought in by the Government the court may require the parents to attend. It may require the parents to pay fines and compensation orders, and it may require the parents to be bound over to take proper care of their children.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can explain her reference to the fact that parents are responsible. My understanding was that we were talking about young people who effectively had to be locked up in secure accommodation. Is the Minister saying that young people in that category should be locked up by their parents?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no; I am not saying that. I am saying that parents should be responsible for their children. Their duty is to see that their children do not find themselves in a situation where they have to be locked up.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, what percentage of young offenders have no parents or no effective parents?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is asking how many young offenders have no effective parents, I suspect that the number is very high. All children have a guardian, a parent and/or parents. The noble Baroness raises an important point about the level of adequacy among parents. The only thing that we can do is to take the long-term view and ensure that today's children make more responsible parents tomorrow.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's response on this difficult matter. I referred to Nottinghamshire. Is my noble friend aware that the Nottinghamshire report showed that six children had been responsible for 425 crimes in 200 days and that they had been passing through the courts by what was described as a "revolving door"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware of that case. There are two depressing facts about it. The first is that 460 crimes were committed within a six-month period by those young people. However, powers are available to deal more effectively with them and my understanding is that at least four of the children are now in secure accommodation. The other depressing fact is that no charges have yet been brought against those young people. That delay in bringing charges is a serious matter.

The Treasury Building
2.54 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the Treasury building.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Property Holdings is seeking a private sector partner for the redevelopment of the Treasury building. Two consortia have been short-listed to bid for the project. On completion of the scheme, Her Majesty's Treasury will

231
reoccupy approximately 22,000 square metres of the building. The balance will be marketed by the private sector partner.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that information. Does he agree that it is about time that something was done about that building as it is reported to be in an advanced stage of decrepitude due to lack of maintenance over the years—for example, the electric wiring has not been renewed since 1917 when it was first installed and the cellars are frequently flooded? Is that an example of what goes on in public buildings under government control or has the Treasury been singled out for special treatment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord asks an astonishing first supplementary question when he asks whether it is time that something was done. Something is being done. It is time. The noble Lord is perfectly right that the electric wiring needs rehabilitation. It is also a fact that some of the concrete is not in the state that it should be. The concrete is about 10 feet thick over the war cabinet rooms and is reinforced by tramlines. That has caused stress on the building and, as the architects would put it, ingress of water has been noted. We agree with the noble Lord that it is time that something was done—and something is being done.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a past tenant for more than five years. Can the Minister tell us the maximum rate of yield that the Government would be prepared to accept?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is another extraordinary question, coming as it does from a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The noble Lord was in the building for a long time—for five years—and I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would suggest, the noble Lord was responsible for some of the damage that has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, really cannot expect me to give him an answer to his question. It all depends on the bids. If I were to give the noble Lord the indication that he would like, that would give those bidding an indication of the sort of price that they might bid.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend used the word "redevelopment". Was I right in detecting in that word the idea that the building might be rebuilt and therefore might not be recognisable on completion? If I was right, does my noble friend accept that the art of politics includes at least an element of recognition of public perceptions, sensitivities and good taste? It would be unpardonable to redevelop a building which is an important relic of the time when London was the capital of the world.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not for the first time, my noble friend Lord Marlesford is not right. It is a Grade II starred listed building and English Heritage has been involved. My noble friend knows perfectly well that one cannot knock down old buildings without all sorts of permission. That is not intended. What is intended is that better use should be made of the space available within the building, which consists of
232
large rooms and very nearly equally large corridors. My noble friend might care to know that at the moment 40,000 square metres of the building can be used, whereas after the titivating has been carried out, there will be 60,000 square metres which can be used.

Legal Aid and Nationality
2.59 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now restrict the grant of legal aid to holders of United Kingdom citizenship.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Government consulted publicly on this very point last year. The overwhelming weight of the responses supported the view that it would not be right to impose nationality restrictions on the availability of legal aid. The Government announced their decision to that effect in April, and I am not aware of any grounds for altering it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply. Can he quote any other country which allows British citizens legal aid in its courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding of legal aid systems available in other countries is that they proceed, so far as concerns this point, on the same basis as our own.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell your Lordships what is the present total cost of legal aid and what proportion of that total cost is given to foreigners?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the approximate total cost is £1.4 billion. I cannot tell what proportion of that goes to foreigners. We have not analysed the figures on the basis of that distinction.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, now that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given the total cost of legal aid, will he speak to the newly appointed Lord Advocate in Scotland about the incompetence of the Crown Office over cases which have failed at Falkirk Sheriff Court? Those cases were legally aided. They failed because the sheriff court was closed due to the lack of procurators fiscal to prosecute the cases. Yesterday a major fraud case in Aberdeen collapsed. Would it not be in order for the legal aid costs which had been incurred in those cases to be transferred from the Legal Aid Fund to the Crown Office because of its incompetence?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to holders of UK citizenship. I do not imagine for a moment that the noble Lord is seeking to distinguish between the Scots and others on that basis. Unless it is on some such basis, I cannot for the life of me see any connection between the noble Lord's question and the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that there is a distinction between the provision of legal aid for those in real need—for instance, asylum seekers or those accused of crime—and for non-UK nationals who merely litigate their commercial contractual disputes in the courts of this country at public expense, for whom there is a less compelling case? Have the Government had further thoughts, since the last occasion upon which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I adverted to this subject, about a degree of reciprocity being required in the latter category of case? That is to say, if a foreign government does not provide reciprocal legal aid in commercial disputes why should its nationals have it, as of right, in this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not certain what exactly the noble Lord is proposing. I do not believe that he is proposing a distinction based on UK nationality. So far as concerns other matters, obviously there is a means and merits test in the legal aid system. If the courts of this country have jurisdiction and the case is proceeding here, it is not easy on grounds of fairness to distinguish between one litigant and another. Of course the connection between the case and the courts of this country requires to be fairly strong. Otherwise some other jurisdiction might have charge of the case. There is authority for saying that, in considering whether to send a case to another court, the question of whether legal aid is available in that court is not a relevant consideration.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend identify some of the foreign countries that would grant legal aid to British citizens?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously I cannot speak in detail about every country, but my understanding is that in the legal aid systems of most countries where a legal aid system operates—that is by no means all—the principles upon which legal aid is available are principles similar to those which apply here; namely, that, where the courts of the country have jurisdiction, legal aid will be available and a nationality test is not applicable. That is my understanding.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the organisation of boxing matches for profit. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Restaurants (Service and Cover Charges) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the levying of service charges and cover charges other than for advertised entertainment in restaurants and premises offering similar services; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl of Bradford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee—

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Dainton,

L. Dixon-Smith,

L. Flowers,

L. Gregson,

L. Haskel,

B. Hogg,

L. Nathan,

L. Perry of Walton,

L. Phillips of Ellesmere,

L. Porter of Redesdale,

E. Selborne (Chairman),

L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

L. Walton of Detchant;

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers.
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with any Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974; and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures; with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory
236
Instrument Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or
on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.

That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee—

V. Addison,

L. Airedale,

L. Brooks of Tremorfa,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Shaughnessy,

L. Skelmersdale.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with any Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by any Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with any Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee do meet with any Committee appointed by the Commons this day at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.7 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Denham—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the subjects which it is proposed that we should discuss today on the adjourned debate on the gracious Speech cover a pretty wide spectrum—the environment, agriculture, local government and education.
I thought that I should address first the issues which feature in the Government's forthcoming legislative programme, but the fact that there may be no legislative proposals on some of the topics which I have mentioned does not, of course, mean that they are any less important.
Education is a vital matter to any country and, indeed, every individual. Knowledge, skills, the ability to understand and the ability to reason are vital if our children and grandchildren are going to compete properly in the economy of the world.
The children who started school this autumn will have working lives which will reach beyond the middle of the next century. We do not know what kind of future will be facing them or what opportunities will be open to them. But we do know that competition will not stand still. Around the world, people are demanding the highest possible standards of education and training, and we, in this country, must provide no less for our children. And that we intend to do.
We need to raise the standards for every child; we need to provide greater choice in the educational system; and we need to give our young children the proper kind of foundation so that they will be able to compete in a progressively competitive world. We have also to recognise that each child is an individual. Mercifully, they are not all clones, yet. Each child is a different person—with his or her own peculiarities, idiosyncrasies, talents and ability. We therefore need to provide diversity and choice in education.
The provision of education and training has undergone, under this Government, the most wide ranging set of reforms since the 1944 Butler Act. We have introduced: a national curriculum; regular assessment; inspection and enforcement; and the publication of performance tables. Having introduced so many improvements to our education system, we realise that continuity is also important. A lot of the improvements which are still needed can be made within the existing legislation. But, in some areas, new provisions will be needed.
The Government, therefore, propose to bring forward legislation on three aspects of education in England and Wales. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Henley will enlarge on his department's proposals when he comes to reply. I will, though, outline them briefly now.
First, the Government intend to make pre-school education of four year-old children more widely available than it is at present. This will be done by
238
having a voucher system which aims to provide every four year-old in the country, for the first time, with three full terms of good nursery education. Part of the purpose of this new scheme is to put choice and, therefore, one might say, power—it is an unpleasant word—into the hands of parents. Parents and, indeed, children have different needs. And it is right that parents should be able to choose that which they think is right for their child.
Secondly, we are introducing legislation to allow grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially so that they can finance their capital expenditure.
The giving of responsibility to institutions—as opposed to imposing it on them by central government—has been an important part of our education reforms. Grant-maintained status—which, in fact, means self-government—is the logical step beyond local management and we think that it is the best way of running schools. It puts responsibility into the hands of those who care most about a school: the headmaster; the headmistress; the teachers; the governors; and the parents.
The ability to control and manage the resources of a school, including its land and its buildings, is fundamental to self-government. The Bill will provide that control. School assets, which are financed from the public purse, must, of course, be safeguarded. Borrowings will be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. This will enable increased investment to be made and it should enable schools to benefit from the private finance initiative.
Thirdly, the Student Loans Bill was introduced on 17th November in another place. It will extend the choices which are available to students and it will enable the private sector financial institutions to be brought into the system. Again, this provides choice. Students will be able to choose whether to seek a subsidised private sector loan and, if so, which lender to approach.
It is likely that most subsidised student loans will eventually come from the private sector. After all, it is the private sector which is best equipped to provide loan services on this scale. But students will still have the guarantee of a subsidised public loan through the Student Loans Company if they do not want a private loan.
In addition to their proposals on education, the Government intend to bring forward legislation to make better provision for housing and to promote the smooth running of construction contracts.
The housing legislation would implement the proposals which were contained in the Government's White Paper on housing, which was published in June. It will be another step in our efforts to stimulate the growth of home ownership. It will help what are called "social tenants" to buy. It will also help to provide social housing at rents which are affordable to households which are on low incomes. And it will bring more private finance into the improvement of social housing.
The main housing proposals will give tenants of new social housing the right to buy their homes with assistance through a purchase grant. They will ensure that social housing is allocated to those households

239
which have the best claim to it. They will allow commercial providers to compete with housing associations for grants to provide social housing. But there will be safeguards to ensure that housing standards are maintained.
The legislation will also help to tackle anti-social behaviour by tenants of social landlords; to replace the system of mandatory renovation grants with discretionary ones; and to make letting simpler for small landlords. Our proposals will also improve the safety and quality of houses which are in multiple occupation.
The legislation will also provide a statutory right to adjudication in construction contracts and it will regulate the procedures by which payments are made. It will also simplify the present arrangements for the registration of architects.
The areas where no major legislation is planned for the new Session but which are, nevertheless, very important are agriculture, local government and the environment.
With regard to agriculture, we set out our aims in the rural White Paper which your Lordships debated, at some not immodest length, about two weeks ago. I do not wish to rehearse again all that was said then. I would say only that what we want is an efficient and prosperous agricultural industry; one which is able to take advantage of the huge technological advances which are being made; one which can provide high quality raw materials at competitive prices; and one which can take advantage of, as well as support, the other countless industries upon which agriculture depends and which depend on agriculture.
We also wish to see an agricultural industry which is able to safeguard and enhance the rural environment. This is an important objective which found widespread support among your Lordships. But, in order to achieve our objectives, we will have to overcome a major obstacle; that is the present common agricultural policy. This is, at present, too costly, too inefficient and too wasteful. It can disadvantage the consumers and the food industry and it often provides incentives for production without paying proper regard to environmental considerations.
We think that the common agricultural policy ought to be reformed. There is a case for having reductions in production-related support, with the remaining support aimed more towards environmental and other specific objectives. Reducing production-related support will, in time, lead to the eventual abolition of supply controls, such as quotas and set-aside, whose sole purpose is artificially to limit production.
These constraints inhibit both competition and efficiency, and they prevent the normal economic development of the industry—as well as making it difficult for new people to come into the industry. The changes which we would like to see come about must take place within the framework of a common European Union agricultural policy. This would avoid having competing national subsidies between member states, which would capsize the whole concept of the single market.
240
We want to take every opportunity to shift the common agricultural policy in the right direction. This will not be an easy task. The majority of member states are reluctant to consider any reforms which they see as going beyond those which were agreed in 1992. But at least the United Kingdom Government's determination to see a change has started a whole debate on the subject. Great oaks from little acorns grow and one hopes that this will grow too.
I think that external pressures will begin to build up on the common agricultural policy in the next few years. For example, both the renewal of world trade negotiations in 1999 and the prospective enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe will be powerful engines for change. And, as we move ever closer to these events, I think that other governments will recognise the logic of our case both on the need for reform and on the direction which that reform should take.
The marketing of agricultural produce is also important. There are some good examples in Northern Ireland of what can be achieved. A Dutch supermarket chain has agreed to obtain all of its supplies of beef from Northern Ireland. One might ask, why? The answer is that that is what its customers want. The Northern Ireland meat inspection services have recently been recognised by the United States Department of Agriculture as matching its own high standards. This gives great opportunities for export. Those two developments are based on what is probably the best computerised animal record system in Europe.
Local government is a major part of the public sector and it has a tremendous impact on the day-to-day lives of all of us. It provides care to the elderly and vulnerable; it shapes the environment in which we live by the planning process; it has responsibilities in education, highways, trading standards and a plethora of other activities. It also has the role of community leadership for its area, which includes, of course, drawing together willing partners in a variety of different common causes.
Perhaps the most vital partnership is the partnership between central government and local government. That is why the Government welcome the Select Committee, which your Lordships recently established, which is to look into the state of this relationship today.
The number of activities which are carried out by local government means that, by any method of calculation, local government is big business. Of all the money which government disburses, 27 per cent. is spent by local authorities which actually sign the cheques. No government can—or should—ignore the consequences of expenditure on that scale.
We will, therefore, continue to watch the level of local expenditure. We have to balance the requirement, on the one hand, to spend money on local services against the wider considerations, on the other hand, of the level of public expenditure, taxation, and the state of the economy as a whole.

241
The Government have created the conditions in which local authorities can provide excellent services. The outcome of the local government review is, by and large, settled, and compulsory competitive tendering for professional services can now take place.
During the last year, we have introduced various measures within the private finance initiative in order to encourage joint ventures between local authorities and the private sector. That enables private sector capital and expertise to be used to improve the condition and the management of the local authorities' assets. We are keen to hear what local government has to say about the private finance initiative. We will certainly look at any problems and we will introduce changes should that be necessary.
Local authorities operate in and with the environment. One of the major pieces of legislation in the last Session was the Environment Act, which received Royal Assent in July. Among many other matters, the Act places Ministers under a duty to give the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency guidance from time to time on their objectives. That guidance must include guidance on the contribution which the agencies should make towards sustainable development.
We published the first drafts of that guidance for wide consultation when the Act was under discussion in another place. More than 100 organisations and individuals commented, and their responses have helped—certainly the Government and, I have no doubt, others too—to develop our thoughts on what is a very difficult concept.
In that regard, I, personally, found fascinating the debate which your Lordships held towards the end of the last Session on the report on sustainable development by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. In the light of the comments which we have received, we are now preparing revised draft guidance, and this will soon go out for consultation with the agencies and others. Subject to any further views which may be expressed, we will lay the draft guidance as orders before the House and in another place.
Perhaps I may just single out one more example of the way in which environmental policy is developing. There is to be a new tax on the waste which is put into landfill sites. It will be introduced on 1st October 1996 and is something of a departure both in environmental and in fiscal policy terms.
In announcing his proposals for the tax, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was determined not to impose additional costs on business overall. He indicated that the revenue, which will he raised by the tax, would be used to reduce the employer's national insurance contributions. That is the first time in the United Kingdom where a new tax will be used to promote environmental objectives. We intend to use taxation to help to protect the environment.
We are moving in a rapidly changing world, when technology is moving at a breath-taking pace. To some of us, that is frightening, Too often—and more often than not, I slot myself into this jolly category—it is
242
incomprehensible. But it is hugely exciting, and it provides us all with enormous opportunities. One thing is certain. Nothing and no one can afford to stand still.
The future—the successful future—depends on us all, in whichever sphere we happen to operate, taking advantage of all the opportunities which are open to us, and of all of the new and constantly improving technology which is available to us. These are exciting times which are full of opportunity. And it is up to all of us to make the most of them. In Her Majesty's gracious Speech, we have outlined how the Government propose to play their part.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that there is before your Lordships this afternoon a rather complex menu. It is to do with the environment, education, agriculture and local government. Your Lordships might think that each of those subjects would merit a day of debate but, practice as it is, we have to go along with that. I shall do my best to make some sort of coherent theme out of it all in my remarks.
I propose to say something about the environment and then move on to a few observations about education with which my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris will deal in greater detail when he winds up from these Benches. I shall spend a little more time on the housing proposals which the gracious Speech put forward and which the noble Earl outlined before returning to the whole problem of local government and where its future lies. I put it in that manner because the theme that I wish to argue before your Lordships, which seems to run through all the matters we are discussing today, is that the Government have, perhaps wilfully, misunderstood the nature of pluralistic democracy and in doing so have, over the years and step by step, legislated in a direction which I believe must now be changed.
I start with the environment. Immediately on the theme of pluralistic democracy, I move into what appears to be unexpected territory—the matter of Wales. Strange as it seems, I did not hear and I have not since read any mention of Wales in the gracious Speech. I realise that Wales is something of an embarrassment to the Government in many respects. But I should have thought it reasonable for the Principality to expect some passing reference. After all, Wales does exist and has its own problems and rights.
I am aware that Wales has a new Secretary of State who has, as it were, still to find his feet. To give credit where credit is due, he is certainly making an effort. For example, we have heard that there are certain connections with Yorkshire which are said to establish his Welsh identity. It is true that there was a Norse chieftain in and around York when Norsemen were settling on the north coast of Wales, so perhaps there is a connection. That gentleman's name—and I use the word "gentleman" in its loosest possible term—was Erik Bloodaxe. I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Hague would wish to claim descendancy from that particular chieftain. Then again, I wish to be fair. His immediate predecessor in that office may well have wished to claim such a descendancy. But that is another story and I shall leave it where it is.

243
The new Secretary of State has of course taken a further initiative. He has made efforts—I think, in his own words—"to get to know Wales". Word has it that he has embarked on a tour of the Principality, staying mainly in what are known as bed and breakfasts. It is certainly a worthy aim which is to be encouraged. At last we have perhaps a modern Gerald of Wales, with the difference of course that Mr. Hague is not the Archdeacon of Brecon and that he carries before him to light him on his way not the Cross of Jesus but the Good Pub Guide.
Noble Lords may think that I am being too flippant but I have a serious point to make. Not so long ago, on 7th November, as the noble Earl pointed out, your Lordships debated the Government's White Paper entitled Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside. As the noble Earl said, that was a very distinguished debate, the last of a long series of environmental debates in the last Session which, as he said, took in the major and complicated Environment Bill, debates on sustainable development, and various Private Member's Bills dealing with environmental issues. Some of your Lordships may think—and I have some sympathy for this view—that we have had enough environmental debates for the moment. But there will be, indeed there must be, more to come.
We look forward to White Papers which complement the English White Paper and which recognise the existence of other areas of the United Kingdom. Their titles will presumably follow respectively the English precedent: Rural Wales: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside; Rural Scotland: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside; perhaps even Rural Northern Ireland: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside. All those will be a real treat. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he replies, to confirm that they will be before us in this Session. While he is about it, he may wish to comment on the somewhat novel constitutional doctrine which their titles embody.
The rural England debate also raised another serious point. Following the clear view of the House expressed earlier that day, various noble Lords declared their various interests—some pecuniary, others unpaid. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, went so far as to declare an interest of a financial nature in observing the speed limit when travelling between his country home and his London home. I thought that that was a little eccentric. Personally, I should have thought that it was a question of obeying the law. Indeed, if I may say so, we had many lectures from the noble Earl in his former incarnation as a Home Office Minister on the virtues of obeying the law. But I cannot comment further on what his financial circumstances might be should he fall into that unfortunate speed trap which he probably detects to be round about Chelmsford. Where I can, and will, comment is on the extent to which owners of land are in receipt of taxpayers' money purely in respect of their land ownership rather than on the economic activity, which is usually agriculture in one form or another, based on that land.
Perhaps I may be quite open on the matter, and declare my own interest. I, too, have what might be called agricultural interests. I am afraid that they are
244
very small by reference to the standards of noble Lords opposite. I am the owner of some 13 hectares of—as we now have to call them—grassland in the uplands of mid-Wales. Radnorshire now being declared to be an environmentally sensitive area, I have signed with the Welsh Office what is known in the jargon as a "Tier 1" agreement. In return for a duty to maintain my land in an environmentally acceptable manner, which I hasten to say I do anyway, I receive an annual payment from the Welsh Office (in other words, the taxpayer) of just over £600.
That in itself is of no particular significance compared with the set-aside payments which are made to a number of noble Lords. It raises an important and serious point. Here I follow the noble Earl. If landowners are to be paid taxpayers' money by virtue of the simple ownership of land—through whatever conduit the money arrives—should that not be declared openly? Further—and again I agree with the noble Earl—if, as I hope, the trend is to lay the burden on the owners or long-term tenants of land to desist from maximising their agricultural profit and accept restraint on their normal activities to improve and, in some cases, restore the countryside, should not the price which the taxpayer pays for that wholly benign procedure be openly and honestly declared by the recipients when the House is discussing the relevant matters? I do not wish to pursue the matter too hard at present. For the moment, I shall leave it there. But I have to warn your Lordships that I doubt very much that it will go away.
Of course, no such personal matters affect noble Lords when we come to education. Indeed, noble Lords opposite frequently claim that the fees charged by independent schools to which they send their children are a monstrosity. It has even been suggested that tax relief should be available—in other words, that those who can afford to send their children to independent schools should be in receipt of further taxpayers' money. That, I confess, has always seemed to me an odd argument.
However, what is equally odd is that those who can afford to send their children to independent schools and who, for the most part, do so, seem to pursue with almost hectic enthusiasm continual change in other people's schools—in short, schools attended by children whose parents can afford no other. I say that it is odd which is, perhaps, the mildest expression I can use, not least because, as the noble Earl said, the gracious Speech announced further education legislation despite repeated ministerial commitments that there should be no further education legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament following the mammoth 1993 and 1994 Education Acts. Indeed, the then Secretary of State announced the Bill which became the Education Act 1993 as,
"the last piece of the jigsaw".
Now it seems that the jigsaw is made of some sort of extendable elastic: it can be enlarged to accommodate the latest whim of whatever new Minister is in charge.
However, there is, again, this rather more sinister theme running through the Government's programme. After taking control of higher education—nationalising,

245
some called it—they now seem determined to take direct control of secondary education; all, that is, except the independent sector. The Prime Minister outlined proposals during September and October in both speeches and newspaper interviews designed to encourage schools opting out of local authority control. He seemed to start with voluntary aided schools, but it became clear that he would like to see all secondary schools opt out; in other words, wholesale nationalisation. Now, for the moment, those plans appear to be on hold. They do not appear in the gracious Speech, and I hope very much that the Government have no plans to follow that track during this Session. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will no doubt give us that assurance later.
When we come to housing, the same theme of central control becomes fully apparent. Local authorities have been denied their right to use their own money to build houses for rent. Instead, there has been an attempt to push the burden on to housing associations whose major source of funding is, as your Lordships know, the centrally-controlled Housing Corporation. Further, in our view, the housing White Paper made no effort whatever to address what we regard as the real housing problem.
What is the real housing problem? The problem is this—and it is dire. For a start, homelessness and housing needs are at levels which are wholly unacceptable in a civilised society. No fewer than 120,000 homeless households were accepted by local authorities for housing in 1994; a further 50,000 households are in temporary accommodation, much of it inadequate; over 1 million households wait for a new home on the local authority waiting lists; 100,000 to 125,000 new homes at affordable rent are needed annually; one in 13 homes is officially unfit for human habitation; one in six homes requires urgent repairs costing over £1,000; and some £6 billion is needed to make homes in the private sector fit for habitation. All this ignores the problem of those who were persuaded to buy their homes—often by heavy discounts forced on local authorities—and who now find themselves saddled with mortgages and a sharp decline in the value of the asset which has been mortgaged.
That is the measure of the real housing problem. But the Government's White Paper entitled—and I have to assume that this is some sort of a joke—Our Future Homes, does nothing to address the causes of homelessness. It simply blames those who suffer from it; it abandons home owners to debt, disrepair and repossession; and it turns its back on tenants in the private and public sector.
We shall be debating those matters when the housing Bill announced in the gracious Speech comes before your Lordships. I do not want to pre-empt that debate by going into detail, not least because my information is that the Government do not yet know precisely what is going to be in the Bill. But one thing comes out very clearly from the White Paper. More burdens will be laid on local authorities, the overall resources available for social housing, despite what the noble Earl said, will fall, and the existing problem will be with us for many, many years to come.
246
It is on the problems of local authorities that I wish to conclude. Since 1979 the count for Bills affecting local government stands at 216. Of those, comfortably more than 60 can be considered major Bills. Key functions in areas such as education, urban regeneration, local transport and environmental protection have been taken away, many to be moved into unelected bodies of government appointees. Local authority discretion over spending has effectively been removed by the mechanism of central government handing out 84 per cent. of revenues and being prepared to cap the rest. Ministers have imposed, and continue to impose, burdens on local authorities without making resources available to undertake them. Ministers have also awarded themselves a plethora of powers to specify, determine or designate outside the realm of parliamentary scrutiny. Finally, we have had the ludicrously botched structural reorganisation in England and an imposed reorganisation in Scotland and Wales.
The balance has clearly shifted away from local and towards central government. Your Lordships, as the noble Earl pointed out, have rightly set up a committee to study the matter. It may well be that noble Lords opposite feel that all is well. Why not have centralised government? What does it matter? I will tell your Lordships why it matters. There are many reasons but two are quite fundamental.
First, civic spirit is the guardian of the local community and the local community is the bedrock of democracy. It was de Tocqueville who said,
"I see most French communes, whose accounting systems are excellent, plunged in profound ignorance of their true interests and overtaken by such invincible apathy that society seems to vegetate rather than live. On the other hand I see in American townships, with their untidy budgets lacking all uniformity, an enlightened, active and enterprising population".
Which description do your Lordships think fits Britain today?
Secondly, local democracy engages local people in the political process, a process from which, by all reports, the population of Britain is more and more alienated. It also provides a training ground for politicians with a future in national politics. It was, after all, Professor von Hayek, who, I understand, is a favourite philosopher of the party opposite, who said,
"Nowhere has democracy worked well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders".
Local government which is simply a series of agencies for central government will not do.
It has been rightly said that citizenship is not just a matter of exercising choice between one product or service when permitted and voting once every four or five years. The ceaseless exercise of political freedom is not just a right; it is an obligation on every member of any sophisticated community. The time has come for a clear and unambiguous lead—a strong commitment to the value of local government. The gracious Speech was the proper place to do that. It is to the Government's continuing shame that the speech contained not a word on the matter and the Government will certainly live to regret it.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I attended a public meeting last night at which the main subjects for discussion were local services and local finance. At the end of the meeting a member of the public approached me and asked, "It may be a naive question, but could not the local authority ask people, perhaps by a referendum, whether they would be willing to pay more council tax in order for the local authority to be able to spend more on education?". It was not a naive question; it was a good question. The answer, sadly, is no, the local authority cannot do that because of government rules. It cannot spend at the level at which many among its local community might want because of government rules and government capping.
That question illustrates the fact that for all the fine words we hear, the Government are far less interested in real choice than they are in their own control. I believe that the measures announced in the name of quality in the fields of education and housing are rather more to do with centralisation and with an unwillingness to allow diversity and localised decision-making. That is damaging to public services and dangerous to the democratic process.
I suspect the political event of the month will be the Budget rather than the Queen's Speech, but it is of course impossible to disentangle the two. As regards education, like the lady who suggested to me that council tax should be set at a higher level, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that spending on education is a good investment at all ages, including in the early years. I shall not be conveying new information to your Lordships when I say that research in the United States has indicated that £1, or $1, invested in early years education provides over time a sevenfold return in higher tax revenues from better qualified workers, reduced reliance on social security and reductions in juvenile crime. That is why we on these Benches urge high quality education for all three as well as four year-olds whose parents want it and why we are opposed to the nursery voucher scheme.
The scheme will do nothing to train staff nor to provide infrastructure by way of buildings and equipment. Vouchers will not ensure quality nor will they deliver provision where none now exists. Indeed they may well lead to reduced provision. To fund the scheme almost £550 million will be taken from money currently available to local authorities, with the Government putting in only £165 million of new money. Therefore, to conclude the argument rather than discuss the detail of it in a tedious fashion, I hope your Lordships will accept that that will lead to reductions of 50, 60 and up to 90 per cent. of the SSA funding for under-fives currently available to local authorities.
Another concern I have is one which I appreciated after listening to practitioners involved in early years education. The content of the education on which the SCAA (School Curriculum Assessment Authority) is now consulting so concentrates on achievements which are easily measured that I fear parents will look at the "hard" targets—league tables can be misused in this way—when considering their choice of provision. Early
248
years education which concentrates, for example, on the alphabet at the expense of self-assurance or self-awareness is not overall good education.
It is not surprising that there has been so little enthusiasm for the pilot projects for nursery vouchers. Only four authorities—three Conservative and one composed of Conservative and Labour councillors (not members of my party) who have reached an agreement on a conditional basis—are proceeding with the scheme. Those are not pilot schemes. In such a vital area is it not important that the Government proceed on a pilot basis? Instead, the Bill has been announced and we know that the full scheme will go ahead without the possibility of learning from the experience of the first schemes to be introduced, even if one supported those schemes. I suspect that it is necessary to go ahead at this speed so that vouchers will drop through letter-boxes—I say this cynically—on the eve of the general election before the general public see the problems.
Turning to grant-maintained schools, the Government's proposals betray how frantic they are to see the grant-maintained scheme grow when clearly it will not grow without artificial boosts. The fast-track procedure for voluntary-aided schools has been announced on top of such a fast-track consultation, allowing only half the time that the department itself suggests should be given to such consultations. The fast-track procedure to allow schools to proceed removes the requirement for parental ballots. The reasoning which supports that alteration is that:
"ballots can be unnecessarily stressful experiences for head teachers, governors and parents and the prospect of being unable to address the particular question without having to engage in much wider debate deters some schools from seeking self-government".
My Lords, there should be a debate. Matters such as this should be discussed widely, not narrowed down to the minutiae, avoiding the real debate and real discussions.
The proposal to allow grant-maintained schools to retain 100 per cent. of the proceeds of their asset sales is another similar proposal. It is quite wrong, when local council tax payers are continuing to pay off the debt created by the acquisition of an asset, to allow a particular school to sell it. We have restrictions on capital expenditure in education which in some ways are much tougher than the restrictions on revenue expenditure, and there is a growing backlog of repairs. It will be an accident of history which determines which schools have what are termed surplus assets, although I am not aware of many schools which have assets which are surplus. Although I believe that the Prime Minister has commented that playing fields should be protected, I wonder, given the temptation to realise capital assets, whether schools will be able to resist that temptation.
Should it be a priority for legislation to permit grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially? That is another indicator that, despite their early statements of even-handedness as between the various education sectors, there is not such even-handedness. The proposals will advantage the grant-maintained sector. This is not the politics of envy. The proposal will advantage certain schools within that sector. When one

249
considers the overall need, it cannot be good planning to fail to address capital spending priorities overall but merely to allow untargeted windfalls.
My noble friend Lord Addington will refer to the student loan scheme, but I hope that in replying the Minister will explain to your Lordships the benefits to students in the changes to the scheme. Will the money raised by transferring the scheme to the private sector benefit students? I suspect not. After all, students can borrow from the private sector now.
Another area of investment which we on these Benches regard as vital is housing. Investing in good quality housing is good long-term investment. Investing in the construction of homes and schools is a very good way of getting people back to work as well as providing them with accommodation. But this year and next it is estimated that over 12,000 more construction workers will lose their jobs simply as a result of last year's cuts in housing association house building.
We are well aware, because the debate is now widespread, that the value of investment in housing is not merely directly financial. It affects people's health, education, stability and access to meaningful work. People who lose their homes become trapped in a downward spiral with their escape routes shut off. To be topical, investment in housing is investment which supports families. Two of the main causes of family break-up are lack of homes and jobs and insecurity of homes and jobs.
Almost 20 years ago my late noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, then Stephen Ross MP, introduced the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, which had support from all sides because it was recognised that homelessness was a long-term problem. If we return to a position where temporary accommodation and 12-month contracts are the norm we shall be taking a huge step backwards in the battle against homelessness. From these Benches we shall fight the repeal of the homeless persons legislation.
The long waiting lists for housing are clear. As has already been mentioned, the real problem is the severe shortage of affordable housing to rent in this country. Fewer houses were built last year than in any year since the Second World War. If rumours about Budget cuts are true, only 16,000 new properties will be built next year. That is fewer than the number of people on a large city's waiting list alone.
Turning from quantity to quality, reference has been made to renovation grants and renovation of homes to a proper standard. Yet the Government propose to scrap the mandatory scheme. I would be the first to accept that the present scheme is not perfect; it is quite bureaucratic and complicated. However, is this not merely a smoke-screen to hide a further reduction in funding?
The Government's economic policy over the past few years has hit home owners badly. Attempts to pump up the housing market have accompanied an anti-inflationary policy, and the whole has led to more than a thousand homes being repossessed every week and more pressure, day by day, on local authority waiting lists. One and a half million people are thought
250
to be trapped in negative equity. The Government's response has been to abdicate responsibility. Their Bill is not likely to provide a long-term programme of investment in homes.
It could have been a sensible policy to encourage housing association tenants to buy their homes, but the policy is flawed. The dogma of "right to buy" raises its head again. We were glad to see the alteration in the schemes for rural areas, but the real problem—the numbers problem—is not being addressed.
We on these Benches would have a very different housing Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we do not yet know quite what the Bill will contain, but I doubt that it will allow local authorities to spend accumulated capital receipts on a phased basis. It certainly will not make clear the continuing duty of local authorities to offer secure tenancies to families made homeless through no fault of their own. It is unlikely to provide new powers to bring back into use some of the 800,000 empty properties in England. Nor is it likely to lead the way to investment in our young people by making councils responsible for providing accommodation for homeless 16 and 17 year-olds who currently slip through the welfare net and are treated as neither adults nor vulnerable minors. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe in choice and diversity. We do not believe that the route to it is to concentrate on increasing owner-occupation as a matter of dogma.
On this topic I can do no better than repeat a comment made in response to the consultation on the recent White Paper by the Catholic Housing Aid Society:
"Permanence is essential for stability. Stability is essential for the creation of a sense of home".
Today's debate extends to the environment and local government. We may see next week in the Budget the proper co-ordination of environmental and economic matters—for instance, a substantial increase in investment in public transport to improve the economic infrastructure and encourage a switch to public transport in order to reduce pollution or a shift in taxation from the ownership of private cars to the use of private cars—but I doubt it. We may see a switch from taxation on what we want more of, employment, to what we want less of, pollution and the depletion of resources, but I doubt that too. We are likely, I admit, to see some extra spending on education, and I welcome that. However, it is unlikely to be of the order of the £1.4 billion estimated to be required simply to stand still.
The speaker at the meeting which I attended last night made a sensible point. Budgeting should be about investment as well as taxes. There is a wealth of support for investing in people and building for the long term. Although I was glad to hear the Minister's words about the importance of local government, I was surprised at his words that the Government have extended the scope for local government to provide good services. That has not been the experience at the coal face over the past few years.
I end, as I ended last year, by saying that I would have been glad to have heard these words in the gracious Speech: "My Government place the highest value on local democracy".
4.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I shall avoid the challenge taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of producing a coherent speech on the wide range of issues before us today. I shall confine myself to speaking on education. The paragraph on education in the gracious Speech is thin in content. I suspect that for most people that will be regarded as a mercy. Those in education at this time want stability rather than further change.
I wish to refer to two proposals in the gracious Speech. First, there is the expansion of nursery education for four year-olds. How will that be provided in rural areas? Much of my diocese is remote. Villages are distant from one another. There is still a network of rural schools across North Yorkshire. But how will the provision for nursery education be made to work in those remote rural areas? If nursery education were to be provided only in certain centres, it would do great damage to the network of local rural schools in particular should families begin to send their four year-olds into the nearest town. We need to maintain the network of schools in those remote rural areas. The provision does nothing to address what I believe is an even more important issue; namely, the involvement of parents in the early years of learning. If there is one key change that would affect fundamentally the learning capacity of our children, it is the involvement of parents at every stage of their children's learning.
I have a query regarding the proposal that grant-maintained schools should have borrowing powers. The basis of the Government's proposals is that the governors of grant-maintained schools should be able to use their property, land and buildings as security for borrowing on the open market. That presumably is intended to attract private investment into the education service.
For voluntary schools—both aided and controlled schools—the land and the buildings are not in the ownership of the governors. They are vested in trustees. Therefore governors will not be able to borrow money against land and buildings vested in another body. There seems to be a belief that somehow trustees will borrow money for governors, or that they will act jointly with governors in obtaining a loan. There are considerable difficulties regarding that possibility. Trustees are bound by charity law and therefore the sale or mortgaging of the trustee-owned parts of a school site is unlikely to be a real option for former voluntary grant-maintained schools.
We need to recognise that the interests of trustees and governors are not necessarily identical. The governors are concerned with the life of the school. The trustees may well have wider responsibilities and will need to have regard to trust assets in the long term, not merely with a view to meeting schools' immediate needs. If school trustees were to sell or mortgage away trust property, it would have the effect of frittering away the Church of England's historic educational trust assets.
252
There is a real concern. At present, it seems that the legislation will be permissive. However, if it were assumed that governors of grant-maintained schools will borrow, and if that assumption were taken into account when school finances were calculated, it would place those voluntary schools which had become grant-maintained at a great disadvantage, for the reasons that I have outlined. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance that that matter is being considered.
It is ironic that the Government are apparently keen to bring private finance into schools, in particular into grant-maintained schools. Yet there is little recognition that in the existing aided schools—those which have not become grant-maintained—there is already a considerable provision of money from outside government sources. Aided schools have to provide 15 per cent. of any capital expenditure from whatever sources they are able to find in the Churches. Already in aided schools we make considerable financial provision. The 15 per cent. of capital expenditure is no longer required for those schools which have become grant-maintained.
That leads me to a sentence which is not in the gracious Speech. The matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I refer to the suggestion that church-aided schools should be offered a fast track to grant-maintained status. It was suggested by the Prime Minister in a speech earlier this year. He said:
"Many church schools have already become Grant Maintained".
I have to say that it is not that many. With regard to the Church of England, 138 schools have become grant-maintained out of a total of some 4,682. With regard to the Roman Catholic schools, 130 have become grant-maintained out of some 2,300 schools. I recognise that the Government are disappointed at that slow response from aided schools, but there are good reasons. It does not seem that large numbers of church schools seek grant-maintained status.
The Prime Minister stated:
"If a school's governors—with the prime interests of parents at heart—and the trustees—representing the Church's interests—agree on moving to self-government, then they should be able to take that step simply and quickly. Subject to that consultation, we will introduce legislation in the next year".
There is considerable resistance to that suggestion from both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. That resistance is not because we are opposed to grant-maintained status for church schools. The Church of England Board of Education, of which I am chairman, will offer advice to governors which will set out a range of factors which need to be taken into account when a school is deciding whether it ought to become grant-maintained. We are not opposed to grant-maintained status. However, we are strongly opposed to the proposals to differentiate between church-aided schools and other schools. My colleague, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds—who is chairman of the Catholic Education Service—and I have already seen the Secretary of State to express our resistance to these proposals. That was further supported by a statement from the Catholic bishops' conference last

253
week and by a statement from my own board. We are making very similar points. We do not believe that a wedge should be driven between church schools and other schools.
We believe that, if these proposals have any merit—and we are by no means convinced that they have—they should be applied to all schools, and not to church schools only. Perhaps I need to repeat the point made already by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; namely, that the period for consultation upon this significant proposal is very short. It has been extended by one week, but we are having to respond extremely fast to proposals that will affect very considerably the status of church schools.
Not only do we feel that we do not want a differentiation between aided schools and other schools; we also feel that proposals to do away with the parental ballot would be ones that we should want to resist strongly. The Churches have come slowly and lately to the notion of parental ballot; but we have been convinced that we should be concerned about parental wishes. The parental ballot was the Government's creation, and was reinforced in the 1993 Act. In the Churches, we could not acquiesce in a situation whereby our aided school parents were treated differently from other parents in this respect. It would be unfair to parents and it would lead to a perception either that the Church attributed less importance to parents than others did, or that the Church sought special and privileged treatment. My board is stating firmly that it opposes any different treatment for aided school parents over the matter of ballots.
There is a suggestion that the proposals put forward should be extended possibly to all categories of schools. Clearly, that would overcome some of the Churches' difficulties. We should not then be in the situation of saying that our schools were being treated differently from other schools. But were that to be the case, this set of proposals becomes even more far-reaching. It should certainly not be introduced on the basis of the very slim consultation paper which has so far come out and the very short consultation that has taken place. This should surely come about only with the production of a White Paper, which should then lead to proper legislation in a Bill devoted exclusively to this particular matter.
I believe it is accepted that church schools, aided and voluntary, Roman Catholic and Church of England, and other church-aided schools, make a very substantial contribution to our education system. These schools are sought after. They are popular. Many are over-subscribed. They are of good quality and produce excellent results. Above all, they have the capacity to treat each youngster as an individual. That is a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred in his opening remarks and which we all believe to be important. As such, they need to be preserved and enhanced. We shall look to see that any government legislation improves quality and provision in our church schools.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I, too, welcome the proposed expansion of nursery education and I shall confine my contribution to this issue. It is indeed gratifying that the Government have finally
254
bowed to the overwhelming arguments that nursery education gives a child a good start in life and that this is even more true for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Parents and educationists have long argued this and now, finally, there is a response in the gracious Speech.
My quarrel with the Government, however, is about the method of implementation. My quarrel is with the voucher system, which I believe is an experiment with market forces rather than a well-planned and well-resourced initiative.
I live in the London Borough of Wandsworth, one of the four local authorities to take part in the pilot introduction of this scheme. I have a particular interest in the scheme since my daughter currently receives free nursery provision at our local primary school and my son will, in due course, receive his nursery education via the voucher system if the Government's proposals are carried.
The introduction of the scheme is a complex matter which will preoccupy this House in due course. But for now I address the simple question: who gains in Wandsworth? It is not four year-olds currently in LEA schools. They already have a free place. In Wandsworth, a full-time place costs some £1,900 a year and a part-time place some £1,100 a year. Thus, "choice" here means choosing to pay more to have a place in a private nursery. All private nurseries cost more than £1,100 a year, which is the current value of the voucher. Indeed, one private nursery close to where I live costs over £6,000 a year for a full-time term time place. It is not four year-olds who are already in private nursery, since by definition they already receive a nursery education. Therefore in educational terms in Wandsworth no four year-old will benefit in a practical sense. The only beneficiaries will be the parents of four year-olds in private nurseries. They will have a windfall gain of £1,100 a year to offset their current fees.
Some cynics have suggested that this is in itself an objective of the Government; namely, a bribe to parents to ensure their support. I do not subscribe to that view. I believe that there is more to this scheme than bribes alone. I believe that the voucher system is about putting in place a financial mechanism for expanding the nursery sector through increased parental contributions, not at this stage but in the future. The parallel here is with the expansion of the higher education sector, which has largely been financed by users taking out ever greater loans as government support is reduced. I have received no guarantee from Wandsworth that in the future I shall not have to pay something to bridge the gap between the voucher value and the actual cost of nursery education. If it is the intention of the Government to finance the expansion of nursery provision through requiring parents such as myself to contribute then they should say so and we can have a debate about it, rather than talking about choice, diversity and vouchers.
The scheme proposed has a number of practical limitations. First, greater bureaucracy will be introduced. A private company is to distribute the

255
vouchers. For every LEA nursery place there will be two sources of funding, the LEA itself and a voucher company. That is hardly a strategy for minimising costs.
A second limitation is that there will be an incentive for LEAs to switch to part-time provision, since they will receive the same value voucher whether the child is in full-time part or part-time education. In my case this would not be a problem, as we chose part-time education for my daughter. It is the case, however, that most needy children who require full-time places may suffer. That cannot be right.
A third limitation is that the scheme fails to operate as an incentive to authorities already providing a high number of places and may instead result in penalising them. Currently, the pre-school education of three to five year-olds is discretionary. The announcement of the voucher scheme strongly implies that it is now an entitlement. Such a contradiction can be resolved only at the expense of LEAs which have already exercised this discretion and LEAs that currently provide education for three year-olds. Can the Minister guarantee that the education of three year-olds will not be affected by the introduction of this scheme?
I believe that an opportunity to strengthen pre-school learning has been lost. The introduction of market forces is at best an irrelevance and at worst will force down unit costs to the value of the voucher and thus lower standards. Private providers may seek to reap the benefits of a windfall subsidy to parents who are currently paying out of their own pockets. Employers may choose to withdraw existing childcare subsidies. I have already spoken about the additional bureaucratic burden. But worse than all of these administrative problems, the proposed expansion of the provision will not be targeted to the children who will benefit most. Markets cannot make a judgment of need but people and experts can.
We should develop a coherent, locally responsive service which embraces the full spectrum of providers to meet the needs of our children and the aspirations of their parents. I for one will do all I can to adapt the Bill that will come before this House to meet those aspirations.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I have listened with interest to wonderful speeches delivered by Members on both sides of this House. On whichever side of this House noble Lords may sit, it seems to me that they care about the problems of others. That is what we suggest to the Government of the day should be debated in the time to come. In my experience, it is very unusual for agriculture, the common agricultural policy or the reform of that policy not to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I wonder why. Perhaps the Minister in winding up tonight will tell us the reason.
Mention has already been made of Wales. I happen to be one of those who belong to that wonderful nation. We are saddened that we are not mentioned in the gracious Speech one way or another. Perhaps the majority of Members of the Government and the other
256
side do not realise that the majority of those in Wales are keen to govern themselves. Members of all political parties except the Conservative and Unionist Party are in favour of devolving power to us. It is long overdue. I am convinced that we will have our own parliament sooner rather than later. If I am blessed with good health, I look forward to the day when I shall be able to listen to the debates in a Welsh Parliament in Cardiff.
The noble Earl referred to a new paper on rural England and the quality of Irish cattle. It was said that we could learn a great deal from the way that they marketed to the Dutch market. My personal view—I may be wrong—is that the only reason why Dutch people go to Ireland for beef is that they get it cheaper than if they buy it in England, Scotland or Wales. I am glad that they have that opportunity to send their beef to the Continent.
I know that noble Lords are not interested in the fact that I am now a retired farmer. The main reason for it was that under the new Agricultural Tenancies Act, which I favoured, last month I was in a position to give up my two holdings to two young families to start farming. I was very proud of that. I am indebted to the Government for introducing that Act. I hope that it will go from strength to strength, and that many more young people will be able to enter this proud industry.
I have many things to say, but first I should like to congratulate the Minister once again. He has gone public by saying that an inquiry will be held into the great deal of paperwork that farmers become involved in before they can claim grants and subsidies. It is a step in the right direction. I believe that farmers who apply for grants and subsidies face too much red tape and bureaucracy which can be cut if the Government initiative proves to be successful. I wish that inquiry too the best of luck.
I am proud to be a sixth generation hill farmer who has lived in the same area for a very long time. I have farmed up to 2,000 feet above sea level. Many years ago a well known Englishman, George Borrow, travelled from the top to the bottom of Wales. He passed through our village of Ponterwyd. In his book he says of our area that it is a place where people will live when crows will die. That is true of Ponterwyd and other villages like it in different parts of Wales. England, Scotland and Ireland. I believe that it is the duty of the Government of the day to look after the interests of people who have farmed the hills so well for generations and looked after the environment and the beauty of the countryside. They form the lowest paid sector of the agricultural industry.
Having declared my interest, I make a plea on behalf of hill farmers. A good third of them currently survive on less than £5,000 a year, which is well below the social security threshold. It is those farmers in the uplands of Wales and Britain who look to the Budget on 28th November for a measure of relief for this hard-pressed sector of the industry. The timing of the hill livestock compensatory allowance to coincide with the Budget offers the Government a very real opportunity to display an element of compassion. I honestly believe—the noble Earl knows it—that it is for the Government to decide what the HLCA is to be, not

257
the common agricultural policy. Politically, it will be very difficult to cut the HLCAs a third time, particularly when the rest of the industry is doing relatively well. After all, these farmers are about the poorest group in the United Kingdom. For many of these families the only lifeline to keep them from going under is the HLCA. It is these farms that form the backbone of so many rural communities, not only in Wales, but in England, Scotland and Ireland.
In the past two years funding has effectively been slashed by the Government's failure to increase HLCAs in line with inflation. It must never be forgotten that HLCAs form nearly 25 per cent. of the total income of Less Favoured Area farms. The Chancellor will do himself no favours by denying help to the hard-pressed hills. They would soon lose their appeal to the public if they returned to scrub and dereliction. The very future of hill farming is now at stake. Hopefully, representations from the unions and other bodies have not fallen on deaf and insensitive ears. I know that the Farmers' Union of Wales, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union of England and Wales have made representations to the Minister. I hope that in his wisdom he will accede to their request.
The sheep industry can continue to be one with a turnover of £3.5 billion, employing in excess of a quarter of a million people. On the other hand, badly guided by government policies and public misunderstanding, it could lose direction and go into sharp decline. Let us hope that Ministers can get their act together. Will they try to remember that they are dealing with living, thinking and caring hill farmers who are very worried human beings? That is the plea that I make on behalf of my own people wherever they live in any part of this country.
Finally, let me say how disappointed I was when I read a report from the Farmers' Union of Wales about the Government White Paper on rural England. I know that we shall debate that issue soon rather than later. A consultation with the YFC movement in this country was reported as follows:
"Concern that the Government's recent White Paper on rural England encouraged the disposal of county council smallholdings was expressed at a meeting between YFC and Farmers' Union of Wales representatives. The need to facilitate entry to the farming industry was one of the most urgent issues facing rural areas and should be one of the major issues in the run-up to the next general election, said FUW President Bob Parry after the meeting. During the meeting there was considerable common ground between the YFC delegates and FUW representatives who both regarded the problems facing young entrants as an issue of overriding importance".
I hope that the Government will do something to help the young entrants who want to come into the industry. It may not be as successful as some of them would wish, but let us hope that we can do something to help those youngsters. With farming as the main economic activity in rural Wales, it is vitally important that we keep abreast of problems and consider all views. I hope that the Government will take heed of the meeting between the YFC and the Farmers' Union of Wales representatives and their request and that the White Paper for Wales will not recommend that local authorities should sell the smallholdings that we have
258
by the hundreds in many parts of Wales. We must keep young people in the rural heartlands of Wales and other parts of Britain.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, this afternoon I should like to spend a few moments speaking about the importance of education as a form of prevention for some of the ills of our society today. Prevention is a long-term policy. Unfortunately, our democratic system tends to be biased toward short-termism and prevention is not very attractive to party politicians. It may therefore be an appropriate subject to raise from the Cross Benches.
Many of our social ills today can arguably best be dealt with by prevention and prevention through education. For some of them there is no other solution. In particular, in my view, there is an urgent need for young people in schools to have better preparation for the responsibilities of adult life and parenthood. They need to learn how to make responsible choices and to respect the rights of others, particularly the powerless and children. Your Lordships will hear in a moment why I refer particularly to children.
I want to focus now on one example of an area in which prevention is the only solution because cure is impossible; namely, lone teenage motherhood. Curiously, in numerical terms it is a less great problem than many of your Lordships and, I suspect, the Government may suppose. Births to lone teenage mothers—lone mothers under 20 years of age—comprise only 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. of the total births to lone mothers in this country. Nonetheless, those 24,000 or so lone teenage mothers are a very important minority. They are mostly girls who lack any supportive family. They have either rejected or been rejected by their family. When a girl of that age becomes a lone mother, the stress and loneliness in bringing up a child can indeed be very hard to bear, especially when living in accommodation provided by local authorities and consisting of small boxes and one-room flats often in very unattractive blocks.
Those mothers are at an age when most of their contemporaries are enjoying their youth. So, although the mother usually sets out with the best intentions in the world, she is in a situation which offers a very poor prognosis both for the happiness of the mother and for the satisfactory rearing of the child. The cards are stacked against such a child. It must be said that a great many of them subsequently enter that sad underclass which is developing in our society. We in the Stepney Children's Fund see many of them.
The reasons for early teenage pregnancy are becoming better understood by those who work in the field, although there is still a need for research. Of course, one must include carelessness and ignorance. Eagerness for independence and for status seem to be the most important driving forces and sometimes, pathetically, the need for someone to love. The Government believe that income support and housing are important influences and I am sure that they certainly contribute. But I do not believe that they are usually the prime motivation, although a

259
young 15 year-old said to me the other day, patting her rather distended tummy, "I'll soon be getting my fag money". It can be at about that level.
At the Stepney Children's Fund I have been amazed at how little young people understand about the sacrifices as well as the pleasures that are involved in parenthood and how little they know about the needs and demands of young children. In America a doll has recently been invented which contains a computerised system that sets off a siren every two hours. The only way to stop it is to hold the doll in your arms and stick your thumb in its mouth for 20 minutes. Noble Lords may not believe it, but apparently that has been quite effective in dissuading a number of young ladies from becoming pregnant. That is a true story.
Research in America and also in this country at Exeter and York Universities has shown that properly designed and well delivered courses in schools, directed at both boys and girls, can lead to a significant reduction in early teenage pregnancies and motherhood. Such courses need to be interactive. They need to involve discussion groups and outside speakers. In particular, suitably trained peer group counsellors or advisers have been shown to be very effective. They need to include relationship education, life skills education and education about parenthood and the needs of children. Sex and drugs education simply become part of such a course.
The Government have provided an education Bill which requires schools to prepare young people for the responsibilities of adult life and they have provided inspectors to see whether or not they are doing so. The Government, or so they believe, have provided the money to accomplish that task. Why, then, do the majority of schools still not teach those matters to their pupils? That is the state of affairs which exists in the country today. I believe that the reason is that the effectiveness of such courses depends upon their being very well designed and well delivered so that they engage the interest of the pupils. That means well trained teachers. Often teachers lack the confidence to deliver such courses and are reluctant to take on the job. So the courses are not delivered, or are badly delivered, in schools.
For some years Relate, the Children's Society, the NSPCC and other organisations have been developing training materials for courses of that kind. Recently I was approached by Relate, the NSPCC and the Children's Society, who want to get together to form a training team to deliver such courses of education. Initially, such training would be targeted at schools in high risk areas such as some of the inner cities, where lone teenage motherhood is most prevalent.
The cost of such a pump-priming scheme to develop teacher training in schools would be £150.000 a year for the first three years. Thereafter it would be self-financing. As there are between 20,000 and 25,000 births to lone mothers under 20 each year, it seems reasonable to suppose that at least 5,000 of those births, at a most modest estimate, could be prevented. That means that the cost per mother and child would be £30. Apart from the misery saved for the mother and the
260
possible emotional damage avoided for the child, that £30 would be recouped in the first week in terms of the benefits that would not have to be paid to the mother. It is an absurdly good investment for the taxpayer.
Your Lordships may therefore be surprised to hear that the Department for Education and Employment felt that it could not provide one penny piece towards supporting or encouraging such a scheme. I hope that the funding can be found, perhaps through the private or voluntary sector. It would be terribly sad if the Government were to be seen not to want to support such an important initiative. It may be true that there are "no votes in prevention" but there are votes in caring—and what we are talking about is caring. I hope the Government will think again.
Finally, if the noble Lord, Lord Morris, when he replies, were able to give an indication as to whether the Opposition, if they were to form a government, would be prepared to support education for better relationship skills, life skills and parenthood, that would be extremely helpful.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his interesting comments about the population size. Instead, I shall declare my interest straightaway and then draw your Lordships' attention to the parts of the gracious Speech which deal with agriculture and Northern Ireland, in both of which areas I have interests to declare. First, I farm in Scotland and I am a forest owner. Therefore, anything I say may have some relevance with regard to the hill livestock compensatory amount, arable farming in Scotland and set-aside.
The gracious Speech has a strong reference to combating fraud. There is no more doughty champion of that aspect than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and all of us would support him. The gracious Speech states that the Government will take measures in Northern Ireland to,
"facilitate economic development".
It is on that tiny aspect that I should like to detain your Lordships for a short time. I hope there is no libellous link between major fraud and activities in Northern Ireland but those of us in Scotland who are involved in combating fraud in the common agricultural policy are often maddened in trying to discover the various rulings that are applicable to agriculture, let alone to very valuable income in the specially disadvantaged areas, a point so well recorded by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint. We have to try to discover the rules applying to the arable areas and we have to discover the rules applying to set-aside. Quite often the rulings move at least once if not twice a year. We have to try to discover the applicability of those rules to our areas; we have to try to provide information to the Ministry of Agriculture; we have to await the announcements; and we have to await the actual payments. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, pointed out that the payments too can cause considerable concern. Payments are detailed from year to year. They arc filtered through the green pound. By

261
the time the payments come into the hands of the farmer, some very interesting algebraic formulas have been persevered with.
I think all farmers agree that it must be right to continue the fight against fraud. Exactly the same campaign is carried on everywhere in the United Kingdom, not least in Northern Ireland. The year 1984 was for many farmers a benchmark year. It was the year when the European Community made the first serious efforts to reduce agricultural spending. It introduced quotas for dairy production. One benchmark figure that was given to me is easily remembered. In 1984 the cost of disposing of the surplus milk produce of each milking cow throughout the Community was £108. Very swingeing quotas were imposed with varying effects throughout the Community. After two years the total number of milking cows had been reduced by around 15 per cent. I inquired about the cost of disposing of the surplus milk produce after two years of quotas. I was told that in 1986 the figure was approximately £106 per milking cow. Your Lordships will see that even when stern efforts are made to reduce common agricultural policy expenditure, even without the fraud, it is fairly difficult. Farmers will find methods to improve their efficiency.
It is a great pleasure to find that several aspects of my speech have been touched upon already by my noble friend the Minister in three flattering comments concerning Northern Ireland agriculture. He referred to computerisation. Anyone who has been across the water will appreciate that agriculture needs excellent computerisation to keep track of all the four-footed bovines. Thank goodness sheep do not necessarily come into that formula. The success story alluded to by my noble friend would never have come about without the enormous effort and professionalism of the Northern Ireland farming industry. That industry is different from the industry elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In Scotland and England—not so much in Wales—there is a fairly large arable sector. However, in Northern Ireland, as in Wales, dairying and stock are the two most important sectors. Currently there are around 6,000 dairy farmers in Northern Ireland, a figure which reduces every year by about 1 to 2 per cent. An enormous benefit is that the average size of the Northern Ireland herd is near the Euro-perfect size of about 40 cows producing about 200,000 litres. Above that the advantages from the common agricultural policy are definitely reduced.
There are other facets to Northern Ireland agriculture, let alone to the rest of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom. Over the past 10 to 12 years farmers have not necessarily been producing their crops, their milk, their meat and any other output just for the sake of production. Marketing and quality of production are riding in first place. Indeed, in Northern Ireland strenuous efforts are made to assist in quality assurance. The Department of Agriculture has promised £60 million over the next five years for the rural development programme which is targeted at increasing the quality of the produce from the industry.
262
The gracious Speech refers to facilitating economic development in Northern Ireland as one of the priorities of the Government in this parliamentary year. I stress to your Lordships that those words more than anything else will bring about a continuing quality of life, let alone peace—I shall not talk about the peace process—for 1·5 million brave and excellent people among whom I had the privilege to work for six years.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I wish to make a contribution on nursery education and grant-maintained schools. The case for nursery education is overwhelming; it has been supported on many occasions in your Lordships' Chamber from all sides of the House. We are now presented with this mouse of a policy: nursery vouchers. The main requirement in nursery education is to provide new places. Vouchers of themselves will not create new places. Last year the Secretary of State herself described a voucher scheme as "unwieldy" and this year described it as "not the favoured option". There are some quick changes there.
The Government have admitted that parents with vouchers will not be guaranteed a place. The Secretary of State has said that the vouchers are worth £1,100 each. The cost of a full-time nursery school place is twice that amount. The substantial difference will obviously be of considerable importance to many parents. I was interested and delighted that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made specific reference to that difference, speaking, as he said, as a parent with children now at school.
The Prime Minister said at the 1994 Tory party conference that there was "a cast-iron commitment". Those were the words he used. They are misleading words. It is interesting that a briefing note issued by the Department for Education and Employment should use almost the same words. It said that there could be,
"no cast-iron guarantee of a place, at least in the first instance, until new places are introduced in response to parent demand".
Do education Ministers ever get out of their offices? There has been overwhelming demand for nursery places from parents for years and years. The money being spent on introducing the pilot scheme is understood to be considerable. The figure that has been mentioned is no less than £22 million. That kind of money, or any kind of money involved in this scheme, should be spent directly on providing more places.
The funding of the scheme needs to be looked at closely. The bulk of it is to be found by reducing SSA for all local education authorities. This is to be achieved by taking the £1,100 to which I referred, which is the value of the voucher, from the LEA for each four year-old it currently educates. The LEA may or may not recoup the money through redeemed vouchers. If they do not, that money is lost to the LEA. That is yet another blow to local education authorities. If that is not the position, I hope that the Minister who is to reply will clarify it. It is of quite fundamental importance.
There are huge gaps in the proposal, all directly related to whether high-class nursery education will he achieved. The phrase "high-class education" has not

263
been mentioned so far, but presumably that is the aim of the Government in this field. For example, we need to know about the curriculum, about staffing, and not least about qualified staff and accommodation. The completely inadequate voucher scheme as it stands will not meet any of these important objectives. The Government are simply paying lip service to nursery education. It is a confidence trick being played not only on parents but, more importantly, on young children. The fallacies and contradictions will be exposed when we examine the Bill in detail. Once again, it is being done in the name of parental choice. The noble Earl who initiated the debate today referred on a number of occasions to parental choice.
The Government continue to press their policies relating to grant-maintained schools. During the Summer Recess the Prime Minister said that he wanted all schools to be grant maintained. By any normal or common sense standard the policy has been a failure in spite of the huge incentives offered to schools which choose to change status. After some three years, 1,100 schools out of 25,000 have chosen to opt out. When these statistics are put to Ministers they respond by saying, with great pride, that one in five children in secondary education in England is in a grant-maintained school. One in five in one sector of education is counted as a success? As The Times pointed out recently, at the present rate it will take 100 years for all schools to become grant maintained.
Huge sums have been given to some schools—I have examples here—and the system has been condemned by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. Many schools are said to have been deliberately over-compensated at the expense of local authorities whose budgets, as I believe we all know, are already overstretched. The committee also said that some double funding has occurred and that that is unacceptable. I remind your Lordships that this is a committee with a built-in Conservative majority. The system is apparently to continue but there has been talk of the so-called "top-up" percentage being reduced. I ask the Minister to comment when he replies.
Perhaps the most significant statistics relating to opting out are those for the last academic year showing that only 50 schools voted to opt out compared with 555 in 1992–93 when the policy had just begun in the immediate aftermath of the last general election. That has been pointed out on a number of occasions from this side of the House. The Government, never at a loss for excuses, trot out yet another one. They say, "Ah, we are only concerned about giving parents and governors a choice, not about the number who decide to opt out." That was certainly not the original aim and purpose of the scheme, and the Prime Minister's recent statement confirms that view.
I turn to a disturbing development in the saga. When the Prime Minister made his reference only two or three months ago to all schools opting out, there was an implication that some other way of opting out might be considered. He referred specifically to what was called a "fast-track" for church schools. The clear intention was not to have a ballot at all or something like that.
264
Your Lordships will remember the devastating response from the Churches to such a suggestion. So strong was the reaction that not a word has been heard of it since. I had hoped that we would have a contribution from the Bishops' Bench today on the matter. We have had the most comprehensive and devastating contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. I hope that even if the Government take no notice of other people contributing to today's debate they will take full notice of what was said by the right reverend Prelate. There were some wicked reports at the time that the Prime Minister had not consulted the Secretary of State for Education about the proposal. I suspect that there was some truth in that. I suspect, too, that the Secretary of State would have advised strongly against it.
The right reverend Prelate referred to a meeting held this weekend. Perhaps I may embroider the point by quoting the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference. Those taking part did not mince their words. They called the proposals "discriminating and divisive" adding that they
"isolate the churches from their partners in education and this we deeply regret".
That was confirmed by what the right reverend Prelate said a few moments ago. The Church of England says that it is "strongly opposed" to the idea, one bishop saying that it was,
"un-Christian and not compatible with Christian principles".
I hope that even this Government will heed the strength of feeling about their ridiculous idea.
It was because of this situation and other rumours that I asked the Minister an Oral Question on 17th October. I asked the noble Lord to give an assurance that the Government will not dispense with ballots. After all—I stress the point—this is surely of the utmost importance. I remind your Lordships that the Government's philosophy is based wholly on what they call "parental choice". We hear that phrase time and time again in relation to this and other areas. Ever since the establishment of grant-maintained schools we have been told that it is the parents who decide these matters, not the Government, not education committees and not politicians. The Government say that it is entirely a matter for parents.
It was very revealing that in the answers he gave to me and some of my noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he could not give an assurance on the continuation of ballots. The words he used were ominous. He referred to "smoothing the path" and perhaps, even more significantly, said:
"For the moment grant-maintained status remains voluntary but we believe … that the benefits of GM status are so great that they could and should be extended. where possible. to all schools".— [Official Report. 17/10/95; col. 665]
Your Lordships should note the words, "for the moment". I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming and—I hesitate to say this, because he is an honourable man—perhaps more honest and more specific when he replies to the debate.
There is more to he said about parental choice. I press the issue because parental choice is important. We on these Benches subscribe to that view. I stress it also

265
because the Government are not being entirely honest. If the Government place so much importance on it—as they do—it is crucial that their policies are examined in detail.
The Government give the impression all the time that parental choice in schools is being met. At this time of the year, when so many children are in their new secondary schools, many parents have come to realise that choice of school is a myth. It is simply not possible to give parents universal, unfettered choice. We all know that in every area some secondary schools acquire a good reputation, whether justified or not. It is natural that parents will want their children to attend those schools. Inevitably, in many cases there are not sufficient places for all who wish to attend. What happens then? Parents can appeal, of course, but figures given in a parliamentary Answer are significant. Appeals against refusals of school places rose from 20,981 in 1989–90 to 41,927 in 1992–93, the latest date for which figures are available. The short answer to my rhetorical question is that many parents do not have the choice about which the Government so loudly trumpet.
The basis of my complaint and concern is not that sufficient places should be available to meet the wishes of all parents. That would not be practicable. My concern is that the Government deliberately and continually give the impression that all parents have a choice of school. Let the Government be more honest and make it clear to parents and children that there is no such thing as complete freedom of choice.
The Government have restricted choice in yet another way. The present legislation on choosing to opt out provides for a ballot of parents; it also provides that some governors should be parents of children attending that particular school. The decision taken in a ballot on whether to opt out or to stay within LEA jurisdiction is permanent. However, some of the parent governors after a certain period will no longer have children in the school and that in itself could lead to a change of opinion among parents about whether opting out or staying in is best for the school. In fact, that is happening now. Opinions do change, mostly on the basis of experience, but it is not permissible to have further ballots to allow a different view to be expressed.
The Minister may recall that when the Bill was being debated in your Lordships' House amendments were tabled to make provision for a possible change of opinion. Some of those amendments were tabled by noble Lords opposite. The Government argued that chopping and changing would affect the running of a school—and that would be true if it happened. But it would not happen. No one ever suggested such a thing. Suggestions were made about periods of seven, 10, 12 or even 15 years. A good case could be made for all of those periods. But the Government are so besotted with the principle that they will not permit the expression of other views. They pay lip service to parental choice in education and do little or nothing to try to meet the legitimate aspirations of parents or the shortcomings of the present legislation.
It is tempting in a debate of this kind to deal with a number of the shortcomings, not to say disasters, of the Government's education policies. We remember the
266
ballyhoo attached to the Government's boasting of school inspections every four years, which we know now will not be achieved, at least in primary schools, as I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge. There are present and future difficulties attached to ever-increasing class sizes, and other major problems.
We can take some consolation from the present position. This is the last Queen's Speech for a full parliamentary Session from a Conservative Government before the next general election. I am certain that the people of this country will ensure that it is the last Conservative Queen's Speech for many years—and their record on education will make a significant contribution to that defeat.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kenilworth: My Lords, the last few gracious Speeches have provided a number of environmental legislative measures which have now become law, underlying Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the pursuit of sustainable development and in keeping with the objectives set out in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
This gracious Speech has almost no reference to further environmental legislative measures save for the environmental permutations of the construction of the high-speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.
As a noble Lord with particular knowledge and expertise in landscape architecture, having my own landscape architectural practice, I wish to touch briefly on two issues. I refer first to the protection of ramblers' rights which are represented by the Ramblers Association in the light of the sale of much of the Forestry Commission's land and, secondly, to Her Majesty's Government's plans for the decommissioning of the North Sea oil rigs.
There has been much media interest recently over the controversy that since 1991 walkers have lost their freedom to roam over 136 square miles of woodland despite repeated ministerial pronouncements on safeguarding public access to land sold by the Forestry Commission. Government figures show that, of the 35,000 hectares of woodland sold since agreements were introduced in October 1991, only 506 hectares have been safeguarded. Currently, 108 publicly owned woods are up for sale, but only 12 carry any guarantee of public access.
As we are all aware, privatisation of Britain's forests has been taking place since 1991 but recently there have been a number of ugly confrontations between landowners, particularly farmers, and ramblers wishing to exercise their rights to walk through their fields. I understand that walking is the most popular recreation in Britain today and I have enormous sympathy with the ramblers' protests over the increasing threats restricting access to their long-established walks.
However, I do not feel that bridleways should be given the designation, as they have in several cases, of byways, allowing off-roaders legal access. There have been numerous complaints about byway lanes wrecked by four-wheel drive vehicles and scrambler motorbikes

267
which have caused irreparable damage, particularly when the conditions have been wet. Often the damage to the tracks has been so bad that it has not been possible to take horses down those lanes, let alone walk along them.
Can the Minister give any assurances both as to the protection of ramblers' rights and as to whether there will be any legislation preventing four-wheel drive vehicles and scrambler motorbikes from wrecking byways?
The second issue I wish to address is that of the decommissioning of the North Sea oil rigs. Following the Brent Spar fiasco last year, the debate has raged as to the cost-effectiveness and environmental benefits of the clean seas policy.
According to the UK Offshore Association, there are 219 installations on the UK Continental Shelf, including steel and concrete fixed platforms, floating production platforms, loading units and subsea production systems, and about 7,000 kilometres of pipeline. The association believes that 75 per cent. of the platforms are likely to be brought ashore for abandonment. That therefore leaves 25 per cent. for which a long-term solution must be found in order to safeguard the environment for future generations.
As to the choice of onshore or offshore disposal, I am of the opinion that there ought to be a combination of both. Whatever the claims of Greenpeace—that as much as £630 million could be saved by the Government and the oil industry if the UK co-ordinated an international approach to the removal of most North Sea oil and gas platforms—I am of the opinion that deep sea platform operators will face far lower costs with offshore abandonment than onshore disposal. It must be appreciated that onshore disposal of deep sea rigs such as the Brent Spar would not just cost much more, but could give rise to major safety hazards in their transportation to the shore. My suggestion is that deep sea platforms should be considered case by case and alternative uses for such platforms be considered, such as heliports or emergency rescue centres.
In the light of the closure of several shipyards in Scotland, with the resultant loss of jobs, have the Government considered developing a platform-abandonment facility, perhaps re-opening yards such as Ardyne Point in Argyllshire or Loch Kishorn in Wester Ross, which are currently mothballed? Certainly there needs to be a co-ordinated discussion among the oil industry, Government and the environmental campaigners to reach satisfactory compromise on this issue.
I certainly welcome the ruling that after 1st January 1998 no installations are to be placed on the UK continental shelf unless their design and construction is such that entire removal upon abandonment would be feasible.
Finally, I wish to touch briefly on education for dyslexics. As a child I suffered severely from dyslexia, but was fortunate that my parents were in a position financially to arrange specialist assistance and send me
268
to a school supposedly able to assist me and cater for my problem. Despite that, I grew up in an environment where dyslexics were branded stupid.
If children with dyslexia are not properly taught and treated in their early years, that can result in lifelong disadvantages. I welcome the Government's initiative on nursery vouchers for children aged four to five years as that will enable a greater number of children with dyslexia to be diagnosed and helped at the most important time in their lives.
Current statistics from the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute show that 4 per cent. of the population suffers from dyslexia and that, if properly treated at an early age, the costs per child can be fairly low. However, if left to later in life, the cost of remedial treatment rises dramatically.
A popular phrase is, "If he or she cannot learn the way you teach, you can teach the way he or she learns". Bearing in mind that 15 per cent. of all school leavers have poor reading skills, the value of the special teaching methods is obvious. Can the Minister in his winding up speech give any assurances of further assistance for the treatment of dyslexics?
5.16 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in a debate about education it is nice for once not to be the first speaker to mention dyslexia.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Addington: My Lords, that was said with a little too much feeling!
The noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, was right when he said that if dyslexia is spotted early in a child's education there is far more chance of being able to deal with it and to give support. But that depends upon having teachers who are trained correctly to recognise the problem, as is the case with all other hidden disabilities. If these disabilities are not spotted—dyslexia has forced its way into the public's awareness, but there is also dysphasia—there is a danger that children will be branded as stupid, as has often been said, or will be overloaded with the incorrect remedial help, which may compound the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned young people being disaffected and taken away from school. Their problems are often compounded by this type of disability which may alienate children. It is nice to be able to start a speech by agreeing with someone on the other side of the House. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this problem.
When I heard that there was to be further legislation to deal with student loans, a vague hope arose within me that something might he done about them: for instance, that something might be done about the long vacuum in financial support during the long vacation when students have to find a job, obtain money off their parents or other relatives or go hungry. Unfortunately that has not happened. We merely have a piece of legislation which will mean that we have to create more bureaucracy and once again invite the banks to become involved.

269
When the system was first introduced, the banks indicated a clear "no" to becoming involved in it. That may have been based on the experience of boycotts in relation to other issues, particularly South Africa. The banks decided that they did not want to become involved in something that was potentially unpopular. It has been reported to me—I do not know whether it is accurate—that the tender documents provide that when tendering one must not talk to others who are tendering. The tenders must be done independently. So it may be that the Government smell that there may still be problems about becoming involved in the scheme.
The real problem with the scheme is that all it will do is to offer different repayment terms. What is strongly suspected by many involved is that if one can pay back one's loan rapidly, one will be charged a lower rate of interest. One wonders who will be able to take advantage of such a system. Can any student guarantee that they will receive a certain level of salary at the end of their course? That is highly unlikely. It will probably be those who have parents who will say, "Very well, we will advise you on the correct way to take out this loan, and we will assist you to repay it quickly". Or the case may be put, "We will allow you to repay your loan over a longer period of time but we will charge you a higher interest rate". I hope that the Minister will tell us that that will not occur, because it will mean that those who come from the poorest social backgrounds and who, rightly or wrongly, have the lowest expectations will pay the highest rates of interest.
Neither of those solutions is successful. Indeed, as a central body must co-ordinate the private loans, the end result may be increased bureaucracy and bureaucratic costs. Although there may be PSBRI advantages to the scheme, it is difficult to see what other advantages can be found. It is a short Bill—only four clauses—and three minutes on it is probably enough.
I wish to make one further point. We have heard a great deal about grant-maintained schools being allowed further financial freedoms and the freedom to dispose of their own assets. We have also heard that the Government are going to try to defend the rights of those schools as regards their playing fields. Indeed, we have heard the cry for greater sports provision and more competitive games in schools. However, the point has not yet been made that school sports fields are assets not only to the schools but to the local communities.
One of the greatest advantages that we have in our sporting culture—despite the fact that we may lose internationally more than every now and again—is that we have a culture of participation. Participation at junior level in football, hockey and cricket is dependent upon publicly-owned facilities; otherwise the teams cannot participate in their sport. The school playing fields are a vital part of that system. Well maintained sports fields are essential to teams who are raising their standards and aim to go higher than just participation level.
If such sports fields are lost various sports activities will be cut off in certain parts of the country. I do not say that there would a catastrophic situation overnight but there would be gaps in provision. There would he an overloading on the playing facilities in public parks
270
and a lowering in the standard of grass-based pitches. If too much sport is played on such pitches their condition deteriorates and competitors cannot enjoy their sport so much or aim to play at a higher level. As regards the disposal of assets, will the Minister assure the House that community-based activities are given at least as high a consideration as any directly associated with educational needs?
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to discipline. Self-discipline is often acquired through sports, especially for the male of the species. It is a way in which people can learn to do something under their own steam. The great danger with the Government's cry for more compulsory school games is that people will associate school sports with being forced to do something as opposed to wanting to do it. Adult participation is based on the idea that one wants to he out there and that one is doing it oneself. Young people are being given a second chance to be involved. Will the Minister assure the House that the non-academic use of school facilities will be borne in mind if grant-maintained schools should wish to sell off any of their assets?
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and to associate myself completely with his remarks about school playing fields. I represent in one part of Wiltshire the National Playing Fields Association, which has the honour of having His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as its president. Its object is to ensure that school playing fields are not sold off by local councils and to encourage an increase in their number.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers in his opening remarks mentioned the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Tombs on the subject of sustainable development. That was itself a debate on the environment, which is the subject I should like to discuss. The report was erudite and wide-ranging and the debate demonstrated the conflicts that arise in maintaining sustainability in the developing environment, which have to be considered and which become a charge on the public purse which we are beholden to satisfy.
In that debate my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave an excellent definition of a sustainable environment; that it is one which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising future generations' inheritance. I hope my noble friend will confirm that that is what he said. I wish to ensure that we do not compromise the inheritance that we pass to future generations.
One problem is inner city pollution, which has many elements. However, perhaps the pollution caused by inner city public transport and delivery vehicles creates the biggest problem. Would my noble friend, therefore, consider the use of alternative fuels for those vehicles? In that context, I recently attended an interesting seminar on the use of natural gas vehicles or NGVs. I assure your Lordships that I have no commercial interest in them but they appear to be a relatively easy and rapid answer to the problem.

271
The exhaust fumes are less damaging to the upper atmosphere and, being lighter than air, they rise directly into the atmosphere without affecting the public. In that respect they are unlike petrol and diesel fumes which, as your Lordships know, lurk about at ground level and cause great distress to pedestrians, bicyclists and many motorists. I have for many years driven a diesel car under the happy delusion that I am serving the cause of the environment. I now find that my best endeavours are at risk and that I must buy a vehicle which runs on natural gas, which will be very expensive. If NGVs are to be promoted they will require promotion through the Government. The Select Committee report clearly stated that we should promote such vehicles.
Perhaps the best legacy that we can hand on to succeeding generations is the immensely important concept of the Stonehenge Millennium Park which has been planned by English Heritage in consort with the National Trust. I spent four days last week at the Stonehenge conference in Salisbury, where every possible view was expressed and every interest represented and heard under the excellent chairmanship of Dr. Robin Wilson. The conference proceeded quickly—there were no lawyers present!
The conference came to a number of conclusions, among which was the need to green over the A303 and the A344 in the immediate vicinity of the stones, as required by English Heritage and the National Trust. The conference supported in principle the plan for a long tunnel, with which I entirely concur.
It is clear to me that Stonehenge, as a world heritage site, is of an international importance which lays upon us a duty of care that far transcends any budgetary considerations. We have placed the care of the heritage site with English Heritage, while the National Trust has the inalienable right of protection of the Henge, established as it is by Act of Parliament. I suggest therefore that those opinions and requirements are of paramount importance.
It is not just the stones, remarkable as they are, and the immediate world heritage site which are important but there is the fact that Salisbury Plain immediately to the north, the Henge and the Avebury Ring make up a legacy from our forebears and ancestors who inhabited the area some 10,000 years ago. They found Stonehenge to be a special place and 4,000 years ago they started to build a monument to that special place.
I think it is true that society's memories of its past form the basis of the present culture and so we, in our turn, must pass on to future generations our own memories and the memorials that we have inherited, without all the extraneous 20th century trappings with which we have surrounded it.
The Millenium Park will provide an area of tranquillity, which the Salisbury conference noted as a necessary objective. It will remove all visible road transport from the immediate area and return the stones to their setting in antiquity.
The archeological map of the world heritage site is a remarkable document. It is evident that even widening the present road to current department standards for dual
272
carriageways would disturb at least 20 sites, each site being not just one barrow but a collection of separate archaeological remains—a set of remains which we, as life tenants, have no right to disturb.
That heavy expenditure will be incurred by the only option that will correct the damage we have done is inevitable as that option involves tunnelling. If I say, "shades of St Catherine's Hill", I hope that that does not send shivers down the spine of my noble friend. I think it is now acknowledged that that by-pass decision was a mistake. I sincerely hope that the fiasco will not be repeated at Stonehenge.
It is UNESCO which has declared the world heritage site. I ask my noble friend whether we are paying our dues to that body so that we may demand a contribution. Equally the A.303 is part of the European network of strategic highways and help should come especially from the EU. Perhaps, like every other country, we should for once put pressure on our own appointed commissioner, Mr. Neil Kinnock, to ensure that more of our net contribution comes back to us for that purpose.
One point that may be material is that within the timescale involved in any tunnel development, it may be that the department will have completed its trials on road tolling with smart cards, which may help either to discount the initial cost or alternatively to encourage the private sector to invest in this very important and therefore lucrative Trans-Europe Highway.
Thirdly and finally, I should like to say a few words on farming. That provides another example of our inheritance. What was once a virtually chemical free topsoil has been changed dramatically by CAP revenues and encouragements towards ever greater yields. I am not going to press the case of organic farming, albeit I cannot resist its mention. But in terms of restoring the legacy, there is, I am glad to acknowledge, the concerted effort reflected by the proposed reforms of the CAP. But I feel that is a slightly optimistic view if one takes into account the fact that Zeneca alone—an agro-chemical company of which your Lordships may know—showed a 13 per cent. increase to £1.3 billion, which resulted in a 5 per cent. increase in its share price this week. While we may be optimistic, it is evident that the markets remain entirely cynical. The CAP is on the IGC agenda and for that we must be grateful. Perhaps I may press my noble friend to ensure that our call for reform is heard and acted upon.
We have already prepared a legacy for our future generations in the form of BSE infected cattle upon our heirs and successors, about which there is nothing that we can do to alleviate the incidence over the next 30 years and, indeed, beyond that, for the incubation period is 30 years.
Frankly, I am amazed that in the context of a sustainable environment we still allow a nerve gas-derived poison to be used on our animal herds for the simple purpose of removal of the innocent warble fly, an affliction that has occurred all down the centuries. Suddenly we are ensnared again in productivity and we ignore the effect on the animal and potentially upon the public.

273
As is quite clear, today there is no shortage of beef and, therefore, there is no reason why we should press for those advanced methods. The 13th Report of the Select Committee on the EC beef and veal regime concluded about BSE:
"We endorse the views of many witnesses on the need to ensure access for British exporters to markets for beef currently not open on account of unfounded fears over BSE".
It may be that those fears are unfounded but the fact remains that we have left that legacy for our children.
It is not only a potential danger that we face when we realise that farmers are deliberately and with the consent of the department applying that poison to our vegetables. Surely we should reconsider the use of organo-phosphates in farming altogether and relieve our farmers and stockmen of the need to keep a wardrobe of chemical warfare kit for use on hot summer days.
We are already suffering from the effects of DDT which was poured onto the soil soon after the war, especially on the chalk uplands, which is now established indissolubly in the water table. It is not just the siren attraction of CAP revenues that we must adjust but, as was said in the recent debate that I have just mentioned, there are farming methods friendly to the environment without going the whole hog into organic farming. And who am I to say that? There is a driven need for reform and for reforms which may have to be imposed if we are to leave future generations with a sustainable environment that they can enjoy.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the fact that literally mile after mile of roadworks on the A.1 today caused me to miss the first nine minutes of his speech. I am certain that the first part of his speech was as excellent as the second half and I am sorry to have missed it.
I intend to confine my remarks to agriculture and environmental matters and specifically to traditional country sports, at the risk of trespassing on the territory of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who is to follow me.
I was disturbed by the pronouncement by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 19th October, speaking for the Home Office as she was, that the Government were neutral on the issue of field sports. Some reassurance was provided a few days later by the excellent White Paper on rural England to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has already referred. That was produced by two different government departments—MAFF and the DoE. Those two departments took a far more positive line. They almost eulogised country sports, albeit from an essentially utilitarian standpoint.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been kind enough to write to me, although I received the letter only two hours ago. It confirms that my original fears were valid. The message from the Home Office seems to be that field sports will be defended so long as they are legal, but the Government are agnostic as to whether they should remain legal.
274
There are two pegs in the gracious Speech on which I can legitimately hang those two anxieties. The first is the promise of further deregulation, because of course conniving at or acquiescing in a field sport ban would fly totally in the face of that promise. The second is the promise of continued resistance to terrorism—in this instance the growing terrorism carried out by animal liberation fanatics.
The Government really must make an effort to educate the urban and suburban majority in the realities of nature. Too large a proportion of that majority fondly imagines that lamb chops and hamburgers grow on trees and that, left to their own devices, wild animals die peacefully of old age tucked up snugly in their beds. The recent findings of Sir David Steel's "Countryside Movement" demonstrate just how much such education is needed. Of course, it would not budge the fanatics whose eyes are closed and who are totally impervious to reason, but it would help to sway back onto the right road the very much larger number of people who at present have some sneaking sympathy with the fanatics and who might be inclined to shelter them or even eventually to join them.
Perhaps this is the moment to declare interests. Although my forebears played a prominent role in establishing one of the oldest packs in the country, neither my immediate family nor I have ever hunted. I rather regret that now, but three-and-a-half years into my senior railcard is a little late to start. I do not fish. But I do shoot, but never more than half a dozen times a year, and usually less. Through the family tradition I have a certain minor interest in falconry, but it is a passive rather than an active one. In other words, I have very little "selfish or strategic interest" in the matter, to use a phrase coined by this Government.
However, I feel strongly about the maintenance of tradition and I feel deeply for the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people—thoroughly decent individuals for the most part—for whom one or more of those traditional sports is an all-consuming passion. Their individual freedoms are being put at risk by a combination of ignorance, often wilful, and double standards. It will not do to say, "Leave it to the conscience of individual MPs". If a body of individual MPs tried to ban football on the grounds that it promoted violence, hooliganism, criminal damage and so on, there would be no question of the Government sitting on their hands and saying, "Well, it is just a matter for individual conscience. If they wish to ban it, so be it". On the contrary, the Government would pull out all the stops to kill the Bill.
It is not for me on these Benches to tell the Conservatives what they should be thinking. But I had always understood that the Conservatives stood fix the preservation of rural interests and values when they were threatened by urban Britain. I remember the late Rab Butler making that point so well in a speech in your Lordships' House a great many years ago. I also understood that the Conservatives stood for the maintenance of long-standing institutions and traditions, unless it could be proved that the latter were unusually cruel, harmful or whatever. In this case no such proof

275
exists, as the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook,(a most distinguished zoologist, as your Lordships will know) made clear some years ago.
Some of the more intelligent opponents of field sports acknowledge that fact and concede, too, that large numbers of animals have to be killed every year for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, they maintain that it is distasteful that people enjoy killing—more accurately, the activities that culminate in a kill—and effectively demand that that enjoyment be outlawed, whether or not cruelty is involved. That leads us on to very dangerous ground. Many of us, perhaps most of us, find the idea of sodomy distasteful. Yet, quite recently, both Houses of Parliament voted to decriminalise sodomy between consenting adults. They were absolutely right to do so in my opinion. I know that not everyone agrees; indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, opposed it. But I have always maintained that what consenting adults do in private is no concern of the criminal law.
How retrograde it would be, then, to criminalise another minority activity simply because others find it distasteful. The word would go out that Parliament (with Conservative acquiescence) now officially decrees buggery to be better than beagling. Further, there are sinister precedents for the banning of sports and pastimes. The National Socialists in pre-war Germany—mainly ill-educated, urban people who were sickeningly sentimental about nature and the countryside while knowing practically nothing about either of them—banned fox hunting. It is significant that the National Front in Britain also supports a ban. When the North Vietnamese communists finally conquered Saigon in July 1975, they immediately banned bridge which they considered to be a reactionary, bourgeois and capitalist game. Anyone caught playing bridge risked being sent to prison for six months. Does one want to go down that sort of road?
In the matter of field sports, the Opposition parties should think twice about appealing to the tyranny of the majority, bearing in mind what the majority feels about capital punishment and immigration. They should also ponder the hypocrisy of supporting a ban on those field sports with relatively little electoral support but not on those with very considerable electoral support.
As to the Government, sitting on the fence and hoping that it will all blow over will not help them or anyone else. Let the Conservatives be true to their professed principles and boldly defend both tradition and individual liberty, while at the same time working to educate urban Britain and tactfully pointing out to the meat-eating majority the inconsistency of that majority's sentiments. Only in that way will a bitter, long-lasting and potentially dangerous clash between town and country be averted.
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on bridge, buggery and beagling is, I believe, a little difficult. I thought that today's debate was supposed to be on agriculture. Therefore, I shall attempt to keep my few remarks
276
within that subject. I do not rise to talk of the follies of set-aside or of the iniquities of subsidising the bulldozing of 700,000 tonnes of fresh peaches a year. I will not pause or muse on the underwriting of the growing of poisonous tobacco, on the inability of British cheesemakers to buy enough milk or on the failure of the common agriculture policy to have a beneficial effect on the social fabric of the countryside, while French villages become depopulated. I rise to bring to your Lordships' attention a sillier and more damaging example of the EU's current behaviour. I must underline that I am not anti-Europe; I am only anti silly Europe.
I am not opposed to a European policy for European fishing grounds, I am only opposed to the present one, which fails to conserve, omits to garner the maximum sustainable fish harvest and which, in some cases, discards as much as, or more than, is actually harvested. The total European fish catch is something in the region of 5 million tonnes, of which, even according to the European Commission's admission, we throw away at least 2 million tonnes. As most of the fish that we throw away are babies, the actual number of fish is probably even more than those which are actually caught and eaten.
The Western Atlantic Fisheries are suffering from a climatic change caused by the melting ice cap and by, funnily enough, the explosion in seal numbers because people are no longer allowed to buy a sealskin coat. Each seal—and there are 10 million of them—consumes two tonnes of fish a year.
On the other hand, the Eastern Atlantic has had a climatic advantage caused by the anti-clockwise movement of currents. There has also been an unforecast advantage created by oil rigs, whose positions, it now appears, almost exactly coincide with the fishery "good places" which used to be marked on the fishermen's charts at the beginning of the century. This is thought to be because where the oil has been found there is a slight rise in temperature. Consequently there has been a rise in water currents, food is sucked in and lots of fish circulate in these areas. I only learnt that this morning and I was quite astonished by the information. Round the oil rigs, which have a 500 metre exclusion zone for fishing, fish havens have become established.
The bad news, however, is the policy run by Brussels, quaintly called conservation. It is counter-productive. We know how to run proper conservation policies, or at least the Namibians do, the Norwegians do, and the Canadians have just learnt how to do so. Their policies could be an example for Europe to follow. That would then mean that the common fisheries policy could have some future.
By proper conservation measures I mean such things as different rules for different parts of the ocean. After all, a Highland sheep farm is run differently from a Mediterranean tomato enterprise. New mesh regulation would allow the escape of more immature fish. Also we need to use separator trawls with escape areas. Technicians can design gear to catch only the species required. This is not bought at the moment because there

277
is no incentive so to do. The minimum landing size of fish must be increased to allow at least one year's spawning.
If a more sensible conservation policy is not adopted, there will then arise an overwhelming demand from people in this country for us to reassert control over our own fishing industry and fishing waters. It is an interesting historical fact that the original Treaty of Rome made no mention of a common fisheries policy. Had someone had the nous to challenge its existence in the European Court, it could well have been found to be extra-legal. However, someone noticed it, and into the dreaded Maastricht Treaty was slipped a clause retroactively to ensure that the common fisheries policy was legal.
Owing to constraints of time I have concentrated solely on what can be achieved by intelligent conservation measures. I have not talked of the British flagging of Spanish vessels, which by tonnage is 20 per cent., not the 4 per cent. figure given by the Government, which refers to boat numbers, and is consequently a totally irrelevant statistic. I have not mentioned, or digressed upon, the taste of the Northern Europeans for large fillets and larger fish or the taste of the Southern European and Mediterranean people for small fish. I have not dwelt on the effect of the possible arrival of the Bulgarian, Polish or Latvian fishing fleets, all of which are far too big for their own resource.
If we could address sensibly the conservation issue, there might be hope for other issues to be resolved equally sensibly. At the moment the common fisheries policy neither conserves the fish nor the fleet. It provides neither job security nor fish security. Unless these issues are properly addressed and the European Union pulls itself together, the fisheries policy will have to be repatriated, with all the dreaded consequences that that will produce.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before taking the first opportunity available to me to speak in the debate on the humble Address in reply to the gracious Speech, I begin by declaring my interest in the aspects of education in the Speech and also in the Government's policy, programmes and consultation. I speak as a member of Lancashire County Council, which is an education authority, as chair of the Association of County Councils and as a parent of a current student and a former student.
I wish to refer briefly to aspects of the Government's proposals for nursery vouchers. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby has referred in detail to many aspects of this scheme which cause concern. It was significant that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in opening this debate, referred to an extension of nursery education. I have two main criticisms of the Government's proposals.
First, the Government fail to distinguish between the extremely valuable and vital complementary provisions for pre-school children—there is a variety of provision. including pre-school playgroups and toddlers' clubs—and nursery education. Nursery education is unique in that it provides a properly resourced education service
278
undertaken by properly qualified staff for the very young. Previous speakers have said that the proposed scheme will remove the capacity of some local education authorities to provide at the current level and will certainly not allow parents to buy the equivalent of full-time, proper nursery education.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the student loan proposals. Previous speakers have mentioned aspects of the Government's intentions with regard to student loans. I am sure that I am not the only person who is concerned that as a society we seem to be building a sense of well-being on greater and greater levels of personal debt. The student loan scheme run on behalf of the Government outside the independent sector and the banking system at least distinguishes for students to a degree between the offer of commercially provided loans and the official subsidised loan scheme. As previous speakers have said, students are already incurring large debts. This is causing some students not to complete their courses. Ironically, an increased drop-out rate increases the unit cost per student of a university course.
Already the banks enable students to borrow ever larger amounts of money. On the one hand, students are under pressure to borrow more and more money and, on the other hand, students who are fearful of their inability to repay loans at the end of their courses are dropping out.
The main area I wish to discuss is not mentioned in the gracious Speech and that is the proposals which are the subject of consultation regarding the Government's so-called fast track option for the opting out of voluntary aided schools. Previous speakers have said that the Department for Education and Employment is reneging on its own guidance which states that for major initiatives there should be a minimum of 10 weeks of working days for consultation. The Government have reneged on that by extending the period by one week to five weeks.
I speak on this subject from detailed knowledge, having been chairman of the education committee in Lancashire for 10 years from 1981 to 1991. Lancashire County Council has the largest number of voluntary aided schools in the country. Lancashire County Council has 12 grant-maintained schools and 692 primary and secondary schools—309 are county maintained schools, 309 are voluntary aided church schools and 74 are voluntary controlled or special agreement schools.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon spoke of the anxiety among diocesan representatives and Church authorities the length and breadth of England about any proposal which would discriminate between the parents of children in Church schools and parents of children in other schools. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to parental choice in speaking about the nursery voucher scheme. There would be no parental choice under some of the proposals upon which the Government are currently consulting: namely, shortening the statutory time limit for becoming grant-maintained; removing the need for statutory proposals as well as a parental ballot when schools seek self-government; and, alternatively, merely removing the need for a parental ballot.

279
The consultation includes the option of removing LEA appointees from governing bodies and arranging for all aided schools to become self-governing, except for those which opt to remain. How can the Government, committed as they are on so many occasions to parental choice, justify consulting on the removal of that parental choice?
However, it is not that particular aspect of the consultation on which I wish to concentrate in this short contribution. My experience is that in cities, towns and county areas there is a long-standing partnership between diocesan education representatives and the elected members and teacher representatives on the education authority. In the county of Lancashire the Churches' contribution through their representation on the education authority covers all aspects of education—the development of nursery education and the development of curriculum initiatives within the local authority. The valuable role that the Churches play in that form in ensuring that the predominant Christian religion, which is the majority religion within the county, plays its full part in the partnership. That is not to the exclusion of representatives of other faiths. In fact, at present there are representatives of two other major world faiths on the education authority.
I am deeply anxious that the proposals on which the Government are consulting so hastily would damage a partnership which has taken decades to build up to its current level. That would lead to a situation in which the consensus, democratic accountability and local co-operation would be fractured. We all know that consensual activity and democratic foundations can be broken far more quickly than they can be rebuilt.
In addition, in the county of Lancashire, as in other areas of the country, there has not been one single shred of support for proposals to rush through and railroad the opting out of voluntary-aided schools into a national system of education.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, speaking in answer to a question posed by my noble friend Lord Dormand, referred to the need to extend the benefits of grant-maintained status to all schools. That speaks of coercion. These are parents, governors and diocesan representatives who surely are entitled to have their views heard logically and calmly. Surely it is possible that the parents, diocesan authorities and teachers who have said no to grant-maintained status have rejected it because they welcome a system which they view as being more advantageous, more enduring and long-standing—that community consensus between Church and local authority. That community consensus has allowed us to build effective SACREs to consider religious education in a multi-faith society based on that original partnership in the education authority and recognising the multiplicity of faiths in our community.
It is possible that the parents to whom the noble Lord. Lord Henley, referred arc parents who wish to retain local consensus, local democratic accountability and the relationships which mean so much to them in so many areas of England. I hope that the fact that that was not included as a specific measure in the gracious Speech
280
means that for once the Government are prepared to listen when such a wide spectrum of the community tells them that they are wrong.
6.6 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech. I was particularly pleased to hear of the continued programme of aid to be focused on the poorest countries to promote sustainable development and good government, including respect for human rights. I consider it essential that increasing emphasis is placed on the promotion of sustainable development throughout the world.
In ensuring that sustainable development is promoted overseas it is important that the domestic dimension is not forgotten. I would have been happier if the gracious Speech had made more explicit mention of the importance of sustainable development at home.
I have been heartened by the recent debates we have held on sustainable development and by our recognition that the environment should be protected and enhanced for future generations. We are all aware of the importance of protecting rainforests or exotic coral reefs abroad. Our national parks may not be as exotic as the environments of some other parts of the world, but they are important nonetheless. Continued support is needed for the good work that is being carried out in the parks as they play a leading role in promoting sustainable development at home.
I look forward to the revised draft guidance relating to sustainable development mentioned by my noble friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in opening the debate.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall try to follow the example of the noble Viscount, but perhaps not quite to the same extent. I am supposed to be winding up the debate but, of course, I shall talk about agriculture. I believe that we need to be reminded of the importance of agriculture because all the talk one hears is about sustainability—whatever that may mean—and about the environment and the preservation of skylarks. I agree entirely with all that, but agriculture remains a vital part of the economy of this country.
We produce three-fifths of the nation's food. Some 600,000 people are employed in agriculture which. with the food and drink industry, accounts for 14 per cent. of employment. There are enormously significant figures relating to the advance of agriculture. For example, in 1974 wheat yields were about four tonnes a hectare; in 1994 they were nearly eight tonnes a hectare. Those figures are enormously important for the economy of the country, the production of food, and feeding the nation. Food exports have doubled since 1973 and the volume of imports has fallen by 10 per cent., but we still have a £6 billion gap which the farmers of this country could fill.
The CAP has been knocked from all sides. The noble Earl. Lord Onslow. spoke rightly about the mess we have regarding the fishing policy. It is in much greater

281
need of reform than the CAP. All parties are agreed that we have to do something about the ridiculous situation which has arisen in the CAP. It mostly arose because, for political and social reasons, the Council of Ministers never listened to the Commission when it sought to do something sensible.
So far as I can see, although there is nothing specific about agriculture in the Queen's Speech, the policy of our Government at present is fairly straightforward. A news release from the MAFF on the committee, set up to look at the CAP and agriculture in general, stated:
"In particular competitiveness should be promoted through progressive reductions in end price and other production related support".
As a farmer one may regard that part of government policy as being not very good. If we are to have a competitive agriculture, we need some bottom end protection for the primary producers in this country. I agree completely that we have to achieve a far more sensible system than we have at present.
The news release states that,
"Member States are required to define and pursue measures to conserve and enhance the farmed environment, according to their own procedure".
I beg leave to doubt whether the Government are as serious about the maintenance of the environment as I should like. The excellent booklet, Rural England—it has a nice picture on the front—referring to England and Wales, is full of good practical sense and practical examples of what should be done in the countryside. However, I deplore the tendency to think that that can be done cheaply or with CAP money. I hope that we shall receive some CAP money but I believe that the governments of the separate countries in Europe need to be firm in their support.
My noble friend Lord Geraint mentioned hill farming. In 1993–94 the Government reduced the subsidy to the poorest parts of the nation; namely, hill farming—in Scotland, it involves 90 per cent. of the agricultural area—by 28 per cent. That does not augur well for the Government's intentions to maintain the environment by means other than producer prices. The hills are the most deserving part of the agricultural environment. The average income of half the hill farmers is less than £10,000 a year. If the Government are serious they must demonstrate the fact by putting their hands in their pocket.
Perhaps I may refer to increasing competitiveness in agriculture throughout Europe. When Hungary, Poland, possibly the Czech Republic, and other eastern European countries eventually get their act together, with their enormous possibilities for increased production—under the socialist system they produced about a third more than now—they will have a certain amount of extra food again. We shall then need some bottom line against the type of dumping that we ourselves do in eastern Europe at present in order to give some stability to the industry.
A great deal of money needs to go into research. Although I have spoken of the surpluses that we may well have when eastern Europe and Russia get their act together, it is true that long term we shall need all the
282
food we can grow. The signs are already apparent. Various international bodies have undertaken studies which indicate that China alone may have to import in the region of 250 million tonnes of grain by 2020. We have always known that with the world's increasing population we shall need food, but we believed that the poor of the world would be unable to buy it. However, in the Pacific Rim the signs are that they will be able to buy, and will need, the food. Therefore, I agree that we must ensure we have a modern, competitive system. We cannot do so by paying grants for hedges or dykes. That will merely be at the edge of the situation; it will make no difference.
Anyone who has anything to do with farming knows that the farmers, landowners, keep up the environment when they can afford to do so. When they have no money, they cannot spend it on the environment. Therefore we must have modern farming. Modern farming needs big fields. I realise that we have lost large numbers of hedges but one cannot turn back the environment and the methods. One has to replace hedges with something else. Let us plant areas of wood around the country which will replace the hedges and provide the environment. We cannot go back to having small fields and many hedges if we are to produce in competition with the remainder of the world.
The research into new methods, the control and improvement of pesticides, needs to continue. One cannot do without it. We cannot return to organic farming throughout the country. There is of course a niche; many people are prepared to pay for it. However, many others are not.
We need to put money into all the areas to which I have referred. I hope that the Government can assure us that they will not dish out pennies for the environment but will ensure that agriculture has a level playing field and can compete on proper terms with the proper backing which government should give it.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, your Lordships may recall the title of an agreeable and popular film of recent months, "Four Weddings and a Funeral". The educational proposals in the gracious Speech, which we on these Benches find neither agreeable nor popular, could well be entitled "Three Lame Ducks and a Non-Starter".
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, summed up on agriculture. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel spoke at length and learnedly on the environment and local government. I shall confine myself to proposals on education. My noble friend Lord Williams referred to the 1993 Education Act as "the last piece of the elastic jigsaw". What we need is the consolidation of the 36 education Acts since 1944, more than anything new. Does the fiddling and twiddling with the system announced in the gracious Speech mean that consolidation has been postponed for this Session? I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to tell us.
The schools, the universities, and above all the teachers, hoped at last for a brief period of peace and an opportunity to get back to teaching, as the right reverend

283
Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, pointed out to us. But no, there is to be more bureaucracy to install at nursery level, more disruption at secondary level and a depressingly bright idea about student loans.
Let us look at the first lame duck. Last year at the Tory Party conference, the Prime Minister said:
"I have asked Gillian Shephard to work up proposals to provide places for all four year-olds whose parents wish them to take it up".
It is a pity about the grammar, but you get the meaning.
"What I am doing",
he continued,
"today is giving you a cast-iron commitment that it"—
whatever "it" is—
"will happen".
So off went Mrs. Shephard to do as she was told, but it seems without any great success, because, as my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington said, the information pack issued by the DFE on 2nd November states that the voucher gives parents, "no cast-iron guarantee of a place, at least in the first instance". Never mind. The "cast-iron" cliché has survived, even if the cast-iron commitment has somehow been mislaid.
The Government clearly believe that nursery vouchers will be a vote winner: £1,100 dropping through your letterbox just before a general election, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, and just because you have a four year-old. Who could withhold their gratitude? The truth is that vouchers will give most parents money to spend on something that they are getting already. They will not pay for the true cost of nursery education. A full-time place has been estimated as costing £1,590 in a reception class; £2,660 in a nursery class attached to a primary school; and £3,250 in a nursery school. In the independent sector, as was pointed out, it costs more than £4,000 per annum.
Parents will have to search out sub-standard providers or top up their vouchers. It is an experiment with market forces, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby put it, talking of Wandsworth, of which he knows from first-hand and long experience. Why do the Government not take up the suggestion made by my honourable friend Mr. Blunkett this afternoon to sit down with the LEAs, the private providers and the Pre-School Learning Alliance and work out a sensible system which will guarantee places for all four year-olds?
The voucher scheme will have a minimal impact on the actual provision of pre-school places, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said so clearly. It is aimed only at four year-olds, 91 per cent. of whom already have a place, and it offers nothing to three year-olds, only 45 per cent. of whom have a place.
Can the Minister guarantee that the education of three year-olds will not be affected by this scheme? My noble friend Lord Ponsonby asked him, and I repeat the question. Can he further guarantee that the necessary capital funding will be made available for the infrastructure development and for the training of nursery teachers? Can he deny that, if unit costs are driven down to the value of the voucher, standards will
284
inevitably fall? And can he explain why no one seems to have a clue what quality assurance procedures will be introduced, or what they will cost, or who will pay?
The cast-iron truth is that no one except, presumably, the cast-iron Prime Minister, wants this scheme. Mrs. Shephard herself said on 7th April that vouchers were "not the favoured option", as my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, reminded us; parents show no enthusiasm for them; and of all the local authorities in this country only four—Wandsworth, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Norfolk—could be persuaded even to give this scheme a trial.
The Government should listen to the voice of the people most concerned; namely, the parents. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that Labour is certainly concerned to encourage education and advice for parents and children—and since his speech I have taken care to procure information which I will give him later. The Government should surely withdraw this scheme and consult more widely before it does irreparable damage to the education of our youngest children.
As the second lame duck, in the sector of secondary education, the gracious Speech brings back on stage, if I may mix my metaphors, the tired old pantomime horse of the grant-maintained school. In his Birmingham speech to the heads of grant-maintained schools, the Prime Minister reiterated his "ambition to press forward with self-government … for more and more state schools". His speech included no less than seven new measures to increase the number of grant-maintained schools and to free up regulations governing their conduct. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight why only two of those seven—on commercial borrowing and property disposals—made it to the gracious Speech. Has the Prime Minister ditched the others, or has the department simply been unable to keep up?
Commercial borrowing will, it seems, be subject to the consent of the Funding Agency for Schools, and the intention is obviously to shift the burden of funding for capital works on to the private sector. The difficulties of the scheme were splendidly observed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in one of the most penetrating speeches I have heard on education for quite some while.
A commercial loan, of course, requires collateral. The Government propose to allow non-core assets of a grant-maintained school to be used to secure the loan. There are difficulties here. It is not easy to define "non-core assets", especially in the light of current plans to remove the statutory minimum teaching area and recreation space requirements in the school building regulations. Non-core surplus assets might at present include school playing fields if the area of these exceeds the area specified in the school building regulations—and if the statutory minima are removed. who is to say what is surplus? And yet the Prime Minister has said—do we not all remember it?—"I want playing fields kept—and I want them used". Pity, then, the head of a

285
grant-maintained school who might be overheard muttering as he tries to flog off his surplus assets, "Damned if I do, and damned if I don't".
And commercial borrowing is likely to attract higher rates of interest than capital expenditure obtained through current arrangements. Where in this proposal is the value-for-money criterion so beloved by the Government? Quite clearly, schools would have to pay for borrowing out of the money they receive to educate children. And are the Government quite sure that governors of existing grant-maintained schools will look kindly on this measure, especially if it comes to be a substitute for existing access to capital resources?
This measure has been well described as not only inequitable but irrational and inefficient. I wonder how many, if any, heads of state schools will be lured over the brink into grant-maintained status by this feeble little inducement. And how utterly irrelevant it is to the real needs of secondary schools for decent premises, a reliable capital development programme and a fair complement of well-paid teachers. That is what they need, not the ability to crawl off to the bank.
There is one mysterious omission, the non-starter in my title, in the gracious Speech, which again I hope the Minister will be able to explain when he winds up. Throughout September and October the Prime Minister went about with the proposal for a fast track opt-out for voluntary aided church schools, for whom he said that grant-maintained status was the logical choice. Once again, it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon who gave the House the devastating figures involved.
The long-suffering Secretary of State was dispatched to sort it out, and she duly issued a consultation paper on 27th October. Options included the simultaneous transfer of all 3,975 voluntary aided schools to the grant-maintained sector unless governors, not parents, decided otherwise, and the removal of parental ballots in voluntary aided schools. What price parental choice now? What price the promise of the parental ballot in opt-out decisions which is the linchpin of previous packages of promises to parents? They are pie-crust promises. Is it surprising that in 1994/95 only 15 voluntary aided schools held ballots on grant-maintained status and 60 per cent. of them voted against it? The plain fact is that most church schools have chosen to remain in partnership with their LEAs.
Could the resounding silence of the gracious Speech on the fast track proposal have anything to do with the fact that both Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops have publicly rejected it? I repeat what my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has said. The Roman Catholic bishops' conference has said that to deprive parents of their right to ballot is discriminatory and divisive. They are stern words from the bishops. Are the Government so naive and out of touch as to expect that such inane proposals will be greeted by the two fingers of blessing rather than the two fingers of scorn?
The third lame duck limping through the gracious Speech promised legislation to enable students to choose between private and public suppliers of subsidised loans. As my noble friend Lady Farrington has emphasised, the
286
Student Loans Company has not been a shining and conspicuous success. Presumably, the banks who originally refused the job are to be dragooned, coerced or bribed into providing competition, a new choice and a fresh start. Can the Minister in his reply tell the House what rate of interest they will be permitted to charge? As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, this legislation will be utterly irrelevant to student needs. I detect a tone of weary despair in the comment of the chairman of the CVCP, Mr. Gareth Roberts. He has said:
"It is not important to us who owns the debt. What matters is the repayment mechanism, which as it stands is fundamentally flawed."
Can the Minister tell the House when there will he legislation to reform the repayment mechanism? Perhaps the take-up rate may then rise.
The three proposals for education legislation are irrelevant, trivial and unimpeachably unimportant. The day after the gracious Speech they were attacked by one critic. He found no merit in the proposal for grant-maintained schools. He said that nursery vouchers would not work without increased funding, and he insisted that local education authorities had vital roles to play. That critic was none other than the chairman of the all-party Education Select Committee, Sir Malcolm Thornton, the Conservative Member for the constituency of Crosby. We on these Benches believe that he has got it just about right.
6.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put it some hours ago, the menu that has been placed before us is rather complicated, and we have had a rather varied dinner. I will try to address a great many of the concerns that have been put. As a Minister in the newly-merged Department for Education and Employment, I wish to focus many of my comments on areas particularly in the education field.
The Government have emphasised the central role of education in preparing young people for their working lives in an increasingly competitive world. There can be no clearer sign of the importance that we attach to this than the decision of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to combine responsibilities for education, training and the labour market in a single department. The formation of the Department for Education and Employment gives us the opportunity to develop more coherent policies and programmes and to enhance the contribution of education and training to competitiveness. I believe that the merger has been widely welcomed. It was not welcomed initially by the official Opposition though I confess that I am now somewhat confused about their current position on the issue. Perhaps on another occasion noble Lords opposite will wish to inform me of their views.
The new department has been widely welcomed because it brings together all the policies and programmes designed to educate and train young people and adults, and to help unemployed people into work. Not least, it brings together the work of the two former departments on policies that affect the 16 to 19 age

287
group. I hope that in doing so it will very much help us to bridge the academic and vocational gap that has been recognised as a relative weakness in the education and training system for a number of years. I believe that it will now be easier to manage and develop the framework of qualifications across education and training as a coherent whole.
Before I deal with the main education points I should like to make one or two brief remarks. First, I thought that the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that those who made use of the private sector in the educational field had no right to legislate on the state-funded sector was quite ludicrous and bizarre. Will he go on to suggest that those who make use of grant-maintained schools—I believe that there are some members of his party who do so—should similarly not legislate on LEA schools?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, addressed the question of spending. I accept that spending on education and training is a good investment. It is right that we should make that investment, but that does not mean that spending at any level will yield the returns of which the noble Baroness spoke. For example, we know that the level of spending at the recently-closed Hackney Downs School was far higher than anything else in that area, and was probably higher than a great deal of the private sector. That did not necessarily yield a better education for that school, which has had to be closed.
I also turn briefly to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Morris, that an assurance had been given that there would be no further education legislation in this Parliament, following what was a pretty big Act. I believe that what my former right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Education, said was that there would be no further major education legislation in this Parliament. I believe that the proposals announced in the Queen's Speech do not counter that assurance. They are important and valuable in widening choice, but they are relatively limited in scope particularly in comparison with the previous Act; nor do I believe that they affect the desirability of consolidation of education Acts. The noble Lord quoted the number of education Acts that had been passed since the great Education Act ]944. It is not something that the Government will fail to pursue actively.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers dealt briefly in his opening remarks with grant-maintained commercial borrowing, nursery vouchers and student loans. Obviously, those are matters to which we shall turn in greater detail when the appropriate Bills come before the House. I should like to add a few points to what my noble friend said and deal with some of the misconceptions. I also wish to say something about the consultation paper on voluntary aided schools.
It is to the voluntary aided schools that I turn first. We believe that self-government has very clear benefits for schools and the communities that they serve. The performance tables this morning very much demonstrated that. We believe that those benefits are so great that they should in time be extended to all state schools. My department's consultation paper on self-government and voluntary aided schools is part of
288
that process. Aided schools—I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept that comment—are, we believe, a short step from self-government. It seems right to help them take that step quickly and easily.
But before making any final decisions, as we made clear, we want to hear a wide range of views. That is why we sent out the consultation paper outlining a range of options to well over 4,000 bodies. In the light of their responses we may introduce further legislation in the current Session. But let me make absolutely clear that none of those options is ruled out and none is ruled in. It was a genuine consultation paper. We shall listen to the comments made by the Churches and all others to whom we have sent that consultation paper and no doubt also to others who wish to comment in due course.
Let me say a few words to the right reverend Prelate about borrowing by voluntary aided schools that have become grant maintained. It is not the intention that the legislation should impinge on the rights and duties of trustees of former voluntary grant maintained schools. If the trusts allow, and obviously if the trustees consent, it may be possible for trust assets to be used as security for loans. If not, the school has the possibility of unsecured borrowing. Many grant maintained schools, if their assets are deemed essential to school funding and thus unsuitable to use as security, will be in that position. Therefore they would have to consider unsecured borrowing.
Obviously there has been much said about nursery vouchers. The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Dormand of Easington, had considerable concerns. As we all know, there is already a wide variety of nursery provision available. We believe that the scheme should encourage that further. Clearly, new providers will not spring up overnight. The Government recognise that provision will be expanded over time. For that reason we started with a pilot before expanding the scheme nationwide. But we are confident that parental demand will stimulate interest in the market in all areas of the country, including the remote rural areas of the right reverend Prelate's diocese. Given time, new providers will come forward in response to that demand, and it will possibly include greater collaboration between the private, voluntary and maintained sectors.
Quality is an important issue, especially since the scheme is concerned with nursery education. All establishments validated to receive the vouchers, no matter to which sector they belong, maintained, voluntary or private, will have to offer a good quality education. They will have to work toward the same educational outcomes and be inspected on the basis of a single inspection framework. Therefore, parents need have no doubts about the quality of the provision that they might take up, no matter which type of provision they choose. The taxpayer will be assured that those places offer good value for money.
The scheme will be funded through a combination of existing local authority funding and new money. We propose to deduct existing local authority funding in such a way that no authority will lose where its schools maintain recruitment by meeting parents' and children's needs. The sum deducted from existing funding will be

289
the voucher value multiplied by the number of four year-olds in maintained provision in the base year. So if an authority continues to recruit the same number of four year-olds, the same sum of money will flow to it through vouchers as was deducted. Therefore there should be no effect on provision for three year-olds. There will also be a significant injection of new money: £150 million to fund places for four year-olds not currently in the maintained sector along with the resources for inspection and administration.
We are convinced that the scheme will open up new and exciting opportunities for both providers and parents. For providers there will be ample scope for innovative partnerships, and establishments in different sectors will be able to work together for mutual benefit. For parents it will mean greater choice—even though the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, does not wish them to have greater choice—between a variety of quality places which meet the needs of their children.
I turn to student loans and the very brief question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and repeated by her noble friend Lord Addington, as to just what benefit they can give to students when they can already borrow from their banks. I stress that this is a scheme to allow them to borrow at subsidised rates from their banks and therefore at a cheaper rate but probably at the same rate as that provided by the Student Loans Company. It will give the students far greater choice. They will have the choice of either the Student Loans Company or banks and will have access to a better, more convenient and more comprehensive service through the lending branch networks of all the major banks. The banks will have the opportunity to tailor their products to the student's needs, so that the student can get exactly what he (or she) believes he needs.
We believe that lending on that scale and of that sort is best done by the private sector. We also believe that it is right to shrink the size of the state. That encourages the private sector to grow, which will lead to a more entrepreneurial and competitive economy. But, as I said earlier, the most important point is that the students themselves will benefit from greater choice and better services.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke of the importance of prevention in terms of stopping young teenage girls from getting pregnant and the problems that can arise. He wrote to me on that subject and, as he knows, I have replied. Obviously, schools can make a vital contribution but we must accept that it will not be possible for schools to solve all society's ills in any sense of the word. However, through their teaching schools can help equip young people with the knowledge and skills that they need to make healthy decisions now and in later life.
I find the noble Lord's views very interesting, though I am not sure that I can accept his figures on the necessary resulting financial costs and benefits. I must make it clear to him that, although the department has no funds directly to fund schemes of that sort, as my honourable friend Mr. Forth made quite clear earlier this year in a letter to the noble Lord, we provide funding for in-service training under
290
the grants for education and training programme—the GEST programme. So schools and local education authorities can purchase in-service training for relationship training.
My noble friend Lord Kenilworth and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, touched on dyslexia and the needs of all those with special educational needs. As one who previously had responsibility for disabled matters in the former Department of Employment and who now has responsibility for disability matters across the whole range of the new merged department, I take with extreme seriousness the matters that they raised. They are very important ones. But the world has moved on considerably since, for example, the great improvements that we made in the 1993 Act and the changes that it made in particular to the statementing process. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will accept the importance of recognition at an early stage. Certainly I should be prepared to listen to any other of his concerns of an up-to-date nature. Obviously they are matters which ought to be addressed, if we can do so.
Let me move on, albeit briefly, from the educational world to some of the other points raised in this wide-ranging debate. I fear that I shall be able to touch on a mere tithe of the points raised. Certainly I have no intention of touching on the merits of beagling and buggery raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. All noble Lords can be assured that, where appropriate, a specific question that I failed to answer this evening in the short time that is available to me will he answered by means of correspondence if that appears to be necessary.
Turning to agriculture, the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked why there was no mention in the Queen's Speech of the CAP. Perhaps I may repeat what my noble friend Lord Ferrers had to say. There can be no question about the Government's commitment to reform of the CAP. My noble friend spelt that out in some detail. We will take every opportunity to persuade other member states of the need for change so as to build an efficient, prosperous and outward looking agricultural industry.
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, an assurance of our commitment to those who farm in the hill areas. I speak as one with some small interest in that. We are committed to retaining farming in those areas. In 1996 direct livestock subsidies to farmers in those areas will total more than £615 million. The noble Lord will appreciate that the level of hill livestock compensation allowances in 1996 will, as usual, be announced in the Budget. The noble Lord will not expect me to pre-empt my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness. Lady Hamwee, put forward the idea that the Government's housing White Paper fails to address the problems of homelessness, housing need and poor repair in housing and the problems currently facing homeowners. That is quite ludicrous. On the contrary, the White Paper sets out a range of proposals which take a balanced approach to meeting housing needs. The White Paper makes a firm commitment to the continued provision of social housing over the next three years.

291
On current plans we will provide about 180,000 additional social lettings in line with our estimates of need. The White Paper also sets out the Government's proposal to offer wider choice to social tenants by diversifying ownership of social housing.
Turning to the rural White Papers, I can confirm that there will shortly be similar rural White Papers for both Scotland and Wales. The titles of those have not yet been decided but I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is nothing sinister in the use of the word "nation" in the White Paper for England. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to a sporting competition. He will know that there is a Five Nations competition in the rugby world. It covers Ireland as a whole, three other nations on the mainland, and France. When the noble Lord suggests that the use of the word "nation" is sinister I say to him that he is inventing fears and raising unnecessary scares.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the rural Wales White Paper will be entitled Rural Wales a nation committed to a living countryside?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord gives it that title. What I have said is that the two White Papers have not yet been given titles. The title with the word "nation" was given to the English White Paper. I used the analogy of the rugby competition, for which the Government have no responsibility whatever, where the word "nations" is used for the whole of the island of Ireland, the Principality of Wales, the Kingdom of Scotland, the Kingdom of England and the Republic of France. The noble Lord should accept that there is nothing sinister about that.
Perhaps I may also deal with his fears about our attitude to local government. I fail to recognise his description. Central government recognises the need to foster and support local democracy and does not seek to undermine the legitimacy or public standing of the other as an institution. Ministers and the local authority associations continue to develop constructive relationships. On many occasions Ministers address and speak to the various local authority associations. Those relationships have been fostered over the past few years. Guidelines announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in November of last year ensure effective and co-operative relations between central and local government.
In closing, perhaps I may return to the interests of my own department. Over the past 15 years we have achieved a great deal. Even since the late 1980s, when I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was a member of a local education authority, there has been a transformation. We have moved the education agenda onto the practical issues of standards and choice that are of vital concern to parents, pupils and employers. The national curriculum has been introduced and developed, which was opposed by the party opposite; regular assessment has been introduced for all children at the key stages, again opposed by the party opposite; parents have been given access to information about their children's own performance and the performance of
292
their schools. That has been enhanced by the publication of the performance tables—again opposed by the party opposite but no doubt accepted by the party now as it gradually shifts its ground onto Conservative ground. In The Times yesterday Mr. John Rae said:
"The publication of academic league tables has probably done more to raise the standards in our schools than any number of educational theories".
Further, we have created Ofsted and improved the inspection regime. Schools now expect to be inspected once every four years. The average used to be something of the order of once every 200 years. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, that we are back on track to inspect all schools within that four-year cycle and we have every intention of so doing.
Choice and diversity have also been enhanced. The number of grant-maintained schools has increased from only 10 in January 1990 to more than 1,000 in 1995. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, for repeating the figures in another way. It means that almost one in five secondary children in England are in grant-maintained schools. City technology colleges have also multiplied. Altogether more than 100 specialist technology and language colleges have been established. All these initiatives contribute to raising standards and widening choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, mentioned our track record. We have seen a transformation since 1979. Then only 24 per cent. of our young people got five high grade GCSEs or the equivalent; now it is 43 per cent. and growing. Twenty-eight per cent. of our young people now achieve two or more A-levels. That is double the figure of 16 years ago. National vocational qualifications now cover 86 per cent. of the working population. Modern apprenticeships have been launched and businesses have been more closely involved in the development of training policy and provision. In the 1970s, when I went to university, only one in eight young people went on to higher education. Now the figure is nearer one in three and almost 50 per cent. of 18 year-olds can expect to experience some higher education at some point in their lives.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is answering a question which I did not ask. I wonder now whether he will answer the questions I did ask.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned our record and said that we would stand or fall on it. I was putting the record in perspective and making it quite clear that we have seen dramatic improvements. The noble Lord implied the opposite. If I may continue on the subject of higher education, we now graduate a higher proportion of our young people than almost any other country in Europe.
This transformation is still in progress. The formation of the Department for Education and Employment points the way ahead, the way towards integrated

293
policies for education and training from pre-school days, through childhood and youth, and onwards towards a lifetime of learning.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge