Sitting of 27 November 1995

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

    Newbury Bypass
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the likely starting date for the construction of the Newbury bypass. [643]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Tenders will be invited for the main works contract on Friday 1 December. We aim to start the main works as soon as possible in 1996. We have already carried out all the necessary demolition of buildings on the route and clearance of the rest of the site will take place before the main works begin. Construction should then be completed within two years.
    Mr. Martin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on keeping the scheme in the roads programme during a difficult public expenditure round. He knows how important the road is for those who live and work in Newbury and all points south, including Portsmouth, as a connection with the midlands and the north. Will the Minister ensure that what he has said today is well publicised, as there has been considerable trouble making by the Liberals, who have been doubting the Government's intention to proceed with the scheme?
    Mr. Watts: Trouble making by Liberals or anyone else is much to be deplored. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), announced in July that the road would go ahead. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State made the same announcement in October. I do not know how many times we need to say so, but go ahead it will.

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used the west coast main line in 1994. [644]
    Mr. Watts: I understand that some 11 million passenger journeys were made on InterCity West Coast services during the financial year 1994–95.
    Mr. Evans: That is an excellent figure, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would improve greatly if we invested the sums necessary to upgrade the west coast main line as quickly as possible? It is important strategically to the United Kingdom for manufacturing and tourism and for places such as Manchester which
    910
    wish to attract the Commonwealth games and, one hopes, make a successful bid for the Olympic games in future. Can my hon. Friend say exactly when the west coast main line will be upgraded, as the speed with which that happens is important for those of us who live in the area?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of that key line. The contract for the development of the new state-of-the-art signalling system is on line to be let by Railtrack early next year. Next year, Railtrack also intends to let contracts for the main infrastructure works to the track and power supplies.
    Mr. Olner: Surely the Minister realises that the past two years of dithering, during which money has been promised but not spent, has meant that many of those 11 million passengers arrived late or had their services cancelled. When will he take action to get the promised money in place?
    Mr. Watts: Railtrack continues to spend substantial money on the west coast main line every year. As I have just explained to the House, the key to the upgrade project is the development of the new signalling system. It has been put out to tender, there has been enormous interest from the private sector in developing a new system under the private finance initiative and the contracts will be let early next year. The contracts for the main upgrading work will also start to be let in the course of next year.
    Mr. Gill: Is my hon. Friend prepared to analyse the 11 million passengers to discern how many of them join the west coast main line at Birmingham international or Wolverhampton because of the withdrawal of the inter-city line to Shrewsbury? In his future deliberations, will he consider extending electrification from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury so that my constituents in that county town can be served by an inter-city electrified service?
    Mr. Watts: I do not have at my fingertips the information that my hon. Friend requires, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of Railtrack.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his proposals for the privatisation of the rail industry. [645]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Our proposals are to improve the efficiency of the railways by transferring the British Rail businesses into the private sector. The rolling stock leasing companies—Roscos—and some of the other businesses have been sold, the first franchises are on course to be awarded next month and we are on course to privatise Railtrack in the spring of 1996.
    Mr. Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the decision of Mr. Justice Brooke in the case brought by the Save our Railways group against passenger rail franchising, in which the judge granted a judicial review? Does he propose to respect the decision of the High Court and to postpone franchising while the review takes place, or will he once again do what the Government do so often, which is simply attack the judge because he disagrees with the judge's decision?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. and learned Gentleman may know, the Government were not a party to the

    911
    decision—it was against the franchising director of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. As a barrister, he will understand that the court has done no more than decide that there is a case which should be considered in more detail. The decision does not affect the franchising process, which is going well, and the first franchises are due to be awarded before the end of the year. It is business as usual. We are confident that Opraf has a strong case and that the court will recognise that.
    Mr. Waller: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the best basis on which to judge privatisation is the quality of service to customers. Does he also agree that the rolling stock companies are now thinking of developing innovative new trains that would make use of information technology to provide the very best service, comparable with that currently enjoyed by airline passengers?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The rolling stock companies, now in private sector hands, have an appetite for investment and access to the necessary funds. I am confident that, as with all previous privatisations, investment will increase after privatisation and be higher than it would have been had BR remained in the public sector.
    Mr. Chidgey: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that not all the track access charges have been fully expended by Railtrack on the repair and renewal of the rail infrastructure? Will he call for a report from the Rail Regulator, setting out what actions should be taken to deal with the matter, before the proposals for the privatisation of Railtrack are completed?
    Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Rail Regulator, John Swift, has all the powers that he needs to ensure that the provision made for track access charges under the Railtrack regime is spent on that purpose.
    Mr. Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before the war and before rail nationalisation in 1947, there were about 15 railway stations in my constituency, yet under a nationalised British Rail all those stations were closed, although one—but only one—has now been reopened? Does he agree that it is extraordinary that people should now try to defend British Rail, whose history has been one of decay, closure and inefficiency, and which has been the butt of endless jokes for the past 48 years?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am confident that under a privatised railway we will reverse the decline in the use of the railways over the past 40 to 50 years. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, since 1979, 224 stations have been opened or reopened—a record that knocks into a cocked hat the record of the Labour party when it was in government.
    Ms Short: The minimum conditions laid down for the initial franchises to run rail services do not meet the requirements of the Government's own legislation—which is that they be based on the timetable operated by British Rail immediately prior to franchising. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on many inter-city services there have been cuts of a third or more and that, in the case of the Gatwick express, services are to be slashed from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes, with no requirement that there be any trains after 8 o'clock?
    912
    The right hon. Gentleman should not wait for the courts to force him to comply with his own legislation; instead, he should halt the privatisation process and not restore it unless and until he can provide services under privatisation that are at least as good as current services.
    Sir George Young: It is for the judge, not me, to decide the response to the hon. Lady's first question. However, I said in my earlier reply that Opraf was putting forward the case with vigour.
    On the hon. Lady's substantive point, I wonder whether she has read the Transport Select Committee's report—which was unanimous—which says about the very issue that she raised:
    "We agree that franchisees must be allowed some flexibility in the provision of services and in operational matters. We also have no objection in principle to the omission of profitable services from PSRs, since it will be in franchisees' interests to provide them."
    Mr. Congdon: Given that British Rail is hardly an example of a well-run organisation that puts the interests of its customers first, does my right hon. Friend agree that much can and will be gained by its privatisation? Does he also agree that the Opposition Members who opposed the privatisation of British Airways are also among those who are opposed to the privatisation of British Rail? Is it not the case that they were wrong then and that they are wrong now?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may have seen with some astonishment the statement by a shadow transport spokesman that a Labour Government would confiscate a franchise even if the franchisee were providing a better service to the passengers at a lower cost to the taxpayers. That is the absurd dogma presented by the Labour party. It is also the case that the Labour party opposes privatisation but, when an industry is successfully privatised, Labour-controlled local authorities then invest in the privatised industries and share in those industries' growth and success.

    Urban Congestion
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to act to reduce urban congestion. [646]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Local authorities are best placed to tackle the problems caused by urban congestion in their areas. The Government will continue to assist through the resources that they make available to local authorities for transport investment.
    Mr. Jones: If it is all down to local authorities, why did the former Secretary of State for Transport say in his comments to the Transport Select Committee that the Government needed to address that matter? During the past 16 years, we have seen continuous growth in the number of vehicles on our roads, and the roads cannot take it, especially those in our cities. Urban congestion is probably the largest transport issue, yet the Government are complacent and do nothing except deregulate buses. Bus deregulation puts more coaches on to the roads but they have fewer passengers in them, which is the very opposite of what is needed.
    Mr. Norris: It may be that confinement to the Whips Office has blunted the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of

    913
    the great transport debate which the previous Secretary of State for Transport initiated and to which many Opposition Members responded enthusiastically. It may come as a further disappointment to the hon. Gentleman to know that the broad principles of that debate are well established and that local authorities across the country welcome the package approach to the local transport settlement. They see it as the right way forward which brings a comprehensive local transport solution. Incidentally, they have been enthusiastic applicants for the package in this year's settlement round.
    Sir David Mitchell: On congestion, may I revert to the Newbury bypass and ask whether my hon. Friend will take effective action to stop the bypass being obstructed by those who flout the law?
    Mr. Norris: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that one of the best ways to reduce congestion might be to encourage the greater use of school buses and coaches but that, to do that, we need to convince parents that using school transport is better than taking children to and from school in the morning and evening? Will he therefore consider introducing legislation to make the wearing of seat belts on school buses compulsory? Will he also ensure that old vehicles are brought up to standard so that parents are reassured? I hope that he will not hide behind the European Community, as this matter is entirely within the competence of the British Government. Will he please ensure that they introduce the relevant legislation?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that school transport is important. About a third of all vehicles on the road in the morning rush hour are said to be school journey related. He is equally right to say that such journeys would be better undertaken by more efficient forms of transport such as the school bus. Sadly, however, he is wrong to suggest that the problem lies in the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I warn him not to take that course. If it is a commitment that he is making on behalf of his party, I should be interested to hear him expand on it.
    If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fitment of seat belts, which might be a more accurate expression of his question, he should know that the legal position is that this country is, in fact, leading the way in Europe. This is the one country that has understood the importance of such a development for schoolchildren everywhere and it is making excellent progress, despite the best efforts of the Commission, to ensure that the measure is implemented at the earliest possible date. I hope that it is something in which the hon. Gentleman at least will be prepared to take a little pride.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend, who I know is very concerned about congestion in cities, consider the worsening situation caused by the growing number of articulated vehicles being used for daytime deliveries, often in very crowded areas of a city? Will he consider bringing about powers so that, in certain areas, deliveries are limited to 30 cwt vans rather than massive articulated lorries?
    Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is indeed of concern to us that so much of the problem, in our medieval towns particularly, is caused by heavy vehicles. Several local authorities have now instituted arrangements whereby deliveries can be made only early
    914
    in the morning or late at night. In fact, we are looking at the proposition of having a general distribution depot located on the fringe of a town from which journeys into the town could be made by much smaller vehicles. My right hon. Friend is on to a very good point.

    Marine Safety
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of the Marine Safety Agency on ensuring compliance with the safety of life at sea—SOLAS—and health regulations. [648]
    Mr. Norris: The Marine Safety Agency aims to ensure the compliance of United Kingdom ships with international ship safety standards. It also checks a proportion of foreign ships calling at UK ports for compliance with those standards. It has similar functions for standards of food hygiene and supply, and catering facilities for crews on board ships. Of course, the application of public health and food hygiene regulations to passenger areas is a matter for port health authorities.
    Mr. Denham: Will the Minister confirm that the United States coastguard report on the QEII's arrival in New York in December criticised the Marine Safety Agency, called for action against it, and said:
    "I do not see how any country could interpret Safety of Life at Sea regulations as was done in this case."?
    Although the QEII's problem voyage is—thankfully—history, does not that disturbing episode raise a question about the ability of the Marine Safety Agency to guarantee safety for passengers stepping aboard any vessel leaving any port in this country? Is not a top-to-bottom shake-up of the MSA required, so that it does what the Minister says that it does, and ensures that regulations are interpreted in this country as they are in the United States and other countries?
    Mr. Norris: In my experience, the MSA does a first-class job, as, I would think, the majority of the hon. Gentleman's constituents employed in the marine industry might have occasion to tell him. As he knows, the MSA is conducting an investigation into the matters surrounding the QEII sailing in 1994. My understanding is that that report will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government Front-Bench team on their response to the recent Transport Select Committee report in relation to safety at sea? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Government work at international level to raise safety standards on our seas, because passengers do not simply travel on safe British ferries?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will know, as I do, that the Government's intention is to apply the highest possible standards in that regard and that the International Maritime Organisation is currently in session discussing that very topic.

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrians have been killed at pedestrian crossings in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [649]
    Mr. Norris: In all, 541 pedestrians were killed at crossings in Great Britain between 1990 and 1994, but there was a 25 per cent. decline in the yearly totals over the same period.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although those figures obviously show very satisfactory progress in the right direction, they are still far too high? Frankly, should we not expect that pedestrian crossings are safe places for pedestrians to cross roads? Will my hon. Friend therefore initiate discussions with representatives of the police and ask them to give closer attention to monitoring the behaviour of motorists and pedestrians at such crossings to enable improvement of the figures still further in future?
    Mr. Norris: I will, of course, bear very much in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I should point out to him one or two important matters. First, pedestrian fatalities are at their lowest level since records began in 1926. Secondly, a Uniroyal survey showed that about 90 per cent, of pedestrians who used signalled crossings, including pelican crossings, crossed the road against the red pedestrian stop light; perhaps pedestrians should bear that in mind. The survey also showed that 95 per cent. of all motorists in London stopped immediately at a zebra crossing when pedestrians were waiting to cross.
    Mr. Barnes: Are cameras not one of the most effective ways in which to control traffic, because drivers then obey the rules? Would it not be fruitful to have more cameras in the vicinity of pedestrian crossings to ensure that people's behaviour there was correct? Would it not be helpful, therefore, for the Government to supply county councils and others with the funds to install cameras?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is certainly true that camera technology has helped us tremendously with speed reduction. It has saved dozens of lives and it has overcome any initial reservations about its use. We have in mind the extension of camera technology for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined. I hope that he will appreciate that I cannot give undertakings at this stage about the untried project to which he referred. However, we bear it very much in mind.
    Sir Irvine Patrick: I thank my hon. Friend. What steps is he taking to ensure that councils, such as Sheffield, adequately illuminate pedestrian crossings and deal with dangerous junctions, such as the one at Abbey lane and Abbeydale road south where another serious accident took place as recently as last Saturday?
    Mr. Norris: Guidelines are published by my Department on the installation of pedestrian crossings and one of the matters that are considered is their illumination. My hon. Friend is right to draw to the House's attention the fact that, for every local authority, there can be no more important function than trying to reduce the utterly needless waste of 70 lives which, tragically, are still lost on our roads each week.

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the timetable for upgrading of track and signals on the west coast main line. [650]
    Mr. Watts: The tendering process for the new signalling system is well under way. Tenders have been
    916
    received and Railtrack is aiming to let the contract early next year. Railtrack expects to let the main contract for upgrading the west coast main line during 1996. The whole modernisation programme is expected to take around eight years to complete.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the Minister for that answer. May we have a commitment, in so far as it is possible to give one, that the priority in upgrading the west coast main line will be the stretch between London and Birmingham? The Birmingham loop is a disaster and it tends to be neglected when the west coast main line is discussed. Given that in that city we have the national indoor arena, the national exhibition centre and the international convention centre, which were all put there without central Government funds, whereas other parts of the country, especially the north-west, have had some financial featherbedding, the Government must give a commitment that the priority will be the Birmingham-London stretch of the west coast main line.
    Mr. Watts: I do not wish to add to any inter-regional strife between Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman is right: the southern stretch of the west coast main line was modernised furthest back in history and is, therefore, a priority. Services to Birmingham will be a priority within the overall project.
    Mr. Brandreth: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, over the past five years, there has been £6 billion of investment in our railways? Does he agree that the west coast main line is a priority overall, including the stretch to Crewe and off to Chester? We need investment from Government, from the European Union and especially from the private sector to ensure that we have a superb main line railway service from the south up to and into the heart of the north-west.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right to say that the west coast main line modernisation is the biggest and most important project in the domestic railways.

    Transport (London)
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the financial benefits to business of London's public transport system. [651]
    Sir George Young: London's public transport system brings great benefits to both business and individuals, as was confirmed in the independent Healy and Baker 1995 report on Europe's top cities, in which London came first in terms of both international and external transport.
    Mrs. Prentice: Given that the direct benefit of the London underground network to London is some £1.2 billion and to the economy as a whole is some £2 billion, why are the Government cutting London Transport's grant by about 32 per cent. in the next three years? Was the Secretary of State's warning, that London Underground's core funding will be threatened in tomorrow's Budget, true?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Lady will have to wait until tomorrow to see what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has to say. Investment in London Underground in the past three years has been higher than at any time in the previous two decades. That puts a slightly different gloss on the picture painted by the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Dykes: May I once again welcome the construction of the Jubilee line extension, which will take the route from docklands to the terminus in my constituency? There is already an excellent service on that line, with trains running at a maximum of every seven minutes during the daytime. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of jobs created originally by that massive scheme—opened by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London—has increased at the margins since then? Many business people use the service now, and an increasing number will use it in the future. Will my right hon. Friend press for additional new rolling stock for the Metropolitan line for similar purposes? I have no Nolan interest to declare.
    Sir George Young: I welcome what my hon. Friend has just said. The substantial sum of money invested in the Jubilee line is an example of our commitment to investing in London, and that has been aided by some private finance initiatives for the Isle of Dogs. I shall raise the second part of my hon. Friend's question with London Transport. The securing of additional stock for the Northern line, which will come on-stream early next year, is another private finance initiative, and I am anxious to pursue other private finance initiatives with London Transport as fast as I can.

    Railways
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the condition of Britain's railways. [652]
    Sir George Young: Recent high investment and increased efficiency have brought real improvements to our railways. Privatisation will build on this and stimulate further improvements in the quality of infrastructure and services.
    Mr. Hall: The whole focus of the Tory party's transport policy has been on disfranchising the travelling public through deregulation, fragmentation and privatisation. The policy has been driven by the desperate search for tax cuts and by Tory party ideology. Railtrack is not sure whether it or the contractor is responsible for safety on the railway lines. When the Government sold off the rolling stock earlier this month for £1.3 million, they did not place it under the control of the Rail Regulator. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking this afternoon to intervene to ensure that the rolling stock comes under the control of the Rail Regulator so that we can have proper investment in the railways in the future?
    Sir George Young: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's allegations. The consumer now has two guarantees that he never had before: first, key fares will not rise in real terms in the next three years; and, secondly, the services spelt out in the passenger service requirements will not be withdrawn during a seven-year period. Those are guarantees to the customer that were never given by the Labour party.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we have heard from the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) is the authentic voice of the trade union-dominated Labour party, which is far more interested in the concerns of the rail unions than in those of the travelling public? Opposition Members may
    918
    suggest that things were good in the nationalised railway, but the Government have produced a customer and passenger-centred railway.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. Under Labour, rail fares rose by more than 22 per cent. in real terms. One may contrast that with our guarantee that, from January, there will be no increase in real terms in key fares.
    Mr. Wilson: I was amused to hear the Secretary of State quoting earlier from the all-party Select Committee report on rail privatisation. Will he recognise now that the central finding of that report was that it would cost an extra £700 million a year to maintain the same level of service as exists at present—not one extra service or one extra train? Can the Secretary of State explain to the House—including his own increasingly sceptical Back Benchers—why on earth, when everything else is being cut, he is prepared in the name of dogma to pay an extra £700 million a year for no improvement in service? Before he does so, will he answer the question that he avoided earlier? Will he give an undertaking that no franchises will be let to failed double-glazers or anyone else in advance of the High Court ruling?
    Sir George Young: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect, the Government will reply to the Transport Select Committee's report in the normal way. I will forward our response in the next day or so. It will then be up to the Select Committee to publish it in the normal way. The hon. Gentleman will then get a response to the first point that he raised. For the record, the Government have never accepted that figure of £700 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain at some point exactly what he meant in The Daily Telegraph when he said:
    "Nobody should be in any doubt about our commitment to a publicly owned and accountable national railway network."
    There is considerable doubt on the hon. Gentleman's own side, among ASLEF and the RMT, as to whether that commitment means anything. Until we hear from Opposition Front-Bench Members what they intend to do to deliver their conference resolution to renationalise the railways, nothing that they say on the railways will be taken with any seriousness whatever.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the condition of British railways will be improved by the Government's comprehensive policies? Does he agree that it will be improved in particular by the policy to privatise rail, which will bring forward rolling stock orders, thereby helping the travelling public, environmentalists and our industry, and by the policy to stabilise and reduce rail fares, which will bring more passengers on to the rail service and bring in more income, which can then be used for investment?
    Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly about investment. Last week, I opened the RailTex exhibition at Wembley, at which there were more exhibitors this year than last. There were more new products and there was a real appetite among train operators and those in the railway industry for privatisation. They see it as unlocking fresh investment in an industry which is now ending decades of decline, and which will be revitalised under privatisation.

    Transport (London)
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the transport system in London. [653]
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for improving public transport in London. [654]
    Mr. Norris: The Government plan a continuing high level of investment in London's transport system, with increasing benefits to passengers from greater efficiency and increased private sector involvement.
    Ms Jackson: What confidence can any Londoner have in the Minister's reply? Since 1991, his Government have broken every funding promise that they have made to London Transport so that we now see in London a deterioration of services and a year-on-year rise in fares. What guarantee can he give to Londoners that they will not see yet another reduction in funding to London Transport in tomorrow's Budget?
    Mr. Norris: I suppose I might offer to Londoners the fact that, at 1995–96 prices, investment in London in 1975 was £241 million. By 1979, it had grown to a staggering £257 million. It is now running at £1,085 million. That might be some reassurance even to Londoners exposed to a constant diet of misinformation from the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my hon. Friend review his Department's policy on funding the introduction of bus lanes? There is no doubt that, on the right roads, bus lanes are extremely beneficial, but in the wrong place they can cause serious damage to the local businesses in that road; that is particularly so in Fulham high street. Before he funds the introduction of any more bus lanes, will my hon. Friend seriously consider the cost benefits of bus lanes and in particular their impact on the local communities through which they run?
    Mr. Norris: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. He has been assiduous in bringing it to my attention. As he rightly says, when properly installed, bus priority measures are at the heart of a more effective public transport system. However, it is essential for the local authorities, together with, in this case, the Traffic Director for London, to ensure that a proper balance is maintained between the interests of all parties, including the interests of frontagers, of shopkeepers, of those who want to walk along adjacent pavements and of the public who travel by bus.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that there is considerable spare capacity on London's rail network inside the Greater London council area at weekends? Would it not be sensible to provide an even more economical overall ticket for adults and children on Saturdays and Sundays, thus making it possible for families who own motor cars to travel economically by public transport, which is not possible at the moment, and so to fulfil the Government's objective of reducing the amount of road traffic?
    Mr. Norris: I look forward to the train operating companies recognising, when they are in the private sector, that one of the most important ways in which they will improve their profitability is to expand the number of people who use their services off peak—precisely at
    920
    weekends, when they have all the infrastructure in place and want to do everything that they can to encourage more people on to their services. As for ticketing, the hon. Gentleman knows the present system very well. The off-peak travelcard arrangement is extremely useful around London and, if one is making more than a couple of journeys, particularly in the central area, already represents extraordinarily good value for money.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the investment of £1 billion in the Northern line and £25 million in the Morden and Golders Green depots by GEC?
    Mr. Norris: I will indeed. The bringing forward of the Northern line trains by using the private finance initiative is a major step forward for London Transport. It gives us the opportunity to give the travelling public in London who use that line reliable and modern trains many years earlier than would have been possible if the private finance initiative had not been encouraged and brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is crossrail going to go ahead?
    Mr. Norris: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a particularly attractive outfit today. Quite what the black is intended to convey I shall leave to others' imaginations. The Government remain committed to the provision of effective infrastructure for London and recognise the value of the crossrail project.

    A27
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish detailed plans for major improvements to the A27 between Lewes and Polegate and around Polegate. [656]
    Mr. Watts: The statutory procedures for the Polegate bypass scheme have been completed. We are looking very carefully at how to take those two schemes forward.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but can 1 impress on him the need for a proper dual carriageway along that stretch of the A27 to cope with the traffic requirements not only of today but of tomorrow? For that road, tomorrow is 10 years or so hence.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is assiduous in pressing the claims of his constituents for better road transport. I shall take full account of the points that he has made.

    Ministerial Transport, M6
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last drove down the M6 past Birmingham in the rush hour in his official capacity; and if he will make a statement. [657]
    Sir George Young: I travelled on the M6 near Birmingham on 13 October to attend the bus and coach show.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am relieved to hear that and I hope that my right hon. Friend enjoyed the show, but was he caught in a traffic jam? If he was not, it was probably a rare occasion. Is he aware that people constantly come off the M6 at Stafford and drive through my constituency to get down to Coleshill? Is he also aware that the state of

    921
    traffic on the M6 is causing great deprivation to industry not only in the midlands but in the north-west? When will we get the Birmingham northern relief road and when will the widening of the M6 be completed?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that I was not inconvenienced by any traffic on my journey to Birmingham, although I do not deny that there is congestion on the M6. As for the Birmingham northern relief road, the inquiry has just been completed, and it was quite long. The moment that we get the inspector's report, we shall process it as quickly as we can. It will be a joint decision for the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself. I cannot speculate at this stage on timing, but we shall try to decide as soon as we can.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does the Secretary of State know that the promoters of the Birmingham northern relief road conceded at the public inquiry that building the road would not relieve congestion on the M6 at rush hours? Is it not the case that the only way to do that is through a properly integrated public transport system that gets people in the west midlands where they want to go at rush hours? The Government do not seem to be behind the sort of policy that would deal with the problems on the M6.
    Sir George Young: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to anticipate the Government's response to the inspector's inquiry. I know that he would not want me to do that.
    On the second point, it is not the case that we have neglected public transport in and around Birmingham. There were questions earlier about the west coast main line. I was in the west midlands relatively recently, turning the sod for the Midland Metro scheme. There is substantial investment in public transport in and around Birmingham, so people are not wholly dependent on the M6 to get around.

    Airline Subsidies
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that further state subsidies are not provided by EU Governments to their state airlines [659]
    Sir George Young: The UK opposes subsidies which distort competition in aviation. We shall continue to press the European Commission to take tough action in line with the treaty rules on state aid.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes no economic sense for subsidies provided by the Spanish and French Governments to be used simply to cut fares on specific routes to gain turnover rather than to turn subsidised monopolies into profit-making organisations, which is the intention with Air France? Does he agree that that has to stop, in the interests of all air travellers across Europe and particularly of companies, such as British Airways, which are already in the private sector and operating profitably?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. State aid shores up the inefficient airlines. The Government have made their position clear: we oppose any further aid to Iberia. State aid to Air France amounting to £2.4 billion seriously distorts competition. The right answer for those countries is to do what we have done and privatise their airlines.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Constituents' Facilities
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what progress the Commission has made in providing funding for better facilities for visiting constituents to the House. [681]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): On 12 July 1994, the House approved the first report of Session 1992–93 from the Catering Committee, which recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted into a visitors' centre which would provide light refreshments for the public, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative had been found for the present lunchtime users. The Catering Committee is advised that, at present, there are not sufficient outlets for staff to accommodate the large numbers of users of the Westminster Hall cafeteria who would be displaced. It is therefore unlikely that the recommendations can be implemented until the opening of the new cafeteria in phase 2 of the parliamentary building plan. It remains the Commission's intention to proceed to implementation as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Skinner: Obviously, that reply from the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament who represents the Commission on this occasion is not good enough. Is he aware that when disabled people come to Parliament—there has been an increasing number of them lately, protesting about the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill and trying to get their own Bill through—there are no proper toilet facilities, with the result that private facilities costing several thousand pounds are engaged every time that there is a disabled lobby? The disabled have to use portable toilets, which cost money, in Star Chamber Court. Why is it not possible for the Commission and the Government to provide the money to ensure that when disabled people come to Parliament to protest and to lobby their Members of Parliament, proper toilet facilities are installed somewhere or other in the building? Surely, with all the money that they spend on the portable facilities, they ought to be doing something of a permanent nature.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Member raises a perfectly good point, about which there is a question further down the Order Paper. The Commission made it clear that it is ready to implement, and find the money to implement, whatever recommendations the domestic Committees bring forward to help disabled people.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no greater honour for a Member of Parliament than to show constituents around the House of Commons and that, generally, we have few complaints about the facilities available and nothing but praise for your staff, Madam Speaker, and the other staff of the House of Commons who make those visits possible? Does he agree that the real problem arises from mass lobbies, where the unreasonable expectation is given that they provide a good forum for dialogue between Members of Parliament and the public, and that that worthwhile dialogue is best achieved in the constituency or perhaps by hiring a hall outside the Palace?
    Mr. Beith: I agree that it is a great honour to show constituents around the House and that they rarely have any complaint except that they often express a wish to have somewhere to go for a cup tea where they do not have to be accompanied by the Member who is showing them around.
    On the issue of mass lobbies, there are obviously physical limitations on the ability of the building to allow a large number of people to see their Members of Parliament during an afternoon. Organisers of lobbies must recognise that, although they may wish to have the impact of bringing a large number of people here.

    Staff Remuneration
    Mr. Janner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the remuneration of House of Commons staff. [673]
    Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Administration Act 1978 requires the House of Commons Commission to ensure that complementing, grading and pay of staff in House Departments are kept broadly in line with those in the home civil service. For most staff, rates of pay are the same as those in equivalent grades in the civil service. Where variations have been introduced, they have been achieved through negotiation with the appropriate recognised trade unions.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that House of Commons catering staff do a superb job and should be paid on the same basis, receive equal treatment and be awarded the same pay increases as people in other Departments, and that those increases should have the same benefits? If so, why were average increases for non-catering staff 2.5 per cent. while those for catering staff were equivalent to only 2.05 per cent., which is rotten? Even if the difference were made up with a lump sum, it would not include pension allowances.
    Mr. Beith: Refreshment Department pay rates are linked to those negotiated between the Treasury and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. They involve a number of benefits that do not apply in other Departments of the House, and there is a separate pay structure. However, I shall arrange for the hon. and learned Gentleman's specific point to be looked at.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is it true that a deputy chef in the House of Commons earns more than a Member of Parliament? As a Member of Parliament, I declare an interest.
    Mr. Beith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the Commission's annual report, where he will find just how many people are paid more than Members of Parliament.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Cox: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what further funding he will make available to improve facilities for disabled people who attend meetings at the Houses of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [674]
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will recall the statement made by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee on 19 October this year, outlining
    924
    improvements made during the summer recess to try to make this place more accessible to the disabled. By the end of this financial year, we expect to have spent some £688,000. Further expenditure will be authorised as necessary following any advice that we receive from the Accommodation and Works Committee.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the House has an obligation to help disabled people, many of whom are confined to wheelchairs, when they come here to see us. Is he aware that, when a lobby took place in Westminster Hall recently on a very unpleasant day, no facilities were available for those people to have a hot drink, or even a cold drink? We now have a sales kiosk in Westminster Hall, but when will priority be given to disabled people? They have a right to come and see us and we have a duty to make facilities available to them when they do so.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission is sympathetic to the sort of argument that the hon. Gentleman makes and has sought at every stage to implement practical suggestions on how facilities for the disabled could be improved, including providing additional toilets, adapting lifts, and making a new entrance via Black Rod's Garden, which provides better access for disabled people to certain parts of the building. I shall ask the Commission to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Sir Anthony Grant: To help the funding of facilities in the House, would it not be a good idea to place at each exit from the House a box, so that, quite voluntarily, visitors in their increasing numbers could contribute to improving those facilities? I am sure that the hordes of foreign visitors who increasingly come here would be only too delighted to help in that voluntary fashion.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission has never discussed such a proposal but, if I may venture an opinion, I think that those who come here feel that they pay for this place out of their taxes and are entitled to have a look round.

    Members' Facilities (Chamber)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what proposals the Commission has for expenditure on additional facilities for Members in the Chamber. [678]
    Mr. Beith: None, but I am sure that the appropriate domestic Committee would give careful consideration to any proposal that the hon. Gentleman may put forward.
    Mr. Banks: It is not a question of proposals that I may put forward. We all know that the facilities provided to Members are appalling. This place is a cross between a gentleman's club and a public school. We have nowhere to sit and write while we listen to these banal questions and pathetic answers. Is it not about time that we pulled this whole wretched place down and started again?
    Mr. Beith: Neither I nor the Commission are in favour of pulling down this fine and notable building. Quite a lot of improvements have been secured in and around it over the years. The Commission's view is that its job is not to invent new facilities for Members but to respond to

    925
    reasonable proposals, which have been carefully examined and, if they are major proposals, have also gained the approval of the House.
    Mr. Carrington: Does the right hon. Gentleman occasionally need to phone outside the United Kingdom, on parliamentary business, through the House of Commons telephone system? If so, he will have discovered that it must be done through the House of Commons operator. Should it not be perfectly possible, given the computerised telephone exchange that the House now has, for Members of Parliament to dial abroad directly and for those calls to be billed to them from the PABX system without the direct intervention of the operator?
    Mr. Beith: I imagine that it is, but I will inquire and write to the hon. Gentleman.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Parliamentary Procedures
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has further to reform the procedures of the House; and if he will make a statement. [683]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House agreed to wide-ranging reforms in its procedures earlier this month. Proposals for further reforms affecting Scottish and Welsh parliamentary business will be announced shortly. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific proposal in mind, he might like to draw it to the attention of the Procedure Committee.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Lord President of the Council consider allowing Members to debate significant and topical current issues, such as the "Panorama" interview with the Princess of Wales? Could we have the same facilities in the House as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had on television debating that issue? If such facilities cannot be made available, what action will be taken against the Minister?
    Mr. Newton: That question appears to be an attempt to rerun a number of exchanges that took place with me at business questions and, perhaps more importantly, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions last Thursday. As I said then, I have nothing to add to what has been said.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to improve the efficiency of parliamentary procedures. [684]
    Mr. Newton: In addition to the procedural reforms to which I referred in my previous answer, we believe that the legislative work of Parliament can be improved by the publication of draft Bills when timing and other considerations make it practicable and appropriate. That practice has already been adopted for a number of Bills in the past two years. In the present Session, we intend to publish draft Bills on adoption, building societies and merchant shipping.
    Mr. Flynn: The long-established procedures of the House make it clear that we are unable to discuss the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne or the members of the royal family, except under a substantive motion. Will the Leader of the House make time available at least once a year so that we can discuss the future of the royal family and the funding of the monarchy?
    Mr. Newton: It will not surprise you to learn, Madam Speaker, that I have no plans to proceed in that manner.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his recent answer to me in a written question that he is in favour of retaining the use of opera hats for points of order during Divisions? Will he take steps to ensure that there is more than one hat in the Chamber—perhaps the Clerk to the House could keep a hat for the convenience of Members?
    Mr. Newton: I think that I made some reference to that matter in an earlier exchange with my hon. Friend. If I remember rightly, I suggested that that was a matter that the Procedure Committee, the distinguished Chairman of which I am glad to see in his place, might care to consider.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House accept that, while we welcome the move to publish Bills in advance, it would be better if the Government were agreeable to having Select Committee hearings on many Bills? Does he realise that the Procedure Committee originally recommended that that should become commonplace on most Bills? Two experiments were carried out and the process then fell into disuse. Will the Government reinstitute the process and ensure that we have Select Committee hearings on most Bills to improve scrutiny in the House?
    Mr. Newton: Just as I said in respect of the draft Bills in my speech last Wednesday, all those matters need to be considered carefully in relation to particular cases. A number of other factors have to be taken into account, including the need to pass legislation speedily, the degree of controversy and therefore the likelihood of whether such proceedings would be helpful. I note the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Given the success of the Jopling experiment and the changes that have been incorporated into Standing Orders, the comments that the Leader of the House made at the end of the debate on the Queen's Speech and the fact that this Question Time is always very brief and there are many substantive arguments, such as that just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), would it not be a good idea for us to hold a proper, well-informed debate on many of the suggestions that have been made by the Procedure Committee of ways in which we may make longer-term, more fundamental changes to our procedures so as to make Parliament work more effectively and efficiently?
    Mr. Newton: As always, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive approach that she has brought to those issues, which has helped the whole House to make progress. I will therefore examine her suggestion carefully.

    927
    I should perhaps draw attention to the fact that the House has had a fairly substantial opportunity to debate procedural matters very recently, in the debate on the Jopling proposals, but I would not rule out the hon. Lady's
    928
    suggestion. Specifically, there would be some merit in bringing the attention of a wider audience to the progress that we have made, not least in respect of the publication of draft legislation.

National Blood Service
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the organisation of the national blood service in England.
I have today accepted revised proposals from the National Blood Authority for the future of the blood service. The details of those changes are set out in a policy document, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
The blood service is an essential part of the NHS. Modern medicine relies on the ready availability of blood and blood products, and the national blood service has an enviable reputation for providing a service that is safe, reliable and efficient. The changes that I am announcing today build on that reputation.
In this country, the blood service is based on a gift. Blood is given by voluntary donors, who neither seek nor receive payment. The blood service accepts two obligations in return. First, it accepts an obligation to provide donors with a service that is safe and convenient. Secondly, it accepts an obligation to ensure that their gift is used as effectively as possible.
The changes that I am announcing today will mean an improved service to donors. New information technology will mean that donor sessions are better planned; higher standards will be set for the premises that are used; and greater use of mobile units will allow for more local donor sessions. Those changes will be underwritten by the publication today of a blood donors charter, which will set out the standards that donors are entitled to expect, as well as a new complaints procedure to operate if those standards are not met.
Today's changes will also mean a better service to hospitals. Every hospital will continue to have its own blood bank. The blood service will continue to supply those hospital banks from its own network of 15 NBS blood banks. In addition, it will open two more facilities, in south Lincolnshire and central London. The addition of those two new facilities will, for the first time, allow the blood service to give every NHS hospital the assurance that emergency hospital supplies can be delivered within a maximum of two hours.
Furthermore, the blood service is increasing the resources that it commits to research and development. It has for the first time appointed a national co-ordinator of research and development, and it is developing centres of research excellence at Cambridge and Bristol. An extra £1 million will be devoted to ensuring that the latest developments in transfusion medicine are made available to hospital consultants.
It is important that every consultant whose practice relies on the effectiveness of the national blood service should be confident that it is able to meet his or her requirements. I have therefore decided to establish a national user group to monitor the service provided to hospitals by the blood service. It will report to me annually, and its reports will be published. I am delighted to inform the House that Professor Edward Gordon-Smith, professor of haematology at St. George's hospital, London, has agreed to be its first chairman.
930
As the House knows, I attach great importance to minimising unnecessary administrative and support costs in the NHS. When the National Blood Authority assumed responsibility in April 1994, the structure of the blood service reflected its history as the responsibility of 14 regional health authorities. There were 13 administrative centres, with computer systems that were not compatible with one another and considerable duplication of both administrative and specialist clinical support services. Those arrangements made it difficult to move blood stocks from one region of the country to another when the need arose.
The changes that I am announcing today will simplify those structures. A new computer system will allow blood stocks to be managed on a national basis, specialist clinical support services will be reorganised to make more effective use of the skills available and the administrative functions now carried out in 13 administrative centres will be concentrated at three centres in Leeds, Bristol and London. Those changes will release £7.5 million for patient care elsewhere in the NHS.
Furthermore, the organisation of processing and testing of blood supplies on a regional basis has led to a significant overcapacity and waste of resources. I have therefore accepted the NBA's proposals to concentrate processing and testing work in fewer centres. That work will cease in Lancaster by March 1996, in Oxford, Cambridge and Liverpool by December 1997, and in Plymouth by March 1998. Concentration of the work at the remaining centres will leave the blood service with sufficient capacity to meet projected demand, and will release a further £2.5 million for patient care elsewhere in the NHS.
The decisions that I have announced will be phased over the next three to four years, and will involve reductions in staffing levels over that period amounting to about 300 posts. That represents a 7 per cent. reduction over the period, and the management of the blood service will do everything possible to avoid compulsory redundancies.
Today's announcement brings to an end a period of substantial uncertainty in the national blood service. It is a reflection of the dedication and professionalism of the staff that they have maintained high standards of service throughout that period. These changes will bring significant service improvements to both donors and hospitals, while at the same time releasing a total of £10 million for improved patient care elsewhere in the NHS. I commend them to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman: We welcome the Secretary of State's recognition that the blood service must be based on a gift. I hope that he will tell us that he will ensure that we have no more commercial gimmicks from the National Blood Authority. We welcome the introduction of a blood donors charter, and hope that it will achieve better enforcement than other aspects of the patients charter; I also welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a new national user group.
Does the right hon. Gentleman, however, recognise the dismay that will be caused by his announcement that he will press ahead with the plan to take blood processing and testing away from Liverpool, Cambridge, Oxford, Plymouth and Lancaster? Does he not realise that those who work in the blood transfusion service, those who donate their blood and the doctors who use that donated

931
blood have all made clear their opposition to the plan? They believe, as we do, that it will make the service more expensive, and less able to respond quickly to the need for blood.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although he claims that the plan to withdraw testing and processing from those centres will cost the NBA less, it will be a false economy? It will cost the NHS as a whole more. It will cost more in increased travel costs, and in wastage: blood that had been taken and stored in case it was needed will be thrown away. Local centres have always responded quickly to specific local demand. The plans will not produce the savings that the Secretary of State has promised.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the plans threaten the very viability of the work that will remain at the five centres? Once the testing and processing of donors' blood has been removed, and only the testing of patients' blood remains, unit costs in the five centres will rise, and the Secretary of State will come to the House to tell us that those centres are too expensive and must close altogether. Does he admit that that will be the next step? Why has he not learnt from his last effort at trying to save money on the blood service? The decision to buy cheaper blood bags from Australia led to the infection of patients and to the withdrawal of the bags. That decision lowered safety standards and cost more in the long term.
Does the Secretary of State accept that he has failed to convince doctors that his proposals will improve the quality or availability of the blood that is so vital to the national health service? Hundreds of doctors, as well as donors and those working in the service, have registered their opposition to the plans which the Secretary of State has said will go ahead. Clinicians in Liverpool and Oxford, in particular, have said that, far from improving the service, the plans will put lives at risk.
Why has the Secretary of State brushed those concerns aside? Does he not recognise that those who work in the blood service have helped to transform the way in which blood is collected, processed and tested? Therefore, their opposition to his plans is based not on resistance to change, but on the belief that the plans are totally wrong.
Does the Secretary of State realise that his handling of the plans has had a demoralising effect on the blood service, and that staff have drifted away? We have the worst of all possible worlds: a long period of consultation and uncertainty, followed by a decision that shows that the Secretary of State has not listened to those whom he consulted. With the proposed new computer system to which the Secretary of State referred at least 18 months from completion, it will not be possible to move the work to those centres that are not staffed adequately.
Is it not ironic that today's announcement coincides with yet another blood shortage? Will the Secretary of State confirm that blood is being brought from Scotland in order to deal with the shortage in London? As the Cambridge centre did not appear in the original proposals about which the Secretary of State consulted, what plans does he have to consult those involved with that centre, who have learnt today that it is to lose blood testing and processing work?
If the Government trample the views of those who work in and use the blood service, they will never get it right. If the Government look only at the balance sheet and not
932
at the patient, they will never get it right. Is that not yet another reason why the British people do not trust the Government with their national health service?
Mr. Dorrell: It is incredible that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who usually chides the Government for not consulting enough, should now chide us for consulting for too long and then—to use her words—for "brushing the concerns aside". That is simply not true.
Clinicians from Liverpool, Oxford and elsewhere have expressed their concerns about whether the blood service would deliver the enhanced service that was described in the document and acknowledged as the ambition of the blood service. I listened to their views, and I responded by establishing the national user group—which the hon. Lady welcomed.
Clinicians working in the health service who rely upon the national blood service are concerned that that service should meet the standards that it set out in its document. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising the importance of the national user group and of the donors charter, which sets out the standards that donors have a right to expect from the national blood service.
The hon. Lady took the side of those who argue that one cannot remove processing and testing work from blood centres without undermining their viability. Perhaps she has seen a copy of last week's British Medical Journal, in which Sally Davies, a widely respected consultant haematologist at the Central Middlesex hospital, argues the opposite case. She has experience gained from her own practice of doing precisely that which the hon. Lady says is impossible.
In the article, Ms Davies writes:
"Consultants at some teaching hospitals have suggested … that removing the processing and testing of blood from their sites will adversely affect their clinical services. The experience of teaching hospitals and specialist centres in London shows that this need not be the case."
They are not my words, but those of a consultant haematologist who practises in the national health service.
The hon. Lady said that she was anxious to remove unnecessary costs. from the national health service. Why does she want us to protect a system which, as the document makes clear, provides overcapacity in processing and testing around the national blood service so that testing facilities are 48 per cent. overcapacity and grouping facilities are 59 per cent. overcapacity? Surely there are few better opportunities to use taxpayers' pounds to greater effect than to address overcapacity in a support service of the national blood service. That is why we are removing unnecessary overcapacity. It will not damage or undermine the viability and quality of the service that the national blood service provides.
It is true that, as a result of the consultation, we have changed the proposals for Cambridge to concentrate research functions—which we plan to expand—on the Cambridge facilities, and to ensure that the facilities at Brentwood are used to maintain the processing and testing capacity that we need. I have no doubt whatever that those decisions represent the use of the facilities at Brentwood, and the development of an opportunity for enhanced research and development at Cambridge. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will welcome that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept my considerable relief and that

933
of the donors and the teams which serve them in Lancaster that they will receive an improved service? The rumour was that they would have to go to Manchester to donate. I never believed that was true, and I am delighted that that uncertainty has been cleared up. Will my right hon. Friend please thank the chairman of the National Blood Authority for the trouble he took to consult people? May I also cotton on to another point that he raised—improved facilities?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is very keen for other Members to ask questions. Perhaps I could now have one from her.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If my right hon. Friend is aiming to improve premises, does he not agree that the facilities in Lancaster are not ideal, and that it would be infinitely to the advantage of donors and the teams which serve them if, in the fulness of time, he could provide a new purpose-built centre as part of phase 3 of the Lancaster royal infirmary? Then we really would be quids in, and it would be more convenient for everyone.
Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's proposals for a specific improvement in facilities, but I can assure her that one of the benefits that will flow from the improved focus on the donors' perspective is that, around Lancaster, as in the rest of the country, we shall ensure that there are improvements in those facilities that do not match the standards that we expect when we encourage people to give blood.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that the statement represents an improvement and not a deterioration in the quality of the service that is provided to the donors on whom the national blood service relies, and an enhancement of the service to NHS hospitals. There will not be a diminution of blood donorship sessions, but an extension of local ready access to blood donorship. Every, existing blood service blood bank will be maintained, and the provision will be extended to two more.
There will also be the development of a higher profile for the research and development function of the national blood service. Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend that Sir Colin Walker has played an important and distinguished part in delivering those important changes.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As the proposals at the end of the consultation were the same as those at the beginning, will the Secretary of State undertake to release all the evidence, so that the public can see whether the decision reflects the weight of evidence? Can he assure the House that no hospital will have its emergency services delayed longer than now? I heard the assurance that it is two hours per hospital. Will any hospitals be worse off?
Does the charter that the right hon. Gentleman has announced mean that there will be no huge profiteering by selling on blood supplies, as revealed earlier in the year, or is it all about Tony Hancock proposals, such as making sure people can have sugar in their tea?
Mr. Dorrell: First, the hon. Gentleman said that the proposals are the same as when they originally went to consultation. That is not true. I have referred already to changes in Cambridge, and some important new safeguards which were introduced as a result of the consultations. The hon. Gentleman asked for evidence. The evidence submitted to such a consultation is the property of the people who submit it; if they wish to publish it, that is entirely their right. I do not intend to publish it.
I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that no hospital will experience a diminution in the time taken to replenish its blood bank. I also give him the absolute assurance that there will be no change in the directive to the national blood service, which is that it does not make a profit out of the act of donation of human blood.
Mr. Douglas Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has handled this matter. Will he allay anxiety by assuring us that the Oxford hospitals—and, indeed, other hospitals—will continue to have the full and prompt range of services that they enjoy now? Will he further assure us that the Oxford blood centre and the other centres that will lose processing and testing will remain open and still have a worthwhile job to do?
Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly give my right hon. Friend both those assurances. Every hospital will continue to receive the same timely service that it receives now. The only change will be for those that experience improvements as a result of the development of the chain of national blood service blood banks announced today. The quality of service available to every national health service patient will continue to be built on the quality of reputation that the national blood service has built for itself. My right hon. Friend can have the absolute assurance that all 13 blood centres will continue to exist—what is changing is the processing and testing behind those blood centres.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The announcement today will be met with utter dismay in my constituency, especially as the consultation has been carried out in what I believe to have been a very unfair way. Cambridge has had no opportunity to evaluate the effects of the closure of the Cambridge centre on services in Cambridge.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the profound effect that that will have both on the liver transplant programme at Addenbrooke's hospital, and on the heart and heart-lung programmes at Papworth hospital? They are world-renowned centres of excellence in their fields, and both place a high demand on the transfusion service for blood and blood component supports. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that simply leaving a fridge of blood at the Cambridge site is ludicrous in the extreme?
Mr. Dorrell: I join the hon. Lady in recognising and applauding the excellence of the service at both Addenbrooke's and Papworth. I can give the consultants and, more importantly, the patients at those hospitals the assurance that the national blood service will continue to deliver all the things that they have grown used to, with the important addition of an improved research and development function—which will be located in the hon. Lady's constituency and at Bristol. I had hoped that the hon. Lady might welcome that.
Mr. Roger Sims: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the demand for blood has increased steadily in recent years and continues to do so, and that it is therefore essential that there is an adequate number of donors? Will he assure the House that the reorganisation that he has announced today will not diminish the opportunities available to those who wish to give blood? To emphasise the importance of the service, would he care to set an example by giving a little ministerial blood?
Mr. Dorrell: I gave some ministerial blood last week, so I would not be welcome again this week.
My hon. Friend rightly placed importance on the act of donorship, on which the national blood service depends. That is why I placed stress on ensuring that we enhance the facilities available for blood donorship, that the act of donorship is properly respected, and that the arrangements made for donors are as convenient as possible. That is the purpose of the blood donors charter. I welcome the fact that that, at least, has been welcomed by the Opposition.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Lancaster centre has been concerned throughout that the specialist services it provides could be put in jeopardy by his announcement this afternoon. Is that the position, or have there been changes to take account of its fears in that respect?
Mr. Dorrell: The changes that will be implemented at Lancaster are essentially the changes that were originally proposed: to maintain the blood centre, to stop processing and testing, and to ensure that the support services based at Lancaster take part in the national reorganisation that I have talked about. The effect will be to ensure that the specialist support services available from the national blood service respond to the demands made on them by NHS hospitals and are organised in such a way as to deliver the service as efficiently as possible.
Mr. Eric Pickles: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the staff and the many supporters of the blood processing unit at Brentwood. Does he agree that the one area of the country that will have a growth in population is East Anglia, and that the decision to retain the Brentwood processing plant will guarantee blood processing within the East Anglia area for all future needs?
On a general point, does my right hon. Friend agree that, before the reorganisation of the blood service, if there was -a shortage of blood in one part of the country and a glut in another, it was not possible to send blood where it was needed, and that sending blood from Scotland to London is therefore something that we should applaud rather than condemn?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to stress the importance of regarding the blood that is contributed to the national blood service as a national resource, which we should be able to use as efficiently as possibly to meet national needs. That is one of the major purposes of the changes that I have announced.
As for Brentwood, my hon. Friend is right to stress the important role that it will now play in meeting the rising demand for blood in central London and in East Anglia. It is also important to underline the fact that the revised proposals for Brentwood allow the development of the
936
research and development facility in Cambridge, whose function is an important part of the development of modern evidence-based medicine. That is an important part of the total package that I have announced.
Mr. Ken Eastham: May I ask the Minister for some details about the chairman? Will the job be voluntary, fulltime or parttime? Will the user group be a quango run from Conservative central office, and what salary will the chairman receive, if any?
Mr. Dorrell: There will be no salary attached to the appointment; it will be done as part of Professor Gordon-Smith's commitment to the NHS, to ensure that the NHS delivers a continuing improvement in the service to its patients. Several consultants expressed concern during the consultation about the standards of delivery of the national blood service. The national user group responds to that concern by inviting representatives of the users of the national blood service to form a group to monitor the delivery of standards, and that group's reports will be published.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: I have listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend's statement. While I welcome the assurances that he has given about the service that will be provided, may I draw his attention to the regionally, nationally and internationally respected service provided by consultant haematologists in Liverpool? Has he taken into account in making his decision the fact that this could well jeopardise the wider research basis of developments in Merseyside, and will he consider that further if necessary?
Mr. Dorrell: I have certainly taken account of that view, of which I am well aware. As I said, there was an article in last Friday's British Medical Journal which demonstrated that, in the view of a senior and respected consultant haematologist, that argument does not hold water, and that it is possible to maintain high-quality clinical services, including research, without having a processing and testing base in the relevant blood centre. It is precisely in order to ensure that any concerns about the standards of service that are delivered are met that I have established the national user group to which I have referred.
I have also asked the medical director of the National Blood Authority to consult directly representatives of senior clinical opinion in Merseyside and in Oxford. She reported to me that, as a result of those consultations, she believes that all the clinical questions raised by that consultation were resolved. Of course, that is without prejudice to their right to maintain their opinions, but the clinical questions raised during that consultation have been resolved.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that his statement probably demonstrates more effectively than many just what makes this Government tick? They are prepared to play with the lives of millions of people throughout Britain by changing the whole system of dealing with blood in other parts of the country when advances in medical science mean that we need more blood. Why should anybody trust this Government to transfer blood from one part of the country to another, when they cannot even transfer water in the middle of November from one part of the country to another? As for this charter and this user group, God only knows what Tony Hancock would have done with that.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman obviously has to sort out his difficulties with his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) about the user group and the donors charter. But I did agree with one thing that he said—the changes that I have announced today show what makes this Government tick. To deliver high-quality service to donors and hospitals without waste and as efficiently as possible is what makes this Government tick, and I am very proud of it.
Mr. Barry Porter: There was obviously great consternation on Merseyside about the proposals and, to begin with, some serious objections were raised by some clinical people. I was grateful for the very detailed and, indeed, interminable negotiations. As I understood it, we were given an assurance that, unless professional opinion was in favour of the proposals, they would not go forward. Has that support been received?
Mr. Dorrell: That is precisely why I asked the medical director of the National Blood Authority to engage in face-to-face discussions with representatives of clinical opinion on Merseyside. As a result, people maintained their points of view, but no clinical questions raised were left unresolved. In such circumstances, I believe that, if there is the opportunity to improve services to both donors and patients, and at the same time release £10 million for services available elsewhere in the health service, it is my task as Secretary of State to take that opportunity.
Ms Angela Eagle: But having a discussion with the director of medical services, who then takes a report to John Adey, the head of the NBA, does not signify the consent of clinical experts on Merseyside. I can tell the Secretary of State that there is no consent among clinical experts on Merseyside for this change. When my constituents in the Wirral and the population of the rest of Merseyside consider the results of this so-called consultation, they will realise that all that the right hon. Gentleman has done is go ahead with exactly what was proposed at the beginning, except for switching one of the most badly affected centres from Brentwood and Ongar to Cambridge—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Lady. This is Question Time, so I must have a question to which the Minister can respond.
Ms Eagle: I began by asking the Minister whether he agreed that sending the medical director along to talk to clinical experts—this is a very important point in Merseyside—signalled that those experts agreed with the proposals. I can tell him that those experts do not agree.
Mr. Dorrell: What the medical director found when she talked to representatives of medical opinion on Merseyside, around Oxford, and, indeed, nationally—this is a national service—was that a number of clinicians had concerns about whether the blood service would be able to deliver the standards of service to which it was committing itself. It is because of that concern that I am setting up the national user group to monitor clinical standards, and to ensure that every NHS clinician who relies on the blood service has the assurance that it delivers the standards to which it commits itself. That is the assurance we can give. I believe that that resolves the clinical questions which arose during consultation.
Mr. Nigel Evans: People who live in rural areas such as Ribble Valley have to travel further to
938
give blood. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the mobile units and the service they receive will not be reduced? A number of people in my constituency have blood belonging to rarer blood groups, and are therefore asked more often to give blood up at the Lancaster centre. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that they will be able to do so in future?
Mr. Dorrell: The answers to my hon. Friend's questions are yes, and yes. There will be no diminution of the local collection service. Indeed, in many parts of the country, it will be enhanced. All the existing blood centres will remain open, as both donor centres and blood banks.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Does the Secretary of State agree that, the smaller the number of processing centres, the greater the risk of cross-infection of blood products? Does he agree, therefore, with clinicians in Liverpool who believe that the closure of the service there has not taken into account all the issues that should be taken into account in the public interest?
Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Gentleman's point had not been taken into account, I would agree that we had not taken account of everything that we should have taken account of. We have taken that point into account, and that is why, although the capacity is being reduced, we are continuing to plan for excess capacity—a safety margin—in every part of the country to accommodate precisely the uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are reducing overcapacity to release money to maintain patient care elsewhere in the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is true that we have taken account of the effect on the blood service of unforeseen circumstances in individual blood centres. The answer is yes.
Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and his determination to achieve value for money in such an essential service, thus releasing £10 million for additional patient care. What will the benefits be of the two additional blood centres, one of which will be in London? Will he confirm that, despite the uncertainties that have been alleged by Opposition Members, the daily collection of blood is up by 6 per cent. on the 1993 figure?
Mr. Dorrell: It is true that the daily collection of blood has been meeting requirements, and has been on an upward trend. The two new national blood service blood banks will be established in south Lincolnshire and in central London, so that every NHS hospital has the assurance that its own blood bank can be replenished within two hours. That is a standard to which the national blood service should work. In parts of the country, the service occasionally falls below that standard. The investment of extra resources in the two new blood banks will provide an assurance to every NHS hospital in England.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Many of us believed that the Secretary of State would come to the issue with an open mind, and are bitterly disappointed that he has failed to do so. Does he recall a meeting with an all-party delegation of Merseyside Members of Parliament last month, at which the director was present? Does he recall that what she averred about the clinicians' position

939
was flatly contradicted by Members of all parties? What has the Secretary of State done to satisfy himself—not the director, who had clearly made up her mind before she came to the meeting—about what the majority of clinicians believe should be done?
Mr. Dorrell: After that meeting, I asked the medical director to talk to all the leading clinicians on Merseyside and in Oxford to resolve the clinical questions that arose during the consultation.
Ms Eagle: They did not.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady says that they did not. The fact is that the medical director met senior clinicians on Merseyside and in Oxford. She addressed and resolved the clinical questions. Of course individual citizens are entitled to their views. My responsibility is to deliver national health service medical services to the highest standard possible and as efficiently as possible. That is the obligation which this statement discharges.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: As a regular donor of A Rh-positive blood, I welcome this statement, which is more than any Opposition Member has done. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not seem to give blood or, if they do, no one has mentioned it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people feel that there have been difficulties when they move home in terms of records not being transferred from the old area into the new one—a problem that I have experienced? Will that problem be alleviated with a new national blood service?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The existing structure of the blood service introduces unnecessary and anomalous divisions between different parts of the country. The establishment of a national computer system will resolve that problem, and my hon. Friend's records will be able to move freely around the country.
Mr. Andrew Smith: This is a very sad day for Oxford and the other blood centres affected, and there has been a betrayal of the commitment and excellence of the staff in those centres. In addition, there has been a clear breach of the undertakings that were given, that the Government would proceed only with proposals which commanded clinical confidence. Does the Secretary of State accept that there are clinicians who remain opposed to the proposals? If things do not work out as the right hon. Gentleman expects, is he prepared to reconsider the matters before the functions are closed?
Mr. Dorrell: Better than that, Madam Speaker: I have set up a committee which is free to report if things do not work out as I have set out. If the user group reports that the service provided by the national blood service does not meet the needs of clinicians operating in the NHS, we will take the steps necessary to ensure that it does meet those standards. But since the management of the blood service believes that it can deliver an enhanced service for lower costs, I believe that the right thing for the Secretary of State for Health to do is to ensure that that higher quality of service is delivered, and to use the savings made to treat more patients in the NHS.

Points of Order
4.10 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of which I gave prior notice to you, the Home Secretary, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the shadow Home Secretary.
On 21 November, the Home Secretary, referring to the Procedure Committee's recommendations relating to Standing Committees, said:
"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."—[Official Report, 21 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 555.]
On checking the Procedure Committee's recommend-dations, I found that it said:
"we recommend that it"—
the Government—
"should, starting with the 1990–91 Session, make a serious effort to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the legislative programme (and in particular those Bills which are not controversial in party political terms) is referred to Special Standing Committees."
Madam Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point that he wished to raise today. The matter has been raised endlessly in numerous debates on the Queen's Speech. I am afraid that I cannot help him in continuing his discussions with the Home Secretary about the interpretation of the reports of the Procedure Committee on the subject of Special Standing Committees, as that does not constitute a point of order.
However, I want to be helpful. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to Standing Order No. 61, in which he will see that it is open to any Member of this House to move after Second Reading of a public Bill that that Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee. The House can then decide forthwith whether or not to agree to such a motion. Therefore, the bottom line is that this House itself determines whether a Bill will go to a Special Standing Committee or not.
Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 5 November, I tabled three parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State for Transport for answer under Standing Order No. 18(4), relating to priority written questions. In answer to the questions, the Roads Minister said that he would write to me. On 8 November, the Minister indicated in a three-line letter that the matter would be referred to the Highways Agency chief executive, Lawrie Haynes. Two days later, I received a letter from Mr. Haynes which answered one of my questions. However, two of my questions have still not been addressed.
I regard that as a total contempt of this House, and certainly a contempt of our Standing Orders. Further to the query about the roads programme, Madam Speaker, your position may have been compromised by Ministers, but I will not raise that matter in public until I have had an opportunity to speak to you. However, I would like the question of the contempt of this House by Ministers to be addressed.
Madam Speaker: Yes, indeed. If I understand correctly what the hon. Gentleman says, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point he makes. He is not

941
receiving the service to which he is entitled from Ministers. I remind him and Ministers that Ministers remain fully accountable for the work of their Departments, including that of executive agencies.
It is for the relevant Minister to decide whether to refer a question to the chief executive of an agency for a detailed answer, but it is also up to the Minister to see that any hon. Member receives a reply within reasonable time to questions that are put to him. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench are making a note of the comments that I have made, and will see that the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who are not receiving the service to which they are entitled do so.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I raise with you, for perhaps the fifth time, the rights of Members in tabling questions to the Deputy Prime Minister?
When I last raised the issue, you asked me to approach the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He has replied to me. Perhaps I can draw your attention to his letter. It casts the matter back into your court to some extent. He says:
"As I understand it, several oral questions that you have tabled to the Deputy Prime Minister have been transferred, despite the fact that in oral supplementaries he has responded on very diverse issues beyond the strict agreement of his declared responsibilities."
This is from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He continues:
"As you know, Ministers can transfer questions should they wish and only the Speaker can control the subject matter of oral supplementaries in ministerial answers. While it is evident that a problem does arise for an apparent mismatch between the scope of Mr. Heseltine's formal responsibilities and the matters which are raised with him in oral supplementaries, I"—
that is to say, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—
"cannot see any scope for useful intervention at this stage by the Procedure Committee."
It seems to me that the responsibility has been put back in your court to rule on the matter.
May I make a 'suggestion? It is that, when the Deputy Prime Minister next answers questions at the Dispatch Box, the moment he moves out of his departmental responsibility, you intervene and ask him to take his place. Then we shall see—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am prepared to deal with the matter. It does not get us any further when letters of which I have not had sight are quoted at me across the Floor of the House. I should like to have had sight of the letter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry.
Madam Speaker: I cast no aspersions. I simply say that it uses up the time of the House to quote letters in full which I have not seen and on which I cannot give a ruling at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman will refer the whole matter to me, I will certainly take a look at it, bearing in mind the suggestions that he has put to me today.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The next few days are engaged with the Budget on Tuesday and the debates which follow. As I understand it, our first opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be on Thursday week. Many of us are deeply concerned about the crisis in what one hopes will be the continuation of the peace process, and the possibility that it will be broken and terrorism will resume. In those circumstances, will there be an opportunity for hon. Members to question a Minister on Northern Ireland developments before Thursday week?
Madam Speaker: The Budget makes little difference to our procedures here. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that Northern Ireland questions come on 7 December. Of course, there are opportunities to submit private notice questions to me. I understand the seriousness of the situation, and the interest which the hon. Member and many others in the House have during this period.

BILL PRESENTED
  HUMBER BRIDGE (DEBTS)
  Secretary Sir George Young, supported by Mr. Michael Jack, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. John Watts, presented a Bill to confer power on the Secretary of State to provide that sums payable to him by the Humber Bridge Board shall not be so payable: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
Orders of the Day

  Education (Student Loans) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.19 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  The Bill is about extending choice. For the first time, students will be able to choose a subsidised loan from a bank or building society. It is a short and straightforward Bill, and it will enable us to test the market to see whether a largely private sector loans scheme would work. There is no hidden agenda. What you see is what students will get—that is, choice and a better service. They can only gain through our proposals.
  We are making substantial changes, while retaining key features of the current loans scheme, and I shall begin with our policy objectives for doing so. The Student Loans Company is the sole supplier of subsidised loans. It will continue, but there are few benefits to the consumer in a monopoly. We shall seek to add choice, diversity and competition through the banks and building societies.
  Choice and competition will lead to direct benefits to students, in the short term through a better, more convenient and comprehensive service and, as the market develops, through a product better tailored to individual needs.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Having that extra choice sounds like a great deal for students. How many have asked for it?
  Mr. Forth: Students are not notorious for coming forward with imaginative ideas in the public arena. As we have often found, it is for the Government to give the lead. Again, as has so often been the case, we have proposed an imaginative scheme, which will benefit students in the long term. I am convinced that the wiser students will realise that immediately and the rest as time develops.
  The capital investment in loans is immense—up to £5 billion by the end of the decade. We want the private sector to find much or most of that and, indeed, to take on much or most of the risk. Personal lending at that level is not a natural activity for the Government. We do not have the experience or the expertise that the banks and building societies have. That is their business. They are better at providing a service and a range of financial products. They are better at developing and marketing those products.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: How much interest have the banks and building societies expressed in the scheme?
  Mr. Forth: As has been made known, they have been engaged in discussions with Government officials for some time. The process is in the early stages. A draft tender document has been produced. If Second Reading is approved by the House, we propose to produce a tender document. The financial institutions will rightly want to see the fine print and how the matter develops. They will make their judgments on that basis, which is a perfectly normal aspect of the process.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I suppose that in this day and age I should declare an interest. Two of my children are receiving university education. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that all the high street banks offer preferential rates for overdraft facilities for students. They are all extremely helpful to university students and I am sure that they will all be extremely interested in the Government's proposal and that, overall, the students themselves will welcome it. As on so many things, the Opposition, of course, are in the dark.
  Mr. Forth: Yes. When my daughter was at university, I was always intrigued at the willingness of most students to take on bank overdrafts. That was their choice and they each handled it in their own individual way. We are offering students a further choice. They can go to the Student Loans Company or use existing arrangements provided by the banks, and we are now in the business of offering them yet further choice, from which I am sure that they will benefit. Students can see the benefits of the arrangements far more quickly than Opposition Members seem to be able to do. I confidently expect that, if we get the sort of ritualistic knee-jerk opposition from Labour Members today to which we have been used, in a few weeks or months—perhaps it will take them a few years in this case—they will come round to our point of view, as they have done on almost every aspect of education.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Would my hon. Friend cast his memory back to the time when we introduced student loans and the opposition that we had from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats? They declared that the effect of introducing student loans would be that no more people would come forward to be students. Since then, has there not been an enormous expansion of higher education and an increase in the participation rates of people from less privileged backgrounds, in spite of everything that was predicted by the Opposition?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. That intervention gives me the opportunity to praise the sagacity and foresight of my hon. Friend, who played such a role in the introduction of the scheme. He was right and Opposition Members were wrong. I hope that they will think carefully before they object ritualistically to this development in the market because even they would not want to be proved wrong yet again, although they must be getting used to it.
  Mr. Mike Hall: In 1989, we were told that the banks were interested in student loans, but they pulled out. What is different now?
  Mr. Forth: Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman has not noticed what is different between 1989 and now. Surely he cannot have failed to notice the enormous increase and development of the higher education sector. He has obviously failed to notice that many hundreds of thousands of students have freely come forward, seen the benefit of student loans and taken them up. As for the financial institutions, they will make up their own minds as to what role they wish to play and how far they wish to take up the opportunities that are being given to them. This is an enabling provision and it is a matter for them about which they can make up their minds freely.
  Mr. John Gunnell: The Minister tells us about the number of students who have taken up loans. What comment has he on the number of

  945
  students for whom loans have been available but who have not taken them up? Why is it that 45 per cent. of students have not taken up loans?
  Mr. Forth: Those students are obviously so well catered for that they do not need to take up the loans. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways, as the hon. Gentleman seems to imply. The loans are there for those who wish to take them up, but there is no obligation. As for those who can manage perfectly well without the loans, I say well done and wish them luck.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall mention this again later, but I have been speaking today to the welfare officer at the University college of Wales in Aberystwyth. He tells me that people from low-income families are fearful of taking up loans and are being forced into things such as part-time employment because of their anxiety about the debt that they will incur and the fact that they will cause difficulties for their parents as a result of taking out loans.
  Mr. Forth: I understand the hon. Gentleman expressing a point of view having talked to someone directly involved with that small proportion of students who get into difficulties. That is, after all, the role of the person to whom the hon. Gentleman spoke. The overall picture, however, is quite different. The figures irrefutably show that the lower-income groups have come forward in ever greater numbers in the past few years to take advantage of higher education. Whether it is the taking out of loans—which benefits lower-income groups more—or the sheer numbers, the evidence is there.
  I suspect that if the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) spoke to other Opposition Members and compared notes, he might well find that, depending on their background and the income available to them, students may or may not want to resort to the loan scheme. That is a matter of choice for them, but I do not believe that it creates any additional pressure. I am sure that hon. Members who have taken an interest will know that the average loan outstanding at the moment is some £1,400 and that the average repayment for those who have had a loan is about £18 per month. It is straining it a bit for anyone to suggest that that is particularly onerous or burdensome on individual students.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister tell the House the amount of grant available to students in each of the past five years and the amount of maximum loan available in each of those years? Is it not the case that the figures clearly demonstrate that students have been forced into loans because their grants have been smashed?
  Mr. Forth: No, the figures would demonstrate—I do not have them in front of me, but I can certainly provide them to the hon. Lady either later in the debate or perhaps in writing—what we have always said as a matter of stated policy: that we wanted to shift the burden of student finance, gradually and in a controlled way, from the 100 per cent. reliance on grants, which was the case in the past, on to loans.
  I should be interested to hear from Opposition Members, perhaps from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) or her colleagues on the Front Bench, whether the Opposition would do things differently or reverse the process and, if so, where they would find the money. It is a
  946
  legitimate subject for debate. We have laid our cards on the table. We have said over and over again that we ought to shift the burden from grant to loan. The Bill is a further development in that process.
  In the longer term, there are other advantages in having the private sector more closely involved in higher education. We are encouraging education-industry links across the board. Those links mean better understanding. The resources and expertise of the private sector will become available to education. Education will therefore meet employers' needs more effectively. In that way, there is a co-operative approach that can only benefit both business and education. Providing subsidised loans, whether public or private, entails a cost to the taxpayer, but we seek to ensure that those policy objectives are realised in the most cost-effective way.
  The expansion of higher education since the Government came to power in 1979 is startling. Student numbers have doubled. Almost one in three young people now enter full-time higher education, compared with only one in eight in 1979. The number of mature entrants has risen by over 150 per cent., a rate nearly as fast as for young entrants. There were 174,000 graduates in 1993–70 per cent. more than in 1979. Among European Union countries, only Denmark has a higher graduation rate. We spend more per higher education student than any other European Union country. We run a system that is both efficient and generous. We have transformed it from an elite system to one for all, which no longer caters for a privileged few supported by privileged families and the taxpayer.
  Those important changes will last as long as anything that the Government have achieved. Opposition Members say that they support expansion, but this Government have achieved it. What we need to do now is pause and consider the next steps. We are consolidating the participation rate at some 30 per cent. over the next three years, to enable universities to concentrate on maintaining and improving quality in teaching and research, which is of the highest priority. It will give us an opportunity to conduct a wide-ranging review, which will look at the purpose, size and shape of higher education. It will also look at the contribution that higher education makes to the economy, and how it prepares young people for employment and prepares people throughout their working lives for the opportunities that they seek. Those issues require careful thought and we intend to issue a consultative paper in the new year.
  In the meantime, however, it makes sense to press ahead with this Bill to improve the loans system. The landscape has changed rapidly since the House debated the 1990 Act. That may be an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall). At that time, all we heard from Opposition Members was that it would all end in disaster, students would not take out loans and students from poorer families would be denied access. That has all turned out, patently and demonstrably, to be untrue. Student loans are a great success. Many Opposition Members—I hope that we shall hear more of this during today's debate—now believe that loans are here to stay, in one form or other. It warms my heart that this is yet another example of Opposition Members eventually coming round to accepting an established Conservative principle.
  The increase in loans has been dramatic. Some 180,000 were taken out in 1990–91, which means that they were taken out by 28 per cent. of eligible students. Some

  947
  517,000 were taken out in 1994–95, which means that they were taken out by 55 per cent. of eligible students. We believe that that growth will continue and we forecast a take-up rate of some 80 per cent. by 1997–98.
  There is no evidence that loans are discouraging entrants from poorer families, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North tried to suggest a moment ago. That assertion was made in 1990, when Opposition Members opposed that Act. It made no sense then and it certainly makes none now. Loans—with handsome deferment rights linked to income—help the poorest students. An increasing proportion of higher education entrants come from less well-off families.
  Mr. Worthington: This is very interesting, but the central reason for the Bill is completely separate. What contact has there been between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department for Education and Employment about the necessity to get student loans out of the public sector to lower the public sector borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Forth: The contact between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is close, harmonious and fruitful, as ever. The Government as a whole are happy and content with the thrust, direction and purpose of the Bill. They could scarcely be otherwise.
  I was giving some background figures. Overall, the number of loan accounts has risen dramatically. In the first year, there were 180,000, and there were just under a million by the end of 1994–95. We believe that there will be nearly 2 million in two years' time. That represents a public sector success, but also a burden. I shall return to that point shortly.
  Higher education is, of necessity, costly. The taxpayer, through the Government, has made substantial sums available—£4.7 billion in 1995–96, with a further £1.5 billion for student support. There must be a limit to what taxpayers can reasonably be expected to invest in higher education.
  Given our generous student support arrangements, it is not surprising that the number of loans has increased so substantially. Outstanding loans—that is principal and interest—will total some £5 billion by the end of the decade. That is an enormous investment and why I believe it is right to seek to transfer the task of raising that capital to the private sector.
  I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Student Loans Company. The Bill is not directly about the company, which has achieved a lot in a short time, remarkably efficiently. Less than 8 per cent. of borrowers were in default—two payments behind—at the end of the last financial year. A significant proportion of them will eventually correct the position. That is well below the 20 per cent. fantasy figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in the debate on the Address.
  Mr. Don Foster: Given the high regard that the Minister clearly has for the Student Loans Company, can he tell the House what its view is of the proposals?
  Mr. Forth: I would characterise the view expressed by elements of the Student Loans Company as being understandably typical of anyone in a monopoly position.
  948
  There are some in the company who feel uncomfortable at the thought of having another player or players on the field. I do not blame them for that. I can assure the hon. Member for Bath, from the discussions that I have had with key figures in the company, that they accept the policy direction of the Bill. They will be more than equal to the task of making any adjustments necessary if financial institutions take up the opportunities offered in the Bill. In the Student Loans Company, there is a mixture of apprehension and a willingness to get on with the job. I am encouraged by that.
  There have been a number of comments about the National Audit Office findings on the sums that will not be repaid to the company. Many have rushed to criticise us on the back of that report and we should be clear what it means. Much of the money will not be repaid because it is our policy that those who cannot afford to pay should not. There are borrowers who will never reach the repayment threshold. The critics must say what they would do. They should say whether we have to hound those borrowers or change the repayment terms. The figures have caused criticism because our repayment terms are sensitive and generous, and take full account of the needs and abilities of individuals.
  The Student Loans Company has reduced its administrative costs from £48 to £14 per account over the five years of the scheme. The company has also put recent operational and staffing problems behind it. It will continue to play an important part in student loans, but it cannot provide choice and competition.
  The fundamentals of our loans policy are sound and will remain unchanged. Whether public or private, we have no plans for subsidised loans for fees. I wish to make that clear. We have no plans to abolish grants. We plan to achieve broad parity between grants and loans in 1996–97 and then to maintain that parity.
  Loans reduce the share of the burden falling to parents and the taxpayer. That must be fair. The main beneficiary should pay some of the costs. After all, many taxpayers earn much less than most students eventually will. Loans increase students' sense of financial responsibility and their stake in successfully completing their courses.
  Loans will continue to be made on generous terms, whether public or private. Repayment could be deferred if income was less than 85 per cent. of average earnings. Interest rates are fixed to the retail prices index, and repayments do not begin until the April after graduation.
  A lot of nonsense is talked about student debt. The implication of some who make those allegations is that we should be more generous. Those who say that should answer some questions. Who will pay? Should it inevitably be the taxpayer? Should it be the families of the students or the students themselves? Can they afford to pay? All those questions should be answered clearly and systematically by those who seek to criticise the present arrangements and the Bill.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and then to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Campbell: As more people, particularly mature students, are coming back into higher education, it is

  949
  important that there are some facilities for part-time students. Can the Minister tell us whether the new student loans scheme will cover arrangements for part-time as well as full-time students?
  Mr. Forth: I should like to take advice on that and give the hon. Lady a reply during the debate or when I seek the permission of the House to reply. I do not want to give an off-the-cuff answer that might mislead. It is a very important area.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend discussed the access funds and the important role that they play. Is not it important that we make more money available to the access funds, to help the very people whom the Opposition parties say that they are worried about? However, so that we may be able to afford to do so, is not it entirely right and proper that people should become more dependent on loans and less dependent on grants at the expense of the taxpayer?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a very important argument, which I know has worried him and many other hon. Members for some time. We must constantly make very difficult judgments about the way in which necessarily scarce moneys in higher education are used. I shall take my hon. Friend's argument under advisement, if I may, and consider it to discover what can be done to help, but I warn him, as ever I must on such occasions, that, with necessarily limited total moneys, what is allocated in one direction must come from another. That is what makes it so difficult.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is there any possibility of giving help to the small number of students who must take a year out and then return to their studies, who at the moment find it extremely difficult, especially with the council tax and so on?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has put a finger on an aspect that causes difficulty to some people. I undertake to consider that issue, to discover what help might be given, but I must repeat the health warning that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) a moment ago—it is always a matter of balancing what is available with the severely competing needs.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courage in giving way once again. Has he heard of a study published by the Scottish citizens advice bureau in August, entitled "Poverty by Degrees"? It referred to the fact that students have visited citizens advice bureaux because of the poverty that they experience; the CABs have had to refer them to charities providing free food. Does the Minister believe that taxpayers are so anxious to have their tax reduced by every penny possible that they want students to be in that condition?
  Mr. Forth: Taxpayers might want to know considerably more about the circumstances of students who find themselves in the position that the hon. Lady describes. When I visit campuses, I am always impressed by the number of students occupying the beer bars and enjoying many of the other benefits of higher education. The truth is that, as is the case in so many other aspects of society, the vast majority of students manage their money responsibly and manage to get by very well indeed. Although it is absolutely right that we should give sympathy, understanding and support to those who cannot
  950
  do so, I find it difficult to believe, as I believe the hon. Lady is suggesting, that all students are in hardship. It is the way in which individuals manage their resources that is the problem, not all students.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Given what the Minister said about the importance of mature students, under the new scheme that he is suggesting, will loans be available at the rates suggested for both women and men over the age of 50? It is often at about that age that women start to recognise that they have potential that they want to use, and that men, in cities such as Sheffield, who are skilled and well trained in industries such as steel and engineering, want to take up different careers.
  Mr. Forth: In this country, unlike many other European countries, there is no upper age limit in the mandatory awards scheme. I can only say to the hon. Lady, and hon. Members present on both sides of the House, that as soon as one makes an understandable plea for one group of students, one must take the responsibility of identifying where the money would come from to fulfil that purpose.
  Mr. David Blunkett: Answer the question.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is muttering across the Dispatch Box. Perhaps he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) to say, when he speaks, whether Labour Members are prepared to answer those questions themselves. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Brightside laughing, because if he were ever to be within a million miles of government, he would find that it was almost entirely a matter of making very difficult choices.
  Mr. Blunkett: I made difficult choices for seven years.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Member for Brightside is saying, from a sedentary position, that he made difficult choices for seven years, when presumably he bore some responsibility for running Sheffield's finances. If he is suggesting that we take his track record in running Sheffield's finances as his claim to be in government, God help us if it ever happens.
  Mr. Blunkett: I cannot resist placing on record what the Audit Commission said about my time as leader of Sheffield city council, which was that we delivered the best public services in Britain, and Sheffield was a shining example.
  Mr. Forth: At whose expense did the hon. Gentleman deliver the best public services in Britain? The rest of the country might well have something to say about that.
  Mr. Robert Jackson rose—
  Mr. Forth: I must move on.
  We are already more generous than most other countries. Students with a mandatory award pay no tuition fees, which is not true of many other countries sometimes cited as paragons by those who criticise us. Our maximum grant is greater than that in France. Japan, often held up as a shining example in education, offers no grants. In some countries, interest payments are greater than inflation; in some, repayment is not income contingent. One would therefore have great difficulty in finding any country that is doing better than we are.

  951
  Our scheme provides a good balance between the needs of student, parent and taxpayer. I shall describe briefly the way in which our proposed system would work.
  Private financial institutions would be invited to bid for the right to offer subsidised loans. That would probably be for a period of five years. Loans would be made on comparable terms to those offered by the Student Loans Company, and we envisage selecting up to four other lenders.
  Students would then be able to choose either public or private loans. If they chose the private sector, they would choose between the successful bidders. If not, they could still opt for a public loan from the SLC. We shall make arrangements to ensure that students could not obtain a loan from more than one source in any one year.
  In choosing a private loan, students would have access to a better, more convenient and comprehensive service through lenders' branch networks. They could link loans to other financial products and services.
  I have no doubt that private sector competition will lead to more attractive products. What do students have to gain from the uniformity based on an equal minimum? I believe that we have moved on from that, and I believe that more and more students recognise that.
  I shall summarise the Bill's provisions.
  Clause 1 contains the main provisions of the Bill and specifically gives us the power to pay subsidies to private sector lenders. Subsection (1) amends section 1 of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 to add that power. Subsection (2) covers the Bill's schedule and makes consequential amendments to the 1990 Act and schedules. They reflect the fact that we would have twin public and private tracks for loans.
  Clause 2 allows a similar provision to be made for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: When the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 passed through the House, it was opposed by people of all shades of political opinion in Northern Ireland, ranging from the Democratic Unionist party to—outside the House—Sinn Fein. The only party in Northern Ireland that gave any support to the 1990 Act was the Conservative party, which was of no significance in Northern Ireland.
  As clause 2 would apply the measure before us to Northern Ireland by the negative procedure, should not that clause be changed so that the House has a chance to discuss, under the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments, whether the provision should extend to Northern Ireland, where there is absolute opposition to the student loans scheme?
  Mr. Forth: My opinion now—although I shall check for the hon. Gentleman—is that, as he knows, that is the usual way of dealing with Northern Ireland in most public Bills. It is generally a satisfactory arrangement, but later in the debate or during my speech in reply, if I am given permission to do so, I shall specifically discuss that matter.
  However, I am not sure whether, even in the case of Northern Ireland, one wants to start singling out parts—however distinguished—of the United Kingdom and treating them differently from others. I am aware of no
  952
  reason why students in Northern Ireland should not receive the benefits of the Bill's provisions that students elsewhere will receive, but I shall return to that subject later.
  Clause 3 contains financial provisions in relation to subsidy and administrative costs arising from the Bill. Clause 4 contains the citation provisions and extends the Bill's provisions to Great Britain.
  The 1990 Act set a framework for public loans based on regulation. That system works well for grants and loans, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for the private sector. Instead, tightly drawn contracts would protect students: in particular, deferment rights and a retail prices index maximum on interest rates would have to be safeguarded. In other respects, I consider it sensible to employ a light touch.
  Student loans share the costs of student support more equitably. That is why the system is right and successful. The proposals in the Bill would add the further advantages of choice and competition. It is a straightforward Bill with, I believe, no down side, and it ought to be supported by all who want a loan scheme that is fair to both students and the taxpayer. There are valuable opportunities for the private sector and for students, and I hope and expect that those opportunities will be taken. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Bryan Davies: Opposition Members recognise that the funding of students in higher education poses significant policy issues. We do not have a closed mind on those issues, but we believe in clear principles, on which the funding of such students should be established. We intend to test the Bill against those criteria.
  First, any system of student funding must encourage, not discourage, access to higher education for people from all social backgrounds. Indeed, active measures should be taken to ensure that participation in higher education reflects the wider composition of society. Although the Minister pointed out that higher education opportunities had been expanded, he did not mention the fact that we have not succeeded in encouraging an increasing proportion of students from less well-off homes: the proportion of students from social classes A and B has remained relatively unchanged during the past decade, despite the changes in student numbers.
  Secondly, student funding should protect, and aim to enhance, the quality of higher education, which is a vital national asset and should not be sold short.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: The hon. Gentleman may have different information from that which I received from the Department. I understood, however, that the recent survey showed that in social grades A and B, the numbers taking part in higher education had fallen by about 6 per cent., but that there had been a corresponding rise in the proportion among the lower social groups. That, I think, contradicts what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that he will want to put the record straight.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should recognise how marginal the changes are. Two thirds of higher education entrants come from relatively well-off homes, and that

  953
  statistic has scarcely changed throughout the period of expansion. It is clear that the Government's current system, and the system proposed in the Bill, do not significantly extend opportunities for access to higher education among many young people.
  Thirdly, student funding should be equitable between different groups, rather than discriminating on the basis of, for example, modes of attendance. The Minister was unable to tell us whether the Bill would extend to part-time students. Given the issues raised by the current system, under which loans are available only to full-time students, I should have thought that such an important matter could at least have been clarified—to say nothing of the additional point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) about mature students.
  Fourthly, any system of student funding should be fair to both students and the taxpayer. That means that it must be efficient and progressive, and should set out to ensure that no student suffers hardship.
  The Government's proposals meet none of those criteria. The Bill is ill considered and divisive; it is a pathetic response to the problems faced by higher education students, and to the global challenge that we, as a society, face to improve the performance of our education system. The Bill simply transfers to the private sector all the failings of the current student loans scheme. Instead of one good scheme, we shall have two bad schemes. Although the Minister set out to defend the existing scheme, the general experience of students, and of Opposition Members, is that it is already deeply flawed.
  In fact, the scheme is universally condemned. It requires graduates to repay loans over a five-year period at the start of their careers, when their earnings are at their lowest. That places a considerable burden on graduates, and leads to high deferment and default rates. Some 43 per cent. of students defer repayments, and 7 per cent. are in default.
  The system is unfair. It does nothing for further education and part-time students—unless, that is, the Minister is to announce an important new progressive stance. Such a change in his position has certainly not been heralded. We should like clarification of that before the end of the debate. Loans are concentrated among a minority of those in post-compulsory education, and only 55 per cent. of those people have taken advantage of the scheme. Students recognise its flaws.
  A central plank of state support for students is simply not delivering. The scheme itself is inefficient, and the Student Loans Company has been plagued with problems. During the autumn of last year, 35,000 students experienced extensive delays in receiving their loans. There was administrative chaos. As the National Audit Office reported only last week, the company received more than 1 million calls in November 1994, but only 41,000 students succeeded in getting through. There was a complete breakdown in the company's ability to respond to students. Given the grant cuts that the Government had enforced, that meant that thousands of students were deprived of the resources that they needed to continue their studies. I recognise that the company—under its acting chief executive, Sir Eric Ash—has taken action to remedy the problems, and I welcome that; but it is not the
  954
  same as tackling the problems of the scheme itself, for which the Government rather than the company are responsible.
  The Government now propose to persuade the private sector to take a share of those troubles and difficulties. They have apparently not consulted anyone about their plans. Both the universities and the students deny that they have been consulted; they have simply been the unfortunate recipients of the Government's botched measures. Nor, it seems, was the company itself consulted. Its acting chief executive said as much on the radio recently. He also said:
  "The message I'm getting from the banks … is that they're not really very interested."
  That message is coming across loud and clear.
  Mr. Forth: I suspected that the hon. Gentleman would pick up Sir Eric's slightly unfortunate remarks, and I arranged for the position to be checked very carefully. My officials had discussions with the Student Loans Company on the subject as long ago as early August. I have personally discussed it with Sir Eric on two occasions, and my officials have had discussions with board members on at least four other occasions between August and October. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has been misled, but I checked the record very carefully, and those are the facts.
  Mr. Davies: I accept what the Minister has said: such a meeting undoubtedly took place. "Consultation", however, suggests that someone is listening when the contrary point of view is presented. It is clear from what Sir Eric has said that the Government's proposals do not enjoy his whole-hearted support—and we should not be at all surprised at that.
  It is clear that the financial institutions also have their doubts. The Woolwich and the Abbey National building societies are already reported to have turned the Government down; the Co-operative bank cannot envisage becoming involved, and neither can the Royal Bank of Scotland. A spokesman for the Midland bank has said:
  "This is a high risk venture and we see considerable problems in managing this book. It is not the most attractive proposition in the world."
  You can bet your bottom dollar that it is not, given our experience of the Student Loans Company thus far. Barclays bank has said much the same thing. The House will recall that the banks pulled out of the last attempt to get them to participate in a student loans scheme. Perhaps that was a testimony to the negotiating skills of the then Chief Secretary of the Treasury, the present Prime Minister. A more charitable interpretation is that the banks predicted nothing but problems, and why should their views have changed?
  Sir Christopher Johnson, the then chief economic adviser to Lloyds bank, advised his bank to have nothing to do with the last scheme. Last Friday he wrote in The Times Higher Education Supplement that the Government's new proposals made him "despair"—and who would disagree? He said:
  "There is every sign that a half-baked idea has been launched prematurely to get it into the Queen's Speech in time. Haste born of financial desperation is not a good recipe for fundamental reform."
  However, the most telling testimony is that of the governing party. The Conservative national policy group on higher education has described the current loans

  955
  system as "inadequate" and "highly inefficient". Why should the banks become involved when the Tory party can muster no better recommendation of Government policy than that?
  The proposals are unlikely to interest the banks. Student loans are an uncertain business and the repayment mechanism is not secure or efficient. If the banks are to be involved, they will clearly need huge subsidies from the public purse. Sweeteners will be needed to cover interest rate subsidies, default levels and administration costs.
  Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House straight answers to some straight questions? Would the Labour party in government return to a complete grants system? In other words, does the Labour party envisage providing more than £3,000 per year to students? How would the Labour party pay for that? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to comment on the idea of a graduate tax, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has talked about.
  Mr. Davies: The Labour party is engaged in a true consultation exercise: we are listening to what the wider community is saying. Whereas the Government's proposals are being roundly condemned by all relevant interest groups, our policy will be based upon a close appreciation of what will best serve the needs of education.
  The legislation represents the Government's attempted solution and they are legislating in haste before they have concluded negotiations with the private sector. Can the Minister advance the name of any financial institution that is prepared to sign on the dotted line? If that is asking too much, can he name anyone who favours the proposals? I believe that he cannot, but perhaps the Minister will address those issues, and fill some of the gaps in his original contribution, if he seeks leave to wind up the debate.
  The Minister wants Parliament to issue a blank cheque. The Government need something to interest the private sector as they have placed themselves at a disadvantage at the negotiating table. The Bill is already before the Parliament and, therefore, the Government have made a commitment to a policy that the private sector must underwrite.
  The Minister claimed that his proposals will provide students with a choice. That should warm the hearts of Tory Back Benchers: a privatisation measure involving additional choice. Can one doubt that they will rush uniformly into the Division Lobby? However, if they ponder the facts, they will find that the measure will not give students a choice. The terms of the loan will remain basically the same. Students will have no effective choice—in fact, they will be placed at a disadvantage. The draft tender document suggests that the banks will be able to pick and choose to whom they will lend. They may even choose to negotiate a shorter repayment period. The banks can tie a bigger millstone around students' necks and the Government will call it choice.
  Mr. Brandreth: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman praise the notion of choice. In political terms, the electorate is faced with a choice. It is clear what the Government are setting out: £4.7 billion per year to be
  956
  spent on our colleges and universities and a student loans scheme with extended opportunities. However, the hon. Gentleman has not made clear the Labour party's policy. Would £4.7 billion be sufficient? Would there be more money and, if so, how much more? What is Labour's specific proposal? The hon. Gentleman says that he likes choice; perhaps he can put a choice before those who are listening to the debate.
  Mr. Davies: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has intervened in my speech for a second time, as it is his last chance before tomorrow's Budget Speech to give the Chancellor some idea of where the nation's priorities should lie. He makes yet another attempt to cull from Labour answers to questions that the Government are manifestly failing to answer effectively.
  As to the issue of choice for students, do the Government suggest that students will have real negotiating power when applying for loans from banks? How can a student, who is facing real hardship and who has no parental support to call upon, dictate terms to a major clearing bank? The idea is laughable. If the Government have their way, it is the banks that will choose. They will pick and choose between students. They will ask students questions such as, "What do your parents do and what do they earn? What degree are you doing? What career are you hoping to pursue?"
  The Bill will create a two-tier system whereby well-off students and those with particularly good prospects will go to the banks and the rest will go to the Student Loans Company, which will be left to carry worsening default levels on its loans.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I am still rather puzzled. I do not blame the Opposition for not saying what they are in favour of, but I cannot work out what they oppose. Do they oppose student loans in principle, or the proposed mechanics of delivering those loans?
  Mr. Davies: We oppose the proposals in the Bill, and that is why I shall ask hon. Members to vote against the Bill at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate. I am outlining why the Bill will not offer choice to students, will not create increased opportunities and will certainly damage those students who are less well off. Under a guise of choice, the Student Loans Company will become the lender of last resort. The Bill will do nothing to alleviate student hardship.
  The Minister does not seem to recognise the hardship that many students face today. He said that he meets with students in bars—and presumably he drinks at their expense because he suggested that students are rather lavish with their resources. It may simply be that they are excessively generous—even to Ministers who are not concerned about their real needs.
  When the Minister visits universities, does he not talk to those who distribute hardship funds? Does he not talk to ordinary students who are trying, for example, to cope with the fact that residential costs at many of our universities exceed the grant that the Government advance to students? I suggest that the Minister be a little less selective about the places where he meets students. When students are in a less generous mood and not so involved in socializing—which he seems to encourage from time to time—they will tell him a few home truths.

  957
  We must recognise the worrying signs, such as the increasing drop-out rates at British universities. In some cases, full-time students have become part-time students. Lecturers and students will confirm the extent to which students are working part time while studying.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman reluctant to explain his own party's policy on student maintenance simply because it has no policies? Is the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) once again in the unhappy position of being sat upon by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Bill was introduced by the Government whom he supports and that it is the issue on which we shall reach judgment this evening. He should also recognise that the Government are involved in an extensive consultation exercise on higher education. Why are they rushing to implement one particular measure when a whole range of higher education issues are part of a national debate to which the Labour party is proud to make a significant contribution? We shall continue to do so and we shall produce our policy in our own good time.
  The Minister does not need to await the outcome of such a consultation process because his mind is made up, whatever anybody else has to say. In a modern democracy, an Opposition party shortly to take up the responsibility of government must adopt a different approach.
  The Government have also withdrawn a whole range of student benefit entitlements. This year, they have cut the grant and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has said, they have withdrawn the mature students allowance so that, in the past year, discrete bodies of students have been suffering from policy choices by the Government.
  To cap it all, the Government even overturned a High Court ruling that would have allowed students who temporarily suspend their studies to claim social security benefits. The judge ruled that if students have no entitlement to grants and loans when they temporarily withdraw, they must have some means of support. The Government did not agree and suggested that they should claim discretionary awards. What discretionary awards did they mean? Under the present privations of local government finance, the Government must surely recognise that discretionary awards have all but disappeared.
  The real motive behind the Bill has nothing to do with advancing opportunities in higher education, providing adequate support to students or improving education provision. It is a way to generate public expenditure savings to pay for tax cuts in tomorrow's Budget.
  Instead of seeking to lever in private finance to increase the resources invested in higher education, the Government are simply trying to divest themselves of responsibilities. Absolutely nothing in the Bill or in the Minister's speech suggests that the savings that will accrue from the privatisation of the loans will be used to tackle student hardship or to increase access to higher education. Indeed, we do not even know what the savings will be. How could we?
  The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the arrangements with the private sector and the number of students who choose to take out private sector loans. Will
  958
  the Minister tell the House what savings the Government expect to accrue and how? Will he guarantee that any such savings are destined to go back to higher education?
  It is clear, however, that any savings will be short-term ones. In the long term, any loan scheme should reach equilibrium between inflows and outflows. It is only because the Government's original scheme proved to be such an expensive mistake that they are trying to shuffle it out of the PSBR.
  The chairman of the Conservative party said that the Queen's Speech was intended to smoke out the Opposition, and that is another failure for the Government. Instead of setting out a programme to tackle the huge problems that we face in society, they are merely trying to garner each scrap of political advantage.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Bill does not begin to address the huge global challenge that we face to improve our educational performance. The Bill provides for the privatisation of student maintenance but does nothing at all for education. It does not set out a framework for lifelong learning or for the sustained effort that we shall need to equip our people with skills and abilities for the next century; it merely builds on a scheme that is flawed and failing.
  The Bill offers the Student Loans Company—itself the subject of a great deal of justified criticism—the desperate role of lender of last resort for those whom the banks reject. Far from addressing the acute problems of student hardship and the need to widen opportunity and promote a learning society, the Bill merely saves the Treasury money. It is all about diverting money to the short-term needs of the Tory party's election prospects rather than about long-term investment in our people. The Bill does not smoke out; it fiddles while Rome burns and I ask the House to reject it.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that the House will forgive me if I begin with some ancient history that, I believe, will shed light on this welcome little Bill and provide a necessary introduction to the somewhat futuristic remarks that I intend to make in concluding my speech.
  When I was appointed Minister for Higher Education and Science after the 1987 election, one of my principal tasks was to devise a way of fulfilling the Conservative party's election promise to introduce a system of student loans to compensate for the proposed removal of students' entitlement to social security benefits.
  When I arrived at the Department of Education and Science, some of the groundwork for that policy had been done by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), but his work had reached an impasse because the Treasury took the line that student loans should be introduced with no net increase in public expenditure. As the savings from student disentitlement to social security benefits were worth no more than a couple of hundred million pounds, that would have meant either the provision of student loans at a wholly nugatory level, incapable of justifying the administrative costs, or

  959
  an immediate move to the wholesale replacement of student grants by loans, which would have been hard to achieve politically.
  For tactical reasons, so as to get the discussion going again, I decided to propose a scheme for student loans raised and provided by the private sector. My proposal was based on the premise that it would be possible for the Government to subsidise such private student loans and to treat the risk of default as an insurable risk, with the Government paying all or part of the premium for such insurance. On that basis, the social security savings could be used to pay the premium and to provide the subsidy, leaving the student loans system to be funded by the private sector, thus achieving the Treasury precondition of no net costs to public funds.
  I had a further, strategic, motivation as well as that tactical motivation for proposing a private sector scheme and I shall return to that later. I am glad to say that my proposal had the desired effect of putting the Treasury on the defensive and reopening the blocked discussions.
  Treasury officials had two objections. First, and rather absurdly, they argued that the student loans scheme should be publicly funded because the Government could always borrow more cheaply than the private sector—an argument for replacing all private investment by Government investment and proof of the inherently socialistic tendencies of the Treasury.
  The officials' second line of argument was more interesting and more difficult to address: that even if there were only a small amount of public subsidy and risk insurance guarantee, the volume of funds from the private sector made available as a result of such subsidies and guarantees would necessarily have to count as a contingent liability and as part of public expenditure. That definition was presented as a fundamental proposition of Treasury metaphysics—one of those tablets-of-stone absolutes around which no progress can be made.
  The exchanges gave me the basis for a serious discussion with Treasury Ministers and, after a tête-a-tête with Nigel Lawson, the Treasury gave up its insistence on no net additional cost, thus opening the way to the present student loans scheme, which I believe is currently costing an additional £1.3 billion of public money.
  My purpose in reciting that ancient history is to draw attention to the Treasury doctrine on the way in which private sector funds, guided in a particular direction by public subsidy or risk insurance, should be counted in relation to the public sector borrowing requirement.
  In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister—and I am glad to welcome him to his position—described its purpose as being essentially to introduce an element of competition for the Student Loans Company in the provision of student loans and an element of choice for students. That is certainly very welcome, but I suspect that it looms less large in Treasury thinking than what I understand, reading between the lines, to be a further objective—to shift as much as possible of the burden of financing student loans from the PSBR to the private sector. If I am right in that understanding, it would appear that the Treasury has done some welcome rethinking about the doctrine with which I was confronted as an unrevisable absolute in 1987. I take it that the rethinking that has been occasioned by the private finance initiative
  960
  now leads the Treasury to be prepared to consider as falling outwith the PSBR those funds that are generated from the private sector by an element of public subsidy and public risk guarantee.
  I do not propose to press my right hon. and hon. Friends for further illumination on that point, but I guess that the critical issues will be the amount of the subsidy and the extent to which the risks will be shared. The danger will be that the Treasury's terms will be such that private operators simply will not take up the opportunities presented to them by the scheme. However, I want to stress that if the Treasury's thinking has indeed moved in that direction, whatever difficulties there may be at the start of the new scheme, it is good news and, in particular, it is good news for the universities. At first blush the universities may not recognise that, so I want to explain why I think that it is, in what some will no doubt regard as a futuristic account of the way in which I believe policy in these matters should develop in future.
  I mentioned that I had a strategic as well as a tactical reason for trying, back in 1987, to press the case for a private sector student loans scheme. I promised to say more about that. My strategic concern was to promote the autonomy of the universities and to reduce the extent of their financial dependence on the state. It is a concern that I believe should be central to our higher education policies. I very much regret that it is a concern that is honoured rather by lip service from the Government, from the different parties in the House and, I sometimes think, even from the universities themselves.
  I shall briefly state why I consider the financial autonomy of the universities to be important and then go on to show the link between that concern and the question of private sector loans to students. When the Government provided a measure of temporary financial support for the universities after the first world war, administered by a temporary University Grants Committee, they inadvertently laid the basis for the nationalisation of higher education. Over the years, we have reached a position where higher education costs the taxpayer some £8.5 billion a year—2.5 per cent. of total public expenditure.
  In legal form our universities continue to be private corporations, but the reality of power in higher education is that the balance between the autonomy of universities and their role as the agents of Government policy has shifted steadily—and, in recent years, dramatically—against the principle of university autonomy. After a brief period during which the uncapped fee funding system, which I promoted within government, restored to universities their freedom to determine their recruitment policies, the overall size of each university is again effectively determined by Government agencies—the higher education funding councils—which fix the price that will be paid on behalf of each student and cap the level of student numbers from the United Kingdom and the European Union in each institution.
  I am delighted that another policy that I introduced has survived in better shape—the separation of research funding from the funds for teaching and the more selective allocation of funds for research. That gives freedom to the universities to improve their research income from Government sources by improving their research performance. However, despite such welcome shifts, in general, over the years, the whole relationship between Government and the universities has become

  961
  more and more bureaucratic, more and more impersonal, less and less flexible and less and less supportive of the idea of university self-government and self-direction.
  Mr. Forth: I am following my hon. Friend's well-thought-out and erudite analysis—as ever—closely and with fascination. I wonder whether he means to suggest to the House that, over a period of time, the Government have in any way transgressed on higher education's traditional academic freedom as opposed to the financial relationship between the taxpayer, through the Government, and universities. Or does he feel that the increasing attraction of private sector money—a very successful trend recently—ameliorates the process that he has described?
  Mr. Jackson: It is my argument that there should be a great deal more private funding for universities and I shall develop that point later. It is a profound mistake to think that there is no connection between funding arrangements and academic freedom—they go hand in hand. Although there is no desire, will or evidence of any policy to infringe academic freedom, the fact is that the conditions in which academic freedom could be infringed are steadily being created by the nationalisation of higher education that I have been describing. We should do something about that. I believe that in the process of the bureaucratisation of the nationalised system of higher education, values of intellectual independence and academic responsibility, which are central to liberal higher education, are increasingly at risk.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Will the hon. Gentleman extrapolate from what he has just said, and comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) said—that the banks that will administer the loans will have a say in the courses to which they prefer to give awards? Would not that be an infringement of the liberal education that he is espousing, and with which I agree?
  Mr. Jackson: To the extent that there is a reliance on private sector funding, all sorts of influences will certainly come from the prívate sector. If a higher education system is funded from a variety of different sources, public and private, and those private sources are in turn diversified, the conditions for autonomy are maximised. What is undesirable is for the university institutions to be exclusively dependent on one source of funding—the Government. That is what I am arguing against.
  The universities, faced by that position, have tended to cling to traditional constitutional and legal formulae to protect their position. It is time that they recognised that their approach is obsolete. It worked for half a century in the era of the University Grants Committee, when the size of higher education—and therefore the cost to the taxpayer—was still quite small. The growth of state spending on higher education to its present volume and the development in Whitehall of a less discriminating and more unsympathetic approach to accountability have simply made the old cosy structures unviable—the old system of lunches in the Athenaeum. The best way—I now believe the only way—for university autonomy to be secured is for the universities to acquire a substantial flow of income that is essentially independent of the state. I emphasise that by this I do not mean that I believe that the whole of the present taxpayer subsidy could or should be replaced from private sources, but rather, as with the
  962
  American public university system, that there should be a partnership between public and private funding, with private funding at a level sufficient to give the universities the critical extra margin of financial manoeuvre necessary to safeguard their autonomy.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sort of funding system that he is advocating would also lead to a revolution in academic salaries, which we really need in this country if we are to continue to attract the best and the brightest in university teaching and research?
  Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most serious social trends in society over the past 20 years has been the pauperisation of the academic profession, which has profound implications for the future of our country. I believe that one of the causes of that pauperisation has been the nationalised bureaucratic system in higher education, which I am criticising.
  Before I go on to explain how I think we could get that extra margin of manoeuvre for universities by using the mechanisms provided in the Bill—I am coming back to the Bill—let me say why I believe that objective should commend itself to all hon. Members.
  One of the great themes in the constitutional debate that is increasingly at the centre of British politics is the desirability of greater decentralisation in Britain. This is not just a question of devolution to Scotland and Wales or of the relations between central and local government. The Government and the Opposition need to think deeply about the relationship between the institutions of national government in Whitehall and Westminster and the whole range of non-governmental institutions that make up the fabric of our society and our culture.
  If the Government and the Opposition are serious about decentralisation, we have to think about how to restore powers not only to local government but to institutions such as universities, which have recently seen their autonomy and their capacity for self-determination increasingly eroded.
  To my own party I would say that I have never understood how the creeping nationalisation of our universities, which we have promoted, can be consistent with any recognisable Tory philosophy. To new Labour I would say—
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Mr. Jackson: I want to finish this point. To the new Labour party—the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is old Labour—I would say that I do not understand how sustaining and deepening the nationalisation of the universities is consistent with its new thinking about the need for a more decentralised political and civil society with greater scope and initiative for communities of which the universities are, or should be, a primordial instance.
  Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member feels that way, why did he usher through the House the original student loan scheme? According to his philosophy, that scheme was presumably a nationalised, centralised loan scheme, which is now being altered by the Bill.
  Mr. Jackson: It was not the student loan scheme that I wanted. We wanted a loan scheme run by the banks, and it would have been much better if they had played the game and gone along with it. The principle of the student

  963
  loan scheme, for reasons that I will show, is absolutely fundamental to the whole project of achieving greater autonomy for universities and greater decentralisation in higher education.
  I shall assume that I have carried the House at least part of the way with these philosophical considerations about the need for decentralisation and university autonomy that I have outlined. My argument is that greater independence for universities cannot be secured by constitutional and legal devices alone, and that the best way to secure that greater independence is by giving them an independent source of funding. In my view—this is the answer to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire—fee income from students, supported by loans financed against their future income, is the only way to provide such significant independent financial resources for universities; and that brings me back to this little Bill.
  A major defect in the Bill is that it does not address the central defect of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990—against which I fought tooth and nail when I was a Minister but lost—by which the student loans scheme is limited to the provision of loans to support student maintenance only. The 1990 Act must be amended, perhaps by this Bill, to enable loans to be advanced to students to pay the fees charged by universities. Nevertheless, what is positive and significant about this Bill is that it opens the door to loans being advanced to students with private money and by the private sector. Let me explain why I think that is so important.
  Even if the 1990 Act were amended to enable loans to be provided to pay fees, so long as the money being used to finance the loans was coming from the Treasury and counted against the PSBR, the Government would have a legitimate interest in limiting the overall funding provided for loans against fees. Because of the way things are in Whitehall and, indeed, in Parliament, that could all too easily turn into a Government policy on the size and shape of fees charged by universities. In that way, the top-up private fees would be not the instrument of the greater university autonomy which we should all be seeking but an instrument for a further extension of Government control of universities.
  If, however, the loans to pay the fees were to come from the private sector, there could be no justification for the Government determining the fees policy of the universities, which would be private institutions deciding for themselves the terms and conditions on which they admitted their students. The strategic thought behind my initial proposal for a private sector loan scheme, which I described earlier, was precisely to give the universities that greater freedom. Although that thought came to nothing in 1987, I regard the Bill, and the relaxation of Treasury doctrine that it implies, as marking a potential step in what I consider to be fundamentally the right direction.
  I believe that the Labour party is trying seriously to break away from its old image as the tax-and-spend party. In due course, that will oblige it to think more seriously about how the burden of public expenditure can be not only contained but reduced or more equitably distributed. I noted that the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) referred to the fact that so many students come from privileged backgrounds. He might like to reflect on the equity of the distributional effects
  964
  that that fact poses. Meanwhile, against all its instincts and traditions, my party, in government, has been operating as a high-tax and high-spend party, but the debate is becoming increasingly serious.
  Among the one-nation Tories—among whom I count myself—I notice that no less a figure than the Governor of Hong Kong has been pointing to the difference between the levels of public expenditure in the United States and Japan as compared with Europe, including Britain, and suggesting that there may be some connection between their lower levels of public spending and taxation and their greater competitiveness. The Prime Minister has recently made the same point. Can the new Labour party be far behind? I hope—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that, having asked himself that question, the hon. Gentleman will revert to the Bill.
  Mr. Jackson: I was about to do so and to conclude my speech. I hope that the Opposition are increasingly in a mood to recognise the force of the arguments about public expenditure.
  If we are to reduce the burden of taxation and the level of public expenditure and bring them even part of the way towards the levels prevailing in the United States and Japan, it would be disastrous to do so merely by spending less on the public sector in its present shape. The result would be an unacceptable degradation in the quality of all collectively provided goods. Instead, we have to reconsider—in Europe and in Britain—which goods are collectively provided in the public sector as compared with the United States and Japan. On such a comparative list, higher education bulks large at 2.5 per cent. of public expenditure.
  The United States and Japan both operate the kind of partnership system between private and public interests in higher education that I am advocating. Both have large private universities where full-cost fees are paid by students, and they include, in the United States, some of the best universities in the world. In addition, both have a huge network of public higher education institutions that are partly funded by private student fees. Incidentally, both countries have a higher proportion of their population passing through higher education than we do in Europe, combined with greater participation in higher education by people from relatively unprivileged social backgrounds.
  We cannot continue with the present policy of maintaining higher education as a state responsibility while seeking to reduce the burden of taxation and public borrowing in the direction of American and Japanese levels. Under the present policy, the only way to square the circle is systematically to degrade the quality of a university system that is exclusively dependent on public funds. That would be a profound mistake, which could lead only to the progressive dismantling of one of our greatest achievements as a country, which is the culture in our institutions of higher learning.
  The way out of the trap is outlined in the Bill—a private sector loan scheme, which, I believe, should be extended to cover fees. I am therefore happy to support the Bill as another modest step down a road that I hope we shall all agree to take in due course.
  5. 38 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is always interesting on education. I am somewhat astonished, however, at his surprise at the Government's centralisation. He may remember saying that the possibility of students paying back student loans through the national insurance system was
  "a very remote mechanism."
  He continued:
  "If we employ it, the fact of an obligation to repay something of the costs of undertaking their studies will tend to escape the attention of the student. But is this desirable?"—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 449.]
  With that rhetorical question, the idea of payback through the national insurance system was dismissed. Had that question been considered at the time or since, many of the problems that I want briefly to address might have been solved.
  It is also interesting to note that, in almost every other field, making borrowing easier and smoother for people seems to be the order of the day, whereas the hon. Member for Wantage seems to think that it ought to be made more difficult, in order—no doubt—to teach students the cost of everything.
  The Bill is shabby and open-ended, and it demonstrates that the Government have no strategy for higher education—or further education for that matter—beyond cramming in larger numbers at lower unit cost. Student financial support should be straightforward. It should be adequate and available promptly, and should bear in mind the desperate need of the country to engage with three key needs concerning higher education. They are: the need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) has said, for more students from low-income backgrounds; the need for more students from groups which are not traditionally users—or are under-users—of higher education; and the need to help part-time adult students, who I believe, subject to correction by the Minister, are ruled out of the proposal. The Bill does none of those things. Indeed, its consequences might well worsen the situation.
  At present, many students are struggling to balance a grant, which has been systematically reduced in level and availability over the past few years; access funds, which most students clearly consider a joke; Student Loans Company loans, which were in utter chaos last year and are—fortunately—slightly better now; parental contributions; part-time employment, which is needed by an increasing number; bank overdrafts, which many students have; and, for some, problems with grant cuts following semesterisation, when many authorities reduced grants, thinking of the semester as an old-fashioned term.
  This new Government wheeze merely adds to the confusion rather than simplifying matters. My daughter, who started university this term, is, like many others, spending a great deal of her time and energy juggling her funding, and slowly embracing the virtues of debt when she does not have to. The advice from tutors at her university, like that from tutors at most universities and colleges, is to go for the loan whether it is wanted or not.
  Although evidence is anecdotal, it may well be the case that students from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to take up loans at lower rates of interest, when—
  966
  perhaps—they do not really need them. Students from many low-income homes often have a lively appreciation of the horrors of debt, especially since they face a future full of employment uncertainty.
  Some undergraduates I know are taking out loans which they do not need at present, and are putting them into bank accounts where they earn a little interest, in order to save for a postgraduate course for which they otherwise would not be funded—whether they get on to that course eventually is another matter. Others, perhaps, put the loans aside for rather less admirable purposes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton referred to Christopher Johnson, the chief economic adviser to Lloyds Bank plc, who advised the banks when the student loans scheme was introduced to have nothing to do with it, which of course they did not. I, too, read the article in The Times Higher Education Supplement last week. I shall not repeat the quotation cited by my hon. Friend, as he has already put it on record, but will add to it. Mr. Johnson also described the Bill as "timid, incremental thinking", which sums it up.
  Indeed, a whole string of bankers and representatives from building societies have said that, as far as they can see at the moment, they want nothing to do with the Bill. Sir Eric Ash, the acting chief executive of the Student Loans Company, raised the question of choice, of which the Minister made a great deal. Sir Eric said:
  "the idea that this Bill introduces choice I think isn't worth examining".
  Mr. Forth: Rather than just quoting Sir Eric with—presumably—approval, as if that were the end of the matter, will the hon. Gentleman expand on why he thinks that that comment was correct?
  Mr. Pickthall: If the terms and conditions of loans are more or less the same, if the same people are going for the same sorts of loan, if the eventual funding provided by Government for the interest and the fall-out, and so forth, is the same, the choice is immaterial. One can go to the Student Loans Company, or one can go to one bank or another in the scheme, but the situation is still about the same for the student. There might be a marginal difference between one and the next—
  Mr. Hall: There will not be any difference.
  Mr. Pickthall: My hon. Friend says that there will not be any difference—perhaps that is not so. Clearly, however, there will be little difference.
  It is clear that the student grant has deteriorated so dramatically over the past decade, coinciding with the increase in student numbers, that it will not be possible to restore grant levels to what they were 10 years ago. A loans or repayment system is therefore inevitable. However, that should not mean that Parliament should give the Secretary of State a blank cheque, as this Bill does, or that Parliament should ignore the impact on students in later life when they come to repay the loans.
  One reason for the Bill may lie in the philosophy of the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). He said that the fundamental reason for the introduction of student loans was that top-up loans would
  "secure changes in student attitudes".
  He thought that they would get rid of students'

  967
  "sense of dependency on the state",
  and would promote
  "a proper sense of self-reliance and responsibility."—[Official Report, 20 November 1989; Vol. 158, c. 381.]
  That is social engineering. It is saying that the purpose of loans is to cause problems with repayments. But loans also increase the level of debt among students, especially among those who perhaps do not need to incur it. The Government seem to have espoused in their loans system—and are espousing again in the Bill—a social corrective in the form of the discipline of debt exercised on students as they leave universities. Of course, the only real reason for this extraordinary exercise must be to massage the public sector borrowing requirement, regardless of whether the institutions later take up the Government scheme.
  Presuming, however, that the institutions do take up the scheme because the bribes—subsidies, sorry—from the public purse are sufficient, a number of questions need to be addressed, and must be addressed at this stage. First, will the direct debiting for the recall of the debt be limited to one account, as is the case with the Student Loans Company? Will the banks or other institutions involved be able to sell on the debt or move it about among their partners and their subsidiaries? Will the students be guaranteed that they can always go to the same account in the same bank to service that debt?
  Will students who fall behind in payments find themselves being blacklisted by the creditworthiness system, so that they cannot take part in other activities, such as mortgage borrowing? I note that the schedule would prevent the selling of information about student loans for purposes such as junk mail or approaches from other companies, but I can detect no provision to prevent the misuse of information about students and their loans, which could affect their financial lives generally.
  What are the implications for student borrowers of the link-ups and takeovers of banks and insurance companies? Barring crises and scandals, most people are reluctant to change banks during their lifetime as earners. The banks know that, and are anxious to secure students, as potentially stable if not necessarily high earners. Banks have always been anxious to attract undergraduates, not to alienate them.
  I do not suppose that I am untypical in having opened a bank account for the first time with my first grant cheque. I opened an account in 1963—I shudder to think how long ago that was—and, despite quarrels with my bank, I have remained with it ever since. Clearly, banks are likely to be reluctant to tangle with potentially useful customers, just as students will be reluctant to risk their financial good name.
  Banks will also be aware of the possibility of exercising discrimination which could give rise to bad relations with students. There could be discrimination in terms of the subject being pursued. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said, there could be discrimination in terms of the stability of the student's family background and in terms of what sort of person banks judge him or her to he. They could discriminate in terms of interest. rates, as well.
  968
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton has made the case against this poor Bill very strongly. I add some thoughts about what the Bill could and should be doing. The Government should look at a payback system which is related to the ability to pay and which comes not through the mortgage-style system, as it has been dubbed, but through national insurance or the tax system.
  The Government should not encourage the take-up of debt; students should go into debt only when it is essential for their needs. The Government should try to stabilise the grant element, rather than switching student income to loans, year by year. They should address the problem of funding postgraduate studies and the problem of funding part-time adult students—those that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) mentioned, who want to get into higher education for the first time at the age of 50-plus. I have taught many such students in my time, and I found them some of the most exciting and interesting people in higher education. Although their working life afterwards may be fairly brief, they have a tremendous amount to contribute to this country.
  Better still, the Government should initiate, as we have, a wide-ranging consultation on the funding of students. They should especially look at the funding of further education students, who are definitely the poor relations of the education system. FE students should not have to rely on discretionary awards, which are under intense pressure as a result of local government cuts year on year. The position will become worse if the Chancellor pays for his income tax cuts tomorrow by further huge raids on local government finance, as has been widely trailed in the press.
  The changes in student and in institutional funding over the past decade have, willy-nilly, changed the whole ethos of higher education; that disturbs me perhaps more than anything else. I hate to sound as though I am talking about the good old days; I am not. I realise that old days, when old, are good. However, 20 years ago, there was an assumption that term time for a student was for exposure to ideas, for debate, for research, for analysis, for the production of assignments and for feedback from tutors and teachers. That was intended to lead to the creation of a cultured and rounded intellect.
  Vacations were partly for work, to earn extra cash; in those days, part-time and temporary work was readily available. Vacations were also for an intensive slog on the subject matter and for research on dissertations. They were for wider and more intensive reading than there was time for in the day-to-day graft of the university or college term. All that has changed, not just because of lower funding and not just because of loans, but because of modular structures and semesterisation.
  The struggle to keep heads above water financially by individual students and by the institutions is wearing away the learning process. Most students have to be turned round in less time and with fewer resources. The time for the production of assignments and for proper feedback on them has been eroded on many courses. Students complain, as they did not do a decade ago, that one assignment pounds on the heels of another, then another, then another.
  Anxiety about having the cash to live a decent if frugal life, with far fewer opportunities to earn cash in the vacations, is forcing more students to moonlight, with a

  969
  palpable effect on their ability to study. As a tutor in higher education before coming to this place, I watched that process with dismay. It has been confirmed by research at Oxford Brookes university, which estimates that 250 graduates each year gain a class lower in their degree than would have been the case if they had not had to work in the evenings. I know students who work night shifts, to pay their way, and who then go to college in the day. In some cases—I do not want to over-generalise—standards are declining because of all those factors, which sometimes leads to adjustments in the way in which final grades are put together.
  Higher education and individual students are infinitely adaptable, but they can adapt only so far before a decline becomes palpable and unstoppable. The Bill does nothing to address that trend, and it will almost certainly worsen the situation.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: What was interesting about the speech by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) was that he actually put forward a policy, in marked contrast to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies). After 16 years of deep thought and consideration, his policy is to say that the issues are complex. We all know that they are complex, but that hardly amounts to a policy. He was unable to tell the House whether a Labour Government would increase, maintain or reduce the total level of expenditure on higher education funding. He was unable to give the House any indication whether the Labour party in government would favour the continuation of a loan scheme, would abolish the loan scheme, would extend the loan scheme, or would bring in a graduate tax.
  The hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton and for West Lancashire both said that they opposed the Bill. I am not yet entirely clear why. This is an extremely modest Bill. No bank or building society is forced to do anything. No student will be forced to do anything that he or she does not wish to do.
  Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton in his continuing consultation process by reminding him and the House of the essential case for student loans. It is really quite simple; higher education usually benefits society—although not when a student leaves the country—but it also benefits the student himself directly.
  Suppose we take two 17-year-olds, one of whom—let us call him Algernon—wants to be a Labour Member of Parliament. The other, his friend Fred, wants to be a garage mechanic and owner. Under a grant system, Algernon does the obvious thing: he goes to college or university to study politics, philosophy and economics, or sociology. He then goes to London, rents a flat in Islington—to ensure that his career prospects are as bright as possible—and becomes a Labour Member of Parliament.
  Fred, meanwhile, becomes a successful garage mechanic and owner. I wish to be charitable, and I will not differentiate between the benefits to society as a whole of Labour Members of Parliament and garage mechanics. Let us assume that both benefit society. But under a grant system, what in effect happens is that Fred subsidises Algernon through his tax payments. There is no social 239912 Q
  970
  justice in that, and that is why I believe that there is a strong social justice argument for a loan element within the provision of finance for those in higher education.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is a strong social justice argument for reducing the grant from £1,795 in 1993 to £1,257 in the next financial year? Have any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents complained to him that student grants are exorbitantly high? None of my constituents has done so.
  Mr. Stewart: The point is that the Government have made it clear that they are aiming for a balance between the grant element and the loan element. Recent figures show that the average income of students with loans in 1992–93 was 31 per cent. up on the figure for 1988–89.
  The Bill follows the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. I was a member of the Committee which discussed the Bill, and I recall the arguments that were put again and again to the Committee. Student loans, we were told, would limit access, and would lead to lower numbers of entrants into higher education. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has pointed out, the reverse is true. There have been steady increases in student numbers, both north and south of the border.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the past difficulties of the Student Loans Company, and have stated—rightly and properly—that they believe that the problems are behind the company, which is located in Glasgow. I believe that that is the case, and I pay tribute to the staff working in the Student Loans Company, who have worked extremely hard.
  The advantages to the student of the involvement of the banks and building societies in the loans system come from their branch networks and the possibility that the involvement of a bank gives a student to develop a relationship with a particular branch of a bank. That is an important potential benefit to students.
  The House will be aware that the proportion of people participating in higher education in Scotland is higher than south of the border. It is therefore particularly important that Scottish banks, which have a well-developed branch network, are involved. I end by asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State for an assurance that he will bear in mind the special needs of Scotland, and that he will do everything possible to involve one or more of the Scottish financial institutions in the scheme when it is up and running.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: A few minutes ago, we heard a thoughtful and provocative speech from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), and I had considerable sympathy with a number of his remarks. I certainly share his view about the need to reinvigorate the powers of local government, and I accept his argument about the need for a redefinition of the public sector borrowing requirement. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised that I agree that there should be no objection in principle to transferring some of the public debt and some of the risk-taking to the private sector. I do not object to the Bill from those particular points of view.
  My objections to the Bill are rather that it fails to address the problems of student poverty and hardship, and fails to address the problems with the current procedures

  971
  for supporting students. The Bill does not even begin to acknowledge the concerns which have been expressed during the limited and somewhat desultory consultation process that is going on at present. The Bill simply tinkers around the edges without addressing the key issues affecting students and the higher education system today. Those problems are leading to a significant reduction in the quality of higher education provision.
  That students are facing growing problems cannot be in doubt, and I hope to have an opportunity to discuss some of those points in more detail later tonight in the Adjournment debate. The problems centre on the growing level of student hardship and poverty, evidence of which is illustrated by the huge increase in the number of students suffering from stress—largely through financial worries—and seeking counselling and medical support. There has also been a huge increase in the number of students applying for access funds, designed for students with severe hardship problems.
  The growth in the large number of students taking on term-time jobs has been mentioned and, sadly, the proportion of students dropping out of their courses and citing financial hardship as the main cause has grown to one in eight. All of those problems are, in part, responsible for the real concerns about the ability of students to gain the maximum benefit from their studies.
  My biggest concern is the Minister's inability to respond to a number of points put to him during the debate. The Minister cannot begin to understand the problems of student hardship if he does not even know whether the Bill is, for example, designed to address the problems faced by part-time students. When the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) raised a real concern about intercalating students, the Minister said that he would have to go away and look the matter up. When the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) asked about the level of access funds, the Minister appeared not to know whether anything could be done about them.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is exhibiting the charming naivety of those who have been in the political wilderness for many decades, but I do not hold that against him. The hon. Gentleman should think for a moment about the points he has made rather quickly. I replied to the questions by saying that they could be taken account of only against a background of the Government either redistributing the existing amount of money available in higher education or finding more. Before the hon. Gentleman says that his party would find more money for education generally—as I suspect he will in response to that point—will he tell us the amounts of money that he would allocate to pre-fives, higher education, school buildings and other matters, rather than skating over that as he usually does?
  Mr. Foster: The Minister is right to say that he raised that particular point. My point about the Minister's response to his hon. Friends' questions is that in most cases he said that he did not know the answer and would have to take advice. He said that he would tell us later in the debate. A Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box without knowing whether his Bill will help or not help students studying part time or students who are
  972
  intercalating has real problems with his Bill. I look forward to hearing his reply. I hope that people in the Box are preparing responses for him.
  The Minister asks for a detailed breakdown of the finances of our proposals to provide more money for higher education. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went into detail. In fairness to the Minister, I promise that the detailed document that has been prepared will be in the post to him tomorrow morning for him to study. I also promise to send him, before he asks for it, a copy of our detailed consultation document on the future of higher education and how we would go about dealing with the. very problems that we are discussing tonight. Both documents will be in the post to the Minister tomorrow, so he does not have to ask that additional question.
  Mr. Forth: Along with the cheque.
  Mr. Foster: We will explain where the finance will come from. I shall return to whether the Minister can say where the cheque will come from at the end of my speech.
  The problems that are not dealt with by the Bill lie in the current system of support that is on offer. All that the Bill does is transfer the same flawed system into the private sector. No one can deny that the Student Loans Company has had its problems in recent times. Those problems have been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Reference has been made to the National Audit Office report. I will not repeat those points, but it is worth reflecting that even the Student Loans Company's own annual report published last week acknowledged what it described as unacceptable deficiencies in performance. Like the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), I acknowledge that the company is now making an effort to resolve those difficulties. It is worth reflecting on what the acting chief executive has said about the Government's proposals. He has suggested that if the proposals go ahead, they will create further problems for the Student Loans Company. He fears that its unit costs will rise and that the company will end up playing the role of safety net for the banks.
  It is perhaps also worth reflecting that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which incidentally was not consulted about the proposals, is worried about simply transferring the current system to the private sector. While there are flaws in the mechanics of the current system, there are also flaws in the underlying principles. Those flaws will continue under the proposals.
  The current approach to student support is neither equitable nor secure. To gain the confidence of all involved, a system of loans must be fair to the borrowers and secure for lenders. If the proposals had met those requirements, I might have had greater sympathy with them. Equity and security could have been achieved, for example, by basing repayments more closely on the ability to pay, using the national insurance system as the basis for collection. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that repayment through national insurance would have the lowest default rate of all repayment systems, even for the self-employed. Therefore, I am sure that the House would be interested to hear from the Minister whether, in developing the proposals, his Department asked the Contributions Agency to assess the feasibility and cost of using national insurance for collecting student loans for both the Student Loans

  973
  Company and the envisaged private sector schemes. If it did, what costs were quoted in cash terms and as a percentage of the total cost of running the social security deductions scheme?
  In view of the problems with equity and security, it is hardly surprising that banks and building societies showed reluctance the last time that they were invited to join in such a scheme. Therefore, I shall be surprised if many are interested this time round.
  The Government got the students loans system wrong last time. They are getting it wrong again. If we agree to the Bill, we agree to ignore the problems of student hardship and the huge deficiencies in the current scheme. The Government have not even worked out the details of their proposals. They have no idea who within the private sector will come forward and how much they will demand. So we are being asked to write a blank cheque for the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood described the Bill as modest. He was right. It has much to be modest about. It certainly does not deserve a Second Reading.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I shall follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in arguing that the greatest difficulty with the Bill is that it does nothing to deal with the problems of the current student loans scheme. It will do nothing but exacerbate the problems of real student hardship.
  I am privileged to be the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, Central, the constituency in which Cardiff university is based. In the past few years it has expanded the number of its students to about 13,500, the majority of whom live in my constituency. I believe that that gives me the honour and privilege of representing more students than any other Member of Parliament.
  The increase in student numbers in the university that I represent, and in others throughout the country, has been general during the past decade. I acknowledge that the vast increase in student numbers means that we must reconsider the way in which we fund higher education. It is no longer practical to fund students in the same way as they were funded a decade ago, or even two decades ago when I was a student. However, the current arrangements place thousands of young, and sometimes not so young, people in real hardship. The value of their grants declined by 24 per cent. in the 1980s and now reaches only 18 per cent. of average earnings.
  Not satisfied with reneging on their promise to freeze the grant until loans were at a comparable rate, the Government began in 1993 the process of cutting grants by 10 per cent. a year each year and projected on to the next year, until the loan levels reached the same as grant levels. The Bill does nothing to tackle existing problems. Student hardship is widespread. Drop-out rates are increasing and student indebtedness to friends, family and banks is at an all-time high.
  The situation for mature students is particularly bad. They often have extensive financial responsibilities to their families. They often have mortgages and so on. They found student finances hard enough without the Treasury-led cut in the mature students allowance introduced this year. Well above half of full-time students
  974
  have to get a job in term time to supplement their income. There is strong evidence that the extra demands on their time impact on their studies.
  In the long summer holiday, students have no grant to cover them, but they no longer have the traditional safety net of benefits. They have to struggle through the vacation and try to get a job in the season when the market is flooded with school leavers also looking for jobs.
  Last year we saw a fiasco when the Student Loans Company tried to introduce a fast-track renewal system for repeat loans. The forms were sent to students' term-time addresses over the summer. Of course, students move house every year. Most of them go home for the summer.
  The result was absolute chaos, with only 19 per cent. of the applications sent out being processed by the start of term. Thousands of students were left without their loans and several who had still not managed to get their grant by Christmas came to my surgery. Because of the number of students involved and the limited number of telephone lines, it was nigh on impossible for anyone to get through, including the students union welfare officers who were trying to help. I got through and sorted out some of the cases only because I managed to find an internal number.
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals noted that about 40,000 students left their courses during 1992–93, which is a rise of 25 per cent. over the previous year. Some may return later, but that represents a 5 per cent. drop-out rate in the total student population. Although 15,000 may have left for academic reasons, 25,000 left for other reasons—a growth of 30 per cent. in one year, which is twice the rate of growth in student numbers. Although there cannot be any accurate data to calculate what percentage was due to financial hardship, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that financial difficulties are responsible for much of that increase.
  Many students turn to part-time work to see them through. In Cardiff, students run job clubs, which help to get students through when they cannot afford to do it any other way. I am sure that that work interferes with their studies. We have heard of students who have to work night shifts to get through. Even the Government party admits that the loans scheme is not working. In one document, it was suggested that the current loans scheme is highly inefficient, unlikely ever to recover its original investment and in danger of collapse.
  Perhaps it is with that in mind that the Government have introduced their latest idea and intend to run down the loans company and get the banks to take over completely. Making graduates pay back loans over a fixed five-year period when they start to earn 85 per cent. of average earnings is extremely problematic and acts as a disincentive for students to take up the loans, hence the low take-up in the first few years of operation. Present take-up is much higher, but that is an indication of necessity and desperation on the part of students.
  The organisation of the loans company has been appalling. Last year, it was a total shambles. So much so, that the chief executive was sacked in March. Eight months later, however, a new chief executive has not been appointed, although I believe that an appointment is imminent.
  Mr. Forth indicated assent.
  Mr. Jones: I am glad that that is the case.

  975
  The great concern about these proposals is that they would create a two-tier system, with the banks creaming off the good prospects and others having lesser access to funds.
  The Government's attitude to student funding is certainly questionable, as has been shown by a Tory think-tank document featured in The Times Higher Education Supplement a few weeks ago, which the Secretary of State was said to be considering. It stated:
  "Student numbers should be free to find their own levels with students making more rational choices about the benefits of higher education, as they bear a greater proportion of the cost."
  That statement is not about choice, but about voluntary selection on the basis of wealth.
  We oppose the Bill and will vote against it because it makes no provision for measures to improve access to higher or further education. It does not help to secure greater social equity in participation or alleviate student hardship. The present student loans scheme is inefficient and places graduates under a considerable burden of repayment at the start of their careers. Those flaws will be maintained under the provisions of the Bill, which is divisive and ill considered.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider the chaos of the present system and realise that, as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, this Bill is very modest. It will do nothing to answer the serious hardship that exists.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) was long on criticism, but short on any prescription for what he and his colleagues would suggest to replace the student loans scheme, which they apparently find so unsatisfactory.
  In my brief contribution I want to welcome this brief Bill, which seems straightforward, sensible and simply designed to enable students to take out private subsidised loans from banks and building societies as an alternative to public loans from the Student Loans Company.
  Most, if not all, subsidised loans could and should eventually come from the private sector, but the choice should rest with the student. Personal lending is not one of the tasks that should fall naturally to the state. We are talking about a huge capital investment and I hope that it is one which, in due course, can be largely taken over by the private sector.
  We have touched on the difficulties that faced the Student Loans Company in its early years. I was interested and reassured to hear of the improvement in its operation more recently. Long may that continue.
  Thanks to the Bill, I trust that we shall be able to give students the opportunity to go for a private sector loan. I hope that they will be able to choose from a variety of different types that will be offered by different institutions.
  Lending is not naturally an activity that belongs to Government. We must bear it in mind that the huge capital investment of which we are talking will be about £5 billion by 2000. The Opposition must deal with that and come up with some positive suggestions.
  976
  Through private sector lenders, students will have more choice and can only benefit from that. I was particularly interested in the contribution to the debate made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) about the balance between the private and the state sectors in the management of universities. Much of what he said is worth taking very seriously indeed.
  Despite the opposition, no evidence has been put forward to suggest that the introduction of student loans five years ago has deterred students from going on to higher education. On the contrary, the numbers are higher than ever before. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister referred to the fact that one in three young people are now entering higher education, compared with one in eight 15 years ago. There are 1 million students on full-time higher education courses. Many of the most fortunate, of course, are at Chester college in my constituency.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could confirm the figure that I quoted in an intervention on the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies). I suggested that, contrary to the talk of cuts—the mantra of Opposition Members—public funding for English universities is at record levels. I quoted a figure of about £4.7 billion for the coming year. I think that I am right in saying that another £1.5 billion is available for student support.
  When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, will he also confirm that, when the maintenance grant was first introduced more than 30 years ago, it was envisaged that no more than about 170,000 students would receive it? By the end of the 1980s, 400,000 students were receiving mandatory awards. The cost to the taxpayer in real terms has increased over that period by about 250 per cent. There has been a massive expansion in higher education and a massive extra commitment by the taxpayer.
  The Government were wise in 1990 to introduce the new system of student support involving loans, which has several advantages. While easing the financial burden on taxpayers and parents, it allows the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, to use the extra resources made available by the introduction of the loan scheme to fund more places. It makes more money available for students.
  Loans also encourage students to spend their resources responsibly. That is a delicate area to wander into if, like me, one has three children of college or university age. They rather pull faces when I say that it is important to learn to use one's resources responsibly. I know that it is controversial, but I believe that learning about responsible financial management should be a key element in a student's life. I should like more to be done at school, and certainly at university, to encourage young people's understanding of financial management
  I was struck by a recent lecture given by Jon Westling, the president elect of Boston university in Massachusetts. In his lecture, Mr. Westling talked about a range of forms of political correctness that are creeping into American academe. He highlighted a student who had sent him a letter saying that she was concerned because she was having difficulty
  "in the area of auditory processing".
  This young lady, who is called Samantha, warned him that she might fall asleep in his classes and that he should be prepared to fill her in on any material that she missed

  977
  while she was dozing. He explained that she had suggested that seriously. He answered that students must learn to overcome some of the challenges that face them. He ended his speech with a rousing cry that I take quite seriously. He said:
  "We need to return to students—and to all the members of our societies—the thrilling sense that they are responsible for their own lives."
  That is part and parcel of making students and young people realise that there is a price to be paid for a quality education and that that price has to be paid by active citizens. That is one of the incidental reasons why I welcome the measure.
  Of course, I am concerned when there is real hardship, but I do not believe that there is any solid evidence that less well-off students are being deterred from entering higher education by student loans. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton peddled that line again and when I questioned it, he did not have much to say, except to acknowledge that I was right that the evidence suggests that the proportion of students from social grades A and B has fallen since the introduction of student loans, while there has been a corresponding rise in the proportion of students from C1, C2, D and E backgrounds. It was extraordinary that he referred to that as differences at the margins. I suppose that the Opposition do not take seriously the notion of making education—and quality education at that—accessible to all.
  I think I am right that 18 out of the 24 Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were offered their education at grant-maintained, grammar or public schools.
  Mr. Gunnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brandreth: I will when I have finished this flourish. Given that they are people who have climbed the ladder of opportunity and are ready to kick it away so that others cannot benefit from it, I am not surprised at their line on student loans.
  Mr. Gunnell: The hon. Gentleman talks about the marginal differences mentioned by Labour Members. In considering the figures for social classes, should he not look at the difference that remains between people in social classes A and B, who have access to higher education, and those in social classes D and E? When we talk about differences at the margins, we are talking about eroding the very large gap that currently exists.
  Mr. Brandreth: I want more students, from an ever-broader base, to take part in further and higher education. We can agree on that. I salute the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are coming up with practical suggestions to deal with the real situation.
  It is appalling that the Opposition have had an opportunity today to make some alternative suggestions, but have offered us nothing at all. It is not clear where the Opposition stand. I know that three years ago, at the time of the previous general election, the Labour party was quite clear that it would replace the student loans scheme with a new system for student grants and would offer targeted help for housing and for students during vacations. That was three years ago. I imagine that that commitment has fallen by the wayside.
  978
  A year ago, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in an interview in Education Magazine, stated:
  "student debt…needs sorting out"
  and suggested:
  "Imagination will be needed to find the best way through."
  A year later, his imagination has been at work and it appears that he and his colleagues have not found a way through, unless they are still toying with the idea—certainly they were in the past year—of some form of graduate tax. I know that the hon. Member for Brightside has said that he is
  "interested in a tax related to income which is progressive"
  and that he is exploring it. Perhaps the time for imagination and exploration has ended. If we are to ask people to make a choice in an election in the next 18 months or so, students will want to know exactly where they stand. At the moment, they do not.
  Students know where they stand with regard to the Liberals and all credit to them for explaining that they are not in favour of the loans scheme. Their penny on income tax is being stretched ever further, rather like the Labour party's windfall tax. We have an idea of the policy of the Liberal party. It adds up and I look forward to getting the document in the post. We do not know what the Opposition's policies are, so they cannot add up. We know exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues have in mind. The Bill seems to me sane, sensible and concise and I welcome it.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: It would be remiss of me not to speak in this debate because I have two universities in my constituency. It would also be remiss of me if I did not emphasise the crucial issue of the severe predicament of students from low-income, unprivileged backgrounds, which has already been mentioned but about which I want to be specific.
  Such students from unprivileged, working-class backgrounds were the sort of students whom the University college of Wales in Aberystwyth was set up to serve. It was a college established largely with small, individual contributions from working-class communities. It is for just that category of student that the university was set up, and those students are now subject to severe pressures. Such students are subjected to those pressures because of the reduction in grant, the introduction of a loan system that requires repayment in the first five years of employment and because of their inability to call upon support from their families.
  The maximum total income available to a student from both grant and loan amounts to only £3,270. In Aberystwyth, up to £1,753 per annum goes on accommodation fees. That means that about 44 per cent. of students' income goes on accommodation compared with the average citizen's expenditure on accommodation of only 33 per cent. Most of the grant goes on paying for accommodation.
  If parents, as many do and as I did for my children, pay for students' accommodation and provide an allowance for them—and there are many students in that situation—there is no problem. Those students are able to live a reasonably comfortable life and get on with their studies without much difficulty. Such students, as has been

  979
  emphasised, are able to obtain loans with equanimity. They can do that without having to worry about it, but for those who are not so privileged, the situation is really desperate, especially as such people are deeply anxious about taking up loans in any case.
  I have spoken today not only to the welfare officer of the university at Aberystwyth, but to Ann Rhys, a consultant psychiatrist seconded to the university from the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust for 50 per cent. of her time. The evidence that she has given to me is eloquent about the painful reality experienced by unprivileged students.
  Over the past four years—she stipulated in her conversations with me that it was the past four years—Ann Rhys has noticed a great increase in the incidence of stress disorders. She listed them to me: eating disorders; panic attacks; serious anxiety symptoms; self-abusive disorders; and what she called secondary depressive illnesses. She emphasised that she was talking not about some kind of superficial psychological difficulty but about deep psychiatric illness, which was becoming much more common. As a member of a students health association, she told me that that was happening throughout the United Kingdom. That well-known fact has already been mentioned.
  Ann Rhys had no doubt that all those problems were linked to the financial position of students and that that was the primary cause. In that regard, anxiety about debt is crucial. Many of those students come from families where borrowing is not part of the social culture. If borrowing occurs, it is seen as a sign that people are getting into financial difficulty. Ann Rhys finds in her conversations with students that they experience a great deal of anxiety about their parents. Many of them come from a home where the father is unemployed and the mother is overburdened by low-paid employment, as happens in many south Wales valley communities. She may have not one job but a number of part-time jobs. The option not available to such students is to ask for support from their families. Indeed, they are the kind of people who even avoid sharing the anxiety with their parents because they recognise that their parents, too, suffer from anxiety and face financial difficulties.
  The majority of those students take part-time employment. They work in supermarkets or bars, often for less than £3 an hour. They work long hours, which leads to fatigue. Other hon. Members have mentioned students who work night shifts. Many of those students often work late at night. Ann Rhys pointed out that, as well as fatigue, those students suffer further anxiety because they find it more difficult to cope with their essays and the tasks set for them, and they become anxious about falling behind with their studies. She tells them that they should not go to work as they are not well enough and it is too much for them. Sadly, they are not in a position to choose. Although work exacerbates the psychiatric disorders from which they suffer, they have no choice: if they do not work, they will get deeper into debt.
  Ann Rhys sometimes refers students to the psychology unit at Bronglais hospital, but the waiting list there is increasing. The waiting time is now some six to eight weeks. She claims that the length of that waiting list is, to a degree, the outcome of that very phenomenon. Thus the hospital system finds it increasingly difficult to cope,
  980
  and the hospital has now devised opportunities for group therapy rather than individual consultation and treatment for those various disorders.
  Those problems are bound to be a disincentive for people from working-class and less privileged backgrounds to take up higher education. If that fact has not yet begun to feed through into the statistics, it will soon do so. We heard this evening that the proportion of higher education students from the working class or social classes C and D has increased. That merits some investigation and analysis, but it is clear that a range of factors may cause such an increase, such as changes in the pattern of employment, or the reduced availability of employment in many working-class areas and therefore an aspiration to seek better occupational opportunities through higher education, which is often bitterly disappointed.
  There is bound to be a disincentive, which will become increasingly evident if the picture that I am describing is true. It is small wonder that Aberystwyth university has a drop-out rate of 13 per cent. That is particularly high, which probably relates to the fact that Aberystwyth is a small town, and a huge majority of the students come from far away and a small proportion live locally. I am told that that leads to a loss of fees of some £250,000 and it can lead to reduced funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales which, like all funding councils, emphasises the outcome in determining the amount of funding.
  My main concern tonight, however, is the misery imposed on that category of student and the injustice perpetrated. It is particularly ironic in relation to Aberystwyth, and it must be tackled. It is unlikely to be tackled, however, when the conventional wisdom these days, as we have heard more than once tonight, is obsessed with reducing public expenditure. I do not share that obsession.
  I support the demand, which comes from various directions, for an urgent and thorough review of the funding of students in higher and further education. That, rather than the privatisation of student loans, should be the priority.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: I oppose Second Reading because, if enacted, the Bill will do nothing to improve the financial resources available to students in higher education. The Minister has confirmed that in his speech this afternoon.
  It is a great pleasure to follow in this debate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), who gave us a lecture on financial probity. Given that his track record in business is one of bankruptcy and of a business collapse, taking with it huge amounts of taxpayers' money, it was an extremely interesting lecture.
  Before I explain why I oppose Second Reading, I should be grateful for a little leeway briefly to mention the results of the first opt-out ballot to take place in my constituency. Lymm high school is a successful school. Its pupils achieve excellent results, it has great facilities and its future is very secure. Over the past month or so, the parents of pupils at Lymm high school were balloted on whether they wanted to opt out of the local authority. The Minister will be delighted to know the result: 322

  981
  parents voted in favour of opting out; and 1,293 voted against. That was an emphatic rejection of opting out and an overwhelming endorsement of staying in the family of local education provision. I congratulate the parents of pupils at Lymm high school on their common sense. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to say that.
  The arguments in favour of a Second Reading of the Bill are a repetition of those expressed on 5 December 1989, when the Second Reading of the current Act was debated in the House. The then Secretary of State for Education told the House that the Education (Student Loans) Bill was a scheme that would "benefit students". Some 435,000 ex-students have now had the benefit of a student loan debt: 187,000 of those have deferred the starting date of repayments and 44,000 are already in arrears on their repayments. Some £1.3 billion is now owed to the Student Loans Company and 147,459 graduates now owe £36.1 million; 11,296 students are in default as of 31 March 1995, which is 7.7 per cent. of the total.
  That puts into perspective the comments of the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), when he said that student loans were
  "intended to reduce students' sense of dependency on the state and promote an awareness of self-reliance and investing in their future".
  The effect of the student loan scheme has been to transfer a considerable part of higher education costs from the Department for Education and Employment to individual students. The effect of Tory education policy has been to turn our undergraduates into debt carriers throughout their university careers and early into their years of employment.
  When the student loan scheme was introduced in 1989, the House was informed that loans would top up the maintenance grant paid to students. Evidence now shows that those loans will soon supersede the maintenance grant as the main part of student funding. So much for top-up loans and the concept of loans designed to assist students during their time in higher education.
  What is the purpose of the Bill? In 1989, the Government wanted to involve the high street banks in the loan scheme and the then Secretary of State for Education stated:
  "all we have asked the banks to do is to assist in the administration, on a contractual basis. We have done so for two good reasons. Those banks have the branch network and experience of lending … Our aim is to ensure that the scheme is likely to be underpinned by a broadly based network of institutions, the services of which will be available to students. That will also be to the benefit of students."— [Official Report, 5 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 175, 182–83.]
  Unfortunately, the Secretary of State then had to inform the House that Lloyds bank, and five other high street banks, had pulled out of the scheme.
  During the Second Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill in the other place, Lord Caithness said:
  "We saw some advantages in making the expertise and the branch network of banks available to help with administration of the scheme; but the banks decided that there was no commercial benefit for them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 1990; Vol. 516, c. 604.]
  Those words will come back to haunt the current Minister as he seeks to introduce the new scheme. On 17 November, the Minister issued a press release in which he said:
  "The expertise and experience of the private sector would mean a better loans system overall and a better deal for students."
  982
  He almost repeated the argument used in 1989.
  I intervened in the Minister's speech to ask what had changed. Why are the Government now trying to resurrect a failed policy of six years ago? They are like dogs returning to their vomit, and they should avoid that at all costs.
  Six years ago, the Government promised to cover the loss of interest payments, pay administration costs and cover default costs, but still the high street banks did not feel able to participate, because the scheme did not suit their commercial interests. If the high street banks are now interested in such a scheme, they must have been offered a better deal. How much more money—additional sweeteners—will the Government throw at the banks to resolve the problem?
  A spokesperson for Midland bank recently said of the Bill's proposals:
  "This is a high risk venture and we see considerable problems in managing this book. It is not the most attractive proposition in the world."
  Sir Eric Ash—perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he is to be appointed as the chief executive of the Student Loans Company—has been consulted on the Bill's proposals and has said:
  "The message I'm getting back from the banks that I've spoken to already … is that they're not really very interested."
  The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill notes that the extent of any overall reductions in public expenditure depends on the precise arrangements that are made with the financial institutions and the number of students who take up loans with the private sector.
  The Minister must tell us how much more money and additional sweeteners the Government will offer to attract high street banks into the student loan business. The answer to that fundamental question underlines the purpose of the Bill. How much money will the Government pay to make the student loans scheme attractive to the high street banks when those banks refused to participate six years ago, despite all the guarantees offered to them? The Minister may want to intervene to answer that question, because it has been estimated that it will cost an extra £1,500 per student loan to attract the high street banks. I notice that the Minister has not got up to deny that figure at the Dispatch Box.
  If the Government are prepared to spend resources on subsidising the high street banks, that money would be better spent on improving current student grants. If the Government can afford to pay £1,500 to subsidise the loans offered by high street banks, they can afford to give that money to the students direct. Instead, the Government have come up with a plan that involves the high street banks taking all the profits while the Government shoulder all the risks and the costs. The Government must consider seriously the ethics of using public money to subsidise private money lending.
  What has the Minister got to say about the ethics of using taxpayers' money to bankroll high street banks? While he contemplates that question, he may be interested to hear what Lord Beloff said during the debate on the Loyal Address in 1989. On the specific issue of student loans he said:
  "I warned the Government that if they were trying to act through a consortium of banks, they would find the banks very reluctant to co-operate. That has been borne out by their experience. After all, a fishmonger sells fish; that is his business. A banker lends money;

  983
  that is his business. One does not have to bribe a fishmonger to sell fish but apparently the Government have to bribe the banks to lend money. Could we get further into absurdity?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 1989; Vol. 513, c. 186–87.]
  The extra cost involved in getting the high street banks to participate in the student loans scheme is yet another example of where the Government are prepared to spend more and more money on administration and bureaucracy to feed their ideologically motivated policies.
  The Government have asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, but they have not consulted on the issues involved. They have not offered the House any costings of the new scheme, and therefore they are asking the House for a blank cheque. The House must resist those moves.
  The Government have also tried to seduce the House with arguments about choice. The Minister has claimed:
  "Students can only benefit from the choice, diversity and competition that these changes would bring."
  He has also said:
  "Private loans would be available from the beginning of the 1996/97 academic year. In due course we would expect most loans to be private ones."
  The Government claim that the Bill will widen the choice available to students by giving them an option of where they get their loans from. In the same breath, they tell us that, eventually, they want all loans to be provided by the private sector. In his press release, however, the Minister made it clear that the value of the loan, whether provided by the Student Loans Company or the private sector, will be exactly the same. It is therefore clear that there will be no choice and no incentive provided to students to opt for loans. That reveals, once again, the gap between the rhetoric and the practice of the Government.
  It is most deceitful for the Government to talk about extending choice when it is plain to everyone that the Government want to transfer loans to the private sector. The Government will simply end up creating a two-tier system of student loans, providing the banks receive a big enough bribe. That will happen despite the Government's promise, given on Second Reading of the pervious Education (Student Loans) Bill, that
  "students will not be excluded on the basis of their financial record and there will be no means-testing."—[Official Report, 5 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 178.]
  It is clear that the Bill gives discretion to the banks to give loans to whomever they want. The problems that that will cause have already been outlined by my hon. Friends.
  The introduction of the Bill signals the Government's intention to force more and more students to take up loans from the private sector. The Bill shows the way forward for the Government to pay huge amounts of taxpayers' money to the high street banks. It shows the way to force more and more students into debt during their years of higher education and early years of employment.
  The Bill is ideologically motivated through and through, and does not address the problems facing either undergraduates or the Student Loans Company. It will do nothing to encourage students from less well-off backgrounds to enter education. It does not deserve to receive a Second Reading.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: If evidence were needed that the Government have run out of steam and ideas, and are out of touch with what the British people need, it is provided by the Bill.
  We are discussing the Bill on one of the first legislative days of the new Session, during which the Conservative Government will, presumably, suggest to the electorate that they should be re-elected to power and should continue in office. All the Government have so far offered to attract the electorate is a mechanism for shifting the responsibility for the failing system of student loans to the private sector. The nature of the Bill is demonstrated by the number of Conservative Members who are present to defend it, let alone to speak about it. They do not want to speak to it because there is little to say.
  The Minister made no real case for the Bill, and it was left to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) to make out a case for it. Unfortunately, his argument about the Bill was not in the Minister's speech because the Minister did not agree with it. The Minister did not share the hon. Gentleman's vision of universities as independent institutions, which would be freed up by the private sector and by the way in which those loans would be offered. Indeed, I am sure that the way in which the system has been structured makes it impossible for the hon. Gentleman's vision to become reality.
  This is an unworthy start to a year in which, if the Bill before us is typical, unwanted legislation will be introduced. The Bill is largely irrelevant to higher education and is of no interest to private sector financial services companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) has just said that, as the financial services companies were not interested previously, if they are interested now, they must be interested only because of the bribes that are not made explicit in the Bill but are implied by it.
  The Bill is of no interest to students; it is an attempt to pass the buck. It is uncosted and unwanted. As many hon. Members have said, the Bill has been introduced solely as a result of the effect that the student loans scheme has had on the public sector borrowing requirement. The Bill is an attempt to transfer as much as possible of that responsibility in the year to come.
  We must ask who has demanded the change that the Bill will bring about. Has it been suggested by current recipients of loans? Have the universities asked for it? They have not asked for it, and they say that they are not interested in it and do not believe that it is the way to proceed. Have the banks suggested it? Have the building societies, with their increase in powers and their acquisition of banking powers, asked for such a scheme to be introduced? The answer to each of those questions is no. The reaction of the people who are most involved is, at best, apathetic and, at worst, hostile.
  The change does not appear to be wanted by anyone except the Conservative party, and the Minister made out a very poor case for it. He spoke about the fact that it would encourage partnerships between universities and the private sector, but the way in which the tendering process has been set up means that that will not happen. No relationship will be set up between a bank and an individual university institution.

  985
  The other case that the Minister made out for the Bill was that, as the banks have branches in every high street, it will be easier for students to use the system. An entire piece of legislation is introduced because high street banks are in range of universities and can do dealings with them easily. That is not a sufficient reason for legislation that is a mechanism for debt transfer. It will not make any difference to our higher education system. The Bill has an especially empty ring because higher education is important to the nation. Other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), have said what the priorities should be.
  Higher education fails many students at present. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) clearly demonstrated that access to university continues to be determined in good measure by wealth and social background, and that those people who have the least access to resources are especially likely to be affected by the Bill.
  It is wrong for the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) to suggest that that is not so, and it is a misuse of the statistics, which continue to show that access to university depends on social background, however people—especially the Labour party when in power—have tried to erode that relationship. However, other work must be undertaken, and obviously it is not the measure before us.
  We know that a great gap confronts those who have been in employment and want to return to further study. The Bill is not designed to help them. The argument that the Bill does not do what it was intended to do might be regarded as a poor criticism, but we must consider the plight of many mature students nowadays. As a result of the loss of the older students allowance, there is a widespread feeling that it has become a significant hardship for people who are in one career to pursue the means to enter an alternative career.
  As other hon. Members have said, and as I experienced when teaching in university, mature students have a dedication to their task—a dedication that is often very heartening to teachers—and they turn in extremely good performances. It is especially disappointing that the Bill does nothing for those aspects of real need.
  There can be few hon. Members who have not been asked to help in appeals for discretionary awards. During the current year especially, and in recent years, there has been a continual decrease in the amounts of money available for discretionary awards. In entire subject areas, it is almost impossible to obtain any grant for training. For instance, it has been said several times in the House that it is impossible to obtain a grant for the dance training that is available to people who have sufficient resources. The Bill does nothing for the range of students who are handicapped by the virtual disappearance of the discretionary grant scheme.
  On the tendering process in the Bill, we should persuade the Minister to tell us more about the criteria on which he will award the contracts to four financial institutions in each region. We have said that it is unlikely that any institution will be enthusiastic about winning the contracts that go with the scheme. To ensure genuine competition, the tendering process must cause people to be anxious to bid and to win the contract. Banks and building societies have demonstrated no interest in the
  986
  scheme, so the likelihood of the Minister being able to choose between a series of institutions that have made competitive bids is minimal. There will be no loss leaders.
  One institution will have responsibility for the loans in England and Wales, another in Scotland and another in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, the relationship is not with the university but with the person who takes out the loan. Therefore, partnership arrangements similar to those that exist in the United States of America will not develop in the United Kingdom as a result of the measure.
  The partnership arrangements in the USA exist because there is a plethora of universities—public and private—and many universities have direct links with a specific institution. Those arrangements work well in places such as Stanford university, California, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where various successful companies are involved and strong relationships have developed.
  However, similar arrangements will not develop as a result of the scheme proposed in the Bill. If it comes about, the scheme will be composed of arrangements between banks and a mass of borrowers. However, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South, obviously the enthusiasm does not exist to create a competitive position. That will lead to special hardship for those students who are least well off.
  Let us consider the table that was recently supplied in the annual report of the Student Loans Company. It is interesting to note that the proportion of students deferring was 43 per cent. in the first year, 54 per cent. in the second year and 60 per cent. in the third year for which they should be making payments. Deferments will be considerable, and banks will be reluctant to take on such a scale of debt.
  In returning to the issue, why have the Government not noted the fact—made clear in his memoirs—that if Kenneth Baker had known—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I should have referred to the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), but I know that corrections are made in the record. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley made it clear that he would have persevered with a system directly involving the Inland Revenue. Why does the Minister pour scorn on the Australian system, which seems to work much better? Why do we not introduce a system aligning students' repayments with the resources available to them, enabling them to repay their loans as they progress in their careers? Given that it would involve much lower administrative costs, why do we not adopt a system that would genuinely help students?
  This is a disappointing Bill, which offers nothing to the higher education system or to individual students, and which has clearly been rejected by the universities.
  7.11 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As has already been pointed out today, the subsidy from central Government to the banks that is proposed in the Bill would require £1,500 for each private loan. The Minister has not denied that. It is absurd: as I pointed out earlier, the basic grant for the next financial year will be only £1,257. We are giving more money to the banks' shareholders than to individual students. I would rather give the money to the students, and I do not think that

  987
  any Opposition Member disagrees with me. It is incredible that the basic student grant should be so low. A student living away from home, moreover, is expected to cope on a grant of £1,812, plus a maximum loan of £1,380—a total of £3,192. Only weeks ago, the House had to take action to deal with certain Members who had asked parliamentary questions. The cost of the time and trouble taken to table three such questions would have put £3,000 in a student's pocket straight away.
  Earlier, I mentioned the report about student poverty in Scotland that was published in August by the Scottish citizens advice bureau. The Minister said that he had seen students in beer bars. Must every student beer bar in the country close before the Minister accepts that there is such a thing as student poverty? The report demonstrated conclusively that, for all the Government's denials, student poverty exists and, indeed, is widespread. Students who are perfectly capable of achieving their degrees and diplomas are having to give up because of mounting debts.
  In Scotland, there is a four-year honours degree course, because the first year is the equivalent of an A-level course in England. That means that Scottish students experience even more debt. Students who become ill fall foul of a system that does not allow for any such human frailty: grants are refused to students who wish to repeat a year because of ill health. Students have been known to leave courses because delays in getting grant cheques to them have left them with no money to live on.
  According to the report, a student in Grampian sought advice from the SCAB about bankruptcy because—as a 19-year-old first-year student—he owed a total of £2,000 to the bank, the Student Loans Company and the university for accommodation. The SCAB has observed a general increase in the number of student clients seeking debt counselling. That may not be altogether surprising, but it should shock us that the bureau has had to send students to charities that provide free food.
  The fact is that students are probably the only category of people who can end up with literally no income. They have no access to emergency funds, such as a crisis loan from the social fund. Grants and loans combined amount to less than the average weekly benefit. That exerts an unacceptable pressure on young men and women. We should ease their path towards higher and further education, rather then making it an obstacle course.
  Conservative Members have said much about fairness to the taxpayer. No one objects to that, but I do not think that any fair-minded taxpayer wants to be unfair to students. The amount of grant currently available to students is a disgrace in a country that claims to want to encourage young people to participate in higher and further education. I look forward to my party's introduction of a scheme that will ensure that no student in the land is deterred from entering such education because of the fear of poverty or debt.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: As many hon. Members have said, this is a strange Bill. There has been no demand for it from students, universities or the Student Loans Company—or, I suspect, from the Department for Education and Employment. I do not believe that the Bill has come from that Department; I believe that it has come from the Treasury. If we could debate it on that basis—on its merits, indeed—the debate would have some reality, but the Government are afraid to admit that the Bill concerns the transfer of money from the public sector borrowing requirement.
  I am told that the Bill is about choice, but none of the people I have mentioned asked for it. They exercised their choice: they did not want it. The private sector, too, has exercised its choice, saying, "We want nothing to do with the Bill." The Government have said, "We will try a little sweetener. Here is a bit more: then perhaps you will exercise your choice." Public money is involved in this public Bill, whose purpose is to subsidise the private sector so that it will enter the arena.
  We are to gain the expertise of the private sector. I thought that we gained that when Mr. Ronald Harrison was appointed to run the Student Loans Company. Mr. Harrison, however, was dismissed last year, after bringing the skills and expertise of the private sector to the company, and wrecking it.
  I do not share the Government's respect for the banking system—their view that expertise exists and that we are not tapping into it. If we ask which sector should now be concentrating on its proper job of investing in British industry, the answer should be the banks. If we could persuade them to do that, rather than trying to entice them into using their skills, they would be doing their job.
  I find it odd that, having established the Student Loans Company a few years ago in Glasgow—the jobs in Glasgow are very welcome—the Government should seek to create unemployment in that city. As the Bill states, if it succeeds, the company in Glasgow will be scaled down, and people working there will cease to be employed. That is one of the Bill's central purposes. In a policy that no one wants, the Government are seeking to endanger 3,000 jobs.
  The Minister shakes his head, but it is in the explanatory and financial memorandum:
  "The number of staff employed by the Student Loans Company will be reduced as a result of the Bill".
  Fewer jobs will be lost if the Bill fails.
  Mr. Forth: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was above the kind of irresponsible scaremongering in which he is now indulging. To the extent that loans would be provided by the banks instead of the Student Loans Company, it is self-evident that SLC staff numbers would be reduced. There can be no doubt about that. Equally, the Student Loans Company must continue to exist, as the Government have given a guarantee that we shall always provide an alternative. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is beyond the professional expertise of the management in Glasgow to administer change?
  Mr. Worthington: The Minister does not contradict what I have said. Does he deny the memorandum, which says that the legislation will lead to an increase in the number of staff employed by the Department for

  989
  Education and Employment to administer the subsidies to the private sector, but to a reduction in public sector employment as fewer people will be employed by the Student Loans Company? The stated purpose of the Government's Bill is to increase the subsidy to the private sector and to run down the Student Loans Company.
  Labour Members base their assertions on the evidence that they are given about student poverty. Inevitably, that is not the best-quality evidence: it tends to be anecdotal evidence from student welfare officers, for example. A defect of the Student Loans Company is that it has no responsibility for researching the consequences of its actions, and the Department for Education and Employment has also shrugged off its responsibilities in that regard. If the Government were serious about their policy, they would conduct thorough-going research into the consequences of their measures to create student support. However, the Government will not do that.
  I have examined the sums of money involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred to the cost of a Scottish degree. I have examined the cost of taking a Scottish degree and going on to teacher training, which involves five years of study.
  This year, a student loan is just less than £1,400. So the cost of becoming a teacher in a Scottish school is a minimum of £7,000—five times £1,400. Students must pay back that £7,000 over five years—which involves a weekly payment of £27—as soon as they receive a salary of £15,000 per year. It cannot be fair that, when a Scottish schoolteacher receives a salary of £15,000 and begins to settle down with a family, buy a house and establish a career, he or she must pay £27 per week in a totally inflexible manner. Is there any legislation to address that problem? No, we have only this nonsense legislation that does not tackle the basic issues.
  The Bill does not address the quality of education in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland peace process is in a fragile state. As Northern Ireland has more students and fewer university places than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, 44 per cent. of Northern Ireland students must travel to mainland Britain to take up university education. For reasons associated with the troubles, many of those students do not return to Northern Ireland from mainland Britain.
  It is a serious problem: 44 per cent. of higher education students leave the Province, and, overwhelmingly, they do not return. That is a serious educational consequence, but the Bill does not explore how more students from Northern Ireland could study in that country.
  The Bill also fails to deal with the consequences of the fact that more Northern Ireland students come from poorer backgrounds—about 34 per cent. of students from Northern Ireland are from social classes D and E, compared with 29 per cent. in England and Wales. More students from Northern Ireland than anywhere else are recipients of full maintenance grants, and they also face the additional cost of travelling from Northern Ireland to the mainland.
  Those are serious student maintenance issues, but the Bill does not address those problems; it simply enables public subsidy to go to private financial institutions. I charge the Government with being flippant: at a time when students face serious problems, the Government have introduced a Bill that is driven by dogma, and is irrelevant to students' needs.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) talked at some length about the supposed element of choice in the Bill. Let us judge the legislation by the Government's own terms: what choice does it offer? We have already exposed the concept of the choice that is offered to parents of schoolchildren: they may exercise a preference of school for their children, but they have no real choice—it is the schools that exercise choice.
  Under the proposed student loans system, students may prefer to go to a finance house—perhaps because of the inducements that such an institution may offer them—to apply for a loan. However, any choice in the matter will be exercised by the finance house. It will be a case of selection according to creditworthiness. I assure hon. Members that a typical student from my constituency would have no choice at all.
  We are talking about the proposed introduction of a two-tier system of student loans: those students who can do deals, and those who cannot; those who have the power, and those who do not. The supposed choice and diversity in respect of schools has led to divergence and division, and it is the same with the proposed dual-track system of student loans. Students will have no choice, and there will be no real diversity: there will be only divergence between those who will have the opportunity to pay off their loans at preferential rates when they start working, and those who will begin their working lives with fixed mortgages around their necks.
  As my hon. Friends have said, the purpose of the Bill is to fiddle the public sector borrowing requirement and to massage the figures down. It is an exercise in creative accounting, and it will be achieved at a price. The basis of the Bill is flawed, and no less flawed are the procedures that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to follow in order to implement the new system by September 1996. The Bill gives extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State to incur expenditure when negotiating terms with finance houses. It literally offers a blank cheque, and that is a disgrace. It is necessary from the Government's point of view because, by presenting the proposal in this manner, they have passed the negotiating whip hand to the finance houses. They have loudly signalled their lack of interest, and their interest will be aroused at a price. That is not surprising, when one considers what the finance houses must risk: unpredictability of demand, risk of default and the loss of good will among valuable student clients.
  Not only the finance houses, but the students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, reject the proposal. They recoup only half the cost of managing the present system, and they envisage an added administrative burden from managing a dual loans system.
  In short, the Bill is not just mediocre: it is tawdry in its conception and in its purpose. It is unloved by both the agents and the clients of the proposed system. It is irrelevant, and it does nothing to address the faults of the present system of student financing, which is complex, confusing and inequitable, and the cause of much student hardship. Above all, the present scheme exposes the Government to the accusation that they are rationing higher education at a time of retrenchment, and are wasting a pool of national talent.

  991
  The system is complex and confusing because students are trapped in a maze of grant, loan, access funds, parental support and part-time employment. I know that certain Conservative Members believe that to be a good thing—a virtuous initiation of students into the realities of finance, self-reliance and responsibility. There is, however, another way of looking at it. There is good evidence that enforced preoccupation with financing their studies leads to many students worsening their academic performance because they cannot keep up with their studies, dropping out or deciding not to enter higher education in the first place.
  The Government would have been far better occupied in undertaking a close analysis of the shortcomings of the present system and producing a Bill that attempted to address them instead of the tawdry measure that they present to us today, and that I hope will be rejected.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: We have had an instructive and informative debate. There has been a consensus: all hon. Members recognised that, at least on public policy for student maintenance, there are no easy answers to what are difficult questions. The rest of the debate identified a gulf between the political parties on that issue.
  Conservative Members believe that privatisation of the loans system will somehow, as if by magic, remedy the present weaknesses and deficiencies, whereas the Opposition regard the measure as simply tinkering with a failed and discredited system in a cynical attempt to fiddle the public sector borrowing requirement for party political purposes.
  Five years ago, when the Education (Student Loans) Bill was before the House, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, (Mr. MacGregor), said that the aim of the Bill was
  "to share the cost of student maintenance more fairly between the taxpayer, students' parents and students themselves."—[Official Report, 5 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 174.]
  After five years of the operation of the student loans system, it has become clear that it provides little fairness for the taxpayer as £1.3 billion of public money remains outstanding on the loan account. The National Audit Office report on the operation of the Student Loans Company, published on 24 November, concluded that £142 million borrowed from the public purse would not be repaid. Where is the fairness to the taxpayer in that regime?
  The 1988 White Paper that led to the introduction of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 stated that the spending outlay would not be recovered until the year 2015, when savings would start to be made. That calculation assumed a deferred repayment rate of between 10 and 15 per cent., but the National Audit Office calculated that at 31 March 1995, 45 per cent. of all borrowers had been granted deferment. Given that extremely high rate of deferment, when do the Government believe that net savings will accrue from the student loans system?
  It is a great irony that a scheme that costs so much public money is supporting a system that is deeply unpopular with students. The take-up rate of eligible
  992
  students is running at 55 per cent. after five years of operation. That is far lower than the Government's original prediction. The loans scheme, coupled with the withdrawal of benefits and successive reductions in the value of the grant, has resulted in many students being pushed into poverty and debt.
  The Minister spoke of students swilling beer in college bars—that may be true of the few students whom he meets—but many Opposition Members know that the reality is quite different. The speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) illustrated the nature of student poverty. According to university vice-chancellors, the main reason for the dramatic increase in the student drop-out rate is financial stress. In the latest year for which figures are available, 40,000 students dropped out of their university courses—a 25 per cent. increase on previous years. The Bill needs to be judged against that backdrop.
  All those most closely connected with higher education have been strongly critical of the Government's present approach. There is a broad consensus on the need for a fundamental review of student maintenance. The president of the National Union of Students, Jim Murphy, said:
  "We want an urgent review of the system of student financial support and proper consultation.".
  That statement was supported by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Its chairman, Professor Gareth Roberts, called for
  "a fundamental review of the funding of student maintenance".
  The committee also
  "expressed their disappointment that the Government failed to consult them"
  on the proposals before the House.
  The Bill seeks to allow the private sector to enter the student loans market. In considering that proposal, we must briefly consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the Student Loans Company. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, the Bill will cost jobs in Glasgow, where the unemployment rate is already well above the national average.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the deficiencies of the Student Loans Company over the years, but there has been substantial improvement. The National Audit Office report concluded:
  "Our findings show that many initiatives are now in hand to improve performance. In particular, flaws in the Repeat Application Procedure, which caused the difficulties in 1994, were fully addressed for the re-launch of the initiative in 1995 and, as at 31 October 1995, the revised procedure was operating well. More generally, initiatives have been taken to improve the clarity of business and financial performance reporting and … the Company's performance targets have been made more rigorous and precise."
  Those of us who make a habit of reading National Audit Office reports can confirm that its conclusion is a strong and positive statement of support for the conduct of the Student Loans Company.
  Whatever reservations we have about the scheme, it is now clear that the Student Loans Company, in difficult circumstances, is on the right track. Much of the credit for that must go to Sir Eric Ash, who should be congratulated on the way in which he turned the company round.

  993
  Throughout the company there is clearly now a commitment to reduce costs, improve efficiency and offer a quality service in the public sector. The problems encountered by the Student Loans Company occurred because of the failings of the previous chief executive, who was recruited from the private sector, but that is the direction in which the Government now wish to proceed.
  Why do the Government wish to privatise the student loans system now? When the Bill was published, the Department for Education and Employment issued a press notice stating that the Bill is
  "designed to allow private sector financial institutions to enter the student loans system as major players."
  Yet there is little evidence—there certainly was none in the Minister's speech—of demand from the private sector to become involved in the making of loans to students.
  What we now know, which we did not know before, are the terms that were available to banks in 1989 to encourage them to take part in the scheme. They were drawn up by the consultants, Price Waterhouse. At the time they were not made public because they were regarded as "commercial in confidence". Since then, and since the banks' withdrawal from the scheme, they have been published. They reveal that as part of a package of measures to encourage banks to take part, the Government said that loans would be kept off the balance sheets of participating banks, that start-up and running costs would be recouped in full from the Government—the taxpayer—and that the scheme would be funded in full by the Government, including any default liability.
  That was on offer in 1989, but the banks turned their backs and walked away. What the Minister should tell the House this evening is what is on offer in 1995 to change the approach of the banks, the building societies and the credit institutions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) said, referring to the excellent speech by the Conservative peer Lord Beloff, if the fishmonger sells fish, that is his business; if a banker lends money, that is his business. One does not have to bribe a fishmonger to sell fish, but apparently the Government have to bribe the banks to lend money. Could there be greater absurdity? The Minister, in being honest and open with the House this evening, needs to disclose what further absurdities and what bribes will come from the Government.
  The measure has little to do with tackling the problems being experienced by students and by the higher education institutions. The Government are setting up a two-tier system—not for students, but for its operators. The Student Loans Company will act as a lender of last resort, covering students who are not deemed to be desirable by the private sector. There will be no choice for students and there will be no diversity for students. The choice will rest with the private sector and the diversity will be in who runs the operation. There will be no benefit to students.
  The private sector is in a favourable position, which may be the difference between now and 1989. It will have the Student Loans Company to pick up the pieces. It will be able to pick the cherries—it will offer loans only to students from suitable backgrounds who are no financial risk. If that is coupled with a subsidy from the taxpayer, the Government will hope that many banks will be prepared to say yes.
  The Minister should answer the specific points made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) referred to the possibility of
  994
  part-time students being covered by the loans scheme. Will that be so? The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), in an intervention, asked whether students who interrupt their studies for a responsible reason could benefit from the scheme. We hope to have a answer from the Minister on that point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) said, we need to know what savings in the PSBR the Government expect to accrue as a result of the measures in the Bill.
  The Bill is a further example of this Government's lurch to the right, which is probably why the Minister is so keen to promote it. Extreme policies are being introduced in a increasingly desperate attempt to placate the demands of the right wing, both within the Cabinet and on the Back Benches. The only beneficiaries will be the Government because the privatisation will remove billions of pounds from the PSBR and give the Chancellor further room for manoeuvre. The other beneficiaries will be the banks and finance houses, which will profit from student poverty, debt and misery.
  The Bill fails the taxpayer by increasing the contribution from the public purse. It fails students by promising them more but giving them less. It fails our country in that it will not open up access to higher education. It places a mortgage on knowledge and a debt charge on learning. As a result, student poverty will increase, aspirations will be frustrated and opportunities will be denied. It represents a triumph of political dogma over reason. That is why we shall vote against Second Reading.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Forth: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) to the Dispatch Box, in his first contribution to these matters. I hope that he and I will be exchanging views for a long time to come—in our present capacities, of course.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) said that he thought that the chairman of the Conservative party had revealed that our legislative programme this year was designed to smoke out the Opposition. If that is true, I am afraid that the debate has failed to do anything of the sort. It became increasingly obvious throughout the debate, in all the speeches of Labour Members, that we would be told nothing about what the Labour party would do in this crucial area of policy. It is not good enough for Labour Members to make the sort of comments and accusations that they did about the Bill and higher education policy generally when they have not a single policy idea on how they would conduct such a crucial area of education.
  We still do not know, even after the debate, whether the Labour party approves of loans as a matter of principle to supplement grant. We do not know whether it would continue with loans or whether it would abolish them and return to grants. We do not even know something as basic as that. We do not know in detail what it would do with a loans scheme. We do not know its attitude towards the participation of the banks. Some Labour Members seem to be afraid that the banks will participate, while others deride the scheme and allege that the banks would not touch it with a bargepole. They cannot have it both ways. They either fear that the banks will participate or they are

  995
  confident that they will not. It should be one or the other, not both. There was a very mixed message throughout the debate.
  What I want to know—and I am still waiting—is whether the Labour party, as a matter of policy, would abolish loans and return to grants. What would it do about the benefits that some Labour Members say are being denied to students? Would it restore those benefits? We did not hear anything about that. We heard no undertakings about part-time and further education students, despite the fact that some Labour Members tried to make great play of the fact that some of those students were disadvantaged. Unless the Labour party is prepared to tell us what it would do, its criticism is of no import or substance. Labour Members did not say what they would do about lower-income students or alleged student poverty.
  There was a hint from some Opposition Members—I think even from the hon. Member for Wallsend, and certainly from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthingon)—that they regard the Student Loans Company as a job scheme for the people employed in it. Whatever else we are doing, we certainly are not designing the Bill simply to run down the Student Loans Company as a matter of policy. I tried to explain that the Student Loans Company will continue to exist and that its existence is an integral part of the whole thrust and philosophy of the Bill. To the extent to which the opportunities open to the banks were taken up, there would have to be some reduction in the number of people employed at the Student Loans Company, but the reduction would be gradual and would take place over a period of time. It would certainly always leave the Student Loans Company as a major provider of loans to students. That has been made perfectly clear.
  I think that we must conclude that Labour Members have not yet had permission from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to say anything whatsoever about education policy, higher education policy, student funding or anything else of the kind. We will have to adjust their criticisms accordingly.
  I should like to give credit where credit is due. The hon. Member for Wallsend said at the beginning of his speech—this gave us some idea of the problem that he and his colleagues have—that, in this sphere, there are no easy answers and a number of difficult questions. That must certainly be so because he and his colleagues have come up with no answers at all—easy or difficult.
  Mr. Blunkett: When will the Minister answer some of the difficult questions that we have put to him?
  Mr. Forth: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman categorises as difficult questions. Labour Members have made a number of allegations, one of which was that the drop-out rate is increasing. I know of no evidence to support that allegation because, broadly speaking, the drop-out rate, which is difficult to define satisfactorily, has remained fairly constant. It has fluctuated somewhat over a number of years but has remained fairly constant for a long time. Indeed, it is very much lower in this country than in most of the comparable countries with which we compete.
  996
  Labour Members frequently made that point. They also made allegations about student poverty. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) made that allegation on the basis of conversations that she had had with a branch of the citizens advice bureau.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way in a moment. I yield to none in my admiration for much of the work done by many of the people who work in the citizens advice bureaux, but I do not think it is wise to generalise on the basis of a very small and self-selecting sample of students who felt unable to deal with their financial circumstances, for whatever reason, and state that somehow all students are suffering from poverty.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister must avoid deliberately misunderstanding what I said. The Scottish CAB produced a report in August because it was concerned about the scale of student poverty in Scotland. It was not dreaming; it was not making it up; and it was not drawing on just a few examples. Poverty was widespread enough for it to feel that it had to produce a report on it. Is the Minister accusing it of dreaming or lying?
  Mr. Forth: I am accusing it of nothing; I am simply saying that the hon. Lady is generalising from a very narrow sample. I have yet to hear a policy response from the Opposition to what they believe to be the problem of student poverty. I do not accept the accusation that there is student poverty, but some Labour Members believe it exists so I am waiting for them to say what they would do about it, were they ever to form a Government.
  Another source of schizophrenia among Labour Members was the Student Loans Company. I am aware of the criticisms of the company made by the National Audit Office but I am also aware of, and pay tribute to, the substantial improvements in its performance. I was happy to hear the hon. Member for Wallsend say that the Student Loans Company is now on the right track—I think that they were his words—but his colleagues do not seem aware of that fact. They seem to be stuck in the circumstances of a year ago and have completely ignored the progress that has been made. Labour Members must be clear among themselves: has the Student Loans Company made significant progress and sorted out its problems of a year ago, or are they are stuck in a groove and unable to acknowledge the company's improvements?m
  Mr. Bryan Davies: The Minister will recall that one of the main points of the debate has been to ask him whether, under the Bill, there is to be any extension of the category of students who might benefit from access to loans. Particular reference was made to part-time students. He was directly asked such questions several times: will he answer them?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, I shall. The Bill is not designed to alter the qualifications for or the rights to student finance. It was designed to increase the choice of sources of finance to those who currently qualify. Labour Members have made terribly heavy weather of that question and have not answered it themselves. I have made the position perfectly clear—it was not the intention behind the Bill—but I am waiting for the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton or any of his colleagues to answer the question that they have asked.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will in due course extend access to loans to students on part-time courses. Meanwhile, has he taken note of the fact that the Opposition regard it as a benefit that should be extended?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That illustrates yet again the utter confusion among Opposition Members, who have no clear policy on the matter and no conception of what to do in this sphere. That is the one thing that has been achieved in their contributions to the debate.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) who has, typically, thought through these issues clearly and carefully and made his usual well-thought-out contribution to the debate. He will understand that I cannot give a detailed response to the points that he made, but I shall certainly want to examine them carefully and consider whether they can inform the development of future policy. I hope that when we produce our further consultation paper on higher education early in the new year, my hon. Friend will reply to it. I suspect, however, that he could do no better than send a copy of the well-thought-out and worthwhile speech that he made today.
  I was told several times that our policy had somehow led to a reduction in the number of students from less well-off families entering higher education. That is simply not so. The latest survey information available to me suggests that while the younger students entering higher education from less well-off backgrounds were in the minority in 1988, they are in the majority now. Our figures show that the number of students from social classes 4 and 5 accepted for undergraduate courses rose by more than 50 per cent. in just three years between 1991 and 1994. Therefore, the loose accusation repeated by the Opposition—that our regime of balancing grants and loans has disadvantaged students from lower-income families—is not true. There is no evidence to support such an allegation.
  The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) asked about direct debits. I can confirm that a student who borrowed from more than one loan provider would indeed have more than one direct debit. That is logical. The banks may assign or sell on debts, and any information available on those who have taken out such loans would, as in the normal way, be made available. I cannot for the life of me see why not; it is a perfectly normal part of the general lending regime.
  This debate has been about a Bill designed to broaden the choice available to students—to set them free from the current public sector monopoly provider and to introduce important choice and new players to the market. We are in the early stages of our deliberations, but eventually this enabling Bill will allow us to carry forward an important development in policy and to seek to provide a much wider choice of loans to students. It is a sensible and modest measure, thoroughly consistent with the direction of our policies in the past, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 250.

  Division No. 4]

  [7.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evennett, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  French, Douglas

  Bates, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garnier, Edward

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Booth, Hartley

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bright Sir Graham

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hannam, Sir John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  999

  Knox, Sir David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, Sir David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marland, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Marlow, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Merchant, Piers

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trotter, Neville

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wood, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  1000

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Allen, Graham

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Alton, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Flynn, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Austin-Walker, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barnes, Harry

  Galloway, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Garrett, John

  Battle, John

  George, Bruce

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Gunnell, John

  Blunkett, David

  Hain, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  Boyes, Roland

  Hanson, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Hardy, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Burden, Richard

  Henderson, Doug

  Byers, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hood, Jimmy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cann, Jamie

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

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Chidgey, David

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Doug

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jamieson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corston, Jean

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cousins, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cox, Tom

  Keen, Alan

  Cummings, John

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Chris L'Boro & S'worth)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  1001

  Macdonald, Calum

  Reid, Dr John

  McFall, John

  Rendel, David

  McLeish, Henry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooker, Jeff

  MacShane, Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Simpson, Alan

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Michael, Alun

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Milburn, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yaidley)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Paul

  Tipping, Paddy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Hara, Edward

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Olner, Bill

  Walley, Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Parry, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pike, Peter L

  Wilson, Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Winnick, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. Eric Clarke.

  Raynsford, Nick

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

  EDUCATION (STUDENT LOANS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1 )(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Student Loans) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for paying subsidy in respect of private sector student loans, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the expenses of the Secretary of State under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Question agreed to.

  Teachers Superannuation (Contracting Out)
  8.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I beg to move,
  That the draft Contracting Out (Administration of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
  The order will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to authorise a private sector company to administer the teachers superannuation scheme in England and Wales. An executive agency in my Department, the Teachers Pensions Agency, administers the scheme at present. The TPA provides a good service to members of the scheme and the Government have never argued otherwise. The TPA has also achieved its key efficiency targets.
  Administering the scheme, however, does not come cheaply. It is a huge scheme with almost 1.25 million members who are, rightly, increasingly interested in their pensions. The TPA's running costs last year were more than £15 million; that is big money. We owe it to the taxpayer to see whether we can make savings in those running costs.
  I therefore announced on 1 November that the Government were inviting six private sector companies to tender for a contract to administer the scheme. All six companies judged that they could administer the scheme for less money than it would cost the TPA and to at least as high a standard. Inviting them to submit tenders will allow them to show whether they can do so.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Minister has mentioned the six companies that were invited to tender. How did the Government decide on those six companies from the original 14 that had shown an interest in the privatised scheme?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman may recall that we invited expressions of interest and that we received a significant number. The companies were then invited to complete a 50-page questionnaire and inquiries were made, in the case of the six companies, with clients to establish their reputations and bone fides. As the hon. Gentleman knows from the names of the companies, either they are large companies or they have significant assets.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not have a direct interest now, but I contributed for 23 years to the teachers superannuation scheme. I was always hugely satisfied with it and, like many teachers, I am extremely worried about any possible change. Can my hon. Friend assure me first, that teachers will lose nothing in pension entitlement as a result of changes in administration and secondly, that the new administration arrangements will be even more efficient than the current ones? If they are to be more efficient, they will have to be extremely good.
  Mr. Squire: I assure my hon. Friend that the answer to both his questions is an unqualified yes.
  Mr. David Blunkett: How?
  Mr. Squire: To take up a sedentary comment by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), we

  1003
  have made it clear that we shall let a contract to administer the scheme only if we are satisfied that it will deliver better value for money. I want to leave the House in absolutely no doubt about that. No improvement in value for money will mean no contract. Equally, if a contract could deliver better value for money, we shall want to let one.
  Mr. Blunkett: Will the evaluation of "value for money" be similar to that of Yorkshire Water, which is that the customer does not get water but the company gets increased profits?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That was not in order.
  Mr. Squire: I sense that if I were to pursue that avenue—or is it lake?—you would pull me up, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Members of the scheme naturally want to know what letting a contract would mean for them, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made that point clearly. I should like in turn to make several points of clarification, because there have been some misconceptions with which I have sought to deal in correspondence outside the House. I shall be happier still to make those points clear for the benefit of the House this evening.
  First, there is no question of privatising teachers' pensions and, of course, there never has been. Any contract would be for the administration of the scheme only. Whether we let a contract or not, the scheme itself will stay in the public sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will remain responsible to the House for the scheme, and she—not any contractor—will retain control over decisions affecting entitlement to benefits under the scheme or the amount of those benefits.
  Secondly, letting a contract would not affect the size or safety of a teacher's pension one iota. Indeed, it is impossible for it to do so, not least because the scheme does not have a real pension fund. The pension contributions go straight to the Exchequer, which guarantees the payments to which members of the scheme are entitled. Those payments therefore cannot be at risk. Since a contractor would not be managing a pension fund, he could not make a profit from it. To quote King Lear,
  "Nothing will come of nothing."
  If we proceed, however, we shall pay the contractor an agreed fee for administering the scheme.
  Thirdly, we will not allow the standard of service to fall. Any contract would require a standard of service and performance that will be at least as high as that which the TPA would provide. We shall make sure that any contractor meets that standard, and all six companies intend to do so.
  Fourthly, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the scheme continues to operate smoothly and without interruption. We shall expect—
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: What will happen at Darlington?
  Mr. Squire: I will come to that matter, if the hon. Lady restrains herself for a moment. We shall expect the
  1004
  contractor to deliver good service from day one of the contract. We are satisfied on the basis of the evidence we have seen so far that all six companies are reputable organisations and have access to substantial financial resources, and that relations between their staff and management are sound.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Why are the Government seeking to introduce the measure at this particular time? A next steps feasibility study was carried out in 1990 which investigated the proposal that agency status be given to what was then the pensions branch of the Department of Education and Science. The conclusions of the study were a complete contradiction of what the Government are now saying. What has happened in the intervening five years to change the Government's opinion on the privatisation of the service?
  Mr. Squire: We commissioned a report by KPMG, which we received in December 1994. It claimed—among other things—that the scheme could be operated with significant savings. We owe it to the taxpayer to ensure that if significant savings can be made—I have covered the quality of service angle—we should explore those. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support the Government in that.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sorry to labour the point with the Minister, but the KPMG report was sought on the basis of only one option, which was the contracting out of the administration of the scheme. I repeat my question. Why did the Government change their mind in the intervening five years? What changed so markedly to lead the Government to commission that report on the basis that there was no option other than privatisation?
  Mr. Squire: I can add little to what I have said to the hon. Gentleman, beyond reminding him that the Government seek to make savings to the taxpayer whenever and wherever we can. The size of the pension scheme would alone have given justification for us to return to the matter periodically, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the TPA expects to make savings of some 7.5 per cent. in a three-year period.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Just so it is clear beyond peradventure, am I to understand that the administration of the scheme—currently based in Darlington—is to be paid for by the taxpayer? Is the administration not financed out of the scheme itself, and therefore paid for—directly or indirectly—by teachers?
  Mr. Squire: I have sought to make a distinction between, on the one hand, a pension fund with all that that might imply and, on the other hand, the simple fact that teachers' pensions are paid, year in year out, by the agency at Darlington. I concede, in light of the sad events of the past decade, that there is the possibility of a pension fund or part of such a fund going astray, but that possibility does not exist in this case. The cost of the teachers' scheme is a straight charge on the taxpayer. Teachers themselves are taxpayers, and if the cost of administering the scheme can be significantly reduced, it is self-evidently in the interests not just of teachers but of taxpayers in general.
  Fifthly, we would not allow a contractor to advise teachers whether to join or leave the scheme. Teachers would need to consult an independent financial adviser if they were in doubt, as they do at present.

  1005
  Sixthly, we would not allow a contractor to use data on teachers for purposes other than administering the scheme. All six companies have declared that they will keep data concerning members of the scheme confidential.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the firm which obtains the contract—if any of the six do so—be allowed to seek to persuade members of the TPA to opt for their own personal pension scheme through that company?
  Mr. Squire: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman during the debate on that, as I do not want to give him a wrong answer. If he will wait a short while, I shall answer him.
  Seventhly, we would require a contractor to have effective arrangements for considering complaints from members of the scheme. A contractor would have to have an internal complaints machinery. If this failed to resolve the problem, a complainant would have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State. Members would also be able—as they can at present—to seek redress through the pensions ombudsman. There will be at least as much scrutiny of the administration of the scheme in the private sector as there is now.
  Ms Armstrong: One of the current problems with the pensions ombudsman is that each of its reports is secret and is not available for public scrutiny because the ombudsman is accountable to the pensions industry. As this is a public scheme, will the Minister undertake that any complaint to the ombudsman will be published and be open to public scrutiny?
  Mr. Squire: I shall consider what the hon. Lady says and come back to her at the end of the debate. It is a serious suggestion, and I want to give it proper consideration. Incidentally, the hon. Lady previously made some reference from a sedentary position to Darlington. She may not have picked up on the point that all six companies have confirmed that they would intend to make Darlington the core centre of their operations.
  Ms Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Alan Milburn rose—
  Mr. Squire: It looks as if I have started a competition. I know that the hon. Lady will understand if I give way to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
  Mr. Milburn: The mention of Darlington is my cue, as the Minister knows. Could he define what core administration means?
  Mr. Squire: No, not in the context of the debate. Not simply because the companies have already made it clear that they see Darlington as a key part of their operations but in view of the skill and expertise of the Darlington staff, logic suggests to me that a significant proportion, if not the entirety of the operations, would be based in Darlington.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: As all six companies seem interested in the advantages of the facilities at Darlington, can the Minister assure us that no sweeteners will be offered to any company which takes on the scheme in the form of a cheap handing over of existing facilities?
  Mr. Squire: I willingly give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. Nor would sweeteners be necessary. I am not
  1006
  sure whether he heard my earlier comments. All six companies believe that they can run the operation at least as efficiently, if not more so, and for a reduced cost. There is no question of sweeteners.
  Ms Armstrong: Will the Government make it a condition of the contract that the core administration continues in Darlington? Our experience has been too frequent that a commitment is given in the beginning and three or four years later is reneged on.
  Mr. Squire: That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Darlington in a recent meeting that I had with him. I am advised that under European Union law, it would probably be illegal to do as the hon. Lady asks. We are not able to specify a particular place. I reassure her inasmuch as I can that, as all six companies have volunteered—they were not required so to do—the information that they would wish to site their operations at Darlington, in a sense her question is unnecessary. We can look at the reality of the thing, but as I know the hon. Lady will accept, we have to stay within the law.
  Mr. Milburn: If the Minister says that legally the Department cannot make it a condition of any contract that Darlington should be the location of the business operation of a privatised Teachers Pensions Agency, and if he says that he cannot define core administration, are not the assurances given by the six companies about staying in Darlington meaningless?
  Mr. Squire: I understand, and the whole House understands, that the hon. Member for Darlington is in a special position. When he looks at the standing of the companies and the names behind some of them and when he considers the self-interest of the companies in using the expertise currently available at Darlington, he will see why his comment, in fairness, is wide of the mark.
  Lastly in my list of details, I confirm that we have no plans to allow a contractor to impose new charges on members of the scheme or their employers for services provided under the contract.
  I trust that not only those hon. Members present in the Chamber but people who may subsequently read the report of the debate will accept that the eight points that I have made—eight of the best—allay the unjustified worries that I have heard expressed. I submit that if we let a contract, all parties would stand to benefit. Let me briefly explain why.
  First, the taxpayer would benefit, because it would cost less to administer the scheme. There is sometimes a tendency to forget the taxpayer. We should not do so. Everybody is a taxpayer, so everybody, including teachers themselves, benefits if we can deliver public services more economically. There is scarcely an argument there.
  Secondly, teachers and retired teachers would benefit. There is every prospect that they would receive not only as good a service as the TPA provides, but a better, faster, more responsive service. We have invited comments on a draft statement of the service that a contractor would have to provide. That draft provides for higher standards than the TPA achieves now. The six companies would expect to exceed even those higher standards over time—again, I submit to the House, a benefit.
  Thirdly, the staff of the TPA would stand to benefit from the new opportunities offered. They would transfer to the contractor—if such a contractor were appointed—

  1007
  on their current terms and conditions of employment. All six companies have said that they intend to keep the core administration of the scheme at its current location. All six companies see possibilities for introducing new business. That, if it happened, could only be good for jobs and good, in particular, for those currently at Darlington.
  I know that change can be unsettling. When things are working fairly well, it is always tempting to leave them as they are. In such a case, the good can so easily become the enemy of the better. I do not believe that we can or should allow that to happen. We must build on the TPA's success. Our current work is designed to do just that. I commend the motion to the House.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I thank the Minister for taking the trouble to read out the letter that he sent to hon. Members on 10 November. He has added nothing to what he had to say in the letter. He read it extremely well. Perhaps it is a recommendation for literacy campaigns at primary school level.
  The teachers superannuation scheme is one of the largest occupational schemes in the country. Currently it has 550,000 contributing members—mainly teachers—258,000 members with preserved benefits—mainly former teachers, including those driven out of teaching by Government policy—and 350,000 pensioners—retired teachers or their widows and children. The key difference between the scheme and other schemes is that it is administered not by the 3,500 employers involved but by the Department for Education and Employment, through the Teachers Pensions Agency.
  Teachers, practising or retired, look to the scheme to provide them and their dependants with security in retirement, protection from misfortunes such as enforced early retirement due to ill health or redundancy—there have been a lot more of those in the past six or seven years—and protection for their dependants if they die in service or after retirement. Together with that security, they expect those administering the scheme to deal promptly, fairly and sympathetically with their problems and queries, many of which are of an extremely sensitive nature. They also expect high standards of integrity from those administering the scheme and a response which, within the regulations of the scheme, gives first priority to meeting the members' needs.
  While organisations representing teachers receive complaints on occasion about the current scheme, they tell me that complaints about the quality of service from the TPA are rare. Even those rare complaints are resolved promptly and satisfactorily. Indeed, the Minister said that everyone acknowledges what a good scheme it is.
  Ms Armstrong: I intervene to declare my interest. I think that my pension, or part of it, is still with the TPA. I am aware that I did not declare that interest when I intervened earlier. I support what my hon. Friend says about the quality of the scheme.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Well said. Teachers were originally apprehensive when the scheme was transferred from the pensions branch of the then Department of Education and Science to the Teachers Pensions Agency. However, in all honesty, it has to be said that in the main those fears
  1008
  proved to be groundless. The teachers believe that the agency has improved the service and dealt efficiently with the proliferation of employers caused directly by the Government's policy of atomising education provision.
  Since the TPA was launched in 1992, it is a matter of record that it has performed well. During 1993–94, it was set a target of a 2 per cent. saving in running costs. It achieved 5 per cent. Some 95 per cent. of all written inquiries received a substantive answer within 15 working days. In 99.2 per cent. of cases, retirement awards were processed by the payable date or, if applied for later, within 30 days of receipt of the application. Similar results were obtained for pension calculations. In other words, there is a high quality of service. That is not just my subjective opinion. It is well documented in last December's publication of the fourth annual review of the next steps agencies, which detailed the TPA's performance for 1993–94.
  One can always make the case, as the Minister has, for yet further improvements, but only on the basis of further investment in the required resources, as opposed to the transfer of administrative responsibilities. Sadly, that latter option is the only one that the Government examined. I put that point twice to the Minister when he spoke, but he could not give a substantive answer as to why that was the only option to be entertained. The Government's only proposal to KPMG was that the administration be left to a private sector company, according to the consultants, on the supposition that major benefits would result.
  The Minister's first argument was that it was feasible for the teachers superannuation scheme to be administered by a private sector contractor. Of course, feasibility is not necessarily synonymous with desirability. Lots of things are feasible, but that is no reason for doing them. The proposal is that the administration should be let out to a private sector company on the supposition, according to KPMG, that major benefits will result, despite the fact that 128 out of 131 organisations originally consulted refused to endorse the proposal. It received only three positive endorsements, but the Government still went ahead with it.
  The Government say that it is viable for the teachers superannuation scheme to be administered by a private sector contractor. I accept that, but they do not provide any evidence. The only evidence provided is the vague references in the KPMG report to discussions with unidentified organisations and the fact that there are those who are prepared to undertake the task. How can that assertion be tested against such scant evidence? One can assume only that the whole idea is based more on ideology than on objective analysis.
  Secondly, the Government insist that the technical means exist for the transfer. That may well be the case, but that does not mean that it will lead to improvements. The Government insist that it will lead to improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness with which the superannuation scheme is administered, but where is the evidence of, as KPMG asserts,
  "a general expectation that cost savings in the order of 20 per cent. or more ought to be achievable over a period of five or seven years"?
  Will those savings come from the imposition of new charges for services that are free? The Minister says no, but if they are to come from new information technology equipment, why has that hitherto been denied the Teachers Pensions Agency?

  1009
  The Government argue that private contractors will somehow benefit the TPA, yet it has exceeded its performance targets. On what criteria do the Government base their claim that commercial disciplines will have a positive effect on the quality of service? I can conclude only that that is doublespeak for lower-quality service and the introduction of charges for services that were previously free, which the Minister has denied.
  As for the staff employed at the TPA in Darlington, what do the Government claim as the benefit of privatisation? The claim appears to be based on the chimerical notion that financial incentives for the staff will improve efficiency, effectiveness and profitability. I contend that those perceived advantages for the staff will come only from reductions in pay and worsening conditions of service, at least for those who keep their jobs. There is no guarantee, however, that the same number of jobs will be maintained, for the reasons of commercial discipline already adumbrated. Indeed, the then Department for Education staff bulletin of 16 June said that further "possible staff surpluses" had been identified in Darlington. Volunteers for redundancy have been sought from 1995–96 onwards
  "aimed at avoiding compulsory redundancy".
  That is hardly a vote of confidence that the work force can take to heart.
  The Minister might argue, of course, that the improved IT will lead to fewer jobs and improved efficiency. If that is the case, I wonder whether he will answer some questions that I tabled for written answer, as to why the Hoskyn's project, aimed at introducing new information technology into the Teachers Pensions Agency, failed and at what cost. I understand that that is a matter of some legal dispute at the moment, but there was an attempt to introduce IT to a very complex scheme through the private sector. It failed miserably. As I understand it, the contract was terminated. What has changed so dramatically that other private sector companies will be able to make similar provision that will work?
  Mr. Robin Squire: The hon. Gentleman will find that the answer to his question will be published in either today's or the next day's Hansard. The answer is too complex for me to give him chapter and verse now, although it is not germane to his central issue, which seems to be that, if there has been any private sector involvement and it has gone wrong or has not performed, that of itself eliminates any possibility of considering private sector partnerships anywhere else.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Far from it. I do not suggest that the one naturally follows from the other. What I am saying is that the experience of the agency with the private sector leaves a lot to be desired. It is not merely a question of what happened with Hoskyn's, which subcontracted to an organisation known as UPSI the attempts to update information technology at the TPA. There have been similar, well-documented problems involving the Prudential insurance company, which was contracted to administer the additional voluntary contributions scheme on behalf of the teachers superannuation scheme. That too has been a failure. I am trying to point out that there is no room for confidence in the Minister's assertions that the introduction of IT in itself will necessarily benefit the scheme envisaged.
  1010
  I also want the Minister to consider the fact that there are nine miles of manual files in the Darlington headquarters. What analysis has he made of the cost of computerising that hoard of information, and how does it accord with his view of increased efficiency and the savings envisaged and, incidentally, the promise in the letter of 10 November, which he read out in lieu of a speech and which was sent to hon. Members on both sides of the House? He said that he is
  "absolutely committed to ensuring that the Scheme continues to operate smoothly and without interruption".
  Despite the Hoskyn's failure, according to KPMG—the Government's consultants—
  "all of the firms interviewed saw substantial scope to introduce improved IT systems".
  Will the Minister guarantee that those firms will be able to deliver what KPMG promises? Somehow, I doubt it. Both the KPMG report and the now famous letter to Members of Parliament of 10 November suggest that the promise is a combination of vague assumptions and terminological inexactitude, which give a totally misleading impression of what is possible in terms of computerising the system overnight without any disruption to the TPA.
  In fairness—the consultants were given a very limited brief within which to operate—KPMG listed a series of obstacles to the privatisation proposals. From the Government's perspective, the statutory constraints are the easiest to deal with. That is why they have produced these proposals, using the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to supersede the Superannuation Act 1972. However, the House will need to be convinced about the other four areas of concern that KPMG pinpointed. The first was the
  "quasi-monopoly position of the TPA"—
  a certain red rag to this bull of a Government, I am sure, unless the monopoly is a privatised one. KPMG argued that the contributors
  "need protection against unacceptably low standards of service".
  We have heard from the Minister and other hon. Members that the service is of a very high quality. Where are those low standards of service? If the thing is not broken, why do we need to mend it? The Minister must answer that.
  KPMG and, presumably, the Government are convinced that there is not
  "any category of private sector contractor which would be obviously unacceptable".
  That is a naive view. Frankly, such a claim from the Government is risible. Are we to believe that the private sector is jam-packed only with models of probity and fair play? Have the Government learnt nothing from past experience of what happens when some of these sharks from the City involve themselves?
  Mr. Squire: I do not need to comment on the hon. Gentleman's last rhetorical question, but would he claim that every public sector action, local government or national, has invariably been carried out without any fraud or misfeasance?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The question at issue is whether the proposal before the House will do anything to enhance the teachers superannuation scheme. The fact is that it will not. That is the considered view of the 128 organisations out of 131 that refused to endorse the original proposal.

  1011
  The KPMG report puts across strongly the idea that the proper use of the database of teachers' records is sacrosanct under the Data Protection Act 1984 and the Financial Services Act 1986. Like the Minister in his view on private sector companies coming into the public arena, I have my own area of naivety, and I must confess that this is it. I would love the Minister to enlighten me as to whether those nine miles of manual records are covered under the Data Protection Act 1984. I understand that manual records are not covered; only material kept on computer is covered.
  The third concern, even to KPMG, is the potential risk of failure. One option postulated in the report is that there might, in such circumstances, be a smooth transfer to a new operator. The other option is to revert to the control of the Department for Education and Employment. From that, KPMG tautologically declares that such a provision would do nothing to deter prospective bidders, as they would bid only on the expectation of succeeding.
  That is absolutely true. Presumably that is why the confidential pre-tendering discussions took place with the anointed six companies. They cannot lose. They set out their terms in private, set the parameters for tendering with the Government and know that if all else fails, the legislation will ensure that someone else—presumably the Government, or rather, the taxpayer—will pick up the tab if they get it wrong. That will all be at the expense of members of the scheme.
  Mr. Squire: It will not.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am willing to allow the Minister to intervene to explain why it will not. If the scheme fails, who picks up the tab? That question must be answered.
  KPMG discounts the chances of large numbers of members opting out of the teachers superannuation scheme. Indeed, in the magic letter of 10 November, the Minister said:
  "We would not allow the contractor to advise teachers whether to join or leave the scheme."
  I accept his word on that, but what of the contractor's agents or the position of consultants who perhaps deal with a contractor who does deal in personal pension plans?
  What about the experience of many teachers who have gone into personal pension plans? As the Minister will know, some 8,000 have opted to go back into the scheme because it is so successful. How will the Government guarantee that such second parties will not be able to circumvent the Government's intentions? I do not believe that they can.
  We oppose the proposal on the following grounds. It has not been subject to a comprehensive review. Only one option, that of privatisation, has been considered. Both preservation of the status quo and reversion to the DFEE have been ignored. I do not say that they are preferred options, but to have a comprehensive review, all the options must be examined—not just one.
  Secondly, the proposal will lead to job losses in Darlington. The people of Darlington and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) are in no doubt about that, because only through the shedding of jobs can the putative savings be made. There is no other way in
  1012
  which it can be done. The proposal ignores the cost-effectiveness of the scheme as it now operates, even given the Government's own criteria for successful appraisal. By their standards, the scheme is successful, yet they still want to dismantle parts of it.
  The Government's proposal would put a huge and successful scheme on the slippery slope to total privatisation, far beyond that of its administration alone. I do not believe that this is the end game; it is the start of opening up the scheme as a whole to privatisation. I accept that the Minister has said differently. I shall wait and see what eventuates if the Government have their way. The one fortunate thing is that we expect to be in government before that day comes.
  The Government's scheme has no support beyond the ideology of the Government and their money-grubbing City friends. It pays no regard to the views of the members of the teachers superannuation scheme, the employees of the Teachers Pensions Agency or the employers of contributors. The Government are so contemptuous of the interests of those groups that they agreed to meet their representatives on 30 November—three days after tonight's debate—when the die will already have been cast. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the proposal.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: As the House will be aware, the teachers superannuation scheme is run from Darlington by the Teachers Pensions Agency. Therefore, much that I have to say will reflect concerns not only of agency staff but of the whole community in the town.
  The Minister is well aware of my concerns, as I have met him and his officials on a number of occasions to voice them. I am grateful to him for the time and trouble that he has always taken. I am also grateful for the support that I have had from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
  As the Minister is aware, the 375 civil servants who work at the agency in Darlington have faced months of what I can describe only as demoralising uncertainty as they contemplate the potential impact of the handing over of their work to the private sector. It is right at the outset that we should dispose of one issue immediately. What the Minister politely calls contractorisation is in fact privatisation. That is so for a simple reason: virtually all the work of the Teachers Pensions Agency is to do with the administration of the teachers superannuation scheme. Let us not beat about the bush: we are debating privatisation this evening. That is what is before us.
  Staff in Darlington are concerned that their jobs will go the way of countless thousands of other jobs, most notably in the privatised utilities, whose workers know what privatisation means for employment; 160,000 workers have lost their jobs since the former public utilities were privatised. If that were to happen to the Teachers Pensions Agency in Darlington, the effects would be serious indeed.
  Already, as the Minister is aware, there is grave concern in the town about the impact on employment at the Department for Education and Employment headquarters at Mowden hall arising from the merger of

  1013
  the two Government Departments. However, the biggest fear is that a successful bidder for the teachers superannuation scheme could decide to relocate work away from the agency's headquarters in the town.
  I have not been at all reassured by what the Minister thus far has had to say from the Dispatch Box. He was not able to define core administration, or, apparently, enforce a condition on any of the bidders that they retain employment in Darlington. Staff will draw their own conclusions about what the future may hold.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I shall not interrupt the hon. Gentleman persistently, but I hope he will address the question why, should the contract go to the private sector, any contractor would wish to overlook its main asset, which would be the quality of the staff at Darlington.
  Mr. Milburn: There is no argument about the quality of the staff or the expertise of the people who work at the agency in Darlington, but it is clear from the names of companies that have expressed an interest and been invited to bid that many are large financial institutions. They may well take the view that it would be cheaper, if not beneficial, to move work away from Darlington. That is our concern.
  Darlington borough council has estimated that, if 400 posts were lost, an 8 per cent. increase in unemployment would be generated, in a district that already has more people out of work than anywhere else in County Durham. Darlington simply cannot afford to lose the high-quality employment that the agency offers. The agency is a key employer, which is valued by the whole community.
  Ministers say—we have heard it again this evening—that all six firms that have been invited to bid have said that they will retain their core administration in the town. That should come as no surprise to anyone. What else could they be expected to say, particularly at this stage in the bidding process? Naturally they want to send out the right noises, because they want to win the contract.
  In any case, as we have already heard this evening, "core administration" does not amount to a guarantee that work will not be relocated away from Darlington. The Minister has confirmed that the Department has not made it a condition of bidding that such guarantees are given by each of the six firms. The Minister cannot have it both ways: he cannot say that all the private companies that are bidding are giving guarantees, and then be unable to define what those guarantees mean. But that is what has happened this evening.
  It is not surprising that staff at the agency feel deeply despondent about how they have been treated. After all, the Teachers Pensions Agency, in providing a high-quality service for 1.3 million teachers and more than 3,000 employers, has met all the key performance targets that Ministers set for it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walton outlined some of the targets that the TPA has succeeded not just in meeting but in surpassing in the past few years. He did not mention, however, that the accuracy performance of the agency's staff has now exceeded the 95 per cent. target set for them by Ministers. It is now at 96.8 per cent. That has been achieved against a background in which the number of establishments being dealt with by the TPA has risen dramatically by 42 per cent. during the past year or so.
  1014
  On anyone's calculations, those are substantial achievements. They have been made by a dedicated and hard-working staff, who have made efficiency savings of 5 per cent. per annum. Obviously, they accept that further improvements can be made in the future, and they are committed to making those improvements if they are given the opportunity. The crucial issue is whether they will be given that opportunity. Their good performance, however, has counted for nothing against the absolute determination of Ministers to force through the privatisation of an agency that seems, in their minds, almost too successful to belong in the public sector. Let us consider the evidence. When it was established as an executive agency in April 1992, staff received an absolute assurance from the then junior Education Minister, my predecessor, Michael Fallon, that there was no intention of moving the agency out of the public sector.
  Mr. David Jamieson: A broken promise.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right—three years on, and another Government promise has bitten the dust and gone the way of so many before it.
  The KPMG report, on which this order is ultimately based, argued for the privatisation approach, but did not even consider the status quo as an option. Thankfully, others took a different, more measured and considered view.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, the result of the public consultation exercise undertaken by the Department revealed that only three organisations or individuals backed privatisation. However, my hon. Friend did not say that one of those was a potential contractor, which is hardly a ringing objective endorsement of the Government's proposal to hand over the agency's work to the private sector.
  By contrast, the 107 organisations that expressed a preference opposed privatisation. Included in the 107 were four petitions, containing 911 names. I should have thought that a vote of 1,000 to three—or 1,000 to two, if one discounts the vested interest—was a clear verdict. I should have expected a reasonable Minister to listen to it, not least because it reflects the views of the agency's customers.
  The Minister was right to remind us that the agency's customers are also taxpayers. They are teachers, employers, schools and local education authorities, and they too have an interest in ensuring the running of a well-ordered, well-administered scheme.
  Once the consultation had ended, I would have hoped that a Government who were genuinely committed to consultation, prepared to listen and to put common sense above political dogma, would take stock. I would have hoped that the Government would at least pause for thought. Instead, they decided to push ahead with the privatisation exercise, because they dismissed the results of their own consultation exercise.
  According to the Department's response, the Government dismissed the views of those consulted on the ground that
  "Their objections to contractorisation are not well founded."
  The real conclusion to be drawn from this farce is not that the consultees were ignorant, as the departmental document seems to suggest, but that the consultation exercise was a sham from start to finish.

  1015
  The agency's customers are not the only ones on the record as opposing privatisation. The Minister appears to have a short memory, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton reminded him, just five years ago, in 1990, the Department's next steps feasibility study also concluded against the contractorisation option. We are confronted by an unholy alliance of former members of the Government's Front Bench, teachers, local education authorities and employers who are united against this proposal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walton asked the Minister what has changed in the past five years, but he received no answer. The answer is simple: in 1995, the lurch to the right by the Government has jettisoned all talk of consensus. The opinion of agency staff, teachers, employers and even that of former Ministers has been jettisoned in the headlong rush towards privatisation. In the Government's mind, there is a simple equation that brooks no opposition: public is bad, private is good—"two legs bad, four legs good".
  The triumph of right-wing dogma is being taken to excess in the way in which the privatisation of the agency is being handled. Not only are six companies being invited to bid to run the TSS, in the teeth of considered opposition, but they are being invited to help frame the terms on which they bid.
  The Minister has seen a copy of a memo sent to all the staff at the Teachers Pensions Agency in Darlington by P. F. Owen, a senior official in his Department. He explained how the Department is now progressing with the bid process. He said:
  "We shall shortly invite the representatives, teachers and their employers to comment on a draft statement of the services that any contractor would have to provide administering the scheme."
  So far so good.
  "Similar invitations will go to the staff of the TPA"—
  an excellent idea—
  "to staff in other parts of the department who have been involved in drafting sections of the text"—
  that seems sensible—
  "to the trade union side"—
  and finally—
  "to the six companies that we are inviting to tender."
  In other words, those six firms are to be given the not inconsiderable advantage of shaping the yardstick against which their bids will be judged. They are having their cake and eating it.
  I would be delighted to give way to the Minister if he could tell me why on earth those six contractors, who threaten to steal work from civil servants at the agency, are being allowed to shape the very terms of the contract for which they will bid.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I will ignore some of the emotive words that the hon. Gentleman has used, because they do not assist the debate. The answer is that, not least in order to clarify and to avoid any area of doubt, it seemed an excellent idea that the consultation exercise should involve not just the staff but putative tenderers. The Secretary of State retains the final decision on the form and content of the contract. That is clear and unarguable.
  Mr. Milburn: Does not the Minister accept that the process of involving the six firms that are prospectively
  1016
  in the frame to receive that contract, in the shaping of the terms and conditions under which they will bid, at the very least calls into doubt the impartiality and integrity of the process? It appears to speak volumes for Ministers' determination to force through that privatisation, come what may.
  Ms Armstrong: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to ask the Minister whether he will publish the comments that were received from the six companies, so that we are able to judge precisely the effect that they have on the subsequent contract.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend's idea is welcome, and extremely sensible. If the Minister were prepared to accept it, it would help to dispel some of the doubts. I hope that, if the Minister has an opportunity to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will answer the question asked by my hon. Friend.
  However, I now reach the crucial issue. We have heard much about value for money for the taxpayer. We have heard that the people who currently run the agency, and who, the Minister acknowledges, do so successfully, have been denied the right to bid against the private sector for that work. How is it possible to compare like with like, when the people who currently run the scheme are not allowed to bid? The result of excluding the staff from bidding is that the taxpayer is denied a fair comparison between what the private and public sectors can deliver.
  Finally, the TSS is a complex scheme, which relies for its success on the scale and expertise of the agency's staff, and the faith of its customers in their integrity and impartiality. Handing the scheme over to untried but commercially interested private sector organisations risks losing both. In my opinion, it is a risk not worth taking.
  The TPA is a public sector success story. Instead of privatisation, agency staff in Darlington should be allowed to build on their considerable record of achievement. That is what they want; it is what teachers want; it is what employers want. I hope that the Minister listens for once.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: Recent Government legislation in respect of pension schemes has attempted to increase the power that is given to pensioners and deferred pensioners. Therefore it is perfectly appropriate, in a debate such as this, that we, in deciding which way to vote, take special notice of the opinions of those people who are the customers of the Teachers Pensions Agency. I am sure that many hon. Members have received as much correspondence about that issue as I have. The overwhelming majority of the people who have written to me have expressed considerable anxiety about the proposals that we are debating.
  I hold very much to the view, "If something ain't broke, don't fix it," yet the Government are attempting to meddle with something that definitely is not broken. Indeed, Sir Peter Levene, the Government's adviser on privatisation issues, recently said that if a private sector company achieved 85 per cent. of its objectives, it was performing excellently. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) said, the TPA is already achieving all its targets and is outstripping its objectives by more than 95 per cent. Indeed, the Teachers Pensions Agency, set up, as

  1017
  Members will recall, as long ago as 1992, has met and/or exceeded all the efficiency targets set for it by Government.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the report produced by the consultants KPMG, and some have said that that report suggested that it might be possible to make savings of approximately 20 per cent. However, that report, as those who have read it will testify, gives no evidence to support that view except unsubstantiated claims made on behalf of the various private companies that have been consulted, many of which may be involved in the process of attempting to take over the administration of the scheme. Incidentally, it seems a little unwise to be considering administrative changes at the very time when the TPA will be dealing with numerous requests from part-time teachers for retrospective membership of the scheme.
  I said at the beginning of my speech that we should take account of the users of the scheme. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Darlington said, we should take much more note than the Government are of all those—including users of the scheme—who were consulted about the proposals. As we know, 131 organisations were consulted, 128 of which refused to support the privatisation; more than 100 directly opposed it. Only three organisations supported it, one of which—as has been pointed out—was a potential bidder for the contract. Moreover, teachers' organisations are unanimous in their opposition to the move. They do not want the scheme to be run for profit by a private contractor. It is also opposed by employers, teachers, civil service trade unions and—importantly—the staff of the TPA.
  As we know, in 1990, the Department rejected the notion of letting a contract for the administration of the scheme—no doubt sharing the view that the TPA could make all the improvements that a private sector contractor could make. The whole consultation has been a sham. I noted that, from a sedentary position, the Minister denied a suggestion that he is to meet teachers' representatives in three days' time to consult on the plan; perhaps he would like to confirm that.
  Mr. Robin Squire: Let me tell the House—for purposes of clarification alone—that we are discussing an enabling order. I have already made it clear that any decision is still months away, and during that time I want to continue to meet staff members. In that context, I look forward to the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Mr. Foster: Surely that illustrates the concern that many of us feel. Yet again, the Minister has openly admitted that this is enabling legislation—when the Government have not the foggiest idea what the details of their proposals will be. The Minister is seeking the House's permission to go ahead and develop the scheme with a blank cheque, and—as he admits—he still has not engaged in detailed consultation even with the representatives of teachers, who are those most likely to be affected.
  The Government's White Paper "The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change" stated categorically that there should be a five-year period between reviews after the creation of an agency. As hon. Members will recall, the agency was created in 1992, only three years ago. That is yet another example of rapid changes in Government thinking.
  1018
  Many who have expressed concern about the proposal have done so because they believe that management in the private sector will create a number of risks. Many are anxious about, for example, the possible loss of an independent and impartial role. The Minister may wish to confirm, or otherwise, that the TPA currently has powers to determine whether members of the scheme should receive benefits in certain defined circumstances, such as ill health, and how much they should receive in those circumstances. If the agency indeed has those discretionary powers, there is a danger that a contractor may decide to say no simply because an increase in the amount of work would result, reducing the profit.
  It is also feared that the work involved in letting the contract would be expensive, and that transferring administration of the scheme to the private sector would lead to a loss of continuity and experience. Many people are concerned about their ability to seek redress in the event of poor service or maladministration. The Minister has said that it will be possible to appeal to the Secretary of State or to go to the pensions ombudsman. I hope that the Minister will respond to an earlier query about whether inquiries made to the pensions ombudsman and the handling of such inquiries will be made public.
  People are also concerned about the possible mis-selling of personal pensions. I acknowledge that, in his letter to all hon. Members, the Minister gives an assurance that the Government will not let that happen. However, I hope that the Minister will give greater comfort to those who are worried by explaining how he would prevent mis-selling and what action he would take if the firm, its agents or subcontractors attempted to use the database of TPA members as the basis for selling on various personal services, including personal pension plans.
  Other hon. Members have questioned whether the 20 per cent. saving that the consultants allege may be possible in a five to seven-year period will be delivered. There is no clear evidence in the KPMG report that it will. Perhaps the House should recall that the TPA has plans to cut its own costs by 7.5 per cent. each year for the next three years. In three years—not five or seven years—that would result in the savings that the KPMG report envisages.
  Mr. Squire: There is no argument between the hon. Gentleman and me on that point. He has my assurance that we are anticipating savings over and above those that are built in.
  Mr. Foster: I am very glad to hear it, because we can then go a step further. Those working for the TPA have made it absolutely clear that, if the Department were to give them the financial support to enable them to introduce the level of information technology equipment that undoubtedly will be used by the private contractors, they, too, could make or better the savings that are envisaged by the private sector.
  I believe that this is a privatisation too far. [Interruption.] I shall give way if the Minister wishes to intervene. I believe that it poses a real threat to quality and to impartiality. The private sector companies will seek to profit from the scheme, with clear implications for the standard of service that members receive. Teachers have worried about their jobs and their pay in recent years and now a black cloud is hovering over their pensions. The

  1019
  Government's devotion to privatisation has outweighed the reasoned arguments against the change, and therefore I do not believe that it should be supported.
  9.22 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: While we have heard some interesting speeches by Opposition Members, I believe that they have represented the vested interest rather than the public interest in this matter. Their accounts of the Government's proposals have been tendentious and I do not think that they have reflected properly the Government's actions and proposals, which make a lot of sense to me.
  Something must be said in support of the teachers, who work very hard with great dedication and care. By and large, they are motivated by vocation rather than by money. Therefore, they deserve a good, well-administered pension scheme, and in that regard, they have nothing to fear from the Government's proposals.
  Labour Members have not yet recognised the great benefits that privatisation has brought to this country in the past two decades. Many industries that used to cost the taxpayer many millions of pounds—£50 million per week is an often-quoted figure—now deliver great benefits. They pay corporation tax and they deliver better services to their customers.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Has the hon. Gentleman read the KPMG report, and if he has, what did he think of its detailed conclusions?
  Dr. Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to my speech. I shall demonstrate to him that I know what the KPMG report revealed.
  The Government invited six private sector companies to tender for a contract to administer the teachers superannuation scheme in England and Wales. Those tenders were invited because the Government considered that letting a contract would provide better value for money than retaining the administration of the scheme within the public sector. The Government have tried and tested that philosophy and it has been proved for almost two decades.
  All six companies have declared that they would seek a fee for administering the scheme that is lower than the expected costs of the Teachers Pensions Agency, which currently administers the scheme, so there are real benefits for the taxpayers. Last year, the TPA's running costs were more than £15 million—not an insignificant sum. We owe it to the taxpayer to find out whether we can make savings and if we can, we should do so, but we must be satisfied that a private sector company will deliver better value for money than the TPA. I am happy with the comfort that the Minister has given the House on that point.
  Any contract would concern only the administration of the scheme; the scheme itself would remain in the public sector on its current statutory basis. The Secretary of State would remain responsible to Parliament for the scheme and would continue to be advised by his civil servants. Letting a contract would not affect the size or safety of the teachers pension in any way. As we have heard from the Minister tonight, the scheme does not have a real pension fund. Instead, payments are made to and from the Exchequer.
  1020
  When he replies to the debate, can my hon. Friend confirm that any contract would require a standard of service and performance at least as high as that currently provided by the TPA? Will he undertake to monitor the contractor's performance to ensure that?
  Will my hon. Friend also confirm that he is absolutely committed to ensuring that the scheme continues to operate smoothly without interruption and that the contractor would not be allowed to advise teachers whether to join or to leave the scheme, so that the problems that arose with the mis-selling of personal pensions could not occur? We heard the misgivings of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on that matter and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to give us some comfort.
  Will my hon. Friend give us some guarantees about the use and protection of data within the scheme? I am pleased that all six companies have declared that they will keep data confidential and I am sure that that will he the case, but we still require some guarantees. I seek some assurances that a contractor must have effective arrangements in place to deal with any complaints about the administration of the scheme. We know that there are no plans to allow a contractor to impose new charges on members of the scheme or employees and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.
  Finally, the resolution does not demonstrate a negative attitude to the TPA. It is widely accepted that the TPA provides a good service to its members and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that once again. We now intend to build on the success of the TPA and the affirmative resolution, which I recommend that Members support, represents a positive move in the administration of the scheme and in the good stewardship of public finances that is absolutely essential.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: The debate shows the enormity of the power that a Minister can take unto himself under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It is shown in the sheer scale of the function that the Government propose to privatise—and I use that word deliberately.
  The teachers superannuation fund is one of the biggest such funds, with 1.25 million participants. The public will note that the Government are contracting out that enormous scheme without primary legislation and with inadequate consultation and review. Not least, that will be noted by the 1.25 million teachers and retired teachers who have a direct interest in the matter. I declare my interest as a lifelong member of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. I have a pension under the teachers superannuation scheme.
  The issue was first raised in February and there was some correspondence at the time, but it has become more prominent recently because people have begun to realise that the Government have come to the end of their charade of consultation. I visited schools in my constituency and canvassed teachers—the people most affected by the proposal. The reaction was one of anger at the principle of the proposal and at the lack of consultation.
  I received a letter from a teacher in a school in the constituency of Knowsley, North. The school will be coming into my constituency under the boundary review

  1021
  and at one time I was chairman of the board of governors. I know the teacher, Marjorie Sumner, well. She teaches at the Prescot county primary school and is one of the unsung heroines of the teaching profession—a dedicated and good teacher who has spent 30 years in her locality.
  Mrs. Sumner wrote to me today saying:
  "I am writing to you, as you are my Member of Parliament"—
  she lives in my constituency—
  "to express my opposition to The Governments proposed Privatisation of the Teachers' Pension Scheme.
  I have taught for my local L.E.A. for over thirty years, paying into a Superannuation Scheme, without option, on the understanding that my teachers retirement pension would be secure.
  Having devoted myself to the teaching profession for all my working life I have implemented the National Curriculum with enthusiasm and expertise spending many hours discussing, preparing and presenting resources for colleagues.
  As the Government did not think things"—
  the national curriculum—
  "through, a great deal of time, work, effort and money have been totally wasted and I now feel very let down by The Government once again by them proposing a drastic change in the administration of the Teachers' Superannuation.
  I feel I must voice my objection to the lack of consultation and liaison with Teachers."
  Marjorie Sumner is by no means a political activist; she is not militant in any way. She is a rank-and-file teacher, moved to anger and disgust by the Government's proposal.
  I have some questions for the Minister, some of which have already been raised by my hon. Friends. Cost-effectiveness does not equal efficiency, as has been proved with compulsory competitive tendering in local authorities. What about the cost savings that could be available to the present Teachers Pensions Agency through the introduction of information technology? What about the costs of contracting out in relation to redundancy payments? We can be sure that there will be redundancies and they come at a heavy cost. What about the costs of the scheme in future years?
  Once the scheme is contracted out and the facilities taken over, the position will be similar to that in local councils when the refuse collection service was taken over. If the Government are not satisfied with the service at any time in the future, they will not have the core facility available to enable them to take it back. As we have seen with other privatisations, once the tender is let, the negotiating hand is with those who hold the tenders because they have the resources to carry out the function.
  What we have here is a short-term ledger benefit. It is probably an illusory benefit when we take into account the start-up costs of the scheme in terms of redundancies, write-downs and, if the facilities at Darlington are not taken over, the drag on resources to maintain the facilities. There are long-term costs in terms of efficiency and in the loss of jobs to the Darlington area.
  I have a question to ask the Minister that no one has asked so far. He said several times that he has been given to understand that all six of the organisations that were consulted would probably keep the core function in Darlington. What does that mean? Does it mean, for example, that basic data input operations, such as basic keyboard work, could be subcontracted out to the
  1022
  Philippines? I should like an answer to that question, and perhaps the Minister will have the opportunity to answer in his reply.
  The Government are all about short-term ledger benefit, and that is what the order is all about. The order is all about upheaval in one of the major superannuation funds to attain an ephemeral saving of £15 million in running costs. Horace said:
  "Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus",
  which means that mountains go into labour and a ridiculous little mouse is born. Perhaps it is an edible dormouse—a chocolate mouse, a tasty morsel—that makes an infinitesimal contribution to the tax cuts with which the Government are seeking to bribe the electorate.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Kilfoyle: With the leave of the House. I know that the Minister is anxious to answer the many points that have been made. May I commend him for the magical letter of 10 November to which many of us have referred? The letter was so good that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) made it seem like a remedial reader—something that should be used more often by Conservative Members.
  I should like to ask the Minister two serious questions arising from the debate. First, it is recognised by all hon. Members that the Teachers Pensions Agency has been extremely cost-effective and efficient in dealing with the teachers superannuation scheme. On that basis, if no other, why was it frozen out from bidding for the work? The Government know that the TPA observes commercial disciplines and that it has shown in practice how effectively it can compete with anyone in the private sector.
  Secondly, will the Minister announce whether he will publish the notes of the discussions that were held with the chosen companies that led to the terms, conditions and excuses set out in the letter of 10 November?
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: This has been an interesting debate, although I sense that Opposition Members did not either read my famous letter, which is now to be immortalised—I cannot wait for the video—or take into account the comments that I made earlier.
  I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for his comments. I share his praise for teachers, and I can confirm that they have a good pension scheme. The scheme is not in any way at risk as a result of the order. As for confirmation of each of the points that he rightly mentioned, I have to save time—Opposition Members will get a little agitated if I go over them—so I confirm them all, as indeed I did in my opening speech.
  I shall try in the time available to answer each of the questions asked, beginning with that asked by the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong). She asked whether complaints to the pensions ombudsman would be published. The answer is no, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] When I have finished, hon. Members may be able to withdraw the "shame". Quite a few people who complain to the pensions ombudsman may not be willing to have the facts and detail of that

  1023
  complaint made public. If, however, they wish to make it public, they have, with great respect, any and every way so to do.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, asked a question about the ability for personal pensions to be sold to members of the TPA. I assume that he meant those within the scheme, not the staff. I emphasise what I thought I had made clear, but obviously I had not: the contractor will not be able to use data that he holds on members of the scheme to seek to sell any financial schemes.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) asked whether manual records will be covered by the Data Protection Act 1984. Manual records will be covered by a confidentiality clause in the contract. If those records are computerised in due course, they will of course be covered by the Data Protection Act.
  Further to that point and on the same issue, the hon. Member for Bath asked what would happen if the contractor or its agents misused the database. That would be a breach of contract and would be treated very seriously indeed.
  The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) understandably spoke on behalf of many of his constituents and his point was emphasised by at least one other hon. Member. The agency is already committed to making significant savings in this and the next two years. The hon. Gentleman can also guess, although it is not absolutely certain, that, logically, those savings may have staffing implications. That is scarcely a strange suggestion to make.
  We are considering how best to safeguard the interests of staff at Darlington. If it is decided to allow the private sector to run the scheme, that would, for reasons that I advanced in opening, give significant promise of long-term stability to staff at Darlington.
  It is common ground between the hon. Member for Darlington and me that the quality of staff is high, and I emphasise what I said in an intervention: that precisely because the quality is so good, it would scarcely be in the interests of any incoming contractor to consider not locating its business at Darlington. That is where the knowledge and expertise has been built up and where—obviously—it would remain.
  Mr. Milburn rose—
  Mr. Squire: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I was generous in giving way. I am conscious that I have only two and a half minutes left and I am trying to deal with quite a few other questions. There will be opportunities to raise matters outside.
  The hon. Members for Darlington and for Walton said that it was disgraceful—or words to that effect—that the TPA had not made a bid. It could have done so. Its staff or management could have launched a bid to buy the agency, but they chose not to do so. That was their choice. They were not required to do so, and they did not do so.
  The hon. Member for Darlington asked, and I tried to answer, why companies should be consulted on the draft requirements. I shall try one more time to convince him. Administering the scheme is a complex operation—that much at least should be common ground between us. We
  1024
  want to give the companies the chance to clarify any points that are unclear. They may also be able to suggest improvements to draft requirements, drawing on their commercial expertise. I confirm, however, that there is no question of watering down the requirements and that there is no suggestion that the companies would seek to do that.
  The hon. Member for Bath also asked what discretion the contractor would have in making decisions on entitlements. I can confirm that the Secretary of State would retain control over decisions that affect entitlement to benefits under the scheme or the amount of those benefits.
  I will write to hon. Members on points that I have not covered. In essence, there is a choice tonight. There are only two reasons for rejecting the order. The first is that hon. Members have not understood the order and the safeguards that are built into it—I am afraid to say that that may be so—and the second is that hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, are still against the private sector. Despite all the honeyed words of the Leader of the Opposition, who says that Labour has now changed, the reality is that it has not and that is why Labour Members will vote against the order.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents).
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 205.

  Division No. 5]

  [9.45 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coe, Sebastan

  Amess, David

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Bates, Michael

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brazier, Julian

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Elletson, Harold

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Burns, Simon

  Evennett, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Faber, David

  Butler, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forman, Nigel

  Carttiss, Michael

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Cash, William

  Forth, Eric

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  1025

  French, Douglas

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Gale, Roger

  Mills, Iain

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gorst, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hannam, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Paice, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hendry, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Hicks, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert

  Sims, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knapman, Roger

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

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

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knox, Sir David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spring, Richard

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sproat, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lidington, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Stern, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sumberg, David

  Lord, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Luff, Peter

  Sykes, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Madel, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Malone, Gerald

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mans, Keith

  Tracey, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Trend, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Walden, George

  1026

  Waller, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Wells, Bowen

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Gary Streeter.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Allen, Graham

  Etherington, Bill

  Alton, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barron, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gerrard, Neil

  Berry, Roger

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bradley, Keith

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chisholm, Malcolm

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

  Church, Judith

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corston, Jean

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

  Cousins, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cox, Tom

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dafis, Cynog

  Litherland, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAllion, John

  Denham, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dobson, Frank

  McFall, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Madden, Max

  1027

  Mahon, Alice

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mandelson, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Milburn, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yaidley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Tyler, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pike, Peter L

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wise, Audrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Worthington, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Joe Benton.

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Contracting Out (Administration of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.

  EDUCATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Greg Pope be discharged from the Education Committee and Mr. Alan Keen be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Denham and Jane Kennedy be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Neil Gerrard and Mr. Matthew Taylor be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  HOME AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Ms Janet Anderson be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Jean Corston be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Nigel Waterson be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Tim Renton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Malcolm Wicks be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Alan Howarth be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Ordered,
  That Ann Coffey, Mr. Richard Caborn and Mr. Nick Harvey be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Martin O'Neill and Joan Walley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  TRANSPORT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Nick Hawkins be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Eric Pickles be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  TREASURY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Mike O'Brien be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Clive Betts be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  Higher Education
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I am very grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise this important matter.
  Earlier today, we were discussing the Education (Student Loans) Bill, and, in so doing, we touched on the view of many hon. Members that it does not begin to tackle the growing problems of poverty and hardship faced by many students. In this brief debate, I want to draw attention to the growing concern about the significant rise in the level of stress among students in higher education—stress brought on partly, but not exclusively, by financial worries.
  If the Government are not prepared to take serious action to reduce the cause of those problems, as they ought, they should at least take action to assist higher education institutions and to bolster their support and welfare services to enable better counselling and guidance to be given to students suffering the effects of such stress.
  In answers to recent parliamentary questions, the Government have acknowledged that, in the past five years, they have undertaken no research into the number of students suffering from stress and depression. In such answers, they have also argued that they have no powers to intervene, and admitted that they have taken no steps to improve welfare and counselling services during the past five years.
  During the summer, I carried out a detailed survey of the issue. The results were very worrying. As a result of the survey's indications, I believe that there are a number of areas in which the Government could take action.
  When conducting my survey, I contacted all 117 universities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about levels of stress and student suicide during the past 10 years. I ensured that Ministers received a copy. Seventy-two per cent. responded, and, to ensure that the results were rigorous and consistent, the 40 universities that provided us with complete data were used in the final statistical analysis.
  The study was based on a survey of the responses from all 72 universities, as well as on the records and informed opinion and comments from welfare counsellors, heads of student services and vice-chancellors. We also liaised with organisations such as the Association for Student Counselling.
  The survey showed that, with rare exceptions, universities reported a significant increase in the number of students seeking some form of counselling. Financial concerns were cited as the most common factor inducing stress in students. For example, one university described financial pressures on students as "intolerable".
  Other reasons for the need for counselling were also cited. Current academic and future employment pressures were among the common causes mentioned. Academic pressures resulted mainly from the shortage of books and equipment and overcrowded study places. Employment pressures were brought on by knowledge of growing graduate unemployment.
  1030
  I said that there were a range of different issues. One issue of particular concern, which relates to the debate we had earlier today, is stress caused by money problems. As a result of such money problems, more and more students have to take jobs during term time, which has often led to exhaustion and to their falling behind with their studies.
  Only today, I received a letter from a student in Lancaster. Unfortunately, I cannot read her surname. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) in her place. The student, who is at St. Martin's college, wrote:
  "I'm a mature student, a single-parent, who is finding it hard to keep balancing my financial juggling act. I also work part-time as my grant does not even cover my outgoings. I am not allowed income support and family credit was also rejected on the grounds that I get a grant.
  My case is not unique. Most students are having a difficult time. We have no options but to work to make ends meet. This is causing a lot of stress, physical fatigue and illness."
  Problems with increasing stress were also caused by the growth in the number of students not being matched by the growth in the number of staff. As a result, lecturers have to deal with larger class sizes, and therefore find it more difficult to give attention to individual students. As one academic in our study reported:
  "There is often little time or energy left for responding to the individual personal and academic needs of students."
  Sadly, there has been an increase in the number of young people committing suicide. Although the rate of suicide at university is lower than in the most comparable prevailing age group—that is, 15 to 25-year-olds—there has nevertheless been a significant increase in the number of students in higher education committing suicide in recent years. The rate, allowing for the expansion in student numbers, has risen fourfold between 1983–84 and 1993–94.
  From the survey, we also noted that male students from 1993–94 were three times more likely to take their lives than female students. We also noted that mature students are especially vulnerable. Of all students who took their own lives, 45 were aged 25 and above, although such students constitute only 22 per cent. of the total student body.
  Ours is not the only survey that has looked into the issue. In a somewhat limited survey last month, the British Medical Association discovered that university doctors were reporting a rising number of students being treated for stress-related illness. The survey followed concerns over the mental and physical health of students raised by the British Association of Health Services in Higher Education. It had found growing instances of panic attacks, chronic fatigue and depression among students, especially among those trying to hold down part-time jobs while studying or worrying about their employment prospects on completing their courses.
  Professor Colin Pritchard, professor of social work studies at Southampton university, is researching a new book on the causes of suicide, to be called "Suicide—the ultimate rejection?" From his studies, he says that many tragedies could be avoided if students had more access to counselling and one-to-one contact with tutors.
  Other sources that support our survey include a recent National Union of Students study, "Values for Money", which was published in March this year. It revealed that

  1031
  one in four students admitted to "often" or "always" worrying about their financial positions, and that 10 per cent. reported often having depressed moods.
  The study said that 39 per cent. of the students surveyed considered themselves to be in financial hardship. More than one in four admitted to "often" or "always" worrying about financial hardship, and one in four had considered dropping out of his or her course because of financial difficulties. The survey also confirmed our study, which revealed that many students were now beginning to work part time. Just under a third of those surveyed had worked part time during term time while at university. Of those who worked, 69 per cent. thought that the work had affected their studies.
  Universities are well aware of that growing problem. They have responded as well as they could, by providing a range of support and counselling services, with appropriate medical and psychiatrically trained staff where possible. A multi-layered provision has developed, including welfare tutorials offered by academic staff and counsellors alike. Residential wardens in halls of residence and chaplaincies have also become involved.
  A range of other support services are developing through student welfare services, provided by either the university or the student union or, in some cases, both. A number of voluntary organisations have become involved in this issue. I draw attention to the valuable work of Nightline.
  Having published our survey, we circulated it to the institutions that we had originally invited to respond to it. We received many responses from them in the light of the content of our survey. Plymouth university welfare unit's annual report said:
  "With students facing increasing financial hardship the workload in Welfare has increased dramatically with the first cases of malnutrition in students being reported."
  The counselling and advisory unit at Westminster university responded by saying that our report
  "is exactly what is needed to bring the whole topic into the open … for several years now it has been a growing problem in British Universities and yet it is one which is scarcely talked about, sometimes even among professionals. In a climate where suicide is still something of a taboo word, it is a great relief to see that our findings are endorsed by objective research such as yours".
  Essex university said that the picture that our survey
  "paints is clearly recognisable at this University and it adds to the already compelling case for a reform of student funding that would tackle student poverty."
  This is not primarily a debate about student funding—we had that debate earlier today. However, there is a case for suggesting that the Government could take some action at least to find ways of alleviating some of the difficulties of students suffering as I have described. There are enormous variations from university to university. For example, the "Push Guide to Which University 96" reports widely differing figures for the number of students per counsellor, which range from one counsellor per 36 students to one counsellor per 833 students.
  In the past few days, thousands of students have demonstrated in London to protest about increased hardship. At the same time, academics at Westminster university have hosted a conference entitled "Managing
  1032
  Poverty; A one-day conference to explore poverty in education and its impact on the student experience". The time has come for action to be taken.
  Edinburgh university, for example, has now set up its own labour exchange to help hard-pressed students find part-time jobs during term time, as an alternative to falling in debt. The Samaritans have launched a new telephone number for students, and many university nightlines now work in conjunction with the Samaritans. Even the Higher Education Funding Council is funding a research project at the university of Northumbria on the increase in the number of students in UK universities who have acute mental health problems. The time has therefore come to take action.
  I therefore urge the Minister to consider whether it is possible to establish a working party in conjunction with the National Union of Students, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the relevant voluntary organisations to review counselling services in our universities and student unions; to identify them and publicise examples of good practice; and to report on any identified deficiencies in levels and type of provision. I hope that they will also find the means of creating better publicity about the availability of existing student counselling services. In particular, I hope that they will find a way to target such publicity at male students, since our study suggests that those students in particular still feel that there is a stigma attached to seeking help.
  The Secretary of State, having seen a copy of our survey results, responded to me only today, saying that it related to
  "a matter which cannot help but concern everyone involved in higher education."
  Based on the Minister's response, I hope that that concern will be translated into action.
  10.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) not only for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, but for doing me the courtesy, as he invariably does, of letting me have the background material to the debate so that I could consider it and give a measured response.
  I looked carefully at the document that the hon. Gentleman sent to me, which forms the basis of the debate, and, because it is relevant to our consideration, it would be fair to quote the phrase:
  "We feel it appropriate to emphasise that this is by no means an authoritative survey."
  The hon. Gentleman has accepted that. I do not mean to undermine the thrust of the findings contained in the document, but it is fair to say that, like so much other information on the subject, the document is not necessarily representative. It may not give the full picture, but it certainly highlights a matter of concern not only to the hon. Gentleman but to many other people.
  I should like to quote two paragraphs from the document because they provide a relevant background to the subject. The first paragraph states:
  "In the last ten years a dramatic change has taken place in the field of Higher Education. More and more people have enjoyed the benefits of higher education. Students are increasingly drawn from

  1033
  a wider variety of backgrounds; there are more mature students, women returners, disabled students and people from ethnic minority backgrounds."
  The paragraph also outlines that whereas in the 1983–84 academic year there were 882,000 students in higher education, that number had risen by 1993–94 to 1,573,000. We are obviously dealing with a much larger and disparate group of people in higher education, whereas, as the House will know, many years ago it was an elite that received higher education. I think it is fair to describe it as such. Now, thankfully, the kind of people who are coming into higher education are a much more varied group. We all welcome that. That is the first relevant factor that one must bear in mind.
  The hon. Gentleman's report also refers to an interesting and revealing fact. The relevant paragraph states:
  "The expansion of the university system has taken its toll on the student population. With rare exception, universities report more and more students seeking some help."
  The next sentence contains the key phrase:
  "Clearly that increase can be attributed to the growing awareness in our society of counselling services. To seek professional help is no longer the taboo it once was."
  I find that revealing and relevant because there is no doubt, whether one agrees with it or not, and one does not have to, that society in the 1990s has become much more aware of the concept of stress and its manifestations. Right across society people have become much more willing to identify stress in themselves and to seek advice about and support for it. Some people may almost regret that, while others may welcome it. It is not for me to do either on this occasion.
  As background to the case, it is a relevant consideration that whereas, in the past, people sought advice or help from their families or friends, or perhaps went to the bar and got drunk, if they felt under stress, now they are much more prepared to identify stress themselves, and seek advice for that.
  I quote once more from the report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is happy that I am quoting so frequently from his document.
  "However, as one senior academic observed,
  `for the counsellors the irony is that the kind of help which they can offer is now highly acceptable to many just at a time when the level of distress is greater than it has probably ever been.'''
  We should bear in mind the fact that that is the context in which we consider that difficult aspect. That should be weighed against the claims that the hon. Gentleman made about drop-out rates. Drop-outs were also mentioned in our earlier debate on Second Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
  Our figures on drop-out rates do not support the contentions that have been made, not only in the debate, but previously. According to information that is available to the Department for Education and Employment, the drop-out rate of students from full-time and sandwich first degree courses is about 17 per cent. in the latest academic year for which we have reliable figures, and we know of no evidence of a rising trend.
  That rate has fluctuated. The rate was 17 per cent. in 1987–88, before the introduction of student loans. As far as I am aware, it continues to be close to that rate. It may increase and decrease year on year—that would he no surprise—but I know of no firm evidence to support the
  1034
  allegation that was made that drop-out rates from higher education are significantly greater than they were in the past. However, we are examining that and I have urged my officials to consider the reasons for the incidence of drop-out rates in different institutions for that and connected reasons.
  Allegations are also made about the reasons behind drop-outs. I am aware of a recent survey at Sheffield Hallam university, which was published earlier this year, on the results of its retention rates research project. It covered, I admit, a limited sample of students who had left the university without completing their courses.
  Interestingly, the research showed that, when asked for the primary reason for dropping out, 44 per cent. of the students who had dropped out cited an unsuitable course, 19 per cent. cited personal reasons and 16 per cent. cited academic problems. When asked for all reasons, 41 per cent. said that they disliked the course and 17 per cent. mentioned personal reasons. Eleven per cent. named financial problems as a factor—the same as the proportion who mentioned academic difficulties.
  I believe that that research gives the lie to several contentions that were made today in different ways—not least the allegation that student hardship or poverty is driving students out of higher education. That survey, albeit of only one institution, does not support that contention.
  The survey suggests what, I believe, we have all known—that many students become unhappy or disillusioned with the course that they have selected as they find out more about it, and switch courses or leave altogether. That is regrettable but understandable. It does not support the contention or allegation that widespread student hardship or poverty is driving students out of higher education—almost the opposite.
  Whether the survey supports contentions about much greater stress, whether stress is greater now than it has been or whether simply more people are prepared to admit to it or recognise it and seek help for it, is a complex question, to which we do not have ready answers.
  As I believe that the hon. Gentleman said, most institutions take the welfare of students very seriously. They all produce a statement setting out their policy in respect of student welfare, and they acknowledge their responsibility for the overall educational and personal development and well-being of their students.
  In the further education sector, if I may mention that for a moment, Further Education Funding Council inspections have shown that, in all but one case from 163 reports, student guidance and support was judged as good or excellent. Given that higher education institutions are independent and autonomous organisations and responsible for their internal affairs, we always find it difficult to justify intervening in what they do and the way in which they do it.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing the possible effect of larger classes. One must tread very carefully in that respect, not only because, if we make comparisons between higher education class sizes in this country and those of our European neighbours, we tend to come out rather better. I know of no comparative work that has been done comparing stress levels in our institutions and those in mainland Europe, but the drop-out rates in mainland Europe are much higher. Moreover, as far as I am aware—I am having this examined—staff-student ratios

  1035
  there are much higher than ours. The findings also ignore the strides made by technology in dealing with different student numbers in different circumstances.
  The hon. Gentleman concluded that it was for the Government to act to alleviate the difficulties in the higher education sector that he had identified. He cited widely differing practices in higher education student support. He then asked for a working party involving the Government, the National Union of Students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to identify good practice, produce publicity and so on. At this point I must differ with him.
  I do not think that such action is a matter for the Government—not only because the Government would not naturally become involved in such an area, but because of sensitivities with regard to the relationship between my Department and higher education institutions, with their proud traditions of autonomy and independence. I am somewhat puzzled: this may indeed be natural territory for either the NUS or the CVCP, or perhaps for both those bodies working together, but Government intervention should not be required to initiate the action described by the hon. Gentleman.
  Surely, if the NUS shares the hon. Gentleman's concern about its members, it is a matter for it—with all the resources at its disposal, its contacts on campuses and its national network of information—to act in whatever way it chooses. No doubt it would be beneficial if it could involve the CVCP. I fail to see why the case made by the hon. Gentleman should involve the Government.
  1036
  It is not for me to judge, at this stage, whether the level of stress alleged in the document produced by the hon. Gentleman exists, but I have hinted at my reservations. I refer not only to the use of the term "stress", as we now see it developing throughout society, or to the change in the nature of the higher education student body, but more generally to the extent to which stress is increasing—or perhaps we are more aware of it, or perhaps more people are claiming to experience it—and the extent to which it may vary from one institution to another. Surely all that is natural territory for the NUS and bodies affiliated to it—and perhaps for the CVCP, if it can be encouraged to participate.
  I do not want to denigrate or minimise what the hon. Gentleman has said, or to deny that concern exists—as it would in any other part of society. Nor is it for me to suggest—although I am tempted to—that those who are involved in higher education, and are no doubt qualified and proud to be so, should in many ways be better equipped internally to handle the phenomenon of stress. Nevertheless, I feel that this is not a matter for Government.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my analysis. I am glad that he raised the matter, and we shall want to keep a much closer eye on it. I shall wait with interest to see whether the NUS, the CVCP or any other body will be prepared to take up this important issue as a result of tonight's debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities(a) have taken and (b) are taking advantage of the relaxation in the rules on the application of capital receipts to sell their municipal airports, bus companies and crematoriums. [1992]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We understand that the sale of Bournemouth airport has been completed since the relaxation came into force. We do not yet have any information on sales of bus companies, and the relaxation in respect of crematoriums does not begin until 1 January 1996.

  Local Government
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the periodic electoral reviews that the Local Government Commission must undertake after it has completed the current district reviews. [1905]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Decisions on the statutory programme of periodic electoral reviews—PERs—are a matter for the local Government Commission, subject to the time constraints set down in the Local Government Act 1992. We understand that the commission is considering the programme of PERs which it will carry out once it has completed the district structure reviews.

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2039]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Within the last five years, this Department has been responsible for two Acts of Parliament which contain provision for statutory repeal or review.

  Section 128 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 allows the Secretary of State to provide by order that sections 126 and 127— housing welfare services—should cease to have effect.

  Schedule 24 of the Environment Act 1995 provides for the repeal of earlier provisions in the Act which deal with transitional provisions in respect of national parks.

  This Department has a programme to review on a regular basis all its legislation which affects business.

  Local Authority Political Groups
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority political groups have appointed paid assistants. [2391]
  420
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department neither collects nor holds this information centrally.

  Power Cables
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluation his Department has made of the effect on property prices and the difficulties in obtaining a mortgage for properties located beneath power cables; and if he will make a statement. [1964]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has not undertaken such an evaluation. The market value of a property will reflect a variety of factors, including neighbouring development. I am not aware that, as a matter of policy, mortgage lenders are refusing to advance loans on properties in close proximity to overhead power lines.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1945]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on the size of suppliers is not held centrally and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small and medium enterprises benefited from properties made available by English Estates in each of the last five years; and how many small and medium enterprises have benefited from properties made available by English Partnerships in the last year for which figures are available. [1939]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information is not available on the size of companies occupying properties provided by English Estates or English Partnerships. The following table gives the number of new occupancies of properties of less than 1,700m2 and thus an indication of the take up by small or medium enterprises. The figures relate to a period during which the overall size of the portfolio reduced by some 30 per cent.

  Number of new occupancies of properties under l,700m2

  1990–91: 1,272

  1991–92: 1,333

  1992–93: 1,343

  1993–94: 1,067

  1994–95: 1,032.

  English Partnerships took over responsibility for English Estates' activities on 1 April 1994.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total funding for the single regeneration budget in actual terms and adjusted for inflation in each year since its inception; and what percentage of this funding was disbursed through competitive bidding in each of those years. [1938]
  421
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The single regeneration budget was established in April 1994. Funding has been as follows:

  £ million (cash)

  £ million(1995–96 prices)

  Percentage disbursed through competitive bidding

  1994–95

  (estimated out-turn)

  1,467

  1,500

  16

  1995–96

  (planned expenditure)

  1,348

  1,348

  27

  Programmes within the SRB that targeted resources on projects selected by competition included city challenge— in both 1994–95 and 1995–96—and the £125 million SRB challenge fund—in 1995–96. Both programmes seek to maximise investment and support from the private sector over and above public moneys. Since resources are limited, assistance under other support regimes—for example Estate Action—are also concentrated on projects likely to provide the best value for money.

  Housing Bill
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available information about the proposed bill on housing in simple text and pictorial format and on audio tape for people with learning disabilities. [1965]

  Mr. Clappison
  When the housing legislation is published, my Department will be willing to co-operate with bodies who wish to produce material for people with learning disabilities.

  Planning Applications
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he employs to set the level at which local authorities can charge for a planning permission application; and what is the relationship between this and the actual cost to the local authority of dealing with an application for planning permission. [2261]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The calculation of the proportion of costs deemed to be covered by planning application fees is based on Price Waterhouse's 1994 report for the Department, entitled "The Costs of Determining Planning Applications and the Development Control Service" and on information collected from local authorities on the income derived from fees. We estimate. that the proportion of planning application costs recovered through fees in England is now approaching 100 per cent. and we will shortly be making an announcement about future fee levels.

  Dearne Valley Partnership
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many permanent jobs have been provided with the involvement of Dearne Valley partnership within the city grant area; and what is the proportion of total expenditure by the partnership which each of these jobs represents. [2380]
  422
  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the three years to 31 March 1995 the Dearne Valley strategy has helped to create almost 1,100 jobs. Three of the partnership's strategic objects relate to employment creation and have involved 55 per cent. of city challenge expenditure over the same period.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums have spent in or with the involvement of the Dearne Valley partnership in each of the last three years on(a) land reclamation, (b) creation of employment, (c) administration and (d) social and community protection. [2379]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Dearne Valley partnership is responsible for overseeing the regeneration of the Dearne valley together with other public and private sector partners. The city challenge action plan has six strategic objectives.

  SO1: To develop the local economy;

  SO2: To diversify the local economy;

  SO3: To improve education and skill levels;

  SO4: To build capacity within the community;

  SO5: To improve the physical environment;

  SO6: To increase and improve the housing stock and its environment.

  From a provisional city challenge annual allocation of £7.5 million, expenditure for which the Dearne Valley partnership is directly responsible was as follows:

  £ thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Employment creation (strategic objectives 1, 2 and 3)

  4,125.2

  3,984.2

  2,820.1

  Administration

  300.0

  300.0

  300.0

  Community development (including community safety) strategic objective 4)

  634.5

  708.5

  797.5

  Land reclamation was funded through complementary non-city challenge, derelict land grant as follows:

  £ thousand

  Land reclamation

  1992–93

  1,125.0

  1993–94

  3,561.0

  1994–95

  6,473.0

  Source:

  Dearne Valley Partnership

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sum has been expended by the Dearne Valley partnership in the fulfilment of its role in each of the last 10 years, and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year. [2381]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Dearne Valley partnership was formed in 1991. It has received city challenge funding since 1992. City challenge expenditure has been as follows:

  1992–93: £7.10 million

  1993–94: £7.15 million

  1994–95: £7.50 million

  1995–96: £8.65 million (estimate).

  423
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons are employed in either a full or a part-time capacity by or in the Dearne Valley partnership; and what has been the total cost of this employment in each in the last three years. [2378]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Dearne Valley partnership currently employs 15 full-time staff. All city challenge partnerships are required to contain their running costs within 4 per cent. of their total five-year allocation. In the case of the Dearne valley, running costs—which include the costs of 10 staff, office accommodation and equipment, transport, supplies and services, and small consultancies—have been as follows:

  1992–93: £300,000

  1993–94: £300,000

  1994–95: £300,000.

  The remaining five staff form part of the marketing team and are funded separately within a marketing budget of:

  1992–93: Nil

  1993–94: £288,000

  1994–95: £458,000.

  Ostrich Farms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many ostrich farms have been licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, in each appropriate administrative area of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. [2162]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held centrally. Responsibility for the issue of licences under the Act rests with individual local authorities. The 1976 Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Royal Ordnance plc
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the relationship between his Department, Royal Ordnance and PRB; and which countries were supplied with armaments and defence equipment arising from it. [1032]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on 24 November,Official Report, column 344.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1919]

  Mr. David Davis
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government— funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. This Department does not have any policy responsibilities for Community research and development expenditure.

  Fundamental Expenditure Review
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he expects to publish the fundamental expenditure review. [2316]

  Mr. Hanley
  I expect to place copies of the FCO, diplomatic wing, and ODA fundamental expenditure reviews in the Library of the House shortly.

  European Free Trade Association
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations about European Free Trade Association membership by countries of central and eastern Europe. [1233]

  Mr. David Davis
  No such negotiations are taking place. Slovenia has signed a bilateral free trade agreement with EFTA and Estonia has initialled a similar agreement. However, these agreements do not hold out the prospects of membership of EFTA. The central and east European countries with association agreements with the EU continue to aspire to membership of the EU itself.

  EU National Parliaments
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his Department has to give effect to declaration No. 13 of the Maastricht treaty relating to the role of national Parliaments. [1235]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government are committed to enhancing the role of national Parliaments in the EU and are considering a number of proposals to give fuller effect to declaration No. 13. These include proposals put forward by the European Legislation Committee.

  UN Convention on Mercenaries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the United Nations convention on mercenaries. [1349]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We do not intend to accede to the UN convention on mercenaries, as we believe that it would be difficult to enforce its provisions. Only nine states have now acceded to the treaty.

  Military Equipment Embargoes
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries currently subject to embargoes on the export of British military equipment. [1350]

  Mr. David Davis
  We observe mandatory embargoes imposed by the United Nations on Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Liberia, UNITA (Angola) and Rwanda.

  We will continue to observe the arms embargo on all the states of the former Yugoslavia in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1021 of 22 November 1995.

  We also observe embargoes imposed by the European Union on China, Burma, Zaire, Sudan and Nigeria.
  425
  We observe a voluntary embargo agreed by the then Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  In addition, as a matter of declared national policy, we refuse to supply military equipment to Argentina and Iran.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council, held on 20 to 21 November, giving details of all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [1597]

  Mr. David Davis
  The A items listed in document 11618/95, which will be deposited in the Library of the House as soon as it is available, were adopted, except for that on Nigeria, which was the subject of substantive discussion.

  The Council took note of the European Parliament resolutions in document 10794/95 PE-RE 73. A copy of this document will be deposited in the Library of the House as soon as it is available.

  On Mediterranean policy, the Council discussed preparations for the Barcelona conference. It also considered the draft MEDA regulation, on assistance to countries in the Mediterranean region. The item was referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further consideration and will be examined again at the 4 to 5 December Council.

  The Council briefly discussed the prospects for the 9 December Paris conference on economic assistance for Palestinians.

  The Commission presented draft negotiating directives for a new EU-Chile framework co-operation agreement. This was remitted to COREPER for further work.

  The Commission presented an outline of a communication on future humanitarian aid to former Yugoslavia, focusing on aid quantity and quality and the need to ensure success of future rehabilitation and repatriation programmes.

  The Commission briefly introduced draft negotiating directives for an agreement between the EC and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This was remitted to COREPER for further work.

  The Commission also presented a paper on. reconstruction, co-ordination and financing in former Yugoslavia. The Council took note and asked COREPER to take the work forward. The Council agreed to a fact-finding mission on the needs of the high representative and his staff and the principle of a joint action on the EU contribution to the costs of the high representative and his staff in Sarajevo and Brussels.

  On Nigeria, the Council adopted a common position covering a ban on military sales, an extension of the visa regime to civilian members of the Nigerian Government and suspension of EU aid. The Council also agreed to examine further measures.
  426
  The Council agreed, by qualified majority, a negotiating mandate which would provide for 5 per cent. increases in agriculture quotas, year on year, for central and east European countries, with a list of exceptions. The UK, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands voted against, and issued an explanatory declaration. The Commission expressed strong regret at the Council's decision.

  The Council adopted conclusions on EU-Russia relations.

  The Council agreed in principle to an EU contribution to the Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organisation—KEDO—but instructed COREPER to consider the matter further, including the size of the EU contribution.

  On EU-US relations, the Council agreed an action plan to be endorsed at the EU-US summit on 3 December, including a commitment to a study on ways to reduce and eliminate trade barriers.

  The presidency gave a brief progress report on negotiations with third countries for tariff compensation following enlargement, under GATT article XXIV.6.

  The Council agreed to the current proposed composition of the WTO appellate body.

  The Council had a further discussion of a draft for a new TACIS—Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States—regulation. COREPER was tasked to carry out further work and the Foreign Affairs Council will consider the issue again on 4 December.

  Only one vote was taken—that on EU-central and eastern European agricultural trade.

  The EU-Nepal co-operation agreement and the EU-Israel association agreement were signed in the margins of the Council. There were also meetings with the Foreign Ministers of the EEA and of Cyprus and Malta, in the context of the structured dialogue.

  I should also like to take this opportunity to record that at a special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 10 November the Council reached agreement on an EU-Morocco association agreement.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1946]

  Mr. Hanley
  Business transacted by the FCO, diplomatic wing, with small and medium enterprises in the United Kingdom in 1994–95 accounted for 43.5 per cent. of its total expenditure on the purchase of goods and services.

  The ODA does not collect statistics for procurement that record whether a company is of small or medium size.

  Air Strikes, Srebrenica
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the information he has received since 12 July relating
  427
  to requests to United Nations headquarters in Zagreb in July for air strikes to protect Srebrenica. [2156]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have received no information which adds materially to the statement made in the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 July.

  Guatemalan Police Officers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what form of training has been given by Britain to Guatemalan police officers in the period since July 1994. [2812]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Britain has provided no training for Guatemalan police officers since July 1994. We have, however, sent two police experts in handwriting and fingerprinting to assess Guatemalan capabilities in this field. They went in July 1995.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what selection criteria are adopted when choosing Guatemalan police officers for training in Britain; and if this includes consideration of their human rights record. [2813]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No Guatemalan police officers have been trained in Britain in recent years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Wallsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 10 October concerning a constituent. [2725]

  Mr. Hanley
  The hon. Member's letter of 10 October to the Home Office on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Ashok Singh, was received in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's migration and visa correspondence unit on 1 November. A reply was sent on 23 November.

  International Sanctions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken, and on what dates, to freeze the personal accounts or assets of members of regimes with whom the United Kingdom is in dispute as part of a national or international sanctions policy. [2565]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The United Kingdom has no unilateral sanctions in place against the assets or personal accounts of foreign regimes. However, we do implement the mandatory financial sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. Such financial sanctions are in place against Iraq, in UNSCR 661—adopted on 6 August 1990—and Libya, in UNSCR 863—adopted on 11 November 1993.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Procedures
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on company rescues following the recent consultation on company voluntary arrangements. [3079]
  428
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The recent company voluntary arrangements consultation revealed continued support for the introduction of a short moratorium that is binding on all creditors. I therefore intend to introduce legislation to effect a scheme broadly as described in consultative document when parliamentary time allows, although usage will be restricted to small companies as defined in section 247 of the Companies Act 1985. However, I am still reflecting on what was said regarding the requirement to give five days' notice of the intention to appoint an administrative receiver. I have yet to decide whether it is necessary to have a mandatory provision, or whether, in response to the invitation I have issued to the British Bankers Association, the banks can come up with a binding code of practice which obviates that need.

  Recent rescues of financially troubled companies, where, by agreement, debt is converted into equity, have proved very successful. However, it is evident that many are not aware of the rescue potential of debt equity swaps or how they work. I intend approaching those involved early next year to see how they think awareness and usage, in appropriate cases, can be increased.

  I also propose at the same time to seek the views of banks, business and advisers on whether it is feasible to devise a mechanism whereby an administrative receiver, appointed following notice of an administration petition, can be replaced by an administrator in cases where it is clear that a floating charge holder's security can be shown not to be at risk. If this was possible, it would give the ordinary creditors the opportunity of some say in any rescue without prejudicing the secured creditors.

  Legislation might provide a tool to achieve a rescue, but it cannot achieve a rescue of itself. The responsibility for that lies squarely on the shoulders of directors and their advisers. Remedial action should be taken earlier rather than later and this is the key to saving more companies. I therefore intend to discuss with business, banks and advisers what they can do to ensure that all those involved are aware of what must be done and when.

  I am making arrangements for copies of the responses to the recent public consultation on CVAs to be placed in the library of my Department.

  Distance Selling Directive
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the number of jobs in the United Kingdom arising from the implementation of the proposed European Union distance selling directive; and if he will make a statement. [2063]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has consulted interested parties on the cost of complying with the proposals tabled in the directive with a view to establishing the potential burden on business, and the extent to which they provide necessary consumer protection. We are content that the common position achieves a satisfactory balance, and we have not been made aware of any potential job losses.
  429
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the European Union regarding the distance selling directive; and if he will make a statement. [2062]

  Mr. Evans
  A European Commission proposal for a directive on distance selling has been under negotiation since 1992. We have participated fully in negotiations in the Council of Ministers and its working group on this matter, and are, as a result, content with the common position adopted in June 1995.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on mail ordering and telemarketing sales techniques and the effects on British industry of possible changes in the rules governing telemarketing by the distance selling directive. [2064]

  Mr. Evans
  The Government are concerned that the European Parliament may vote for a proposal to make prior consent from consumers obligatory before unsolicited telephone sales calls can take place, and for other proposals which will prevent distance selling businesses from operating flexibly and efficiently. We have briefed Members of the European Parliament about United Kingdom concerns over the potential impact on industry and will be making further representations.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1906]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. My Department's policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. My Department currently has responsibility for 71.14 per cent. of the Community's research and development budget.

  European Centre for Industrial Relations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who represented Her Majesty's Government at the opening of the European Centre for Industrial Relations; what consultations took place; and if he will make a statement. [1039]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Two officials—the head of DTT's industrial relations division, and the head of Department for Education and Employment's European Communities branch—attended the inauguration of the European Centre for Industrial Relations.

  As mentioned in the Commission's social action programme for 1995–97, the centre was established at the initiative of the social partners at European level. The Commission issued a communication about the centre to the Council, COM (95) 445 final, on 25 September 1995. This will be deposited in the Library of the House under the usual procedures for depositing EU documentation and I am arranging for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Walker Wingsail Systems
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance was given by his Department to Walker Wingsail Systems plc, Plymouth, before 1988. [2303]

  Mr. Page
  My Department provided £207,500 in financial assistance to Walker Wingsail Systems Ltd. of Hamble, Hampshire under the support for innovation scheme before 1988, prior to the company's move to Plymouth.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring has taken place of the grants made by his Department to Walker Wingsail Systems plc, Plymouth. [2302]

  Mr. Page
  Grants made to Walker Wingsail Systems Ltd. under the support for innovation scheme were monitored at each payment stage, to ensure that payments were in accordance with the approved project. In the case of financial assistance under the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme, payment of a proportion of the cost of consultancy advice provided to the company was made by my Department to the consultants via the external contractors appointed as SFI scheme managers. The company itself paid the balance. The contractors monitored the performance and quality of the consultants' work before agreeing to the payment.

  Retail Newsagents
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to keep under review a further reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of newspapers and magazines to the retail newsagents' sector; and if he will make a statement. [2090]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading who, under the competition legislation, is responsible for keeping markets under review, and has independent powers to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current position of the small firms training challenge. [1935]

  Mr. Page
  The first award winners in the skill challenge for small firms were announced jointly by myself and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 22 November 1995,Official Report, columns 208–9. Fourteen projects have been successful in the first round, involving about 180 companies.

  The deadline for the second round of bids is 31 December 1995, with winners to be announced in mid-February 1996. A total of 100 projects will be funded, including the first 14, with an average award of around £50,000.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department issues to other Government Departments regarding the tendering process for small firms. [1933]
  431
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many loans were made under the small firms loans guarantee scheme in each year since the scheme began. [1941]

  Mr. Page
  The number of loans guaranteed in each year since the scheme began is:

  Year

  1981–82: 3,351

  1982–83: 6,045

  1983–84: 4,889

  1984–85: 2,081

  1985–86: 543

  1986–87: 1,042

  1987–88: 1,222

  1988–89: 2,266

  1989–90: 3,204

  1990–91: 3,387

  1991–92: 2,933

  1992–93: 2,342

  1993–94: 3,886

  1994–95: 6,207

  1995–96: 3,585 (Estimated to September 1995).

  Mr. Page
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for issuing guidance and best practice on procurement issues to Government Departments on the tendering process for all Government procurement.

  In addition, this department also produces a guide for Government procurement officers on purchasing from small firms called "Think Big, Buy Small" and a guide for small firms on "Tendering for Government Contracts", which contains advice on and details of the procurement requirements for each of the Government Departments. Both of these publications are currently being updated.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to public funds of the business links freephone number since it began; and how many calls it has taken in that time. [1930]

  Mr. Page
  The national business link freephone hotline was established in October 1994, utilising the existing 0800 500 200 number previously used for the enterprise initiative. The cost of calls and of the subsequent literature fulfilment to end October 1995, totalled £76,000 and 17,259 calls were handled during the period.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding his Department's proposals for implementing the European Commission's community initiative for small and medium enterprises. [1937]

  Mr. Page
  The Community SME initiative programme for England will be implemented as a series of sub-programmes for each of the structural funds objective 1,2 and 5(b) areas in England for the period 1996 to 1999, with total Community funding of 47.4 mecu, £36.5 million. These programmes are being drawn up by Government offices, in consultation with local bodies in 432
  each area. The programmes are intended to focus on cross-frontier networking between SMEs in England and other Community member states, with projects normally delivered through business links, regional supply offices and training and enterprise councils. They will complement the additional funding for new, local designed, business development programmes which was announced in the competitiveness White Paper, "Forging Ahead", Cm 2867 last June. It is expected that area programmes will be agreed with the Commission from early 1996 and will open for applications from business support organisations shortly thereafter.

  Separate programmes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been adopted by Commission and operate under the responsibility of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1956]

  Mr. Page
  The information sought is not available and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Patent Office Services
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations underlay his decision that a private sector organisation would be better equipped to deliver a specific Patent Office service; what will be the performance standard required; and if he will list the required criteria for the award other than value for money. [2099]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A number of Patent Office services are in the early stages of competitive tender to assess whether they can be better provided by the private sector. Any bids will be assessed against the benchmark of continuing in-house provision for higher quality or more cost-effective delivery. Additional criteria will be appropriate to the particular service but commonly include the bidder's understanding of the office's needs, the ability to bring innovative approaches to the delivery of the services, the continuity of services offered and commitment to developing a co-operative partnership with the DTI.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what systems are in place in the Patent Office to take account of benchmarking procedures when examining bids against in-house provision. [2097]

  Mr. Taylor
  In any contractorisation project, the Patent Office will draw up a benchmark based on the costs and quality of in-house provision. Guidelines have been developed to ensure that any benchmark is fair and soundly constructed.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efficiency improvements have been agreed by staff and management in the Patent Office in regard to(a) benchmarking and (b) re-engineering; and what consultation procedures are in place with the trade unions. [2098]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Patent Office is constantly looking for ways to improve efficiency and quality of service through measures such as reorganisation of staff structures, re-engineering of work processes, and contractorisation.
  433
  Staff and their trade union representatives are consulted at appropriate stages in the implementation of these measures.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the proposed cost of Patent Office services currently under consideration for contracting out. [2100]

  Mr. Taylor
  Areas of the Patent Office which are under consideration for contracting out are the office's information technology services, its marketing and awareness programme, its accommodation and office services, and the operations of its London front office. The overall annual costs of these are £5.888 million, £1.608 million, £2.056 million and £1.125 million respectively.

  Labour Statistics (Shipbuilding)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the numbers in employment in(a) shipbuilding and (b) ship repair for each of the last 10 years. [2153]

  Mr. Page
  The available information is given in the table. The figures are taken from the census of employment which was conducted every three years up to 1987 and every two years thereafter. Ship repairing is not separately distinguished from shipbuilding in the census.

  Employment in Shipbuilding1s in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Employment2

  1984

  90.2

  1987

  58.2

  1989

  51.2

  1991

  47.0

  1993

  37.8

  source:

  CSO Census of Employment (SIC 92)

  1Including ship reparing.

  2Figures are as at September of each year

  Mr. Michael Johnson
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will have finished consideration of points of law in the case of Mr. Michael Johnson; and when he hopes to conclude the case. [2260]

  Mr. Johnathan Evans
  [holding answer 24 November 1995:]: Consideration of points of law is a matter for the judiciary. I understand that Mr. Johnson won his industrial tribunal case for unfair dismissal and was awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement. He subsequently applied to the tribunal chairman for a review of two aspects of the decision, but this request was refused. I am advised that Mr. Johnson was informed of this decision on 24 May 1995.

  Irish Steel Ltd.
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take with regard to the approval of the European Commission of state aid(a) before and (b) after the purchase of Irish Steel Ltd. by a foreign company. [2382]
  434
  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission's proposal to allow exceptional state aid for Irish Steel is subject to the unanimous approval of EU member states. The United Kingdom will not give its assent unless conditions are attached that will mitigate the adverse effects of the aid on the UK steel industry. The UK will ensure that the aid, if approved, is strictly monitored to ensure compliance with the agreed conditions.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of miners and former miners made an award for PD12D chronic bronchitis and emphysema, since September, broken down for each region. [1403]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is set out in the tables:

  Total number of Pd 12D awards from October 1994 to September 1995 incluseive, analysed by benefits Agency Area Directorate

  Table 1

  Southern England (by Benefits Agency Area Directorate)

  Awards

  AD1 Anglia

  Nil

  AD2 Chilterns

  Nil

  AD3 South London and West Sussex

  Nil

  AD4 West Country

  3

  AD5 East London and Essex

  1

  AD6 South East

  1

  AD7 Wessex

  Nil

  Total

  5

  Table 2

  Wales and Central England

  Awards

  AD1 East Midlands

  100

  AD2 Midlands

  1

  AD3 West Mercia

  21

  AD4 Wales

  147

  AD5 Merseyside

  Nil

  AD6 Greater Manchester

  1

  AD7 Lancashire and Cumbria

  12

  Total

  282

  Table 3

  Scotland and Northern England

  Awards

  AD1 Tyne Tees

  49

  AD2 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  65

  AD3 North and West Yorkshire

  26

  AD4 Glasgow and Paisley

  Nil

  ADS North, Central and West Scotland

  4

  AD6 East Scotland

  9

  Total

  153

  435

  Table 4

  Awards

  Grand total

  440

  Note:

  Includes 12 awards resulting from aggregation.

  Source:

  Benefits Agency central data unit 100 per cent. count, subject to amendment.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade of those miners and former miners rejected for an award under the PD12D regulations, how many were refused on grounds of(a) X-ray evidence, (b) FEV test and (c) employment period, broken down for each region. [1404]

  Mr. Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is set out in the tables:

  Claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema (PD 12D) refused from October 1994 to September 1995, analysed by reason for refusal and by Benefits Agency Area Directorate

  Table 1

  Southern England

  X-ray

  FEV1

  20 year rule

  AD1 Anglia

  2

  Nil

  2

  AD2 Chilterns

  1

  Nil

  Nil

  AD3 South London and West Sussex

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  AD4 West Country

  4

  5

  1

  AD5 East London and Essex

  Nil

  1

  3

  AD6 South East

  9

  20

  7

  AD7 Wessex

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Total

  16

  26

  13

  Table 2

  Wales and Central England

  X-ray

  FEV1

  20 year rule

  AD1 East Midlands

  169

  188

  24

  AD2 Midlands and South West

  6

  3

  4

  AD3 West Mercia

  57

  68

  18

  AD4 Wales

  287

  424

  71

  AD5 Merseyside

  12

  13

  10

  AD6 Greater Manchester

  1

  3

  3

  AD7 Lancashire and Cumbria

  30

  48

  14

  Total

  562

  747

  144

  Table 3

  Scotland and Northern England

  X-ray

  FEV1

  20 year rule

  AD 1 Tyne Tees

  105

  138

  10

  AD2 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  191

  202

  21

  AD3 North and West Yorkshire

  48

  89

  12

  AD4 Glasgow and Paisley

  13

  9

  1

  AD5 North. Central and West Scotland

  13

  30

  9

  AD6 East Scotland

  44

  25

  3

  Total

  414

  493

  56

  436

  Table 4

  X-ray

  FEV1

  20 year rule

  Grand total

  992

  1,266

  213

  Source:

  Benefits Agency central data unit. 100 per cent. count, subject to amendment.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many miners and former miners have been diagnosed to be suffering from asbestosis for which an award has been made in the last 10 years broken down by region. [1173]

  Mr. Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cable Broadcasting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will make it her policy to accelerate the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcasting in those rural and semi-rural areas which are not cabled; [2591]

  (2) by what date digital terrestrial broadcasting is to reach 95 per cent. of the population of England. [2590]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Broadcasting Bill, announced in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, will provide the legislative framework for the introduction of digital terrestrial television services. The Government propose that those who wish to provide these services be required to meet targets, set by the Independent Television Commission, for making them available by a specific time to a specified proportion of the population. The precise potential coverage of the available digital frequencies, and the speed and pattern of the introduction of services on them, will vary, and it is not possible as yet to predict the outcome of the licensing process the Bill will propose to introduce.

  Satellite Broadcasting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future responsibilities of the ITC in respect of satellite broadcasters promoting television services in the United Kingdom which offend against public decency, following proposed United Kingdom and EC legislation. [158]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have no plans to change the ITC's responsibilities in this area.

  Culture Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Culture Council, held on 20 November, giving details of all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [1598]
  437
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) on 23 November Official Report, column 285–6.

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what legislation from her Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2040]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department, since its inception in 1992, has introduced no legislation containing provision for statutory repeal or review.

  BBC Charter and Agreement
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the BBC's new charter and agreement will be published. [3161]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today placed in the Library of the House drafts of the BBC's new charter and the agreement between me and the corporation. The House will have an opportunity to consider these documents in the near future. The BBC's transmission services will be privatised. The BBC will retain the proceeds of sale related to licence fee funded transmission facilities.

  The future costs of transmission will be regulated to ensure that the BBC does not pay more for the services that it currently needs and benefits from any productivity savings. This is good news for licence fee payers.

  The BBC has welcomed these arrangements and said that it will invest the proceeds of sale within the BBC on digital production technology so that it is well placed to reap the benefits of digital broadcasting.

  I look forward to a secure long-term future for the BBC's public services within the framework of the proposed new charter and agreement.

  BBC
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what action her Department is currently taking in relation to the production of proposals for the future of the BBC's transmission services; [1744]

  (2) when she first anticipated being able to make an announcement on the future of the BBC's transmission services; and what factors underlay the delay in making this statement; [1711]

  (3) when her Department expects to be able to make an announcement on the future of the BBC's transmission services; [1713]

  (4) what factors underlay the separate timings for (a) her announcements on the future of the BBC's transmission services and (b) the publication of her Department's guidance on digital terrestrial broadcasting. [1745]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 November 1995]: As indicated in my answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on 20 November Official Report, column 44 we will announce our decision on the future of the BBC transmission services shortly. It was always our intention
  438
  to announce our decision once we had fully explored with the BBC possible options for the future of its transmission services, taking account of the development of its plans for digital broadcasting. The policy document, "Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting", Cm 2946, was published in August to provide an opportunity for comment on the Government's proposals in order to inform the preparation of the Broadcasting Bill announced in the Gracious Speech.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which she has responsibility, in each year since 1990. [1455]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Prior to their merger in July 1995, energy consumption was reported separately for the former Employment Department group and the former Department for Education. The percentage changes, as issued by the energy and environment advisory division of the Department of the Environment, for each of the two former Departments, are as follows:

  Percentage changes in energy cost per unit area (£/sq m) over base year 1990–91

  (corrected for fuel costs and weather)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Employment Department Group

  +1

  +4

  +2

  Department for Education

  +20

  +82

  +95

  The substantial increase in energy consumption in DFE beginning in reporting year 1991–92 resulted from the transfer of London-based staff from a naturally ventilated building to a new building with heating and air conditioning plant, with a smaller floor area. The baseline for the energy-saving exercise applied to the old building.

  Raw data for 1994–95 have been reported by both former departments to the energy and environment advisory division. Corrected figures are not yet available.

  Degree Courses
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the correlation between grades obtained at A-level and performance in higher education degree examinations. [1267]

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has not commissioned any research on this topic. There have been a number of such studies, usually small scale, and these have tended to show that there is a positive correlation between individuals' A-level score and degree class but this is small. It is for universities to determine the suitability of applicants for degree courses.

  Severe Learning Difficulties
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools catering for children with severe learning difficulties have invoked the national curriculum disapplication procedure, by local education authority, in each of the last three years. [1816]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information is available only for 1994 and does not distinguish disapplication from modification of national curriculum requirements. The following table shows, for each local education authority in England, the number of maintained special schools approved to cater for pupils with severe learning difficulties which reported pupils for whom the national curriculum had been modified or disapplied in January 1994.

  Maintained special schools approved to cater for pupils with severe learning difficulties and who have pupils for whom the national curriculum has been modified or disapplied January 1994

  Local education authority

  Number of schools

  City of London

  —

  Camden

  —

  Greenwich

  1

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  Islington

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  Lambeth

  1

  Lewisham

  1

  Southwark

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Westminster

  —

  Barking

  —

  Barnet

  —

  Bexley

  —

  Brent

  —

  Bromley

  —

  Croydon

  1

  Ealing

  1

  Enfield

  —

  Haringey

  —

  Harrow

  —

  Havering

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  Merton

  —

  Newham

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  Sutton

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  Birmingham

  3

  Coventry

  —

  Dudley

  2

  Sandwell

  3

  Solihull

  —

  Walsall

  2

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Knowsley

  1

  Liverpool

  2

  St. Helens

  1

  Sefton

  1

  Wirral

  —

  Bolton

  —

  Bury

  —

  Manchester

  —

  Oldham

  2

  Rochdale

  1

  Salford

  1

  Stockport

  1

  440

  Maintained special schools approved to cater for pupils with severe learning difficulties and who have pupils for whom the national curriculum has been modified or disapplied January 1994

  Local education authority

  Number of schools

  Tameside

  —

  Trafford

  1

  Wigan

  —

  Barnsley

  1

  Doncaster

  3

  Rotherham

  1

  Sheffield

  —

  Bradford

  1

  Calderdale

  —

  Kirklees

  1

  Leeds

  1

  Wakefield

  —

  Gateshead

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  North Tyneside

  1

  South Tyneside

  2

  Sunderland

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  Avon

  3

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Berkshire

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  Cambridge

  2

  Cheshire

  —

  Cleveland

  2

  Cornwall

  3

  Cumbria

  3

  Derbyshire Devon

  5

  Devon

  —

  Dorset

  1

  Durham

  2

  East Sussex

  1

  Essex

  1

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Hampshire

  4

  Hereford and Worcester

  3

  Hertfordshire

  2

  Humberside

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  Kent

  1

  Lancashire

  7

  Leicestershire

  —

  Lincolnshire

  6

  Norfolk

  4

  North Yorkshire

  3

  Northamptonshire

  1

  Northumberland

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  Oxfordshire

  2

  Shropshire

  2

  Somerset

  —

  Staffordshire

  6

  Suffolk

  —

  Surrey

  1

  Warwickshire

  2

  West Sussex

  3

  Wiltshire

  —

  England

  121

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she has issued as to the circumstances in which a school for children with severe learning difficulties should apply for the disapplication of national curriculum procedure. [1818]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The revised national curriculum statutory documents state that study material may be selected from earlier or later key stages where this is necessary to enable
  441
  individual pupils to progress and demonstrate achievement. This flexibility should reduce the necessity for formal disapplication or modification of the requirements.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the disadvantages for a school catering for children with severe learning difficulties of applying for national curriculum disapplication for some of its pupils. [1817]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no such assessment. Pupils should be allowed to benefit from the national curriculum to the extent of their abilities, but it is not always possible to reconcile the difficulties of certain children with an entitlement to the full national curriculum. In these cases disapplication or modification may be appropriate.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for her Department in 1993–94. [1908]

  Mr. Forth
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. The former Education and Employment Departments had responsibility for 1.5 per cent. of the Community's R and D budget.

  Capital Expenditure, Derbyshire
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will set out the outturn figures for capital expenditure in each Derbyshire school for the last 10 years. [2215]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teleworkers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she intends to take to extend existing employment and health and safety regulations to protect teleworkers. [2117]

  Mr. Forth
  Teleworkers are covered by existing employment and health and safety regulations in the same way as other workers. The Employment Department published "A Manager's Guide to Teleworking" in May 1995 which contains information and advice on existing regulations. The Government at present see no need for special regulations on teleworkers.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what were the costs to public funds involved in preparing the cost-benefit assessment 442
  contained in the explanatory memorandum for the Deregulation Length of the School Day Order 1995; [2017]

  (2) what estimates she has made of the annual saving to business which accrue from the Deregulation Length of the School Day Order 1995. [2018]

  Mr. Forth
  As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, there are no cost implications involved in these proposals; so no cost-benefit assessment was required.

  The Deregulation Length of the School Day Order 1995 is intended to speed up alterations to school session times. Schools do not receive extra funds for having a longer day or reduced funds for having a shorter day. Any savings to schools and their governing bodies will be measured in time saved in implementing changes to the length of the school day.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make available information about the proposed Bill on nursery education in simpletext and pictorial format and on audio tape for people with learning difficulties. [1966]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  An information leaflet for parents about the nursery voucher scheme is already available in ethnic minority languages, braille and on audio cassette.

  A more detailed policy document on the nursery voucher scheme will be published early in the new year, including a version for parents.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of her Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1944]

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much public money has been invested in small firms training loans since their launch. [1934]

  Mr. Paice
  Between June 1994, when small firms training loans were introduced, and the end of October 1995, £404,000 in Government funding has been spent on the scheme.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many firms have applied for loans from the small firms training loans programme; and what is the total amount to date out on loan. [2265]

  Mr. Paice
  At 21 November, 44 small firms training loans had been agreed, with £427,728 on loan. The banks have informed the Department that six applications for loans have been rejected.

  Job Sharing
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new proposals she has to encourage job sharing. [2157]

  Mr. Forth
  In the deregulated labour market of the United Kingdom more people work in flexible working patterns than in most other European countries. The Government encourage employers to consider the benefits of flexible working patterns, which can be particularly attractive to people who wish to combine a job or career with family commitments. The Department for Education and Employment and the former Employment Department have published a number of booklets, including "The Best of Both Worlds", "Be Flexible" and "Rising to the Challenge", providing information and advice on flexible working arrangements, including job sharing.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent by the Government on the assisted places scheme(a) in total, up to but not including the latest available year and (b) in the latest available year; what additional money will be made available in the planned expansion of the scheme; and how many pupils are involved in the latest available year in (i) Manchester grammar school, (ii) Manchester high school for girls and (iii) William Hume's grammar school, Manchester. [2740]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 24 October,Official Report, column 623.

  The amount available for the scheme in the supply estimates for the financial year 1995–96 is £104.4 million. Provision for 1996–97, when the scheme's expansion is planned to begin, and for succeeding years will be announced in due course. The numbers of pupils holding assisted places in the current academic year—1995–96— at the three Manchester schools cited are (i) 262, (ii) 179 and (iii) 220 respectively.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all those in his Department who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1418]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate Minister. No public interest immunity certificates have been signed either by me or the Lord Chancellor since our appointments.

  Divorce Reform
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his proposals for divorce reform. [1406]
  444
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Family Law Bill, which was introduced in another place on Thursday 16 November, includes provisions to reform the law on divorce.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1435]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The progress made towards cutting energy consumption in the Government buildings for which I am responsible, in each year since 1990, is as follows:

  1990–91: base year

  1991–92: + 1.30 per cent.

  1992–93: - 3.93 per cent.

  1993–94: -3.98 percent.

  1994–95: - 4.30 per cent.

  The total energy consumption savings in real terms to March 1995 in buildings for which I am responsible is 10.91 per cent.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services for small and medium enterprises. [1949]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1950]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times in the last year he has used(a) London Underground and (b) London Buses while on official business. [380]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  None

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list all those in his office who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years;and what were the main reasons for them. [1424]
  445
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate Minister. I have not, nor have others within the Office of Public Service, its immediate predecessors or executive agencies, signed public interest immunity certificates in relation to the Department or its executive agencies in the last five years.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all those in his office who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1393]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister today.

  HMSO
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to make a statement on the future of HMSO. [2127]

  Mr Freeman
  As I announced on 17 October, we are currently consulting the authorities in the House and the other place on the safeguards necessary for the future provision of printing and publishing services to Parliament. I also announced that I have appointed Coopers and Lybrand to examine the options for the future of HMSO with a view to privatisation, and I am awaiting its report. I will be making a further oral statement when we have reached a decision on the way forward, which I hope will be before the Christmas recess.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has met personally the heads of agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [3099]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 1 November,Official Report, column 318.

PRIME MINISTER

  Remuneration
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the rates of remuneration of(a) members of police authorities and (b) members of health authorities and non-executive directors of trusts. [2234]

  The Prime Minister
  Remuneration reflects the duties and responsibilities of the individuals concerned.

  Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister if the statements made by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 20 November about the mentality of the Princess of Wales represented Her Majesty's Government's policy. [2409]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend made it clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity.
  446
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if the statement made by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces subsequent to the television broadcast of the Princess of Wales represents the view of Her Majesty's Government. [2081]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend made it clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity.

  EU Finances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what account he has taken of the Official Journal of the European Communities, C303, volume 38, for 14 November 1995 in determining Her Majesty's Government's policy. [2802]

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome the European Court of Auditors' annual report on the implementation of the 1994 budget published on 14 November. I believe that the court's reports are an important tool in improving the management of the Community's finances and I will continue to insist that the full account is taken of them.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on assessing the degree to which children have been involved in past conflicts in countries for which export licence applications for military equipment have been made. [2773]

  The Prime Minister
  We are committed to a responsible policy of defence equipment sales and routinely encourage other arms suppliers to observe similar responsibility in their own export policies. We take into account the human rights record of recipient states when considering applications for an export licence.

  The United Kingdom is committed to promoting human rights worldwide.

  Human Rights (Turkey)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what priority he will accord to the human rights record of Turkey in respect of its treatment of the(a) Assyrian, (b) Armenian and (c) Greek Christian minorities in determining whether to support Turkey's admission to the European Customs Union; [2577]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his discussions in respect of the persecution of (a) Assyrian, (b) Armenian and (c) Greek Christian minorities in Turkey arising during his meeting with Prime Minister Tansu Ciller. [2576]

  The Prime Minister
  I did not specifically touch on the question of Christian minorities in Turkey with Prime Minister Ciller. We discussed the outlook for human rights in Turkey, and Mrs. Ciller assured me of her commitment to further reforms. We fully support the proposed Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey, and we hope to see it launched on schedule at the start of 1996.

  Head of State
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received regarding the constitutional position of the head of state. [2667]
  447
  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on constitutional matters.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of the letter sent to him by the statutory Newham police communities consultative committee dated 17 November concerning the proposed Asylum and Immigration Bill and his reply. [2689]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department has replied to the Newham police communities consultative committee.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister who owns the Crown Estate. [2242]

  The Prime Minister
  The Crown Estate is held in right of the Crown, but its income forms the major part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown that have been surrendered to the Exchequer in return for the civil list by each monarch since 1760. The Crown Estate is managed by Commissioners under the Crown Estate Act 1961. Copies of the Commissioners' annual reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what official valuation has been made of the Duchy of Cornwall estate. [2241]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on certain of the Duchy of Cornwall's capital assets is shown in the annual accounts presented to Parliament. The accounts for 1994, presented on 7 June 1995, HC 464 record the net sum as £86,913,196. Assets such as the unique Isles of Scilla have been in the estate for centuries and are regarded as inalienable; these and other long-held assets are not reflected in the figure. By charter and statute, the capital assets cannot be eroded. The Duchy Management Acts 1863–1982 make the Treasury responsible for the capital to generate income for future Dukes.

  Crown Jewels
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the items which constitute the Crown Jewels. [2859]

  The Prime Minister
  By a strict definition the Crown Jewels are the objects used or worn by the Sovereign during the ceremony of the Coronation. The most famous of these are the Imperial State Crown, St. Edward's Crown and the Jewelled Sceptre. However, the expression Crown Jewels is used colloquially to cover the contents of the Jewel House at the Tower of London, an inventory of which is maintained by the royal collection.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the constitutional implication of the views expressed by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales about the possibility of her becoming Queen; [2080]
  448
  (2) if his statement of 9 December 1992, Official Report, column 845, that there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course still represents Her Majesty's Government policy. [2079]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my statement of 9 December.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the total estimated annual saving to business which will accrue in respect of the rules and regulations he identified for repeal in his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 546. [2065]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to the £40 million savings identified in my answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 546, further examples identified include: £30 million a year from simplification of trade marks legislation; £23 million a year from changes in the regime for the slaughter of poultry; £10 to 15 million a year from simplification of the procedures under the Companies Act 1985 for companies which have ceased to trade; cash flow savings of £75 million a year as a result of raising the threshold of the quarterly payment of PAYE and national insurance contributions from £450 per month to £600 per month. The total annual saving to business arising from all regulations identified for amendment or repeal is not available.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1953]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

TREASURY

  Best Practice Guidelines
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his Department's best practice guidelines for Government Departments. [1931]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury issues a great deal of best practice and other guidance in documents such as "Government Accounting", which is published by HMSO, and other guidance notes such as those produced by the Treasury's central unit on procurement.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the costs to public funds involved in preparing the cost benefit assessment contained in the explanatory memorandum for the Deregulation(a) Friendly Societies Act 1992, (b) Credit Unions and (c) Building Societies Orders 1995. [2022]
  449
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  It is not practical to estimate the costs to public funds of preparing the assessments contained in the explanatory memoranda, because these, along with the other work involved in preparing the draft orders, were contained within the normal running costs of the Registry of Friendly Societies and the Treasury.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual saving to business which will accrue from the Deregulation(a) Friendly Societies Act 1992, (b) Credit Unions and (c) Building Societies Orders 1995. [2021]

  Mrs. Knight
  The estimated savings are included in the explanatory memoranda laid with the three draft orders. These will be significant in some areas, such as removing the requirement for a credit union to demonstrate the existence of a common bond. In others, savings will depend on the extent to which societies and credit unions take advantage of the benefits proposed. In addition, the changes will provide new opportunities for growth by giving institutions increased flexibility in their operations or greater freedom to expand their business.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1958]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury does not distinguish between different sizes of supplier: it seeks best value for money in procurement. The information requested, therefore, is not available.

  Part-time Work and Job Sharing
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to alter(a) the national insurance and (b) the taxation systems to encourage (i) part-time work and (ii) job sharing. [2154]

  Mr. Jack
  The hon. Lady would not expect me to anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

  Nigerian Military Regime
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what methods are available to him for assessing the value of the assets in Britain belonging to the Nigerian military regime; [2563]

  (2) what methods are available to him for assessing the whereabouts and value of the financial accounts held in Britain belonging to the Nigerian military regime; [2564]

  (3) if his Department has details of the value and number of personal accounts held in Britain by members of the Nigerian military regime; [2811]

  (4) what is the value of the personal accounts and assets held in Britain by members of the Nigerian military regime. [2815]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Details of bank accounts are always kept confidential unless the authorities have reason to suspect the commission of a crime in the United Kingdom. We have no exchange controls and therefore 450
  cannot trace money flowing in and out of such accounts. Access to registers of assets such as shareholdings or property is the same as for any other holder of such assets.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the grades of Treasury staff that qualified for gardening leave between 1993 and 1995 indicating the relevant salary bands for each year; [532]

  (2) if he will list the number of staff on the grades qualifying for gardening leave for the periods mentioned in his answer of 2 November, Official Report, column 428, excluding any such staff on permanent secondment to other Departments. [973]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Staff do not qualify for "gardening leave". This term is used to cover those not working, but excluding those on statutory paid leave, maternity leave or long-term sick leave. It is Treasury policy to provide opportunities for temporary work for staff between postings whenever possible. This policy applies to staff at all grades but generally it affects only staff at grade 7 and below. The salary bands for these grades are published in the "Civil Service Management Code" which is available in the House of Commons Library. The Treasury staff in post figures for the periods requested are given in the table.

  Her Majesty Treasury staff in post by quarter

  Full-time equivalents

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1 January

  —

  1,849

  1,305

  1 April

  —

  1,387

  1,127

  1 July

  1,924

  1,362

  1,092

  1 October

  1,891

  1,349

  1,080

  1. The table includes Forward, until it was privatised in February 1994.

  2. The table excludes staff on loan to other Departments or on secondment but paid directly by outside organisations but includes staff on secondment that are paid by the Treasury and then reimbursed.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of his staff who served on gardening leave during 1994. [974]

  Mrs. Knight
  The total number of staff who were on "gardening leave"—those not working, but excluding those on statutory paid leave, maternity leave and long term sick leave—during 1994, was 23.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the average length of gardening leave periods undertaken in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [531]

  Mrs. Knight
  The average period of time on "gardening leave"—those not working, but excluding those on statutory paid leave, maternity leave or long term sick leave—was 20 weeks in 1994 and 18 weeks, until 1 October, in 1995.

  Taxation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the cost, in respect of tax revenues forgone, of disregarding one-off payments for long-term care insurance from the current
  451
  limits which apply to tax-free capital lump sums taken on retirement; [88]

  (2) what would be the cost of making payments for long-term care insurance tax deductible; [89]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the current cost of (a) men and (b) women of long-term care insurance bought in a one-off payment upon retirement. [171]

  Mr. Jack
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment on tax matters at this stage of the Budget cycle.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1995–96 levels of income from restricting

  £ million

  Basic Rate

  Restriction to: 20 per cent.

  15 per cent.

  Effect of restricting

  Yield

  Numbers affected

  Yield

  Numbers affected

  Yield

  Numbers affected

  (a) Personal allowances

  1,400

  3.2

  5,700

  26.1

  10,600

  27.9

  (b) Relief for pension contributions

  720

  1.9

  1,410

  11.9

  2,130

  12.9

  (c) Other reliefs

  160

  0.7

  1n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Information on reliefs given at source is not available from the survey of personal incomes so it is not possible to estimate the effect to restricting other reliefs to 20 per cent. or 15 per cent.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax was raised in the financial year 1978–79; and what percentage came from the top rate of income tax and from tax on investment income. [126]

  Mr. Jack
  The total income tax liability in 1978–79 is estimated to have been £20.3 billion. The other information requested is not readily available. Detailed analytical tables showing the distribution of incomes and of income tax were published in "The Survey of Personal Incomes 1978–79", a copy of which is in the library.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the number of taxpayers in the financial year 1996–97 and on the number of higher rate taxpayers of(a) indexation, (b) raising the main personal allowances by five per cent. more than indexation, and (c) raising personal allowances by 10 per cent. more than indexation, giving figures separately for each main allowance and a total for main allowances. [81]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates based on statutory indexation and with income levels projected to 1996–97 levels using the summer economic forecast are as follows.

  Estimated number of income taxpayer 1996–97

  Millions

  Total

  Of which higher rate taxpayers

  (a) Indexation

  25.9

  2.2

  (b) (i) Increasing personal allowance for those aged under 65 by 5 per cent. more than indexation

  25.6

  2.2

  (ii) Increasing personal allowance for those aged 65 or over by 5 per cent. more than indexation

  25.7

  2.2

  452
  (a) personal allowances, (b) relief from pension contributions and (c) other reliefs, to relief at 25, 20 and 15p, giving in each case the numbers of people affected. [82]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated full-year yields at 1995–96 income levels based on a projection of the 1993–94 survey of personal incomes and other survey data in line with the assumptions in the summer economic forecast are given in the table. The figures do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such changes, and show the yield from restricting each allowance or relief separately. If two or more were restricted the total yield would be greater than the sum of the individual figures.

  Estimated number of income taxpayer 1996–97

  Millions

  Total

  Of which higher rate taxpayers

  (iii) Increasing all personal allowances by 5 per cent. more than indexation

  25.5

  2.2

  (c) (i) Increasing personal allowance for those aged under 65 by 10 per cent. more than indexation

  25.4

  2.2

  (ii) Increasing personal allowance for those aged 65 or over by 10 per cent. more than indexation

  25.6

  2.2

  (iii) Increasing all personal allowances by 10 per cent. more than indexation

  25.1

  2.2

  EU Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of that expenditure from the EC's 1994 budget which the Court of Auditors has qualified is attributable to the United Kingdom; [168]

  (2) what proportion of that expenditure from the 1994 budget which the Court of Auditors qualified is attributable to fraud as against accounting errors by (a) each member state and (b) the Commission. [169]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The statement of assurance— SOA—published by the Court of Auditors on 14 November 1995 is global in nature. It does not seek to make an assessment of particular areas of spending nor does it seek to analyse accounting or other errors by member states or by the institutions of the Community. An explanatory memorandum on the SOA will shortly be deposited in Parliament.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people and what percentage of taxpayers in Lancashire are liable for inheritance tax on estates valued over(a) £160,000, (b) £200,000, (c) £300,000, (d) £400,000, (e) £500,000, (f) £1,000,000 and (g) £2,000,000. [1988]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Economically active (thousands)

  Economic activity rate (percentage of all persons aged 16 and over)

  Spring

  All

  Men

  Women

  All

  Men

  Women

  1991

  28,592

  16,247

  12,345

  63.5

  74.8

  52.9

  1992

  28,581

  16,187

  12,395

  63.1

  73.8

  53

  1993

  24,447

  16,021

  12,426

  62.7

  72.9

  53.1

  1994

  28,433

  15,996

  12,436

  62.5

  72.5

  53.1

  1995

  28,426

  15,981

  12,445

  62.4

  72.2

  53.1

  Self-employed (thousands)

  Self-employed as a percentage of all persons in employment

  Spring

  All

  Men

  Women

  All

  Men

  Women

  1991

  3,402

  2,582

  820

  13.0

  17.5

  7.2

  1992

  3,227

  2,438

  789

  12.5

  17.0

  6.9

  1993

  3,184

  2,384

  800

  12.5

  17.0

  7.0

  1994

  3,301

  2,480

  820

  12.8

  17.5

  7.1

  1995

  3,355

  2,544

  811

  12.9

  17.7

  7.0

  Correspondence
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the letters to the hon. Member for North, Norfolk from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, dated 13 October 1993, reference cst.ps/dr/llmpl2.10. [1669]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fuel Duties
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will rearrange fuel duties to reduce the retail prices of the least polluting fuels for motor vehicles. [2145]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

  Mortgage Dealers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the regulatory bodies which oversee the work of firms which sell or offer advice on mortgages which do not include an investment element in them. [2320]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Bank of England supervises United Kingdom authorised banks; the Building Societies Commission supervises building societies. Credit institutions authorised in other members of the European Economic Area which provide services in the UK are supervised by their home state authorities.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the size of the United Kingdom labour force in each of the past five years; what were the activity rates for men and women during those years; and what were the numbers and proportion of self-employed. [1812]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Estimates for the United Kingdom from the labour force survey are shown in the tables following:

  Spirits Duty
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the excise duty receipts from spirits in each of the first six months of the present and the last tax year; [2140]

  (2) if he has adjusted the forecast duty from spirits; [2142]

  (3) if he will estimate the shortfall in estimated duty receipts from spirits for the current year. [2141]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The table shows spirit duty receipts for the first six months of 1995–96 were approximately 93 per cent. of revenues in the first six months of 1994–95. The outturn for the whole of 1994–95 was £1.776 billion.

  HM Treasury's summer economic forecast contained a figure of £1.9 billion spirits receipts in 1995–96. The next set of forecasts will be published on Budget day in the 1996–97 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  £ million

  Month

  1995–96

  1994–95

  April

  112

  126

  May

  106

  128

  June

  129

  134

  July

  121

  122

  August

  115

  121

  September

  128

  134

  455
  This information is published every month by the Central Statistical Office in "Financial Statistics", table 2.1D.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury model for tax on spirits was last adjusted. [2143]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The models used for spirits duty receipts are reviewed regularly.

  Earnings Rates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish hourly and weekly wage rates for 1992 and 1995 together with the percentage change between the two, according to data from the "New Earnings Survey" deflated by the retail prices index, for(a) full-time manual men on adult rates, (b) full-time non-manual men on adult rates, (c) full-time manual women on adult rates, (d) full-time non-manual women on adult rates and (e) full-time men and women on adult rates, giving the figures for 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles and the mean in each case. [2324]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: The 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles and the mean for the categories requested are published in part
  456
  A, table 1 of the "New Earnings Survey", for 1992 and 1995. To compare data for the two years in question the retail prices index, all items, should be used. This information is published in the "Central Statistical Office Business Monitor" MM23. Copies of the publications can be found in the Members' Library.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are current interest rates; what was the average for the period February 1974 to May 1979 and May 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement. [1489]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 23 November 1995]: The rate, measured by the clearing banks' base rate, is currently 6.75 per cent.

  The average interest rate, represented by the Bank of England's minimum lending rate, between February 1974 and May 1979 was 10.53 per cent. From May 1979 to date minimum lending rate—or clearing bank base rate in periods when MLR was not posted—has averaged 10.92 per cent.

  The rates for recent periods can be found in table 7.1J of the CSO's "Financial Statistics", a copy of which is in the Members' Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many male and female prisoners were held by the Prison Service on(a) 27 May 1993 and on (b) 27 November 1995. [1084]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many male and female prisoners were held by the Prison Service on (a) 27 May 1993 and (b) 27 November 1995.
  Figures for 27 May 1993 are not available. However, on 31 May 1993 there were 42,091 male and 1,494 female prisoners held by the Prison Service. Figures are not yet available for 27 November 1995. I will write to you again with these details as soon as they become available.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1948]

  Mr. Howard
  The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoner Repatriations
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to take decisions on application by detained Irish nationals to be repatriated to prisons in the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement. [2427]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons came into effect for the Republic of Ireland on 1 November 1995.

  Under the convention, both jurisdictions, as well as the prisoner concerned, are required to consent to repatriation before any transfer can take place. Requests will be determined on their individual merits as and when information is available to all parties to enable informed decisions on consent to be made.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if those British citizens detained in prisons overseas who were received by the United Kingdom in the last five years, including those returned from America, were subject to remission and parole policies prevailing in the United Kingdom; [2429]

  (2) how many British citizens detained in prison overseas who have applied to be repatriated to prisons in the United Kingdom have had their applications refused over the last five years to date; and if he will list the countries from which the applications were made. [2426]
  458
  Miss Widdecombe
  Repatriation requires the consent of both jurisdictions and the prisoner concerned. Information is held only in cases where the United Kingdom withholds consent. In the last five years, one prisoner, a British national imprisoned in Canada, has been refused repatriation.

  Under the terms of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 and the international agreements entered into by the United Kingdom for the repatriation of prisoners, the United Kingdom is responsible for administering the balance of a prisoner's sentence remaining to be served at the date of transfer. Repatriated prisoners are considered for release under the same rules which apply to other prisoners convicted here.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to take a decision on the transfer on compassionate grounds of Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien to prisons in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [2428]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The requests for transfer to Northern Ireland made by Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien were refused on 26 September. Their requests did not meet the criteria for transfer. They had no known links with Northern ireland and they were not previously resident there before their present convictions.

  Their requests for transfer were, none the less, considered on an exceptional basis. It was not considered that sufficient compelling or compassionate grounds existed for allowing the transfers exceptionally.

  Patrick Kelly has submitted fresh evidence in support of his request for transfer to Northern Ireland. This is currently under consideration. Mr. Kelly will be advised as soon as a decision has been made.

  Dartmoor Prison
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how often the Governor of HM prison Dartmoor authorised the use of(a) bodybelts, (b) ankle straps, (c) handcuffs and (d) special segregation unit cells between January 1990 and the present date; [2092]

  (2) on how many occasions since January 1990 prisoners in HM prison Dartmoor were kept in bodybelts for more than 12 hours. [2093]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. David Jamieson, dated 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the use of restraints at Dartmoor prison.

  459
  Since January 1990, the governor of Dartmoor has authorised the use of a bodybelt on three occasions, once for 4 hours 45 minutes, once for 19 hours 5 minutes and once for 24 hours. The use of ankle straps has not been authorised during the period concerned.
  Handcuffs are used routinely when escorting prisoners outside the secure perimeter of the prison to court or to another prison. They have only been used within the prison twice, on a prisoner who had staged a roof-top protest at another prison and had threatened to repeat the protest at Dartmoor. The governor decided that the prisoner would be handcuffed when moving from his cell to the visits area in order to reduce the possibility of him carrying out the threat.
  The segregation unit special cells have been used on 331 occasions from January 1990 to date.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions in the last five years from which figures are available inmates at Dartmoor prison have been(a) detained in a strip cell known as the box and (b) restrained by bodybelt for both medical and non-medical purposes; [2263]

  (2) what is the (a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average time during which inmates in Dartmoor prison are detained in a bodybelt or mechanical restraint. [2264]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 Jean Corston, dated 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the use of restraints at Dartmoor prison.
  There are two special cells in the segregation unit at Dartmoor. They contain no furniture other than a low level plinth on which a prisoner may lie down and a small stool on which he may sit, both fastened to the floor of the cell. Since January 1991, the cells have been used on 281 occasions to locate prisoners who have exhibited behaviour which could result in them harming themselves or others. There have been two occasions since January 1991 when a prisoner at Dartmoor has been restrained in a bodybelt.
  Since January 1990, the governor of Dartmoor has authorised the use of a bodybelt on three occasions, once for 4 hours 45 minutes, once for 19 hours 5 minutes and once for 24 hours. The use of ankle straps has not been authorised during the period concerned.

  Drug Abuse (Prisons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of disciplinary actions taken against prisoners for illegal drug use in each of the past five years. [2165]

  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. Paul Flynn, dated 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average number of disciplinary actions taken against prisoners for illegal drug use in each of the past five years.
  Use of a controlled drug by prisoners in Prison Service establishments became a disciplinary offence in January 1995 under Prison and Young Offender Institution Rules. Provisional data for the period from January to October 1995 show that there have been 921 proved adjudications for this offence.

  EC Measures
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EC measures impose fines or other criminal penalties on people and businesses in the United Kingdom. [2091]

  Miss Widdecombe
  EC measures do not impose fines or other criminal penalties directly: they are implemented by means of United Kingdom law.

  Information about criminal penalties imposed to comply with our EC obligations is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of Commissioner Gradin's proposals on immigration, asylum policy and border controls put to the recent meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in the Library; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of these proposals. [2826]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council at La Gomera on 14–15 October 1995 was an informal meeting and as such took no formal decisions. I have, however, provided a summary of the discussions to the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Select Committee on European Legislation.

  During the meeting, Ministers considered the prospects for the third pillar of the treaty on European Union at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. Commissioner Gradin expressed the view that immigration and asylum policy should be transferred into Community competence. She did not, however, put forward any formal proposals.

  The Government do not share that view. We firmly believe that the matters dealt with under the third pillar, including immigration and asylum, should remain subject to intergovernmental co-operation. There was broad agreement with this position from other member states at La Gomera.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a Green Paper and a White Paper concerning current trends and problems in the fields of asylum and immigration and his proposals for legislation. [2690]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to publish a Green Paper or a White Paper on these matters. The statement that my right hon. and learned Friend made to the House on 20 November identified a number of pressing issues requiring early action. Parliament will shortly have the opportunity to debate the Government's proposals for legislation.

  Frontier Controls
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the European Commission's three proposed directives on the right to travel and the elimination of controls on persons crossing the internal frontiers of the European Union. [2828]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Commission's proposals are not acceptable, as they conflict with our firm determination to maintain the United Kingdom's frontier controls with other member states of the European Union. Explanatory memoranda on the draft directives were laid on 12 October 1995.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who represented Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in the Canary Islands on 14 and 15 October. [2825]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government were represented at the informal Council in La Gomera by Mr. Timothy Walker, a deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and the United Kingdom delegate to the K4 committee.

  Police Patrols
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has that beat patrolling by police constables has suffered as a result of greater emphasis on panda car patrols. [1673]

  Mr. Maclean
  There needs to be a balance between foot and mobile police patrolling to meet the operational requirements of individual forces and the communities which they serve. This is a matter for chief constables to decide.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are employed on the beat at any one time, per head of population. [1677]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not centrally collected. At the end of March 1995, 68,240 officers were deployed to patrol duties in England and Wales.

  Private Security Industry
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to respond to the first report of the Home Affairs Select Committee of Session 1994–95, HC 17, on the private security industry. [1674]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are looking in detail at the recommendations contained in the Select Committee report and will give a full response as soon as possible.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about regulation of the private security industry. [1691]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a total of 16 representations in the last two months.

  Vulnerable Prisoner Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of vulnerable prisoner units that exist in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will list these establishments. [1704]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about vulnerable prisoner units in prisons in England and Wales.
  Vulnerable prisoner units, as distinct from segregated accommodation requiring controls under Prison Rule 43 or Young Offender Institution Rule 46, exist in 37 establishments as shown in the list annexed to this letter.

  Annexe

  Acklington Prison

  Albany Prison

  Blakenhurst Prison

  Brinsford Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre

  Cardiff Prison

  Castington Young Offender Institution

  Channings Wood Prison

  Dartmoor Prison

  Doncaster Prison

  Dorchester Prison

  Durham Prison

  Elmley Prison

  Frankland Prison

  Full Sutton Prison

  Glen Parva Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre

  High Down Prison

  Holme House Prison

  Lewes Prison

  Lincoln Prison

  Littlehey Prison

  Liverpool Prison

  Low Newton Remand Centre

  Maidstone Prison

  Manchester Prison

  Risley Prison

  Rochester Prison

  Shepton Mallet Prison

  Stafford Prison

  Styal Prison and Young Offender Institution

  1Usk Prison

  Wandsworth Prison

  Wayland Prison

  1Whatton Prison

  Whitemoor Prison

  Wolds Prison

  Woodhill Prison

  1Wymott Prison

  1Establishments holding only vulnerable prisoners.

  Prison Costs
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average annual cost per prison place. [1697]

  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 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average annual cost of a prison place.
  In 1993–94, the last year for which information has been published, the net operating cost per place per year was £22,712.

  Police Force Statistics
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average annual change in the number of police officers in England and Wales between(a) 1974 and 1979, (b) 1980 and 1990 and (c) 1991 and 1995. [1678]

  Mr. Maclean
  The average annual increase in police strength was as follows:

  Number

  (i) 1974 to 1979

  +2,245 1officers

  (ii) 1980 to 1990

  +1,378 officers

  (iii) 1991 to 1995 (March)

  +31 2officers

  1 This includes an increase in actual police strength of 1,816 between May 1979 and December 1979.

  2 This figure obscures an average annual increase of 424 constables in this period, which has been achieved by a significant delayering of the police service's management structure.

  Metropolitan Police
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of staff in the Metropolitan police are involved in(a) operational duties and (b) non-policing functions. [1679]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that all police officers are available for operational duties. Currently, 88.7 per cent. of police officers and 37.2 per cent. of civilian staff are allocated to operational duties, and 11.3 per cent. of police officers and 62.8 per cent. of civilian staff to non-operational support duties.

  Prison Reports
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the additional costs of implementing the recommendations of the Woodcock and Learmont reports during 1995–96. [1682]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The implementation of the Woodcock report is expected to cost about £60 million in 1995–96. Whether the Prison Service will require additional provision to cover these costs will emerge in February 1996 at the time of the spring supplementary estimates. No additional expenditure is forecast in 1995–96 for the implementation of the Learmont report.464
  The Prison Service is now considering General Sir John Learmont's recommendations in detail and until that work is completed the likely cost of implementation cannot be assessed.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Woodcock report. [1684]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The timetable for implementation of the recommendations made in the Woodcock report was published on 8 February. To date, 33 recommendations have been implemented and the remaining 31 have been implemented in part.

  The majority of the recommendations not yet fully implemented require major construction work. A construction programme—which started with those prisons holding the highest categories of prisoners—is under way. That programme is currently being reviewed in the light of the recommendations in General Sir John Learmont's review of security across the Prison Service.

  Remand Prisoners
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the average length of time for which remand prisoners are held prior to commencing trial. [1698]

  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 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, what is his current estimate of the average length of time for which remand prisoners are held prior to commencing trial.
  The available information is for the estimated average time in custody for untried prisoners. Figures for 1994 are given in the attached table.

  Estimated average time spent in custody for untried prisoners, in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 19941 by sex

  Estimated average number of days in custody3

  Type of custody

  Male

  Female

  Untried2

  59

  44

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Time spent in custody before conviction.

  3 Estimated from number of receptions and average population in 1994.

  Sentencing Policy
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish a White Paper on sentencing. [1700]

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

  Prison Population
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his current estimate of the size of the prison population at 31 March 1995; [1688]

  (2) how many prisoners he expects to be held in England and Wales by the end of the current financial year. [1694]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest projection, produced in October, is for the prison population in England and Wales on 31 March 1996 to be around 53,400. The population was projected from current trends and assumptions but past experience has shown the likelihood of unforeseen departures from the trend.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase in the numbers of prisoners he expects to take place by the end of 1995. [1692]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest projection, produced in October, is for the prison population in England and Wales on 31 December 1995 to be around 50,000. This compares with a population of 52,410 on 22 November 1995. The December figure will be depressed in comparison to other months due to the seasonal downturn at the end of the year. The population was projected from current trends and assumptions but past experience has shown the likelihood of unforeseen departures from the trend.

  COPEX Exhibition
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police presence was provided at the COPEX exhibition at Sandown racecourse in November; and at what cost. [1640]

  Mr Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a total of 22 officers policed the COPEX exhibition at an estimated additional total cost of £1,050.00.

  Prison Education Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what provision exists in the prison education system to cater for prisoners who(a) already have achieved and (b) have not achieved educational success. [397]

  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 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what provision exists in the prison education system to cater for prisoners who (a) already have achieved and (b) have not achieved educational success.
  A high proportion of prisoners have low educational attainments. Priority in prison education is therefore given to dealing with basic learning deficits. Adult basic education courses in literacy and numeracy are provided at all adult establishments and courses in English for speakers of other languages are provided where required. We are in the process of implementing a national core curriculum which emphasises adult basic education and social and life skills, English for speakers of other languages, information technology,
  466
  and how to be an effective learner. In addition, courses are made available at the discretion of the individual governor in accordance with orders placed on the education provider (usually a college of further education) which holds the contract for that establishment.
  There are opportunities for prisoners who wish to undertake advanced academic studies, including, in some cases, study for A Levels and enrolment as undergraduates with the Open University, or with other universities as external students.
  Not all of the courses available to prisoners are geared towards academic or vocational success. Prisoners of all abilities can derive benefit from art and craft classes and activities, or distance learning materials obtainable through the education department for open and flexible learning. More advanced students may study for GNVQs and GCSE in various subjects and some establishments run vocational training and construction industry training courses, with opportunities to achieve National Vocational Qualifications.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the use of HM prison Doncaster for immigration detainees is now a permanent arrangement; [479]

  (2) who took the decision to hold immigration detainees in Doncaster prison; and on what date the decision was taken. [400]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the decision to hold immigration detainees in Doncaster prison and whether its use for that purpose is now a permanent arrangement.
  The decision to use a unit in Doncaster prison for holding immigration detainees was taken in June 1994 and formally announced on 13 June 1994.
  Because of population pressures and reservations subsequently expressed by the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office as to its suitability for holding Immigration Act detainees, only limited use, on grounds of operational expediency, has been made of Doncaster for the holding of persons detained solely under the Immigration Act 1971. There are currently three such persons detained there. It has not been formally removed from the list of Prison Service establishments designated for the holding of such detainees but the Prison Service and the Immigration and Nationality Department are considering possible alternatives.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees Doncaster prison holds at any one time; where the prison detainees are being held; what special facilities have been made available for the detainees; and what provisions there are in the contract signed in February 1994 between the Home Office and the contractor for this arrangement. [401]

  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 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many detainees Doncaster prison holds at any one time; where the prison detainees are being held; what special

  467
  facilities have been made available for the detainees; and what provisions there are in the contract signed in February 1994 between the Home Office and the contractor for this arrangement.
  There is no agreed number of detainees held in Doncaster. There are currently three detainees, detained solely under the Immigration Act 1971, held at Doncaster. Two are in normal accommodation and one, who is a paraplegic, in the Health Care Centre.
  Detainees at Doncaster have access to the same facilities as other prisoners. There are no special facilities specifically for detainees.
  The contract between the Home Office and Premier Prison Services (PPS) requires PPS to hold up to 771 prisoners at Doncaster. A prisoner is defined as "any person for the time being detained in legal custody as a result of a requirement imposed by a court or otherwise that he be so detained". This includes detainees.

  Blakehurst Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list steps taken to implement each of the recommendations set out on pages 86 to 97 inclusive of Judge Tumim's inspection report on Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst published on 1 February 1995 by(a) UK Detention Services Ltd. and (b) the Prison service. [386]

  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 27 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Blakenhurst prison.
  The attached note, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House, gives details of the steps taken to implement each of the recommendations to the Director General of the Prison Service, the Prison Service area manager responsible for Blakenhurst and the Director of the establishment.

  ANNEXE

  Recommendations to the Director General

  8.01 Deficiencies in meeting the contract should be addressed by all parties in particular as follows:

  Examination of Contractor's financial records excluding prisoner earnings (Schedule 1.21 (v))

  The Contract (Schedule 1, condition 21(v)) requires the contractor to keep books of account which are made available to inspection. The Contractor complied with the contract by making accounts available as and when requested.

  Revision of Schedule 3 price (Schedule 1.21(iv))

  Price revision is a commercial matter, subject to negotiation between the Contractor and the Prison Service, and dependent on consideration of the relevant indices issued by Central Statistical Office and their insertion in the price revision formula given in Schedule 3 of the contract. Both parties are complying with this procedure.

  Progress reports (Schedule 1.36)

  Progress reports have been supplied when requested by the Prison Service in full compliance with the contract. In addition regular meetings have been held between the Prison Service and UKDS, often with the on-site Prison Service Controller and the director of the prison present, to discuss progress as well as performance.

  Identify specific records to be kept (Schedule 1.37)

  Specific records have been dentified and kept by the Contractor including maintenance schedules, prisoner damage reports, escorting and prisoner population records in full compliance with the contract.

  468

  Regular reviews of cleaning programme (Schedule 2.20)

  A programme was agreed formally on 23 July 1993. Weekly reports are submitted to the Controller, together with frequent reviews held at minuted meetings.

  Prisoner compacts (Schedule 2.69)

  A system was drawn up and agreed between Contractor and Controller on 25 June 1993 and formally reviewed on 28 April 1994. When the inspection team visited the compact was not being used because of a failure in communication between two UKDS departments. The director put the system back into use during the inspection week.

  Prisoners involved in decision making and methods of doing so (Schedule 2.72)

  At the time of the inspection prisoners were members of the unit and food meetings, this continues but even more prisoner involvement is planned. This arrangement complies with the contract.

  Consultancy/free telephone to Citizens Advice Bureau (Schedule 2.100)

  The Citizens Advice Bureau offers a consultancy on Wednesday evenings. Free telephone calls are available house block senior custody officers. This meets the requirements of the contract.

  Regime review (Schedule 2.118)

  Since Blakenhurst was incorporated into the Prison Service line management in April 1994, regime monitoring has been fully implemented.

  Commercial arrangements for prisoners' work (Schedule 2.121) and review of Business Plan (Schedule 2.121)

  It has proved difficult for UKDS to generate much commercial work for prisoners because of the shortage of high grade "real wages" work appropriate for prisoners. At present this is offered in the Komatsu Shop, which refurbishes industrial machinery. The "real wage" system began on 21 November 1994 and involves a maximum of ten prisoners.

  Continuing review and improvement of the induction/assessment policy (Schedule 2.130)

  Revised induction/assessment is now in operation and fully meets the contract.

  Contacts by prisoners with the community prior to release (Schedule 2.131)

  The arrangements for resettlement have in the past been a cause for concern because the throughcare input lacked sufficient thrust and direction. This has been much improved with the arrival of a new senior probation officer and greater cooperation. The director/chief probation officer contract has been reviewed and action taken to revitalise weak areas. The area manager has requested additional throughcare proposals from UKDS.

  Treatment programme for convicted sex offenders (Schedule 2.135)

  Although the Contract refers to the national "core" programme, The Prison Service subsequently agreed that this was not appropriate for a local prison. The sex offender treatment programme at Blakenhurst is an assessment programme and the contractual wording has been amended to reflect that.

  8.02 The contract document should be strengthened to take fuller account of offers made in the Contractor's tender submission (2.13)

  The contractor is obliged by the contract to deliver the services in conjunction with, and in the spirit of, his tender. There would be some difficulty enforcing this—a weakness that has been rectified in subsequent contracts.

  8.03 The amount of assistance which can appropriately be given to the Contractor by the Controller should be defined clearly (2.22)

  HMCIP felt that the Controllers were taking too active a role in management. In the early days this was the case. But it has not fettered the Controllers' capacity to inspect and monitor. When the Area Manager took line responsibility in April 1994 the Controller's role was reviewed. New job descriptions for the Controller and his deputy were agreed on 4 May 1994. They meet the point made by the Inspectorate.

  469

  RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AREA MANAGER

  8.04 The extent of monitoring local financial information by the Controller and area manager should be reviewed.

  Under the contract, UKDS receive a lump sum for running the prison. The Prison Service has no control over how this is spent as long as the contract is not breached in any way.

  8.05 The monitoring of each part of the contract should be more methodical and records should be kept of the date on which each aspect is examined.

  This formal monitoring is now being carried out.

  8.06 Category D prisoners should not be held in secure accommodation.

  Six category D prisoners are retained for special work places and all others have been transferred.

  8.07 The director should receive copies of all relevant Prison Service instructions, advice to governors and information notices including copies of briefing papers.

  This is now done.

  8.08 A shower should be provided in the kitchen for the inmate work party.

  This is still under consideration by the director.

  8.09 Consideration should be given to providing a secure treatment room on the ground floor of the hospital and one in the vulnerable prisoner unit.

  This recommendation was considered but rejected by the director.

  8.10 The Prison Service should take back unwanted class 1 locks and reimburse the contractor for those not used.

  This has been done.

  8.11 An emergency exit door should be provided in the education department leading from either the glass engraving or the cookery rooms to the outside walkway.

  Automatic closures have been fitted to the door as recommended in the fire safety report of June 1993.

  8.12 Technical advice should be sought about the effect of the screening of the vulnerable prisoner spur on the airflow in the event of a fire.

  Advice has been received and is being considered.

  8.13 Privacy screening should be provided around the bath in reception.

  This has been done.

  8.14 The facilities in the vulnerable prisoner unit should be upgraded to overcome the claustrophobic atmosphere and provide a proper servery, adequate storerooms and offices, and opportunities for more activities.

  A storeroom has been provided together with an improved trolley system. The other recommendations were rejected on cost grounds.

  8.15 Equipment required by the optician and physiotherapist should be supplied.

  The equipment has been supplied.

  8.16The alarm system for the hospital should be reviewed.

  This has been done and the appropriate action taken.

  8.17 The use of the special medical room should be reviewed in comparison with other local prisons.

  This is now being done.

  8.18 The security of the treatment/dispensing room should be improved.

  The security of the doors has been improved.

  8.19 An ultrasonic instrument cleaner should be supplied for the dentist.

  This has now been supplied.

  8.20 There should be a doctor's consulting suite on the VP unit with a properly equipped doctor's interview room and a separate treatment room.

  This is not required. Prisoners from the VPU attend the health care centre for interviews and treatment.

  Racially Motivated Crime
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the numbers of racially motivated crimes reported over the last 15 years for each police authority in the United Kingdom. [1530]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: The available information relates to reported racial incidents in England and Wales since 1989 and has been provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The figures for 1994–95 will be published shortly. Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretary of State in each Department.

  Reported racial incidents by police force area: 1989 to 1993–94

  Police force area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993–94

  Avon and Somerset

  71

  83

  148

  98

  159

  Bedfordshire

  25

  33

  0

  57

  60

  Cambridgeshire

  60

  71

  107

  110

  100

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  3

  29

  98

  Cleveland

  55

  57

  68

  73

  50

  Cumbria

  4

  1

  9

  13

  17

  Derbyshire

  20

  53

  143

  60

  221

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  6

  9

  7

  14

  Dorset

  12

  3

  9

  10

  25

  Durham

  23

  41

  70

  40

  32

  Essex

  26

  43

  59

  80

  133

  Gloucestershire

  20

  51

  25

  33

  28

  Greater Manchester

  40

  123

  204

  401

  658

  Hampshire

  50

  42

  141

  139

  212

  Hertfordshire

  49

  51

  0

  106

  117

  Humberside

  52

  67

  81

  68

  79

  Kent

  81

  88

  120

  56

  160

  Lancashire

  93

  201

  119

  231

  262

  Leicestershire

  190

  287

  369

  338

  315

  Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  4

  5

  4

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Merseyside

  123

  144

  162

  134

  155

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  2,908

  3,373

  3,227

  2 5,124

  Norfolk

  22

  23

  45

  30

  33

  Northamptonshire

  72

  66

  60

  120

  102

  Northumbria

  217

  289

  376

  349

  405

  North Yorkshire

  6

  12

  20

  22

  22

  Nottinghamshire

  27

  135

  221

  222

  264

  South Yorkshire

  52

  117

  124

  151

  106

  Staffordshire

  44

  101

  158

  95

  117

  Suffolk

  62

  74

  75

  55

  73

  Surrey

  7

  7

  50

  61

  79

  Sussex

  141

  92

  98

  98

  214

  Thames Valley

  128

  171

  201

  195

  166

  Warwickshire

  21

  44

  32

  35

  87

  West Mercia

  6

  13

  3

  19

  100

  West Midlands

  169

  268

  445

  379

  487

  West Yorkshire

  306

  254

  322

  218

  244

  Wiltshire

  19

  25

  29

  24

  51

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  4

  5

  12

  31

  21

  North Wales

  1

  0

  3

  4

  2

  South Wales

  94

  308

  385

  311

  400

  England and Wales

  12,397

  6,359

  7,882

  7,734

  10,997

  1 Financial year data. Some of the increase in total reported incidents in 1993–94 may be attributable to the implementation of a precise definition of a racial incident when included in the Police Service Performance Indicator Suite.

  2 Adjusted figure (due to a change in classification criteria) from that given in the Official Report (24 June 1994, Column 330).

  3 Excluding Metropolitan Police.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list for his executive agencies for the last financial year in respect of overseas travel by agency staff(a) the costs of the travel, (b) the countries visited and (c) the posts held by the staff concerned. [2286]

  The Attorney-General
  The one executive agency for which I am responsible is Government Property Lawyers. No member of staff of the agency travelled overseas in an official capacity in the financial year 1994–95.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1942]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [2831]

  The Attorney-General
  The Solicitor-General took through the House of Commons the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1995 which effected the repeal of certain obsolete and unnecessary local enactments. Subject to this, no Acts of Parliament affecting local government have been introduced by my Department since January 1994.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all those in his Department who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1428]

  The Attorney-General
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate Minister. Any claim relating to my own department would be made by me or, in my absence, the Solicitor-General. I am also responsible for three departments headed by a statutory officer holder: the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Treasury Solicitor. They may make a public interest immunity claim relating to their departments, after consultation with me. The following claims have been made inter partes. The director of the Serious Fraud Office made a claim in 1994, by affidavit, to preserve the confidentiality attaching to documents and information relating to the internal decision making process of the SFO.

  In addition, I am aware of two certificates used in 1991 and 1992 in proceedings in Northern Ireland. Both were signed by my predecessor and were intended to preserve the confidentiality attaching to exchanges between the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to examine the circumstances of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [682]

  Mr. Newton
  As I told the hon. Gentleman in my answer to his similar question on 23 October 1995,Official Report, column 458, there are no plans to do so.

  Members' Pay
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he plans to review hon. Members' pay. [685]

  Mr. Newton
  As I indicated in the debate on ministerial salaries on 26 October,Official Report, column 1191, my aim is to maintain arrangements under which hon. Members' pay can be increased annually in a fair and sensible way, without the need for annual debate.

  Trade Union Sponsorship
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the Privileges Committee last examined the relationship between an hon. Member and any trade union sponsorship applicable to that Member. [688]

  Mr. Newton
  The function of the Committee of Privileges, which is to be replaced by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, is to consider matters of complaint of breach of privilege referred to them by the House.

  Complaints relating to trade union sponsorship have been referred to the Committee on a number of occasions. The most recent report of the Committee relating to such a complaint is the first report from the Committee of Session 1990–91—House of Commons Paper No. 420— which contains details of earlier cases.

  Legislation (Scrutiny)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration he has given to including departmental Select Committees in the procedures for the scrutiny of legislation. [687]

  Mr. Newton
  None, but my hon. Friend may wish to draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1434]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office is housed within the Cabinet Office estate. I accordingly refer the hon. Member to the reply given on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey, (Mr. Ainsworth) on 17 May 1995,Official Report, column 2600.

  Drugs Information
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to distribute the leaflet, "Tackling Drugs Together: Information for Parents, Businesses and Communities"; and when the distribution will take place. [1500]

  Mr. Newton
  Over 5,000 copies of the leaflet, which is intended to involve local communities in the Government's strategy to tackle the misuse of drugs, have already been sent to the 105 drug action teams which have recently been set up across England, in accordance with the White Paper "Tackling Drugs Together". Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  The drug action teams are determining the distribution arrangements for the leaflet in the light of their local knowledge and developing plans to engage their communities—including parents and businesses—in tackling local drugs problems. Some drug action teams are, for example, planning to distribute the leaflet to all GP surgeries.

WALES

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions air pollution levels have exceeded recommended official Government levels in each county and for Wales as a whole, in each of the last three years for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [470]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently four European directives on air quality which set mandatory and non-mandatory limits for lead, sulphur dioxide and suspended particles, nitrogen dioxide and ozone levels in the air.

  In the last three years the relevant thresholds were breached at Government monitoring sites in Wales as follows:

  Number of Exceedences

  Limit

  Site

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Taken on a daily basis:

  Ozone information

  Aston Hill

  3 days

  1 day

  1 day

  threshold

  Cardiff

  2 days

  —

  1 day

  Taken on an annual basis:

  Guide value for SO2

  Cwmgwrach

  Exc.

  —

  —

  Port Talbot

  Exc.

  —

  —

  Glynneath

  Exc.

  Exc.

  Exc.

  Taken on an annual basis:

  Guide value for suspended particles

  Wrexham

  —

  Exc.

  —

  Exc.= Exceeded the Guide values, based on the average daily readings taken over the year.

  474
  Further information is available in the environmental digest for Wales and the report "Air Pollution in the UK 1993–94", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Emergency Hospital Beds
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to require each NHS trust to publish information regarding the frequency of closure of admittance to emergency hospital beds. [638]

  Mr. Richards
  I have no such proposals, but I would expect trusts to make this information available locally on request.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the frequency of the closure of admittance to emergency hospital beds, expressing the number of beds so closed as a proportion of the total number of hospital beds and indicating the percentage increase or decrease, in each case, for each NHS trust and for Wales as a whole for the last two years for which information is available. [898]

  Mr. Richards
  Operational information of this kind is not held centrally.

  Out-of-town Superstores
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list all out-of-town superstores(a) for which planning applications were made and (b) for which planning consent was granted since 1990, indicating the dates; and if he will make a statement. [1085]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is the policy of his Department for Ministers to reply to hon. Members' letters in the language requested by those hon. Members. [1767]

  Mr. Hague
  If an hon. Member requests that we reply in Welsh or in English we will comply with that request.

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2039]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has been responsible for promoting a small number of Bills in the last five years. None contains provision for statutory repeal or review.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1959]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) grants and (b) other support will be available from his Department for the conservation and protection of dry stone walls from April 1996. [2328]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Grants for the restoration, conservation and protection of dry stone walls are available from the Welsh Office in those parts of Wales which are designated as environmentally sensitive areas and those areas which come under the Tir Cymen pilot scheme administered by the Countryside Council for Wales. Support under these schemes will continue beyond April 1996.

  Assistance towards the provision, replacement or improvement of walls is also available throughout Wales under the farm and conservation grant scheme which is currently due to end on 19 February 1996. I have asked my officials to investigate the possibilities that may exist to enable the continuation in Wales of grant aid for capital works—including dry stone walling—that are available under the scheme. We shall make an announcement in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many closure proposals are currently being

  Health visitors and district nurses1: by qualification

  Headcount: at 30 September

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  21995

  Health visitors

  1,753

  1,793

  1,762

  1,889

  1,843

  1,823

  1,786

  1,758

  Health visitors 3

  1,609

  1,651

  1,612

  1,676

  1,640

  1,630

  1,609

  1,588

  Health visitor with combined duties4

  144

  142

  150

  213

  203

  193

  177

  170

  District nurses

  53,220

  2,727

  2,702

  2,696

  2,687

  2,650

  2,672

  2,691

  District nurses 3

  52,575

  2,104

  2,104

  2,101

  2,103

  2,095

  2,143

  2,177

  District nurse with combined duties4

  645

  623

  598

  595

  584

  555

  529

  514

  Notes:

  1Data from September 1991 are derived using a new occupation classification for nursing staff. This may have caused some discontinuities in the time series as previous misclassifications have been corrected.

  2 Data at 31 March 1995.

  3 The figures for health visitors and district nurses include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  4 Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e., double counted).

  5Data at 30 September 1988 include some qualified nurses working in the community but not necessarily as district nurses. In subsequent years these nurses have been reclassified.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll (NAMS) Information and Statistics Division.

  Health visitors and district nurses1: by qualification

  Whole time equivalent: at 30 September

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19952

  Health visitors

  1,655.30

  1,696.30

  1,653.50

  1,751.20

  1,692.40

  1,663.70

  1,613.50

  1,588.30

  Health visitors 3

  1,516

  1,559.60

  1,508.60

  1,546.20

  1,497.40

  1,479.10

  14,431

  1,424

  Health visitor with combined duties 4

  139.3

  136.7

  144.9

  205

  195

  184.6

  170.4

  164.4

  476
  submitted by NHS trusts and boards with regard to long-term stay in Scotland; and if he will list the hospitals targeted for closure. [1272]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have approved the closure of Gartloch, Woodilee, Gogarburn, Broomhill and Lochmaddy hospitals. All will remain open until such time as the planned reprovision of accommodation and services are in place and available.

  Proposals affecting Lochgreen, Lennos Castle, Craig Dunain and Eastbank hospitals have been submitted by the respective health boards for my consideration.

  Closure proposals are a matter for the health boards. Before they are presented for my decision the health boards must conduct a public consultation exercise in every case. On receipt of closure proposals I look for confirmation that genuine consultations have taken place; that the reprovision arrangements are appropriate; and that the health board has agreed its proposals with the local social work and housing authorities.

  District Nurses and Health Visitors
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of district nurses and the numbers of health visitors employed in Scotland, broken down by real frequency and whole-time equivalents for the years between 1988 and 1995 inclusive. [1269]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the tables.
  477

  Health visitors and district nurses1: by qualification

  Whole time equivalent: at 30 September

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19952

  District nurses

  52,555.1

  2,318

  2,281.20

  2,239.40

  2,201.40

  2,187.50

  2,177

  2,188.20

  District nurses3

  51,983.1

  1,762

  1,744.30

  1,713.50

  1,691.80

  1,697.80

  1,705.80

  1,731.60

  District nurse with combined duties 4

  572

  556

  536.9

  525.9

  509.6

  489.7

  471.2

  456.6

  Notes:

  1 Data from September 1991 are derived using a new occupation classification for nursing staff. This may have caused some discontinuities in the time series as previous misclassifications have been corrected.

  2 Data at 31 March 1995.

  3 The figures for health visitors and district nurses include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  4 Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted).

  5 Data at 30 September 1988 include some qualified nurses working in the community but not necessarily as district nurses. In subsequent years these nurses have been reclassified.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll (NAMS) Information and Statistics Division.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1915]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. The Scottish Office does not have policy responsibility for Community R and D expenditure and makes no direct contribution to the R and D budget.

  Appeals

  Allowed

  Refused or abandoned

  Outstanding

  1 October 1993–31 December 1993

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  1 January 1994–31 December 1994

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1 January 1995–24 November 1995

  11

  2

  6

  3

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what procurator fiscal staff and services are currently in Arbroath; and when he intends to fill any vacancies; [2333]

  (2) what were the numbers and locations of procurator fiscal staff in each Angus sheriffdom in each of the past five years; [2331]

  (3) what consultations he has had and he intends having before finalising decisions about changes in the procurator fiscal system in Angus and Scotland; [2332]

  (4) when he intends to appoint a procurator fiscal based in Arbroath. [2330]

  Criminal Appeals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in each of the past four years the Lord Advocate has appealed a sentence passed on conviction on indictment which he is considered to be(a) unduly lenient and (b) wrong in law; of such appeals, how many led to the imposition of heavier sentences and how many were found to be wrong in law; and if he will make a statement. [1086]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In terms of section 228A(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 the Lord Advocate was given the power to appeal against a sentence imposed in respect of an indictment on the ground that it is considered by him to be unduly lenient. This provision came into force on 1 October 1993. To date the power has been exercised as shown in the table.

  There have been no appeals by the Lord Advocate thus far in terms of section 228A(b) on a point of law.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There were four staff in the Forfar procurator fiscal's office between 1991 and 1993, and from 1994 to date there have been three. There are five staff in the procurator fiscal's office in Arbroath. There has been no change in the staffing level there in the last five years. The holder of the office of procurator fiscal, Arbroath, transferred to the procurator fiscal's office in Glasgow on 23 November 1995, and the procurator fiscal, Dundee, has been appointed procurator fiscal, Arbroath,ad interim.

  The Lord Advocate is presently giving consideration to the future arrangements for staffing the Arbroath and Forfar offices. In the event that he proposes any change from previous arrangements which would have significant implications, he will consult relevant interests.
  479
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of business undertaken by the procurator fiscal service in Arbroath in each of the past five years. [2235]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following table shows the number of reports received by the procurator fiscal from the police and other reporting agencies for the years 1990 to 1995, and gives details of court proceedings.

  Procurator fiscal's office, Arbroath

  Total reports received

  Solemn Pleas

  Courts trials

  Summary pleas

  Courts trials

  1990–91

  3,076

  13

  15

  1,520

  179

  1991–92

  3,521

  22

  12

  1,692

  185

  1992–93

  3,767

  16

  15

  1,439

  198

  1993–94

  2,953

  19

  8

  1,545

  161

  1994–95

  3,133

  15

  6

  1,184

  125

  Dry Stone Walls
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) grants and (b) other support will be available from his Department for the conservation and protection of dry stone walls from April 1996. [2327]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Grant assistance for dry stone walling works in Scotland is available from the following sources:

  Objective 1 highlands and islands agricultural programme (agricultural business improvement scheme): 70 per cent. grant for dyking works on inbye and hill land, and for the provision of dykes to exclude livestock in association with conservation management;

  Crofting counties agricultural grants scheme (Scottish Crofting Counties only): 55 per cent grant for the provision, substantial alteration, restoration and protection of dry stone walls for agricultural purposes;

  Scottish Natural Heritage: grants up to a maximum rate of 50 per cent. for dry stone walling works which improve the character and attractiveness of the landscape, and contribute to conservation of biodiversity.

  The Government have no. current plans to withdraw assistance under these schemes. Grants at the rate of 30 per cent.—within less-favoured areas—and 25 per cent.—outwith less-favoured areas—are currently available in Scotland under the farm and conservation grant scheme, national. However, the legislation governing this scheme is due to expire in February 1996. We are currently considering future arrangements.

  Depending on the nature of their management agreements, farmers in environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland can receive payments at varying rates, depending on location, for dry stone walling works. It is likely that this form of support will also continue beyond April 1996.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts have been awarded by him to the consultancy firm PIEDA in the past 10 years: at what cost and on what subjects. [1224]
  480
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: Detailed information about all consultancy contracts let by my Department is not maintained centrally and a full reply could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. However, two surveys were carried out by my Department in February 1994 and August 1995 from which the following contracts have been identified:

  1990–91

  Appraisal of business plans

  Aerial surveillance operations

  1991–92

  Housing initiative survey

  Interim evaluation of Strathclyde integrated development operation Highlands and island interim evaluation of national programme of community interest.

  1992–93

  West Nerston retail impact study

  Stirling Castle visitors centre study

  1993–94

  Evaluation of the crofters building grants and loans scheme

  1994–95

  Staffing and organisational review of sea fisheries inspectorate

  evaluation of the crofters building grants and loans scheme

  1995–96

  Staffing and organisational review of sea fisheries inspectorate

  Financial management review of Scottish Homes

  Information on costs is available in relation to the work carried out in 1994–95 and 1995–96 when contracts awarded were valued at a total of £92,500.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what performance targets are set for the Scottish ambulance service for non-emergency calls. [1226]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [Holding answer 22 November 1995]: Non-emergency patients are taken to routine hospital appointments by the patient transport service provided by the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust. This service is purchased by NHS trusts to standards which are sensitive to local circumstances and are agreed as part of the contracting process. To monitor performance and identify possible improvements, each division of the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust conducts an annual patient satisfaction survey. In addition the accident and emergency service provided by the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust also deals with calls classified by general practitioners or other health care workers as urgent. In such cases the target is for 95 per cent. of patients to arrive at hospital no later than 15 minutes after the time agreed with the caller, this is typically one to two hours but is determined by the caller's assessment of the patients clinical need.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the further deployment of British troops to the former Yugoslavia as part of the international peace plan. [2446]
  481
  Mr. Portillo
  Contingency planning for a NATO-led force to help implement a peace agreement on Bosnia is well advanced. Britain will make a significant contribution.

  Final decisions on the British contribution, and on the time scale of deployment, cannot be taken yet. They depend on the satisfactory outcome of a number of important issues, including signature of the peace agreement by the parties and equitable burden sharing among our allies. Details of the various national contributions to the force, including those from non-NATO countries, remain under discussion with NATO. The commitment of substantial US ground forces will be a pre-requisite for the involvement of our own forces. NATO plans to withdraw the force within 12 months.

  Current planning envisages British forces operating in central and western Bosnia, with the headquarters located at Gornji Vakuf, in our present area of operations. In addition, we plan to contribute our existing sea and air assets in theatre, although we would expect our maritime forces to reduce as the embargoes are lifted.

  The NATO operation will be run on the ground by the headquarters of NATO's ACE Rapid Reaction Corps, for which we have the lead alliance responsibility. That means that the United Kingdom will provide the commander, General Sir Michael Walker, and about 60 per cent. of the staff.

  On top of that we are considering deploying a divisional headquarters—3 UK Division—and a brigade with armour, infantry and artillery elements, under Headquarters 4 Armoured Brigade, together with a number of supporting units.

  The forces will incorporate units from our UN contingent already in Bosnia. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 22 November, Official Report, column 667, we expect the total land force contribution to be of the order of 13,000.

  Such a force is bound to involve the United Kingdom in greater expense than would have been the cost to us from continuing with our role in UNPROFOR, but those extra costs cannot yet be calculated with accuracy.

  Along with the forces from other NATO countries, including the US, it will probably be necessary to pre-position a number of personnel to prepare for the deployment of the main forces who will follow as soon as possible after the final signature of a peace agreement. The notice to move all units which may be involved in the deployment as a whole is being reviewed and will be reduced as necessary.

  Indonesian Pilots (Training)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the pilots of the Indonesian Air Force have been trained at any of the RAF flying schools in the United Kingdom; and, if so, if he will give the numbers of pilots, the years, and the bases at which such training took place. [902]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 595.

  Procurement Executive, Abbey Wood
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the compliance with value for money requirement of his Department's Abbey Wood procurement executive headquarters. [2444]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Abbey Wood project has been assessed against value-for-money criteria at all stages since its inception. Two investment appraisals in 1991 justified the selection of Bristol as the location and Abbey Wood as the site for collating the procurement executive. The late 1992 IA, which reappraised alternative accommodation solutions, justified the decision to proceed with the Abbey Wood construction programme. Subsequent appraisals in 1993 assessed the impact of taxation of relocation allowances, and the implementation of changes in management of the common user estate.

  During the 1994 defence costs study, 27 options including the base case were appraised to reconsider the cost-effectiveness of the Abbey Wood project in the light of anticipated reductions in the size of the procurement executive headquarters organisation. I As have been scrutinised within the Department, by the Treasury at each major approval stage, and by the National Audit Office.

  Value engineering has been applied extensively during the development of the design, resulting in some £27 million being saved in acquisition costs compared with less well optimised schemes. Life cycle costing techniques have been applied to inform major design decisions, with investment appraisals being conducted on design options, resulting in energy efficient and low maintenance cost solutions. Construction contracts have been subject to competition, and proposals evaluated against value for money criteria, taking account of risk assessment.

  The cost-effectiveness of options proposed by tenderers were assessed in terms of both capital and life cycle costs, and adopted where better value for money would result. Space standards have been subject to two strategic reviews, resulting in tauter space standards being adopted. A strict configuration control regime has been in force to minimise cost variances arising from changes, yet allowing potential additional savings to be evaluated.

  Planning for a comprehensive post-project evaluation has been initiated to enable the overall cost-effectiveness of the collocation of the PE to be assessed upon completion of the project.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the working area per square metre for each person at his Department's procurement executive headquarters at Abbey Wood. [2441]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Within the Abbey Wood headquarters office buildings, the basic work space allocation for each employee is:

  Metre2

  All staff up to, and including grade 6

  6.75

  Staff at grade 5 and grade 4

  13.00

  Staff at grade 3 and above

  27.00

  483
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total estimated cost for the railway and station at Filton being built to service his Department's Abbey Wood procurement executive; and what was the original total estimated cost of the railway and station. [2443]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The current estimated cost of the new Filton Abbey Wood station which is being built for Avon county council to serve all the new and existing developments in the area is £885,000. The original estimated cost was £1.056 million.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of employees at his Department's Abbey Wood procurement executive headquarters who will use the railway station on the site each day. [2445]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Surveys conducted within the procurement executive indicate that over 500 staff are likely to use Filton Abbey Wood railway station each day.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the procurement executive were expected to occupy the Abbey Wood procurement executive headquarters when the scheme was first announced; and how many people employed by the procurement executive are now expected to occupy the building. [2450]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  When the scheme was first announced, the planning assumption for PE HQ numbers to be accommodated at Abbey Wood was 4,800 plus a further 500 PE project related and integrated logistics support staff.

  Current plans envisage 4,300 plus a further 600 PE project related and integrated logistics support staff.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed in the procurement executive in each of the last three years; and what is his Department's estimate of the numbers to be employed in each of the next five years. [2451]

  Mr Arbuthnot
  The numbers of staff directly employed—military and civilian—in each of the last three years were:

  1 April 1993: 11,230

  1 April 1994: 10,760

  1 April 1995: 7,540

  During the financial year 1994–95 some 3,070 test and evaluation staff were transferred to the Defence Research Agency.

  The estimated numbers of staff to be employed to meet the anticipated programme requirement in future years, rounded, are:

  1 April 1996: 6,600

  1 April 1997: 6,350

  1 April 1998: 6,200

  1 April 1999: 6,050

  1 April 2000: 5,850

  (excluding Ministry of Defence police employed to support the nuclear contract programme).

  484
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when final planning permission was granted for the Abbey Wood procurement executive headquarters; what is the total size of the site; how many lakes have been built on the site; what is the size of the lakes on the site; if the lakes are stocked with fish; what is the purpose of the suspension bridge situated over one of the lakes; what has been the cost of landscaping the Abbey Wood site; and how many trees were planted as part of the landscaping. [2447]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Detailed planning permission for the Abbey Wood headquarters was granted in March 1993. The total size of the site is 98 acres. One lake has been built on the site, with a surface area of 22,000 m2 to satisfy National Rivers Authority requirements to contain storm water run-off and prevent flooding of surrounding waterways. Four small ponds, with a total surface area of 600 m2 are integrated into the landscape scheme to satisfy local planning authority requirements for maintaining wildlife corridors and enhancing the ecology of the local area. There are no plans to stock the water features with fish.

  Site planning obligations, suitability of land for buildings, and on-site road infrastructure requirements to access car parks and neighbouring land dictated that land to the north-east of the site had to be annexed from the main development, and used for vehicle parking. The bridge provides pedestrian access to the north-east car park, whilst satisfying security requirements. The estimated cost of soft landscaping is £5 per sq m for a total area of 270,000 m2. Once complete, some 5,000 trees will have been planted as part of the landscape scheme which life cycle costing has shown to be more cost effective in terms of upkeep than grass.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he expects to name a new head of the procurement executive. [2448]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I expect to name a new head of the procurement executive in early 1996, as a result of the open competition which is currently under way.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is the prime contractor for the building of the procurement executive at Abbey Wood. [2449]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The main contractor for the shell and core construction of the buildings at Abbey Wood is John Mowlem Construction plc.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total cost of staff relocation to his Department's Abbey Wood procurement executive headquarters; what this cost was when the project was first announced; and what are these costs per person. [2454]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Taking account of the post defence costs study restructuring of the procurement executive HQ organisation, the current estimated total cost of relocation of staff to Abbey Wood is £74.5 million. At current economic conditions, and allowing for the changes in taxation of relocation costs announced in March 1993, the original estimated total cost of staff relocation when construction of Abbey Wood was approved was £86.2 million. The current estimated average cost per head is some £22,000. The original estimated average cost per head has been calculated at some £24,000.
  485
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been his Department's estimates in respect of the total cost of the new procurement executive headquarters at Abbey Wood in each of the last four years. [2455]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated works cost of the Abbey Wood development in each of the last four financial years—inclusive of site acquisition, construction, fitting out, professional works management fees and VAT—has remained within its approved budget of £248.5 million at 1992 prices—£273.4 million at 1995 prices.

  Drugs (Army Personnel)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many drug tests have been carried out by his Department on the Army since the testing scheme was introduced; how many soldiers have been tested for drugs in this period; how many have failed the drug tests; and if he will provide a breakdown by regiment. [2595]

  Mr. Soames
  As of 15 November 1995, 16,968 Army personnel have been tested. To date, 133 have failed the test and results are awaited for a further 328 tests. The units tested are as follows—some of these have been tested more than once:

  Ministry of Defence, (Executive Committee of the Army Board)

  Headquarters Scotland

  Headquarters Northern Ireland

  Headquarters 1st (UK) Armoured Division

  Headquarters 3 (UK) Division and Signal Regiment

  Headquarters 52nd Brigade

  Headquarters 42nd (Northern Western) Brigade

  Headquarters Herford Garrison

  Headquarters Episkopi Garrison

  Headquarters Lisburn Station

  Headquarters Kineton Station

  Headquarters Joint Support Group Northern Ireland

  The Household Cavalry Regiment

  The Royal Dragoon Guards

  1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery

  7th Regiment Royal Horse Artillery

  5th Regiment Royal Artillery

  16th Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  32nd Regiment Royal Artillery

  47th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Royal Artillery Ranger Hebrides

  33 Engineer Regiment Royal Engineer

  1st (UK) Armoured division Headquarters & Signal Regiment

  7th Signal Regiment

  9th Signal Regiment

  15th Signal Regiment

  16th Signal Regiment

  30th Signal Regiment

  238 Signal Squadron

  241 Signal Squadron

  253 Signal Squadron

  280 Signal Squadron

  Joint Communications Unit (Northern Ireland)

  1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards

  1st Battalion The Coldstream Guards

  1st Battalion The Scots Guards

  1st Battalion The Irish Guards

  1st Battalion The Royal Scots

  1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  1st Battalion The Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  1st Battalion The Highlanders

  1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  1 st Regiment The Prince of Wales' s Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  486

  1st Battalion The Green Howards

  1st Battalion The Queens Lancashire Regiment

  1st Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales

  1st Battalion The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and

  Wiltshire Regiment

  1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment

  1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  2nd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  5th Regiment Army Air Corps

  9th Regiment Army Air Corps

  3 Base Ammunition Depot

  3 Close Support Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps

  5 Airborne Brigade Combat Services Support Battalion

  6 Supply Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

  7 Transport Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps

  11th Explosives Ordnance Disposal Regiment Royal Logistic

  Regiment

  12 Supply Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

  15 Supply Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

  21 Logistic Support Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

  23 Pioneer Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps

  24 Transport Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps

  20 Squadron The Royal Logistic Corps

  221 Explosives Ordnance Disposal Squadron Royal Logistic

  Corps

  321 Explosives Ordnance Disposal Squadron Royal Logistic

  Corps Cyprus Logistic Unit

  5 Field Ambulance Royal Army Medical Corps

  23 Parachute Field Ambulance Royal Army Medical Corps

  6th Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Army Pay and Documents Office (Northern Ireland)

  Royal Military Police Training Centre Chichester

  2nd Regiment Royal Military Police

  174 Provost Company Royal Military Police

  115 Provost Company Royal Military Police

  36 Detachment Special Investigation Branch Royal Military

  Police

  32 Army Education Centre

  45 Army Education Centre

  Education Services

  7 Dental Group

  9 Dental Group

  Defence Animal Support Unit

  Rhine Area Support Unit

  Garrison Labour Support Unit Herford

  Army Families and Welfare Services Herford

  Army Careers and Information Office Herford

  Station Staff Office Herford

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of Hawk aircraft sold to the Indonesian Government for use by the Indonesian Air Force. [903]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As has previously been confirmed, the Indonesian Air Force purchased 20 Hawk trainer aircraft in the early 1980s. In 1993 a further order was placed for an additional 24 aircraft which have not yet been delivered.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details in the Official Report of the number of sales of Hawk trainer aircraft for each of the last available five years, indicating which countries purchased the aircraft and what numbers. [901]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not normal Government practice to reveal details of specific exports. These matters are confidential between the customer and the supplier.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1943]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Dwellings
  Mr. David Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in the counties of (i) Mid-Glamorgan and (ii) Gwent. [2164]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 30 September 1995 my Department owned 124 vacant dwellings in Gwent, of which 116 were being held for a unit deployment due to commence in December and eight were in the process of being sold. A total of 122 of these dwellings had been vacant for more than six months. My Department owned no vacant dwellings in Mid-Glamorgan.

  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

  —

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the private finance initiative was not considered for the development of his Department's Naval Support Command at Foxhill, Bath. [2442]

  Mr. Soames
  The scope for a private finance initiative approach to the overall NSC accommodation requirement was considered before the proposals were announced but was not pursued since it was considered unlikely to provide value for money. Proposals to accommodate the NSC HQ at Ensleigh, Bath and at Abbey Wood, Bristol were announced on 14 June 1995. Subsequently, proposals for a PFI solution involving the Foxhill site were put forward by Bath city council in July and August 1995. These proposals were carefully examined. When they were adjusted to meet the NSC requirement, they did not offer better value for money than the planned way ahead which was subsequently confirmed on 6 September.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received from Northumberland about tactical low-flying sorties over the area in the past five years. [2723]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of complaints and inquiries about military low flying received by my Department from Northumberland over the past five years are as follows:

  1991: 111

  1992: 220

  1993: 180

  1994: 160

  1995: 1421

  1Up to 31 October 1995.

  Portland Naval Base
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Serious Fraud Office has contacted his office concerning the sale of Portland naval base; and if he will make a statement. [2694]

  Mr. Soames
  The Serious Fraud Office contacted my Department on 19 October 1995. All complaints referred to the SFO are subject to a process known as vetting so that the SFO's decision about whether or not to accept the case is properly based on the facts available at the time of the decision. The complaint in this case is at that stage.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the compliance with the correct procedures in respect of the sale of Portland naval base to Portland Port Ltd. [2692]

  Mr. Soames
  I am completely satisfied that the correct procedures have been adopted in respect of the sale of Portland naval base following a review of the case by my senior officials and the National Audit Office.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department signed a contract with Portland Port Ltd. concerning the Portland naval base. [2691]

  Mr. Soames
  A contract has not yet been signed with Portland Port Ltd. We are at an advanced stage in finalising the details of the sale contract, which has inevitably been subject to a very complex legal negotiation. When all outstanding issues are finally resolved contracts for sale will be exchanged.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations apart from the bidding price his Department took into account when evaluating bids for the purchase of Portland naval base. [2693]

  Mr. Soames
  Many factors were taken into account in selecting a purchaser including the availability and source of funding; employment projections; conformity with local aspirations; credibility of the proposed use; short, medium and long-term proposals for use; environmental issues; planning and other necessary consents.

  Drugs Tests (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a drugs test was last carried out on the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; how many soldiers
  489
  were tested; how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks failed the test; what actions have been taken against those failing; and if he will make a statement. [2594]

  Mr. Soames
  A random drugs test was conducted on the 1st Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders on 31 October 1995. Three hundred and ninety two all ranks were tested of which no officers tested positive, but 22 other ranks did. The commanding officer will consider each of the soldier's cases on their merits before recommending to retain or discharge them.

  Expenditure Plans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent savings in the equipment budget are being delivered by deferment of projects. [2452]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our new expenditure plans will be published tomorrow. This Government remain committed to maintaining and enhancing the front-line capabilities of the armed forces, and to providing the support needed to enable them to carry out their wide range of tasks.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the expenditure profile has been modified to take account of deferments in(a) capital project and (b) equipment projects. [2453]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We will be publishing our forecast of expenditure for this financial year as part of the Budget day announcements tomorrow.

  Surplus Vessels
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 November,Official Report, columns 64–66, if he will list the countries to which the surplus vessels were sold; and what were the values of the contracts. [2695]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Vessels from the list given in my earlier answer were sold to: Chile, Ecuador, Lebanon, Indonesia, Portugal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brazil and India, although the vast majority were sold to the United Kingdom commercial market.

  The values of the contracts are commercially confidential and could be released only with the permission of the purchasers.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission when he expects comprehensive child care facilities to be available in the House. [675]

  Mr. Beith
  Details of child care facilities available to Members and staff of the House were given on 23 October 1995,Official Report, columns 458–59. There has not been any significant change since then.

  Copyright
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps are being taken to 490
  protect the copyright of parliamentary papers in the creation of an agency to run HMSO. [677]

  Mr. Beith
  By virtue of sections 165 to 167 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the copyright in any work made by, or under the direction or control of, the House of Commons is owned by the House. The functions of the House as owner of copyright are exercised by the Speaker on the House's behalf. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commission is well aware of the importance of protecting the House's control of that copyright and will do so vigorously. The statutory provisions I have cited are not affected by the Government's proposals to privatise HMSO.

  Radio 5 Live
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee whether he will arrange for Radio 5 Live to be made available on the Parliamentary Data and Video Network in place of London Radio; and if he will make a statement. [2562]

  Mr. Waller
  Following a notice in the all-party Whip seeking Members' views on the proposal, the Information Committee has endorsed the substitution of Radio 5 Live for London Radio, which will be effected as soon as the necessary technical arrangements can be made. It should be noted that Radio 5 Live broadcasts on AM and thus the sound quality may not be as good as the FM transmissions. In the longer-term, the Committee proposes that the requirement for more television programmes will make it necessary to phase out radio on the Parliamentary Data and Video Network.

  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what assessment he has made of the reliability of the Parliamentary Data and Video Network. [679]

  Mr. Waller
  The Parliamentary Data and Video Network provides a data network which is operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It has been running continuously since November 1993, although it has grown considerably during that time. For the two years from November 1993 to October 1995 inclusive, downtime for the network has been calculated as follows:

  Hours

  Percentage

  PDVN unscheduled downtime

  101.65

  0.58

  PDVN scheduled downtime

  316.25

  1.80

  Downtime attributable to PWD/works

  1,056.00

  6.03

  Total

  1,473.90

  8.41

  PDVN scheduled downtime and PWD works downtime have almost all occurred over weekends or on other non-sitting days.

  On the afternoon of 16 November, a serious fault occurred on the network which resulted in intermittent problems for all users of the PDVN. The cause of the fault has now been located and the E-mail address corruption which occurred as a result of the fault is being remedied. A full investigation is under way into the cause in order to prevent a similar occurrence.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times in the last year he has used(a) London Buses and (b) London Underground while on official business. [413]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  For short journeys in London, I usually walk—a practice I recommend to the hon. Member. For journeys outside London, I usually take the train.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those in his Department who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1396]

  Mr. Boswell
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate Minister. In the past five years only one such certificate has been issued—in 1993. Its purpose was to make a claim for public interest immunity for certain categories of confidential documents held by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the case of Littlewood v. Department of Health and MAFF, so as to enable the High Court to decide whether the interests of justice required them to be disclosed in the case.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each county in England the largest single amount to an individual under the set-aside compensatory payment scheme. [2395]

  Mr. Baldry
  For reasons of confidentiality, it is not possible to identify separately any payments made under the arable area payments scheme.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each county in England the number of people claiming set-aside compensatory payments in respect of land previously used to grow crops; and if he will give a total amount by county. [2394]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 22 November 1995,Official Report, columns 199–200.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what(a) grants and (b) other support will be available from his Department for the conservation and protection of dry stone walls from April 1996; [2325]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a nationwide grant scheme for the conservation and protection of dry stone walls. [2326]
  492
  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's responsibilities in this area extend only to England. Payments for the restoration of dry stone walls are available under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper giving detailed proposals for the future of the countryside stewardship scheme, which provides payments for environmental purposes in the wider countryside outside ESAs.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessel decommissions his Department funded during the year 1994–95; what was the average funding per vessel; what is the average cost of decommissioning a vessel; and how many vessel owners applied to his Department for funding to decommission their vessels during the year 1994–95. [2653]

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994, 471 applications were received, and 162 vessels were successfully decommissioned at a total cost of £8.8 million. The average cost per vessel was some £54,160. Owners submit bids taking account of the cost of the applicant of scrapping. Information on this cost is not available centrally.

  Departmental Targets
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,
  Fisheries and Food what is the published recommended response time within which his Department is expected to reply to letters from the public. [3000]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This Department has a recommended response time of 28 days from the date of receipt to reply to letters from members of the public.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Service (Casual Staff)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify the equivalent qualifications to O-Levels for employment as a civil service casual administrative assistant; and what assessment he has made as to whether those qualifications are such as not to constitute a prima facie case of discrimination against women who have brought up children. [1411]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following qualifications are accepted as equivalent to the normal eligibility requirement of at least two grade C passes in GCSE-GCE O-Level including English language for the purposes of employment as a casual administrative assistance in the Northern Ireland civil service:

  BEC Higher National Diploma

  BEC Higher National Certificate

  BEC National Diploma

  BEC National Certificate

  BEC General Diploma

  BEC General Certificate

  BEC Certificate in Office Studies

  TEC Higher Diploma

  493

  TEC Higher Certificate

  Btec Higher National Diploma

  Btec Higher National Certificate

  Btec National Diploma

  Btec National Certificate

  Btec General Diploma

  Btec General Certificate

  Btec 1st Awards

  RSA Certificate/Diploma in Office Procedures

  RSA Certificate Office Practice Level II

  RSA Certificate Office Studies

  RSA Business Administration

  NCVQ Level I and II Business Administration

  SNVQ Level I and II Business Administration

  City and Guilds Technician Certificate.

  Other formal qualifications equivalent to a grade C pass in individual subject areas are also acceptable. Formal qualifications not on the above list are considered on a case-by-case basis. It is not evident how the use of such an extensive range of qualifications would constitute a prima facie case of discrimination against women who have brought up children.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for satisfactory previous employment as a casual administrative assistant in the civil service to be added to the list of qualifications equivalent to O-levels for future such employment as a casual. [1412]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No. This concession would only benefit persons erroneously admitted to the civil service without valid educational qualifications in the past and would be unfair to others correctly refused entry by reason of lack of such qualifications.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed as casuals within the Northern Ireland civil service; what is the number of such casuals who are currently in receipt of a civil service pension; and what is the average annual present amount of such pensions and the various grounds on which these individuals with such pensions retired. [1410]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of casual staff employed in the Northern Ireland Office and the six Northern Ireland Departments is 1,420

  Information on the number of casuals in the Department of Health and Social Services who are in receipt of a civil service pension could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In the Northern Ireland Office and the remaining five Northern Ireland Departments there are two casuals in receipt of a civil service pension; the average amount is £5,311. Both officers retired on age grounds.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those projects which have now been identified as being suitable for the private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement on the private finance initiative. [1159]
  494
  Sir John Wheeler
  A range of projects across all Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are under consideration, including schemes covering sewage treatment plants in the Water Executive, IT in the Land Registry and hospital equipment leases. The Department of Finance and Personnel is undertaking a scoping study to identify the application of PFI to all areas within Northern Ireland Departments and the NIO.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to commence the private finance initiative in Northern Ireland, if it will be operational in all the Departments of government and if he will make a statement about progress towards the practical implementation of the private finance initiative. [1158]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and their non-departmental public bodies are fully committed to the private finance initiative and a number of projects are already under consideration in Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that capital projects will not be approved unless private finance options have been explored.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1437]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Countryside, Planning and Energy Efficiency to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 17 May,Official Report, columns 260–62.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those in his Department who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1419]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  As regards the period to March 1994, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 18 February 1994,Official Report, column 1034, and 3 March 1994, Official Report, column 914.

  In October 1994 I signed two certificates. In each case, in connection with civil proceedings I made a claim for certain members of prison immediate reaction forces to be screened from the public and for the protection from disclosure of certain information relating to control and restraint techniques used in prisons.

  In January 1995 I signed a certificate in relation to an inquest to protect police intelligence gathering operations and the lives and safety of people involved.

  In May and June 1995 I signed two certificates in relation to civil proceedings to protect information relating to three shooting incidents in 1982 and their subsequent investigations.
  495
  In June 1995 the Minister of State signed a certificate in relation to civil proceedings, making a claim for certain members of prison immediate reaction forces to be screened from the public.

  In October 1995 I signed a certificate in relation to civil proceedings, making a claim to protect certain police documents.

  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate Minister.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of Temazepam per capita is distributed annually in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [1509]

  Mr. Moss
  In 1994, 64g of Temazepam were dispensed on prescription per 1,000 population in Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths in each of the past five years are attributable to the abuse of Temazepam(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in each health district. [1510]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There have been no deaths recorded in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years attributable to Temazepam abuse.

  Stormont Buildings
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if the cost of the refurbishment of the Stormont buildings will be met by an increased allocation of funds; [1602]

  (2) what is the estimated cost of the refurbishment of Stormont buildings following the fire; [1601]

  (3) what proportion of the money for the refurbishment of Stormont buildings will be taken from existing departmental budgets. [1603]

  Mr. Moss
  The estimated cost of refurbishing Parliament Buildings is £20 million. This figure provides for the comprehensive refurbishment of the entire building and includes provision of approximately £1.5 million-£2 million for the restoration of the fire damaged Commons Chamber.

  The total cost of the project is being met from existing departmental budgets; no additional allocation of funds has been made.

  Trade Union Commissioner
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received in respect of the objectivity of the commissioner for the rights of trade union members. [1409]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the annual cost of operating a separate Northern Ireland commissioner for the rights of trade union members over each of the last two years and 496
  the equivalent costs of its Great Britain counterpart; and, for both bodies, what were the numbers of inquiries resulting in an application for assistance in those two years. [1408]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Annual operating costs £

  Inquiries resulting in application for assistance

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the rights of Trade Union Members

  31,741

  33,643

  7

  15

  (Great Britain) Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  274,941

  293,716

  47

  57

  Higher Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for how many student places would provision in Northern Ireland need to be increased to match the proportionate provision for Scottish students in Scotland. [1770]

  Mr. Ancram
  For every Scottish domiciled full-time undergraduate student in the United Kingdom there are 1.274 full-time undergraduate places in Scotland—1993–94 figures. For a similar ratio to hold in Northern Ireland, the number of full-time undergraduate places in the Province would need to increase by 15,500.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been done by his Department to look at the adequacy of the provision of places in higher education for Northern Ireland students within Northern Ireland. [1771]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Northern Ireland Higher Education Council, which advises the Government on the planning and funding of higher education in Northern Ireland, presented a report to me earlier this year on access, participation and student migration. This report will inform Government's consideration of the adequacy of the provisions of places in higher education for Northern Ireland students within Northern Ireland.

  In addition, consultants have been commissioned to undertake an economic appraisal of the university of Ulster's proposal for a new campus in north and west Belfast. One of the aims of this study is to appraise the options for accommodating growth in higher education provision in Northern Ireland. The consultant's final report should be completed shortly.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland students have higher education places elsewhere in Great Britain; and how many higher education students from Great Britain study in Northern Ireland. [1772]
  497
  Mr. Ancram
  In 1993–94, 12,300 Northern Ireland domiciled students had higher education places in Great Britain, and 900 students domiciled in Great Britain had higher education places in Northern Ireland.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1952]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Springvale Campus Project
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers' evaluation of the Springvale campus project. [1777]

  Plastic baton rounds fired by the RUC 1 September 1994–21 November 1995

  Date

  Location

  Number fired

  Number of alleged injuries

  Circumstances

  13 September 1994

  Belfast

  1

  —

  Hijacking/rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  23 October 1994

  Cookstown

  18

  2

  Rioting outside hotel

  21 March 1995

  Belfast

  3

  1

  Disorder following football match

  26 June 1995

  Belfast

  2

  1

  Rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  3 July 1995

  Belfast

  7

  —

  Rioting/disturbances/petrol bombs thrown

  4 July 1995

  Belfast

  6

  1

  Riots/petrol bombs thrown

  4 July 1995

  Armagh

  1

  —

  Hijacking/rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  5 July 1995

  Belfast

  7

  0

  Rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  6-Jul-95

  Belfast

  5

  0

  Rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  10 July 1995

  Ahoghill

  2

  —

  Rioting in town centre

  10 July 1995

  Bushmills

  6

  2

  Rioting in village

  10 July 1995

  Londonderry

  —

  1

  Hijacking/rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  10 July 1995

  Portadown

  51

  —

  Disorder following parade

  11 July 1995

  Belfast

  5

  —

  Rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  12 July 1995

  Belfast

  33

  —

  Rioting/petrol bombs thrown/clashes between rival factions

  12 July 1995

  Ahoghill

  29

  —

  Rioting/petrol bombs thrown

  12 August 1995

  Belfast

  4

  1

  Disorder following parade

  12 August 1995

  Londonderry

  100

  —

  Disorder following parade

  27 August 1995

  Castlederg

  10

  —

  Clashes between rival factions

TRANSPORT

  A5
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of recent improvements to the A5 from the M69 junction to the Longshoot junction; if he will list the works; and what further improvements are planned. [655]

  Mr. Watts
  The recently completed scheme cost £610.000.

  The works include:

  Widening the A5 and installation of new traffic lights;

  A turning lane for premises on the north side of the A5;

  An extension to Wapping Barn bridge; and creation of a cycleway on the north side of the A5.

  498
  Mr. Ancram
  It is not the normal policy of the Government to publish economic appraisals. None the less, given the importance of this case, the Secretary of State and I are considering options as to what information to make available publicly. The economic appraisal is still not complete, and we will wish to see the completed report before deciding on the most appropriate way of informing the public of its findings.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all occasions since 31 August 1994 when the RUC has used plastic bullets, giving in each case the number used, the details of the injuries and the circumstances in which such shootings took place. [1961]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The occasions since 31 August 1994 when the RUC fired plastic baton rounds, the number fired, the number of people allegedly injured and the circumstances in which the plastic baton rounds were fired are listed:

  Further works in hand and planned are:

  Developer funded scheme currently under way;

  Extension to A5 cycleway facilities;

  Provision of ghost island at Nutts lane.

  Rail Services, North-West England
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what interest has been expressed in running rail services in the north-west of England following privatisation. [661]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director has not yet sought indications of interest in the rail franchises in the north-west of England. Good progress is being made with the franchising programme and the franchising director continues to prepare services for offering to the private
  499
  sector in accordance with his objective from the Government to franchise passenger rail services as rapidly as is reasonably practicable.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to reduce aircraft flights from Heathrow during 1997. [662]

  Mr. Norris
  I do not propose to take action during 1997 to reduce aircraft flights from Heathrow.

  Road Building Programme
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the planned expenditure in the road building programme for 1995–96. [664]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government plan to spend £1,775 million on trunk roads in England in 1995–96. Roads in Wales are, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  London Transport (Investment)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about investment in London Transport. [666]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from a variety of organisations and individual members of the public about investment in London Transport.

  Fenchurch Street Line
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line. [667]

  Mr. Watts
  Very good progress has been made, and the franchising director expects to award the LTS Rail franchise in December.

  Rail Services (Monitoring)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to monitor the performance of providers of rail services. [669]

  Mr. Watts
  The performance of train operating companies is currently monitored by the British Railways Board and the rail users' consultative committees. Franchises will be required to provide the franchising director with information to enable him to monitor operational performance and customer satisfaction levels.

  Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to reduce the total of fatal accidents. [670]

  Mr. Norris
  Fatalities from road accidents are at their lowest level since records began and have fallen for five successive years. The measures that we are taking to reduce road casualties in general should help reduce fatal road accidents still further. These include the introduction of a theory test as part of the driving test in July 1996 and the "Safe Town" initiative announced in July this year.

  Buses (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Betts:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure reasonable access for the disabled to public bus services. [671]

  Mr. Norris
  We have taken powers in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to enable us to make regulations to require new buses and coaches to be accessible to disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs. Similar provisions have also been included for taxis and rail vehicles.

  Discussions are already under way with the bus and coach industry—manufacturers and operators—on the shape of the regulations which will be introduced as soon as we have determined appropriate technical solutions which are effective and sustainable.

  London-Tilbury-Southend Line
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in introducing private competition in the London-Tilbury-Southend Line. [672]

  Mr. Watts
  Very good progress has been made, and the franchising director expects to award the LTS Rail franchise in December.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made against the Government's timetable for rail privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [647]

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) earlier today.

  East London Line
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the full restoration of London Underground services on the east London line to occur. [660]

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground has re-applied to the London Docklands development corporation for listed building consent to strengthen and waterproof the tunnel carrying the east London line under the Thames. The timing of the re-opening of the line depends on the progress of its application.

  M62 Relief Road
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a decision in relation to the future of the proposals of his Department for a M62 relief road. [665]

  Mr. Watts
  I have received a large number of representations about the scheme from my hon. Friend and others. From these, it is clear that the majority of people consulted about the relief road do not want it. In the light of consultation I have decided to withdraw plans to build the relief road.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people travel by train in the course of one year. [668]

  Mr. Watts
  Some 25 million people made at least one train journey in 1991, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1917]

  Mr. Norris
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. My Department currently has responsibility for 1.77 per cent. of the Community's research and development budget.

  Locomotives
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his estimate for the cost of obtaining information about how many British Rail locomotives since 1992(a) have been scrapped, (b) offered for sale and (c) are currently in storage as surplus to requirements; [2322]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Railways Board about the refusal of British Rail to put up for sale locomotives which are surplus to its requirements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The policy agreed between the Government and the British Railways Board is that where freight equipment is identified as surplus to operational requirements, it will be offered for sale by BR on a competitive basis. Operational requirements includes the retention of old rolling stock for spare parts, and holding a strategic reserve for potential future traffic. Detailed questions about the location, value and ultimate fate of old locomotives—and the cost of undertaking surveys—are for BR and its subsidiary companies.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of obtaining information regarding the number of British Rail locomotives, currently being stored out of use, which have been offered for sale to operators or potential operators of train services; [3074]

  (2) if he will estimate the value of the British Rail locomotives currently stored out of use and surplus to requirements which (a) are being offered for sale and (b) are not being offered for sale. [3073]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies given today.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from potential operators of train services complaining about the refusal by British Rail to sell surplus locomotives. [658]
  502
  Mr. Watts
  The Department of Transport has received representations from one potential operator of train services regarding this matter.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy with regard to the promotion of cross-channel freight traffic by rail. [2685]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government have supported BR's investment of over £400 million in channel tunnel freight services. This demonstrates our commitment to the development of international rail freight services.

  Taxis (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce regulations requiring taxis to be accessible for wheelchairs. [2104]

  Mr. Norris
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations for that purpose. My right hon. Friend will be preparing regulations and will consult interested parties before laying regulations before the House. One subject of the consultation will be when the regulations should come into effect.

  In London, all taxis will have to be wheelchair accessible by 1 January 2000 following a decision announced in December 1988. Outside London some local authorities have already set their own dates for wheelchair accessibility.

  Skid Resistance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the method of skid resistance measurement to take account of critical road conditions. [2222]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 27 November 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning measurement of skid resistance.
  We are continually reviewing the method of skid resistance measurement. The United Kingdom os one of the few countries in Europe to have a policy in which road surfaces are designed to provide adequate skid resistance at both low and high speed, and reflecting the different site conditions that occur. This is achieved through specification of polish resistant stone together with a minimum level of surface roughness, supported by regular monitoring of skid resistance during the life of a road.
  The Highways Agency also have an active programme of research and international cooperation in skid resistance measurement aimed at improving the accuracy of measurement techniques to reflect all road conditions.

  Penzance-Bristol Line
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is the Government's policy to promote the designation of the Penzance-Bristol railway line as part of the trans-European rail network. [2356]
  503
  Mr. Watts
  The inclusion of the Penzance-Bristol line in the draft trans-European rail network map was supported by the United Kingdom Government. The Council of Ministers reached a common position on the trans-European transport network at the June Council. The rail network map, as agreed by the Council, includes the Penzance-Bristol railway line.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries resulting from road accidents have been recorded in each year for the last 15 years; and how many of those affected were under the age of 15 years. [1804]

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

  Road accident casualties in Great Britain: 1979–1994

  All ages Killed

  of which Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  1979

  6,352

  328,161

  591

  46,832

  1980

  6,010

  322,590

  466

  45,462

  1981

  5,846

  318,994

  504

  43,889

  1982

  5,934

  328,362

  481

  44,117

  1983

  5,445

  303,139

  536

  44,835

  1984

  5,599

  318,715

  521

  46,666

  1985

  5,165

  312,359

  457

  43,187

  1986

  5,382

  316,069

  405

  41,024

  1987

  5,125

  306,348

  416

  39,597

  1988

  5,052

  317,253

  409

  40,641

  1989

  5,373

  336,219

  387

  42,654

  1990

  5,217

  335,924

  368

  43,485

  1991

  4,568

  306,701

  331

  40,051

  1992

  4,229

  306,444

  268

  40,123

  1993

  3,814

  302,206

  270

  38,615

  1994

  3,650

  311,539

  265

  40,761

  1. Casualties reported to the Department of Transport by the Police.

  Road Building Programme
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the road building programme. [306]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Automatic Ticket Machines
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at how many underground stations automatic ticket machines have been installed; at what cost; how many stations remain without such machines; and if he will make a statement. [1492]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for London Underground Ltd.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place all documents currently held by his Department relating to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in the Library. [1635]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1957]

  Mr. Norris
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2030]

  Mr. Norris
  The legislation for which my Department had responsibility contains provisions for the repeal or amendment of other enactments in the usual way. The following Acts provide power, exercisable by statutory instrument, to modify or exclude the application of enactments contained in primary legislation:

  The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991 (section 2)

  The Road Traffic Act 1991 (sections 23, 27, 76, 77 and Schedule 3)

  The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (section 102)

  The Transport and Works Act 1992 (section 5)

  The Finance Act 1993 (section 21)

  The Railways Act 1993 (section 153)

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (section 33).

  International Maritime Organisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has concerning the United Kingdom's relations with the International Maritime Organisation. [2152]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission research as to whether bull bars(a) inhibit the operation of airbags, (b) lead to higher risk of chassis distortion in accidents and (c) increase the danger to drivers and passengers in cars fitted with bull bars. [2262]

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research Laboratory is investigating all reported injury accidents involving vehicles fitted with bull bars. Its work covers all aspects of these accidents and an interim report is due at the end of the year.

  Trans-Europeans Networks
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what capital projects are to be funded, partially or fully, by the EU TEN programme. [2160]

  Mr. Watts
  The European Community's financing regulation for TENs provides for the funding of transport and other capital projects in the period 1995–1999. Funding decisions will be taken on an annual basis and so far only the funds for 1995 have been allocated.
  505
  In line with the conclusions of the Cannes European Council, just over 75 per cent. of the 1995 funds have been allocated to the 14 priority projects identified by the Essen Council, which are:

  High speed rail/combined transport link, Berlin-Verona

  High speed rail link, Paris-Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London (includes CTRL)

  High speed rail, Madrid-Montpelier

  Betuwe line (rail/combined transport), Netherlands-Germany

  High speed rail/combined transport, Lyon-Turin-Trieste

  High speed rail, France-Germany

  Greek motorway schemes

  Motorway, Lisbon-Valladolid

  Railway/combined transport, Cork-Dublin-Larne

  Malpensa Airport (Milan)

  Oresund fixed link, Denmark-Sweden

  The Nordic triangle (road and rail)

  High speed rail, West Coast Main Line

  Ireland-UK-Benelux Road Link

  The remaining 25 per cent. has been allocated to over 50 other priority projects, mostly involving traffic management studies.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the 1995 allocation of TENs funding to the UK in his reply to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on 26 October, Official Report column 732.

  TENs funding for 1996 and beyond cannot be decided until the transport guidelines have been adopted by the European Council and European Parliament. We will, however, shortly be consulting with interested parties as to what schemes might be included in the UK's 1996 bid.

  Channel Tunnel Services
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the first sleeper trains through the channel tunnel are expected to come into service. [2159]

  Mr. Watts
  European Night Services Ltd., which will operate the sleeper services through the channel tunnel, expects to phase them in starting in the second half of 1996.

  A650
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what expenditure has been incurred to date on preparatory works for the A650 Bingley bypass; [2817]

  (2) what is the number of (a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) minor accident casualties which have occurred during the most recent five years for which statistics are available on the section of the A650 trunk road due to be relieved by the proposed A650 Bingley bypass; [2818]

  (3) what is the estimated annual cost to business and industry of traffic delays on the section of the A650 trunk road due to be relieved by the proposed Bingley bypass. [2816]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.
  506
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gary Waller, dated 27 November 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions asking about the estimated annual cost to business and industry of traffic delays on the section of A650 trunk road due to be relieved by the proposed Bingley Bypass, the number of accidents in the most recent years on the same stretch of road and the costs incurred to date on preparatory works for the bypass.
  The estimated annual cost of delays on this length of the A650 is £1.75m.
  Between January 1990 and October 1995, there were 2 fatal, 34 serious and 186 slight accidents resulting in 281 casualties.
  The total cost of preparatory works, including design fees, is £18.9m.

  Manchester Metro
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on(a) the funding of the Manchester Metrolink light rail and (b) the environmental benefits achieved by Metrolink. [2829]

  Mr. Norris
  Bids for light rail schemes are submitted to my Department during the annual transport policies and programmes—TPP—round, and are funded through the package approach. I am prepared to consider supporting light rail schemes, including extensions to the Metrolink, provided they can be demonstrated to be the right and most cost-effective solution to a particular urban transport problem, where they are planned within the context of a strategy or transport package to achieve mode shift away from the private car and where they will attract significant private sector and local investment. It should be remembered, however, that light rail is not the only solution to urban transport problems, and the difficulties and costs associated with developing schemes should not be underestimated.

  Manchester Metrolink is currently carrying about 13 million passengers a year, and is estimated to have removed about 1.3 million car journeys a year from the corridor it serves.

  QEII
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the report made by the Marine Safety Agency on the QEII before it sailed from Southampton in December 1994. [3116]

  Mr. Norris
  We intend to publish the report shortly.

  Cycle Tracks
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what system the use of cycle tracks is monitored; and if he will make a statement. [2873]

  Mr. Norris
  It is for each highway authority to judge whether and to what extent it should monitor the use made of its cycle tracks.

  Charter Trains
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to expand the charter train market in the new railways regime. [663]
  507
  Mr. Watts
  The expansion of the charter train market is a commercial matter for charter train operators and the rail industry. Railtrack welcomes applications from operators seeking to run charter trains on its network.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average monetary value of maintenance assessments undertaken by the Child Support Agency to date, excluding those produced by the implementation of interim maintenance assessments. [1574]

  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 Mr. William Cash, dated 24 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessments.
  In cases where the absent parent has earned income the average full maintenance assessment, as at May 1995, was £39.69. When absent parents on benefit are included the average figure was £23.53.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of child support maintenance applications which the Child Support Agency has dealt with to date(a) where full maintenance assessments have resulted in monetary values less than or equal to the prescribed minimum under the Act, currently £2.35, (b) where full maintenance assessments have resulted in monetary values greater than the prescribed minimum under the Act, currently £2.35, (c) where interim assessments are currently in force, (d) which are currently classed as deferred under the measures announced in December 1994 and (e) which are still pending but which are within the CSA's current work load. [1573]

  Mr. 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 Mr. William Cash, dated 24 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessments.
  The information requested is shown in the table below:

  Number of Full Maintenance Assessments with a value between zero and £2.35

  Number of Full Maintenance Assessments with a value greater than and £2.35

  Number of Interim Maintenance Assessments in force

  144,510

  166,945

  92,998

  Data supplied as at 15 September 1995. In addition, you requested information on the number of cases currently classed as deferred under the measures announced in December 1994. The number of cases deferred was in the region of 350,000. The actual number of these still pending is less because some clients have asked the Agency to take on their case, and others are no longer receiving benefit. On this basis we estimate that there are around 300,000 cases remaining to be taken on.

  At the end of September 1995, the Child Support Agency had 384,500 applications for child maintenance on hand, pending action.
  508
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he became aware of the disputes between(a) EDS and Computer Associates and (b) other parties; and if the supply of the Child Support Agency's computer system was affected by these legal disputes. [2016]

  Mr. Mitchell
  At the time the contract for the Child Support Agency system was awarded to EDS, there was no knowledge of any dispute between EDS and any other party.

  During subsequent development of the system by EDS it became known that it was in dispute with Computer Associates but this had no effect on supply of the system.

  The only other dispute known is the dispute between EDS and the state of Florida. Information on this was obtained from the computer press some time after the supply of the system.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases where an absent parent has been approached by the child support agency he has become aware that the absent parent has become unemployed. [2013]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information requested is not available. Practical experience has shown that very few absent parents deliberately leave their jobs to avoid paying maintenance for their children. This is because the maintenance assessment formula ensures that all absent parents, and their second families, are at least £30 a week better off after payment of maintenance than they would be if unemployed and receiving income support. No one can now be assessed to pay more than 30 per cent. of their net income in current maintenance. In addition, someone who has left work voluntarily is not entitled to unemployment benefit, and income support is payable at a reduced rate.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1439]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Construction and Planning to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 17 May,Official Report, columns 260–62, for details of this Department's energy performance from 1990–91 to 1993–94. My hon. Friend will be publishing details of Departments' performances in 1994–95 shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those claiming housing benefit are in(a) part-time or (b) temporary employment. [1461]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested as it is not possible to identify separately the number of housing benefit recipients who are in temporary employment. The available information is set out in the table.
  509

  Housing benefit recipients with earnings: Great Britain, May 1994

  Also in receipt of income support

  Not in receipt of income support

  Total

  Number of housing benefit recipients with earnings

  96,000

  320,000

  416,000

  Source

  Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample, May 1994.

  Notes

  a) Figures refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  b) The figure for housing benefit recipients who are also in receipt of income support represents part-time earners only. The figure for housing benefit recipients not in receipt of income support represents full-time and part-time earners.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all those in his Department who have authority to issue public immunity interest certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1392]

  Mr. Burt
  Public interest immunity certificates relating to departmental documents or information are normally authorised by the appropriate Minister. No such certificates have been issued in respect of the Department of Social Security in the past five years.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1916]

  Mr. Burt
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. This Department currently has responsibility for 0.12 per cent. of the Community's R and D budget.

  Benefit Savings
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the benefit savings cited in his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 181, were due to (a) maintenance paid and (b) benefit not paid. [2071]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  All benefit savings are due to benefit not paid.

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2035]
  510
  Mr. Heald
  The legislation passed within this Department in the last five years which contains provisions for statutory repeal or review is as follows:

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995 section 7(5)

  Pensions Schemes Act 1993 section 41 (1)—(2)

  Pensions Act 1995 sections 137(5) and 138(5)

  The Pensions (Polish Forces) Scheme (Extension) Order 1992.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of Social Security what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1955]

  Mr. Burt
  We do not collect information on the size of companies who supply the DSS with goods and services.

  However, we are pursuing a number of procurement initiatives which should help small businesses. These include ensuring that we minimise the paperwork burden for prospective suppliers, and involvement in the HM Treasury's central unit on procurement working group on SME's—small and medium enterprises.

  Part-time Work
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the benefits system to encourage(a) part-time work and (b) job sharing. [2155]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Family credit already helps 215,000 people working between 16 and 24 hours a week. In 1994 we introduced a child care disregard to remove a stumbling block preventing some parents from taking up work. Disability working allowance also tops up the earnings of some disabled people who work for 16 hours or more a week. From October 1996 we are piloting in eight areas earnings top-up, a new in-work benefit for people without dependant children. This will also help people working 16 hours a week or more to be better off in work.

  In October 1996 we are introducing a back-to-work bonus whereby those on income support or jobseeker's allowance who undertake small amounts of work of less than 16 hours a week can accumulate a lump sum of up to £1,000 based on their part-time earnings. This will be paid when either the claimant or partner moves into work which takes them off benefit.

  From October 1996 the partner of a claimant receiving jobseeker's allowance or income support will be able to take work of up to 24 hours a week without removing entitlement to benefit. There will also be a £10 disregard in respect of both of these benefits.

  Job sharing is a matter which is best left to employers and employees to arrange, but the measures already taken should facilitate it.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefits which were subsequently claimed by the 18,895 people who were found capable of work following the all work test referred to in his answer of 23 October 1995,Official Report, column 485.[1840]
  511
  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: Of incapacity benefit claimants found capable of work following the application of the all work test between April and September, 8,974 have claimed unemployment benefit. Information for other benefits claimed is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who have been found capable of work between April and October 1995 were undertaking exempt work under regulation 17(a) of the Incapacity for Work (General Regulations); [1752]

  (2) how many people in receipt of (a) severe disablement allowance, and (b) incapacity benefit, undertaking exempt work under regulation 17(a) of the Incapacity for Work (General) Regulations, have subsequently lost benefit because they have earned above the earnings limit; [1830]

  (3) how many people in receipt of (a) severe disablement allowance and (b) incapacity benefit, are also undertaking work which is exempt under regulation 17(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Incapacity for Work (General) Regulations; and what is the average amount of their earnings. [1831]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of incapacity benefit are currently exempt from the all-work test by virtue of(a) receipt of the highest rate of the disability living allowance care component, (b) in receipt of invalidity benefit and aged over 58 years on 13 April, (c) with a serious medical condition and (d) a serious mental illness. [1832]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: Such information as is available is in the table.

  Reason for exemption from all work test

  Number exempt

  Receipt of the Disability Living Allowance highest rate care component

  20,976

  Receipt of Invalidity Benefit between 1 December

  1993 and 12 April 1995 and aged 58 or over on 13 April 1995

  480,000

  Severe medical condition, including severe mental illness

  138,828

  1. Figures for severe mental illness are not separately available.

  2. Figures for exempt incapacity benefit claimants who are also in receipt of Widow's Benefit are not held on the computer system and are not included above.

  3. Information available to end of October 1995.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of incapacity benefit between April and October 1995 have had their benefit suspended for undertaking work which is not exempt. [1833]
  512
  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: Claimants are treated as capable of work for any week in which they do work which is not in one of the permitted categories.

  Information is not available on the number of people who leave incapacity benefit for work, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of invalidity benefit failed to attend a medical examination to assess their incapacity for work in each of the quarters ending December 1994 and March 1995. [1747]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Bradley dated 24 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about how many claimants of Invalidity Benefit failed to attend a medical examination to assess their incapacity for work in each of the quarters ending December 1994 and March 1995.
  Information is not available in the format requested. This is because separate statistics for each benefit were not kept on the numbers failing to attend a medical examination.
  The total number of customers who failed to attend a medical examination, in respect of Invalidity Benefit and Sickness Benefit, to assess their incapacity for work in the quarter ending December 1994 was 17,750 and for the quarter ending March 1995, the figure was 20,066.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of raising the £15 earnings disregard to £44 per week for people entitled to the disability premium in each of the benefits(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council
  tax benefit. [1754]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: The information is set out in the table.

  Benefit

  Cost £ million

  Income support

  10

  Council tax benefit

  10

  Housing benefit

  20

  Total

  35

  1. Based on data taken from the 1994 Annual Statistical Enquiry and from the 1991–92–93 Family Expenditure Surveys uprated to 1995–96 prices, benefits and earnings levels.

  2. For HB/CTB cases the estimate of the proportion of disability premium cases with earnings is based on data taken from the 1994 HBMIS data.

  3. As it is not possible to model changes in hours worked due to the suggested increase in the earnings disregard, any costs/savings arising from changes in hours worked have not been included.

  4. Lone parents in receipt of the disability premium are assumed to benefit from the change. Disabled pensioners have not been included as they are in receipt of a Pensioner rather a disability premium.

  5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

HEALTH

  Nurse Resignations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have resigned from their positions within the national health service in the last 12 months. [179]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Nurses who resign from their posts, for whatever reason, are not necessarily lost from the national health service as many are likely to resume an NHS post after a career break. As nursing is a predominantly female profession this is to be expected. People take career breaks for a wide variety of reasons ranging from having a family to extending their skills and experience by exploring other fields of employment. Naturally the Government are keen to harness this invaluable body of training, skills and experience and bring them back into the NHS.

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times in the last year he used(a) London Buses and (b) the London Underground while on official business. [416]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have not travelled on London Buses or the London Underground in an official capacity in the last year.

  Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission another survey of English mental hospitals to monitor their closure, comparable to those commissioned by the mental health task force in 1993 and 1994. [1920]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Residential Places and Hospital Beds
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) local authority residential places, (b) independent sector residential places, (c) national health service long-stay geriatric and psycho-geriatric beds and (d) independent sector nursing home places there were in (i) 1970 and (ii) 1990. [1127]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally is shown in the table. The figures for 1970 are not strictly comparable with those for 1990 due to a variety of changes in recording practices.

  Residential places and hospital beds

  19701

  19901

  Local authority residential places2

  n/a3

  105,400

  Independent sector residential places2

  54,900

  180,500

  NHS geriatric hospital beds (annual average available)4.5

  39,5916

  48,734

  NHS psycho-geriatric long-stay hospitals beds (annual average available)5

  n/a7

  18,879

  Independent sector nursing home places8

  n/a9

  94,313

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1970 relate to 31 December; those for 1990 relate to 31 March.
  514
  2 Places in homes for elderly people and people with physical and/or sensory disabilities.

  3 Information on places was not collected in 1970; there were 99,700 elderly residents in local authority residential homes at 31 December 1970.

  4 Figures are for long and short stay beds.

  5 1970 classification based on clinical specialty, 1990 based on ward classification.

  6 Figure is for England and Wales.

  7 Figures for geriatric and long-stay not separately identified in 1970.

  8 Beds for elderly people and elderly people with mental health problems.

  9 Information not collected centrally.

  Source:

  Department of Health statistical returns RAC5, KO36.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that NHS community trusts do not require insurance cover for wheelchairs loaned to patients. [1786]

  Mr. Bowis
  Patients are not required to insure their wheelchairs. Patients issued with a powered indoor-outdoor wheelchair may be advised to take out third party insurance so that they are covered against personal liability in the event of an accident.

  Network of Access and Child Contact Centres
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to fund the work of the Network of Access and Child Contact Centres. [1903]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Network of Access and Child Contact Centres may apply for section 64 funding from the Department of Health in the same way as any other voluntary organisation, but it has not done so in the current round.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the results of the national survey of the work load of 274 NHS consultants. [540]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee's second report, which refers to a survey conducted by the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association in 1992–93 on the amount of time spent by its members on purely management activities. The committee's report is available in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an inquiry into the arrangements for and costs of(a) each retirement of consultants and (b) their subsequent re-employment on a part-time basis. [1800]

  Mr. Malone
  Most pension arrangements cover all staff groups, including consultants. Data on the cost of consultant retirements, and their subsequent re-employment on a part-time basis, are not available centrally. I have no plans to institute an inquiry on costs for consultants as a separate group.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average percentage of local
  515
  authority personal social services budgets currently spent on mental health services; [1922]

  (2) how many local authorities' expenditure falls below the average currently spent on mental health services; and if he will list those authorities, giving the percentage of their budgets devoted to such services, in descending order. [1923]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities' budget returns for 1995–96 show that, overall, planned expenditure on mental health services in England represents 5.6 per cent. of the total of personal social services budgets.

  The 57 authorities who have budgeted to spend below that percentage on mental health services are shown in the table.

  Personal social services: percentage of total budgeted expenditure on mental health services 1995–96

  Percentage

  Hereford and Worcester

  5.5

  Avon

  5.3

  Cheshire

  5.3

  Bromley

  5.1

  Hillingdon

  5.0

  Sheffield

  4.9

  Newham

  4.9

  Knowsley

  4.8

  Devon

  4.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  4.7

  Redbridge

  4.7

  East Sussex

  4.7

  Dorset

  4.6

  Cleveland

  4.6

  South Tyneside

  4.6

  North Yorkshire

  4.5

  Coventry

  4.5

  Suffolk

  4.4

  Dudley

  4.4

  Derbyshire

  4.4

  Bexley

  4.2

  Wakefield

  4.2

  Sefton

  4.2

  Rochdale

  4.1

  Cumbria

  4.1

  Tameside

  4.1

  Humberside

  4.1

  Salford

  4.1

  Wirral

  4.0

  Lancashire

  4.0

  Berkshire

  3.9

  Wiltshire

  3.9

  Leeds

  3.9

  Kent

  3.9

  Cornwall

  3.9

  Barnsley

  3.8

  Havering

  3.7

  Sunderland

  3.7

  Wolverhampton

  3.6

  Cambridgeshire

  3.5

  West Sussex

  3.4

  Durham

  3.3

  Calderdale

  3.3

  Bedfordshire

  3.3

  Stockport

  3.2

  St. Helens

  3.2

  Essex

  3.2

  Gloucestershire

  3.1

  Hertfordshire

  3.0

  Walsall

  2.8

  Doncaster

  2.6

  Bury

  2.6

  Lincolnshire

  2.4

  516

  Personal social services: percentage of total budgeted expenditure on mental health services 1995–96

  Percentage

  Northumberland

  2.2

  Wigan

  2.2

  Staffordshire

  1.8

  Isles of Scilly

  0.5

  Percentages based on figures from local authorities' budget returns on form RA96.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if it is his policy that places for mentally ill people in residential homes are interchangeable with psychiatric hospital beds. [1921]

  Mr. Bowis
  Our policy is that mentally ill people should be placed in the accommodation best suited to their assessed needs.

  Bed Availability
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis of usage, survey or projection he has instructed or advised district health authorities of the number of beds per unit or population; and what adjustments in those levels are made for observed and recorded variations in needs for acute health care. [1796]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have not issued any central guidance. It is for individual health authorities and trusts to determine local bed requirements in accordance with local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was for each NHS trust and for England as a whole for the last available two years the frequency of closure of admittance to emergency hospital beds, expressing the number of occasions of such closure as a proportion of the total number of hospital beds and indicating the percentage increase or decrease in each
  case. [639]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Information on the average daily number of available beds for each NHS trust for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95 is published in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on the number of(a) rehabilitation, (b) convalescent, (c) respite and (d) continuing care beds available in the NHS and the private sector. [2779]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected from the national health service is published in "Bed Availability for England," copies of which are available in the Library. Data are collected by broad ward classification rather than by clinical specialty and returns are made on a financial year basis. Information from the independent sector does not identify the purpose for which beds are provided.

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue further instructions to health authorities on the provision of chiropody services to men aged between 60 and 65 years. [1799]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Cow's Milk
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned into the effect of cow's milk on the health of those who are intolerant to it; what consideration he has given to making lactolite available via the national health service; and what inter-departmental discussions have been held about the extension of the welfare food scheme to include alternatives to cow's milk to those on income support. [2003]

  Mr. Sackville
  My Department has not commissioned any specific research into cow's milk intolerance but it keeps under review the scientific literature on the general issue of food intolerance, including cow's milk intolerance. I have given no consideration to making lactolite available via the national health service. The Department has held no inter-departmental discussions about any extension of the welfare food scheme to include alternatives to cow's milk.

  Family Health Services Authority, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the severance payment made to the last chief executive of Doncaster FHSA. [1785]

  Mr. Malone
  There was no severance payment made. The employment contract was allowed to run to expiry. On retirement, appropriate superannuation benefits were paid.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require general practitioners to provide patients whom they remove from their lists with detailed reasons for that removal. [2235]

  Mr. Malone
  None,

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital doctors have left the national health service in each year since 1991 who qualified(a) five years previously and (b) 10 years previously. [2278]

  Mr. Malone
  Data are not available in the form requested. Evidence of doctors leaving the profession prematurely is available from studies published in 1991 by Professor James Parkhouse. These studies suggested that although about 20 per cent. of doctors were not practising in the national health service five years after qualification the majority of these were not lost permanently to medicine. Many were working in short-term postings overseas to further develop their skills, while others were working in United Kingdom medical work outside the NHS, or taking short career breaks.

  Support Force for Children's Residential Care
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the support force for children's residential care since September 1993; and if he will make a statement. [3083]
  518
  Mr. Bowis
  The support force for children's residential care completed its two-year programme of activity in September 1995. It has produced a report of this work. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This report demonstrates the significant contribution made by the support force in its two-year span. I am committed to a continuing programme of action to safeguard the future of quality residential child care as an option of choice. My Department is considering the most appropriate and effective means of taking forward and reviewing the work that the support force has started.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2034]

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 3 of the Health Authorities Act 1995 which enables district health authorities and family health services authorities to act jointly in preparation for the reorganisation of health authorities provides for that section to cease to have effect on 1 April 1996.

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1947]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Electro-magnetic Fields
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the possibility that exposure to electro-magnetic fields is a cause of cancer; and if he will make a statement. [1963]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 3 November 1994 Official Report, columns 1274–5.

  Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available information about the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill in simple text and pictorial format and on audio tape for people with learning difficulties. [1967]

  Mr. Bowis
  A consultation document on the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, explaining the Bill and setting out proposals for regulations, will be published shortly. It will be available in a variety of formats.

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stage the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust's proposed capital investment plan has reached;
  519
  and what further stages must be passed for it to obtain approval. [2163]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that Dudley health authority is conducting a public consultation on the implications of the proposed capital development by the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust. When this is complete the trust will need to prepare and submit an outline business case to the NHS executive west midlands regional office and then, providing it is content, test the project for private finance. Assuming these stages proceed satisfactorily, the next step will be to prepare a full business case for consideration by the NHS executive headquarters who will decide whether the project needs to be submitted to HM Treasury for approval.

  Video Surveillance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with the chairman of North Staffordshire NHS trust about the use of covert video surveillance in cases of suspected child abuse; if the hospital has now terminated the practice of the covert video surveillance; for how long was it in use; and if he will make a statement. [2824]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the trust chairman for details.

  Out-sourcing Research
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of out-sourcing by (i) BUPA and (ii) other private hospital and healthcare providers for the purposes of comparison with proposals for out-sourcing under the private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement.. [2820]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those trusts with registered nursing homes indicating the numbers registered in each of the last four years.. [2777]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on the number of people moving between residential and nursing homes. [2783]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many jointly registered residential and nursing homes there have been in each region in each of the last five years.. [2420]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: Information as recorded by local authorities on the number of residential homes registered under the terms of the Registered Homes Act 1984 for the provision of nursing care as well as residential care is shown in the table.
  520

  Dual registered residential care homes

  Numbers

  Year ending 31 March

  Regional health authority

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  England

  446

  519

  602

  745

  880

  Northern

  19

  25

  29

  46

  49

  Yorkshire

  32

  33

  41

  59

  80

  Trent

  24

  31

  42

  56

  73

  East Anglian

  5

  7

  10

  19

  37

  North-West Thames

  18

  19

  18

  25

  21

  North-East Thames

  18

  19

  23

  31

  29

  South-East Thames

  40

  44

  45

  53

  55

  South-West Thames

  59

  66

  71

  78

  83

  Wessex

  46

  65

  72

  86

  95

  Oxford

  25

  28

  31

  32

  34

  South Western

  49

  64

  88

  103

  135

  West Midlands

  40

  44

  52

  61

  64

  Mersey

  35

  36

  33

  32

  34

  North Western

  36

  38

  47

  64

  91

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains about the destination of geriatric discharges from hospital. [2781]

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest centrally held information, 1993–94, on the destination on discharge of patients treated by consultants in geriatric medicine in national health service hospitals in England is as follows:

  Destination on discharge

  Percentage

  Usual residence

  69.18

  Deaths

  17.23

  NHS hospital outside district—general ward/younger physically disabled

  5.70

  Non-NHS institution

  4.34

  Local authority residential home

  1.30

  Temporary residence eg Hotels, residential educational institutions

  1.22

  NHS hospital outside district—mentally ill/handicapped ward

  0.34

  NHS nursing home

  0.32

  Not known

  0.19

  Special hospital

  0.13

  Figures do not add to 100 due to rounding.

  National Health Service Assets
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to cover the transfer of national health service assets beyond the actual capital projects being financed to the management of facilities management consortia under the private finance initiative. [2822]

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service bodies are expected to obtain value for money from any transaction involving the sale or transfer of assets to a third party. General guidance on the disposal of national health service assets is included in the publication "Estatecode: Property Transactions—A Management Guide for NHS Trusts" published by HMSO, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 26 October, ref. POH(2)4593/52. [2724]

  Mr. Malone
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Community Care Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of spending on community care services in each(a) district and (b) region in each of the last four years. [2778]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not currently available centrally in the form requested.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made about changes in the costs of providing NHS treatments or services to elderly people(a) over the last 10 years and (b) over the next 10 years. [2782]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information on the costs to the hospital and community health services of changes in the number of elderly people is contained in the departmental report. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution his Department made to the conference held by the World Health Organisation in Geneva on 20 to 25 November on the consequence of the Chernobyl accident; how his Department was represented; what British papers were submitted; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference. [2775]

  Mr. Sackville
  At the World Health Organisation conference, on 20 to 23 November, on the consequences of the Chernobyl accident my Department was represented by an official and also by the medical assistant director of the National Radiological Protection 522
  Board who assisted in the organisation of the conference. The NRPB assistant director was a member of the technical advisory meeting held in February 1995 and the paper selection meeting in July 1995. The medical department at the NRPB has also contributed to the production of the technical summary of the international programme of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident and the forthcoming full report to be published in April 1996.

  British papers were presented by Professor D. Williams of Cambridge university and Professor T. Lee of St. Andrews university, on thyroid cancer and psycho-social effects respectively.

  The conference was attended by over 350 participants from 38 countries. The most important aspects were thyroid cancer, psycho-social effects and epidemiological studies. There is a real increase in childhood thyroid cancers in Belarus, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. The conference agreed that there is a need to continue the co-ordinated international support to determine the exact nature of causation and ensure optimal therapy. The non-radiogenic psycho-social impact resulting from extensive relocation of the populations from contaminated areas has produced the most significant overall morbidity so far. Participants agreed with the need to continue with well controlled epidemiological studies of those affected.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each NHS trust spent on non-NHS provision in each year since 1991–92. [2776]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Bed Occupancy
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on bed occupancy rates. [2780]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on occupied bed days is published each year in volume 1 of "Hospital Episode Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.

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

Water Supply
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the problems of water supply in 1995 and what action they propose to take to improve supply.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in response to a request from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the National Rivers Authority published on 31st August an assessment of the water supply situation in England and Wales. A further such assessment will be published on 15th December.
On 1st September, my right honourable friend announced a review of the lessons which should be learned from the drought and of the action to be taken for the future. It is the responsibility of the water companies to safeguard supplies to their customers.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that it is not clear whether the Government have completed their assessment of the water crisis that affected many parts of the country this year, and continues to do so in Yorkshire, and whether the Government will announce eventually the result of their work on the water crisis? Further, does the Minister agree that we have had a serious situation this year; that in Yorkshire it continues to be extremely serious; and that that follows one of the wettest winters that we have had? Is it not the case that other companies in the Yorkshire area (Northumberland and York Water) are flush with water and can supply water to Yorkshire Water? Is not there a problem over the water supply in this country? Do not the Government have ultimately to take responsibility to ensure that the water supplies are safeguarded?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, by the time the noble Lord reached the end of that question, I had rather forgotten where it had begun. As I have said, we shall publish the results of our review of this year's drought and the lessons to be learnt from it. Some of that may well cover whether there are areas in the country which need to take action outside their own borders to safeguard their water supplies. I am aware for instance that the Thames region may well need water from outside its own borders, but there seems little justification for installing extremely expensive systems to move water over large distances if they are to be needed only once every 100 years.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that there is increasing concern over water leakage which is probably of the order of 20 per cent.
452
Has there been any improvement in the technology for identifying and dealing with leakages? For example, the gas industry has had to deal with this problem for years and has done so very successfully.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the water industry faces problems over leakages which the gas and electricity industries do not. Both of them have good technologies for locating leaks. In continental water systems, which are high pressure, it is usually pretty obvious where a leak occurs because one gets a fountain coming out of the street or the ground. With British low water pressure systems it can be extremely difficult to tell where the leak is. Indeed if one closes off one leak another one often occurs a little distance away. The entire main may need to be replaced to solve the leakage problem as a whole rather than spend money on finding the exact location of one leak.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is in draft a Water Conservation Bill which would introduce mandatory leakage targets for water companies; oblige water companies to encourage the installation of water efficient devices in homes; and institute a review of water abstraction licences affecting important wild life sites? Is the noble Lord further aware that Mr. Richard Burden MP, an officer of the All-Party Water Group, has come very high in the list of those who are to introduce Private Members' Bills in another place? Will that Bill have government support?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer that question.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this country has so far spent, or is committed to spend, more than £10,000 million implementing various European water directives which, in the opinion of the water companies themselves and of Ofwat, and indeed of our Department of Health, are largely wasteful? Would not the Government therefore do well to emulate most of the other European countries and ignore the directives in question, thereby liberating thousands of millions of pounds for problems of supply?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, for me and, I imagine, most of the House, clean water and clean bathing beaches are something that we expect and enjoy. I did not enjoy either of them in my youth, and I am very glad that my children are not having to suffer as I did. So far as concerns expenditure on water distribution, we are spending, and have been spending, well over a billion pounds a year on that and expect to continue doing so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said that he could not possibly answer my question. Has he not seen a copy of this Bill? Is he not aware that it is to be introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place? Have the Government formed absolutely no view whatever? If they have, could he please tell us what it is?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that we are traditionally neutral on Private Members' Bills but perhaps I can help him about a couple of aspects of the Bill, which I have seen only as a draft

453
and not as a Bill. So far as concerns statutory targets for leakage reduction, we believe that they would operate against the public interest. They would force the consumer to pay for what it is properly the companies' business to pay for. As it is an extremely complex situation as regards where and when leakage is damaging and where and when it is worth repairing, we do not think that setting a system of centralised statutory targets would be the right way to go about it.
As regards water conservation, the noble Lord may be aware that this whole area is under active review by the Department of the Environment with a view to renewing regulations in about 1997.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I address the question to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House? The noble Lord said that the Government are traditionally neutral on Private Members' Bills. Is that supported by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope so, otherwise I shall know about it afterwards.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I was very discouraged by the answer that I received about leakages. I understood the noble Lord to say that because we have a low pressure system in Britain we can do nothing about leakages. In those circumstances, why is it that some water companies have a much lower level of leakages than others? Surely we can do something about the problem.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, we can do a great deal about the problem. We have insisted that the water companies set targets and that they continue to improve their leakage records. Some areas where there are a lot of hills naturally find it more difficult because there are pockets of high pressure at the bottom and pockets of low pressure at the top, and combined with low-pressure-style water mains, that tends to produce high leakage rates. But the questions are soluble, at least within a degree.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it not to be inferred from what my noble friend the Minister said that the Government would, if necessary in the public interest should the occasion arise, take such measures as might be appropriate?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, do we not always?

Head Lice: Remedial Advice
2.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their advice to parents who find their children have head lice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we advise parents to treat their children as quickly as possible by using an appropriate lotion
454
available from pharmacists through sale or prescription. Alternatively, parents may wish to comb their children's hair regularly with a fine tooth comb.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Can she imagine the horror that I felt when I discovered that the lotions contain organophosphates, carbonates and pyrethroids; that it is recommended that the whole family is treated for head lice at the same time; and that there is no recommendation that pregnant women or young infants are not treated with the lotion? We know that, as regards all such products, the human embryo and young infants are the most susceptible to the poisons, which may cause not only the possibility of cancer but have subtle neurological effects and can cause severe behavioural problems in children.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, several lotions are available on the market and two of those contain no OPs at all. Indeed, malathion has such a low level degree of toxicity that we are advised by our expert committees that there is no danger in using it.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I speak as a parent. Is the Minister aware that, if this demon strikes, a small application, externally applied, of good Scotch whisky does the trick?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should be very interested in the scientific evidence for that, but I believe that my noble friend may have a point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when there are changes of policy as regards these lotions, whether or not they reflect the opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, the voluntary organisations concerned should be informed? Is she also aware that the main organisation involved, Community Hygiene, which runs a telephone hotline on this subject, was neither informed nor supported by the Department of Health when some of the products were withdrawn, although the department then asked the organisation to deal with a number of anxious parents who had questions on the subject? Surely the voluntary organisations which act in that way should be properly resourced and supported.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we were well aware that when we had had a previous exercise in communications concerning the pill it was not very well handled. In this case, we were very anxious to get the information quickly to doctors, nurses and pharmacists before it became general knowledge. Therefore, we notified the voluntary organisation mentioned by the noble Baroness as soon as it was possible to do so after we had informed the professionals, which is what they had asked us to do on the previous occasion.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, do the Government endorse the bug-busting campaign to solve the head lice problem safely? In view of the need for people to be trained properly in the procedure, will the Government consider allowing GPs to prescribe the bug-busting kit, especially in view of the fact that it could save £3.5 million per year as against prescribing the chemical treatments?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, general practitioners clearly give the most appropriate advice to individuals concerned. In this case, that is usually the parents or the school. We have nurses attached to schools who are very much involved with that. As regards the bug-busting kit and campaign, we support that voluntary organisation with annual grants. Indeed, we admire some of the work that it does.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, considering what has been said about this problem, does my noble friend agree that whisky is bad for the head?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have heard of vinegar being used as a shampoo but never whisky. I thought that my noble friend Lord Gowrie was providing a rather quirky solution to a quirky problem.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if whisky does the trick, would not surgical spirit do it just as well but much cheaper?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that these are a lot of lousy suggestions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness reconsider her answers about the insecticides which are used in the shampoos and lotions? So far as I can make out, no research has been carried out as to their effect on the immune and neurological systems of young children. More and more doctors are reporting to me that patients showing ME symptoms have been using louse treatments. In one case, I heard of a mother who had shampooed the hair of her child 17 times with a particular organophosphate treatment because the lice were not responding to it. There now seems to be some resistance by the bugs to those products.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to make it quite clear that we always act on the advice of our expert committees. The committee on carcinogenicity advised us in this case about this particular product called Carbaryl. I am aware that the committee is concerned about all the applications which people are using for all sorts of different reasons, including agricultural and domestic reasons. I believe that the committee is aware of what is going on. In this case it was not an actual risk but a theoretical risk, but we felt that we should err on the side of caution. Indeed, that is why it is now a pharmacist only product and is not available over the counter.

EU Overseas Aid Spending: Legality
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the circumstances in which European Union expenditure on population policies and programmes in developing countries, for which Community budget provision was made in 1990, has taken place without a legal basis; and what expenditure has so far taken place and what commitments have been entered into to date.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the European Parliament has the power to create spending provisions without a legal base, as in this case. We have now secured a draft regulation. Our total commitments for 1990–94 are approximately 13.5 million ecus and the payments are 5.9 million ecus. No figures are yet available for 1995.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a quite extraordinary state of affairs? Expenditure under this heading was started in 1990 without there being any legal basis for it whatever, so much so that the Commission—not the European Parliament—published on 2nd October this year a proposal in order to regularise the position. How does that arise? Are we to assume that it is a matter of complete indifference to the Government whether or not money is spent on a legal basis by the European Community? That seems extraordinary.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the UK has taken the lead in pressing for legal bases for all significant budget provisions. One result was a Commission communication in March proposing that any significant new provision should provide a legal base and that all existing provisions over 5 million ecus should be given a legal base. I should add that the actual expenditure in 1990 was zero.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that the European Union is to legalise retroactively any amount of money that the European Parliament has spent whether or not it has a legal right to do so? If that is the case, it is a complete disgrace and an abuse of parliamentary privilege.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the European Parliament has the last word as regards those parts of the aid budget. Therefore, the Council cannot enforce a block on spending without a legal base.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, my noble friend gives the figures in ecus. Will my noble friend tell us what is an ecu in currencies which we understand; for example, pounds, francs or deutschmarks?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, on the basis of the conversion that I have, 13.5 million ecus converts to about £10.2 million; and 5.9 million ecus converts to about £4.5 million.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Commission's own proposals of 2nd October last set out the alleged justification, which is Article 130 of the treaty? But the treaty was not signed until December 1991. In any event, Article 130 provides only for aid to be organised by the Commission on a complementary basis to that already undertaken by member states. Is he aware that we have it on an authoritative basis that the aid provided by member states tends to be dealt with rather more skilfully than that provided by the co-ordination process of a Brussels bureaucracy?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Commission proposed in September that the regulation on aid for population programmes, which is the purpose of this Question,

457
should be governed by line B7-5050. An explanatory memorandum was submitted on 26th October and the proposal is broadly along the right lines.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, surely my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is right to say that aid programmes are administered more efficiently and better by member states rather than by the Commission. Is that not more so in the case of the £4,000 million which is to be spent for the next five years in North Africa to prevent, apparently, the North Africans invading Greece, Portugal and Spain, which the taxpayer already subsidises to a very large extent?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there is a place for multilateral and bilateral aid. To say that one is better than another in one instance is probably not appropriate. The total Commission aid for population and reproductive health, including the EC budget and Lomé, committed between 1990 and 1994 was approximately 154 million ecus—approximately £128 million. The ODA UK expenditure on population and reproductive health programmes nearly doubled between 1990 and 1994 to £43.5 million. That includes significant spending on HIV and AIDS.

British Rail: Rolling Stock Valuation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state the price paid by the three companies which have purchased British Rail's rolling stock, what is the book value of that stock and what undertakings have been given by the purchasers as to its continued use.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the aggregate price which has been agreed for the companies is in the region of £1.78 billion. The net book value of the rolling stock at 31st March 1995 was just over £1.84 billion. The purchasers were not asked to give specific undertakings as to the continued use of the stock, since approximately 92 per cent. of vehicles are currently on lease for periods of up to 10 years.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while it is always possible that my noble friend may be right, perhaps he will be good enough to look at the net book value because I am rather surprised at the low figure he has given for that. Does it not seem rather odd, in view of the fact that the rolling stock was sold at something of a bargain price which will result in enhanced profits, that there is still no requirement for those enhanced profits to be invested in the purchase of fresh stock?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am pleased and not a little surprised that my noble friend acknowledges the possibility that we might be right on some of these issues. We are sure of that figure, but I shall of course check it yet again. But I believe that the figure of some £1.8 billion which I have for the net book value is the
458
correct figure. As to the question of whether further strings should be attached to the sale of these ROSCOS, we did not feel that that was appropriate. It was a commercial bidding process and we believe that the price paid was an appropriate one.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who of course, as a former Minister of Transport, knows a great deal about such matters. However, a recent Minister of Transport, Mr. MacGregor, priced the rolling stock at £3 billion, whereas, as the Minister said, it has been sold for about £1.8 billion. It seems to be quite correct to say that the Government may have got a bargain because, Mr. Roger Ford, the editor of Rail Privatisation News, writing in The Times on 10th November, said:
"This has to be a good deal for the taxpayer. We have got rid of a fleet of trains, two thirds of which are geriatric, to the private sector for not a bad price".
The really important question is: is there any guarantee that there will be investment in new rolling stock, and will the rail regulator have some power to ensure that the trains are of sufficient quality and sturdiness to carry the loads that they are being asked to carry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the reference that the noble Lord made to the £3 billion refers to the question of the cost new rather than to the net book value. In terms of guarantees, it is important to remember that it is absolutely in the commercial interests of the rolling stock companies to invest and invest fully in rolling stock. For the first time there will be a competitive leasing market. We believe that the rolling stock companies—there are three of them now—will compete for investment opportunities. Of course, there are no additional barriers to entry to other companies coming in to participate in the leasing market.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, will the Minister respond to the second part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton; namely, what undertakings have been given by the purchasers as to the rolling stock's continued use? What undertakings have been given by the rolling stock purchasers that the equipment will continue to be used?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I specifically answered that question in my original Answer. I said that the purchasers were not asked to give specific undertakings as to the continued use of the stock as approximately 92 per cent. of the vehicles are currently on lease for periods of up to 10 years. The vehicles are tied up in long leasing arrangements. Therefore, there is no need to extract guarantees from the purchasers that they will continue to agree to the leases.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many of us feel that questions of the type that have been put and, if I may say so, the supplementaries, are unfair? Noble Lords are fully aware—as, indeed, are the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove—that the Government have no negotiating position in the area. They will have to meet whatever they are asked to pay eventually and that is what they are doing. However, given the enormous cost

459
implications of the matter, are the Government still absolutely certain that the method they have chosen for achieving their objective is the best that there is? If such unexpected problems keep arising and they cannot find a better way to approach the matter, would it not be in everyone's interest to drop the whole business?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that we have the best method of addressing the very considerable problems that we have had on the railways. It is the best way of encouraging new investment in the system and the best way of introducing structural change so that we end up with a better railway, offering better services and better value for money for the taxpayer. I do not believe that the sale of the rolling stock companies was a problem; I believe rather that it was a success. It was the largest direct sale privatisation that there has been so far. Moreover, the proceeds were considerably in excess of those predicted by most commentators.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is now a smell of the poll tax about rail privatisation and that the more vehemently government Ministers continue to express their faith in it, the more we are prepared for a retreat?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, unlike parties opposite, we believe in our policies and we continue to support them. It is our view that this rail privatisation is the best way to encourage better services for the travelling public. We shall continue to pursue the interests of the travelling public and of the taxpayer.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister be able to use his influence with the purchasers to supply at least one extra sleeping car on the railway line to Fort William which, having been saved with great difficulty, is fully booked from now until Easter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if the line is fully booked, my noble friend will not be able to travel on it—unless, of course, a lot of those bookings were made by him and his family. I believe that we have fully rehearsed the issues surrounding the sleeper services and that they are not especially relevant to today's Question.

Relations between Central and Local Government: Select Committee
3.5 p.m.
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 the relationship between central government and local authorities in Great Britain; and, in particular, to consider—

(1) the balance in that relationship between the powers exercised at central and local level;

460

(2) the effect of that relationship on local authorities' activities, particularly as regulator, service provider and community leader;

(3) the need for regulation of local authorities as a means of ensuring appropriate standards of service and value for money, and the forms such regulation should take;

(4) the financial relationship between central government and local authorities including the extent to which financial independence for local authorities is desirable and practicable;

and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Beloff,

L. Dubs,

L. Gray of Contin,

B. Hamwee,

L. Hunt of Tanworth (Chairman),

E. Kintore,

B. Perry of Southwark,

L. Plant of Highfield,

B. Platt of Writtle,

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Sefton of Garston,

L. Tope,

L. Wade of Chorlton;

That the Committee have the power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps I may say that there is some relief in Wales that it has been seen fit to appoint a Welsh representative to this committee—and a very good one indeed. I should also like to express the hope that that kind of omission will not be seen on the Order Paper in future.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his observations. Of course, the noble Lord urged upon your Lordships the need for such a change and, as the noble Lord will observe, another change has also been made which was the result of an initiative taken by his noble friend Lady White and other Members of your Lordships' House outside the House. As the matter has been raised, perhaps I may mention that it is very much in accordance with the recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, the proposed chairman of the committee.
I should also like to add something that is perhaps not said sufficiently often in your Lordships' House. I am most grateful to those involved in the consultations through the usual channels. That also helped to lead to this result which I hope is satisfactory to your Lordships.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for those observations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: 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 the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Brabazon of Tara,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Chesham,

L. Clark of Kempston,

L. Colnbrook,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

B. David,

L. Dean of Harptree,

E. Ferrers,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Henley,

L. Hesketh,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Lester of Herne Hill,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor),

L. Mustill,

L. Richard,

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

B. Serota,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

V. Tenby,

L. Tordoff,

L. Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the fourth report from the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House be agreed to.
Moved, That the fourth report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 91).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. INTERRUPTION OF DEBATES FOR STATEMENTS
The Committee recommends that, on days when there are two balloted short debates or two time-limited debates, any Commons statement repeated in the House should normally be taken between the two debates. Only in exceptional circumstances should such debates be interrupted for a statement.
SPEAKING AFTER THE MINISTER ON REPORT AND THIRD READING
The Companion to the Standing Orders (page 133) contains the following guidance:
"Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down; except that, where the Minister wishes to speak early, this does not prevent subsequent debate."
The practice is similar on Third Reading (Companion, page 135).
In the light of proceedings in the House on 29 March 1995 (Official Report, col. 1698), the Committee recommends that it should be made clear that the above guidance does not apply in relation to the Lord in charge of a private member's bill.
3. DEBATE ON THIRD READING AND PASSING
At present, debate may take place on the motion that a bill be now read a third time, but when amendments are tabled it is usual to take the motion formally and to debate instead the motion that the bill do now pass.
This practice has led to confusion. The Committee accordingly recommends that a simpler and consistent practice should be adopted, namely that the motion that a bill be now read a third time should always be taken formally, whether or not it is followed by amendments, and that any speeches should always be made on the motion that the bill do now pass.
4. USE OF A PERSONAL COMPUTER AT THE TABLE
The Committee has approved the experimental use of an inconspicuous portable personal computer at the Table of the House to assist in the preparation of the Minutes of Proceedings and the recording of attendances.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have a very short question for the noble Lord. Did he peruse the back—or perhaps it should be the front—of this one-page document and note that its price is 65p for one sheet of paper? Did the noble Lord give any indication to the committee as to the total charge to the House for the supply of such documents that come into the Printed Paper Office? Will the noble Lord cause some research to be made on the quite exorbitant price of such ridiculously short documents?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am always willing to look into matters raised by any of your Lordships. However. I should point out that, although the document consists of only one page, it is printed on both sides. If I may say so with respect, the value of the contents, coming as they do from so many of your Lordships, is immeasurable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
One of the most important responsibilities of any government is to ensure that their criminal justice system is fair, efficient and effective. It should be fair towards all those affected by it, whether as defendants or as victims and witnesses. It should be efficient in

463
focusing on the issues that really matter at trial, and it should be effective in ensuring that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty are convicted.
The Bill now before your Lordships is intended to meet those aims. It is an important piece of legislation which tackles one of the most pressing and difficult problems in our criminal justice system and which makes a number of other improvements to the procedures by which the system operates. It implements proposals made in three consultation papers which the Government issued earlier this year. More generally, it represents the Government's response to a number of matters raised by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in its report in 1993.
The main purpose of the Bill is to reform the law on prosecution and defence disclosure.
It may help your Lordships if I say a little about the history of the matter. The current disclosure requirements, which derive from the common law, reflect the decisions of the courts in a series of cases over the past five years or so. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, explained a week ago during the debate on the Address, the context of the current arrangements is a series of high-profile miscarriage of justice cases in which convictions were overturned because of the non-disclosure of prosecution material which pointed away from the defendants. This reduced public confidence in the criminal justice system in general, and in the police and prosecuting authorities in particular, and it is understandable that the courts saw a need to extend the duties of disclosure owed by these authorities.
What has happened, however, is that these duties have been extended much further than anyone may have intended. The result is a system which not only protects the innocent but also makes it more difficult to convict the guilty. The current law requires the prosecutor to disclose to the accused anything which might possibly be relevant to an issue at the trial, whether or not it has any bearing on the defence which the accused relies on at trial. It is open to the accused, if he so wishes, to seek the disclosure of large volumes of material in an attempt at least to delay the onset of the trial, and if possible to uncover some sensitive material which the prosecutor cannot disclose and thereby cause the abandonment of the proceedings. And this is what has happened in practice. In short, the current disclosure regime is neither fair, nor efficient, nor effective.
This analysis represents not only the view of the Government. It represents also the view of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which was established on the day that the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions for murder of the Birmingham Six, with a remit to examine the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. The Royal Commission concluded that the disclosure regime needed reform. It recommended the creation of a statutory scheme for prosecution and defence .disclosure in stages, underpinned by subordinate legislation or a code of practice. The Government agree with that general approach. But our detailed proposals differ from the Royal Commission in two important respects. First, the test for prosecution disclosure recommended by the Royal Commission was
464
very wide-ranging. If anything, it would have imposed even more burdens on the prosecution than the current requirements. Our scheme focuses on the effect of unused material on the prosecution case and on the defence case when that is known. Secondly, its proposals would require only a general indication of the nature of the defence case and would not in practice contribute to narrowing the issues in dispute before the trial. Our scheme requires the defence to provide more detailed information so as to clarify in advance what is really at issue between the two parties.
Turning to the proposals, the disclosure scheme in Part I of the Bill would require the prosecutor to disclose to the accused unused material which the prosecutor thought might undermine the prosecution case. At the same time he would give the accused a schedule of unused material which was not sensitive. In response the accused would disclose the general nature of his case, the matters on which he took issue with the prosecution, and the reasons for that. Defence disclosure would be mandatory in the Crown Court, but voluntary in magistrates' courts, where most cases are straightforward. In response to defence disclosure, the prosecutor would disclose any additional unused material which might assist the defence that had been disclosed. If a dispute arose about whether there was any other material which might assist that defence, it would be resolved by the court. The Bill provides for the possibility of an inference being drawn if the accused does not comply with the defence disclosure requirements. As to sensitive material, the Bill retains the current procedure whereby the court rules on whether it is in the public interest to disclose such material. However, the prosecutor would not need to bring such material before the court unless he thought it undermined the prosecution case or unless it might reasonably assist the defence disclosed by the accused.
Part II requires the Home Secretary to prepare a code of practice for the actions of the police in relation to unused material for prosecution disclosure. It sets out the matters which may be included in the code of practice, including what material is to be preserved by the police. As now, the police would make the material available to the prosecutor, with whom decisions on disclosure would rest. Although the code of practice is for the police, others conducting criminal investigations would have to have regard to it. The Bill requires the Home Secretary to lay the code before Parliament before it comes into effect. Your Lordships will naturally be interested in the detailed contents of the code of practice. We intend to publish a draft of the code as soon as possible.
During the debate on the Address last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked me to explain how the provisions in the Bill differed from the proposals in the consultation paper which we issued in May. The Bill adopts the principles and framework set out in that document, but we have made some important changes on points of detail as a result of consultation. First, the consultation paper envisaged that the schedule of unused material should not be given to the defence. As a result of the representations we received, we are now persuaded that it should be given to the defence. If

465
the prosecution has material which tends to prove the innocence of the accused, it is essential for the defence to be aware of it. The defence may be better able to appreciate the significance of a seemingly insignificant item on the schedule. Passing on the schedule is accordingly a safeguard against inadvertent non-disclosure. However, we are concerned to ensure that the provision of the schedule is not abused by defendants who know themselves to be guilty and who are looking for material from which to construct a defence. The effect of the Bill is that the prosecutor will not be required to disclose material on the schedule until the accused has disclosed his defence, and has justified requests for material on the schedule by reference to that defence.
Secondly, the consultation paper proposed that defence disclosure should include in all cases the names and addresses of witnesses the accused intended to call. We now believe that this proposal would not offer sufficient benefits in practice. As a result, the Bill does not require the disclosure in advance of the names and addresses of defence witnesses, except where the defence is alibi, where it is already required in law. I should also make it clear that decisions on what is to be disclosed lie with the prosecutor under our scheme and not with the police, and that the prosecutor will have access to all the material obtained by the police during an investigation. This was always our intention, but it is true that some of those who responded drew a different conclusion from the consultation paper. In response to an undertaking I gave last week, I have placed in the Library of the House a list of the names of the persons and organisations who responded to the consultation paper.
We believe that this scheme will prove more effective in convicting the guilty. We also believe that it will not prejudice the acquittal of the innocent. This is a point which I know will be of interest to your Lordships. For the first time there will be a statutory duty to disclose unused material which the prosecutor believes may undermine his case. The accused will be able to gain access to material which assists the defence he has disclosed. Defence disclosure will focus the minds of the police and prosecution on unused material which might assist that defence. If such material exists, there will be a statutory duty—enforceable by the court—to disclose it. The Bill provides for a police officer to certify to the prosecutor that he has complied with his duties under the code of practice. Similarly, the prosecutor will be under a duty either to disclose material which meets the test for disclosure or else to certify that there is no such material. We believe that these safeguards will be sufficient to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial.
I turn now to the other provisions in the Bill. Parts III and IV make two important improvements to pre-trial procedures, giving effect to the proposals in the consultation paper on pre-trial hearings published by the Government in July. Part III enables a judge to order a preparatory hearing in a long or complex case if he thinks that substantial benefits may accrue. The preparatory hearing would be similar to those held in cases of serious or complex fraud. The main features of
466
the scheme are as follows. The judge may order either party to provide a statement of its case. He may exercise a range of powers to narrow the issues in dispute and to assist the jury's understanding of the case. For example, he may make a ruling on the admissibility of evidence or on any other point of law. Such rulings may be appealed against. There are sanctions if either side later departs from its case or fails to comply with a requirement imposed at the hearing.
Part IV creates a power for a judge to make a binding ruling on the admissibility of evidence or other point of law in any case at a pre-trial hearing. This power is distinct from anything that happens at a preparatory hearing under Part III. The judge may vary the ruling later if there is a change in the relevant circumstances. There is no appeal against the ruling. Taken together, these measures will encourage the better preparation of cases and the better conduct of the trial. Our aim is to make trials more efficient, and less stressful and time-consuming for jurors and witnesses.
Part V makes three minor but useful reforms to magistrates' courts procedures so as to make them more efficient. These take up certain recommendations of the review of magistrates' courts procedures in 1992.
Part V also provides for the accused to give an indication of plea before a decision is taken on whether a case which is triable either way is tried in a magistrates' court or in the Crown Court. This was one of the options in the consultation paper on mode of trial which the Government issued in July. Its effect will be to remove the present illogicality whereby defendants are committed for trial to the Crown Court, with the delay and extended anxiety for victims and witnesses which that can cause, when, given the opportunity, they would have been prepared to indicate their guilt at the magistrates' court. It will also enable magistrates to make their decisions on mode of trial in the full knowledge of how the defendant intends to plead. We believe that this change will be to the benefit of all concerned.
Part V also amends the law in respect of juveniles on remand awaiting summary trial or transfer. On their first and subsequent appearances they may be remanded in custody for up to eight days. However, frequent court appearances can be disruptive for young people and not in their best interests. On their first appearance the maximum remand period will remain eight days but the Bill provides that on subsequent appearances they may be remanded for up to 28 days, as with adults, rather than up to eight days as at present. The courts will remain free to set shorter remand periods than 28 days on subsequent appearances if they consider it desirable. Defendants will be free to make bail applications if circumstances change. We shall issue guidance to remind courts and local authorities of the need to consider the welfare of the child and to be alert to changes in circumstances that may justify an application for bail.
Part VI contains a number of miscellaneous and general provisions. First, it provides the possibility of a retrial of a case which resulted in an acquittal if the acquittal has been tainted by a conviction for interfering with witnesses or jurors in that case. The procedure is that the court where the interference conviction occurs

467
must certify that there is a real possibility that the original acquittal would not have happened but for the interference. It is then for the High Court to make an order quashing the acquittal so that a retrial can take place. The certifying court and the High Court would need to be satisfied that a retrial would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
The new procedure should discourage those who would seek to escape conviction by interfering with the administration of justice. It implements a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The Royal Commission was concerned about jury-nobbling at the original trial. The provision in the Bill goes wider and extends to cases where witnesses have been intimidated. This is because, since the Royal Commission reported, Parliament has created a new offence of witness intimidation in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Part VI also enables a judge to impose reporting restrictions on false or irrelevant allegations made in a speech in mitigation. This is intended as a measure of last resort to protect witnesses and victims from the publication of unfair and unsupported imputations on character which they are unable to challenge because of the privilege attaching to court proceedings. It should reduce the distress experienced by the victims of such allegations. This also implements a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.
Part VI also provides for custody time limits to operate up to the start of the trial proper, as was the intention of Parliament in making provision for them in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and not merely up to arraignment. It will ensure that the limits continue to operate effectively in cases where—as is now the usual practice—the defendant has been arraigned at a plea and directions hearing long before the start of the trial.
Most of the provisions of the Bill, including those on disclosure, apply also in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the law on disclosure is similar in most respects to that in England and Wales, and the difficulties to which the present arrangements may give rise are potentially at least as serious in Northern Ireland as elsewhere. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland accordingly issued a consultation paper in similar terms to the one issued by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and he has concluded that the scheme embodied in the Bill is well suited to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Schedule 1 of the Bill contains a number of modifications necessary to tailor the provisions of the Bill to the legal context of Northern Ireland.
There is much in the Bill to occupy the time of this House in the coming months. It is right that I should give notice at this stage that the Bill now before your Lordships does not contain all the material which the Government would like it to contain. Apart from any minor and technical amendments which may be necessary, we intend to table amendments while the Bill is before this House on the following subjects.
First, the work we have done in preparing to implement the transfer for trial provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has
468
identified some areas where legislation would be helpful in improving the efficiency and clarity of the new procedures. The Bill offers an opportunity to make those improvements.
Secondly, although the Bill provides for binding rulings before the trial on points of law, it does not provide for such rulings in respect of applications for children to give evidence by way of a live television link or by means of a video recording. It often happens at present that child witnesses are led to believe that they will be able to give evidence in one of these ways only to find on the day of trial that they must appear in the courtroom itself. That is distressing for the child. It would be better if such applications could be resolved in a binding way before the trial so that the child and those concerned with the child's welfare know what to expect, and we are currently considering how that might be achieved.
Thirdly, the Bill at present contains no provisions on the difficult subject of the disclosure of material held by third parties, for example, local authority social services departments. We invited views on this in the consultation paper on disclosure. That exercise confirmed the scale of the problem, but unfortunately no ready-made solution emerged. But the problem needs to be addressed and we aim to bring proposals before your Lordships in the Bill as soon as we can.
In respect of all the amendments we have in mind, I hope that we shall be able to table them in good time to allow your Lordships to consider them properly before they are debated.
I have tried to give as full a picture as I can of the provisions of the Bill. As I said, it is an important measure which is intended to make our criminal justice system fairer, more efficient and more effective. I commend the Bill to the House, and I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say about it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this complex Bill. Our starting point in the consideration of the Bill is the same as that of the Government. We believe that the presumption of innocence is fundamental to our system of justice and that, subject to that principle, our criminal law system must ensure as far as possible that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are not. That means that there must be a proper balance between the rights and responsibilities of the prosecution and the defence—the "equality of arms" enshrined in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It means that we support the principle of the Bill in introducing a statutory framework for disclosure of information both by the prosecution and the defence. It was after all a Labour Government who passed the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which first required disclosure by the defence, including the names and addresses of witnesses, when the defence is an alibi.

469
It is common ground between us that there have been too many cases like the Guildford Four and that of Judith Ward where verdicts were unsafe because the prosecution or the police had concealed relevant evidence, but also where defence lawyers demanded unreasonable amounts of documentation without disclosing the line the defence was going to take. It was in response to those miscarriages of justice that the Government set up the Royal Commission headed by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. The Royal Commission proposed the regime of primary prosecution disclosure, defence disclosure and secondary prosecution disclosure which forms the basis of the Bill. We support those proposals and any reforms which, in the words of the policy statement on crime agreed at the Labour Party conference this year produce,
"a fast, fair and firm criminal justice system".
The Minister gave some of the history of the changes in law and practice over recent years. She described properly the miscarriages of justice which led to the setting up of the Royal Commission. She described the subsequent judicial rulings which led to an extension of the requirement on the prosecution to disclose documents relevant to the defence.
The Minister said a little, not much, about the consultation paper issued in May this year and referred to the changes that have taken place as a result of the consultation in the period between the consultation paper and the Bill. I am grateful to her, first, for correcting some of the statements that I made in the debate on the Queen's Speech last Monday. They were based on a very hasty reading of the Bill and a much less hasty reading of the consultation paper. I am grateful that the Minister has now made clear the important respects in which the Bill is different from, and I believe better than, the original consultation paper. But your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber and much requires to be done in the detailed consideration of the Bill. The fact that my speech will consist largely of criticisms of the detail does not in any way detract from our support for the principle of the statutory framework which underlies the Bill.
Our first problem with the Bill is that it is in the wrong order. Part II of the Bill is about criminal investigations, and Part I, which is concerned only with the conduct of the case after a plea has been made, is in a sense dependent on what happens in Part H. Part I sets out in great detail—some might say too much detail—the toing and froing of information between prosecution and defence. However, Part II—it is, after all, the basis on which a decision has to be taken on prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed—relies almost entirely on a code of practice which we have not seen. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that we shall see the code of practice as soon as possible. However, I have to repeat what I said to her in a letter last week. We cannot seriously consider Part II of the Bill, and therefore much of Part I of the Bill, unless we have seen a draft code of practice because we cannot know what will be in it. Our duties as a revising Chamber will be severely restricted unless the code of practice is available in good time before the Committee
470
stage. By "good time" I suggest at least 10 days to enable us to put down considered amendments to that part of the Bill.
In Part II, Clause 16(1)(a) provides, as the Minister rightly said, for full disclosure of material obtained by the police to the prosecution. Clause 16(1)(e) provides for a written compliance statement. However, the remainder of Clause 16, and Clause 17, provide, as so often in this legislation, for different cases to be treated in different ways and by different dates. In other words, there is a great deal of flexibility for the Secretary of State to make the code of practice provide what he wants.
We welcome the statement in Clause 18 that the code of practice will be laid in draft before Parliament. However, we shall require a great deal of detail about the code of practice. We shall need to know whether it includes a signed schedule of the information contained. We shall need to know whether it is, and in what sense it is, a duty to produce the material by those responsible, and what sanctions are proposed in cases of non-compliance. We cannot consider Part I or Part II properly without sight of that material.
Having said that, I return to the more explicit provisions in Part I of the Bill. The most important provision lies in Clause 3(1)(a) which refers to,
"any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed"—
that is the reference to Part II—
"and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution".
That is a critical phrase in our consideration of the Bill. It appears to us, the Law Society, the Bar Council, Liberty and Justice that that provides too much possibility for the prosecution to exercise varying judgment, and judgment which might be too restrictive as regards what should be disclosed to the defence. We do not believe that that phrase is compatible with the overriding obligation on the prosecution envisaged in the Royal Commission report. Although we accept that there must be, for reasons of practicality, some restriction on the sheer volume of documentation which is copied and passed to the defence, we do not believe that it is necessary for the provision to be restricted in that way. For example, it would be perfectly possible to restrict disclosure to inspection of documents rather than to large scale copying of documents.
This question remains in our minds. What is the prosecution material which has been disclosed to the defence before Clause 3 comes into effect; that is, after the plea? What is left? Surely, disclosure by the prosecution should be in the context of a proper statement of case by the prosecution, and the evidence which the prosecution will rely on. That is the basis of the preliminary hearings referred to in Part III of the Bill and should be included in Part I.
I come to the schedule of the material which is to be included with the primary prosecution material. In Clause 4(1)(a) the Bill only talks about a document indicating the nature of the material. The Minister, who was good enough to write to me in the course of the past week, used the word "schedule" as she did in her

471
speech this afternoon, referring to material listed in the schedule. That gives me some basis for hoping that the schedule will be consistent with the Royal Commission's finding that it should be possible from a detailed list of material for the defence to identify those documents which will be helpful in the preparation of the defence case. It follows that after defence disclosure it will be able to obtain such material.
I turn to the question of defence disclosure. We accept the first part of the Bill which states that it shall be a general statement of the line of the defence. However, we start to worry when we see phrases like,
"the matters on which [the defence] takes issue with the prosecution",
and the reasons for taking issue with the prosecution. That again goes a good deal beyond the Royal Commission's recommendations and seems to conflict with the provisions in Part III that there should be a preliminary statement of the case for the prosecution. After all, without a preliminary statement of the case and the evidence relied on, how can the defence actually know on what matters it takes issue with the prosecution?
We see no provision in Part I for what we believe to be necessary; that is, the possibility of some supplementary defence statement which is based on fresh information which would therefore trigger further prosecution disclosure. There appears to be good provision for a continuing review of prosecution disclosure in the Bill, for which we are grateful. But it should apply to defence disclosure as well. There are matters like the definition of "public interest" and the question of the interception of communications which will probably require further consideration in Committee and the later stages. However, we do not need to go into such matters in detail at Second Reading.
I move on to Part III of the Bill. We broadly agree with the proposals for preparatory hearings. We agree that it is right that there should be a prosecution case as set out in Clause 24(5) and a responding defence case as set out in Clause 24(6). We believe that that is a better procedure than requiring the defence to present a complete alternative case, as appears to be implied in other parts of the Bill. However, to be effective the preliminary or preparatory hearings would require continuity of counsel, including senior counsel. There must be sanctions to ensure that senior counsel who will run the case are available for the hearings. There must also be continuity of the judge. The whole of Part III refers to "a judge of the Crown Court", but there is no implication that it will be required that the same judge conducts the trial. Common sense dictates that that should be the case, but I do not see it in the Bill. I should like to see it made clearer either in the Bill or in ministerial statements.
Part IV refers to rulings at pre-trial hearings on the admissibility of evidence and other questions of law. We welcome those provisions. As the Minister said, Part V refers to some of the conclusions of the 1992 review of magistrates' courts procedure and magistrates' court warrants and an early plea on either way offences. I wish to draw those matters together to some extent by saying that surely it must be an objective of all parts of
472
the Bill that there should be encouragement and reward for early pleas of guilty if they can be obtained. That must be to the benefit of a fast and efficient criminal justice system. We see it in Part V of the Bill but I am not yet convinced that with all those provisions for disclosure after plea it appears adequately in other parts of the Bill.
We welcome the proposals in Clause 36 for more flexible treatment of appearances on remand by juveniles. In Part VI of the Bill we welcome the references to tainted acquittals, jury nobbling and the implementation of the Royal Commission recommendations on reporting of allegations.
There is a great deal of the Bill with which we agree, and our amendments will be constructive. They will not be wrecking amendments. However, there are still matters, particularly on disclosure, on which we need a great deal of further thought. We need the kind of constructive interchange between the Government, Opposition and other Members of the House which has so often been a feature of the attitude of the present Minister to legislation.
In closing, I refer again to the three major issues. The first is the principle of defence access to all the relevant material obtained from the police by the prosecution. It is welcome that the police should have to reveal everything to the Crown Prosecution Service but the scope given to the prosecution to pick and choose what goes to the defence requires further consideration and may well be too wide.
As regards defence disclosure, it does not seem realistic, in the nature of what the defence has already learnt about the prosecution, for the requirement on matters on which the defence takes issue with the prosecution to be spelt out as it is in the Bill. I conclude where I began with the code of practice. Unless we know what the code contains, we are not adequately able to consider Part II and therefore Part I of the Bill. It is vital that the Minister should pull out every stop to make the code of practice available to us in time for us to consider it so that we may have a constructive and helpful Committee stage and further stages of the Bill.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill in her admirable and practical way, making it look like a piece of prudent housekeeping, dealing essentially with technical matters to ensure, as she put it,
"that [the law] is fair, efficient and effective".
That was the style of the disclosure consultation document. Paragraph 10 describes the current position as placing,
"heavy burdens on the investigating and prosecuting authorities, with results which may not be in the interests of justice".
Turning to the Government's approach to the problem, the document said that significant reforms were needed,
"in order to achieve a proper balance in the interests of justice".
The document dwelt on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, though proposing to depart significantly from them.

473
I hope that I shall not distress the Minister by saying that that was not the mood and style of Blackpool, when the Bill was foreshadowed. There was no talk at that time at the seaside from the Home Secretary about "heavy burdens" or "balance", about guidelines or Royal Commissions. It was the usual rhetoric of such occasions:
"Too many guilty men still walk free from our Courts ... we must stop it … It's time to even up the scales of justice".
In the context of the Home Secretary's Blackpool speech, the Bill could be regarded less as a piece of prudent housekeeping, as the Minister sought to demonstrate it to be, than part of a personal manifesto on which the Home Secretary is always campaigning. That is one reason we must approach it carefully, despite the entirely reasonable way in which the Minister has presented it to the House today.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the joint statement issued earlier today by the Bar Council, Justice, the Law Society and Liberty. I do not believe that they are always in agreement, but they appear to be on the Bill. The view of the four bodies is well summed up by the remarks of the chairman of the Bar Council when he said of the proposals on disclosure:
"These proposals tip the scales of justice too far".
He meant by that, too far in favour of the prosecution and against the defence. We should heed his words. I want to comment further on them when I return later to the central matter of the Bill and our discussion today.
If I may break the sequence for a moment, I am sure the Minister is already aware of anxieties expressed by the BMA about Clauses 16 to 19 of the Bill. It is concerned about the need to keep a balance between the duty of a police surgeon—which is the duty of every doctor to a patient—and his duty to the police. The traditional practice has been for the police surgeon to provide a statement to the police giving only forensic evidence. However, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have recently been requiring a further disclosure that conflicts with the rules of the General Medical Council.
I do not ask for a detailed statement from the Minister today. However, I ask her first: do the provisions of the Bill embody in statute a new procedure of the kind that the BMA fears? If the answer is yes, however wrapped around with safeguards it may be, will she have urgent discussions with the BMA to find an acceptable resolution of this matter? Those of us who have no experience of the courts, and I am among them, may occasionally watch "Dangerfield". I should not like to add this legislation to the problems of that admirable and rather tortured character that we enjoy when watching television.
I turn for a moment to Part VI of the Bill. The purposes of Clauses 38 to 41 seem entirely reasonable. However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, how many cases have there been—within a convenient period—when a person has been convicted of interfering with or intimidating jurors or witnesses in the circumstances described here? In other words, how many people are likely to be tried again for an offence
474
having once been acquitted? Secondly, is the Minister sure that judges sitting in the High Court will be in a position to decide whether,
"there is a real possibility that, but for the interference or intimidation, the acquitted person would not have been acquitted"?
Will they be able to decide that when they have not been involved in the original trial and cannot be sure what view the jury would have taken? Perhaps in reply to those two questions, the Minister will also be kind enough to explain the weight of Clause 38(5), which appears to give the High Court a wide discretion not to take proceedings. The subsection refers to,
"lapse of time or for any other reason".
Clause 39(2) does precisely the same. Can the Minister give the House an example of "any other reason" that would apply in this case?
Clause 42, again, on the face of it contains some very reasonable provisions on reporting restrictions. We shall want to examine them very carefully in Committee. Perhaps, however, the Minister will help the House today by confirming that the provisions of this clause and the two subsequent clauses cover all media. Subsection (4)(a) mentions "a written publication" and subsection (4)(b) "a relevant programme". These are defined in subsection (7). Is this a catch-all provision despite the qualifying phrase, "in permanent form"? To repeat my question: are all media affected?
As this is Second Reading, perhaps I might mention a broader question. The Minister referred to three further major items that she hopes will be included in the Bill by amendment at a later stage. Normally, noble Lords take the view that major amendments of this kind made to a Bill after Second Reading are not desirable. However, I accept entirely the Minister's remarks about the importance of these issues, and I assume that they could not be ready for inclusion in the Bill.
If I allow the Minister that discretion, perhaps she will allow me this on my part. I want to raise the question of the recent proceedings at Winchester Crown Court and the widespread concern expressed by, among others, the Attorney General about large sums of money paid to witnesses by newspapers during the West trial. My instinct is that it would be very difficult to legislate directly on newspapers, as that would be seen as interfering with the freedom of the press. But I wonder whether this Bill might be the place to include some time-limited restriction on the entitlement of witnesses in a criminal case to sell their story under contract. I simply ask the Minister to think about this matter and to take what advice she chooses. I reach no conclusion of my own. This is an issue of great concern at the present time. This Bill might enable the Government, either in this Chamber or in the other place, to go some way to meeting what I believe is strong public feeling on the matter.
I return to Parts I and II of the Bill. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the code of practice. It is essential that this House should be able to examine it along with the relevant parts of the Bill. The code will of course be laid before Parliament before Part II is brought into operation, but we need a draft now, if only to satisfy ourselves that nothing it might contain

475
should be incorporated on the face of the Bill. The parliamentary draftsman could hardly have done his work on the Bill properly without a clear brief from officials about the content of the code. That could have been available to the House today, if only in draft form. I am asking for a little disclosure on the part of the Minister so that we may discuss it before Committee stage. Indeed, I take the view that if it cannot be available in the next three weeks, which I understand to be the time between now and consideration in Committee, there is a very strong case for postponing the Committee stage altogether until after the Christmas Recess.
I return briefly to the question of disclosure. To anyone who is not a lawyer or has direct experience of the courts in another capacity, the fine distinctions of this part of the Bill dealing with disclosure are not always easy to follow. The Minister did her best today, and I am most grateful to her for the way in which she described the manner in which the Bill differs from the consultation document. But perhaps I may make a suggestion. If she feels that there would still be time to act upon it, it would be very helpful to this House, particularly in Committee, to have a written comparative analysis in tabular form of the relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission, the proposals in the consultation document and the provisions of the Bill. Then, with some helpful footnotes, we should be able to contrast and compare them. In that way we might save time in Committee, and the Minister's time as well.
On the central issue, my simple lay view—naïve though I suppose it must be—is that all evidence should he equally available to the prosecution and the defence. Any departure from that principle needs to be explained and justified. In practice, I agree that it is a matter of proper balance and is very difficult to get right. I was impressed by the three cases set out in paragraph 15 of the consultation document in which prosecutions were abandoned. The first was in a Thames Valley Crown Court. It is repeated in a useful and fair-minded note which some of us received from the chief constable of the Thames Valley Police. I certainly fully understand the frustration of the police when they are obliged to abandon what seems like a water-tight case as a result of what they believe to be the likely consequences of disclosure.
On the other hand there is a tendency, one which I felt even in the consultation document, to treat defence lawyers as tricky operators pushing the system to the limit, while prosecuting lawyers are always shining lights showing proper professional restraint. I understand that defence lawyers are associated with "ambushes" and "fishing expeditions" that wrongfoot the prosecution. They do not quite play the game.
However, the research study of Michael Zander and P. Henderson for the Royal Commission shows that what I believe were last-minute defences were raised in only seven to 10 of Crown Court cases. Roger Leng's research study for the Royal Commission put such ambushes as low as 2.5 per cent. of trials, although this did not prevent conviction. Professor Zander was a member of the Royal Commission and signed its report. However, in a note of dissent on some of its recommendations he said the following:
476
"The fundamental issue at stake is that the burden of proof lies throughout on the prosecution. Defence disclosure is designed to be helpful to the prosecution and, more generally, to the system. But it is not the job of the defendant to be helpful either to the prosecution or to the system. His task, if he chooses to put the prosecution to proof, is simply to defend himself."
I find it difficult to dissent from Professor Zander's view.
To summarise the position, on the one hand one needs to take account of the frustrations of the police in their proper pursuit of the criminal and their wish to bring him to justice and, on the other hand, to acknowledge Professor Zander's point of principle. The Bill must endeavour to square that circle in all its parts.
In the course of the debate on the Address I made reference to paragraph 23 of the consultation document which appeared to reject the Royal Commission's scheme. I do not believe that convincing reasons have been given for doing this; nor, with respect to the Minister, have they been given today. At best, the Bill represents only a partial retreat from the consultation document of the kind that Ministers have described. I will be most interested to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, has to say on this precise point.
From these Benches, we shall certainly approach the Bill in a constructive and not adversarial way and will consider carefully all that the Minister has to say. The Government have accepted the Royal Commission's case whereby the principles governing disclosure should be set out in primary legislation. We also accept it. But the principles must be the right ones, and it is for the Minister to satisfy your Lordships that they are.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, on this occasion I am pleased to say that I welcome in principle the proposals that the Government have brought forward in the Bill. I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for his courtesy in having advised me beforehand of its likely contents. The Bill continues the work that was begun in 1991 with the appointment of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford. For example, the provisions that deal with disclosure, preparatory hearings, tainted acquittals and reporting restrictions on speeches in mitigation all derive, with modifications, from recommendations made in the Royal Commission's report. I believe that with this Bill the legislation required to implement the report will be very nearly complete. As I said when your Lordships debated the Royal Commission's report in 1993, it carefully balanced the interests of the state and the suspect, and its proposals needed to be seen as an entire package. I am glad that the package is to be completed. Once more, I pay tribute to the work carried out by the noble Viscount and his fellow commissioners.
The Bill's origins in the Royal Commission's report will not, I am sure, exempt it from very careful scrutiny in this House both in Committee and at later legislative stages. I do not have time today to discuss every part of the Bill. I should, however, like to say something about its major provisions. The arrangements for disclosure in Parts I and II account for nearly half the Bill. They will

477
probably prove to be the most important, as well as potentially the most controversial, of the Bill's provisions. Whatever controversy there may be about these clauses, I believe that all of your Lordships can endorse the wisdom of clarifying by statute what has become a complex and, in a number of respects, unsatisfactory area of the law. Despite the concerns of distinguished commentators, including Professor Zander who was a member of the Commission, I support the principle of reciprocal disclosure by both prosecution and defence, as recommended by the majority of the Royal Commission.
I am also pleased to note that, having consulted on these proposals, the Government have listened to the views expressed and modified their approach in important respects. For example, the Bill will require the prosecution to provide the defence with a schedule of unused evidence and will not, as initially proposed, require the defence to provide the names and addresses of all the witnesses it may wish to call.
We should be clear about the purpose of the requirement for reciprocal disclosure. It is not, as has been suggested, to make it easier for the prosecution to secure convictions. It is not to put either the defence or prosecution at a disadvantage. It is to benefit both sides and the court by the early identification of the issues, thus enhancing the efficiency of the trial process in serving the interests of justice. It must also be said that it will save expense. It is for this reason that we have long required defendants to provide advance disclosure of proposed alibi defences. Defence disclosure should assist in weeding out cases which should never come to trial because the defendant has a good answer to the charges against him. In precisely the same way, it is of benefit to defendants to have genuine alibis confirmed by the police at as early a stage as possible.
But, equally, defendants who are guilty should not be acquitted because of ambush defences—a phrase that has already been used—which cannot be properly tested or refuted in court. It is not an injustice to deprive guilty defendants of the opportunity to do this. Nor should defendants be able to make unreasonable demands for police or prosecution disclosure as a tactical ploy, or to make fishing expeditions—a phrase that has also been used this afternoon—in the hope of fastening upon a red herring or turning up a technical flaw in the prosecution case.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has used the phrases "ambush defence" and "fishing expeditions". He has suggested that they are spectres which are overplayed by those who find it necessary to redress the balance more in favour of the prosecution than at present. I assure the noble Lord that traditionally there has been a difference in approach between the duties of prosecuting counsel and defending counsel. The duty of prosecuting counsel has always been simply to lay the facts before the court, not to seek too officiously to press the case. A phrase well-known at the Bar is "the prosecution wins no victories, suffers no defeats". But defending counsel has a duty to his client, whose liberty may be at stake, to do everything that he properly can within the law and the rules of his
478
profession to secure an acquittal in any way that is open to him on the evidence, or lack of it, in the case. There is a difference of approach. Ambush defence and fishing expeditions, if they are within the law, are ploys that defence lawyers can and have adopted. It may be thought that the time to restrict the extent to which that can be done has arrived.
One gap in the Bill is that at present it does not cover so-called third party disclosure. This has become increasingly important, for example, in child sex abuse cases, where potentially relevant material relating to the child may be held by a number of local authority social services departments. It is an area in which currently much time, effort and money is wasted by all those in the system. It needs urgent clarification. Therefore, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has indicated that clauses will be brought forward as the Bill progresses to deal with that matter.
I turn briefly to Parts III and IV which also follow recommendations by the Royal Commission. Particularly welcome is the introduction in Part IV of the power to make binding rulings at the pre-trial stage. At present the fact that rulings are binding only if made after the trial has formally commenced often means that juries have to be sworn in and then sent away again for long periods while the lawyers argue over issues which could better be resolved at a much earlier stage. It is right that we should be conscious of the burden that jury service imposes on the citizen and I believe that we should try to minimise that burden wherever possible.
The lack of a power to make binding rulings at pre-trial hearings also means that, currently, if a ruling has been given before trial, it is possible to re-argue the same point before the trial judge. Of course, there are occasions when it is right to revisit previous rulings in that way—the circumstances of the case may have changed. The Bill rightly provides for that by allowing the parties to apply for the discharge or variation of a binding ruling, if there has been a material change of circumstances; and by providing that a judge may also discharge or vary such a ruling of his own motion, if it appears to him in the interests of justice to do so. The power to make binding rulings may well reduce the demand for the full preparatory hearings allowed for in Part III. Such hearings certainly have their place, both in serious fraud trials and in other exceptionally long or complex cases; but I do not expect their use to become widespread and hope that that is not the intention.
Perhaps I may respond briefly to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the judge giving the pre-trial ruling should always he the trial judge. Desirable though that might be in an ideal world, it is severely impractical in the management of the courts because one would be tying down judges to individual cases all over the country and it would make the listing of cases almost impossible. Clearly, there are important, complex cases—serious fraud cases and others—where it is right that the judge who deals with the preparatory rulings should be the trial judge. Indeed, that has been the case already in a number of major trials. But we have to find some way of making pre-trial rulings binding even where there is a change of judge, subject to the possibility of review to which I referred.

479
The only other provisions that I shall mention are those in Part VI which deal with what the Bill calls "tainted acquittals". I believe that your Lordships will want to examine particularly carefully those proposals, which again follow recommendations of the Royal Commission. We must be vigilant to respect the rule against double jeopardy, which is a most important safeguard against oppressive prosecutions. However, having said that, I take the view that it cannot be right, when a person has been proved to have been acquitted through interference with jurors or witnesses, that he should then be able to laugh at the law, knowing that he cannot be retried for his original offence. That is simply to reward jury-nobbling. In such circumstances the defendant was not, in the full sense, in jeopardy at his first trial. Therefore, it is right that there should be the possibility of a retrial to remedy matters. That is already the law in circumstances where, for example, a defendant is acquitted after a trial on a defective indictment and so was not truly in jeopardy.
There will need to be very rigorous safeguards against any misuse of the power to order retrials of those who have been acquitted and the House will wish to be certain that those in Part VI are sufficient. Subject to that caveat, however, I believe that these provisions should provide a valuable disincentive to jury-nobbling and should help to ensure that the criminal justice system achieves its aim, which is to do justice both by acquitting the innocent and by convicting the guilty.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, it will be an anticlimax for your Lordships to listen to me, more especially as it is many years since I tried the last of about 200 cases of trial by jury at the lower level of recorder, deputy chairman of quarter sessions and, indeed—until I was disqualified by an Act passed in another place—as a relief judge at the Old Bailey. I am sure that what your Lordships have heard from the noble and learned Lord will be very reassuring as regards the contents of the Bill. The Government have taken an immense amount of trouble over it. As we heard, its proposals are based on recommendations of a Royal Commission, a consultation paper and the review of magistrates' courts' procedure.
I welcome the Bill in substance but must say that, although the drafting seems to achieve its intended legal effects, it is a little spun out and laborious. I am quite sure that it could have been drafted more succinctly.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made a good point when he accused the Government of putting the cart before the horse. Investigation is so fundamental to what follows that we should perhaps consider Part II first; then Part I; with Part III following naturally from Part I.
With regard to Part I, we should rejoice in the fact that it will rationalise pre-trial disclosure of evidence. There is no doubt that it will have the advantage of shortening many criminal trials and it may reduce the cost of cases, both for the prosecution and the defence. It might also have some marginal beneficial effect on
480
the overall cost of legal aid. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord's remarks on notice of alibis. It is right that they should be given sooner and with more particulars.
As for Part II, as has been said, it is vital that we should have the code of practice before the start of the Committee stage. I do not believe that that would be difficult for the Government to do. I hope that they will do it.
Part III also will have the effect of shortening many criminal trials. Clause 28 deals with reporting restrictions and will help, to some extent, to reduce trial by media. Clauses 26 and 27 are very important. They will enable points of law or of admissibility of evidence to be dealt with finally before the trial by jury begins, even when appealed. At first sight it might seem to postpone the ultimate result—the conviction or acquittal of the accused—but so long as interim appeals are disposed of quickly, there should not be much delay.
I suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice administratively will have a great responsibility for ensuring that these new types of appeal are dealt with as quickly as possible and are given priority over what one might call "the run of the mill appeals". I am sure that he will be conscious of the responsibility that he will have to exercise in that particular matter. It is an administrative matter and cannot be written into the Bill.
Turning to Part V, having piloted through another place the first of the attachment of earnings Acts in 1958, I should remind your Lordships that that legislation was strongly opposed. But long experience of that system since then has shown that it was fully justified. Admittedly, it applied to attachment of earnings in matrimonial cases and not in criminal cases, but over the years we have developed the system and it has not led to hardship or injustice. Indeed, I am glad to see that further consideration is given to it in the Bill by giving the court power to make an order, even though there has been no application made for an order.
We have had many criminal justice and criminal procedure Acts in the 50 years since the war and every one of them was based on experience in the courts in the few years prior to the Act. It is an interesting reflection that nearly all the developments contained in that legislation worked well; they have been justified and have .not had to be much repealed. How is it then that we have to continue introducing such legislation? Sometimes it is due to scientific matters, as we found a few years ago when we were discussing the possibility of recording evidence before trial, and sometimes it is due to the ever-increasing ingenuity of our profession at finding ways of helping accused people to overcome the rules of justice. I am convinced that this Act will be just as successful as the others that have been passed over the years.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I speak on this Bill at Second Reading from the Back Benches and as a full-time practising member of the criminal Bar. To my knowledge I have been directly involved in two criminal

481
trials which resulted in wrongful convictions because material which was known to the investigators was not disclosed to the defence at the time of trial. In one case a 12-year sentence was served before the material came to light and the sentence was, somewhat academically, quashed. In another case a year of a life sentence was served by a 17 year-old before the wrong was corrected.
I used the words "to my knowledge" because miscarriages of justice which result from non-disclosure remain undetected and therefore uncorrected if the material never comes to light, which I suspect is the case in many instances. Because the names and the faces of the people involved in those two cases, and the memory of how they reacted when they were sentenced for crimes which they had not committed, will always remain with me, it is difficult for me to be as dispassionate about Parts I and II of the Bill as some noble Lords who have already spoken. However, I shall try to be so and also try to be constructive in what I say.
To steady myself, first, I warmly welcome a number of provisions in the Bill. The first, in Part III, are the provisions for the extension of preparatory hearings. A pre-trial review (or PDH as we call it at the Bar, a practice direction hearing) is already commonplace in many of the less major cases today. Preliminary, or preparatory, hearings, have proved valuable in long, complex fraud trials and though, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice indicated, I suspect this provision will not be used extensively, it is useful for a trial judge to have as an option.
The second matter I wish to support has already been mentioned, again by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice; that is, the provision of allowing a judge to make a ruling before trial on matters of law, including matters relating to the admissibility of evidence. The absurdity of the present situation can perhaps be illustrated by my indicating a matter in which I was concerned earlier this year. Legal argument in relation to admissibility which had to take place at the outset lasted over a week. The jury had to be sworn and sent away to come back after a week to start the trial. The jury required to be protected and therefore teams of police officers had to be arranged to protect them from the moment they were sworn for the whole of the week. I do not know how many officers and police hours were taken up with that duty before the jury knew anything about the case. This provision will prevent that happening in the future.
Perhaps I may mention Part V. Though I readily appreciate that there are good reasons for magistrates inquiring of a defendant whether or not he proposes to plead guilty before it is decided whether or not his trial is to be summary, I should like reassurance from the Minister when she replies that that step will only be used in cases where a defendant both consents and is represented. I say that because a defendant knows well that if he is sent for trial at the higher court he faces possibly a longer prison sentence, the maximum being higher before the Crown Court. If the defendant is asked at the outset whether or not he will plead guilty before
482
that decision is taken, I am afraid that will entail some pressure being brought to bear on him to plead guilty when he may not otherwise do so.
I welcome also two other matters in Part VI. The first is the "jury nobbling" provision. It may be anecdotal, but one hears of instances where it has occurred. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked, and I too should like to know, how many cases we are talking of in that regard. I echo too what was said by the Lord Chief Justice, that Clause 39 of that part of the Bill provides certain safeguards and reduces the instances in which such a prosecution can be mounted. But I am concerned that those safeguards should be strengthened in order to meet the double jeopardy danger.
In relation to reporting restrictions, I welcome Clause 42 of Part VI. It is wholly wrong that someone should be able to use the cloak of protection provided by the court against defamation proceedings to make unjustified derogatory attacks on the character of somebody else in mitigation when those have not been part and parcel of the trial. The general principles and the safeguards for that part of the Bill have my support.
I turn to Parts I and II dealing with disclosure. I hope that the words "as soon as possible" which the Minister used will enable us to have an opportunity to see that code before the Committee stage of these proceedings. I venture to suggest that it would have been more helpful for a draft code of practice to have been released at the same time as the consultation document. Perhaps matters are improving slightly because I recall a criminal justice Bill before this House after I came into this place when the code of practice was not published until after the Bill had left this House. It is simply not good enough for codes of practice, which are an integral part of Bills, to be produced only at a late stage or not at all in these proceedings. I hope that when they are available the codes of practice will go some way towards dealing with the reservations which I am about to express. For the moment, at Second Reading, I shall do my best without them.
The Minister will be aware that reservations have been expressed about those parts of the Bill not only by organisations such as Justice, but also by those who practice in this field and will be dealing day to day with the legislation which this House is discussing. I refer to the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. I pause to point out that the briefing which I hope the Minister had an opportunity to read was contributed to by two of the most recent leading Treasury counsel at the Central Criminal Court; in other words, the primary prosecutors in this country. Their anxieties—I hope I express' them correctly—are these. Any system which places the burden on the prosecution to decide the relevance to the defence of unused material, without proper safeguards, is both wrong in principle and a heavy though not impossible burden on the prosecution in practice.
The Government decided for the first time in this Bill that there should be a statutory framework governing the principles of disclosure both by prosecution and defence. Opponents to that approach would argue that

483
prosecution disclosure is properly provided by the rules of common law; in other words, by the decisions of the courts. But the Government decided otherwise.
For the purposes of the Second Reading of this Bill I recognise that the Government have been under great pressure from the police, who felt that they were placed under great burdens, and also from the prosecuting authorities who have felt under great handicaps. Given that statutory provisions are to be made to apply, the aim of the Bill must now be to ensure that those provisions see that, so far as humans can, justice is done to both sides at the subsequent trial. The provisions have to ensure not just that those who are not guilty of crime shall have access to all the material which they need both to challenge the prosecution's case and to present their own defence, but also that those who are guilty of crime shall not be able to take advantage of what I shall call procedural trickery in order to avoid conviction. In order to achieve both those principles the Bill may well need some attention and some alteration.
Perhaps I may turn relatively briefly to defence disclosure. I welcome the principle that the defence should disclose the outline of its case to the Crown once the defence knows the detail of the case it has 05 meet. First, it is likely to mean that cases are prepared better and earlier by the defence. Secondly, as has already been said by the Lord Chief Justice, it is not uncommon for openness to result in a prosecution being stopped or dropped by the Crown. Thirdly, clarification of the issues can and does sometimes lead to an additional or alternative charge being added so the case resolves into a plea of guilty rather than a contested trial. Fourthly, openness, I suppose, may prevent the defence from using an ambush defence where fabricated evidence cannot be investigated and exposed. I know that those kind of defences exist because the Home Secretary says that they do, but I am bound to say that in 30 years I have never come across one. Fishing expeditions have been referred to somewhat pejoratively, but if you have not committed a crime and you therefore know that someone else has, of course you want to look and see whether there is material which the Crown has which points the finger at who is responsible. What is the matter with that?
Fifthly, defence disclosure will enable the jury to see at the outset what the issues in a trial are and what the case is about and therefore enable them more readily to come to the correct verdict. I hope that it will also stop, or at least reduce, the undesirable practices of the newspapers reporting only the prosecution opening and then the final result, giving the public who hear nothing of the defence a false picture of an unjustified acquittal.
The reservations which I have about those parts of the Bill in relation to defence disclosure are shortly these. First, an outline of the defence case and a clarification of the issues are one thing; but Clause 5 (4)(c) in effect requires the defence to argue the case. That is a matter which must surely remain for cross-examination at trial.
Secondly, sanctions for non-compliance or for a change of tack must surely also apply equally to the defence and the prosecution, as they do in relation to preparatory hearings at present. But under the Bill as I
484
read it, the sanctions for a change of tack or a failure to disclose apply only to the defence. I have criticisms of timing too. Surely such disclosure is desirable at the earliest possible time, but that can only be after the defence knows what the Crown case is; in other words, after it has received a case summary or a case statement. Especially in the magistrates' court, where sometimes evidence may not be served on the defence at all, this is crucial. I should like to see the Bill incorporate some requirement that before the defence discloses it has such a statement.
Next, and lastly, there really must be provision for supplementary disclosure by the defence if fresh evidence comes to light. Surely the defence will not be effectively stopped from pursuing a new avenue, either as a result of disclosure or by other investigations of its own, if other matters come to light which change the approach it proposes to take at trial.
So far as concerns Crown disclosure, there are a number of matters which need to be scrutinised with great care and possibly amended. There must surely be a duty on the investigators, which for all practical purposes means the police officers investigating the crime, first, to record such evidence as they acquire; secondly, to ensure that all that material goes on to the prosecutor; and, thirdly, to ensure that that material is retained. Some of that will, I hope, be contained in the draft codes of practice, but there is one matter on which I would particularly seek reassurance from the Minister. It seems that at the stage of primary disclosure at the moment the Crown must show the defence material which in its view undermines its own case. I seek some reassurance that prosecuting counsel will retain a discretion, both at that stage and indeed at the later stage of secondary disclosure when he has received the defence statement, if he thinks fit, to say, "You may have access to all our material". That does not necessarily mean copying thousands of pages of documents; it may simply mean, "You may come to the police station, be shown the material, and an officer will provide, if need be, copies of those which are of relevance". If that does not happen, if the Crown Prosecution Service or, indeed, prosecuting counsel has to trawl through hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of pages of documents at the first stage and then again later after defence disclosure has occurred, in cases where the view is taken that no disclosure to either side will cause inconvenience or embarrassment, that surely must be a retrograde step. I would ask for an assurance from the Minister that prosecuting counsel will retain a discretion to take that course in an appropriate case.
I am very pleased to learn that a detailed schedule is likely to be given to the defence. Indeed, it must be, because a schedule which does not enable the defence to know what material the Crown holds, with sufficient particularity for it then to ask for items from it, is worthless and meaningless. I am concerned about the provisions in relation to timing. Surely disclosure must take place as soon as possible after charge, and not, as the Bill appears to envisage, after plea. If it is not to be given until after the defendant has pleaded, surely the intention, which I understand is to encourage early pleas of guilty where appropriate, will be thwarted.

485
In addition, it may be the case that in some instances people will plead guilty without having the opportunity for proper consideration of all the evidence.
Primary disclosure—this is not on the face of the Bill and it ought to be—must surely be accompanied by a case statement or a summary so that the defence understands precisely the way in which the case is to be put by the Crown. On subsequent disclosure, there are provisions in the Bill, for which I am grateful, for the matter to be continually reviewed by the Crown. But they must surely be duties which continue in accordance with continuing defence disclosure. In other words, just as the defence may need to put in a subsequent statement, so surely, if that happens, the duty of the Crown to disclose additional material must relate to the defence as it is currently disclosed and not simply to the original document served.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the proposals create a real difficulty for the Crown Prosecution Service or prosecuting counsel to sit down with a defence statement and, as I have indicated, perhaps many thousands of pages of documents. It is a terrible burden to require prosecuting counsel to try to identify and then to disclose to the defence those parts which are relevant to the defence. In many instances, how on earth is he to know? The provisions of the Bill provide in effect an opportunity for the unscrupulous prosecutor who wishes to conceal material—those, I trust, are very few; but, rather more frequently and rather more likely, for the inadvertent prosecutor to fail to disclose some vital material.
Of course, we have been told that there has been a great increase in the amount of time and money spent by police officers in dealing with disclosure. I am troubled that what appears to be the likely outcome of these provisions is that that burden, in terms of time and expense, too, will simply be transferred on, first to the Crown Prosecution Service and then to counsel. That will have adverse legal aid implications. I say that without, of course, taking into account what will necessarily be a costly increase in applications to the courts in relation to material which is not disclosed and which the defence wish to see. I add finally in relation to that matter that inevitably, when judges are looking at material and deciding whether or not it is relevant, there will be a wide variety of approach on the part of the judiciary, which in itself, in an area such as this, is undesirable.
Those who are directly concerned with this Bill have expressed concern about the workings of these parts. In another place the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, speaking on 21st November (Official Report, Commons, col. 551) said:
"That Bill will reduce the unnecessary burdens of the present arrangements, without denying defendants access to the material that they need".
That sounds good. If this Bill did that, it would have my wholehearted support in its present form. But those who are in practice and have to deal with it are not satisfied that the Bill in its present form does not present a real danger of taking a step back to the bad old days when important material did not reach the defence in time to
486
prevent a wrongful conviction. I hope that the Government will listen to those concerns and respond to those worries in the later stages of the Bill so that those who will have to operate this legislation can feel more at ease with it.
4.42 p.m.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to welcome this Bill, enshrining as it does so many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I say that both as regards the provisions about disclosure and also the proposed regime for pre-trial reviews of hearings and all the benefits in both efficiency and justice which I believe can, and now will, follow from them. I am also very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, for his generous remarks about the work of the commission.
As other speakers have said, the Bill is a considerable improvement in some respects on the consultation paper. Had some of the proposals which were in the consultation paper, but which are not in the Bill, remained in it, I would have been bound to say to your Lordships that I thought that neither the interests of justice nor of efficiency were being well served. But these changes are indeed very welcome.
In my view, and in the view of the overwhelming majority of the members of the commission, it is quite right that the obligation on the prosecution to disclose any material which might undermine its own case should be combined with a requirement on the defence—if the defence wishes to go through in detail material on which the prosecution does not intend to draw—to show the relevance of that material to the proposed defence and also for the court to be the ultimate arbiter in cases of dispute. I of course recognise that the commission was not unanimous on that point, but I should say that our academic member, Professor Michael Zander, whose contribution on very many points of both principle and detail was extremely valuable, was in this case not supported by the very experienced practitioner members of the commission, both of whom have long experience of defending people charged in some cases with quite serious criminal offences. They felt, as I did and do, that there is no compromise in these proposals with the principle of the burden and standard of proof in criminal cases. As I have said to your Lordships before in earlier debates on this subject, I do not believe that there is any controversy in principle here. We are all of one mind as to the objectives which we would like the criminal justice system to achieve. There is no party political element in it at all.
In voicing three reservations about the Bill as it stands, I hope that I and other speakers who clearly share some of these concerns, may be pushing at least a half-open door. The first of these reservations concerns the lack of effective sanctions on the investigating authority to disclose all the material in its possession. I was struck by the reminiscences of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and her direct experience of a case. There have been too many such cases, few though they may be, where someone has been wrongfully convicted

487
of a serious offence, which subsequently turns out to have been committed by someone else. It does immeasurable damage to public confidence in the criminal justice system when it turns out, as it has done in this small minority of cases, that police officers have withheld information which, had it been available at trial, would, almost without question, have led to the justified acquittal of the defendant at that stage. It is small consolation to such unjustly convicted defendants and their families that—it may be many years later when the evidence comes to light—the conviction is overturned by the Court of Appeal. As other speakers have said, it is a great pity that we do not have the code before us. I am sorry that we do not have the framework of the code on the face of the Bill, but no doubt those issues will be returned to at a later stage and there will be time for ample further debate.
My second reservation concerns what is referred to as the "schedule" or the document indicating the nature of any prosecution material which relates to the defence. What is important here, as I hope we can all agree, is that whether one calls it a schedule or what you will, the defence should be fully enabled to judge whether, among the material on which the Crown do not intend to rely, there could indeed be something which might show that the prosecution case was not as well founded as it appears. Where there is an enormous amount of material to which the defence would like to have access perhaps it is all the more important that it must be possible for there to be a full and detailed schedule which would disclose material which the prosecution would not otherwise make available.
My third reservation is on the point of timing on which, again, other noble Lords have touched. It is surely in the interests both of efficiency and justice that primary prosecution disclosure should take place as soon as possible after charge, together with a statement of the case. There is a real point of principle here: it is surely wrong for a defendant to be required to disclose even the outline of his or her defence without being entirely clear of the nature of the offence with which he or she is being charged. But quite apart from the point of principle, it also touches directly and practically on questions of efficiency. If we want, as the Minister has said is the Government's wish—and again I believe that this would be endorsed by all Members of the House—earlier pleas of guilty; earlier and therefore better, preparation of cases; earlier fixing of dates and, not least, as a consequence less strain on the victims and witnesses, that will be best achieved by the disclosure of the prosecution case immediately after charge.
There are other points which have been raised by other speakers, which I would endorse were I to speak longer. We shall need to revisit a number of the more detailed points that have been raised on Second Reading. I hope to take part in those discussions in Committee. The final point I make at this stage is wholeheartedly to endorse what the Minister said about the importance of restoring public confidence in the system. The Bill will, I think, do that if and where suitably amended. Once again let me say that I know that I am speaking on behalf of all my colleagues on the Royal Commission when I say that we welcome the Bill.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I, too, welcome the thrust of the Bill and do so with greater confidence because of the endorsement it has just received from the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. In my early days at the Bar, the suggestion of an elaborate statutory procedure to govern disclosure would have been viewed as slightly quaint. The instinct for fairness, and the ethos of the police, prosecution, solicitors and counsel were then the best safeguard of a fair trial. But times have moved on, and for reasons upon which your Lordships are unanimous it is now rightly thought that a statutory regime is appropriate.
The touchstone of any new system must still be the old and simple test: is it fair'? The aim of the Bill is fair. I have doubts in certain areas, but my overall comment reflects my faith in my noble friend the Minister's good intentions in bringing forward the Bill.
What do we mean by fairness? In my view, we do not mean setting up as many obstacles to conviction as possible. Fairness does not just mean fairness to the accused. There are other strong interests to be considered: the interests of victims, witnesses, juries and public confidence in our legal system. We have to devise and continue to evolve the best process we can that protects the innocent but enables the guilty to be convicted. I agree with those who have suggested that the procedure should be as efficient, focused and transparent as it can sensibly be made.
In approaching that task, there are certain immutable principles. Clearly, the burden of proof must remain firmly on the prosecution. We should always, too, weigh the scales if in doubt in favour of preventing wrongful conviction. For all that, there is absolutely no reason why a defendant against whom a case is properly advanced on cogent evidence should not co-operate in the trial process so that the true issues can be put before the jury as simply and clearly as possible. I have found it interesting in this debate that all the speakers so far have endorsed that approach.
I support the Bill with greater pleasure because I have not always thought that the Government went about dealing with the Royal Commission's recommendations in wholly the right way. I should have liked to see the recommendations introduced as a package and not piecemeal in separate legislation across three different Sessions. I disagreed strongly last year with the erosion, contrary to the Royal Commission's recommendation, of the right of silence which protects the accused following arrest. I believed, and still believe, that no inference should be drawn against anyone who fails to answer questions in the police station without even having been given the opportunity to take legal advice. Indeed, since that change in the law was enacted, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, whom I am glad to see in his place, has described the dangers of the change in a thoughtful lecture in terms which should give anyone food for thought.
By contrast, I have long thought that there should come a stage when a properly advised defendant is required to set out the broad nature of his defence. It

489
also seems reasonable to ask for an indication in general terms of those issues raised by the prosecution upon which there is no dispute. The purpose of a fair trial is not to enable a defendant to require witnesses to be called unnecessarily, or to thrash around in the hope that some point may just turn up which impresses, or even confuses, the jury. For me the issue is, and always has been, the stage at which the obligation should arise of ensuring that the defence has enough knowledge of the prosecution case and proper legal advice to be able to respond effectively.
That leads me to raise one or two points in that area with my noble friend the Minister. It is fundamental to the Bill's operation that the defence must have access to proper legal advice. Otherwise I do not believe that it would be right to ask the defendant to disclose his defence. We would lack the equality of arms of which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke. I agreed with much of what he said. I should be grateful for confirmation that it is inherent in the procedure that a defendant must have access to legal advice.
The second point relates to one already commented upon by noble Lords; namely, that Clause 3, the so-called primary provisions of disclosure, begins after much has already taken place in the investigation and prosecution process. It seems to me implicit in Clause 3 that the operation of the code which we have yet to see will have provided that by the time Clause 3 comes into force, and all the clauses which succeed it in effect, the defence will have had served upon it the evidence upon which the prosecution relies and a clear statement of the prosecution case. Otherwise, it is fanciful that the prosecution can fulfil what has rightly been described as the onerous obligation of disclosing any evidence which might undermine its case.
I should have liked to see the code of practice. I know that all noble Lords wish to see it early on so as to consider it in the proceedings on the Bill. It may also be for consideration whether the code, which will contain highly important procedural provisions governing a fair trial, should be subject to the approval of Parliament. Obviously that is one issue which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will consider. Since, as a member of that committee, I shall have to form a view, I shall not form any view today but will hope to advise the House by the Committee stage. It is a code, it seems to me, which could ultimately affect the liberty of the subject.
Most of the other points that I intended to make have already been made. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, that disclosure under Clause 3 must be made early. There will not be many defence lawyers wishing to advise their client on a plea until they have had the prosecution statement under Clause 3. I assume also that the material which the prosecution does not intend to use will, as my noble friend the Minister indicated, be identified in a schedule. Without that, it would not be very helpful.
Perhaps I may touch on a point that has already been made. If the defendant amends or adds to his defence statement I assume that the ability to apply for
490
disclosure under Clause 8 will apply equally to the amended defence as it did to the original defence.
In raising detailed points, I am in no sense unconscious of the very considerable duty that the Bill places on the prosecution. I welcome that. However, there is one clause which seems to me particularly onerous, although welcome. Under Clause 9, the prosecution has the obligation to keep under pro-active review all material in case there may be something helpful to the defence which has not been disclosed. That is a proper and valuable contribution towards a fair trial.
There are other aspects of the Bill of which I warmly approve—the regime for preparatory hearings; the provision for pre-trial rulings about questions of law and the admissibility of evidence; the provisions in Clauses 38 to 41 for a retrial; and, not least, the prevention of injustice by precluding the reporting of unjustified smears made in the course of pleas in mitigation. Perhaps I may also point out that such unfair assertions can also be made in cross-examination. I recognise that that cannot be dealt with in legislation but it means that the Bar must continue to take very seriously its ethical obligation to avoid abusing the proper licence of cross-examination.
Finally, I thank the Minister for the attention that has been paid to the responses to the consultation paper. Some of those responses, including that of Justice, the all-party law reform group, were very concerned about the initial proposals put forward. Many of those concerns have been met. It is most encouraging when the consultation process is used so constructively and when the views of those with a genuine interest in promoting a fair system of criminal procedure are listened to. Perhaps I may add that Justice is most willing to debate its remaining anxieties with my noble friend the Minister or her officials. I thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for the constructive way in which this most important issue is being handled.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most conscious of the fact that in relation to recent legislation and Starred Questions, I have been less than a comfort to the Minister. However, I hope to do better in future and I can begin by saying that, in large measure, I warmly support the Bill. As has been pointed out, it essentially implements the proposals and recommendations of the Royal Commission.
So many points have been adequately covered and therefore I wish to deal merely with the question of the defence providing advance disclosure. I accept the way in which the issue has been succinctly stated in Chapter Six, paragraph 59 on page 97 of the Royal Commission report. It states:
"If all the parties had in advance an indication of what the defence would be, this would not only encourage earlier and better preparation of cases but might well result in the prosecution being dropped in the light of the defence disclosure, an earlier resolution through a plea of guilty, or the fixing of an earlier trial date. The length of the trial could also be more readily estimated, leading to a better use of the time both of the court and of those involved in

491
the trial; and there would be kept to a minimum those cases where the defendant withholds his or her defence until the last possible moment in the hope of confusing the jury or evading investigation of a fabricated defence".
I submit that that puts it all in an admirable nutshell.
However, I am concerned about the terms of Clause 5(3). Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of how the question of disclosure was contemplated in the Royal Commission report. Paragraph 68 on page 99 states:
"In most cases disclosure of the defence should be a matter capable of being handled by the defendant's solicitor (in the same way that alibi notices are usually dealt with at present). Standard forms could be drawn up to cover the most common offences, with the solicitor having only to tick one or more of a list of possibilities, such as 'accident', 'self-defence', 'consent', 'no dishonest intent','no appropriation', 'abandoned goods', 'claim of right', 'mistaken identification' and so on. There will be complex cases which may require the assistance of counsel in formulating the defence".
However, Clause 5(4) of the Bill states:
"For the purposes of this section a defence statement is a written statement—
(a) setting out in general terms the nature of the accused's defence".
That would seem to fit in with what the Royal Commission set out rather briefly. However, subsection (4)(b) states:
"indicating the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution, and
(c) setting out, in the case of each such matter, the reason why he takes issue with the prosecution".
That is a big extension of what was initially proposed. It is really assimilating in this regard the criminal procedure largely to the civil procedure. If that is to be done—and, for the reasons set out in the paragraph which I read at the outset of my submissions, I do not criticise the doing—it is essential that the prosecution provides a statement of the prosecution case. How else can one indicate the matters on which one takes issue with the prosecution and the reason why one takes issue with the prosecution?
I do not suggest that it is necessary to set out with particularity all that which is to be found in Clause 24, where one is dealing with preparatory hearings. Clause 24(5) sets out five matters, the first of which is:
"the principal facts of the case for the prosecution".
I see no difficulty in a proper summary being provided so that the defence can then focus upon it. If that is not done any criticism which the prosecution hereafter may make of the defence's inadequate statement can be so easily met by, "I thought that was all that was needed", or "I didn't understand that this was what you were saying. You never set it out in any detail".
A further question arises. When can use be made of that statement by the defence by way of a prosecution attack on any variation which may occur? Again, the Royal Commission took that very point in mind at paragraph 61. It stated:
"objection might be that requiring the defence to disclose the substance of their case when they wish simply to rebut the prosecution case gives the prosecution an unfair advantage, since they can use what is disclosed by the defence to strengthen their case.
An example would be where a person is charged with assault and the defence decide before the trial that their reply will be that the defendant acted in self-defence. After the prosecution witnesses
492
have been heard, however, it may become apparent that the prosecution have failed to prove that a blow was struck. In such a situation the defence may well be able to submit successfully that there is no case to answer. Such a submission might, however, be precluded if they had already disclosed a defence of self-defence and the prosecution were able to refer to that at the trial as indicating that the defendant implicitly admitted that a blow had been struck.
This objection can, however, be met in one or other of two ways. The first is to allow the prosecution to refer to the disclosed defence and seek to exploit any subsequent change of direction by inviting adverse inferences to be drawn. The jury will still be free to accept the defence's reasons for the change. The alternative is to provide that any defence disclosed in advance of the trial should not be disclosed to the jury until the defence, or an alternative, is advanced at trial. That would ensure that the defendant was not prejudiced by disclosure before the trial and that the evidence led by the prosecution could not include anything disclosed by the defence. Since it seems to us more consistent with the principle that the burden of proof should lie upon the prosecution, we recommend the second alternative".
If one goes to Clause 25(4), one sees that there is a prohibition upon any statement which emanated from a preparatory hearing being referred to or disclosed at the trial without the permission of the judge. There does not seem to be any reflection of that in Clause 5.
Those are my points with regard to defence disclosure. I was going to draw attention to the important omission in connection with third party disclosure but I am delighted to hear from the noble Baroness that that is to be remedied.
The only other point that I wish to make is that while I support the provisions dealing with acquittals tainted by the accused's interference with the jury or witnesses, it occurs to me that by parity of reasoning, there should be a similar provision for acquittals obtained by the accused's own perjury. If that can be established, it is no better an acquittal than the one which resulted from the tainting of or interference with the jury or witnesses. Those are my submissions to your Lordships and, as I said at the outset, I basically support the provisions of this Bill.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, no principle of this important Bill has been called into question by any noble Lord. It is a timely initiative on which the Government are very much to be congratulated.
In this unique forum for debate, there is little doubt that amendments will be introduced which will improve the Bill's intendments. When she is able to do so, the Minister always keeps an open mind to constructive criticism. Therefore, the hope is that the Bill will leave this House in better shape than it is today.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, truly said that there is no controversy as regards principle. The Bill affords an important contribution to the administration of justice, the crux of which is a fair trial. It must be fair not only to the accused but also to the Crown and to the public interest, which includes the victim.
In particular, the authoritative acceptance by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is more than ample commendation of the importance of this Bill and in particular, the disclosure principle in Part I, the criminal investigation provisions in Part II, which are

493
again supported by the noble and learned Lord, the preparatory hearing provisions in Part III and the quashing of tainted acquittals under Part V, again, as accepted, subject to safeguards, by the noble and learned Lord.
There are anxieties and those anxieties have been advanced most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I share those anxieties. There is a temptation to withhold prosecution evidence, to which the noble Baroness referred. That could be met by introducing a signed, full, detailed schedule; and there should be some sanctions. I believe that my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon suggested that there should be discretion for prosecution counsel to afford total disclosure.
Furthermore, there is the requirement that the defence should disclose its case before the prosecution does so. As has been pointed out by many noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, my noble friend Lord Alexander, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that makes a total nonsense. It is a matter which will, I hope, come out in the wash.
I take the point which was made, I believe, by my noble friend Lord Alexander that there should be legal advice. I am not sure that that always should be so and that there are not circumstances in which it might not be so. But there is no doubt that as a general principle, legal advice should be given before the defence puts forward its case. Perhaps those in charge of granting legal aid will take note of that.
There is the absence of any provision to enable the defence to make supplementary statements and thus to avoid adverse comment. That is a matter of concern, a concern which I share.
The Bill is not specific about the code of practice. It is essential that the code should be examined properly by Parliament. Under Part II, Clause 18, that code of practice has a legal status of efficacy as it is made by statutory instrument. But there is no requirement whatever in the Bill as to what the code should provide and there is no requirement whatever for parliamentary approval. It gives a very wide remit to the Executive to legislate in that way and it is a matter which I hope will receive further consideration. I ask the Minister whether that was intentional and if so, why, or whether it was just an omission. I seek some form of reassurance from my noble friend on that matter. I cannot for the life of me see why we should not be able to have a draft of the code of practice for consideration in Committee within a matter of two or three weeks; or should it be a schedule to the Bill? It is a most important document. With respect, I suggest that it would be most unsatisfactory to debate a Bill which has an implementing provision of that order without knowing what is in it.
The final matter that I should like to mention concerns the question of applications to quash the indictment. I shall be very brief. They are made under the inherent jurisdiction. Under Clause 24 and the "powers specified", there would be no power to make such an order. The application would presumably be
494
made under Clause 30(1)(b) as a question of law arising in the case. Under Clause 31 such a ruling would be binding, but there is no appeal. I ask, respectfully, whether consideration could be given to introducing an appeal against the grant or refusal of an application to quash counts in an indictment under the inherent jurisdiction.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sure that it would be wise for any junior judge sitting in a court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice or by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, simply to say, "I agree", rather than to deliver a separate judgment. I feel extremely diffident in making a speech at all on the subject of this Bill. My qualifications for doing so are meagre. I am not a criminal practitioner and have argued only one criminal case in 25 years. It happens to have been a case in which the very late disclosure of evidence by the prosecution narrowly avoided a gross miscarriage of justice at the 11th hour and the 50th minute.
I have no qualifications of the kind that, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, or the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, have, to be able to speak on the basis of real, practical experience about the needs of the prosecution and of the defence. I sat as a recorder for some years but that, again, did not really equip me to do more than learn the rudiments of criminal procedure without understanding the reality at the coalface, faced by those who were practising and arguing before me.
Perhaps the fact that I am not a member of the criminal Bar is helpful in at least one respect. It means that I approach the Bill with a completely open mind but not, I hope, with a completely empty mind in considering whether it promotes the better administration of justice; that is to say, whether it will make criminal trials more efficient without putting in jeopardy the overriding need to ensure that trials are fair and protect the fundamental right of the accused to the presumption of innocence.
The constitutional principles upon which our traditional common law and statutory rules are based have been mentioned by several noble Lords. They are always worth repeating on occasions of this kind. They are anchored of course in Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the determination of any criminal charge, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial judge and jury. Everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Everyone must have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, including, where necessary, adequate legal aid. As several noble Lords have emphasised, there must be a fair balance and real equality of arms in the conduct of the trial. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, reminded us, there are also other interests; for example, the interests of the victims of crime and of the general public in being effectively protected against crime and its consequences.
The pressing and legitimate concerns of the public to secure the conviction of the guilty must be met by a modern criminal justice system. As all noble Lords who

495
have spoken today have recognised, those needs must be met in a manner which does not breach our basic constitutional principles of fairness.
Like everyone who has spoken, I welcome the general thrust of the Bill although, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I begin with a bias in favour of leaving it to the senior judiciary to develop the common law and to fashion procedures in a manner which is carefully tailored to securing the due administration of justice, unless it can be demonstrated that legislative intervention is really called for.
However, like the Royal Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and all speakers this afternoon, I recognise that the criminal justice system is in urgent need of improvement. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to "playing the game". I hope that my criminal brethren will forgive me if I say that the conduct of a criminal trial often appears little more than an elaborate forensic game between barristers. The criminal justice process takes place in a wholly adversarial atmosphere. To outsiders, prosecution and defence often appear as enemies in a war, disclosing relevant information in advance only reluctantly, rather than playing with cards face upwards on the table. That is the bias, I suppose, of a civil lawyer approaching the criminal process.
As my noble friend and others indicated, time and money are wasted as the police and prosecution comb through vast quantities of material to isolate the evidence which the defence needs to support its case. Issues arise at trial which need to be resolved in the absence of the jury, causing disruption and inconvenience as they are sent away and adding to the length and cost of the proceedings—perhaps an inevitable price.
The Royal Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, recognised that it is right that antiquated and unnecessary bureaucracy should be dismantled and that unnecessary costs should be avoided where possible, without undermining the interests of justice.
The aims of the Bill are wholly legitimate. We welcome the extension, under Part III, of the system of preparatory hearings in serious fraud cases to other complex and potentially lengthy cases. We also welcome in broad terms the Part I proposal that the defence should disclose something of its case to the prosecution before trial.
As noble Lords have indicated, other elements of disclosure do, however, give cause for concern. Since the publication of the Runciman Report in July 1993, the common law of disclosure has not stood still. The law is recent, dating from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, in the case of Keane in 1994. It is considered by experienced practitioners, as one would expect, to be well worked out and modulated, containing essential safeguards for the accused. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I am especially impressed by the fact that those of the eminence of two former leading Treasury counsel take the same view. The present
496
system is, I think, a finely calibrated system, applied wisely and flexibly by judges exercising their discretion on a case-by-case basis under the wise leadership of the Lord Chief Justice.
Parliament was persuaded last year to make substantial alterations to the so-called right to silence in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. I share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and others, that those changes may risk tilting the balance unfairly against the accused and may erode the presumption of innocence. It would not be helpful to reopen that debate but it is clear that there have already been alterations instituting a degree of defence disclosure in advance of trial.
We on these Benches support the Royal Commission's recommendation that the general framework for prosecution disclosure should be laid down in primary legislation accompanied by codes of practice. But it is, I think, a matter for great regret that in the Bill the Government have not chosen in some respects to follow the clear and just proposals in the report of the commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. I shall refer quickly to some of the matters of concern which I believe many of your Lordships have mentioned this afternoon.
The first relates to some of the impenetrable drafting language chosen in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred to clarifying by statute, but the text of the Bill is, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, politely indicated, not altogether satisfactory in certain respects. Part III which relates to the police duty of disclosure, is in my view the least satisfactory in this respect. I shall give one example. Let us suppose that a defendant wishes to know the extent of the vital duty of the police to disclose relevant material to the prosecution. He begins with Clause 16. This tells him that the detailed provisions will be contained in the code of practice. The Bill then whets his appetite for the code by stating that Clause 17 gives examples of the kinds of provision which may be included in the code. He reads on, eagerly awaiting guidance in the Bill. He reaches Clause 17(3) which states,
"material … of a description prescribed under this subsection".
It seems he is getting warmer. Imagine his disappointment when he reaches the end of the subsection and there is nothing at all: no list of prescribed material and no guidance. He, and indeed this House, will simply have to wait, like Mr. Micawber, for the Secretary of State's code to turn up.
The complex nature of the Bill will have particularly wide-ranging and potentially even disastrous implications for a really significant number of vulnerable defendants if the Government's separate proposals in their Green Paper on legal aid are implemented in their current form. The noble Lord,Lord Alexander of Weedon, explained that defendants must surely have effective access to legal advice if this Bill is to be workable for the most vulnerable defendants. The Government's proposals would of course cap the amount of legal aid available. Although I do not always agree with the General Council of the Bar, I strongly agree on this occasion that the Government's plan would mean that a large number of defendants who

497
would otherwise qualify for legal aid in the interests of justice and on financial grounds would go unrepresented. Unaided, these vulnerable individuals would find it impossible to use the Bill's complex procedures to protect the basic rights of the defence. That seems to me to be a crucial problem because it could mean that the Bill would actually lead to serious miscarriages of justice among the weak which no one would wish.
The second area of concern has been emphasised by at least eight noble Lords, and that is the non-publication of the draft code of practice. The Royal Commission recommended in Recommendation 127 that codes of practice should be published in draft,
"so as to give scope for the widest degree of consultation on their precise terms".
How, I ask myself, can there be the widest degree of consultation, within and beyond Parliament, unless and until the Home Secretary publishes a draft code of practice? This is an area par excellence in which the devil is in the detail. Perhaps it is impractical to include the detail of the code on the face of the Bill, but I very much share the views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and many others that the code will be published swiftly this week in time for adequate consultation before we reach the Committee stage. I very much share also the hope of the noble Lords, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and Lord Campbell of Alloway, that it might be possible for the code to be scrutinised as delegated legislation—as proper legislation because it affects the liberty of the subject so vitally. The code of practice will determine what is disclosed by the investigating authorities to the prosecution and defence, and it will have a critical effect on the rights of the accused.
The third point I can deal with briefly; it is disclosure from investigating authorities to the prosecution. The establishment of the commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, was of course partly prompted by the series of decisions by the Court of Appeal quashing unsafe and unsatisfactory convictions. One crucial safeguard, as the Royal Commission saw it, was that if the present system of disclosure was to be scrapped, there must be a proper system in place to ensure that material which is unhelpful, as well as that which is helpful, is given by investigators to prosecutors. As the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, has emphasised with such force today, there must be effective sanctions on investigating authorities to disclose all material in their possession.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that we must ensure that the code, when we are able to scrutinise its terms, places a duty upon investigating authorities to retain, to record, and to disclose to the prosecution all information obtained in the course of investigation. I understood the Minister to say in her opening speech that it is indeed the Government's intention that the police will disclose all evidence to the prosecution. If that is so, that is a welcome assurance and I would suggest that it needs to be made clear on the face of the Bill.
My fourth point regards the provision of lists by the prosecution to the defence. The Royal Commission was rightly concerned to ensure that the defence is aware of
498
the existence of all relevant evidence before the trial. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, emphasised that point today. To that end his commission underlined the importance of the current system of lists. The prosecution must show the defendant material which may be helpful to the defence case or unhelpful to the prosecution case. Crucially, the prosecution must give him in addition a list of any other material obtained during the course of the inquiry. This is surely what fairness requires. The prosecution has at its disposal the machinery of the police with their considerable and necessary resources and necessary coercive powers. The prosecution also has access to specialist services such as those of forensic scientists.
The defence has none of those resources and is heavily reliant on the material which the prosecution discloses to it. The principle of equality of arms requires, I suggest, that both sides have equal access to all the evidence. It is also an essential element in preventing miscarriages of justice. The powerful and wise speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, with her great professional experience is, I think strong testimony to that point. It is therefore in my view essential that the defence receives a full list, in outline form, of all the evidence against it; otherwise it will be unaware as to the scope of the evidence that exists.
My other point concerns defence disclosure. In principle I am in favour of the proposals on defence disclosure in Clause 5. Advance indication of the general substance of the defence will encourage earlier and more effective preparation of criminal cases generally. When it comes to disclosure, the prosecution will be better able to determine which documents are helpful to the defence if it knows something of the general nature of its case. No one has spoken against those proposals today, but the House may wish to be satisfied, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, indicated, that the Bill as drafted does not tilt the balance against the defence unfairly in that respect.
There have been some ill-informed attacks upon the Bill outside this House. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank indicated that those attacks have been encouraged to some extent by populist party political statements made by the seaside at autumn conferences. The critics of the Bill are right to be concerned to preserve our ancient birthright of civil liberties and to protect everyone against the risk that unnecessary alterations in criminal procedures will encourage miscarriages of justice. However, their criticisms must be well-founded.
The Bill is welcome. It is imperfect in some respects, but it is not nearly so bad as some outside the House have suggested. It needs to be improved in Committee in several essential respects to protect the rights of the accused without unduly hampering the effective conduct of police investigations and prosecutions. We must ensure that the Bill preserves a fair balance in accordance with the rule of law. That is our endeavour.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there has been a good deal of comment about what is not in the Bill.

499
I begin by commending the Minister on what she said at the outset. When she indicated that there were three areas which were not on the face of the Bill those more suspicious than myself might have been given cause for alarm. The particular matter on which I wish to commend her is the question of the child witness in criminal cases. The Pigot Report is still not part of our law in full. It is a commonplace that everyone who deals with child abuse victims recognises that in many ways we do them great harm by our criminal justice system, which is essentially designed for adults and not for children.
The purposes for which we all seem to contend depend on at least the following. Criminal trials should be fair, efficient and under the supervisory control of the judges, and in particular the present Lord Chief Justice, who more than any single individual has begun to restore public confidence in a vessel which was deeply holed and almost sinking.
Secondly, there needs to be a proper and considered balance between the power of the state and the interests of the individual.
Thirdly, recent experience demonstrates that precisely defined structures work better than uncontrolled discretion if the latter is left to either the police or prosecution. If one wants precisely defined structures one needs to look at the small print of the code. The code should ensure that a single identifiable and identified police officer is responsible for certifying that all material has been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service and that a single identified responsible officer of the Crown Prosecution Service has to certify that prosecution disclosure obligations have been met. If we do not have that fine print we shall not remedy our present misfortune.
Finally, I suggest that not every criminal case necessarily requires the same treatment. We are not able to apply any principle of scrutiny fruitfully to this Bill because of the absence of the code. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, on those matters. We do not always agree on political matters, but we almost invariably agree on matters of legal principle. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is absolutely right to say that we cannot do our work without seeing the code first. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right to suggest that the drafting of the Bill is unnecessarily turgid, although he did not use such a harsh description. That could have been cured had the code been provided before we began our discussions.
I wish to raise one or two matters of detail, which I shall keep as brief as possible. Clause 1(1)(a) states:
"This Part applies where a person is charged with a summary offence in respect of which he pleads not guilty".
If I understand the scheme correctly, detailed disclosure in the magistrates' court commences only on a plea of not guilty. I suggest that detailed disclosure should begin before that. Is there any reason why there should not be disclosure before the plea, following or accompanying a statement of the prosecution case, as so many noble Lords have recommended?
Is every plea in respect of a summary offence in a magistrates' court to require automatic disclosure? I merely raise the question. Summary offences are
500
sometimes of the most minor kind. Even though I have not been cautioned I can confess to at least one—riding my bicycle without a light. Do we really need automatic disclosure in those circumstances?
In practice, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu indicated, if disclosure is to operate only after a plea of not guilty, the device used by solicitors and counsel will be to advise their client to plead not guilty simply in order to have automatic disclosure. That will clog up the system rather than make it more efficient.
The early disclosure of the prosecution statement has been supported by everyone who has spoken today. An extremely important associated matter is that raised impressively by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. It will not be possible to run the system if a defendant does not have legal representation as of right. If as old and wise a bird as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, finds the drafting turgid, what is to happen to the legally illiterate defendant without any legal advice? If we go along the route which does not provide legal representation as of right in those circumstances, then next year, the year after, or the year after that, we shall have another inquest on what has gone wrong. It is not possible for a lay person to deal adequately with these new obligations without legal assistance.
What is to be done about Clause 3(6) under which material must not be disclosed? No discretion is allowed, and no fine consideration by the prosecution and the CPS, if necessary with the overall guidance of the Attorney-General. Material must not be disclosed to the extent that the court believes that it is not in the public interest to disclose it. What is the public interest to comprehend? Is it anticipated—and I suggest that it should be—that the Attorney-General should at least indicate that he will provide guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service? The courts might wish to consider such guidelines on these occasions. That provision is extremely important because it takes away discretion and makes it mandatory that non-disclosure should follow.
Clause 9 is not sufficient. As indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, the clause imposes the continuing pro-active obligation to review and decide whether or not there should be further disclosure. That stops too soon, before the accused is acquitted or convicted. What about the material which is re-reviewed after a wrongful conviction? Should there not be a continuing obligation there? The same point, slightly modified, attaches to Clause 11. The point of principle is the same, so I shall not go into the matter further.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked what use may be made, and at what stage of a criminal trial, of a statement made by way of obligation by a defendant. We have had arguments in the past about whether a prosecutor could open an alibi statement in a criminal case or the absence of one. Are the inconsistencies to be allowed as part of an opening so that a statement which has been forced out of a defendant under the new statutory regime could be used as part of the affirmative case brought forward from the first moment of a criminal case? The answer will be that it is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. But is that situation contemplated by the Government? These

501
are small questions of fine detail, but we need to know the answers before we can come to a considered conclusion about the merits—there are some—of the Bill.
I turn to Clause 22. I am sorry to say this because I believe that it is almost the only occasion when I have dissented from the Lord Chief Justice. However, I am bound to say that what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said has a good deal of validity. If one is to have a preparatory hearing with binding rulings and some degree of practical utility, there should be a presumption at least, not a binding obligation of necessity, that the judge trying the preparatory hearing is to be the trial judge; and a presumption which ought to be an ethical duty on a member of the Bar or other advocate that counsel who is instructed for the trial must attend at the preparatory hearing. Preparatory hearings would otherwise be of little value. As practitioners, we have all appeared before judges who assured us that they had read all the papers, and the first question uttered by the judge indicates that the contrary may be the fact. Part of the answer has to be less reliance on part-time judges who come and go like butterflies from a flower. If we have a regime which by and large works well, with liaison presiding judges at designated court centres, there should be the presumption that the judge conducting the preparatory hearing will be the judge who tries the case. If rulings are made which are binding, it is not particularly helpful in practice Lo have different judges considering different rulings at different stages.
The final point on which I touch—so many matters have been dealt with—relates to Clause 14(2). I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, said. It is unambiguous in the Bar code that no barrister may be used by a client as a tool or device to make allegations or assertions against any other party, whether witness, complainant or person who has had no specific connection with the trial, unless he or she has satisfied himself or herself, first, that there is reasonable foundation, and, secondly, that it is proper in the general administration of justice. The noble Lord is right to point out that assertions in cross-examination, or assertions that a client may make as part of an examination-in-chief, have the same distressing consequences as assertions made in mitigation. Therefore this measure is the first step. I am not sure that it is the cure-all that the Government may presently believe.
We must all wait for the code. The Bill is nothing without the code. The work of the commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, will be dust and ashes unless the code is effective and, above everything, unless the code is carefully scrutinised by those of your Lordships who have both interest and experience in the administration of the criminal justice system.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if it is not too embarrassing, perhaps I may open by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, a very happy birthday. I am sorry that she has had to spend it cooped up in this great place.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether it is not too late to amend the Bill to ensure that people's ages after a certain date are not subject to disclosure.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness will note that I did not mention a certain date; I just wished her a very happy birthday.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, confessed, somewhat modestly, that his credentials for taking part in the debate were perhaps not adequate. I have to admit in a confessional mode to being the least learned of all who have spoken in the debate, and that includes the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
It has been an interesting and thorough debate. I have sought to provide your Lordships with a comprehensive account of the Bill. I have noted the many valuable points made in response, and the general welcome given to the Bill. In the time remaining I shall seek to address as many of those as possible. If I fail to respond to any particular points now, and if it were appropriate, I shall write to noble Lords before the Bill goes into Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred at the outset to the principle of the defence having access to all relevant material. I accept that the accused needs access to material which might help him. At the same time there needs to be a reduction in volume of unnecessary material which currently has to be disclosed. The difficulty is in striking the right balance. The Bill aims to do that, as I have explained. Nevertheless we shall obviously wish to consider the detailed amendments which the noble Lord will table in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred also to the detailed defence disclosure. I understand concerns about the details of defence disclosure and I look forward again to debate in Committee. However, I wish to make two points today. First, if the accused indicates only the general nature of his defence it will be difficult for the prosecution to know what additional material might assist the defence. Secondly, the accused will know the prosecution case against him before he is compelled to make disclosure. Clause 5 refers to service of the prosecution case, among other things, as a pre-condition of defence disclosure.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the code of practice. Almost everyone who spoke in the debate has mentioned the disadvantage of not having the code before the House at this moment. I absolutely understand the desire to have the code. At this moment I cannot be absolutely precise about exactly when it will be available. However, I shall keep all noble Lords up-to-date with the progress of that code and will ensure that everyone knows exactly when it is ready for publication.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to preparatory hearings and the continuity of judge in such cases. In evidence to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice it was suggested that preparatory hearings would be effective only if the trial judge presided over them. That that is so may be supported by the Divisional Court ruling that a change of judge between a preparatory hearing held under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and proceedings in front of a jury could be accepted only in

503
exceptional circumstances. The Government believe that that requirement should continue. Such continuity of judge is clearly of value to the type of long and complex case to which the proposal applies. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, the Lord Chief Justice, commented that it was his hope that the use of preparatory hearings would not become commonplace. I wish to assure the House, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, that the Government intend that preparatory hearings should be available only in cases of such apparent complexity or potential length that substantial benefits are likely to accrue.
Most of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to Clause 42 in Part VI. He asked whether restrictions on reporting of unsubstantiated allegations cover all media. It is certainly our intention that the provisions should prohibit the reporting of allegations, whatever the medium in which they are contained.
The noble Lord asked in how many cases it is likely that a retrial will take place. We do not have reliable statistics to indicate the extent of the problem. However, it is clear from anecdotal evidence that interference with witnesses and jurors can be a serious problem in some cases. We believe that it is right therefore to ensure that the guilty are not able to avoid conviction if it later comes to light that they, or others on their behalf, have, for example, threatened or intimidated witnesses or jurors in order to secure an acquittal. The noble Lord asked how judges will be able to decide whether, but for such interference, the accused would have been convicted. The Bill requires the judge to be satisfied that there is a real possibility that, but for the interference or intimidation, the acquitted person would not have been acquitted. The circumstances will, of course, vary from case to case. It may be that the witness who was intimidated gave evidence which was merely of peripheral relevance to the case. In such circumstances, the judge, who will have heard the details of what happened during the trial of the intimidation offence, may well conclude that there are no grounds for interfering with the original verdict. In other cases, it may be clear to the judge that the witness's evidence was so central to the case that the acquittal is unsafe.
The noble Lord also referred to Clause 38(5) which sets out the circumstances in which the judge may decide that it would not be right to take proceedings against an acquitted person. The noble Lord asked what that would cover. The Bill makes it clear that the lapse of time may be a reason for not re-trying an acquitted defendant. Other reasons might be that crucial witnesses in the original trial had since died or perhaps that the defendant himself was already serving a lengthy sentence for some other offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also referred to the West trial and posed the question which must be on the minds of many people, both inside this place and outside. He asked whether the Bill should be used to introduce a restriction on payments to witnesses. I have to say, as a personal aside, that we need to be careful about using the Bill in any precipitous way, without giving serious consideration to what I know is a complicated subject. Nevertheless, we share the concern which has been expressed about the behaviour of the press in that case. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, my noble and learned
504
friend the Lord Chancellor and my learned friend the Attorney-General have called for reports. We will study the reports carefully to see whether more action could sensibly be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to BMA concern about Part II relating to police surgeons and disclosure. I am not sure exactly what he has in mind, but I make the point that the code of practice in Part II is for the police and other investigators who will have to have regard to it. It does not bind any third party such as a medical practitioner. However, I shall look into the detailed point which was made before the Committee stage and I undertake to write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also referred to Part I and comparisons between the Royal Commission recommendations and proposals in the consultation paper and the provisions of the Bill. He said that it would be helpful to him to have an analysis in tabulated form before the Committee stage and I shall attempt to have that arranged and will place it in the Library of the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the mode of trial. Clause 34 requires the court to indicate to the accused, before he gives an indication of plea, what the consequences of his plea will be. I understand that the court may proceed in the absence of the accused but only—and this is the important point—if he is legally represented. The noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, referred to the timing of primary prosecution disclosure. Ideally, it should happen as soon as possible, but I am afraid that it is not practicable straight after charges. The case will need to be prepared and the prosecutor will need time to decide what requires to be disclosed. The important point about timing is well taken.
The noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, referred to sanctions for non-compliance which should apply both to the prosecutor and the accused. The Bill requires the prosecutor to disclose material which he thinks undermines his case and to comply with any court orders in relation to disclosure. The sanction, if he does not do the latter, is that he may possibly have to abandon the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and other noble Lords referred to supplementary disclosure by the defence and whether that should be possible. It is possible for the accused to make supplementary disclosure, if he so wishes. He is required only to make defence disclosure at the appropriate stage. If we built in requirements for several stages of disclosure, cases would be much delayed in coming to trial.
The noble Baroness referred to the resource implications of the proposals. The provisions will create new burdens but they will also remove some existing burdens. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, the effect of disclosure is that some cases may not come to trial at all. We believe that overall the system will be more efficient and fair.
The detail of material on the schedule of unused material was also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords. The schedule will set out a list of material held by the investigator but which does not form part of

505
the prosecution case. It will do so in sufficient detail to enable the defence to make a judgment about its relevance. I know that the point was made with some feeling during the course of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon referred to the continuing duty of prosecution disclosure. Clause 9 restates what is already required of the prosecution and I am delighted that my noble friend welcomed it. In response to a possible request from Justice or any other body that wishes to discuss the Bill either with my officials or with me, I can promise my noble friend that the door is absolutely open.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that perjury should also be grounds for applying for a court order under Clause 38. We will consider whether any other offences relating to interference with the administration of justice should be included in Clause 38. No doubt we will return to it in Committee.
The noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the service of the prosecution case. I mentioned it in part, but in summary trials the accused will not have as much information about the prosecution case as in Crown Court trials. But he is not required to make disclosure and there is no sanction by means of inference at trial. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to sanctions for departure from the defence case. The Bill provides that if the accused departs from his defence statement, an inference may be drawn but the court must have regard to the reasons for such a departure.
My noble friends Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to the discretion of the prosecutor to make further disclosure than is required. The Bill does not prevent the prosecution going further than is required under Part I, but I am not sure what circumstances would justify the prosecution wanting to show the accused all the material the police have gathered. I do not see how it would improve the current arrangements. After all, the prosecutor is under an obligation to make available all material which, in his opinion, could undermine his case and also to make available to the defence material which could support the defendant's case, as disclosed. The prosecutor is required to certify that both obligations have been met.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to Part II, the code of practice, and parliamentary procedure. The code is not subject to any particular parliamentary procedure, because unlike the police and criminal evidence codes of practice, for example, it is purely procedural. However, of course, we will await what the scrutiny committee has to say and consider it carefully.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene for clarification? Under Clause 18 the code has legal efficacy as a statutory instrument. That has to be borne in mind; it is established unless it is amended.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, between now and Committee stage the scrutiny committee will have a good look at the whole Bill and its procedures. No doubt, the committee will advise the House accordingly and we shall take seriously what it has to say and consider it.
506
My noble friend Lord Campbell also referred to an application to quash an indictment. I am grateful to him for raising the point. I can confirm that as regards preparatory hearings the Court of Appeal has held that the judge's power to decide any question of law or admissibility of evidence is confined to questions related to the purposes of the preparatory hearings as outlined in Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Applications to quash an indictment—for example, for abuse of process—do not come within these powers and do not therefore attract an interlocutory right of appeal. So far as binding rulings under Part IV of the Bill are concerned, I shall consider the point that my noble friend raised about appeals from such rulings and I shall write to him shortly setting out the Government's views on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked whether disclosure rules could be left to the senior judiciary and the common law. No. The courts have significantly developed the law in successive cases. There is no going back from that without legislation. In relation to the case of Keane, for example, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that it would be helpful to the court in assessing the significance of prosecution material to have some information about the defence case, but the accused cannot be required to give this information.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to Clause 3(b) and asked how the public interest will be defined. The public interest test will not be changed by this Bill, which merely reflects the current understanding. The term will therefore continue to be interpreted as at present.
The noble Lord also referred to Part I and disclosure in magistrates' courts cases. Disclosure will be made only if the accused pleads not guilty. It would clog up the system seriously if disclosure were to be automatic in every case, even the most straightforward road traffic case where the accused wants simply to plead guilty and have done with it. It is not practicable to require disclosure before the plea because of all the work that the prosecution must do in preparing the case and deciding what needs to be disclosed.
I know that I have not done this debate justice; so many other points were raised. But I think I have covered most of the pertinent ones. Suffice it to say that we are committed to ensuring that the criminal justice system is fair, efficient and effective. I am grateful for the positive manner in which many of the provisions of the Bill were received. It is my impression that we have prepared the ground for a detailed, and I believe productive and constructive, Committee stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would it be possible to postpone the Committee stage, or to give consideration, in view of what was said on all sides of the House, to postponing consideration of Part II in Committee, until we have the code of practice?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, such questions are very much a matter for the usual channels. I am not in any position to respond one way or the other to that question.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1995
6.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. I shall also speak to the Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Amendment (No.2) Order 1995.
The two draft orders before the House tonight relate to the valuation for rating of very specific classes of lands and heritages in Scotland. The draft amendment order relating to docks and harbours simply corrects a defect in an earlier amendment order so as to ensure that provisions previously agreed can in fact be implemented with effect from 1st April 1995.
The separate draft order relating to Scottish water undertakings simply updates existing provisions to take account of the forthcoming restructuring taking place with effect from 1st April 1996. It provides for the rateable value of the operational lands and heritages of the new water authorities on the same basis as for their predecessors. It neither increases nor decreases the valuations compared to those applying to the predecessor authorities.
Both draft orders follow a well-precedented pattern and I therefore propose to expand on the detailed provisions only if there are points of concern to those noble Lords who are present. I commend both draft orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining the background to the order. I have only one point to raise with him, though he may not be in a position to answer immediately. What effect will this order have on the local authorities in regard to rates? It is rather a large question. I received rather late in the day a question from local authorities as to whether this will cause substantial change. From the Minister's remarks it seems that there will be no change, and I shall be quite happy with that. Perhaps he will check and write to me letting me know whether he has received any representations from local authorities on any finer points. I have received only letters expressing general satisfaction on the main point of the orders.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as I understand it, there will be no net effects on local authorities. Indeed, the orders were subject to very full consultation with all the affected parties, including CoSLA. If I feel that I have in any way misled the noble Lord with that reply, I shall write to him later. It is widely felt that there will be no net effect on any of the parties involved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Order 1995
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I spoke to this order when moving the earlier one. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

County Courts (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
6.16 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November he approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
This order will amend the principal legislation governing the county courts in Northern Ireland so as to augment the current powers of those courts to make orders in relation to the disclosure of documents and the inspection of property. At present, unlike the other courts dealing with civil disputes in both England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, the county courts in Northern Ireland are unable to make orders for what is commonly known as third-party and pre-proceedings discovery. The absence of these powers can mean, for example, that a party can obtain access to relevant evidence only by requiring the attendance of a witness at court. This position has been widely regarded as unsatisfactory, and the order I have placed before the House is designed to meet these concerns.
Accordingly, the order will enable a party to specified types of proceedings in a county court to seek access to documents which he knows or believes to exist but which are not under his control or that of any other party to the proceedings. Similarly, he will be able to ask the court to allow him to inspect property which neither he nor any other party to the proceedings owns. In respect of prospective litigation, he will also be able to seek an order for access to documents or other material which is likely to be relevant in proceedings which have not yet been commenced.
I have mentioned that identical powers are already available to the High Court in Northern Ireland. These are set out in Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 and Sections 31 to 33 of the administration of Justice Act 1970, and the contents of the order have been modelled closely on the established statutory provisions for the High Court. Because of this, it may not be necessary for me to recount all of the provisions of the order in great detail, but it may be helpful to explain briefly the main features of the order.
Article 3 inserts three new articles into the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. The new Article 42A, which deals essentially with disclosure in

509
anticipation of litigation, provides at paragraph (1) that the court may order the inspection of, and the taking of samples from, any property which may be relevant to subsequent proceedings. Paragraph (2) provides that the court may order a person who is likely to be party to subsequent proceedings in respect of a claim for personal injury or death to disclose and produce any relevant documents under his control.
The new Article 42B, which deals in essence with disclosure by a person who is not one of the parties to proceedings, provides that in an action for personal injury or death the court may order such third party to disclose and produce any documents under his control which are relevant to the proceedings. The court is given corresponding powers to order the inspection of property which does not belong to a party to the proceedings.
The new Article 42C makes a number of miscellaneous provisions supplementary to Articles 42A and 42B. It specifies the extent to which the new provisions are to apply to the Crown and provides that a county court is not to make an order under the new articles in certain specified circumstances. For example, the court should not order the disclosure of documents if it considers that compliance would be likely to be injurious to the public interest. Article 42C also makes provision in relation to the recovery of costs and expenses incurred by persons who are not parties to proceedings.
In accordance with the standard procedure for Orders in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the draft order was subject to a period of public consultation. The proposed enhancement of the powers of the county courts has been widely welcomed in Northern Ireland by the senior judges, practitioners and several other persons and bodies who have commented on the draft order.
It is important, I believe your Lordships will recognise, that the county courts in Northern Ireland should have available to them the powers conferred by the order. This is particularly so because the general civil jurisdiction of such courts has been substantially enhanced in recent years, with the result that the county courts are now performing an increasingly significant role in the processing of civil court business. The new powers to be conferred by the draft order constitute a modest but nonetheless valuable improvement in the practice of the county courts in Northern Ireland, and therefore I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his characteristically clear explanation of what is involved in the order. I am also grateful for the courtesy of his office in providing a general indication
510
of what might be said. In particular, I found the explanatory document produced by the Northern Ireland Court Service a model of its kind both in format and content.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I should like to put a question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to Article 42C. My question relates to the public interest. Given that we on these Benches support the order as a useful measure for the county courts, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can provide one or two examples of what constitutes public interest, which is always a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his remarks. I believe that the document which has been prepared by the Court Service in Northern Ireland is extremely good. I am glad that he agrees with me. I shall be very happy to pass on his comments to those who have supported me so well and loyally in Northern Ireland in very difficult conditions particularly over the past few years. I sincerely hope that those conditions will not recur. The courts' staff in Northern Ireland have been subject to great pressures in their work and the fact that a compliment of this kind is paid to them in this House is something that I warmly welcome.
As far as the public interest is concerned, the noble Lord is familiar with the discussion that has been going on in this country about certificates issued by Ministers in respect of particular classes of document. That kind of discussion is not thought to be very suitable for the county court. It is fairly clear that such a question arising in a civil case, in the context of Northern Ireland, will be regarded as being a matter for the High Court.
The kinds of considerations that arise in public interest immunity certificates are usually concerned with the level of the document and the nature of the confidentiality attached to it, if it is a government document. Perhaps it is a letter of complaint made to the police. The disclosure of the name of the person who makes the complaint may have an important bearing on the public service. That is just one example, but there are many in the books. In England and Wales the courts have the right to overrule such a certificate. The Minister is simply saying by the certificate that a question of public interest arises in relation to the confidentiality of the information. It is for the court to decide whether that public interest is outweighed by the public interest in doing justice in the particular case which requires that, notwithstanding the certificate, the document should be disclosed. My judgment—which I believe is supported by the consultation—is that these questions are not suitable for the county court. If a question of that kind arose it would be for the High Court to determine.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.

  Prisons: Annual Cost per Prisoner Place
  Prisons: Annual Cost per Prisoner Place
  Charity Commission: Regulations
  Charity Commission: Regulations
  Iraq: Southern Marsh Population
  Iraq: Southern Marsh Population
  EU/US Summit, 3rd December
  EU/US Summit, 3rd December
  Nuclear Weapons: Reduction
  Nuclear Weapons: Reduction
  Anti-personnel Landmines
  Anti-personnel Landmines
  Chinese One Child Policy
  Chinese One Child Policy
  BBC Charter and Agreement
  BBC Charter and Agreement
  Long-term Unemployed: Statistics
  Long-term Unemployed: Statistics
  Higher Education Review
  Higher Education Review
  Male Teachers: Decline in Numbers
  Male Teachers: Decline in Numbers
  Combined Joint Task Force
  Combined Joint Task Force
  House of Lords Voting: Government Defeats
  House of Lords Voting: Government Defeats
  House of Lords: HMSO Supply and Service Agreement
  House of Lords: HMSO Supply and Service Agreement
  Hansard: Annual Subscription for CD-ROM
  Hansard: Annual Subscription for CD-ROM
  Parliamentary Material: Pricing
  Parliamentary Material: Pricing
  Traffic Congestion North of London
  Traffic Congestion North of London
  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Scottish Homes: Definition of Rurality
  Scottish Homes: Definition of Rurality