Sitting of 22 January 1996

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

    Urban Investment Grant
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure has been made recently from the urban investment grant scheme to encourage private sector investment in rundown areas. [8829]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): More than £14 million has been awarded in the past two calendar years.
    Mr. Dunn: I recognise that this policy has brought enormous benefits to different communities in Wales, but will my hon. Friend please give the House some idea of the number of jobs that have been created as a result?
    Mr. Jones: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the investment of taxpayers' money in the urban investment grant scheme has levered in some £80 million of private investment, and that has created or safeguarded approximately 2,000 jobs in Wales.
    Mr. Rogers: I am sure that the Minister will have read the complaint in the Western Mail this morning from a
    2
    small Welsh business man who was looking for grants from the Welsh Office but did not obtain them, when Tesco has received £11 million in grants to transplant its operation a few miles down the road into Wales. As the Minister will know, I wrote to him last week on the same issue, as a company in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is receiving the same treatment. Why do not small Welsh companies get the same treatment as the large multinational companies when they apply for grants from the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to correct the inaccuracies in the Western Mail story this morning and to give him a reassurance that all companies that come to the Welsh Office for assistance, be they indigenous companies or those from outside Wales, are treated on exactly the same basis.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to tackle unemployment in Wales. [8830]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Between spring 1985 and spring 1995, employment in Wales grew by 10.5 per cent., which is well ahead of the Great Britain average of 6.3 per cent. Unemployment continues to fall. The Government will pursue their key economic objectives of permanently low inflation, sound public finances and improving the supply side performance of the economy. That policy has brought about a stronger recovery in the UK than in any other major European country.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in some parts of Wales, unemployment is getting worse, particularly in my constituency, where the December figures showed that we have 25 per cent. male unemployment? Year on year, it is getting worse, not better. May I take issue with the letter that the

    3
    hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) wrote to me, in which, describing the situation in south Pembrokeshire, he said that
    "current progress is extremely encouraging",
    when unemployment is getting worse? Why will the Secretary of State not address the issue of structural change—something that is particularly needed in peripheral areas and areas of high unemployment? Why will he not restore the cuts, which amount to some £23 million, that were imposed on the Welsh Development Agency by his predecessor last year and that have been compounded by his refusal to restore the cuts next year? That is the only way in which we shall be able to tackle our long-term unemployment, particularly in the peripheral areas of Wales.
    Mr. Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognise that unemployment in certain parts of Wales, including his constituency, is higher than the average figures in certain parts of Wales. Part of the answer to that is the overall economic framework, which I have explained. In addition, since the west Wales task force was formed in 1992, more than £17 million has been allocated to local authorities for specific projects and strategies in the area. We have allocated a further £2.5 million for next year. Further support is available for projects such as Pembroke dock, if a good-quality strategy is submitted by the local authority—something that has not been done to date.
    Our overall economic policies, backed by such measures, are the right measures to take, and not the imposition of a social chapter or minimum wage on this country and on the hon. Gentleman's constituents, which would cost them their jobs instead of creating them.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I compliment my right hon. Friend on the progress made in increasing the number of jobs available in the Principality. Will he confirm that, in terms of inward investment alone, the Welsh Development Agency aims to create or safeguard some 10,000 jobs this year? Does he agree that the WDA has a very good chance of achieving that target, given that some 7,300 jobs were created or safeguarded in 1994–95? Would not the only threat to such progress be posed by the remote possibility of a Labour Government?
    Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend is right in every respect. He is right, for instance, about the WDA's target. As the whole House knows, inward investment has brought tens of thousands of jobs to Wales over the years. The WDA's target for the current year is 10,000, and it is working hard to achieve that. It is working on a number of projects at present.
    As my hon. Friend says, the only threat to the job prospects that have been created would be posed by a Labour Government, who would introduce a Welsh Assembly, the social chapter and a minimum wage.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that the problem relates not just to unemployment, but to the kind of jobs that are attracted to Wales? The vast majority are part-time, low-paid, soul-destroying, non-union jobs. Is he aware that a survey carried out with the Department of Employment in my constituency shows that the hourly rate for jobs advertised worked out at just over £3 an hour? Would he work for that kind of money?
    Mr. Hague: Of course we want skill levels and wages in the Welsh economy to rise over the years. Wages have risen in recent years, and I very much want that to continue. We are also working hard to achieve an improvement in skill levels, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Last week, I emphasised that to the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils. Over time, such improvements help to raise wage levels.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if either of the two sites proposed for a Euro freight depot in Wales—Magor or Wentloog—is used, the Welsh economy and Welsh prestige will receive a massive boost, thousands of jobs will be created and there will be a much wider impact on existing and potential investors in Wales?
    If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, will he explain why, during his six months in office, he has done nothing to support either application, thus allowing a massive 1,000-acre competitor north of Bristol to steal a march? Only one of the sites can be viable: if the Bristol scheme proceeds, the Welsh projects will fail. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if that happens, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Wales will have lost out because of the incompetence and indecision that are the hallmarks of the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Hague: As usual, the hon. Gentleman's question hears little resemblance to reality. There are projects to create rail freight terminals in South Wales, both of which involve applications for grants. Those applications—some for European grants, others for freight facilities grants—are being assessed, but in many instances more information is required. There has been no delay on the part of my officials in the assessment of those projects, and there would be nothing to stop the projects proceeding if they were not dependent on public funds. Before we commit public funds, it is important for Ministers to be satisfied that there is a strong case for doing so.

    Private Finance Initiative (NHS)
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what use has been made so far of the private finance initiative to boost the resources available to the NHS in Wales. [8831]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): We fully expect the private finance initiative to contribute significantly to the capital investment within the NHS in Wales. There are currently around 20 major projects with a total investment of £160 million in the pipeline.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £6.5 million scheme for a new car park at the University hospital of Wales in Cardiff is just one example of the way in which the NHS in Wales is benefiting from the private finance initiative? Is it not the case that the scheme could never have gone ahead on the current time scale if it had had to wait for public funding?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting to see Labour Members laughing at this. That is because they do not understand the private finance initiative. At present, the most advanced project that we have is the

    5
    north Wales cancer centre, worth some £15 million. Two large consortiums have already been short-listed and invitations to tender will take place shortly. Four other major projects in the national health service in Wales have been advertised in the European Journal.
    Mr. Rowlands: What about another finance initiative: the general practitioner out-of-hours services that have been proposed? In the Rhymney valley, for example, that could mean a return journey of 26 miles in the middle of the night for elderly patients. It may be convenient to GPs. Conservative Members might be happy about it, but the patients are not getting the service that they deserve. Will the Minister consider those initiatives as well to ensure that they deliver service to the patients?
    Mr. Richards: We are obviously aware of the pressures that have arisen in the primary care sector, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, under this Government, patients will always come first, and not trade union members working in the health service.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the point that the PFI involves money available over and above that in the Government capital funding programme and that, if it were left to the Labour party, additional medical facilities and hospitals alike would not be available in Wales or anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is correct. Conservative Members want the PFI to become the main source of funding of capital investment in the national health service in Wales. I notice that Labour Members continue to laugh at that. Perhaps I should tell them what the four other projects currently advertised are, because some of them affect their constituencies. There is provision for a new community hospital at Chepstow worth £6 million; a day surgery unit at the Nevill Hall and District NHS trust worth £1.8 million; radiotherapy equipment at the Velindre NHS trust worth £4 million; and an acute psychiatric unit in Abergavenny, Gwent worth £6 million.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that, in relation to a hospital that has only a limited market—to use the terminology that is now used—the private finance initiative is hardly relevant? I think of Bronglais General hospital in mid-Wales. When is he going to reply to my letter to him dated 13 October, part of our on-going correspondence about that hospital and the problems that it faces in the long term because of the way in which the NHS market is likely to operate?
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is being narrow minded about the private finance initiative. Clearly, his party does not understand the PFI's fundamental principles any more than do Labour Members. In the current financial year, we expect the NHS to spend about £125 million. The PH will produce £10 million on top of that. That is hardly insignificant.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's letter dated 13 October, I shall take that matter up immediately this Question Time is over.

    Primary Schools (Expenditure)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices. [8832]
    Mr. Richards: In 1993–94, the most recent year for which figures are available, £1,608 was spent per pupil in LEA-maintained primary and nursery schools in Wales at 1994–95 prices. That compares with £1,105 in 1979–80, again at 1994–95 prices—the earliest period for which figures are available. That is an increase in real terms of 45 per cent.—I say again: 45 per cent.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures scarcely sustain claims of cuts in education? Does he think that that impressive expenditure increase in primary schools in Wales has been accompanied by a comparable improvement in standards?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is correct. Spending on books and equipment in Wales increased in real terms between 1979–80 and 1993–94 by 89 per cent. Spending on teachers' salaries over the same period in real terms increased by 38 per cent., and during that time the pupil-teacher ratio has been about 22 pupils per class. My hon. Friend is also correct about standards, which in schools in Wales are much higher and better now than they were in 1979. However, we still have room for improvement and we are working hard on the implementation of policies that will ensure rising standards.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the Minister of the difficulties that are facing the new Flintshire county council, specifically with education? Does he know that, on the basis of the moneys that have so far been allocated by the Secretary of State, special needs children, those from under-privileged homes and, specifically, teachers will lose out hugely? Will he look again at the moneys that have been allocated to that new council and present proposals so that the county will not begin its new life with inadequate Government money?
    Mr. Richards: It is sad that the hon. Gentleman continues the annual tradition of Clwyd education authority—frightening parents and children about funding for education. He knows perfectly well that it is for local authorities, in this case the new Flintshire education authority, to decide how much to spend on education and how to allocate the money.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the considerable increase in Government spending since 1979 on teachers' salaries, on nursery and primary education and on books and equipment shows the Government's determination to improve the standard of education in Wales? Does he further agree that it would be far better for all parties to support the Government's initiative on nursery education so that opportunity and choice can be enhanced and made available to more people in Wales?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is correct. The figures that I quoted for the primary sector are similar to the

    7
    figures for the secondary sector. Despite Labour's opposition to the nursery voucher scheme in Wales, I have no doubt that its Front-Bench spokesmen will, as usual, display their hypocrisy by taking full advantage of it in due course.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: There would be no question of hypocrisy in these matters on my part. The impressive figures for the increase in expenditure in primary education are principally the result of paying teachers half-decent salaries in the past few years, and of local authorities spending more on education. Will the Minister confirm that, in the past few years, the Welsh Office revenue support grant has made up a smaller share of local government spending and that LEAs have gone into their reserves to maintain services? Despite that, the pupil-teacher ratio is now edging up in primary schools. The average class size is going up and nearly 12,000 more pupils are being taught in classes of more than 30. Primary schools are being underfunded by the Government and they desperately need more money.
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman must have asked about a dozen questions there, or certainly made about a dozen assertions, all of them incorrect.
    Mr. Griffiths: They are from the Minister's statistics.
    Mr. Richards: The truth of the matter is that Opposition Members believe the lies that are being peddled about statistics, and that explains why the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) chose a selective grant-maintained school for her son.
    Mr. Gallie: What progress has been made in Wales on establishing grant-maintained schools? If progress has been made, could my hon. Friend suggest any action to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as progress in the matter has perhaps not been so great in Scotland? Then, in the interests of—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting for a long time to ask his question. I thought that he might have been more direct, but he seems to be circumventing the question on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman has a direct question about Wales, I must hear it.
    Mr. Gallie: What progress has been with regard to grant-maintained schools and primary schools in Wales?
    Madam Speaker: Well done.
    Mr. Richards: If my hon. Friend is patient, he will hear in a few moments our proposal to make grant-maintained schools even more popular in Wales by giving them the opportunity to borrow money in the private sector. I am sure that Opposition Members whose children attend grant-maintained schools will want to support the Government in this matter.

    Rural Railway Lines
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received over the past two years on the subject of rural railway lines in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [8833]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Twenty-one representations in the two years ended 31 December 1995.
    Mr. Llwyd: Is the Minister aware that the first three franchisees to be allocated services are intent on reviewing fares every four months? Did not the Government give an assurance that price rises would be in accordance with inflation? What assurance can the Minister possibly give to those of us in Wales who are very concerned about rural lines in particular, and all railway lines in Wales in general? When will the Government realise that we need a properly funded and integrated public transport system in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend's assurance on fares remains firmly in place, and there has been no change in that matter whatsoever. The same opportunities for the provision of socially necessary railway services in Wales to be supported by the taxpayer exist. The hon. Gentleman ought to move forward to the 20th century and recognise the real opportunities that privatisation presents, in the same way as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—according to the Western Mail this morning—has seen the possibilities of freight traffic on the north Wales line.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Minister invite the Secretary of State to travel the 120-mile stretch of the heart of Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury to see the most beautiful line in Wales? Will he further ensure that the Welsh Office is represented at a very senior level at the special conference to be held in Llandrindod Wells on 23 March? The conference will look at the potential of the line, and at the potential for integrated transport, green tourism and job creation along its length.
    Mr. Jones: It is always good to be represented on any appropriate occasion, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is looked into. I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for the excellent heart of Wales line and the beautiful scenery through which it passes. I do not need to pass on such an invitation to my right hon. Friend—although I know that he would take it up with alacrity—because he has already travelled on parts of the line.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of local authorities to discuss the local government financial settlement. [8834]
    Mr. Hague: I chaired a meeting of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance on 18 December 1995.
    Mr. Jones: I trust that those who were present at the meeting made the Secretary of State aware of the effect of the Government's grant to local authorities on the council taxes in Wales that are soon to be announced. Is the Secretary of State aware that we shall see increases of 30 or 40 per cent. in council tax across Wales? What effect does he believe that that will have on the Welsh economy and on the feel-good factor in Wales? What

    9
    effect is the rise likely to have on the prospects at the next election of the pitifully few Conservative Members who represent Welsh constituencies?
    Mr. Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, council tax levels are set by local authorities. Notwithstanding that, I expect that there will be a large differential between English and Welsh council taxes for the foreseeable future. Local authority leaders made certain representations to me at the meeting on 18 December and further representations in the period of consultation, which ended on 5 January. I shall, of course, consider those representations.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if local authorities such as mine restricted their council tax increase to the 3 per cent. present rate of inflation, in order to balance their books, they would have to cut some 50 teaching posts, close 15 rural schools, withdraw social services from 1,500 vulnerable people and close leisure centres for one or two days a week? Is that the objective of the settlement that he has made?
    Mr. Hague: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have increased the amount of money that central Government will give to local government in the coming year. It is not possible to satisfy every demand for money on every occasion, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I have increased the money that is given to local government. It is up to local government to play its part, in being as efficient as possible and running its services as well as it can, to ensure that we get the best possible value for money.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: In particular, what excuses does the Secretary of State have to offer to the residents of the politically independent area of the new Powys unitary authority, who face a minimum increase of 15 to 20 per cent. in their council tax just to maintain services?
    Mr. Hague: I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman—on a day when the Liberal party has told us that it stands for high taxes, is soft on Europe and is naive on the economy, I wonder that he asks me about a possible tax increase. The question is similar to those that I was asked earlier, and therefore the answer is similar: I am giving an increased amount of money to local government during the coming year, although the actual level of council tax is set by local authorities. I expect Welsh council taxes will be far below English council taxes in the coming year.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Flintshire there is not only concern about education—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)—but growing concern among the leaders of that authority about the future of Theatr Clwyd and the 100 jobs that it creates in my constituency, plus the many more knock-on-effect jobs in the town of Mold? Will the Secretary of State agree today to review the settlement to see whether there is any further assistance that he can give Flintshire, to ensure that that excellent facility continues as a source of pride in north Wales?
    Mr. Hague: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), I received many
    10
    representations in the consultation that ended on 5 January and I shall consider all those representations, including those that I received from Flintshire.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent unemployment figure for Wales; and what is the European Union average. [8835]
    Mr. Richards: The latest available unemployment rate for Wales on an internationally comparable basis is 8.3 per cent. for autumn 1995. The European Union rate in October 1995 was 10.6 per cent.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment in Wales is lower than in Spain, Italy, France and Germany, all of which follow the sorts of policies advocated by the Labour and Liberal parties? Is that why the Liberal Democrats are regarded as naive on the economy?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Liberal Democrats are indeed naive, when they bother to turn up. When he talks about the Welsh economy, that reflects the fact that Wales does not have any of the economic and welfare baggage of the European Union, such as the social chapter or the minimum wage. Perhaps more importantly, Wales does not intend to take on board any of the federal European political baggage, which other countries want to do.
    Let me illustrate to my hon. Friend what that means to Wales in terms of jobs—I hope that Opposition Members will listen. It means investment by Bosch of Germany resulting in 1,000 jobs; by L'Oreal of France, more than 500 jobs; by FRAM of Italy, more than 500 jobs; Valeo of France, 660 jobs; Kronospan of Leichtenstein, 420 jobs; MVO Spa of Italy, more than 44 jobs; Axa France, 277 jobs. I am sure that there are more jobs to come where they came from.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the tragedy for Wales in the truth of the Minister's boast—that this may be the Government's best year for unemployment? Is it not a fact that in this, their best year, more than 10 million more working days will be lost through unemployment than were lost in 1979? Does not the horrendous number of lost days that must have accumulated over the past 16 years explain the poverty and deprivation that has become all too common in Wales?
    Mr. Richards: The tragedy for Wales is that the Labour party still has such a high representation there. None of us will forget the tragedy of days lost through strikes when Labour was in power and until we changed the law. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of days lost through unemployment, I should remind him that inflation is down, interest rates are down, unemployment is down, productivity is up, average earnings are up, output is up and confidence is up. The only thing that could undermine that confidence is the Labour party.
    Mr. Sykes: I know that my hon. Friend needs no more ammunition than he has already fired this afternoon but will he tell the people of Wales about a large company in my constituency that found that, because of the social

    11
    chapter, it could not afford to build a factory in France and decided, therefore, to double its production line in Scarborough, thus guaranteeing the jobs of my constituents?
    Mr. Richards: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has drawn that example to the attention of the House. He is an experienced industrialist and employer—matters of which the Labour party has very little experience.
    Mr. Morgan: I apologise for my late arrival, which was due to train failure. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Members who have put the word "Tory" into praetorian guard by being here today.
    Does the Minister accept that, contrary to the impression that he has given that Wales is a land flowing with jobs, milk and honey, his own recent publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales 1994/95" shows that Wales' gross domestic product per head is 15 per cent. below the British average and 20 per cent. below the United Kingdom average and that Wales therefore produces tax receipts 20 per cent. below the UK average? Does not that suggest that, in spite of the investments that he mentioned—some of which, including FRAM, are 20 years old—Wales does not flow with milk and honey and would have a far higher standard of living if the standard of living of some of the countries that he mentioned as bad examples applied?
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the state that Wales was in when we inherited it in 1979, with clapped-out public sector industries that cost the UK taxpayer £50 million a week. Since we privatised them, they have contributed some £50 million a week to the Exchequer. He cannot seriously expect anyone to believe that Wales is not now an infinitely better place in which to work and live than it was in 1979.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the board of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss its policy on inward investment. [8836]
    Mr. Hague: I regularly meet the board of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State next meets the board, will he point out that the M4 corridor does not stop at Bridgend and ask why a constituency such as mine, which still has 30 per cent. of its work force engaged in productive industries and which has a long tradition of manufacturing engineering, has had no major investment at all for the past 10 years?
    Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to that strong tradition in his constituency and I should certainly like us to maintain and improve our efforts to ensure that the spread of inward investment around Wales increases. Of course, inward investors are attracted to particular sites, but the Welsh Development Agency has targets to ensure a greater spread of inward investment. Llanelli has major inward investment employers such as Calsonic and Camford Pressings from Germany, although
    12
    they have been there for some time. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a great deal of effort to maximise inward investment into all parts of Wales.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with the Welsh Development Agency the difficulties that it would face should this country ever be under a Labour Government who were committed to a social chapter and a minimum wage, which would destroy inward investment?
    Mr. Hague: Some of the factors that attract inward investors are lower tax on companies and less regulation than is to be found in the rest of the European Community, and one factor in producing them is not being part of the social chapter. Were we to sign up to it, it would undoubtedly damage our inward investment prospects.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the Welsh Development Agency, jointly with the Cardiff business school, on producing for Wales the United Kingdom's first regional technology plan? Given the importance of that project, does he think it appropriate that he should have deceived the WDA into thinking that he would launch the plan in Cardiff on Wednesday this week? Will he confirm that, contrary to the press releases that have been put out, he has no intention of being there and has chosen instead to be at a Conservative party function in London? Does not that demonstrate precisely what is wrong with the Government—people's needs are playing second fiddle to the Tory party's needs?
    Mr. Hague: I shall be attending a meeting of the Cabinet, and the hon. Gentleman would be angry with me if I did not. I shall deliver my speech at the launch of the regional technology plan by video tape. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy listening to every word of my speech and that his questions will be better informed in future.

    Modern Apprenticeships
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has been taken to allow more young people to benefit from modern apprenticeships in Wales. [8837]
    Mr. Hague: I have made additional funds available for modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships so that, by the end of 1996–97, more than 8,500 young people in Wales will have been able to start such training since the initiative began. That will result in a substantial injection of new, highly skilled and qualified workers into manufacturing industry in Wales.
    Mr. Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on increasing spending year on year by 14 per cent. Does not that show the Government's commitment to producing a skilled work force from our young folk? Does he feel that Welsh employers have managed to measure up satisfactorily to the challenge presented to employers and to young people by the modern apprenticeship scheme?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend. He is right about the priorities that I have given to the training of young

    13
    people. The budget for training young people will be £53 million next year which, as he said, is an increase of 14 per cent. I have also asked the training and enterprise councils to make manufacturing skills their top priority, not only in Government schemes but by encouraging companies to do the same. We have a steadily improving performance on training in Wales and I shall do my best to continue to encourage it.
    Mr. Hain: Does not the Secretary of State realise that that is all nonsense? The Government's figures show that the number of recognised trade apprenticeships has fallen from 19,000 four years ago to less than 10,000 now? There has been a collapse in job opportunities for young people. Crime is rising, there is a lack of hope and young people throughout the valleys in south Wales feel tremendous despair because they cannot get trade apprenticeships, which the Government have cut year after year.
    Mr. Hague: As I have explained, the Government's policies are directed towards increasing opportunities. I have already listed the ways in which we are doing that. Moreover, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the survey released today by Dun and Bradstreet, which shows that nearly two thirds of Welsh firms—the highest proportion in the whole of Great Britain—expect to increase their employment.

    School Sports
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to encourage participation in sport in schools and to raise the standard of sports provision in schools. [8838]
    Mr. Richards: Last September, my right hon. Friend published "Young People and Sport in Wales", which sets out a comprehensive programme of action for sport for children of school age. He invited the Sports Council to Wales to consult widely and advise him on a number of specific issues arising out of the document. My right hon. Friend expects to receive that advice shortly.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that my Welsh constituents in Basildon will be delighted with that news, irrespective of the type of school to which they send their children? Will he confirm that plans to change national lottery funding so that individuals may benefit from lottery money will considerably help young people and sport generally in Wales?
    Mr. Richards: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in touch with his Welsh constituents in Basildon. However, matters involving the national lottery are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

    Trade Mission (Indonesia)
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the prospective cost of the Welsh Office-led trade mission to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [8839]
    Mr. Hague: It is £18,000, including a visit to Singapore. My Department's trade mission programme
    14
    provides excellent value for money and has given a significant boost to the Welsh economy by helping many small and medium-sized companies to improve their overseas sales performance.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is not his attitude typical of those who used to trade with Saddam Hussein despite the evidence that he was torturing and killing his own people? Does he not realise that the human rights record of Indonesia is one of the worst in the world? Indonesia killed 200,000 people when it illegally invaded East Timor. Does he not realise that the people of Wales are outraged that he and his team in the Welsh Office consider the matter to be of no significance?
    Mr. Hague: United Kingdom exports to Indonesia increased by 42 per cent. in 1995. The people of Wales would be outraged if we said that Wales were to have no share in that increase, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and those who went with him, promoted. The people who went on the trade mission were not arms suppliers, but people seeking to trade with Indonesia in many different sectors. They have brought back orders worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds, which should be welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Vickers
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Attorney-General if he will ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to call for a report on the memorandum of 6 September 1995 written by Sir Colin Chandler, chief executive of Vickers, to his fellow executive David Hastie; and if he will make a statement. [8858]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): No, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Galloway: The cynical and casual attachment to the principles of British law implicit in that most cynical of answers is probably why this will be the last time that we shall see the Attorney-General in his current position. The Vickers memorandum catches the chief executives of Vickers and British Aerospace red handed as accomplices before the fact of a conspiracy against Mohammed al-Masari, a refugee living lawfully and peacefully in this country. If not kidnapping and murder, what could the executives have been referring to when they used the cynical and chilling phrases, "stifle him personally" and "direct intervention against him"? Why have not those executives explained their words? Why have they gone to ground so shamefacedly? Why is the discredited Attorney-General covering up for them today?
    The Attorney-General: The House might think that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If he seriously thinks that there are any grounds for suggesting that there has been criminality in relation to that memorandum, he will no doubt report it to the police.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the professor enjoys the hospitality of this country and should not behave in a way that puts jobs for people in this country at risk?
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is fully entitled to take foreign affairs considerations and the relationship with important allies into account in making his decisions.

    Magistrates Courts (Paperwork)
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to reduce the paperwork involved in bringing criminal charges in magistrates courts. [8859]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): In cases where pleas of guilty are anticipated, abbreviated files are being introduced which are expected to reduce paperwork by 5 million sheets annually.
    Mr. Brazier: That is a welcome answer. An independent inquiry into paperwork in the police force has been conducted by PA Management Consultants, and there is a strong case for having an outside look at the paperwork element of the Crown Prosecution Service because there are concerns, legitimate or not, about delays. We should consider widening the scope of cases that can be handled by the use of guilty pleas through the post, which greatly reduces cost and time in the prosecution process.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend's latter suggestion is already the subject of discussion. The Crown Prosecution Service does not impose case format on the police unilaterally: it is the result of joint discussions between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the legal profession.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the Solicitor-General be prepared to call in the papers in the case of my constituent, Miss Elaine Steele, to review the prosecution brought against her?
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service conducts 1.4 million cases annually, so the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not have the facts of that case at my fingertips at present. Naturally, I shall look into the matter if he asks me to.

    Discontinuances
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in reducing the number of discontinuances; and if he will make a statement. [8860]
    The Solicitor-General: The rate of discontinuance has fallen from 13.4 per cent. of cases for the year ending September 1993 to 11.9 per cent. of cases for the year ending September 1995.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the discontinuance of prosecution often causes great frustration to the police and distress to the victims of crime? Can he confirm, therefore, that the very welcome reduction in the number of discontinuances that he mentioned is the result of closer co-operation and liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, I can confirm that. Although the matter is of concern, it is of less concern
    16
    than before as the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are working together very closely at local level to ensure that the quality of files is as high as it can be.
    My hon. Friend will realise that some cases will always have to be discontinued. Some 30 per cent. of cases are presently discontinued because they cannot proceed due to the defendant producing documents at court or witnesses refusing, or failing, to attend.

    Serious Fraud (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about prosecutions for serious fraud.[8861]
    The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office has so far brought to trial and concluded some 145 cases of serious and complex fraud involving some 325 defendants. That has led to the conviction of at least one defendant in more than 75 per cent. of those cases. Where there has been only one conviction, it has usually been of the principal defendant.
    Mr. Banks: I do not think that the country will be particularly satisfied with that answer because the spectacular prosecutions are going down very badly. I think that the House is entitled to ask the Attorney-General what is going on inside the Serious Fraud Office. Is it harassing honest business men, is it incompetent, or are white collar crooks simply getting away with it? My gut feeling is that the Maxwell brothers are about as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Is not the real problem self-regulation in the City? There might be a case for getting rid of the jury system in complex fraud cases, but, quite frankly, self-regulation for crooks will never work.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Attorney-General replies, I must point out that there are a number of other charges pending involving the Maxwell brothers and the House's sub judice rule prevents any further discussion of those matters. Of course, general references to the work of the Serious Fraud Office are entirely permissible, but I hope that the House will be cautious about these matters.
    The Attorney-General: I take fully on board the points that you have made, Madam Speaker, and I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman may regret the observations that he has just made.
    The case was investigated with what independent commentators regard generally as great skill, it was prosecuted entirely fairly with great professionalism, the court handled it in an exemplary fashion and the jury considered the matter and reached its decision. That is British justice. We keep under careful review how we should proceed in future, but we should not distort the position.
    Mr. Dykes: Is not this a moment when the whole House, the Government and everyone else should defend and support the Serious Fraud Office, and not attack it for irrational reasons, bearing in mind the fact that that institution is crucial to the future of the country in tackling serious fraud cases, that it needs more resources and more staff in future and that it has a very good record? Is not it important also for the Government to consider further,

    17
    without excessive delay, the need to have a professional panel of assessors instead of an amateur jury in the trial of such cases?
    The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Serious Fraud Office has proved its worth during its seven years. Very complex cases are now being brought to trial with a professionalism and skill that cannot be compared with what went before. If we did not have the Serious Fraud Office in its present form, we would need to invent it.
    The whole House will acknowledge that trial by jury is a very important part of our liberties, from which it and the country would never move lightly, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the only way to conduct a trial. When the Maxwell case is over, we shall consider calmly, carefully and thoughtfully whether there is a way in which similar cases might be tried better than by jury. We should certainly make no change unless we were confident that it would be an improvement.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with Lord Devlin that the object of any tyrant would be to overthrow trial by jury? Does he believe that that applies as much to fraud cases, where there are judgments of honesty and dishonesty to be made, as to any other case in which dishonesty is charged? Will he reflect on the effect of his remarks following the verdict in the Maxwell trial, which have given the impression of criticism of a jury that listened for 131 days to evidence and argument, and returned a verdict on the basis of that evidence and argument?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that no one who has listened to my comments in the round will have received that impression. I have been studiously careful to be very balanced on the subject.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to Lord Devlin, who was head of my chambers and a greatly respected Law Lord, but other greatly respected Law Lords take different views and it is a subject on which very experienced people hold different views. When we come to consider the issue, we shall certainly consider it extremely carefully before we make any change—and I am not saying whether we shall make any change.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General reject recent criticism of the jury system in fraud trials—there is no evidence that it has failed, and I know so far of no better way of assessing dishonesty—and of the SFO, changes in both of which have been rejected by Parliament in recent years?
    Will the Government, instead of considering the matter internally, as the Attorney-General appeared to suggest at the weekend, appoint a senior judicial figure of the calibre of Lord Roskill to examine, with the assistance of financial experts, the system of prevention, investigation, prosecution and trial of alleged large-scale financial wrongdoing?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the support that he has rightly given to the SFO. He, like me, recognises the enormous advances that it has made in the seven years of its existence. I can assure him that, in keeping under review the best way of trying even the most complex and difficult cases, we shall bear his words, among others, in mind.

    Over-lenient Sentences (Appeals)
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Attorney-General how many successful appeals have been made against over-lenient sentences. [8862]
    The Attorney-General: Since the introduction of the power to refer unduly lenient sentences in February 1989, the Court of Appeal has heard 213 references, of which 177–83 per cent.—resulted in increased sentences.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for the general public, the introduction of the power to appeal against over-lenient sentences and to ensure that criminals receive a proper sentence has been hugely popular? Is not that another demonstration of the Government's commitment to law and order, on which Labour so signally seeks to undermine us?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes two good points. The power has been most beneficial, and it is exercised with great care. The Opposition opposed the power when it was introduced, but have been good enough to realise that it is beneficial and to say so. I am glad to think that that view spreads across far wider fields of policy. I hope that we shall always hold the high ground and that the Opposition will seek to assault us upon it.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [8863]
    The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service is in the process of developing initiatives with the police on training, and on the provision of prosecutors in police stations and police crime support units, to give early advice and assist in the prompt and efficient preparation of cases for court. Like other departments, the Crown Prosecution Service is implementing a senior management review.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take note of concerns expressed by my constituents? In one case, a young man was knocked off his motor bike by a car, whose driver accepted guilt at the scene of the accident. There were also two witnesses to the accident, yet the CPS is refusing to take that case forward. My constituents would like changes in the service. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that changes will be considered?
    The Attorney-General: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whenever there is criticism of the CPS's handling of case, I examine the matter with immense care. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to write to me with details, I shall ensure that the case he has in mind is carefully reviewed. If it is concluded, I shall give the hon. Gentleman an explanation; if it is still in process, I shall ensure that it is reviewed.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that today's Order Paper was properly circulated? It appears that a number of hon. Members with an interest in grant-maintained schools are not present for the debate.
Madam Speaker: All the papers needed for the debate are available to hon. Members. It is not for the Speaker to determine which hon. Members are present and which absent themselves.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this matter not because my oral question was 12th on the Order Paper and only Question 11 was reached. I refer to an issue that I have raised with you on numerous occasions in the past. As you well know, there are 38 Members of Parliament for Wales. Although I appreciate that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, right hon. and hon. Members representing Wales rarely have an opportunity to question the Executive, particularly the Secretary of State for Wales. Today, Madam Speaker, you called six Conservative Members who do not represent Welsh seats, four Labour Members who represent Welsh seats and one Welsh nationalist. Surely it is time that Labour Members representing Wales should have the opportunity to examine and question the Executive.
My question related to representation of constituents in the whole of Bridgend, who in all probability will face a 38 per cent. increase in their council tax as a result of the measly contribution that the Secretary of State is offering. Is not it true—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point—[Interruption.] I can deal with this matter, thank you. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman missed out today, but he answered his own question at the beginning of his remarks, when he pointed out that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that any hon. Members may put questions to any Department of State.
I shall take the House into my confidence in regard to today's Order Paper. My research has shown me that 20 Welsh Members and 18 English Members tabled questions. Of those, 13 Welsh Members and 17 English Members were successful in the ballot. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that only 20 out of 38 Welsh Members actually tabled questions. If Welsh Members wish to increase their quota, they should table more questions. If there is some great fault with Welsh questions, perhaps Welsh Members might like to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, but much of the answer lies in Welsh Members tabling more questions.
20
We shall now proceed.
Mr. Sebastian Coe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Marlow: Yes. Would it be in order to have three cheers for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who has done for this Parliament what the Sheffield rally did for the general election campaign? In other words, she has let the country know the true nature of the Labour party.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) has a genuine point of order.
Mr. Coe: It is certainly a different one. I rise to seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. There was much interest in my constituency this morning about a document that has appeared, paid for by the taxpayer and produced for the benefit of some hon. Members. Do you have the power to ensure that that document is placed in the House of Commons Library, especially as it describes the policies of the Liberal Democrats as naive, and in favour of higher taxes and crippling home owners? Surely, that is the least that we could expect from a party that is wedded to open government.
Madam Speaker: It may be a point of order for me, but I should like to see the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers before I make a ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] So would the House.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT
  That the Public Service Vehicles (Operators' Licences) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2908) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the Public Service Vehicles (Operators' Licences) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2909) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Knapman]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.37 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill has five clauses relating to nursery education and gives powers to the Secretary of State to make arrangements thereto. When I heard about the Bill, I made inquiries about certain documents that relate to the operation of the Bill, if passed, and other consultation papers and administration arrangements. I was supplied with those documents and I passed them to those who are advising me on the merits of the Bill.
  I assumed that, as those documents were public documents, I could pick up duplicate copies from the Vote Office today or I could consult them in the Library. I found that the documents were not available from the Vote Office. The Library may have them as deposited papers, and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench may have been supplied with them, as may other hon. Members. However, I have not been able to obtain them for the purposes of the debate. As papers related to the Bill should be available, I wish to ask the Secretary of State—and I have given the right hon. Lady notice of my question—where the documents were distributed, and to whom. Did they go to the Library; did they go to the Front Bench; and why are they not in the Vote Office?
  Madam Speaker: The Secretary of State may wish to make a point further to that point of order. As far as I understand matters, on Second Reading, the Bill is all that is required for our debate. Any supplementary papers that may be of help are usually supplied as a courtesy by the Secretary of State who is handling the Bill. If the Secretary of State wishes to comment on that, I am sure that it would be helpful to the House.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I shall comment. Absolutely no discourtesy to the House was intended. Sets of the documents have been placed in the Library and they were supplied to the Vote Office. I understand that they have run out, but we can certainly ensure that full sets of documents, not only those that the hon. Gentleman may have seen, but the consultation documents that preceded the drafting of the Bill, can be made available very quickly. There is no problem. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who is always meticulous about such matters, and to the House. No discourtesy was intended.
  Madam Speaker: The House will be obliged to the right hon. Lady.
  3.39 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has two purposes. It provides for the expansion of the education of under-fives; it removes the statutory bar preventing grant-maintained schools from borrowing on the commercial market; and it builds further on the
  22
  main themes of the Government's education policy. It focuses on improvement in standards of achievement and encouragement of parental choice, diversity and the aspirations of parents and children—all parents and all children.
  On all those themes—encouragement of parental choice, diversity of provision, and the aspirations of all parents for their children—the Opposition are in complete disarray. We have heard the shadow transport spokesman enunciating Labour education policy—indeed, I am interested to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in his place this afternoon. It seemed earlier today that he might have been reshuffled in favour of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). Let us hope that that does not come about.
  Nothing now can hide, however, the basic contradiction and deep division at the heart of Labour education policy: choice and diversity for some Labour Front Benchers, but clearly stated and oft-repeated policy intentions to remove that choice and that diversity from everyone else. Small wonder that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has found it necessary to resign as chairman of the Labour education committee. As he says in The Guardian today:
  "It was not me who opposed party policy".
  I am not sure what sort of advertisement that is for the hon. Gentleman's education, but I quote it verbatim.
  Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the school at the centre of this controversy produced the first parliamentary ombudsman and three Conservative Members of Parliament—of whom I am proud to be one? It has also given a first-class start to many hundreds of young men who have succeeded in the professions and in business. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that just down the road from it is Kemnal technology college, of which I am proud to be a governor? It offers an all-round education to young men, leading to a range of technical qualifications. Are not those examples of diversity and choice in education of which all parents can take advantage?
  Mrs. Shephard: They are indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his rather striking tie—I believe that it is the tie of his old school. I am delighted to hear him speak so warmly of his old school, which is clearly an excellent school with an excellent record. It is of course part of Conservative party policy to promote such schools and to promote diversity. We do not seek to abolish them.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady spends her time at the Dispatch Box defending state schools. Can she explain why three quarters of all Conservative Members of Parliament have sent their children to the private sector—to public schools—or intend to send them to private schools? If the state sector of education is so wonderful, why do Tory Members buy their way around it?
  Mrs. Shephard: Oh dear, oh dear. The hon. Gentleman will have to do a great deal better than that. We believe in choice and diversity and in the private and public sectors. We believe in access for everyone to independent schools, through the assisted places scheme, and we believe in a diverse system: grant-maintained, local

  23
  education authority, selective, non-selective and specialist schools. It is only the Labour party that wishes to march back to the 1960s and reimpose the comprehensive uniformity of those drab years.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State come back to the business of the House—that is, nursery provision—and tell us how parents can have a choice if there is no place for their child to attend a nursery school? As she will be aware, from letters that I have sent to her, in my constituency we have requested nursery places, but she is refusing to provide them. Will she explain where the choice is if there are no nursery places for people's children?
  Mrs. Shephard: Happily, but later in the debate.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), when asking my right hon. Friend his question, was clearly coming to the aid of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), because he clearly believes in choice—at least for himself, as he is listed as having gone to Keswick school; he then chose the Sorbonne in Paris. It is all right for him, but not all right for anybody else.
  Mrs. Shephard: That is a shame, is it not? I shall now try to make some progress.
  As I said earlier, as Opposition Members should agree, the Bill should be bipartisan. There are some 8 million pupils at state schools in England and Wales. They and their parents, if Opposition Members will allow me to use the expression, have a stake in the system, because schools are accountable to parents, and run by governors who are accountable to the wider community, for the benefit of children. Those parents, governors, the wider community, and, of course, the children, are stakeholders in education, and it is the Conservative Government who have made them so.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in my constituency I have four grant-maintained grammar schools. If children cannot be selected for admission to those schools on the basis of interview or examination, those schools will cease to be grammar schools. Does she agree with me on that?
  Mrs. Shephard: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend on that. He makes the excellent point that camouflaged comments about interview procedures hide the intention of Opposition Members to abolish grammar schools, which some of them value for their own children.
  I should like to make a little progress. The Prime Minister has made a commitment that new nursery education places will be made available for four-year-olds during the lifetime of this Parliament. Over time, there will be a nursery place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish it, in a state, independent or voluntary setting. That commitment is vividly illustrated by the £390 million of new money that we are making available for the scheme over the first three years, which with the £565 million coming from local authorities makes a total of some £750 million per year, which is a substantial investment.
  24
  Phase 1 is already under way. The first children to benefit will start in April this year.
  Mr. David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State tell me—before anybody asks, I went to Verdin comprehensive school—whether the number of nursery places in authorities such as my own, where all four-year-olds currently get a nursery place, will be diminished through voucher schemes, which will force authorities to reduce the number of places in the public sector? People will then have no choice at all, because such places will not exist.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is completely misguided about the matter. If the quality of education provided in nursery schools in his authority is very good, parents will choose it, and local authorities will lose nothing. It is just possible, however, that some parents in his local authority area—as in mine—would like to choose between local authority, independent and playgroup provision. Let me also remind him that, at present, the quality of provision is uneven; one of the effects of the Bill will be an improvement in inspection and standards. Consumers of the service in his authority, as in all authorities, stand to gain.
  Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Solihull benefits from far better provision than the Government's scheme? Will she exempt it, and other local education authorities, from such schemes?
  Mrs. Shephard: As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited nursery schools in Solihull and was very impressed. There is no doubt that, if the parents of Solihull find that provision as excellent as I did, that is what they will choose. The Solihull authority has nothing to fear.
  Phase 2, which will apply throughout England and Wales, will start in April 1997.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: I should like to make a little progress, if I may.
  I shall say something about Scotland and Northern Ireland later.
  The Bill's proposals for nursery education break important new ground in three respects. For the first time—across the board, in all sectors—through the new funding mechanism, parents will be in charge. They will choose the setting—state, independent or voluntary. For the first time, too, all providers in the state, voluntary and independent sectors will be required to work towards the same educational outcomes; and, for the first time, all providers will have to satisfy a common inspection regime.
  Parental choice has underpinned the whole range of our education policies. First, we put parents on governing bodies. We gave them a greater chance of choosing a school for their children, through open enrolment. We gave them more kinds of school from which to choose: grant-maintained, city technology colleges, specialist schools, local authority schools, selective and non-selective schools and independent schools, made available through

  25
  the assisted places scheme. Through local management of schools, we have given parents and governors a much greater say in the running of their schools.
  In other words, we have given parents a fundamental share—a stake—in the process of their children's education. We did that because we believe in choice and diversity for all. Some Opposition Members are happy to benefit from the Government's policies of choice and diversity for their own children, while seeking to remove that choice and diversity from everyone else.
  Mr. George Walden: Can my right hon. Friend give a figure for what the Treasury calls the deadweight cost of her scheme—the millions of pounds that will be handed out to well-to-do parents who are already paying out of their private income for children to go to nursery school? Will she also explain why she is prepared to countenance that deadweight cost in the case of nurseries? When I suggested that certain ex-direct-grant schools that wanted to go into the state sector should be allowed to do so, the Government told me that that was impossible, not least because of the deadweight costs.
  Mrs. Shephard: I cannot give my hon. Friend a detailed answer in regard to the deadweight cost. What is important is that there is choice for everyone, whether they come from the middle class or not. We want to benefit all people, including people who may not hitherto have thought of going into the independent sector or of being able to obtain high-quality nursery provision. I believe that my hon. Friend will agree that those principles are important. He also knows that my door is always open if he wishes to discuss with me his interesting ideas about closer liaison between the private and public sectors.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way when she has already done so a number of times. Does she agree that not only parents who are currently using the existing private sector provision are better off? My wife runs a successful playgroup, and the vast majority of children go on to our excellent village state primary. They will be very grateful for the scheme, and many parents who are struggling to pay will be very glad of the vouchers.
  Mrs. Shephard: It is true that the policies are not designed to put out of business either independent providers or playgroup providers. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
  We have tailored an education system to each individual—we do not expect the individual to fit a uniform system. The introduction of the nursery education voucher is another step in that direction. It builds on the influence that parents have gained under our policies. It reinforces the key role of parents in choosing the right setting for their children, a principle so firmly supported by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). It gives them the opportunity to influence the education provided.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and speculates perhaps on how the hon. Lady will vote on this matter of choice and diversity tonight, does my right hon. Friend agree that the point about the hon. Lady is not that she is doing the best for
  26
  her children, which any hon. Member on either side of the House would accept, but that she is claiming rights for her own children that she is committed to denying to the children of other parents? Is not that what makes her action so contemptible?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly and I think that the faces of Labour Members tell their own story.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: I will in a moment. I have taken about 10 interventions. I must try to make a little progress now.
  This country has a long history of nursery education, going back to the Macmillan sisters, Susan Isaacs and beyond, in state and private schools. The evolution of their ideas has produced a rich diversity of pre-school provision through the playgroup movement—now itself evolved into the Pre-School Learning Alliance—in private nursery schools, through the Montessori movement, in local authority nursery schools, and in reception and nursery classes of primary schools, so that nine out of 10 of our under-fives already receive some pre-school education experience.
  As I have said, however, it is not part of the Government's policy to seek to impose on that flourishing and varied sector the dead hand of uniformity, nor to seek to put out of business independent providers such as Montessori and others, or the pre-school playgroups that have served young children with such distinction in the past 35 years.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that choice in education is vital and will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will she try to explain to the House that, if one does not have choice, the only alternative is class segregation? Will she be reminded, in particular, of her experience in Southend-on-Sea, where all my children have attended state schools and where one quarter of all children go to the four grammar schools? If one abolishes those, the choice that we have to enable an able, working-class child to break out of his environment simply disappears. Will she therefore try to persuade Labour Members who are shouting at her that this is good social common sense?
  Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend that choice is vital and that selective schools have an important role to play in that choice and in the quality of education.
  Mr. David Blunkett: Perhaps the Secretary of State will therefore tell the House what plans she and her Government have to extend grammar school education to every part of England and Wales, and when she intends to bring those proposals forward to satisfy the demands made by her Back Benchers this afternoon.
  Mrs. Shephard: That is grand stuff coming from the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that, given the problems in his party, it might be he who should be bringing forward such proposals. As he knows, however, we are consulting on admissions procedures.

  27
  I have spoken about variety and about the flourishing sector that exists for the under-fives. We want to use that variety to encourage partnerships of provision and expertise, and to encourage enterprise and innovation. Good-quality education can be provided in all kinds of settings.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady; the failure in relation to the documents is not typical of her meticulous work. Does she agree, however, that the choice that she is advocating is to be implemented by use of parental vouchers, that the use of vouchers will probably diminish the number of three-year-olds at nursery schools, that vouchers must be given up to local education authorities in infant school reception classes for children below the age of five, and that they are likely to be issued in different colours, one for each day of the week? It is possible that they will be redeemable at more than one establishment per pupil. Finally, there is a risk that they will become negotiable tender. Are not all those points correct?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, and I intend to cover most of them in my speech. The practical details of the way in which the scheme will work are currently being tested in phase 1, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I recommend to him the documents that he has and the consultation material, which will also help him in his quest for information.
  When welcoming the scheme, the National Private Day Nurseries Association stated:
  "It will stimulate the market to provide more places. It will give parents improved choices and drive up standards through healthy competition."
  What we do not want is uniformity of provision, but what we must have is uniformity of quality because this is an education policy designed to improve the achievements of all children: it is not a question of child minding and child care.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: On the issue of parental choice and the avoidance of uniformity, does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the hypocrisy of Opposition Members is that they argue one thing to benefit their own children while seeking to deny that same choice to other people? It is a case of, "We are all right, Jack and Harriet, pull up the ladder." Is not their policy obviously unharmonised?
  Mrs. Shephard: We support the right of parents to choose. Labour is in difficulty because while some of its Front-Bench Members seek to exercise that choice, which we support, for the benefit of their children, Labour's policies seek to deny those choices to the children of everyone else. That is unacceptable.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The right hon. Lady has commended parental choice 10 times in 20 minutes. Does she recall the Prime Minister's speech in Birmingham in September, in which he promised that Church schools would be allowed to change their status without consulting the parents? Is that still the Government's policy and how does it square with parental choice?
  Mrs. Shephard: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been out to lunch. He has obviously missed the
  28
  announcement about voluntary-aided schools. We put six options to VA schools and others on whether they would like to have a fast track to grant-maintained status, and on other matters. While they supported the present arrangements for schools going grant-maintained, VA schools did not want to have a special case made for them. As I have confirmed in the House on many occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has not been present—out to lunch I dare say again—in the consultations nothing was ruled in and nothing was ruled out. I made that clear a number of times, and we accepted the views of VA schools and others.
  Mr. Hattersley rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: I must make some progress. I have taken about 15 interventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Very well, but this is the last one.
  Mr. Hattersley: We all know that the Church rebuffed the Prime Minister: it was one of his many humiliations during the autumn. Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question that I asked her? How did the Prime Minister's offer of allowing schools to opt out without consulting parents square with the avowed policy of parental choice?
  Mrs. Shephard: Mainly because my right hon. Friend did not make it—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I said that six options were put to VA schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I did. Church schools were consulted on the sixth option. It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman, who intervened twice, did not listen to the answers that he was given.
  I now intend to make some progress. I have taken a number of interesting and jolly interventions, but the House will begin to lose patience if I do not do so.
  We are proposing a series of measures to ensure quality. First, parents will be in control. All the providers to which grants will be made will be required to publish information for parents. That will include details of their staffing, admission arrangements and the education programme on offer. Parents will be able to see whether their children will be offered the opportunities that will help them make the most of their pre-school year in just the same way as they can make judgments from the prospectuses of primary and secondary schools.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: I will of course give way in a little while, but I want to make progress.
  Secondly, I have gladly accepted in full the advice that I received from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on the goals for learning for children by the time they enter compulsory education. Different children will of course make progress at different rates, but all children should be able to follow a programme towards the outcome. I want children to start compulsory school excited by the prospect of learning and keen to question and investigate.
  Thirdly, inspection is essential in ensuring that there is good-quality provision. The Office of Standards in Education will be responsible for drawing up an

  29
  inspection framework for recruiting and training inspectors, and for organising inspections and monitoring them. For most non-maintained providers, that will be a new development. For many that think that they already deliver good-quality education provision for young children, that will be an opportunity to demonstrate that fact and to be recognised for it in an inspection report. The inspections will concentrate on the education quality of the places supported by the grant. They should be rigorous but not disruptive, and should apply with equal rigour to all settings. Providers that have been given an initial validation if they have met certain qualifying conditions will get their final validation after a successful inspection.
  Mr. Dafis: The Secretary of State suggested that consultation was of the essence and added that the Government listened to consultation in relation to Church schools. Can she confirm that the outcome of such consultation in Wales was a universal rejection of the scheme? Will she therefore pay heed to that consultation and make sure that the scheme does not go ahead in Wales at all?
  Mrs. Shephard: I know that there is to be no phase 1 in Wales, but I am quite sure that once parents in Wales have caught on to the fact that parents in England are benefiting a year earlier than they are likely to, enthusiasm will then grow in Wales and pressure will be put on the providers.
  There have been some worries that institutions will not be inspected until they have begun to exchange vouchers, but those worries can be set to rest because there will not be free entry to the scheme. Providers will be eligible only if they are a maintained school, a finally registered independent school, a local authority day nursery or an institution registered under the Children Act 1989, and if they agree to these three fundamentals—to publish specified information for parents; to work towards the SCAA desirable learning outcomes; and to agree to regular inspection and work through a self-assessment schedule that shows what the inspectors will examine and gives an idea of what standards are required.
  Quality and the maintenance and enhancement of standards are of supreme importance.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend remember a report by the university of Leeds four years ago, on the primary education structure in Leeds? Although standards are critical, as my right hon. Friend says, that report highlighted the real problem with state provision as against the flexible and innovative measures that she is proposing. That totally independent report was critical of the way in which teachers felt under pressure to adopt good practice as set down by local authorities. Teachers felt straitjacketed, and believed that their career prospects would be blighted unless they followed that good practice. Does not my right hon. Friend's scheme provide the innovation and flexibility that a state scheme cannot give?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am not familiar with the report that my hon. Friend quoted, but I must say that the scheme will encourage innovation and imaginative co-operation between providers, all of which, with quality assured, will be for the benefit of the children's early education.
  30
  When those matters were considered in the House on 21 November last year, the hon. Member for Brightside claimed that, for example, a regime that puts the emphasis on parental choice is "absolute nonsense". Given the events of the weekend, the hon. Gentleman should take up that statement with an increasing number of hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Brightside apparently believes that a regime that puts the emphasis on quality of outcome, inspection and validation is also absolute nonsense. I cannot believe that he will hold to that after hearing this debate. Does he believe that our aim to increase the number of four-year-olds receiving nursery education is also absolute nonsense? It may be that the hon. Member for Ladywood will have different things to say about that.
  I should like to say something about the funding system. There will be a document—for convenience we can call it a voucher or, if it suits the Opposition better, an individual learning credit—which has no face value, is not transferable and is not what lawyers might call a means of exchange. The voucher is an administrative tool for determining the grants to be paid to the providers chosen by parents, in exchange for providing the service of nursery education.
  The mechanics of the voucher scheme will be perfectly straightforward. Parents with children in the eligible age range will receive an application form and apply to the voucher agency. The agency will issue a voucher. The parents will choose the provider and present the voucher. The provider will return the voucher to the voucher agency. The validity of the voucher will be checked, and passed to the Department for Education and Employment for payment of the grant.
  The hon. Member for Brightside called that scheme an "administrative nightmare". I can suggest only that he perhaps has other nightmares to worry about now—the Labour party's education policies. There are more myths to dispel about the voucher scheme funding.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. She has been generous in giving way and splendidly robust on the subject of the Labour party's education policy. I wonder whether during her speech she might find time to comment on the Liberal Democrats' policy, because we have been told by the excellent Mr. Gareth Roberts, the senior researcher for the Liberal Democrats, that all they want to do is to throw money at education and that their policies are interchangeable with Labour's. That is an amazingly accurate description. Could my right hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mrs. Shephard: That description is likely to be proved during the debate, but of course we shall all be noticing.
  There are more myths to dispel about the voucher scheme funding—for example, the claim that local education authorities will lose out. That is not so. Funding will come from two sources: the new money that I mentioned, which is £390 million during three years, put together with around £565 million from local authority budgets. Let me be clear about it: the only money to he deducted from local authority budgets will be the voucher value for four-year-olds already in state schools. If those schools continue to recruit the same number of

  31
  four-year-olds as they do now, all that money will be returned and the local authority budget will be unchanged. If local authority schools recruit more four-year-olds, the funding will increase. If local education authorities provide what parents want, they will not lose out.
  Let me examine another myth. It has been claimed that places for three-year-olds are threatened. That is not so. Local authority spending on three-year-olds is unaffected by the funding for vouchers because it applies only to four-year-olds. Local authorities can continue to spend just as much as now and provide just as many places.
  There is another myth. It has been claimed that reception class places will be reduced from full time to part time. Again, that is not so. If local authority schools continue to recruit as many four-year-olds as they do now, the funding will be the same and there will be no need to change the number of full-time places that they provide. Moreover, contrary to another myth, expansion of places for four-year-olds will bring benefits to children with special educational needs. There will be the potential to detect special needs earlier. That will be good for parents, their children and their children's future education.
  If recruitment of four-year-olds by local authority schools is maintained, the funding mechanism for vouchers will not touch resources for special needs. We want the places for special needs children to be good as well, so we shall discuss with interested parties the impact of requiring all providers to have regard to the special educational needs code of practice. In the meantime, providers must tell parents of their special needs policies.
  Other myths, about the future of nursery schools and grants for pre-school playgroups, can also be dispelled. None of those is under threat. There is opportunity and funded growth for the whole sector.
  The plans to monitor standards across the board have received a warm welcome from the pre-school movement. The chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance said:
  "We welcome the plan to bring pre-schools within a common inspection framework which will be regulated by Ofsted".
  She added:
  "Vouchers will also provide much needed financial assistance to the parents of four year-olds using our member pre-schools".
  Parental choice will also raise quality. A head teacher in Wandsworth was reported as saying about the voucher scheme:
  "This arrangement pushes me to raise standards. We cannot afford to be lax or complacent. Anything that forces me to give my utmost should be welcomed".
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Now that the Prime Minister's plans for fast-track opt-outs for Church schools have been dropped, are we to understand that the Secretary of State has finally convinced the Prime Minister that it is standards, not structures, that are important?
  Mrs. Shephard: Standards are extremely important and a great deal of what I have been saying has been to do with them. What a pity that Labour Members, including the hon. Lady, do not seem to understand that choice and diversity contribute to raising standards—although, of course, some of her colleagues do understand that.
  32
  It is a pity that more local authorities did not volunteer for the first phase of the scheme. We have a good selection of areas for a thorough test. The pity of it is that some four-year-old children have been denied an opportunity to have a full year of nursery education in 1996–97. It is a pity for them that the opportunity for more innovative and exciting collaboration between the maintained, private and voluntary sectors has been put off for a year.
  Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend knows that Norfolk local education authority is Lib-Lab controlled. However, in reply to my investigations it said that it had had no choice but to volunteer because the scheme was of benefit to children. Can she explain why Liberal-controlled Dorset county council, despite being given every incentive to take up the opportunity, turned it down flat, not after investigating it, but on purely dogmatic grounds on day one?
  Mrs. Shephard: That is pathetic and reprehensible on the part of Dorset local education authority. By contrast, the chairman of Norfolk county council's education committee looks forward to
  "almost doubling our nursery provision"
  in the lifetime of the council. More provision is being planned by the independent sector and playgroups, often in imaginative partnerships with the local education authority. I am delighted that all that is happening in Norfolk and I regret that it is not happening in Dorset.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party, which claims that state provision of nursery education is vital and fought the most recent county council elections in Kent on that policy, has proposed no new nursery units for my constituency? When a grant-maintained primary school proposed such a unit, the Lib-Lab pact in charge of Kent county council tried to block it at every point and it was only my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who got it through. Where is the great enthusiasm for state nursery education in that?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He—and Kent, Dorset and elsewhere—will want to look at phase 1 because it gives us the opportunity to see how the system works. We shall be watching the new funding mechanism carefully.
  By September this year, two batches of vouchers will have been issued and grant payment will be well under way. There will be plenty of time for monitoring the arrangements before phase 2 starts and evidence will be accumulating from inspection reports.
  We favour quality, choice, opportunity and giving parents and their children a real share in their destiny. We are not concentrating on the interests of institutions and their structures for those stakeholders whom Opposition Members favour; rather, we are caring for each individual. I suppose that we might look forward to hearing a little more about stakeholders in this debate. A definition would come in handy, but I doubt whether it would say much about parental choice or diversity. What embarrassing words those are for the Opposition today.

  33
  The second topic of this two-topic Bill is the provision that enables grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially.
  Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to ask for your protection, as Back Benchers must from time to time against Ministers. Twenty minutes ago, the Secretary of State accused me of inventing something that I claimed the Prime Minister had said, which was that Church schools could convert to being grant-maintained without consulting parents. I now have the extract from the Prime Minister's speech. I do not wish to weary the House with it; I simply want to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to apologise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I would gladly read the extract, but I know that the House wants to move on to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), so that we may hear something constructive for a change.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give the extract to the Opposition Front Bench so that it can be incorporated in that speech. It might then clear the air a little. [HON. MEMBERS: "He already has it."] In that case, I call the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure whether I am supposed to comment on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: There is no need for the Secretary of State to respond as the point of order was to me.
  Hon. Members: Apologise.
  Mrs. Shephard: Madam Speaker has given me instructions, and I propose to take them.
  Madam Speaker: Order. It is for the Speaker of this House, not other Members, to deal with points of order. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked the Secretary of State whether she would apologise. It is up to her whether she apologises or not. I do not force Members of this House to apologise unless they have used unparliamentary language. No unparliamentary language has been used.
  Mrs. Shephard: For the avoidance of doubt, however—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is just making a point on this matter. I have already given my guidance on it. The hon. Gentleman should listen for a change.
  Mrs. Shephard: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  For the avoidance of doubt and to comfort the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), he will recall that I said that the VA school sector was offered a range of six options. He will find the word "option" in those used by the Prime Minister.
  34
  The proposal for grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially underpins our commitment to the grant-maintained sector and to increasing parents' choice of schools. It adds to the freedoms and independence enjoyed by grant-maintained schools, which they so much value. Those schools are thriving because of that independence. Nowhere are choice, diversity and parental involvement better demonstrated than in GM schools.
  Head teachers and governors in GM schools have been pressing for some time to have the power to borrow commercially. They are keen to explore the opportunities for commercial borrowing and to develop their premises further in the interests of parents and pupils. They have many plans for building work in which the ability to borrow could prove invaluable. Those include new sports facilities, halls and other improvements to their facilities. Their building proposals will enhance their educational work; add to the facilities available to the local community; in many cases generate extra revenue, including revenue from dual and commercial use; and enable grant-maintained schools to take part in the private finance initiative and make the capital grant go further. I know that the Opposition support the private finance initiative. They call it "partnership for investment", but it is the PFI to us.
  As grant-maintained schools have developed, we have given them increasingly greater powers. We extended their freedoms in the Education Act 1993 and they are now ready for the new power to borrow and charge for their assets. Their proposals will be subject to the consent of the holder of my office and there will be conditions to safeguard the schools' assets.
  Mr. Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the risk of encouraging grant-maintained schools, which I support, to overextend themselves when they borrow to improve the schools' physical facilities, while under-using their most important freedom—to sack incompetent staff and assemble high-quality, aspiring staff, who are so often lacking in many of our secondary schools today?
  Mrs. Shephard: It is obviously important to have appropriate safeguards and I have it in mind to delegate the power to give consent to operate the safeguards to the Funding Agency for Schools.
  The House will perceive that the Labour party is in some difficulty over the issue and over most other aspects of its education policy, as far as it goes. It is facing in a number of different directions at once on the issue of grant-maintained schools and, even for political contortionists, that is difficult.
  Despite careful camouflage, the Labour party's official position, so often articulated in the House by the hon. Member for Brightside, is what it has always been: to abolish grant-maintained status and deny schools the benefits of self-government. But what is the unofficial position? Who can say? Perhaps we shall hear it this afternoon. Perhaps, as I speak, there are flurries of activity involving the hon. Member for Peckham, the Opposition Chief Whip, the spin doctors and others.
  I am curious to know what, if anything, the Labour party will do about the grant-maintained aspect of the Bill in Committee. I understand that when the proposal was first announced, the hon. Member for Brightside was so impressed that he suggested that local authority schools

  35
  should be given the same powers. He even tabled a parliamentary question to find out how much that would cost. Does that foreshadow proposals from the Labour party for more freedoms for local authority schools? How much closer does he think such schools should get to grant-maintained status without taking that vital step and opting out of local authority control? All those issues are lost in confusion and disarray.
  The House will expect me to go quickly through the Bill's clauses and schedules. Clauses 1 to 5 and schedules 1 and 2 deal with the nursery scheme. Clause 1 is the main provision; it empowers the Secretary of State to make grants for nursery education within the context of the funding regime that I have described. To put it simply, the clause defines "nursery education" as applying to children below the age of five and leaves the precise age range to which the new scheme applies to be specified in the arrangements that we shall be making. In the first instance, the new scheme will apply to four-year-olds, but the clause enables us to extend the age range downwards at a later date.
  Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to delegate the power of paying and administering the grant.
  Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to impose requirements on the providers—including local education authorities, voluntary organisations and independent schools—that participate in the scheme.
  Clause 4 applies schedule 1, which provides for inspection, and draws on the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992. That will be a new development for many schools and other providers in the private and voluntary sectors, and a further development of the Ofsted inspection framework for state schools. The existing arrangements for the registration and annual inspection of day care under the Children Act 1989 will be left in place, as will the Ofsted regime under the 1992 Act.
  Clause 5 applies schedule 2, which provides for passing on to those operating the scheme the information needed to identify parents with children eligible for the scheme, and restricts its further disclosure. The schedule is modelled on provisions in the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: On that point, can the Secretary of State give an assurance to the parents in the four areas selected for the experiment that if they choose, for whatever reason, not to take the £1,000, their children will not be excluded from the experiment?
  Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate. It is good to see him—he has missed the debate so far. I am not absolutely clear what he means by his question, but if he would like to write to me, I should be delighted to reassure him.
  Schedule 3 contains a number of consequential amendments. Paragraph 2 introduces a useful relaxation in the existing powers of local education authorities to direct schools as to the times when children can start school. Paragraph 9 provides for necessary adjustments to the legislation in the capping of local authority budgets.
  Clause 6 lifts the statutory bar on grant-maintained schools' power to borrow other than from the Funding Agency for Schools and the bar on charging assets in
  36
  connection with such loans, subject to the Secretary of State's consent. Schedule 3(10) provides that the Secretary of State may by order delegate to the Funding Agency for Schools the power to consent to such loans and the charging of assets. Clauses 7 to 10 and schedule 4 are technical and supplementary.
  The Bill concerns the education system in England and Wales. The Education (Scotland) Bill now in Committee in another place contains comparable provisions introducing a similar regime for nursery education in Scotland. The Government intend to introduce appropriate legislation to provide for a similar system for nursery education in Northern Ireland.
  The Bill puts the Opposition on the spot. Will they oppose it? Opposition Members may put forward some interesting technical points, which we can look at, but I do not see how—given the fact that they support education for under-fives and some of them support grant-maintained schools—they can do anything but support the Bill.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that Mystic Meg has tipped that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be Prime Minister by November. While I understand that the Secretary of State wants to give a good presentation of her abilities to the House, is it fair that she has been on her feet for almost one hour? Is that reasonable, and can something be done about it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a question for the Chair. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows that individual Front Benchers have the discretion to decide how long to speak about a particular Bill.
  Mrs. Shephard: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, I shall not take an intervention at the moment. The fact that I have taken 25 interventions—there have also been seven points of order—may account for the time that I have spent presenting this Second Reading speech. I shall take no more interventions.
  As I was saying, given that Opposition Members support education for under-fives and some of them support grant-maintained schools, how can they do other than support the Bill? Furthermore, given the fact that some of them appear to enjoy choice and diversity when it comes to their children, can we look for their support? Given the deep division and complete confusion that is Labour party policy, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to hold their breath.
  The two measures will increase choice, opportunity and flexibility in their sectors. They will increase the share of individuals in their education. What will the Labour party do? Will it support the measures in the interests of individuals, or oppose them because they are not designed to further the cause of institutional uniformity? For it is institutions and organisations that are Labour's stakeholders—especially their paymasters, the Trades Union Congress. Will the Opposition for once declare for choice, diversity and opportunity—the real measures that

  37
  enrich society—or will they oppose the measures and remain faithful to their socialist tradition of collective uniformity?
  On the Conservative Benches, we have acted on abiding principles. We have extended benefits in which all can share. The beneficiaries include: parents, to whom we offer choice and diversity of education provision; governors, to whom we offer flexibility and the means of expanding education; schools, to which we offer ever wider opportunities; and the nation, to which we offer the prospect of an even sounder educational foundation. Above all, we are offering vastly increased opportunities to children—for whose benefit our education system is designed—to enter and to benefit from the world of learning. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: I begin this afternoon by wishing the Secretary of State a very happy birthday—I sincerely hope that it improves from here on.
  The Government's legislative programme is in tatters: their education plans have been either abandoned or shelved, and where the Government continue to implement them they do so without conviction. Two thirds of the proposals that were announced last year as the predicted legislative programme for the coming Session have now been either abandoned or shelved. The Education (Student Loans) Bill turned out to be a fiasco. The Government's proposals to extend grant-maintained status, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, have already bitten the dust.
  The Secretary of State has turned into a Norfolk market gardener, walking behind the Prime Minister like someone following a rag and bone man with a diarrhoeic horse, shovelling up the mess that follows every idea about education that the Prime Minister comes out with.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: It must have been the term "diarrhoeic horse" that got the hon. Gentleman to his feet. Before I give way, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook mentioned the Prime Minister, I shall enlighten the Secretary of State in her belief that the Prime Minister did not commit the Government to a massive extension of grant-maintained status in his speech on 12 September 1995. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) will forgive me, I shall read parts of the Prime Minister's speech.
  The Prime Minister said:
  "All state schools should gain the benefits of becoming self-governing independent schools".
  [Interruption.] "Quite right," Conservative Members say. "Where are the proposals for all state schools to become GM?"
  Sir Donald Thompson: Where are they?
  Mr. Blunkett: The Prime Minister said:
  "Many Church schools have already become grant-maintained"—
  which is not strictly true, as the Church schools will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He said:
  "More want to."
  38
  Actually, more do not want to, and they have made it abundantly clear.
  The Prime Minister said:
  "Gillian Shephard will next month be consulting about the options",
  and the options were:
  "a fast track route to full self-governing status".
  He continued:
  "If a school's governors, with the prime interests of parents at heart, and the trustees representing the Churches' interests, agree on self-government, then they should be able to take that step simply and quickly."
  Mr. Dunn: That was consulting.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will in a moment.
  The Prime Minister said:
  "Nor is today's instalment"—
  that was 12 September—
  "anything like the final word in the moves towards full self-government for our schools".
  Apart from the self-evident fact that all six options that the Prime Minister promised on 12 September have been set aside by a Secretary of State who does not agree with him, who did not agree with him and who never does agree with him, the churches rejected all the nonsense about forcing those schools to become grant-maintained because, like Labour Members, they believe that real diversity, real choice, does not involve making all state schools become grant-maintained so that there is only one status and one option.
  That is the difference between Labour Members—plus the Secretary of State—and a Prime Minister who knows nothing about education and illustrates it every time he gets to his feet. The voucher system and the minimal extension of the powers of grant-maintained schools link in admirably with the whole Government programme, which has been about dividing one school against another, dividing parents against one another and fragmenting the education service.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I give way to the Minister.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The hon. Gentleman—no doubt because he wants to disguise splits in other matters—is making a meal of reiterating two of the things that he said and adding a third. First, he says that the Prime Minister spoke about the option of a fast track; we agree. Secondly, the Prime Minister said that the proposals were subject to consultation; we agree. The difference between Labour and the Government is that we listen to consultation. When the hon. Gentleman's party produced its proposals for church schools last year, it did not consult even the churches.
  Mr. Blunkett: I only have to repeat the Prime Minister's words:
  "Nor is today's instalment anything like the final word."

  39
  Where is the final word? What is the final word? On which of the options are the Government still consulting? Which of the options that the Prime Minister laid out on 12 September will be brought before the House, in the Bill?
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The hon. Gentleman mentioned choice and diversity in approving tones, as coming from his party. Will he say what choice and diversity the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) wants, and whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to provide them for her?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to answer. Every parent in every community, whether or not they are a Member of Parliament, should have the right to exercise a preference for their child to go to the school of their choice. That preference should not be blocked by any mechanism that prevents a child from entering that school on the basis of his prior attainment at the age of 11 or on the interview of his parents by a head which then excludes that child because the parents do not meet a particular set of criteria. That is why we are against and will remain against selection, why any debate about selection is a past and dead agenda, and why we will turn to the future to offer every parent, whichever school they approach, the excellence that some have sought for themselves in the past and which others have been denied—excellence for everyone, rather than privilege for a few is the way in which we shall proceed.
  I challenged the Secretary of State to indicate this afternoon whether she was going to extend grammar schools to the whole of England and Wales and the blocking of preference through selection to all parents. She clearly indicated that she was not. The only steps the Secretary of State has taken on the selection issue was to extend the 10 per cent. selection by grant-maintained schools to 15 per cent. I want to make the position clear. Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know how many schools from the grant-maintained sector have exercised that preference already available to them?
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Michael Brown rose—
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I am intent on giving real information to Conservative Members.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way at this juncture.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That ruling applies particularly to the two hon. Members who rose when I
  40
  was on my feet. It is clear that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is not giving way at this juncture or in the minutes that immediately follow it.
  Mr. Blunkett: Out of all the schools—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be kind enough to advise the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave way at least 25 times?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brightside will bear that information in mind.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am still answering the last question. When I have done so, I will give way again.
  Of the 1,100 grant-maintained schools, 43 exercised the option of even partial selection and 160 exercised historic full selection at the age of 11. Seven million children in 25,000 schools deserve equal opportunity from an education system that provides excellence for everyone. No school is threatened by this party with abolition based on its status. All parents will be able to exercise a preference. All children will be promised the kind of education that all of us expect for ourselves.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way in one moment. Historically, the Conservative party has pretended to promise to the many that which it has been prepared to deliver only to the few. That is the difference between us.
  Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The noise in the Chamber has been so intense that many hon. Members on both sides of the House failed to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Did he or did he not say that no grammar school would be closed on the basis of selection?
  Mr. Blunkett: I said that no school would be abolished on the basis of its status, nor will it. Children will be able to enter schools on the preference of their parents, based on an open and fair admissions policy that discriminates against no one.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that lengthy explanation, but as I did not quite follow his remarks, does he agree with that which he wrote in the Sheffield newspaper The Star some time ago? I believe that I am quoting the hon. Gentleman accurately when I say that he wrote, "I am having no truck with middle-class left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to other schools outside the area."
  Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to say that we are in total unity on this side of the House. We are all preaching one

  41
  simple fact—to lift the standard of education for every child in this country, rather than to have an obsession with the few. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little point hon. Members asking questions if they will not stay quiet to hear the answers.
  Mr. Blunkett: I refer to the one part of the Bill that does deal with the extension of grant-maintained status.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will.
  Mr. Brown: I can tell the hon. Gentleman all about selection, because I failed my 11 plus and went to a secondary modern school. The hon. Gentleman should answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). What does he tell the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), having said that left-wing people from the middle classes should not do one thing and preach another? Does the hon. Gentleman accept or condemn the hon. Lady's actions?
  Mr. Blunkett: I would be delighted to provide the hon. Gentleman with a packet of atenolol. If he gets any more worked up, he will probably need one. I dealt with the questions put by the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I must move on, and I will take questions on the Bill.
  Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way that the House can be adjourned, so that we may check the record of the hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not require the adjournment of the House for anything to be checked. I hope that hon. Members will now listen to the hon. Member for Brightside.
  Mr. Blunkett: I have heard of unretentive memories but that beats the band.
  The truth is that the Prime Minister, on 12 September, promised a massive change, and the massive change turns out to be—
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: No. I wish to make some progress.
  Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have given a ruling that the House should listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, yet he refuses to respond to the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that it is for the hon. Member who is speaking to decide how to answer any question that is raised.
  Mr. Blunkett: The Bill proposes that grant-maintained schools should be able to borrow against some of their
  42
  assets. On closer examination, it turns out that they cannot borrow against most of their assets at all. They cannot borrow against core functions and, according to the Prime Minister—although his statement may be open to variation—they should not be able to sell off or borrow against their playing fields either, although they would be able to borrow against surplus land and surplus premises. That is an interesting contradiction.
  If a school is under pressure and its admissions are oversubscribed, the Government have promised that they will allow it to borrow to expand. Under the Bill, a school that is under pressure, with all its premises in use, no space available and no surplus to be sold off, will not be able to borrow against its assets because its assets are in core use. The only schools that will be able to borrow against their assets will be the ones that are not under pressure, and which have empty accommodation, surplus places and low demand for admission to the school. So the Government have contradicted themselves on their declared aim and principle for the GM sector.
  The Government are allowing the GM sector to borrow under the excuse that local authorities can sell lands and premises to raise capital receipts. But the same reason was given for why GM schools, since their inception, have received, on average, two and a half times more capital allocations than maintained schools. Is it both? GM schools have received more money through the Funding Agency for Schools to compensate them. Will they also be allowed special privileges to borrow on the market? Or is that reason a feeble excuse to divide the system again so that a few schools can have a privilege that is not permitted to the many?
  I shall answer the Secretary of State who posed a question to me in her speech. Yes, we will consider ways to ensure that all schools have the same facility as will be made available to grant-maintained schools in the Bill. What is good enough for one set of children is good enough for all children. If we improve the standard of building and repair and the provision of equipment and materials, we will do it for all children and not just for 1,100 schools.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I accept that the hon. Gentleman's personal position is quite clear—he does not approve of grant-maintained schools and therefore, as he has just said, he would not seek to give to some what others may not have. It is wrong to quote people out of context, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also wrong for someone who seeks high political office to say and preach one thing about schooling but then proceed to take decisions that he would wholly disapprove of?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have dealt with that question already. It is quite clear that the hon. Member was not listening to my speech, because I was waiting for him to intervene to give his support for providing the necessary capital resources to ensure that all the schools in his constituency could have the repair and maintenance that they need.
  Mr. Marlow: I do not think that my hon. Friend accepted what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman obviously approves of rich socialists moving their children long distances so that they can be educated under better Conservative education authorities. However, as an egalitarian, does he think it would be right to provide transport facilities so that the poor, the

  43
  unemployed and single-parent families could enjoy the same benefits as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)?
  Mr. MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came to hear a debate principally about nursery education. Is there any chance that we might discuss that issue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps listen to all the speeches before he raises that question.
  Mr. Blunkett: Just in case there is any doubt, I am in favour of preference exercised by all parents and no block being placed on them. I think that an hon. Member who intervened previously said that he had been to a secondary modern school; that would certainly explain some of the difficulties that he has expressed in the House on several occasions.
  On 29 March 1995, the Secretary of State was speaking about the issue of borrowing and the challenge of investment of capital in all schools. She said:
  "Public borrowing must come down if we are to keep a rein on inflation and increase prosperity and jobs."—[Official Report, 29 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1042.]
  Perhaps the Secretary of State and her underlings could tell the House—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): Her colleagues.
  Mr. Blunkett: They may be colleagues to her, but they are underlings to me. My right hon. and hon. Friends are my colleagues.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell the House why the restrictions on borrowing and the need to prevent pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement by not spending money on repair and maintenance apply only to some schools and parts of the education service and not to others.
  But the Bill is primarily about nursery vouchers. It is patently obvious that there was a time when the Conservative party was wholly committed to nursery education. A certain Secretary of State committed the party to providing a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds and to the investment to provide that service. That Secretary of State became Prime Minister and that promise was broken. In fact, the party turned away from a commitment to nursery vouchers and it condemned nursery education.
  The current Secretary of State has said that there was no evidence that nursery education improved the future well-being of the children and was therefore not a useful investment. In fact, it is only a year ago almost to the week since the Secretary of State sent a letter out to her colleagues suggesting that they should mark, learn and report back on Labour authorities that were spending money on nursery education because it was not a statutory service and was therefore diverting money from the rest of the education system.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Will my hon. Friend confirm his commitment to setting a target that
  44
  will ensure that all three-year-olds who will be excluded by the Government's nursery voucher system will, under a Labour Government, be assured of places in nursery schools?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to give that commitment. Our commitment is clear; it is not a paper promise. We will set targets to achieve, for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it, a free, properly provided, highly qualified nursery education place.
  Ms Armstrong: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the fact that the current proposal puts in jeopardy the education of three and four-year-olds in certain local authority areas? I refer to those in which all four-year-olds are receiving a full school day and many three-year-olds—about 65 per cent. of them in my authority—are already receiving nursery education on a half-day basis.
  Mr. Blunkett: Nationally, the proposal puts at risk at least 133,000 places for three-year-olds. It undermines the role of authorities already providing places. It would be impossible to dream up a worse scheme. It provides no capital investment for facilities, and no training for those who need it to be able to deliver high quality education. It provides no resources or support for special needs nursery provision.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: A few moments ago we all heard the hon. Gentleman make a commitment to ensuring that every three-year-old has a place in nursery education, should there ever be a time when the Labour party forms an Administration. I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman told us how much it is going to cost.
  Mr. Blunkett: The first tranche of money would come from removing the bureaucratic nightmare surrounding this voucher scheme. It has been described by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) as the "deadweight cost" of administration. The pilot scheme involves administrative and inspection costs of £5 million. Divided by the 17,000-odd places in the pilot authorities, it turns out that the administrative and inspection costs of each place will amount to a staggering £290. Under the full phase 2 scheme, such costs will amount to an equally staggering £187 million—more than the total amount provided in new cash by the Government for the first full year.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I saw the hon. Gentleman's press release giving these figures this morning. I am afraid that he has misunderstood the position. A great chunk of that £5 million is for inspection and setting up the inspection scheme, including recruiting and training inspectors for phase 2. Dividing the sum solely over phase 1 is therefore either ignorant or misleading.
  Mr. Blunkett: Let me get this clear: the money allocated in the pilot phase—during which the Government were going to test the applicability of the scheme—is not, according to the Minister, actually to be used on inspection or administrative costs for the pilot. It is instead to be used for the administrative and inspection costs of phase 2 of the scheme, which comes in the year after.

  45
  That being so, why are those applying to join the scheme as providers not being inspected before they come on stream as new providers? Why, instead, is light-touch inspection allowing them to self-assess their worthiness to take part in the nursery voucher scheme? The "next steps" document makes it absolutely clear that they can self-assess for what are described as "in-house purposes". They do not have to send in the validation form to qualify. Providers may have to be inspected in the first two years during the second phase—but not before they come on stream.
  So are we being told that inspection costs are to be incurred for providers that are not going to be inspected, given that they can assess themselves before coming on stream? If so, I shall refer the whole matter to the National Audit Office as a scandal.
  Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that I share his aspiration to provide high-quality early-years education for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it. But is he aware that such provision would require 18,000 additional teachers, 22,000 additional ancillary assistants and—best estimates suggest—additional expenditure of £900 million? Is the hon. Gentleman's party about to commit itself to providing that much funding?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman's party seems to have spent its commitment about 10 times over already. He is right about one thing though: after four years of cutting provision for nursery and primary school teachers and reducing their number in the current year by 800, the Government are ill prepared to expand the nursery scheme in coming years with properly trained and professionally provided nursery teachers.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I am trying to clarify this point for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and, if necessary, the House. We cannot carry out inspections without inspectors. It will take time to recruit them; they cannot start inspecting until the Bill receives Royal Assent. Much of the cost of establishing the framework and the training inevitably falls during phase 1.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, there is a straight trade-off. He implied that no nursery providers should be able to take vouchers until they have been inspected. He must therefore tell thousands of parents of four-year-olds who are expecting a decent nursery education for their children with established providers that they will not be able to get one. That is a bad answer; what we have set out is a reasonable framework.
  Mr. Blunkett: The problem with that is that if the Government really want to achieve their stated goals they will take up the offer made by my party and the local authority associations and allow the development of nursery education plans at local level. In that way all sectors—voluntary, private and statutory—could join to build on what is already in place. Instead of a piece of paper we should then have not just the £165 million that has already been committed but the £20 million earmarked for administration and bureaucracy, with which to provide the extra places to enable us to meet our goal.
  Mr. Squire: What about inspections?
  Mr. Blunkett: If the Minister is so concerned—we are, because he is way behind with primary inspections
  46
  already—let us join together to find a way of developing the current system at local level and expanding it. The Government's problem has to do with bureaucracy, the difficulties of inspection, insisting on paying those already buying privately, and the possible entry into the system of fly-by-nights who want to gain the voucher income. These factors combine to make it less likely that the proposal will succeed.
  If the Government are so concerned about the failure to develop the system and recruit inspectors, why not abandon this scheme until they are in a position to implement it in a way they think fit? Why rush ahead with a pilot project that turns out not to be a pilot? Instead, it is just phase 1 of a scheme that the Government are already engaged in implementing.
  Mr. Walden: One small point: the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misquoted me earlier. I was complaining about the fact that the Government are going to hand out millions of pounds to people who can already afford to pay for private education. The hon. Gentleman said that I was complaining about the administrative costs of the system.
  I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman—and with some sympathy. As he knows, I am something of a critic of Government education policy and of this policy in particular. I get the impression, however, that the hon. Gentleman does not realise the gravity of his party's situation or the impact of the action by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on the country. Does not he understand that it goes to the core of the whole discussion about education in Britain, namely, selection? His position, I am sorry to say, and that of his Front Bench is morally and intellectually contemptible.
  Mr. Blunkett: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction, while agreeing entirely with his point about the deadweight costs. In response to his second point, I refer him to the words of the Secretary of State, who said that she wanted uniformity of quality in nursery education. I believe her—but it is what I want for all children in all schools at whatever stage.
  The Government could not have found a more convoluted way of trying to deliver nursery provision to four-year-olds. They are taking £548 million away from authorities that are already making provision, on the basis of that provision for four-year-olds, and are distributing it away from those authorities that have provision and are already making it and giving it to those authorities that do not have provision and are not making it. They are offering people not a place, but a piece of paper promising that they can have a place in an area that does not have a place. They then call it a choice when they do not even have a place for them, let alone a choice between providers. The slogan is simple—no place, no choice; no place, no nursery provision.
  Of course, it is not a matter of choice. There is already choice in those authorities, like Solihull, that are already providing. The only people anywhere near being able to provide choice and diversity are those already providing places for three and four-year-olds. What will happen to them? Money will be taken away from them so that it can be recycled through an administrative nightmare—and that is what it is. Large sums of public money will be spent by a private company on recycling literally tens of millions of bits of paper.

  47
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly said that vouchers will be provided on a termly basis, to be redeemed on a weekly basis, with five different voucher segments, able to be delivered to different providers if necessary on a daily basis for a part-time place. Who invented that? Who could have dreamt up anything so bizarre as a system that results in spending public money on recycling bits of paper?
  Children want nursery places; they want investment in facilities to provide nursery places; they want trained and qualified staff to support them in those places. Properly provided nursery education, integrated with care and available where and when parents need it, is the first and essential foundation for a decent education system for all our children and equality for all our children.
  I repeat that the Labour party has offered to sit down with the Government and with all the providers that come forward to work out a system to provide such places for our three as well as our four-year-olds. We need to ensure that we invest in education rather than in a bureaucratic and administrative system which, frankly, will fall flat on its face at the expense of those tiny children who deserve a better start in life.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: This debate could not have come at a more difficult and embarrassing time for the Labour party. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who tried to fashion a sensible and coherent education policy for his party. Much of that policy has been based on the abandonment of previous opposition to the core reforms that I was privileged to introduce in 1987–88. At that time, the hon. Gentleman's predecessors opposed national curriculum tests, league tables, grant-maintained schools, delegated budgets and city technology colleges. Now, in effect, the Labour party has accepted most of those reforms, but with some significant changes in detail. I recognise that that acceptance is due to the hon. Gentleman's influence.
  Today, the hon. Gentleman was forced to engage in linguistic distortions to try to reconcile his views and those of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). It did not work. His rhetoric was divorced from the reality of performance. If it is right for the son of the Leader of the Opposition to go to a grant-maintained school—I do not object to such choice: it is a good school, one of the best in London; indeed, I know its headmaster—it must also be right to make that choice available to the wide range of parents throughout the country. If it is right for the son of the hon. Member for Peckham to go to a grammar school—a very good grammar school indeed—it must also be right to make that choice available to all parents and that it should be exercised. That is the dilemma that faces the hon. Member for Brightside and his party.
  I ask my hon. Friends not to be too hard on the hon. Member for Peckham—
  Mr. Michael Brown: Absolutely not.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Peckham has not been embarrassed by scruple, hindered by consistency or
  48
  hampered by collective responsibility; she has done what every mother has always done and chosen what she believes to be the best school for her children. That is not new Labour, it is not old Labour—it is primeval. It goes back to basic instincts and the grain of human nature. We should not chastise her too much, but instead welcome a convert.
  Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend possibly got the wrong idea from my earlier intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). I want to make it absolutely clear that I make no criticism of the action of the hon. Member for Peckham. My hon. Friends should welcome what she has done. What concerns me is that she may well vote against the Bill tonight. If she votes against the Bill and opposes choice in education for everybody else, we must be concerned that her actions do not express her views.
  Mr. Baker: It behoves everyone in public life to match personal behaviour with political commitment. If the hon. Member for Peckham fails to do that, she will have to answer to her constituents, to her conscience and, presumably, to her shadow Cabinet colleagues.
  When I read about the hon. Lady in the newspapers over the weekend, I recalled something that George Orwell wrote in an essay in 1945—that the trouble with all socialists is their inability to tell the truth about the immediate future. I cannot help but feel that that is the dilemma facing the Labour Front Bench today. The Bill is about parental choice. The Labour party has accepted many of the reforms that I introduced seven or eight years ago, but—this is the sticking point—it does not believe in parental choice.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As the Leader of the Opposition has opted for a grant-maintained school for his son, and as his colleague the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has done the same for hers, why was there such a virulent and intimidatory campaign in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition by Labour workers trying to stop Hurworth comprehensive school becoming grant maintained?
  Mr. Baker: Again, that goes to the central dilemma facing the Labour party, which it cannot resolve. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) described the attitude of the hon. Member for Brightside as not being morally defensible. I agree. I do not believe that the stance taken by the Labour party on this matter is morally defensible. It must decide between giving choice to parents and not giving choice to parents. What we mean by choice is a choice between the local comprehensive school, the local grant-maintained school, the grammar school, the church school, the single-sex school and the city technology college.
  That was the choice which, among other things, my reforms made available to a variety of parents. They did not deny parents choice. The Labour party will not really accept that. It wants conformity. We can see that from its opposition to the Bill. It does not want nursery education to be provided other than by the local education authority. That is what the hon. Member for Brightside committed himself to. He gave a commitment which, I dare say, someone in central office is already costing, for free nursery education for three and four-year-olds. When I asked my officials, back in 1987, what it would cost, the

  49
  answer then was £1 billion, allowing for capital as well. I have no idea what the latest figure is, but it must be more than that. It is a great deal of money. Indeed, it has absorbed the Liberal penny in one fell swoop. I assure the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: Perhaps I might pursue my arguments for a moment, because I am warming to the task.
  If the hon. Member for Brightside ever has responsibility for this area of policy and goes to the Treasury, it will not say, "We are committed to nursery schools. What a wonderful idea. Here's a cheque for £1 billion." Would not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State love to have such a cheque? She had to fight very hard for £937 million, let alone £1 billion.
  I see some distinguished former leaders of local education authorities present on the Opposition Benches. They know that, if the money were given to local education authorities, there is no indication that it would be spent on nursery schools because of the demands of primary schools, secondary schools and colleges of further education, all of which would be knocking at their door.
  When I heard the hon. Member for Brightside oppose the two principles of the Bill today, I could not help feeling that I was hearing the voice of his predecessors, who opposed me. Labour opposed a measure which, later, it accepted. I believe that it will accept both the principles—
  Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I shall develop my argument for a moment.
  I want to deal with grant-maintained schools borrowing. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting the Treasury to abandon a bit of Treasury doctrine, which is that state assets cannot be allowed to borrow in the public market. I fought endless battles with Chief Secretaries over that—because I thought that it was rubbish—and I lost in most, but not all, cases.
  My right hon. Friend has won. I congratulate her on allowing that freedom to grant-maintained schools. It is the beginning of a chink, and the hon. Member for Brightside should not toss it away lightly. Grab it while it is going. It is a victory against the Treasury and that should bring us all together.
  I want now to deal with nursery vouchers, because they go to the heart of the philosophy that divides our two parties. We have heard a great deal about stakeholders. What is a stakeholder in education? It is a parent who can choose between a variety of schools that are funded by the state. It is a student who can choose between a variety of courses at different institutions—that has been provided, and there has been significant expansion of the sector during the past 10 years. It is a trainee who has a training credit that enables him or her to choose the course that he or she wants. When it comes to nursery education, a voucher holder is a stakeholder. If words mean anything, that is the definition of a stakeholder.
  50
  I mentioned George Orwell earlier. The question is: is a voucher holder a stakeholder? The obvious answer is yes, but the Labour party cannot admit that. It does not want to admit it, yet this is a progressive step forward.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way shortly to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have an affection, as he beat me once in a general election but lost the seat that I lent him for a time.
  The first thing about a stake is that it is a sum of money. A voucher is a sum of money. Secondly, it belongs to the parents. Thirdly, it gives the parents power. That is what a stake is all about, is it not? It enhances the responsibility of parents for the education of their children under five. Fourthly, it achieves socially desirable aims. If the word stakeholder means anything, a nursery voucher holder is a stakeholder.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—it was indeed me who beat him and took a seat away from him.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only parental choice worth having in education is that between equivalence of excellence? That, alas, we do not have. Does he agree that a nursery voucher is not for nursery education as we know it today, as provided by local education authorities such as Newham and Solihull, but a voucher for a form of pre-school activity provided by a number of different providers? Because of the withdrawal of the standards of accommodation, and probably the standards of training for qualified nursery teachers, the voucher will not be for nursery education as we know it today and it is a con if those words are used.
  Mr. Baker: I do not agree. We have here a basic division between the perceptions of the two parties. I believe that choice and variety are some of the elements that improve standards—they do not do it on their own—which is why I introduced the national curriculum and testing. External standards were needed, as was an injection of greater involvement by parents and governors, which many—but not all—Opposition Members voted against. Wherever there is choice, standards rise.
  We introduced the concept of grant-maintained schools, not to give the luckiest children the best break, but to establish levers whereby the quality of education for all our children would be improved by imitation of other schools in the area. That has happened in many cases, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will know.
  I strongly support the voucher scheme. In fact, some of the preliminary work on it was done by my Minister of State in the 1980s. We could not introduce it then, however, because we were doing so many other good things. We could not crowd the legislative programme with such excellence, but now there is time to do it. I support the scheme strongly, but there are two deficiencies. First, in due course—not immediately—it must be extended to three-year-olds. I am sure that all hon. Members would like that. I do not object to the fact that three-year-olds are not included in the first year of the scheme—I congratulate my right hon. Friend on starting the scheme, as one has to start somewhere. Clearly, after it has been established—after due process

  51
  of time; in the foreseeable future, both of which are phrases that the Treasury loves to use—it will be extended to three-year-olds, as it should be. I hope that some undertaking will be given on that.
  My second reservation relates to special education. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about children who are severely disabled, blind, visually impaired, deaf or seriously physically disabled. She wants greater monitoring and better recording of children below the age of five. I should, perhaps, declare an interest in that, for the past year, I have been raising money for a school for the blind in Kent. Collectively, we raised £500,000 to establish a nursery school. The school is a centre of excellence and is recognised throughout the land as very special.
  Ms Margaret Hodge indicated assent.
  Mr. Baker: I believe that the hon. Lady, who is nodding, has visited it.
  We raised the money from charitable sources so that we can build a building. It will take children in. There is plenty of evidence to show that if children who are blind, visually impaired, deaf, physically disabled or have other disabilities are taken in early enough, they are given a better start in life. I want the scheme to embrace such schools. There are few special nursery schools in the country. I believe that the voucher for such children should not be the standard £1,100, but should recognise the enormous extra costs involved in teaching children with disabilities.
  In a nursery school, there is broadly one teacher to 10 children. A special school needs one teacher and two assistants for five children. The children need constant attention. They often need nursing. They have a short concentration span. They need love and devotion. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will consider introducing an enhanced voucher—a value—added voucher, say three times the standard value—for the parents of children who are most seriously visually impaired or totally blind, or those with other difficulties. For the less visually impaired, and for those who are less severely disabled, I hope that my right hon. Friend will introduce a voucher of £2,200.
  The cost would be minimal: I estimate that fewer than 3,000 children—certainly not much more than that—are involved. By such action, my right hon. Friend and the Government could bring real benefit to some of the most underprivileged children in the country, who face exceptional problems.
  With those two provisos, I warmly support the Bill, and congratulate my right hon. Friend. I urge Labour Members to support both its proposals, once they have overcome this little linguistic trouble—over the next few days, perhaps, although we shall drag it out for weeks, months and possibly years, because the target is too good to miss.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: It is a pleasure to follow someone as distinguished as the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Those of us who aspire to great things in public life may eventually
  52
  have one day named after us, but five days are named after the right hon. Gentleman—the five "Baker days" that schools endure each year.
  In the spirit of cross-party harmony, which I often try to introduce in the Chamber, and to help to dispel the idea that debate here always involves disagreement, I shall congratulate the Government and Conservative Back Benchers on their change of heart in regard to nursery education. At least there is now cross-party support for the principle. I recall that, back in 1994, the Prime Minister said at the Tory party conference:
  "There are many views about nursery education"—
  I think that he was talking about his own Back Benchers—
  But my view is quite clear. I am in favour of it."
  That, however, was not the view of his Minister of State earlier that year. I was in the Chamber when the Minister of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) of being "obsessed" with nursery education, which did not sound like someone who was in favour of it.
  I also recall being told, in 1993 and early in 1994, by Ministers that there was no evidence of the benefits of nursery education. I hope that the claim that there is no evidence of a link between class sizes and the quality of education will suffer the same fate as the statement about nursery education. There is an absolute connection between the quality of education and nursery places.
  Dr. Hampson: To prove the point, that was stressed in the first White Paper produced by Lady Thatcher when she was Secretary of State for Education. It remained a commitment until it was thrown off course by the oil price spiral crisis in 1972, then it was killed in 1976 by the Labour Government, through the International Monetary Fund.
  Mr. Jamieson: Lady Thatcher did many things. At that time, she advocated nursery places to the Government. As so much has been said about the subject today, I shall point out that she closed more grammar schools than any Minister at any time, Ministers consistently denied that there was some value in nursery education, as she had said in the early 1970s, but it is interesting that, as Prime Minister, she was far less enthusiastic about nursery education, and her earlier comments never saw the light of day again.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on changing the minds of her fellow Ministers. On occasion—today, for instance—she has the stern eye of a headmistress. I sometimes think that, with one glance, she could quell an unruly class that was out of control; indeed, some say that she could control an unruly political party that was out of control, but I am sure that that view will be revised following her performance at the Dispatch Box today. Nevertheless, we welcome the inspired conversion of Tory Members—a flash of light on the road to the ballot box.
  There is no doubt about the benefits of nursery education. Research carried out in the American High Scope programme suggests that it has many beneficial features. Later in life, children who have received such education are less likely to turn to crime and drugs, and more likely to have jobs, secure families and many other assets. Nursery education gives children a head start, especially in crowded inner cities where young children no longer enjoy the opportunity to play safely in the street,

  53
  as many hon. Members probably did. Nowadays, many parents will not allow their children to play outside because they fear what may happen to them. Sadly, such children—especially those who live in high-rise flats in some of the less stimulating parts of our cities—are fed a constant diet of television and computer games.
  When the Education Committee visited Japan in 1994, we asked the Japanese what they considered valuable in education in the early years of childhood. They said, unequivocally, that education taught children to socialise and work together and, above all, enabled them to learn the discipline of an ordered environment. The Select Committee's report—first published in 1989, and revised in 1994—recognised the value of nursery education, and reinforced those points.
  The benefits are enjoyed by mothers as well as children. Some mothers, through no fault of their own, may have limited parenting skills, and may be bringing up their children alone. The links between mother and school are closest at the nursery stage; strong bonds are often formed between teachers and parents. That relationship can have a very positive influence on mothers, and I commend the wider spread of nursery education on that ground as well.
  Although the Bill contains the right medicine, the medicine is wrongly administered. A small amount of extra funds will go into the scheme, but, like my Front-Bench spokesman and Conservative Back Benchers, I fear that much of that small extra sum will be swallowed up in bureaucracy, and that much of the good provision that exists in many parts of the country will be threatened by a Government who, having cast off their prejudice against nursery education, cannot finally overcome their deep disdain for locally elected, democratically controlled local government.
  The voucher scheme will, unfortunately, undermine what could have been a welcome advance. I note that just one of the authorities involved in the pilot scheme will receive funding directly from the vouchers—the authority of the Secretary of State. Opposition Members understand why she is not giving money directly to Wandsworth and Westminster.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Bearing in mind the position of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in the shadow Cabinet, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the decision that she has made about her son?
  Mr. Jamieson: That subject has been discussed enough in the Chamber today and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has given an excellent answer. I shall stick to what is in the Bill, rather than make petty, cheap attacks on other hon. Members who choose to send their children to various schools. I would not criticise any of my constituents on those grounds, and I would not expect any hon. Member to criticise his constituents or any other hon. Member.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech and its tone. Lest there be any suspicion, may I explain that he has hit on one of what may be several ways in which phase 1 will be run differently in different authorities. There is nothing suspicious about it. It is simply that we are taking advantage of the pilot nature of phase 1.
  Mr. Jamieson: I am interested to hear that the Government are taking advantage of the pilot scheme, but
  54
  the intention in the Bill is that the scheme will be introduced before we know about the success or otherwise of the pilot scheme. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in his winding-up speech how he will learn from the pilot scheme before it has finished.
  There is a cruel irony in the voucher scheme in that it will take most funds from those good authorities that currently have the highest provision, and give them to authorities that have the lowest provision. Funds will go from Labour local authorities that have high provision to the tiny handful of Tory authorities that have the lowest provision.
  May I say, in case the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) falls asleep, that the Liberal Democrats can claim no particular supremacy in this matter. They often pay lip service to education but, as usual, there is no co-ordinated approach to Liberal Democrat policy—the general principle is that there is a different policy on every doorstep. The Liberal Democrat councils with the longest experience of running education—the Isle of Wight and Cornwall—have the lowest nursery education provision in Britain.
  May I help the hon. Member for Bath to refute the scurrilous rumours put about by the Liberal Democrat researcher reported in The Daily Telegraph today, who said that, on education policy, the Liberal Democrats were "Interchangeable with Labour". Just to help the hon. Gentleman put some clear yellow water between us, Labour local education authorities do not just talk about improved provision—they provide it.
  The Bill will take funds from three-year-olds who are being provided with nursery education. It will take some four-year-olds from the full-time nursery education that they are enjoying to part-time nursery education, as the £1,100 voucher does not cover the full cost of a full-time place. Even Government Back Benchers have made the point that the voucher scheme puts money into the pockets of the better-off who can afford private provision.
  The Bill will increase bureaucracy and the scope for fraud. Will the Minister confirm that the voucher agency will issue a book of vouchers every half term and that there will be a separate piece of paper for each day? I know from previous debates that the Minister is somewhat arithmetically challenged, but that means that 1 billion pieces of paper will be floating around each year. We have only to imagine the amount of printing, collecting and counting of all that paper to know that the bureaucracy would be enormous. I see the Minister wants to make a statement.
  Mr. Squire: I can give an answer.
  Mr. Jamieson: I am willing to give way to the Minister if we can hear the answer.
  Mr. Squire: May I reduce substantially the figures that the hon. Gentleman is talking about? First, there will be three vouchers, one per term—to be strictly correct, there will be three issues, one per term—and parents will have the option to use such issues in more than one setting. In practice, however, a high proportion of parents are likely to use just one provider and that will involve just one voucher at the beginning of term.
  Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the Minister, but perhaps he will say in his winding-up speech whether he

  55
  agrees with the longest-serving Tory education committee chairman, Geoffrey Wright, of Solihull council, who said on "Newsnight" on 24 October 1995:
  "In my area of Solihull, nursery education will be damaged by this voucher scheme".
  Why does not one of the few Conservative education chairmen agree with this scheme?
  Will the Minister clear up the matter of inspection? It is essential that we monitor to ensure that we achieve the highest standards. Sub-paragraph 6(1)(a) of schedule 1 provides for inspection of private providers. Paragraph 6(2) refers to section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which lists the eight types of school that should be inspected. Seven of them, including city technology colleges, are in the maintained sector. Independent schools, however, are also included in the list.
  When the Government implemented their proposals with regulations, a four-yearly inspection system was placed on maintained schools. With independent schools, we heard that inspections would take place about every seven years. In reality, however, the Minister and I know that they take place far less frequently than that. Will independent providers in the non-maintained sector get a lightness of touch in terms of inspection or will inspection be the same across all the providers?
  The Bill had the potential to receive widespread support in the House on the principle of nursery education, on setting out to improve existing arrangements and on funding high-quality nursery provision. As with so many Government Bills, it fails to mention standards, the quality of education and the needs of children. Instead, it dwells on adjustments to the funding system and spawns a new leaden bureaucracy. For that reason, I will vote against its Second Reading and Labour Members will seek to amend the Bill to deliver what parents really want: high-quality, well-funded nursery education.
  5.47 pm
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on introducing the Bill. I shall certainly support her in the Division Lobby this evening. At the end of her speech, she asked what the Opposition would be doing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) eloquently explained that the Opposition would oppose the Bill, not only this evening on its Second Reading, but root and branch in Committee, and when it returns to the Floor of the House.
  The Opposition will oppose the Bill, aided by teacher unions, people on local education authorities and by those on local authorities who are of their mind, because, in their opinion, the scheme is not fair. In future, however, as more and more of their Front-Bench Members decide that what is better for their children conflicts with their political thinking, they will no doubt decide that they can, after all, turn their political thinking just a little and accommodate what is obviously a sensible and well-thought-out provision, introduced of course by the Conservative party and Conservative Government. We will watch that with great interest. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley explained, all the way through the period of this Government and previous Governments, we have watched that pattern develop and extend.
  56
  I should declare that I have an interest in grant-maintained schools. I am a vice-president of the Grant Maintained Schools Trust. It is what is known as a pro bono appointment. For those who do not understand that, it means that I do the job for the good of it and not for remuneration. I welcome the way that the Bill presents an opportunity for state schools to raise money in private markets to help them to extend and develop. As the Secretary of State said, that is a new but welcome move.
  During my time in local government, but much more when I was in central Government, I found it illogical that we could not extend to state schools the opportunities that exist for independent schools. Of course independent schools can raise money on buildings and land, and that enables them to plan school developments well in advance. Three, seven or 10-year plans can be formulated for developing a school, and that can be done because the use of money can be planned. Unfortunately under the Government's system of funding—this is a criticism of the way in which the Treasury operates—that can be done with public funds only on a year-by-year basis, and that makes nonsense of any kind of long-term planning. The Bill is a step in the right direction because it will benefit state schools.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on the nursery voucher scheme, and I should like to speak about the timing of the initiatives. My right hon. and hon. Friends have often spoken about the introduction of some form of voucher system to ensure that parents are empowered to make genuine choices for their children. We have often been told that such a system would be fine if the money were there to implement it. It has been said that the children of those who move into the right neighbourhood might even be able to go to a good state school. Unfortunately, those who cannot do that have to save up to send their children to fee-paying schools. The voucher system is the one way in which parents can be empowered to make a genuine choice.
  We have heard in the debate about how local authority schools somehow or other give enormous choice to parents. But every hon. Member and everybody outside, especially parents, knows perfectly well that there is no such choice in the state system. Choice depends on where people live, on the local authority and on the way in which it operates an admissions system. Local authorities may choose a variety of criteria for admissions, which may be decided on a geographical basis or may depend on whether there are siblings from the same family in the same school.
  Local authorities will always say that they cannot guarantee a place to any family in a particular school, and that applies to nursery, primary, middle or secondary schools. The authorities say that that is because they have to keep some places for people who may move into the area and that such people may take priority on the waiting list. What kind of choice is that for parents?
  Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as giving choice to parents we are trying to stimulate schools to design themselves so that they attract pupils? Labour's concept is that schools should somehow be driven towards meeting certain predetermined criteria that are established at the centre and should have a predetermined clientele feeding them.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: My hon. Friend is most helpful because he raises the point that I was about to make. Parents look at schools in terms of what they think those schools can offer their children. Parents who can pay for education take enormous care in judging schools. They look at the facilities, academic standards, pastoral care, supplies and so on, but people who have to use the state system are not allowed to do that.
  I am a passionate believer in state education. We pay enough for it in taxes and it should be the principal form of education on offer to parents. I have consistently disagreed with Labour because I refuse point blank to be told that the only schools for the majority of children are those designated by the local authorities. If schools are to rise to the challenge of meeting parents' expectations they must fight in the marketplace to attract students, and should not have to depend on local authorities directing parents and children to them.
  Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in earlier debates Labour was always candid about where it stood on the issue of secondary provision? Now, of course, Labour realises that it is unfashionable and unpopular to say that it would close grammar schools. It has said, and repeated in the debate, that no selective school will be able to admit pupils by interview or examination. Will my right hon. Friend confirm my view that under Labour no current grammar school that can admit pupils in that way will remain a grammar school, but that Labour does not have the guts or the nous to say, "Yes, we want to close grammar schools in the way that we did 30 years ago."
  Dame Angela Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right: that is precisely what is being said. But it is being said in code because no Opposition Member wants to tell the truth, which is that they have not changed their education policy for more than 30 years. That is where they stand today.
  I am delighted to see the start of a process which, with nursery vouchers, will give parents a genuine choice. At long last parents will be able to say, "We have purchasing power and can choose where to send our children." They will be able to decide which school offers their children the best nursery education. Mothers who come to see me in my constituency will be able to say, "We have looked at all the nursery schools and genuinely believe that our children will do best at this one."
  Although my local authority makes great play of its provision for nursery education, unfortunately it does not allow parents to choose a nursery school. Parents are told, "Your child can have a place in that school and if you do not like that—tough." That is not parental choice under any guise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has presented an opportunity for parents to have a genuine choice. She will certainly get my whole-hearted support and, I trust, the whole-hearted support of every hon. Member who believes that the most important step to raise standards in our schools is not the structure or the mystique about parental choice with which local authorities surround themselves, but the genuine choice that they make for their own children because they want the best for them for the best of reasons. Such choice will be open to everyone, and if parents want examinations or interviews for their children, what is wrong with that? Freedom for parents should mean just that.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), whose commitment to state education is beyond peradventure. I share her belief in the importance of empowering parents, but I disagree with her belief that it is the most important and almost the sole key to raising achievement. While I do not accept that, I agree that it is an important element.
  I also disagree with the right hon. Lady, and with the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), that the best way of empowering parents is through the voucher system proposed by the Government. Sadly, I also must agree with the right hon. Lady's prediction that there will be wide-scale opposition to the proposals. The right hon. Lady is right—there already is wide-scale opposition to the proposals.
  The right hon. Lady was foolish to be proud that the proposals have been put together by the Conservative party, because the evidence suggests that the Bill will fare little better than other legislation proposed recently by the Government. The Bill has been hastily cobbled together, and its flaws will begin to show clearly in Committee. A similar situation occurred with the Education (Student Loans) Bill where, after a few days in Committee, the Minister had to point out some major problems with the Bill and announce a delay in the implementation of the proposals by one year.
  This Bill is like the Education (Student Loans) Bill. It is a set of gimmicks put forward by the Government which fails to address the real issues and concerns in the education service. The first of those gimmicks relates to grant-maintained schools. There cannot be many people who do not accept that the grant-maintained schools policy has been a failure, despite all the inducements offered by the Government.
  Dr. Hampson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to explain how a policy that has led to only one twenty-fourth of all schools choosing to opt out since it was introduced in 1988 can be described as a success, the House would be interested. The Government's flagship policy has sunk—it has failed. It is slightly bizarre that the Prime Minister, of all people, has spent so much time addressing the issue of grant-maintained status. I do not understand why he would wish to draw attention to the least succesful of all the Government's education policies. It was the Prime Minister, to, be fair, and not the Secretary of State, who made clear that he intended to make yet another attempt to try to induce more schools to choose the opt-out route.
  I suppose that we should be grateful that at least one of the two suggestions the Prime Minister put forward—the proposal for a fast track to grant-maintained status for church schools—has been dropped. The only success of that proposal was that it successfully united both Catholics and Protestants against it.
  The Bill contains proposals that relate to the ability of grant-maintained schools to borrow money using the school's assets as collateral, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) eloquently outlined some of the flaws in that proposal. It is interesting to note that the Bill contains measures about which many head teachers of grant-maintained schools have expressed

  59
  concern. They realise that borrowing money is very easy—it is paying it back that is difficult. They are very concerned—as are, I suspect, many Opposition Members—at the possibility of a mortgage company repossessing a state school for the first time in this country.
  There is no doubt that the Bill confirms the advantage of grant-maintained schools over LEA schools. Perhaps equally of concern is the fact that the Bill alters the current position, whereby in certain circumstances where the assets of a grant-maintained school are considered to be surplus to requirements, some of the money gained from the sale of those assets can be returned to the LEA, or the premises themselves can be made available to the LEA. That is likely to change if those surplus assets are now to be tied up and used as collateral against any loan that has been made.
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point—if he is right. But as I understand it, schools cannot borrow or grant security on anything like the scale that the hon. Gentleman is talking about without the Secretary of State's approval—including a Labour or even a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State. There are safeguards in the Bill. If local authorities can borrow against assets such as parking metres and get away with it, surely a lot of money can be raised against a school's assets.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge my point. The premises or assets against which money can be borrowed are those deemed to be non-core assets. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are limits to the amount that can be borrowed, and the figure of 5 per cent. is included in the proposals. Nevertheless, schools will no longer be able to pass back those surplus assets to the LEA, or sell them to enable some of the benefits from such a sale to be passed back to the LEA as currently takes place.
  Mr. Robin Squire rose—
  Mr. Foster: I am sure that the House would like the Minister to state whether I am incorrect.
  Mr. Squire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to spend too much time at the Dispatch Box intervening. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think in wider terms than merely the assets pledged. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the private finance initiative, and there are a whole range of other options available. We are saying that grant-maintained schools have demonstrated that they can run themselves, and this is simply another area in which they can do so.
  Mr. Foster: I suspect that the House would not wish to be detained by a detailed debate between the Minister and me on this issue, and it is a matter that we can pick up in Committee. I hope that the Minister accepts that the package of proposals on grant-maintained schools in the Bill tilts the playing field in favour of such schools. Certainly no Opposition Member is comfortable with any set of proposals that advantage grant-maintained schools to the detriment of local education authority schools.
  Sir Jim Spicer: I am in a rather difficult position at the moment, because I have had a passionate plea from
  60
  the chairman of the policy and resources committee of Dorset county council, Councillor Jones, to do all that I can to get funding under the PFI for a school that he wants built. Letters have been pouring in to me from Liberal Democrats in West Dorset, asking me to put my weight behind the proposal. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going back on that. Does he think that I am doing the right thing in supporting that proposal?
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to recommend that he accepts that request to support the PFI scheme. I hope that the Government will make better use of the PFI than they have done in a number of projects. I wish, for example, that they had taken my advice and used the PFI with regard to a Ministry of Defence building in my constituency. If they had done so, they could have saved £40 million of taxpayers' money.
  The hon. Gentleman reminds the House of the considerable difficulty that many LEAs are having with capital expenditure, and he may be interested to know that 22.4 per cent. of the bids for capital assistance made to the Government were accepted this year. Many schools are in very serious difficulty because of their buildings, not least in the hon. Gentleman's LEA area.
  I wish to deal with the more substantial—but, I believe, equally deficient—part of the Bill in respect of nursery education.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is not in his place, but I supported at least one part of his contribution to the debate, which was his impassioned and well-placed plea for increased provision for those children who have been identified as having special educational needs. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned the importance of high-quality early-years education—I think that all hon. Members agree that it is crucial and accept that it brings social, educational and economic benefits not only for the individual but for the nation. We must ask ourselves whether the proposals in the Bill provide the most effective means for expanding provision of high-quality early-years education, and the subsidiary question: could the proposals in any way harm the expansion of such provision?
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the use of the words "early-years education" is correct in so far as it covers a range of options? Does he also agree that, desirable though it is to have an expansion in the number of good playgroups, it would be wrong if the expansion meant either the diminution or elimination of nursery education, as statutorily defined? We need the expansion of both.
  Mr. Foster: I entirely accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman, which probably have unanimous support across the Chamber.
  Mr. Spearing: Not from Conservative Members.
  Mr. Foster: I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want diverse provision to be expanded, taking into account statutory provision, as well as that from the voluntary and the private sectors.

  61
  The hon. Gentleman is right that there are a number of problems with the language that is being used, which is why I prefer to use phrase "high-quality"—quality is crucial—"early-years education".
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) may be as confused as I am in trying to understand why, for example, the Office for Standards in Education is redefining the title of inspectors who deal in the sphere previously termed "early-years education"—the designated title is redefined as "pre-school education". I am concerned about that.
  I question whether that type of provision will help to expand the nature of provision. I do not believe that it will. That view is supported by many organisations with expertise in early-years education. The majority of people who work in that sphere are extremely concerned about the proposals—they oppose them, believing that they may even harm some of the existing provision.
  It is interesting to note that, in an intervention, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), chided Opposition Members and said that Conservative Members "listen to consultation". On this issue, there is no evidence that that is what they do. They do not even listen to a number of their own Members. For example, the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, said:
  "would it not perhaps be better to think of widening existing provision than to bring in a new scheme against the background of limited money?"—[Official Report, 21 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 487.]
  The Conservative Education Association said in a statement earlier this month:
  "we did not feel that a voucher scheme was the most efficient way of expanding pre-school provision".
  It then expressed a number of concerns about the scheme. There is therefore considerable concern even from Members of the Conservative party.
  The majority of local education authorities—including some Conservative-controlled authorities—have made their position clear by refusing to participate in the trials of the proposals contained in the Bill. Only four have been willing to get involved, yet the Government are going to rush ahead and introduce the Bill before the trials are even under way, let alone give us time to evaluate the outcome of the trials. So much for consultation.
  The scheme in the proposed legislation brings with it a cumbersome, unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy. It will do nothing to expand provision for three-year-olds and could harm the provision that already exists. The scheme could, without the expense of further bureaucracy, be amenable to fraud and abuse. It prevents, through the market-driven approach that underpins it, any notion of strategic planning, and it could prevent effective co-operation and partnership between the providers.
  The scheme reduces the possibility of developing links between education provision and care provision, as envisaged in the Children Act 1989, and could indeed damage some of the co-operation that already exists. Further, given that the likely voucher redemption value is the figure that has been quoted, the proposals will not ensure that new provision is made where none exists. The funds will simply not be available to meet existing running costs and ensure that money is made available for the training of new teachers and the building and equipping of new classrooms and schools.
  62
  Too much stress has been placed on the issue of choice. As the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said in her contribution, in the majority of circumstances parents have no choice about where to send their children to school and in many cases the nursery voucher scheme will mean that they will get a voucher but will have nowhere to redeem it. The scheme is, after all, a big con trick.
  The House should beware any legislation with so many blanks left in it—blanks that are expected to be filled in at the whim of the Secretary of State. Many of us highly value the briefs that the staff in the Library prepare for us. It is instructive to look, for example, at page 22 of the brief on the Bill, which says:
  "Clause 1 empowers the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the making of grants in respect of nursery education."
  It continues:
  "As the Bill stands it does not lay down the form in which the arrangements will be made. It does not state that the arrangements will be made by Order."
  It says:
  "Clause 2 authorises the arrangements under clause 1 to include the provision for grant-making and related functions to be delegated, wholly or partly, without prejudice to the Secretary of State's powers."
  It goes on:
  "The clause does not specify to whom delegated powers may be given."
  It says:
  "Clause 3 provides for the Secretary of State to impose requirements on an authority or other persons in receipt of grants in respect of nursery education. The requirements are not specified and may be imposed on, or at any time after, the making of any grant, and may at any time be varied, waived or removed".
  There are far too many blanks in this legislation. We should not accept legislation that gives the Secretary of State so much unfettered power. The Bill fails even to get near to a set of proposals that would ensure the provision of high-quality early-years education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it for their children. As I said earlier, such provision would be expensive, but it is a price worth paying. It is an investment in the future of this country and my party is committed to it.
  We are committed to the funding of early-years education. We have made it clear that, if necessary, we would increase the income tax rate to pay for it. This Bill goes nowhere near any of that and it simply does not deserve a Second Reading.
  6.18 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) referred to some of the Education Acts that were passed in this and the previous three Parliaments. I was an Education Minister from 1979 to 1983 and Labour party policy was to oppose everything that we put through and then, five years later, to say that it agreed with us. That was true of parental choice of school, which was also opposed and voted against by the Liberals. They must remember that they voted against parental choice.
  Similarly, the Liberals and Labour voted against the introduction of tests. It appears that they, too, have now been accepted. Labour policy is to follow five years

  63
  behind Conservative policy. In another five years, we shall find Labour advocating vouchers—I will not say for three-year-olds, but for four-year-olds as we do now.
  Mr. Waterson: Before my hon. Friend leaves the Liberal Democrats, he may not yet have seen a copy of the document, "Towards 1996", which bears the subtitles, "Ideas for Research and Campaigning" and "Liberal Democrat Whips Office", and states:
  "Of all parties we are probably going to go into the election most intent on dismantling Tory education policy."
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: It appears that there is a gap between what happens in Parliament and what hon. Members' researchers write before we meet. We shall have to leave it to the two Opposition parties to discuss which of them is the more reactionary.
  There is, however, a philosophical difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal and Labour parties. We Conservatives trust people and believe that the more powers we give them, the better and more adult society will be. Labour and the Liberals trust elected local authority bodies and believe that councillors have some wisdom that ordinary people in the street do not have. On that theory, Members of Parliament have an even greater perception of what will happen in the future. That is a big difference, which comes through especially on the question of vouchers.
  If people can decide what car they want to drive, where they want to live and the job that they want to do, surely to goodness they should be able to choose where they want their children to go to school. With a voucher, they could go from nursery to nursery until they find the one that suits their child. They could exercise the choice exercised by a certain Labour Member. I welcome that Member's exercise of choice, so long as everybody else can have the same freedom. If they cannot, there is something wrong with the philosophy of the Labour party.
  I have always backed vouchers. I wrote a pamphlet on the education voucher 25 years ago and thought that I had invented it. I thought that it was something that came to me in a dream. I wrote it up immediately and then found that the Institute of Economic Affairs had produced a pamphlet on the subject. Later, I met Milton Friedman, who had also done some work on vouchers. I then found that Cardinal Bourne, an Australian, had written about them in 1926.
  I can disclose something new to the House tonight. I can go still further back: in 1790, Tom Paine advocated giving all parents in America £4 to have their children educated. It may be that the matter goes back still further, to the Old Testament, but I have gone as far as I can for now and I call in the shadow of Tom Paine and "The Rights of Man" on our side of the argument about choice, grant-maintained schools and vouchers.
  I want to say something about giving borrowing powers to grant-maintained schools. The great national debt was not created by parents and schools, but by Governments. How can Governments refuse to give others the right to borrow, knowing how much has been borrowed by Governments of all parties over the years? People on the spot will be more careful with their own money than Governments will ever be, because they themselves are
  64
  responsible: they may have to get the assent of the Secretary of State, but they are responsible. I would sooner trust my money with the local friendly society than with a Government of any colour.
  The grant-maintained schools have been very successful. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that they made up only 4 per cent. of schools, but most of those are secondary schools. More than 1,000 schools have taken the initiative and 1,000 sets of people have voted in favour. They, rather than Opposition Members, are the libertarians of our time.
  Mr. Dunn: In contrast with local authorities.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, in contrast with local authorities, including some Conservative-controlled ones. I shall not mention Brent in detail, but all except one of our secondary schools are grant maintained—I took no part in that process, because there could have been a re-vote if it had gone wrong—and they have all improved.
  I believe that I can win in the next general election in Brent, North on the issue of grant-maintained schools. The Labour party does not realise how important that issue is in some places. Parents who have voted for grant-maintained status are not going to vote to let the Labour party undo it. That policy is a liability for Labour Members. They might catch up on that over the next three months instead of waiting five years to bring their policy into accord with ours. There is no doubt that if the Labour party won the general election and we had foundation schools, or whatever they are to be called, it would be the end of the grant-maintained school.
  Mr. Pawsey: And the grammar schools.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend is right. He did not go to a grammar school, but to a technical school. He is a technical man and all my technical knowledge comes from him. I rarely pay such tributes, and I had better get on now as I do not want to get the House too excited on these matters.
  Mr. Dunn: There has been a great deal of debate about the decision of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) to send her child out of the local authority area in which she lives. Why did she make that decision? It was because she could not find a school in her locality that was up to the standard that she wanted for her child. Is that not the end of the telescope through which we should be looking? She could not find a suitable school locally, so she went 15 miles down the road.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I commend my hon. Friend for his imagery. As an ex-Navy man, I must say that the analogy of the telescope is one of the best that I have heard in the House and we shall remember it for many days. The episode will be known from now on as the Peckham telescope and my hon. Friend will be linked with it for ever more.
  If the Labour party won the next general election and decided to abolish grant-maintained schools, all those schools would lose at least 10 per cent. of their money. Staff would have to be sacked. I shall make sure that my

  65
  constituents know that. Labour would then put two socialist aldermen of great vintage on to all the governing bodies to bring them back into order.
  Mr. Pawsey: Opposition Members all look like aldermen.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have to be careful because my father was a socialist alderman for 40 years. It took me a long time to reach the free society. If they were put on governing bodies, they would be clever and instrumental in what they said and did. Grant-maintained schools would lose their freedom to recruit pupils, and that would be the end of the grant-maintained system. I shall put forward that scenario at the next general election, whenever it comes.
  The philosophical difference between the Labour and Liberal parties and the Conservative party is the belief that people can run their own destinies. Some people cannot, and one must do all that one can to look after them, but the more mature we can make people, the better our society will be. Both grant-maintained schools and the voucher system, which enables parents to choose where their children go to school, are opposed by local authorities, but they are great steps forward towards a free society in Britain.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Alan Keen: The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) asked why the Opposition oppose the Bill. I came here especially this evening to say why I oppose it. My borough of Hounslow has a top-class nursery system and we are terrified that the voucher system will damage it.
  My speech will concentrate on the nursery voucher scheme rather than the other proposal in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) outlined the advantages of nursery education, so I shall not repeat them. I represent the western half of the borough of Hounslow and live in the other half. My local authority provides a nursery school place for every three-year-old and four-year-old child whose parents wish to take it up. The system is co-ordinated between schools and the local education authority. Teachers and nursery nurses are fully trained, and their training and quality is monitored regularly, contrary to what will happen under the nursery voucher system.
  Conservative Members may as well stamp "Vote Conservative" on nursery vouchers, as they seem to think that pieces of paper worth £1,100 will make people vote Conservative. That is the basis of the scheme. People in areas with a solid, high-class nursery education system are worried and do not want their local authority's nursery education provision to be damaged. I want this Government and the forthcoming Labour Government to ensure that every child throughout the nation has a chance of high-class nursery education.
  I was not happy with the Secretary of State's answer to my questions at an Education Select Committee meeting shortly before Christmas, when she accused me of putting the Hounslow administrative system before children's education. That is ridiculous. She made that accusation despite the fact that I said, following earlier cricket
  66
  metaphors, that I did not intend to bowl out the Secretary of State but wanted to express genuine concern about the proposed nursery voucher system. I did not take kindly to the accusation that I was simply worried about Hounslow's administrative system. I am, however, concerned that the administration of education in Hounslow will be damaged because the local education authority provides the co-ordination necessary for a high-class nursery education system.
  The Government say that they intend to carry out an experiment in four local authorities. I hope that it is a genuine experiment, as it appears that the decision has already been taken to proceed with the full system in 1997–98. We heard tonight that inspection costs are already included in the first year's budget.
  Hounslow's nursery education service has been funded and built up over the years partly by paring a certain amount of money from secondary and primary education budgets. Secondary and primary school head teachers in the borough are aware that Government cuts in revenue support grant have forced down real expenditure and the money that they need cannot be provided, but they are happy about maintaining the balance between nursery education and primary and secondary education costs because they realise that their job of educating children is made easier when children have been through nursery education and reception classes. The advantages of nursery education last not just for one or two years, but throughout young people's education and even result in a reduction in crime rates. Children in Hounslow do not just learn academically, but understand social exchanges. The fact that they learn give and take at the age of three is reflected in better behaviour throughout the secondary school system. That is why secondary school head teachers in Hounslow are happy to see that balance of expenditure maintained.
  Dr. Hampson: If the local authority system is so brilliant, all parents will use it and the local authority will receive the £1,100. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, it costs more, his authority will still be able to invest that extra amount and maintain the system. But we do not know whether the local authority system is as brilliant as he claims. People used to think that the education systems in Islington and Lambeth were brilliant; we now discover that the Labour leader and his acolytes have seen something better outside. That will have an impact. If choice is offered in the hon. Gentleman's area, parents may find better nursery schools than those provided by his local council.
  Mr. Keen: If the hon. Gentleman doubts the quality of nursery education in Hounslow, I should be delighted to show him around.
  Dr. Hampson: Put it to the test.
  Mr. Keen: I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would come to Hounslow. I wish that he could have come before voting in the Lobby today as he might have changed his mind. He says that parents might not spend all their vouchers in Hounslow. It is a pity that nursery teachers, and also parents whose children already benefit from nursery education in Hounslow, will not have a chance to talk to every parent who will suddenly receive a voucher and who may be attracted by child-minding

  67
  organisations operating from halls, libraries or committee rooms. If vouchers are sent out by the hundreds in Hounslow, a certain number of parents are bound to be tempted by organisations that offer no more than child minding, and they may not realise their mistake until it is much too late. Moreover, if people choose to spend their vouchers on organisations that do not offer a high standard of education, qualified nursery education teachers will be put out of work and replaced by people who, under these proposals, do not have to be trained.
  I am sure that Conservative Members may already be going round the country signing agreements for cricket pavilions, sports halls and bus shelters in areas where there is no nursery education. People will be able to make a profit out of the system, but the premises will be unsatisfactory. No requirements are made about the quality of premises and, even if there were, the inspection system will not be in place soon enough.
  Mr. Pawsey: There is a demand for quality of premises. The demand will come from parents—the point made by my hon. Friends. We want to emphasise the fact that we should trust parents, who want the best for their own children, in exactly the same way as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) do.
  Mr. Keen: I am concerned about those parents who do not have an opportunity to choose in Hounslow before they place their vouchers somewhere else. I am worried about parents who spend the vouchers for their children to receive child care in cricket pavilions and barns in areas of the country where there is nothing else to choose from. I am worried that their money may be spent on such premises.
  I should love hon. Members to come and compare Hounslow's nursery education with that in other parts of the country. I should be delighted to come and look at nursery education in areas where there are virtually no facilities at present. There is an enormous difference in quality between Hounslow's nursery education and the nursery education in those other areas. The cost of monitoring private schemes around the country will be enormous. More importantly, time will be wasted during the vital years of children's education—when they are aged three, four and five—as they will attend schools that will not be of the same standard as their parents could have chosen.
  I wish to explain the benefits of nursery education, but I shall keep my remarks to a minimum. It is vital that nursery schools are monitored and co-ordinated by a local education authority to ensure that we have the highest standards of education and training.
  Mr. David Congdon: I am intrigued to know why the hon. Gentleman has such faith in local education authorities ensure high standards when we know that the standards of education in many inner-city areas such as Islington and Camden, to name but two, are so abysmal that Opposition Members send their children elsewhere. Why does the hon. Gentleman
  68
  have such faith in the ability of local education authorities to maintain standards when they have clearly failed abysmally in so many parts of the country?
  Mr. Keen: When I began my speech I said that I would concentrate on my borough and the fears that our first-class nursery education will be damaged. I invite any Conservative Member to come to Hounslow, where I will show him or her exactly what high-class nursery education is.
  If anyone doubts the value of local education authority monitoring, I shall convince him or her by reading from a letter. It was not written in response to the nursery scheme, but was sent from one of the voluntary-aided schools in the borough. The school was concerned about the way in which the Government were almost forcing it to come out from under local education authority control. The letter states:
  "Finally, once again, the Government seek to finance the proposals by reducing the moneys made available to our local education authority and thus adversely affecting the funding of our governing body and the support mechanisms which are so important to our work for the children in our care."
  Such support will not occur under the nursery voucher scheme.
  I returned from Dublin at the new year with some great good-news-and-bad-news stories which are, unfortunately, unsuitable for the House of Commons, but I have a good-news-and-bad-news ending for my speech. The voucher scheme is bad news for Conservative Members who represent areas with a high-class nursery education system because that education system will be damaged and because if those Conservative Members vote with the Government today they, too, will suffer badly as a result. There is good news, however, for the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has disappeared, and for others in Ealing, North because, despite many years of Conservative control, there is almost no nursery education to damage in that area. There is excellent news for hon. Members who represent the borough to the south of Hounslow—Richmond and Twickenham—where, despite 20-odd years of Liberal and Liberal Democrat control, there is almost no nursery education to damage. There is good news for those hon. Members, but bad news for hon. Members who represent areas that have been used to a high-class nursery education. I hope that high-class nursery education will not be replaced by some sort of child minding in barns, cricket pavilions and even bus shelters.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. Friends.
  Curiosity forced me to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what the headline was in tonight's Evening Standard. I discover that it is "Blair's Wall of Silence"—I cannot imagine what it is referring to. An article inside the newspaper quotes Southwark council as saying that what has happened
  "is obviously not an advertisement for our schools".
  Indeed, it is not.
  It was interesting and instructive to listen to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the "World at One" this afternoon.

  69
  The first question that he was asked was, of course, about the decision of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) to send her son to a particular school. The right hon. Gentleman refused to enter into a debate on the subject and refused to answer the question. He said that he had agreed to appear on the programme only if he was not asked a question about that subject. It appears that no one wants to talk about the hon. Member for Peckham, but I intend to come to her defence—well, sort of.
  I congratulate the hon. Lady on having done what she thinks is best for her son. I congratulate the Conservative Government on having given her the opportunity to exercise her choice. I find it appalling that Labour Members seek to deny that choice to other parents while taking advantage of it for themselves—that is the hypocrisy. Labour's stakeholding proposal is becoming clear: the idea is to get a stake in society now and exercise parental choice now while the Tories are in power. Our message to the British people is that they will have to keep the Tories in power if they wish to retain the opportunity to exercise choice in education, and in other sectors.
  The Education Reform Act 1988 was a turning point. As we all know, that Act—along with other measures—has attempted to drive up standards and give more power and choice to parents. If the Leader of the Opposition had really believed in stakeholding, he would have supported taking away power from local authorities and giving it to individual schools; he would have supported giving parents the opportunity to take their schools completely out of the hands of local authorities. But he and his party have vehemently opposed those moves; they have opposed all our moves to give parents more choice.
  The Conservative Government have attempted to drive up standards and give parents more information by introducing the national curriculum and formal testing and publishing exam results. The so-called stakeholder from Sedgefield opposed the lot. But while the self-confessed Sedgefield sloganiser comes out with his soundbites, the Conservative Government steadily provide more choice to parents. This Bill is part of that process. Giving parents of four-year-olds vouchers to redeem against their children's education—which the parents choose—is extending the concept of parental power in a real and radical way.
  Mr. Spearing: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the language that he has just used. As far as he is concerned, one of the advantages of the system is that some parents will be able to top up a voucher for approximately half of nursery education provision in order to provide full or three quarter nursery education. However, other parents will not be able to do that. Does he regard that as one of the advantages of parental choice that is allied to income?
  Mr. Riddick: Of course parents will have that choice, but local authorities will be able to do that also. Local authorities currently spend beyond their standard spending assessments on full-time nursery places for four-year-olds. They will continue to be able to do that. Money has been taken from them by way of reduced grants in order to pay for two and a half days of nursery education, but local authorities will retain money to spend on nursery education if they so choose. That is the reality of the situation. Many people in the education world and on the Opposition Benches oppose nursery vouchers because they extend parental choice.
  70
  Vouchers will also lead to more diversity in pre-school provision. There will be more competition between providers. Sadly, many in the education world abhor competition, but it will drive up standards, not reduce them. Nursery vouchers will also result in more establishments from which to choose. Once parents have had a taste of exercising real choice under the voucher system, there will be no going back. They will not relinquish that choice and, who knows, they may demand that vouchers be introduced for primary and secondary schools also.
  I do not wish to belittle in any way the genuine concerns expressed by many of those involved in providing nursery education. It is thoroughly understandable that they should be concerned about a new development which, to an extent, takes them into uncharted waters. Therefore, it is very important that we provide information about the new scheme to school heads and to teachers as soon as possible. It is even more crucial that we do not allow the scheme's administrators and the so-called "professional experts" within the Department for Education and Employment to overload the new scheme with unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. That is exactly what happened with the national curriculum.
  Genuine concerns are one thing; scare stories and downright lies are another. I am sure that Conservative Members will have experienced the latter from Labour politicians, from some in the education world and from Labour councils in our constituencies. My own council, Labour-controlled Kirklees, has used pupils to distribute disingenuous propaganda against the voucher scheme to parents. That is an absolute disgrace.
  We have heard that local authorities will be deprived of millions of pounds in grants. However, we do not hear how all that money and more will be circulated to parents within the council areas. Opposition Members have said that nursery provision for three-year-olds will no longer be available. That is totally untrue because councils will be able to spend the same amount of money on nursery education for three-year-olds as they do currently. That money will not be deducted from local council grants or from SSAs. The same applies to full-time places for four-year-olds, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  This relatively short Bill contains no mention of vouchers, despite the fact that the Government clearly intend to provide vouchers to parents. I think that we should be more explicit about our intentions. If, by some appalling mishap, a Labour Government were elected, they would not have to pass any primary legislation in order to abolish the voucher system. That is a mistake, because I believe that Labour would seek to reduce parental power and choice, preferably by the back door. We should ensure that, if ever a Labour Government tried to do that, there will be an almighty row not only in our constituencies but in the House.
  I shall refer briefly to the second part of the Bill. I am happy to support any measure that is intended to help grant-maintained schools and to encourage other schools to go grant maintained. Those schools that have assumed GM status have been very successful. Their exam results and discipline have improved and more subjects are being taught. GM schools have also proved popular with parents.

  71
  But, in truth, GM status does not create a type of school: it merely gives schools greater independence and frees them from the control and diktat of local education authorities. GM schools are successful because they have taken advantage of their new-found freedom. They know that they will stand or fall according to their own efforts. Each GM school will develop its own ethos and individual approach according to the requirements of parents and local needs.
  I believe that the time has come to extend that freedom from local education authority control to all secondary schools without their having to take the divisive step of holding a ballot. All secondary schools would then become autonomous establishments within the state sector. They would develop different approaches to delivering education and each school would develop its own ethos. Competition between schools would be intense and competition in education would have the same effect as competition everywhere else: it would keep schools on their toes and drive up standards.
  I have gone a little beyond the scope of the Bill in my remarks, but I hope that my points about GM status will appear in the next education Bill. In the meantime, I am delighted to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which will result in greater diversity in nursery education provision for pre-fives and give parents more choice and more say.
  6.56 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill represents a tragic wasted opportunity, not only for our children's future but for the future well-being of our nation. However, the voucher scheme will give parents a chance to judge clearly the difference in purpose and in principle between the two main political parties.
  The Government's proposals are driven by dogma and not by the needs of children and their families. That dogma says that private is good and public is bad, and it has led the Government to use the very limited resources available to subsidise places for the few in the private sector rather than focusing on providing new, quality places for many in other sectors. Even the private sector does not applaud that dogma because it fears that it will lead to cowboy operators catering for the very young in our community.
  The Government's proposals are based on dogma which is founded in their obsessive and irrational hatred of local government. That has led the Government to waste millions of pounds creating a new bureaucracy to administer the scheme rather than working in partnership with local authorities, which could be responsible for its administration. The Government's proposals are based on dogma to the extent that they prefer to skimp on investing in the talents and potential of our young people and instead spend millions on the waste of talent and potential of young people on the dole.
  The Government's plans are not just dogmatic; they are riddled with waste and inefficiencies. So much so that the Government admitted recently that they will fail in their lesser promise to provide places for all four-year-olds. Even they have now said that they cannot guarantee a place for all four-year-olds in the pilot authorities. I would
  72
  welcome the intervention of the Minister, if he dares, to say that when Westminster starts the scheme in a few months, there will be a place for every four-year-old as a result of the voucher scheme in that borough.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I am happy to intervene on the hon. Lady, although she asked a rather strange question. It is self-evidently the case in all the phase 1 areas—indeed, throughout the country—that there is scope for expansion of nursery education. The voucher will make it much more likely—
  Mr. Stephen Byers: Come on, answer the question.
  Mr. Squire: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I am answering the hon. Lady's question. Self-evidently, the voucher is the quickest way to cause different types of providers to create more nursery education. We are still waiting to hear how Labour would provide nursery education. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us how she would provide it.
  Ms Hodge: I agree that expansion is needed—we have been telling the Government so for a very long time. The Government could fulfil their promise to the people of Westminster that there will be a place for every four-year-old in Westminster if they spent the money, not on an ill-thought-out, ill-conceived voucher scheme, but on creating more places, training more teachers and providing appropriate facilities for four-year-olds.
  When the Minister—as Conservative Members do—speaks about choice in nursery education, it should be remembered that choice does not exist for the people of Westminster, because there are not enough places. It is impossible to choose if there is nowhere to go. No place—no choice.
  Equally, in an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Minister admitted that some of the money that has been set aside in what is now called the first phase rather than the pilot for the voucher scheme, will be used to train inspectors. Let us get that position clear; let us be aware of how ill thought out the voucher scheme is.
  In order seriously to inspect all the settings that will provide nursery places for four-year-olds, on their own admission the Government require 4,000 inspectors. At present, three inspectors in the Department for Education and Employment are appropriately qualified for such inspections. In addition, 200 inspectors in the country at large have been registered as qualified to undertake the required inspection. No way—even with all the money that has been set aside—will the Government be able to find and train the 4,000 people that they, on their own admission, require if they are properly to inspect the nursery settings in which the voucher scheme will operate.
  There will not be a proper inspection; it will be a "light-touch inspection". It will not be the Office for Standards in Education inspection to which we are used, in which at least three or four days are spent in each nursery school. It will be a one-day inspection, which will be superficial and "light-touch" and will not ensure the quality and standards to which our young people are entitled.

  73
  We all know that investing in the early years of a child's life makes sense. On that, I believe that there is broad consensus in the House. Not only does it make sense; it is essential if we are serious about raising standards, and if we are serious about providing equality of opportunity for all our children.
  Sixty per cent. of a child's intellectual growth occurs before the age of six—a staggering figure. The early years are obviously crucial to the child's potential and later performance. Yet what do the Government suggest in the Bill? They suggest two and a half hours a day, if the child is lucky, in a place that will be registered, not by professional educationists from the Department for Education and Employment, but by a management consultancy. That is the organisation that does the job in the pilot authorities, a management consultancy—Capita, for Conservative Members' information—which acts as the Government's agency and which, on its own admission, knows very little about education.
  Children would spend two and a half hours a day in a place where, we learn from other Government proposals, space standards will be cut. Space standards are crucial to facilitate the child's development at that early age. Two and a half hours a day, when rigorous Ofsted inspection of nursery education is to be replaced by that light-touch inspection; two and a half hours a day, when the outcomes expected from the children make every self-respecting nursery teacher laugh because they are so limited.
  Mr. Spearing: The phrase "light touch" will be greeted with amusement by teachers in schools of pupils older than nursery age.
  Has my hon. Friend also heard that it is possible that Ofsted, in the form of the chief inspector, who plays an important role in that matter, may sub-contract that inspecting role to organisations that at the moment are nothing to do with Ofsted. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that when he replies; perhaps my hon. Friend can. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not merely a light touch, but a palsied touch?
  Ms Hodge: I agree entirely with the sentiments underlying that question. My guess is that, were the present Government to continue to be in office when that expansion—so-called introduction—of nursery vouchers takes place, the settings would not be inspected, in the way that many primary schools are currently not inspected because there is a huge shortage of appropriately qualified and appropriately registered inspectors to carry out the task.
  I am scandalised that the proposals before the House are all that the Government are prepared to do for the young children of today, who will become the adults of tomorrow. I cannot believe that anyone would consider that to be the best way to invest in our future and our children's future.
  If children develop as much and as quickly in their early years as research suggests, we cannot treat those years in the dilettante fashion that these proposals do. We need to fulfil the promise given by both political parties, far too many decades ago, that every child whose parents so wish should be entitled to free, high quality nursery education. That should be the case, not only for four-year-olds, but for three-year-olds. I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside that Labour will set targets so that we achieve that aim.
  74
  We must go further. Two and a half hours a day for four-year-olds represents only about 1 per cent. of a child's early life. If so much development occurs so early, we cannot continue to ignore what happens to young children during the rest of their day. We cannot presume, as the Government do, that the early years of a child's life are solely a private concern of parents, with the community intervening only at points of crisis when, for example, children are at risk of abuse.
  Things have changed since people first had the idea of nursery education. Any Government who are committed to the future, as Labour is, would adapt their programmes to meet the circumstances of the future. I am afraid that the proposals in the Bill—the proposals of a tired Tory Government, bereft of ideas and devoid of a clear vision—cannot do it.
  In the world of today and the world of tomorrow, life for the young child has changed. Mothers work because they want and need to do so. They work when their children are younger. Nearly half the mothers with children under the age of five work, and that figure is set to rise to seven out of 10 mothers by the turn of the century. Matters are made more difficult because more and more parents can no longer rely on their families to help with child care. About one in two families seek formal child care arrangements when the parents work. They must find childminders or go for more flexible nursery provision.
  With growing insecurity on the streets, fewer and fewer children can go to school alone. When we were young, probably about 80 per cent. of us in the Chamber went to school alone. Today, only 9 per cent. of children are allowed to do so. In that context, two and a half hours' nursery education a day is no longer appropriate for many families. For children who would most benefit from a good quality nursery experience, it is probably the least appropriate. All too often, a mother on shift work cannot choose her hours of employment to fit in with traditional nursery hours. If Conservative Members really have the interests of children and their parents at heart, they would think afresh, as we are doing. We must build on understanding of the importance of quality nursery education and integrate it in a real and practical way with child care and play, so that young children get the best start in life.
  A child's learning does not miraculously start at three or four years of age but at birth. A family's needs do not suddenly change when a child is three or four but when a child is born. A responsible Government would respond to real needs by building services that are education-focused and child-centred, but which recognise the changed world in which we live. That is the vision and strategy for the future. An ill-conceived, ill-thought-out voucher scheme is not even a strategy for today, let alone one for the future. Thank goodness that the scheme is never likely to be implemented before the country rids itself of this failed Government, and that we shall have £185 million to spend more sensibly on expanding nursery education.
  In the last couple of weeks, we have heard much about the stakeholder society—to which Conservative Members in particular have made several references. In that policy area, the importance of the concept is clear and the difference between Labour and the Government is distinct. We all have a stake in our children in their early years—3.8 million children are under five, and what

  75
  happens to them matters to us all. We all have a stake in their future. Children obviously need the best possible start if they are to develop their potential. Their stake in nursery education is their future. Their parents obviously want the best for their children and clearly have responsibilities to them. Ensuring that we build the skills needed for the future gives employers a stake in pre-school education. People who work in pre-school education have a stake, with rights to proper training and conditions, and an obligation to provide a quality experience for the children. Local authorities also have a stake, with a right to plan for their localities and an obligation to ensure quality education.
  The stakeholder society requires high-quality nursery education and care, which is why Labour's approach and policies would be fundamentally different from those incorporated in the Bill. Labour would go for quality and standards—no light-touch inspections for us and no uniform £1,100 per child, which ignores the real cost of quality education and the extra expense of children with special needs—as the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) pointed out. Labour would go for value for money. We would not waste investment on yet another unaccountable quango and yet more pieces of paper and bureaucracy. Labour would go for equity as between individuals and areas. Under Labour, there would be no absurd punishing of authorities such as Solihull for investing a lot of money in nursery education, nor the rewarding of authorities such as Bromley that have an abysmal record of failing to spend their allocated budgets on nursery provision. There would be no subsidies for the well-to-do mum who is already paying for a full-time nursery place, while the needs of lone parents for two and a half hours' provision a day are not met.
  Labour would go for common sense, not dogma built on irrational hostility to local government. Under Labour, there would be no prejudices that favour the private at the expense of the public. Labour would go for vision and the future. It is in young children that all our futures lie. If we are to build a future that brings hope and prosperity to all, we cannot afford nursery education on the chea—which is the essence of the Bill and why it will never come to pass. The Bill is just one of many policies that form the dreadful record on which the Government will be tried, judged and swiftly evicted.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I shall confine my comments to the parts of the Bill, principally clause 6, that concern grant-maintained schools, and I shall explain the circumstances surrounding particular effects in my constituency.
  I start by referring briefly to some background items. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Islamia primary school in the London borough of Brent made two applications to form part of the state education system, but both were rejected. In deciding to reject the second application, the Department for Education made it clear in a letter to the school's governors dated 18 August 1993 that the Secretary of State accepted
  "that there was clear evidence of denominational need … that only qualified teachers would be employed…the National Curriculum would be followed; and that the governors would seek to ensure equal opportunities for boys and girls"
  76
  in the new state school. The application was rejected on the ground of surplus places in existing schools within a two-mile radius which parents did not particularly want. To sugar the pill, the letter concluded that the Secretary of State's
  "drive to reduce surplus school capacity, including through the new statutory provision in the Education Act 1993, should open up opportunities for new schools to enter the system, whether as voluntary aided schools maintained by LEAs or as new self-governing (grant-maintained) schools".
  In the light of subsequent events, one must ask whether the Government were serious in making that pledge at the time.
  On 9 August 1994, the Government issued a weighty document entitled "Guidance to promoters on establishing new self-governing (grant-maintained) schools under Section 49 of the Education Act 1993". It gave detailed guidance to people who proposed to promote new, self-governing grant-maintained schools. Despite the issue of that document, it is interesting to note how many of the applications made as a result of it have been successful.
  So far, a number of applications have not stayed the course. A Jewish school in Leeds withdrew its application. Two schools in the Wirral, which were quite close to the state system as ex-direct-grant Catholic schools, made applications that may have been approved. A school in Borehamwood is still under consideration, and a school in my constituency, called Oak Hill, made an application, about which I shall talk in slightly more detail later. That is the second piece of background information. The system was designed to encourage applications, but so far it has been remarkably unsuccessful.
  In an Adjournment debate on 19 December 1994, which I felt obliged to introduce to discuss what was going wrong in state secondary education in schools in Bristol, North-West and what could be done about it, I referred to what was generally then perceived as a failure on the part of the state education system—at secondary level in my constituency—to provide what the rest of the county of Avon, which is now mercifully coming to the end of its days, would regard as an acceptable level of attainment at GCSE and A-level. I pointed out that what the county would regard as an acceptable level of attainment would not be acceptable in most of the rest of the country. I also pointed out that what distinguished the county's approach to education was a rabid opposition to grant-maintained status. I believe that that is still true today.
  I then discussed the achievements of the state secondary schools in my constituency during the previous years. I pointed out that, with the honourable exception of one voluntary-aided, broadly Catholic school, every single school in my constituency had not managed to achieve results that reached even the low average attained by the county as a whole, let alone the average attained in the country.
  I am pleased to say that, since that Adjournment debate, there have been a number of improvements. Henbury school has now succeeded in meeting the county average for GCSE results. To do so, it had to make such a major leap that, one year, it reached The Times top 20 of most improved schools. Improvements have also been made in other schools in my constituency. Nevertheless, it is still true that, in the near-monolithic system of local authority maintained secondary schools in Bristol North-West, only

  77
  one—a voluntary-aided school—has consistently performed better than the national and county averages, and another has at last reached those averages. Several others are showing improvements.
  In that Adjournment debate, I pointed out—and it is just as true today—that the Government have been in power for 15 years and, in that time, their policies have made no significant impact on educational attainment in the schools in my constituency.
  Mr. Spearing: Despite the hon. Gentleman's rather tangential approach to the Bill, which he is entitled to take, does he agree that policies also need resources, the motivation of teachers and sensitive support for their difficult tasks? Does he think that the Government over the past 15 years have provided the encouragement, understanding and resources for his schools, administered locally, to perform a proper task?
  Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw me even further from the Bill. If he does not mind, I will continue with the trend of my remarks, during which the answers to his questions may become apparent.
  I was heartened when I read an interview with the Prime Minister in The Times on 24 August 1995. In that interview, he said:
  "We should also make it easier to open new schools and to allow new independent schools to opt into the state-funded system and become grant maintained."
  I was heartened by the Prime Minister's comments because I knew that an application for just such a school, in an area where it was deeply needed, had been before the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for almost a year. That application was to be before the Secretary of State for almost two years.
  Oak Hill school, which was started in my constituency as a Christian-based independent primary school with strong ambitions and qualities that would enable it to provide secondary education, put forward in 1994—it may even have been slightly earlier—a proposal for a 675-place, five-to-16 school to be established in an area of undoubted educational need. There was a lack of places near the proposed school, which was to have been built in a new town in my constituency called Bradley Stoke. Inevitably, the school needed to acquire land on which to build, but that did not matter because land was available, which already had planning permission for educational purposes. The school needed to demonstrate, which would not have been difficult, that there was a lack of surplus places in the immediate vicinity, and to prove that a new school would fit comfortably into the state education system. It would have been, as I have made clear already, the only grant-maintained school in my constituency, and—with the exception of the voluntary-aided school that I mentioned—it would have been the only school in my constituency that was other than local authority maintained.
  Eventually, after almost two years under consideration—a period that any business organisation would find drove it close to bankruptcy—the application was rejected by the Secretary of State on 15 December 1995. It is worth considering, in the context of the Bill, the reasons why the Secretary of State rejected that application. First, it was rejected because the Secretary of State found unwillingness on the part of the local
  78
  education authority to release the land on which the school would be built, so that a compulsory purchase order would be necessary. I fail to understand why, if that was a reason for rejection, it was not pointed out to the school two years earlier. The local education authority, as I said, was rabidly opposed to grant-maintained status, so it was not surprising that it would not release the land. However, the local education authority has made it clear that it is unlikely to want to build its own school on the land for at least 10 years. Nevertheless, that was one of the reasons given for rejection.
  The second, and in my view more worrying, reason for rejection of the application for a grant-maintained school in my constituency was, to quote the Secretary of State, "insufficient evidence of demand". I have a couple of points to make in that regard. First, evidence of demand comes—it was made clear in the Secretary of State's letter of rejection—from the local authority. Would anyone ask a local education authority such as Avon for evidence of demand for a grant-maintained school within its boundaries? The answer, of course, is to look for other evidence—and other evidence was forthcoming.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been very tolerant, but I am beginning to wonder how much of the hon. Gentleman's speech has anything to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Stern: I am happy to explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is about expanding powers for grant maintenance. I am trying to show that it is pointless trying to pass a Bill for that purpose if the Government are rejecting applications for GM status in the first place. I hope, however, to come to a conclusion shortly.
  A local university survey has made it clear that the number of secondary school-aged children in Bradley Stoke will rise from 550 in 1994 to more than 1,500 by 1999. More than 550 new dwellings a year are going up there, and local employment is growing even faster.
  Ms Jean Corston rose—
  Mr. Stern: I am sorry, but I have promised to finish soon. Yet it was deemed more relevant, when rejecting the application, that there were surplus places that parents did not want in schools in what has now become another LEA than that there was a demand for places in the neighbourhood in question.
  Next, I want to examine the contrast between the results of those events and the aspirations of the Government, as expressed in the Bill. The Government would seem to aspire to expand the powers and the provenance of grant maintenance in education. Yet in my constituency not only has the only likely opportunity for grant maintenance in the state education system for the next few years been rejected, but there will be a record number of appeals against secondary school placements this year.
  The Government claim as justification for their policy in the Bill the fact that they favour choice, diversity and quality in state education. So do I. Those are the education features on which I believe I was elected to the House on three separate occasions. Is it any wonder, viewing the Bill, that I intend to judge the Government more by their performance than by their policies? Is it any wonder that I should ask, on behalf of my constituents, whether—to

  79
  show my concern at a Government who promise one thing and then do the opposite—I should find myself in the uncomfortable position of joining the Opposition in the Lobby tonight?
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Is it always a pleasure to participate in education debates, because they give us the opportunity to listen to the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who has unfortunately left the Chamber. He said that the vouchers idea had come to him in a dream. I think so too. In fact, I think the whole Bill must have come to someone in a dream, probably induced by illegal substances.
  The right hon. Gentleman also called in aid Tom Paine who, he said, advocated spending £4 a year on educating the children of America. That is probably about the same amount of money in real terms as is spent now. One wonders whether it was a spending commitment—no wonder the French revolutionaries tried to bump Paine off. I can just imagine him wandering around the forests of 18th century America denouncing local authorities for the lack of choice in their nursery schools and inveighing on the subject of the capital programme needed to restore run-down log cabins and teepees.
  To be fair, the right hon. Member for Brent, North also made a more serious point. He envisaged parents—following the passage of the Bill—taking their children and their vouchers from one nursery institution to another to find the best one. That sounds like the sort of choice that Conservative Members have been talking about all day. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that parents of four-year-olds are going to wander around putting them into one school after another—put them in, become dissatisfied, take them out again, and put them somewhere else? Under the Government's plans—even at the moment—most of them will be there for only a year anyway. The idea is preposterous and represents one of the major flaws in a proposal that has not been thought through.
  Any legislation on early-years education provision, especially nursery schools, must be judged by one clear criterion: by how much will it extend and improve nursery provision? The pattern of provision across Britain has, for historical reasons, been extremely patchy—not just differing from one LEA to another, because some of them have placed more or less emphasis on nursery education, but differing within LEAs. I think particularly of the shire counties after they were reformed in the early 1970s.
  My county, Lancashire, inherited extensive provision in boroughs such as Burnley and Blackburn, but virtually nothing in more rural districts and small towns. Since then, Lancashire has engaged in a long struggle to improve, and even to introduce, provision in many of its districts, especially rural districts.
  To do that, Lancashire has made use of rising-five provision. Pupils are admitted full time to school from the beginning of the year in which their fifth birthday falls, as happens in many other authorities. Summer-born children are therefore already covered by the period that the vouchers purport to cover. Moreover, a large proportion of spring and autumn-born children receive one or two terms of nursery schooling under Lancashire's
  80
  current scheme. The county has also used spare space in some primary schools and converted it to nursery classes; and there has been a slow but steady programme of new build of specially designed and planned nursery schools.
  In recent years, Lancashire has also used a sparsity criterion to locate some nursery classes in rural areas and scattered parts such as Burscough. By these means, since 1981 Lancashire has increased proper nursery places from about 1,000 to about 4,000. In no case has this increased provision been less than enthusiastically received or less than fully taken up, yet there is still enormous unsatisfied demand, leading to a proliferation of private play schools, daycare centres and nurseries of all kinds.
  Despite all this, the demand is still far from being met. Parents are not daft: they know that full-blown nursery education is the best thing for their children and, in my area at least, they know that it is best provided by LEA nursery schools and parents clamour to get their children into them.
  Formerly, as a county councillor, and now as a Member of Parliament, have had irate parents queueing up at my surgeries to complain that they cannot get their children into an LEA nursery school. I tell them that the schools are oversubscribed and suggest that they try a private nursery, but they do not want to do that because they know that nursery education is best provided by LEA schools and they want their children to go to them.
  Local education authorities have been forced to target their provision, often giving preference to disadvantaged families. Recent research shows clearly the considerable long-term social and cultural advantages of nursery education, so the policy pursued by authorities such as Lancashire shows a great deal of long-sighted common sense. We only wish that it had been shared by Governments over the past few decades.
  The extension of nursery education by willing local authorities has been shackled, first, by the Government's tight spending restrictions; secondly, by what was formerly the Conservatives' belief—as expressed by a previous Secretary of State—that nursery education was at worst irrelevant and at best not proven to be useful; and, thirdly, by the method of calculating standard spending assessment for under-fives education.
  A long-standing gripe of many local authorities is that they receive SSA for the number of under-fives in the population, but no account is taken of their spending on nursery education. For years, many authorities have collected SSA for the number of under-fives in their population and then spent it on whatever else they wished, whereas local authorities making good and decent provision have received similar amounts of money but been committed to spending it on nursery education only. That has caused some anger among the good providers. Ministers have often said that they do not want to circumscribe how local authorities use their money on under-fives provision. I understand that argument, but I disagree with it.
  Recent changes in the political make-up of local authorities have meant that more and more authorities, no longer controlled by Conservatives, can spend their due resources on nursery education. That is good. The steady increase in resources directed to the ends that most local authorities aspire to achieve will eventually enable them to fill more and more of the gaps in provision in a way that parents will enthusiastically approve of, using

  81
  existing criteria and expertise and broadening and targeting until the supply encompasses every three and four-year-old—therefore effectively ending the need for targeting.
  The Government, however, have introduced a wheeze that will take resources away from local education authorities—a major motive behind the Bill—for a job that even this Government do not usually complain about. The wheeze is intended to finance what might well prove to be a spatchcock provision that is so uncertain that it needs a vast new bureaucracy to organise and watch over it.
  The voucher scheme will secure little or no additional provision, but it will certainly dislocate existing LEA provision. It will focus on four-year-olds, despite the fact that the Department's figures show that only 4 per cent. of four-year-olds are not provided for at the moment. Not only will the voucher scheme do nothing for three-year-olds, it might hold back any extension of nursery education to them. Many nursery places in Lancashire are occupied by three-year-olds who would not be eligible for vouchers. There is a distinct possibility—indeed, a probability—that nursery schools will not replace those three-year-olds with new three-year-olds, but will choose instead voucher holders—four-year-olds.
  The voucher scheme will assist those who can already afford to pay for their children's nursery education—a point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden)—but it will do nothing to create places for poorer families who cannot cover the shortfall between the value of the voucher and the actual cost of a place. The poorer the family, the less choice there is in everything from transport to access to information. It is facile for Conservative Members to keep saying that it is easy for everybody to shop around. It is not. In scattered areas in my part of Lancashire it is difficult to get a child to the nearest school—never mind shopping around a number of schools. It is difficult to organise transport to get the children to school, especially in the half of my constituency that has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the country.
  If the Government's shaky estimate of the number involved in the scheme proves to be an underestimate, the value of the voucher will probably be reduced, further skewing provision away from the less-well-off family. My LEA estimates that vouchers to the value of £21 million might be issued to Lancashire parents of four-year-olds. That means that Lancashire's revenue support grant will be reduced by more than £17 million—65 per cent. of its SSA relating to under-fives. Of course, LEAs that have small provision will suffer correspondingly less grant reduction.
  Mr. Robin Squire: As this matter has been raised outside the House several times, I want to make the purely arithmetical point that, to the extent that any LEA caters for precisely the same number of four-year-olds as it did in the previous year, whatever its level of provision, the scheme will be neutral.
  Mr. Pickthall: It will not be neutral between one LEA and another. If an LEA is a large provider, it will have a
  82
  large amount of its revenue support grant taken away and dissipated among good, bad or indifferent providers. If an LEA is a small provider, it has little to lose.
  Mr. Squire: Perhaps I was not clear enough. A large provider, by definition, currently has a large number of places for four-year-olds, and that is the basis of the calculation. To that extent, it is in exactly the same position as a small provider—if it gets one more four-year-old in year two than it had in year one, it will be in pocket.
  Mr. Pickthall: I take that point, but we are, in this case, talking about economies of scale.
  Mr. Spearing: I am not convinced by what the Minister just said. If a large provider such as the London borough of Newham or, indeed, Solihull has a large number of nursery places in the voucher system and has competition from other providers, who may provide more time in school per voucher or unit of cash, would it not be undercut in terms of apparent value to parents, and would not the quality of what the local authority is doing therefore be imperilled?
  Mr. Pickthall: My hon. Friend is right and he brings us to the quality of local authority provision, which one or two hon. Members have criticised. In this area of education, I have never heard a serious attack, even from the Government, on the quality that is provided throughout the country by a variety of LEAs, which, for the most part, have managed to put together a first-class service against a background of dwindling resources and a non-statutory basis for provision. They have done an extremely good job. Many of us—we might be accused of being supporters of local authorities—value what is provided in our towns and do not want it to be dissipated as a result of the poorer quality, cheaper provision that we have heard about this evening.
  As has been said, a horrendous increase in bureaucracy would be involved in the voucher scheme. At present, using as an example the system that I support, the local education authority receives its revenue support grant and allocates resources to nursery schools. It is a fairly simple operation. In the voucher system, the Department for Education and Employment will withdraw a proportion of RSG, the LEA will withhold from school budgets a calculated sum per pupil equivalent to the voucher for each child, taking into account termly attendance, a private company will issue vouchers to parents, the parents will exchange the vouchers at the schools or institutions, and the schools or institutions will exchange the vouchers for cash from a private company.
  It all equals more frequent and more detailed monitoring and auditing of pupils, cash and numbers, and it involves an additional burden for the schools concerned. The Minister will probably make the point that some of that will change after the pilot scheme if it proves to be as burdensome as it sounds. On the surface, one is bound to say, "So much for the Government's drive against bureaucracy." It is strange how that drive always seems to create more bureaucracy than it gets rid of.
  I shall mention briefly the policies on priorities. Where places are short—in most places—local education authorities have somehow to target their resources in the

  83
  nursery sector. Many of them, especially Lancashire, have put in place a system to ensure that the most disadvantaged children—the disabled, those from single-parent families or from homes where English is not the first language, for example—have some priority in gaining a place in nursery school
  Lancashire has, in the fairly recent past, been assured by the Minister that its social priority criteria are right. The Minister approved of them yet, in the latter part of 1995, the attempts of Church schools in Longridge, Lancashire and Lytham St. Anne's, supported by the LEA, to create nursery classes, were turned down by the Secretary of State specifically because
  "the social needs of the area did not warrant it."
  At least that was a credible response, but how does the reliance on social and family needs criteria square with a voucher system that has no such criteria in an area of education where there will continue to be a shortage for some time? That leads me to the conclusion that the criterion for judging the Bill—how it will increase and improve provision for nursery education—is not being met, nor will it be.
  There is further evidence to support that view. Where is the planning for the provision of the extra teachers who would be needed if a substantial number of extra nursery places were anticipated? As far as I know, there is no such planning, but I stand to be corrected.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: Just about the only thing with which I agreed in the speech of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) was his comment that parents are not daft. He is right. I and my hon. Friends believe that we should trust parents to use the voucher. It gives them a real stake in education and certainly makes them, as the Leader of the Opposition says, stakeholders.
  I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would not—or could not—answer the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). Hon. Members will recall that my hon. Friend reminded the hon. Member for Brightside that he once said that he would have no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman could not respond to that question. I understand the difficulty that he had, but I should have thought that at least he might have tried. I was also disappointed that he did not respond to the question that was put to him by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who asked a question relating to costs. The hon. Gentleman failed to respond, in the same way as he failed to respond to the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman's technique is simply to brush aside any difficult questions.
  I have to tell Opposition Members that those questions will not go away. They will stay to haunt the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members in the House and outside. They will haunt them today, tomorrow and throughout the years.
  The hon. Member for Bath asked a question about fraud. My mind was working on the same lines as his, so I contacted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who will
  84
  respond to the debate. My hon. Friend was kind enough to write to me on 18 January. I shall paraphrase his letter. He said that there would be three checks. First, all applications will be checked against the child benefit centre database. Secondly, each voucher will carry the child's name and a unique serial number. The third control will be the requirement that all private and voluntary providers be registered under the Children Act 1989, which would prevent bogus providers from joining the scheme.
  I have to tell Opposition Members that I would have been a great deal more impressed by the strength and sincerity of their opposition to the Bill if I believed it to be genuine. Sadly, I doubt that it is. I believe that it is synthetic. I say that because Opposition Members have opposed all the Government's education reforms without exception. They opposed them, not for good educational reasons but for cheap political expediency. They opposed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said, the national curriculum and testing, local management of schools, the introduction of grant-maintained status, the introduction of Ofsted, improved teacher training and league tables. To that catalogue we can now add another—nursery provision.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely courteous, but it would be wholly wrong of him to mislead the House into believing that Opposition Members have in any way opposed the expansion of high-quality early-years or nursery education. The opposition has been to the methodology proposed by the Government—a methodology that we believe will hinder the expansion of high-quality early-years education.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is logic-chopping. His Liberal character has been entirely exposed. I believe that the main reason for Opposition Members' objection to the Bill is the fact that its proposals do not focus on local education authorities. I suspect that had they done so, Labour and Liberal spokesmen might have discovered some virtue in them. Opposition Members appear to believe that the only good education is local authority education, but they are wrong about that, as they are about so many other things.
  Conservative Members believe in maximum diversity and choice. That choice is best provided by grant-maintained schools, which are opposed by both Labour and Liberals—although the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) send their children to grant-maintained schools, exercising the very choice that Opposition Members would deny other parents.
  I do not criticise either the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham for doing what I would do: sending their children to the best schools, and giving them the best education that can be found. That is entirely laudable. What I do not find laudable is the way in which Opposition Members criticise grant-maintained schools and selection, while taking advantage of grant-maintained schools and selection to ensure that their children do well. I consider that disgraceful, and I hope that we shall hear a reasoned explanation of that dichotomy.
  The principle of choice and diversity runs like a golden thread through all the Government's education policies, and can be seen again in the Bill. When my right

  85
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, she referred to funding. The legislation will cost taxpayers some £730 million, of which about £165 million is new money. It places in the hands of parents a voucher worth £1,100, which may be spent at a private or voluntary institution or, indeed, at a state school; it can also be exchanged for a nursery school place.
  The legislation builds on the concept of pilot schemes, and I welcome that. The vouchers represent a major new initiative in education. I have no doubt that, as with any new initiative, there will be teething troubles—that, after all, is what pilot schemes are for—but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me that the lessons that are learnt will be incorporated in the main scheme when it starts in April 1997. Some of those lessons may prove unpalatable and expensive, and they will undoubtedly require careful implementation.
  The new scheme will provide a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents want one. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that it should be extended to three-year-olds, but—here I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire—I want parents to visit schools and compare schemes. I want them to talk to providers, and ask the questions that they consider important to them.
  I do not accept the deeply patronising view, peddled so often by Opposition Members, that parents must be guided and directed; my view—shared, I think, by my hon. Friends—is that the overwhelming majority of parents know best what is right for their children. I believe that they can be trusted to judge the effectiveness of one scheme against that of another. I accept that geographical constraints will play a part, but parents should not accept the nearest place available simply because it is nearest. I want parents to look for the scheme that is best for their children.
  I was not surprised to discover that a Labour party policy document entitled "Excellence for Everyone"—
  Ms Estelle Morris: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady says, "Hear, hear", but I fear that she may have said it a little too soon. The document dismisses nursery education in just four lines. That tells us how much importance Opposition Members truly attach to this genuinely important issue.
  Ms Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms Morris: I am pleased to learn that the hon. Gentleman reads Labour party documents so carefully, but the document that he mentions was not about pre-school learning; that will come in the summer, so the hon. Gentleman has something to look forward to. In that document, he will find a properly worked-out policy to provide high-quality early-school education for all four-year-olds without money being wasted on bureaucracy.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Lady. First, I read Labour party documents for the laughs that they give me. Secondly, the hon. Lady has
  86
  made promises, but we all know what Labour party promises are worth. We shall see what the new document says, and, in particular, we shall look out for the costs incorporated in it. Let the Labour party put its money where its documents are.
  Mr. Dunn: The intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) demonstrates that Labour Members have come to the debate without having worked out a policy. That is something for the future. After 15 or 16 years in opposition, they still have not worked out a policy. What does that tell my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted that I gave way to my hon. Friend, who has exposed—yet again—the hollowness of Labour party policies.
  Let me give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) a policy. I hope that she will listen carefully. The Independent of 5 December claims that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield
  "has decided to accept the Conservative scheme for nursery education vouchers if its nationwide launch goes ahead, and his education spokesman, David Blunkett, is considering a plan to trump it by offering higher value vouchers."
  The Independent returned to the subject yet again on 26 December, saying:
  "Labour will offer state money to private nurseries and rewrite the curriculum for the under-fives in plans to be announced next month."
  Watch this space, but do not hold your breath.
  I cannot say that I am surprised that the Labour party has recently discovered toddlers. We all know—the point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—that what the Government suggest today will be reinvented by Opposition Members tomorrow: it will be packaged in a series of soundbites as their own freshly minted scheme. The Government's pre-school policy will bring substantial benefits to children and their parents, and will help to improve the quality and standard of state education. It will also benefit parents: as unemployment continues to fall in the United Kingdom—in marked contrast to the position in the rest of Europe, where the social chapter holds sway—more mothers will be working, and will naturally require their children to be cared for properly in pre-school education.
  I was delighted to read that the Pre-School Learning Alliance had said:
  "We welcome this plan to bring pre-schools (formerly playgroups) within a common inspection framework which will be regulated by OFSTED. This will provide confirmation to parents of what they already know—that pre-schools provide children with high quality early education and preparation for school. Vouchers will also provide much needed financial assistance to the parents of four-year-olds using our member pre-schools."
  I quoted that because the alliance has substantial expertise in and knowledge of this sector. I am delighted to accept and build on that expertise.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I increasingly welcome as a brother.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time and for being so generous. Will

  87
  he remind the House how the press release from that organisation continues and whether it follows with a number of key concerns about the Bill's proposals?
  Mr. Pawsey: I said that I increasingly welcome the hon. Gentleman as a brother. Had he contained himself a little longer, he would have heard me quote more from that press release.
  I do not doubt that the alliance and my hon. Friends will find that the new system is challenging. There will be problems—I made that point earlier. After all, there are always problems with any new system, but they will be overcome.
  The Pre-School Learning Alliance goes on to say, and I quote for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bath:
  "We have said to the Government that we will do all that we can to create the new places which are required for four-year-olds but more funds are needed to train additional staff and for new premises."
  I believe—and here perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I are at one—that the alliance raises a good point, which I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider. Clearly, funding for training is important. I do not subscribe to the view that any well-intentioned lady is automatically a good teacher. Teaching is central to this legislation.
  In the state sector, the voucher will cover the cost of a part-time place in a nursery school or nursery class, or a full-time place in a primary school reception class, provided that that fits in with the admission arrangements of the local education authority. In the private and voluntary sectors, the voucher will contribute £1,100 a year towards fees. That should provide at least a part-time place and up to a full-time place in a playgroup. The voucher will be exchangeable for a pre-school place for children beginning in the term after their fourth birthday.
  Parents will understandably be concerned about the quality of education. Providers of nursery education must be an institution either registered or exempt from registration under the Children Act 1989, or registered as an independent school. Alternatively, they must be a locally maintained school or day nursery. Grant-maintained schools can, of course, also provide nursery education. Those are important safeguards that will do much to reassure parents.
  The aim of pre-school education must be to prepare children for the world of school. Regular inspections will be undertaken to ensure that the appropriate standards are provided. Providers of nursery education must provide a prospectus for parents that gives details of staffing, admissions, schedules and so on. The Government are anxious that children should develop skills in personal and social development and language literacy and numeracy, and have some modest knowledge of the world and its environment. Hon. Members will agree that all those are laudable objectives.
  Earlier, I mentioned quality. That will be guaranteed by the Office for Standards in Education as it will undertake the inspections. When the first inspection is complete, it is up to the inspector to decide whether the educational provision is of a sufficiently high standard. The inspector may grant a full validation and recommend that initial validation be extended.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have
  88
  noted that, so far in his speech, he has failed to mention pre-school playgroups that have fewer than five pupils, especially in relation to their safety. Will he tell us something about that?
  Mr. Pawsey: The question of safety is important and I am not surprised, but delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. Clearly, that is one of the aspects that inspectors will take into account when they visit those schools, but he speaks as a parent and as a man with long experience, especially in local authority administration. I believe that I am right in saying that he was formerly leader of Coventry city council.
  Mr. Robin Squire: Purely as a point of information for my hon. Friend, I assure him that the settings to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) briefly referred are covered by registration under the Children Act, which considers specifically health and safety aspects. That registration continues.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional clarification.
  The inspector may grant a full validation, recommend that the initial validation be extended where weaknesses have been identified, or recommend that the initial validation be withdrawn. Those are important sanctions. I am convinced that inspection will be one of the keys to the project's success.
  I welcome the Bill and commend it to the House. I hope that it will receive the substantial majority that it deserves.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: It is a great pleasure to be on my feet as the only Member, it seems, speaking for Wales tonight. I am glad that there are representatives of the Welsh Office in the Chamber, although none of them is sitting on the Government Front Bench. I am glad therefore that some note will be taken of my comments.
  The Bill provides a perfect example of the need for power in Wales, to enable us to pursue our priorities according to our values and in our way—a way based on pragmatism and common sense, not on an ideologically driven agenda coming from English Toryism. The issue of the need for democratic power in Wales, so that we can take our own decisions, is rising on the political agenda there. Interest in that issue will be intensified by the Bill. One of the ironic things about the Government is that they are good at devising measures that strengthen the demand for democratic power in Wales, so that we can follow our priorities.
  We need to recognise, first, that the position in Wales in relation to pre-school provision and early-years education is vastly different from that in England. Nursery education is greatly important for the Welsh language. It has already been a crucial factor in increasing knowledge of the Welsh language. It is one of the main factors that has led to the spectacular growth of Welsh language education and of Welsh-medium education at primary and secondary level. That is one factor that is different.
  In Wales, 90 per cent. of four-year-olds have a place in local education authority or grant-maintained nursery or primary schools. Seventy per cent. of Welsh

  89
  four-year-olds are in full-time primary school education. That makes it different from England, where only 77 per cent. of such children have either part-time or full-time places in maintained-sector schools. The position is therefore radically different. That does not mean that we should be complacent in Wales—not by any manner of means. There is need for change, for improvement and for development, but we are starting from a significantly different position. That is why it is infuriating that we have this damaging irrelevance of a Bill foisted on us by a political agenda being written somewhere else.
  Plaid Cymru places particular emphasis on the enormous importance and value of high-quality provision of early-years education. I do not need now to rehearse the accumulation of evidence in recent years about the educational, social and economic benefits of investing resources in early-years education. That is now well established, as is the importance of smaller classes during those early years.
  The scientific and statistical evidence corresponds to one's own observations. We have all noticed the immense capacity for learning and the intense fascination of very young children for all kinds of phenomena. Adults have always had a responsibility to respond to young children's voracious appetite for learning by providing the context and opportunities to enable that appetite to be satisfied. In a modern, industrialised culture, that environment for stimulation has to be organised, and that is the case for making formal provision for educational experience in those early years.
  We must also think of the importance of the opportunities that are presented by early-years education for extending the learning process to the community. That can be done by bringing parents into active partnerships with educators in the nursery schools, so that the learning process at home is enhanced. Parents' awareness of the need for an interactive relationship with children can be enhanced and constantly stimulated. We have already seen such parental experience in the voluntary sector nursery schools.
  It is worth emphasising the capacity of early-years education to strengthen social solidarity—the community bonds in a society that is becoming increasingly atomised. That is why it is important to avoid selectiveness—separate provision for people from different economic and social backgrounds that the voucher system is partly designed to achieve. That system is calculated to intensify and confirm social division.
  The opportunity in early-years education for the identification of special educational needs has been insufficiently emphasised in the debate. I think particularly of dyslexia and of strategies for early intervention that have been shown to be effective—and that means cost-effective as well as educationally effective. That is an important approach to dealing with special educational needs.
  It is worth re-emphasising the enormous importance to the Welsh language of early-years education. That is already evident in the work of LEA nursery schools and of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, the Welsh nursery schools movement. A recent survey by the Welsh Language Board showed that, if they had the opportunity, 50 per cent. of Welsh parents would send their children to Welsh-medium nursery schools. That is of enormous significance and has far-reaching implications for Welsh
  90
  language strategies in Wales. It certainly has a bearing on the importance of nursery education. The additional cost of providing properly resourced, high-quality early-years education would be substantial. But the question is not whether society can afford it, but whether it can afford not to make the provision.
  In recognition of the importance of this subject, Plaid Cymru has, unlike the Labour party, already prepared a policy document setting out our views and policy proposals. It is a consultation document and it is being widely distributed to interested organisations and individuals in Wales. I shall make a copy available to the Department for Education and Employment and to the Welsh Office. I hope that they find it interesting. It shows a radically different approach from the one proposed by the Government.
  The document's fundamental, guiding principle is the need to integrate the various types of early-years services in the fields of education and care into what is now fashionably called "educare". Those two strands must be brought much more closely together. Because there is no overall policy structure at the moment for the early years, the current scene is fragmented. There is a range of providers, a range of responsible authorities, and different standards and concerns. Social services departments, education departments in county councils and health authorities are all responsible for children in their early years and for special needs, which border on educational concerns. The providers range from schools to voluntary organisations and there is a plethora of private sector carers and educators.
  Our document makes a specific recommendation that is capable of immediate implementation. It suggests that the new unitary authorities in Wales, which will soon become county councils, should establish early-years services departments to co-ordinate and enhance nursery education and child care. Those departments would work in close partnership with education and social service departments, but would be distinct from them. They would co-ordinate the work of those departments and that of other interested bodies such as health authorities, health providers, the voluntary sector, parent groups and so on. The departments would organise joint training and would establish for each county an early-years forum. They would identify development needs, inspect and register services, or at least arrange for their inspection and registration, and they would monitor quality.
  Our document calls for a national strategy with targets set over a period of time to increase the provision of nursery education, with special emphasis on supporting underprivileged communities. They are certainly a priority for the targeting of public funding as long as such funding is limited in that area. It argues for increased support for current voluntary sector providers by way of grants and resources, including accommodation and the provision of administrative support. All those things can be done and are already done in part.
  The Plaid Cymru document emphasises and recognises the fact that the large number of three to five-year-olds currently in reception and infant classes of primary schools contribute significantly to the 90 per cent. figure in Wales. But that does not altogether constitute a satisfactory situation and we should not be complacent. The educational experiences that three to five-year-olds

  91
  may receive in such reception and infant classes may not always be appropriate in terms of curriculum or of the time that is available to meet the needs of those children.
  Our document deals particularly with the need for qualified staff because, after all, the curricular and pedagogical skills that are needed for teaching children of that age are just as great as those that are required for teaching older children, or perhaps even greater. It may be that the skills are more subtle and more particular. The document calls for concentration on the training of existing staff through specific grants. Perhaps the grant for education support and training mechanism should he used for that purpose. It also calls for a curriculum that is appropriate to the developmental stage of the children. Finally, it sets as a longer-term aim the provision of full-time nursery education for all children from the age of three whose parents wish them to receive it.
  Plaid Cymru accepts the public investment implications of such a commitment. Our document is an attempt to set the agenda for a self-governing Wales—something that is coming—while addressing the immediate practical priorities. Needless to say, our document rejects vouchers out of hand, as does Welsh opinion unanimously. I am talking not just about the LEAs, the Welsh education establishment and the Welsh Joint Education Committee. I am talking also about parents organisations, the Confederation of School Governors Associations in Wales, Parents for Welsh-Medium Education and parent-teacher associations in Wales, all of which are united in rejecting the voucher scheme.
  According to the relevant Minister at the Welsh Office, there is
  "no declared support amongst the representations for the proposed voucher scheme".
  The Minister has admitted that there is no support throughout Wales from any direction whatever. That makes one think about the Government's stated willingness to respond to the consultation process. If any attention was paid to such a process in Wales, the scheme would not go ahead. The other interesting element of the Minister's reply was his explanation of why there is no support for the proposal. He insisted that that opposition is
  "generated by a misunderstanding of some basic elements of the scheme…and by an unsubstantiated concern".—[Official Report, 15 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 379.]
  In other words, the Minister believes that educators and parents in Wales are all suffering from some kind of collective stupidity that makes it impossible for them to understand the Government's proposals. Some people might say that such ignorant condescension is offensive. But I am glad to say that it is the Minister who does not understand—it is his problem. First, he fails to understand that the notion of choice is irrelevant to the vast majority of Wales because of the scattered nature of our community. Secondly, if private or other providers enter the field in competition and have some success in attracting customers—that is what we must say now—it will destabilise the provision of LEAs and the existing useful partnerships between LEAs and the voluntary sector.
  The Minister has failed to understand that there is a danger that the education experience of children whose parents might be tempted—understandably—to take up
  92
  full-time playgroup provision using a voucher, rather than keeping to the part-time LEA nursery school provision, would be inferior. Evidence for that can be found in an important recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate in Wales, the significance of which goes broader than the situation in Wales.
  That report showed clearly that, generally speaking, the best provision for early-years education is in LEA nursery schools and classes. That is an uncomfortable finding for a Government who regard local authorities in the public sector as inherently inefficient, but it is good news for the public at large and it is good news for parents.
  The report also stated that the cost of administering the system—and the money taken as profits for shareholders of the company that does so—would be better spent on providing resources for staff and training in schools. It also made it clear that nursery schools and classes providing for three-year-olds might be imperilled by the emphasis in the Bill on four-year-olds only.
  Vouchers provide a subsidy for the well-off who are already able to afford early-years education, and they will do very little to create provision where there is none at present. The view of the Special Education Consortium—the members of which are likely to know what they are talking about—was that
  "significant harm might be done to the provision for young children with special educational needs."
  All those views clearly justify the plea made to the Secretary of State for Wales from various directions not to proceed with the proposals in Wales. The plea has been made, and it will almost inevitably fall on deaf ears. I was going to say that I had good reason to hope that none of this would happen, because the election of a new Government was likely to intervene. I now have cause to hesitate, having heard suggestions that the Labour party is ready to accept such provision as a fait accompli. I trust that that will not be the case, and that the system will never be implemented in Wales.
  Our current predicament emphasises once more the need for a Parliament in Wales with primary legislative powers. Labour proposes to give Wales an assembly with secondary legislative powers only, unlike Scotland, whose Parliament will have primary legislative powers. Secondary legislative powers are inadequate, for two reasons.
  First, whereas primary legislation can be drafted to allow a great deal of variation and discretion in relation to the orders, it can also be drafted to allow no variation at all. Any United Kingdom Government not wishing to allow Wales to pursue its own course of action would pursue the latter course. Secondly, secondary legislative powers would at best allow a variation only within the framework established by an Act coming from the United Kingdom Parliament. Secondary legislative powers within the framework of the Bill would be totally irrelevant.
  We need a Welsh Parliament to determine the priorities of education in Wales and to place nursery education within that framework. It would, of course, have a high priority. A Welsh Parliament would need to devise a plan for the appropriate promotion of nursery education in co-operation with local authorities and others. For that, the Parliament would need the power to legislate as necessary, to give the different levels of government the powers and responsibilities to design a system of education that would provide high standards, while being

  93
  equitable and cost-effective. We can be confident that following such principles would mean that we would not be fiddling around with vouchers for nursery education.
  We need a Welsh Parliament with the power to act, and that means the power to enact legislation. We need it now, and not as a consequence of some slow process of evolution. We are looking to the Labour Government, following the next election, to give the people of Wales that kind of power—the same power that Labour proposes to give to the people of Scotland.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills: I am in a somewhat difficult position as I represent an area in rural Solihull which has a scheme far beyond that proposed by the Government. The voucher scheme would disadvantage my constituents as they already have the advantage per pupil of £1,800 worth of high quality, successful and established education. The local scheme is the choice of parents and once I have cleared the matter with the Journal Office and the Vote Office I shall be presenting a petition from 12,000 parents establishing that very point. We do not want a national scheme. It is wrong to have a bureaucratic, complex and centralised system that offers every child £1,100—a system that is going to be extremely difficult to organise.
  We have achieved quite a lot in Solihull and we cannot be the only ones to have done so. According to my calculations, 42 local education authorities or local councils will be disadvantaged by the scheme. We should consider what has been achieved by children aged three and three and a half.
  The Government's scheme is calling into question reception classes. I shall not be voting for the Government tonight and I have made that clear to Ministers. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for the time that he has spent discussing the scheme with me. I appreciated his comments, but I do not agree with them and I am not going to vote for the Government. As a loyal Conservative, that is a rare event for me, but my constituents will be disadvantaged by the scheme that he is introducing. Why cannot the Minister—I spoke to him about this—provide an exemption for councils with good records and find a way to resolve the situation? I appreciate his concerns about exempting Solihull and not other councils which need to be forced into a better nursery system.
  In the few minutes that I have to speak in the debate, I must tell the Minister that I not only have 12,000 signatures to a petition—I did not ask for them: it was the parents' idea—but during the past two months my advice bureaux have been dominated by the issue. In Balsall Common, for example, I normally see about 12 people with personal problems, but I found the church hall jam-packed with about 70 parents. I do not accept the Minister's argument that the local education authority triggered that response. It was the parents' legitimate desire for high quality pre-school education for their young people.
  The results in Solihull for three-and-a-half-year-olds are exemplary. I cannot accept that a national scheme such as the Minister is proposing is either good for my constituents in Meriden or—I hesitate to say it—good for the country. Why cannot we give local authorities greater choice? Why cannot we give parents real choice?
  94
  In my constituency of Meriden, parents will have no choice. If they are given a voucher that is worth £1,100, but the LEA already provides nursery education that is worth £1,800—with high quality education, proper teaching staff and outstanding literacy and numeracy achievements—why on earth should we go along with the scheme that the Minister is proposing? That is why I do not intend to vote for it.
  I shall not go into the issue of grant-maintained schools because I do not have enough time to do so and I must avoid cutting into my colleagues' time. In my constituency, the voucher scheme is a key issue, as indicated by the 12,000-name petition. The petition is not like those that we all receive—the usual ones that people sign and send to their Member of Parliament. Those people came to see me and presented it to me with heartfelt concern.
  The parents have three concerns, which I shall finish with—unlike some Opposition Members, I will not say "Finally…finally…finally". The distillation of what they are feeling is, first, that they are happy with the existing scheme, which is worth £1,800 per pupil and is working. Solihull council is hoping to expand the number of places. Secondly, they are happy with the quality of education. Finally, parents are happy with the achievements. Some of the achievements of the three-and-a-half-year-olds rising-fours in my constituency are quite extraordinary. Their start in life will be far better than it would be under a scheme which produces a playgroup situation, which would be the result of a £1,100 voucher scheme. I say to the Minister, "Please take my constituency of Meriden out of the voucher scheme." Give us the freedom to do what we and the parents want to do.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) because his speech has been perhaps the most important of the debate. I share the sentiment which I believe lay behind his presentation—that nursery education should not be a party-political issue. I join him in that sentiment because in Newham, where 60 per cent. of the age group are in nursery education, we have a similar appreciation of such education, albeit in different surroundings. The contrast between our constituencies, which is well known, and the feelings of parents about the existing scheme and the proposals, illustrate the non-party basis for the concern, at least among many parents who are beginning to understand what the scheme is about.
  The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned a petition. Parents from Newham came to me two years ago and as a result I got in touch with the National Campaign for Nursery Education. With other organisations, it organised a petition of more than 100,000 signatures, asking for wider opportunities in nursery education. Two years later, despite not discouraging the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) from talking out my Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill, the Government have come up with a scheme. They did not do so following the articles in the press, written by the Prime Minister two years ago, saying that it was coming, but now it has come.
  The scheme is not a scheme for nursery education. It is not nursery education as it is practised in Solihull and Newham. I charge the Minister to tell us why the title is

  95
  not misleading. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to early-years education. The hon. Member for Meriden referred to playgroups, and so forth. The provisions might be for early-years education, but it is not nursery education. The latter was lauded by the Minister responsible for education in a previous Conservative Administration in 1973. Circular No. 2/73, from the right hon. Lady, now Baroness Thatcher, said that we would have full-time education for 15 per cent. of three and four-year-olds, and part-time education for 35 per cent. of three-year-olds and 75 per cent. of four-year-olds, which
  "will require 250,000 additional full-time equivalent places in 1982."
  That plan was scrapped, but that was nursery education.
  Most people in the business—although I should not describe it as such, as that is what the Government are making it—know that the quality of nursery education is defined: there are space standards and standards for the teachers, who have had two years full-time training, and there is a ratio of nursery assistants, who have also had some training.
  Mr. Robin Squire: Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's comments, can he clarify whether he would say that reception classes are nursery education and good, and that pre-school classes—erstwhile pre-school playgroups—are, by definition, not nursery and bad? I am not trying to trap him, but to draw him out.
  Mr. Spearing: The term "early-years" covers the lot, but we know what nursery education is in terms of the curriculum, which is known and understood throughout the country, the training and the premises. It is different from playgroups, some of which are very good and some not so good. It is also different, by definition, from reception classes in infants schools, because they are part of the statutory system for the over-fives.
  The Minister knows of the terrible administrative problems. Because of the administrative mess-up, parents will have to give up these coloured bits of paper for children who are going to be in the reception classes of infant schools. We do not have a plan for nursery education, although all the reports of the debate will use that term. I therefore charge the Government with being misleading and I cannot absolve them from attempting to do that deliberately.
  There is also the question of space regulations. On 10 January 1996, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is not here, replied to a question on the abandonment of the school space regulations, which are not good enough as it is. In a written answer, she stated:
  "The final version of the regulations and the circular will take account of a number of detailed points raised. The requirements in the current regulations that bear on the health, safety and welfare of pupils will be retained."—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 274.]
  But they will not. Why are they being changed? The standards laid down by statute for nursery schools proper are to be abandoned.
  What about the providers? "Providers" is a word that we have come to use in the health service, but some of the providers of the new-style pre-school education, whatever
  96
  form it may take, will be proprietorial. They will not be, as they are in Solihull and Newham, local authorities. They will not form a pattern of local nursery schools attempting to meet the needs of local communities. There will be difficulties over the standards that they will have to maintain.
  The documents to which I referred in a point of order earlier were in the Vote Office. There was some misunderstanding about that and I am glad to make that clear to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). However, his document, "Nursery Education Scheme: The Next Steps"—a misleading title, if ever there was one—says that vouchers will give
  "parents purchasing power to choose a place that suits their child's needs and to insist on high standards… There is a wide consensus about the importance of nursery education".
  It goes on and on, but the Government are not talking about real nursery education.
  In The Sunday Telegraph yesterday there was an article headed:
  "School that's a home from home",
  with a subsection entitled,
  "How to set up a nursery school".
  The article states:
  "The Diploma in Playgroup Practice from the Pre-School Learning Alliance is the minimum legal requirement. Fifty per cent of your staff must be qualified. A child-to-staff ratio of 8-1 is the maximum allowed; 6-1 is more workable."
  The Pre-school Learning Alliance is doing good work. I think that it was originally known as the Pre-school Playgroups Association. There is a big distinction between playgroup provision and the present statutory arrangements for nursery education. The Government should use a different term because there is a danger that they will devalue and ultimately destroy the standards of nursery education as commonly understood at present. There is much evidence for that.
  The Pre-school Learning Alliance, which was mentioned earlier, says in its brief:
  "Vouchers will provide help with revenue costs but are unlikely to provide sufficient income to meet the costs of new premises and other capital expenditure associated with the expansion of provision."
  So even the alliance has some reservations.
  What about inspection? If it is to be done by Ofsted, why can it not be linked with the present system of primary school inspection? Primary and nursery schools overlap in reception classes. Instead, the Bill contains four and a half closely typed pages dealing with
  "Nursery education grants: inspections etc."
  Talk about bureaucracy—surely that is what is created by not using the existing schools inspection system to deal with the pre-school scene.
  What does the National Association of Head Teachers—which, with the except of heads of nursery schools, has no vested interest in the age group apart from a general one in education—have to say about the inspection system? In its brief, it says:
  "The system of self assessment that is proposed will mean that providers could function and receive public money for a year before they are inspected or validated. The voucher system is wide open to

  97
  fraud and abuse. Even expensive auditing and inspection arrangements could not ensure that the proper use of public funds was safeguarded."
  That is the view of highly qualified professional teachers in a well known and respected association. It continues:
  "The Government envisages the possibility of umbrella organisations, already active in nursery education"—
  I question that, but we shall see what the Minister has to say; I would say "already active in early-years education". The document continues:
  "acting as OFSTED's agents in organising the inspection programme and awarding contracts to inspectors. The NAHT strongly believes that, if the proposals are to be implemented, independence in awarding contracts must be safeguarded. The NAHT could not support a situation where, for example, an organisation was awarding contracts to inspect its own members."
  I do not suppose that the Government would go as far as that, but the system of inspection is shown to be extremely controversial. There will be what the newspapers would call a huge shake-up in the system.
  Conservative Members have been talking about parental choice. We all know what parents want. It was well expressed to me by a Conservative Member who is not here now in respect of another education matter some time ago. Those of us who are parents would agree that most parents want a system of local education that meets the needs of all the children of the area. The morality of parents and teachers means that they cannot ignore the effects of education for their children in their schools on that of children in other schools. Education must meet the total need of the community and especially the needs of any particular child at the time of its education.
  A coherent framework is needed. Parents have to put themselves into the hands of professional teachers. Of course there must be consultation, co-operation between home and school through parents associations, and a degree of choice, so long as the standards are equivalently high. That is the point. That would lead to an education system worthy of name. If such a system was available to 100 per cent. of children in Solihull and Newham, it would be a worthy system.
  Concern has been expressed by organisations such as Save the Children, Barnardo's, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Children's Society. Those organisations state:
  "The coalition organisations recommend that one common standard of inspection, regulation, monitoring, staffing ratios, premises and equipment should apply to all voucher-redeeming services for four year old children, based on the requirements of the Children Act 1989."
  That Act has been mentioned several times already.
  Finally, there is the question of who will be the providers. I suggest that there will be a huge new range of providers. I hope that the Minister will tell me in the next hour if my scenario is wrong. It may be that it is, but we will not know the detailed small print. We will know neither in the House nor in Committee because, instead of saying that the Minister must provide those facilities for early-years education by issuing vouchers, clause 1(1) says:
  "The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the making of grants in respect of nursery education."
  All the details about inspection, standards, liaison, administration and contracts are considered "arrangements" and need not come before the House.
  98
  Negative instruments, such as the two that we sent away at 3.30 today, often come before the House. They deal with all sorts of matters, such as animals, roads, speed limits and destination signs, which are for scrutiny rather than debate. Civil servants issue them and hon. Members know that they will be debated upstairs in Committee or appear on some sort of list against which we can pray. They are public matters.
  The arrangements at issue here, however, will not come through such a democratic sieve and they include anything that a Secretary of State for Education and Employment may wish to do. Although matters such as curricula will be discussed, the nature of providers will fall entirely within the "arrangements" to be decided by the Secretary of State in charge. What is to prevent supermarkets from assisting or funding satellite providers at their sites? What is to prevent pre-school education providers in the United States or Canada, where pre-school education is already a business opportunity, from setting up branches in this country? What is to prevent the whole pre-school scene from devolving into a business venture? Finally, what is to stop the vouchers to be given for reception classes being extended into primary education so that, for the first time, we would have a voucher system within our statutory education system?
  Unfortunately, the Bill is not really a nursery education Bill at all. The Minister must prove tonight that parents and some good Conservative Members are not being conned.
  9 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to be able to make a shorter than planned contribution to this debate.
  Contrary to popular belief, although 30 or 40 per cent. of my constituents are of retirement age, depending on which statistics one believes, there has been a great growth in the number of young people in Eastbourne, including people with young families. It has resulted in a great interest in and demand for nursery education and a wide appreciation that children who have benefited from pre-school education do better later. That view has been common ground on both sides of the House this evening.
  In the past year or so, I have made a number of visits to local playgroups, such as the Eldon Road playgroup and the playgroup attached to Willingdon school. I have also had meetings with the Independent Pre-School Nursery Association and its dynamic chairman, Barbara Davies, who also runs the Tots nursery in my constituency. We also have some excellent LEA provision. Only last Friday, I visited Pashley Down infant school. I am indebted to Veronica Clark and her staff for the opportunity not only to attend their assembly but to view their three reception classes for four and five-year-old children. The staff there do a good job in sometimes difficult circumstances. I hope that I can reassure them that, with the pilot scheme taking place this year, it should be possible to identify and resolve some of the practical problems to which hon. Members have referred.
  Above all, the Bill will allow parents to make a choice. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, they will be "in charge". What can be wrong with that? If they are happy with their existing provision, such as the reception classes at Pashley Down infant school, they will stick with it. But education policy has recently become a

  99
  problem in East Sussex, where politics often clouds important issues. It will not surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that that unhealthy development has arisen since the county council has been run by a Lib-Lab pact. It has become a Christmas tradition for me to have to write to 400 heads and governors to tell them the true position on education funding, because they certainly do not get it from the LEA.
  Last year, the so-called Strategic Forum predicted, with no particular evidence, massive cuts, including the option of cutting spending on nursery education. It was accompanied by a campaign called the East Sussex schools campaign, under the heading "Excellence at Risk". The campaign issued a document stating that there was
  "real doubt about the survival of nursery education".
  That quite disgraceful series of propaganda stunts, often orchestrated by the controlling groups on the LEA, raised fears among parents, teachers and governors about the future of children and their education. At the time the campaign seemed to be purely churlishly motivated, particularly in relation to nursery education. The LEA wants a total stranglehold over all pre-school provision.
  Of course, as it turns out, the overall position on spending for next year is very good. The education standard spending assessment for East Sussex has been increased by £7.264 million or 3.4 per cent. Just as important, the Government have ensured that East Sussex can increase its spending in line with the increased SSA for education. The capping criteria will enable the county council, if it chooses, to increase its budget by no less than 3 per cent. There is no good reason for schools' budgets in East Sussex to be cut in the coming year.
  On the specific issue of nursery schools, we have heard today how parents will have a choice between state, private or voluntary providers. The vouchers will buy a part-time place in a nursery class or up to a full-time place in a playgroup or reception class. State school places will remain free and parents will be able to top up the voucher in the private and the voluntary sectors. We have heard about the £165 million of new money providing vouchers for 150,000 places. We have heard a lot about the effect on LEAs—provided that they continue to attract the same number of four-year-olds as they currently do, they will not lose resources. If they spend more than £1,100 per pupil, they will still be able to do so under the new system. We have heard a great deal, particularly from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, about the alleged bureaucracy in the system. Of the £750 million available for the scheme, only £20 million, or 2.7 per cent., has been allocated to inspection and administration—and most of that money will be spent on inspection.
  Almost as soon as the scheme was announced, it was dismissed out of hand by Councillor Norcross, the chairman of the education committee in East Sussex. He refused even to consider participation by East Sussex in the pilot scheme and said, I think, that it was "a political con", with no reference even to the education committee, let alone the full council. It is hardly surprising that that action has caused great anger
  100
  in my constituency and elsewhere in East Sussex because it denies the opportunities to a whole raft of children in the pilot scheme year.
  One way in which that anger was demonstrated was through a large petition which was gathered by the IPNA and passed to me. It contained many hundreds of signatures and letters from the parents of children in my constituency. That was a very different experience from that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). The protest—spontaneously organised in my constituency—shows the deep strength of feeling on the issue. The Liberal Democrats and the Lib-Lab pact have wholly misread the feelings and needs of my constituents in Eastbourne.
  The debate is really about control, and Opposition Members' obsession with the need for LEAs to have absolute control over all pre-school education across the country. We believe in choice and diversity, and we believe that to be popular with the parents of the children affected.
  9.9 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: The last time I made a speech in this place the Whips asked me to spin it out, but I shall have to curtail my remarks on this occasion. I have 20 years' experience as vice-president of the National Campaign for Nursery Education and I am passionately concerned about the situation in Leeds. Despite the Labour authority's bland forecasts and boasts, Leeds does not have a good track record on education. If one looks at the Audit Commission comparisons, one will see that education provision in Leeds is well below half that of comparable authorities. In my constituency in north Leeds there is very little council education provision.
  I must point out—I apologise for falling into the trap myself in an earlier intervention on my right hon. Friend—that hon. Members keep talking about "state" schools. Why do we do that? It reinforces the impression—which is furthered by Labour Members—that somehow or other the Government are responsible for the quality of schools across the land. That is not the case. We should call them "council" schools. The Leader of the Opposition has sent his child to be educated outside Islington and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has rejected her borough because the council schools are of a poor quality. The councils have designed the school structure and allocated resources and they have interfered in the way in which the schools are run.
  I return to what I said by way of intervention earlier. The position in Leeds is crystal clear. In 1991 the council commissioned Leeds university to examine primary education in that city and to produce an independent report on the back of an allocation of £14 million to primary schools. Some £11 million was spent on recruiting extra teachers, so no one could complain of a lack of resources or say that the schools were understaffed. The report, entitled "Primary Education in Leeds", condemned interference by the local authority. Although that had occurred for the best of reasons, the report argued powerfully that not only had reading standards failed to improve despite the extra resources, but the straitjacket imposed on teachers by the local education authority lay at the heart of the problem.

  101
  Leeds has model schools where teachers are trained in "good practice" and teachers believe that their careers are blighted if they do not deliver that good practice. That is the culture of bureaucracy that has bedeviled British education at all levels for decades.
  Of course the voucher system is an experimental measure, but we should be looking for new ways of delivering quality education. That used to happen in the public sector. We used to have semi-independent local education authorities with very powerful creative directors of education. Alec Clegg in West Riding and the director in Leicester are classic examples.
  Mr. Spearing: The Government are destroying them.
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) should listen to me. Those people are famous partly because they are so rare. We cannot say that the hundreds of local education authorities have brilliant directors of education, because they do not. That is the reality of the situation. Most local education authorities do things in the way that they have always been done and they want to continue to operate in that manner. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members reflected that mentality in their speeches today.
  My right hon. Friend and I argue that we must find a way of delivering what good education is about. We know in our hearts that it is about creating a dynamic institution which has a life of its own, which has powers of innovation and which can look after itself and develop as it thinks appropriate for the benefit of the children concerned. Such institutions must be free from intervention by the council, the state and the advisors who continually latch on to them. We must have inherently dynamic and pioneering institutions.
  We trust the parents; we assume that they want the best for their children. Today Labour Members have gone on endlessly—ye of little faith—as if parents have no concept of what is important for their children. They want parents to leave it to the council to determine what should be taught in schools. On the contrary, parents want to know what it is all about. They will sometimes choose a traditional school and atmosphere for their children and sometimes they will opt for a more pioneering, progressive school and atmosphere. That is the test for the market to determine.
  The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Peckham continually condemn the two-tier system on the basis that if everybody cannot have it, no one should. It is ironic that the hon. Lady is now saying, "I want it, but not everyone can have it".
  The Opposition accept the central tenets of our case. They are accepting entrepreneurship because that is what a good school is, in that it runs itself. Professional excellence, given professional freedom, can ensure successful self-government. Let the teachers and heads get on with it.
  The Opposition accept the market, because the market allows choice and the market is showing parents—the customers—what those entrepreneurial schools can achieve. There is a system of diversity. I would say to every local authority, as I say to that in Leeds, "If your local nursery provision is that good, you have nothing to fear, but for heaven's sake, let the parents have the choice to put it to the test, because even the council schools may change."
  102
  Leeds is denying scores of families a whole year of extra provision of nursery education—provision which my constituents are being denied, except where imaginative, creative parents, using buildings in a primary school in Cookridge, have set up a nursery school called Clever Clogs. Parents in Cookridge had no choice until that type of provision was introduced. That might have been an example for the whole of Leeds, using the voucher scheme.
  Having been in education all my life, I have never regarded spending on education as something other than an investment. It is not a public expense but an investment in our children, their capabilities and their future. It is an investment in the nation's future because, in the tough, competitive world that we are now in, we have no future unless we educate well.
  In both respects, the Bill tries to ensure that a system of diversity produces excellence. I am amazed that hon. Members representing both Opposition parties have not had the wit to realise it.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: If today's debate were a boxing match and you were the referee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have the Opposition well ahead on points at this stage. [Laughter.] We had an opening round from the Secretary of State, who shadow-boxed with herself. We had a second round from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in which he scored knock-down after knock-down. Since then, we have had a co-ordinated campaign from my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who have scored repeatedly against the Government's case.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who is not in his place, should be aware that, 11 days ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) tabled questions to the Welsh Office to try to elicit from it detail of the proposals for a nursery scheme in Wales. He has not yet received a reply because, as we all know, the Welsh Office is in a tremendous fix over how it will apply that ill-thought-out scheme.
  I am happy that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) appears to be extremely supportive of the Labour party case on the Bill, although he gave the game away for the Liberal Democrats in his intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside when he said that what he expects us and, presumably, his own party to do would, at a conservative estimate, cost 2p or 3p on the pound.
  Conservative Members made a very poor fist of things in the debate. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is an erudite fellow. He used a quotation from George Orwell with the intention of undermining the sincerity of socialists in their cause. I took the opportunity to dig out an extract from a speech made by the original one nation Tory, Disraeli, all of 151 years ago, to show that Conservatives never change their spots. He said:
  "A Conservative government is an organised hypocrisy".
  Has not that been demonstrated in the House today?

  103
  In his book, "Coningsby", which I have read—as have, I am sure, many one nation Tories—Disraeli said:
  "Conservatism discards Prescription, shrinks from Principle, disavows Progress; having rejected all respect for antiquity, it offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future."
  He might have been speaking about the Bill.
  I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is undoubtedly mindful of the excellent nursery school provision in Bristol, using the efficient high scope method. I hope that hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who expressed himself forcefully in support of the Opposition's case, will have the courage of their convictions and, more important, represent the interests of their constituents by joining us in the Lobby. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) invoked the phrase, "Ye of little faith." We have tremendous faith in the present effective delivery, mainly by Labour-controlled authorities, of nursery education provision.
  Dr. Hampson: Come to Leeds.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I went to Leeds and saw what a Labour authority can do with a Family of Schools despite the depredations of successive Tory Secretaries of State.
  We have long advocated nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wish it in appropriate accommodation and with appropriately qualified staff. In theory, the Conservatives have had a similar commitment since Lady Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education 25 years ago. After 17 years in office, the Government have come up with a voucher scheme. The Secretary of State has had a Pauline conversion during the past 12 months. She was so confident in the voucher concept in March 1995 that she told BBC radio:
  "As a delivery method for nursery education, there are certainly no attractions in vouchers."
  Aptly put. The right hon. Lady was in good company. Geoffrey Wright, leader of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities Conservative group told the Brighton conference on 20 July last year:
  "I don't think nursery education should be hijacked by vouchers. We would be no better off and could be worse off, and that is not a suitable basis on which to make an investment or a gamble."
  Even the right-wing Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), conceded to the Centre for Policy Studies:
  "For every parent with a voucher, there needs to be a school place somewhere and if there is too much of a mismatch then the virtues and joys of a voucher scheme will not be forthcoming."
  I am not too sure about the virtues and joys of a voucher scheme, but I am aware of the vices and sorrows attendant upon the Government's misconceived attempt to hoodwink the electorate into believing that the scheme is a serious investment in our children's future.
  The Bill's three stated aims are: to give children a better start to their schooling, to provide parental choice and to encourage diversity. To give children a better start, pre-school education must have assured quality, which implies higher teacher-pupil ratios than children currently experience in reception classes, which may be as low as
  104
  1:35 because of the way the Government have cut local authority funding. A better start implies spacious accommodation and quality equipment, but the Government plan to abolish the minimum standards required under the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. A better start requires an extension of the special educational needs code of practice to nurseries, with qualified teachers to apply it. It requires also regular and full inspections of registered nurseries by qualified LEA inspectors.
  We are offered instead a pilot scheme that was rejected by most authorities, including Tory-controlled councils such as Solihull and Buckingham. We understand that, for electoral and ideological reasons, the scheme will not even be evaluated before it is pushed on to all authorities in England and Wales.
  It is difficult not to sympathise with the hon. Member for Meriden, who told the House in the debate on the Loyal Address:
  "I have been overwhelmed by the number of chairmen of governors, governors and parents who have come to my advice bureaux over the last couple of months… Bluntly, they were all concerned about why we should have a socialist, bureaucratic, central system of nursery vouchers dictated by the state, when individual local education authorities already have a good system."—[Official Report, 21 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 491.]
  Quite so.
  The Bill will add no extra nursery places at a time when even Tory backwoodsmen accept the old Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child till the age of seven and I will give you the man." Recent figures compiled by the Library suggest that 133,220 three-year-olds currently with nursery places will be threatened when the Government claw back £548 million to finance a flawed voucher scheme. The pilot scheme alone is costing £290 per pupil in administration costs. Perhaps that is what led the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) to protest in a letter to The Times on 21 June 1995. He said:
  "A voucher scheme runs the risk of breeding ghettos of nursery school deprivation, or reinforcing inequalities."
  He was right.
  The Royal National Institute for the Blind has pointed out that not only do the vast majority of visually impaired four-year-olds have nursery places, but so do the majority of visually impaired three-year-olds. All receive support from local education authority visual impairment services, generally in mainstream nurseries. Under the voucher scheme, the RNIB wonders what pressures three-year-olds will face finding places in good nurseries that apply the code of practice.
  The arithmetic is simple. The vouchers will be worth £1,100, yet according to the Department for Education and Employment the average full-time place costs about £2,500. Even a place in a reception class costs £1,600 per pupil. When money is clawed back from local education authorities and given to private providers, places will inevitably be at risk. The front-line risk will be borne by three-year-olds for whom there is no statutory provision in the Bill.
  Even if we approved of the scheme, it would have to contain three elements to enable it to be delivered equitably. There would have to be an excess of provision over demand, which there is not. The vouchers would have to cover the cost of a place, which they do not. They would have to be worth enough to cover start-up costs

  105
  and training, and they would have to have a weighting for children with special needs. They manifestly fail to have any of those.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: How is state provision of nursery places helped by the attitude of most local authorities? In my constituency, the Holy Trinity primary school proposed to provide a nursery unit, which was fought every inch of the way by the Labour and Liberal Democrat council merely because it was a grant-maintained school.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Whenever the hon. Member speaks, I think of him as the Nosferatu of Gravesham. He comes out to pick over the bones of the Conservative party's dead educational policies. His question is a classic example. The hon. Member should be aware that, under 18 years of a Conservative county council, not a single nursery place was made available. He should also be aware that more than 2,000 three-year-olds are now in nursery classes, and that another 250 places are due to be provided this year. Because the voucher scheme will claw back more than £14 million from Kent, it imperils that extra provision as well as the current provision.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee on Education told the House recently that
  "Nursery education…has education and social benefits that far outweigh the investment required at that stage. It gives tremendous value for money."
  I say amen to that. It is just a pity that the money is going into bureaucracy and hand-outs, often to those who can already afford private nursery education, at the expense of those in imminent social and economic need of local authority places.
  Of course, traditionally, Labour local authorities have invested in early-years education. They have long put their money where their mouths are, but they are now unable to plan further provision because of the quixotic nature of the scheme. The only thing of which they are sure is that the voucher scheme is, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) described it, with his usual eloquence:
  "a rather spatchcocked scheme to provide a little more partial nursery education to a few more people at the age of four."—[Official Report, 21 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 487–99.]
  I had to look up the word spatchcock. It is a dead game bird, freshly grilled. It is not something that we are used to in Liverpool, Walton, I hasten to add.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham damned the scheme with faint praise, but he did not do justice to the truth. What will the clawback mean for budgets in primary schools, given the average £1,600 cost of a reception place and a voucher value of only £1,100 per pupil? What ramifications does the scheme hold for the entire provision in any given primary school? What effects will be felt by those nursery schools which cater heavily for three-year-olds, for whom no provision is made in 'the Bill?
  The reality is that the measure is ill-conceived. The Minister must give the following reassurances to the House. How will he guarantee quality in nursery education? What are the Government's proposals to ensure proper accreditation of nursery schools in all sectors, including the independent sector, rather than the risible self-assessment that has been proposed? Whence will he recruit qualified inspectors trained in early-years
  106
  provision? Can he guarantee an acceptable degree of educational qualifications for staff in all nurseries? What guarantees will he give in respect of requirements for children with special educational needs? Will he pledge to the House that there will be no extension of the scheme until there has been a comprehensive evaluation of the pilot project, and until consequential amendments to it have been made?
  I doubt whether the Minister can offer these guarantees, because the Bill is based not on educational, but on ideological, premises.
  Dr. Hampson: It is certainly true that we need to monitor the scheme, but as the hon. Gentleman has gone on endlessly about the need for resources, does he accept another critical factor in the argument? I refer to the style, nature and quality of the teaching—not just resources. The education editor of The Guardian congratulated Leeds on the extra resources that it is pouring into inner-city schools, but then added that the standards of reading "actually fell". The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), a former education spokesman, was reported as commenting:
  "Leeds is to be congratulated on publishing a report that is critical".
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman should understand that that is why the Labour party emphasises standards. It is why we talk about reducing class sizes, and why we do not accept the Government's loose approach to the accreditation of centres and the qualifications of the staff in them under this scheme.
  The ostensible purpose of clause 6 is to allow GM schools borrowing facilities for capital purposes comparable with those of LEAs. This is a chimera, for the simple reason that LEAs have to borrow through the Government against the public sector borrowing requirement, subject to heavy restrictions. Meanwhile, GM schools have had preferential capital grants from the Government far in excess of those available to other maintained schools—two and a half times as much, in fact.
  Secondly, provision under the Bill cannot be seen in isolation from the other element outlined in the consultation paper: allowing GM schools to retain 100 per cent. of their capital receipts. Admittedly, taken together, the two elements might seem an attractive package not just to GM schools—particularly those on split sites—but to potential converts to the Government's failed drive to increase their number, but according to The Times Educational Supplement of last Friday, GM schools are, wisely, reluctant borrowers. Eighty per cent. of those surveyed by the TES refused to borrow on the open market. The Government failed to heed the warnings of their own consultation, to which only one in 20 GM schools even bothered to reply. The reasons for that varied, but the unease was uniform. Alan Crampton of Audenshaw high said:
  "I am uneasy about mortgaging the school for another head to pick up the bill!"
  Nigel Powis of St. Andrews, Weeley, in Essex, said:
  "At the end of this year, I'll have about 300 pounds left, and you can't borrow against that."
  John Bennett of Marshland high, West Walton, Cambridgeshire said:
  "It puts a desperate need for money back on to schools for things that are really a landlord's responsibility".

  107
  Paul Beashel of the Deanes school, Benfleet, in Essex wrote:
  "We just don't want to take on any debts"—
  even though the school has just received £200,000 from the lottery for facilities that should have been provided by the DFEE. And Geoff Mason of the Maelor school in Clwyd said:
  "There is not sufficient surplus to envisage being able to make the repayments."
  So who will take up the new opportunity under the aegis of the Funding Agency for Schools? No one, if the National Association of Governors and Managers is to be believed. In its view:
  "The association does not believe that the FAS, who will approve borrowing proposals on behalf of the Secretary of State, can acquire the necessary educational expertise."
  More to the point, perhaps, the FAS—a quango packed with Tory placemen and women, has neither the efficiency nor the regard for public money necessary to exercise such a function. That was aptly demonstrated by Lord Justice Evans on 6 October last, when the FAS took itself to the Appeal Court and the appeal was thrown out. He said of the FAS:
  "There is no evidence why the Agency could not reach its decision in time".
  It could not reach a decision quickly enough to satisfy even the court, and we know how quickly the courts operate under this Government.
  Lord Justice Evans went on to comment:
  "It is regrettable that … the Funding Agency has not taken account of the Judge's observations … regarding the waste of public money."
  The judge has the agency well weighed up.
  Nor has true account been taken of the role of trustees, especially in GM Church schools. Many GM schools will be prevented from borrowing by the veto of the trustees. The Churches are afraid of the consequences for them if borrowing is to be a substitute for Government capital funding of their schools. Where does that leave us? The merchant banks do not want to know because the projects are too small. The clearing banks might want to know, but they will be cautious in the new market. Financiers are more interested in revenue than in assets, so why should they trust inexperienced schools with only dedicated education funding and little or no surplus?
  The truth is that the Government set out three options in a handbook—joint ventures to develop school-community facilities; land swaps, with new build for land owned by a school; and new schools at sites alongside housing developments. Only the first option seems likely for most grant-maintained schools. After all, the facility will be limited to non-core assets and the Prime Minister has made a heck of a fuss about games, which precludes the wholesale disposal of playing fields.
  We must not forget the vexed area of local education authority interest. Why should the rest of the local community ultimately pick up the tab for a charge on an asset, the receipts for which go 100 per cent. to a grant-maintained school? As one response to the Government's consultation said:
  "Any moves to change the funding basis of GM schools, either capital or revenue, should be within a framework that ensures a level playing field for all schools. We see no case for GM schools to be funded more advantageously than LEA maintained schools."
  108
  I misheard for a moment and thought that that response came from a socialist education association; it was actually a Conservative education association response. Its vice-president is the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) and its patrons include the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton). This Bill does absolutely nothing for nursery provision; it subsidises the private sector. It brings further division between LEAs and GM schools. In fact, it even divides GM schools on the basis of those that have disposable assets and those that do not—and that is a matter of historical accident anyway. The Bill is predicated not on educational need, but on ideological prejudice, as the Prime Minister and his faithful Secretary of State seek to appease the hard right of the Tory party.
  These proposals are the fag end of a fag end education programme launched on 12 September and promptly scuttled by a fag end Prime Minister. The Sicilians have a marvellous expression to describe the political health of the Prime Minister, "Lui dorme coi pesci"—he sleeps with the fishes. I urge the House to reject the Bill.
  9.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): This has been an enjoyable debate with some powerful contributions from both sides of the Chamber, with a few myths being spread that I intend to dispel. At the end came a speech of pure fantasy from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and I shall deal with some elements during my speech. First, I want to deal with the few common points in the debate—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend referred to a speech of pure fantasy from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). The hon. Gentleman claimed that no new nursery units had been provided in Kent for 18 years. I have to tell him that every one of the numerous nursery units in my constituency was provided by a Conservative county council. By contrast, under the Lib-Lab county council no new units have been provided—other than that provided by a grant-maintained school.
  Mr. Squire: I am delighted that I gave way to my hon. Friend, who had great difficulty getting in earlier.
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will recall that earlier the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was asked many times about the statement in the Sheffield Star on 21 November, which reported him as saying:
  "I am having no truck with middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area".
  We wondered why he would not answer any questions—now we know that his statement and beliefs are a direct criticism not just of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), but of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has touched a raw nerve on the Opposition Benches, and we could all see that as we watched the debate this afternoon.
  What has linked the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—my old foe in a pleasant sense—and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and

  109
  Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has been a broad welcome to the expansion of quality nursery education, because what it is about, notwithstanding the earlier contribution of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who disagrees with the definition, is the expansion across the country not just in local authority provision but in the voluntary sector and, indeed, the private sector.
  There will be quality controls, which we have set out. We have accepted in full the recommendations of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority covering the quality outcomes—the desirable learning outcomes—that we would expect four-year-olds to reach. I had hoped that there would be broad agreement for that and for the way in which it should, would and must lead into key stage 1. We cannot be complacent about the quality of education being delivered to four-year-olds, looking at the entire country. We need to raise standards, and the sooner we start, the better. The Bill sets out our suggestion as to the way in which that should be done.
  The second area that should be non-controversial is inspection—apparently, that is not so—under the control and framework of Ofsted, which has already in a relatively short time established a good reputation. I am delighted that it is in charge of inspections, but there is a belief, which simply is not founded in fact—I accept that it might have been a misunderstanding earlier on the part of the hon. Member for Brightside, but it is shared by Opposition Members—that money is being wasted on bureaucracy, and/or that the inspection regime will not be rigid. Let me say a little about it. We have made it clear that whether we are talking about the first phase, for which some £5 million is being set aside for administration and inspection, or the second, when it expands across the country, for which £20 million is being set aside, the large proportion of the money is for inspection. Given that an estimated 12,000 providers are not currently inspected, I should have thought that hon. Members would have broadly welcomed that. It is a clear quality commitment. How else do we underpin the expansion of quality nursery provision other than by guaranteeing that it is properly inspected? Instead of that, a myth has been propagated that a significant administrative expense is involved. It is not.
  We are not talking about a large bureaucracy. My right hon. Friend, when she opened the debate, setout clearly what the stages were. From the point of view of the parent—the most important person in the whole equation—it is a question of the parent signing the form on behalf of the child, achieving the nursery voucher and deciding where he or she should spend it. That is not bureaucratic.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as this is an important area. Is it not a fact that, under the validation system set out in the next steps document from the Department for Education and Employment, those seeking to provide will simply have to self-assess their organisation and fill in the validation form for their own—as it is described in the document—in-house purposes, and that the inspection costs for phase 1 can be assumed only to be a preparation for the second phase, as we heard earlier? If that is the case, is not the National Audit Office in a position to examine whether we are using £5 million for 17,000 places in an inappropriate
  110
  manner? Is it not right for the Audit Commission, which is to report next week, to draw attention to the fraud that could arise from the system?
  Mr. Squire: I hope that other hon. Members will not intervene for a similar length, or I shall have to scrap the rest of my speech.
  On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, the short answer is no. The provision, as I sought to explain earlier, restricts those who take vouchers to LEA-maintained classes or private schools registered with the Department, essentially, the voluntary providers—those registered under the Children Act 1989. That check is provided up front, as it were. The providers themselves must agree to be inspected, and must publish a significant amount of information, as well as going through the self-assessment schedule mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  I repeat what I said earlier. It is very simple. Either the hon. Gentleman can go along with the thrust of his theory, and maintain that on 1 April 1997 thousands of parents will find that good-quality existing providers cannot take vouchers because they have not yet been inspected, or—however reluctantly—he can agree with us that the balance of the argument lies in allowing the scheme to proceed, and ensuring that, as quickly as Ofsted can arrange it, people are trained to carry out inspections that will give us the quality that we consider essential. The hon. Gentleman has that choice, but we strongly believe that it is important not to disrupt existing good provision.
  The second myth that the hon. Gentleman attempted to peddle was that there would be a million pieces of paper—or whatever the number was.
  Mr. Jamieson: Two million.
  Mr. Squire: The figure has gone up. There is inflation for you.
  As I made clear, the vast majority of parents who choose just one provider of nursery education will hand over just one piece of paper at the beginning of each term. That does not strike me as bureaucratic, and there certainly will not be millions of pieces of paper.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Devonport that early-years inspections for private education will take place at least every four years. He will understand that other inspection of private schools is not a matter for the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned the possibility of fraud. My hon. Friend dealt succinctly with the checks that we are instituting to make fraud less likely. I shall not deal with matters with which the House would not expect me to deal, but, for the benefit of those who may not have been present when my hon. Friend spoke, let me repeat that each voucher will have the child's name printed on it, and each will have a unique serial number. Vouchers will normally be issued only in respect of children on the child benefit database, and payment will be triggered only by vouchers that have been issued legitimately. I do not think that it assists a rational discussion of our proposals if Opposition Members imply that a significant fraud is about to be perpetrated.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) disappointed me. He has said outside the House—as he is perfectly entitled to—that no extra places will arise as a result of

  111
  the Bill. For some reason, however, shyness overtook him this afternoon, and he spoke merely of a gimmick rather than of no extra places. I have news for the hon. Gentleman: already, all four phase 1 authorities are clear that extra places will be available from 1 April which were not available from last April. If that comes as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, it may be because elementary economics are not the Liberals' strong suit. Broadly speaking, however, if extra funds are provided other things tend to happen, and that has been the case in this instance.
  Serious points were raised about phase 1 and the extent to which it is a pilot scheme. Let me answer them as best I can. We shall examine a number of matters during phase 1. We shall, of course, examine the operation of the encashment of vouchers, and, indeed, the value of vouchers. We shall consider whether there should be regional variation. Several points have been put to me; I shall deal shortly with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), when I talk about special needs. He also raised the point about the voucher's value, which I shall cover.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister guarantee that the low value of the vouchers at present, which has been widely criticised, will not, under any circumstances, be reduced?
  Mr. Squire: I am not standing at the Dispatch Box today talking of guarantees on the values of vouchers. I have already said—you, Madam Speaker, heard me, as did the House—that the question of the value of the voucher is being reviewed. We will have at least two issues of the voucher during April and for the September term, where we will be able to start taking into account how that value operates. It would be foolish for either the hon. Gentleman or his party to suggest from that answer that the Minister is threatening a reduced voucher value. I have made it clear that I am talking about reviewing the value of the voucher.
  I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth about the value of phase 1. Some aspects of phase 1 are inevitably medium term—the question of how the Ofsted framework operates comes to mind. It is a medium-term thing—it will take two or three years to evaluate. Some hon. Members want a long-term view. Self-evidently, how phase 1 leads, in turn, to an improvement in key stage 1 and key stage 2 results is, by definition, a long-term matter. Hon. Members on either side of the House can say, "At any one stage, we must have this information before a pilot becomes live." I am satisfied that, on the things that can be reviewed in a relatively short time, we will have sufficient information.
  Ms Hodge: Will the Minister give the House the reassurance and guarantee that all children aged four in the four pilot authorities in phase 1 will be guaranteed a place in a nursery?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady, who knows better than that, is being foolish. She knows as well as I that no magic wand can on 31 March suddenly create 100 per cent provision. I will tell her this, however, because she is
  112
  sitting there smiling. She has no reason to smile. I have already said that more places will be available on 1 April than at present. That provision will grow. She has to allow time for partnerships to grow, including partnerships between LEAs and voluntary providers.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who has a distinguished record in education, the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), the spokesman for Plaid Cymru, raised the issue of special needs, which is important. We are making it clear that all providers will need to make clear what their admission arrangements are and what their staffing is with regard to special needs pupils. It of course remains the case that LEAs retain responsibility for funding of statementing. I will carefully consider the question of a separate value for special needs during Committee and outside it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that as a sincere commitment. On his other point, he wants the Bill to be extended to three-year-olds. The Bill has been deliberately drafted so that it may be extended at some time to three-year-olds.
  A brief word for my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who was present earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here.] I am so sorry. He has moved—he is a highly mobile Member for Meriden and an honourable man. As he said, I have met him several times. He knows that he and I differ on the Bill's impact, which I suppose will not be demonstrated finally to our proof until it is enacted. With all sincerity, we would not introduce the measure if we considered in the slightest that it would have the impact—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister's words will not be recorded unless he speaks to the House rather than to individual hon. Members.
  Mr. Squire: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
  We would not introduce the legislation if we thought that it would in any way have the outcome that my hon. Friend fears.
  May I turn quickly to grant-maintained borrowing and then I shall come to the heart of the Bill.
  No one seems to have opposed the hon. Member for Walton for making the classic mistake of believing The Times Educational Supplement. The figures in the article from which he quoted are different from the headline and show that more grant maintained heads are now interested in borrowing than when they were surveyed 15 months ago. It is now a third instead of a quarter. If a quarter of GM heads think that they may take advantage of it, that is good news. If the proportion is now a third, that is even better news.
  Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
  Mr. Squire: I shall not give way. I have given way much more generously than the hon. Gentleman who summed up for the Opposition.
  I shall now turn to the key part of the Bill. The background is that across the country there is disparate provision of nursery education. It is strange, is it not, that certain buzz words or phrases produce a response in the Labour party like that produced by a silver cross being waved at Dracula. The first such phrase is "GM self-governing schools". As we have seen in the past

  113
  24 hours, the second one is "grammar schools" and the third is clearly "nursery vouchers". Labour opposes the Bill simply because it means greater parental choice.
  Mr. Riddick: Has my hon. Friend heard the latest news? Out in the Lobby the word is that shadow Cabinet members wish to have the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) rebuked at Wednesday's shadow Cabinet meeting. Will we arrange protection for the hon. Lady, who is simply taking advantage of Conservative policies and Conservative choice?
  Mr. Squire: I am absolutely horrified at what my hon. Friend suggests. In the past 24 hours we have seen the resignation of the Back-Bench education spokesman, the withdrawal of an oral question in another place on selection in education, and the resignation of what I am told is described as Labour's media chief. I am not surprised at what is happening, and it is all on one subject—parental selection. Imagine what will happen when vouchers are in everybody's hands. It will be astonishing.
  I stress that the key matter is that we support choice. That is why we support vouchers. Myth No. 4 is that three-year-olds are threatened by the provision. As I have said time and again, the local education funding mechanism for four-year-olds is cash-neutral. That includes the provision in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden in Solihull. Far from the number of four-year-olds being reduced in the LEA setting, everything points to the number increasing against a background of increased provision for nursery education.
  Opposition Members have said that they are in favour of the expansion of nursery education. They are probably in favour of inspection and a tighter regime. They have also said that they are in favour of provision for three-year-olds, although they have not said when that would happen. Above all, they have not said how there would be provision. It is one thing for the Opposition to oppose vouchers but it is another to say what they would do. They do not have a proposal, although we are told that after 16 or whatever years in opposition they may produce one in the next two or three months. Let us hold our breaths!
  The Opposition recognise that if they make provision through the SSA local government funding system they cannot guarantee that the money will be spent on education, never mind nurseries. If they give millions of pounds to current low nursery place providers with not even a guarantee that they will provide nursery education they will face an enormous backlash from many of their councils that are delivering high provision.
  The Bill is about creating universal education for four-year-olds. For the first time it will deliver quality education for four-year-olds and, also for the first time, it will provide underpinning by inspection across all settings. Via vouchers it will allow parents for the first time greater choice than they have previously enjoyed by putting them in the driving seat.
  In contrast, Labour claims to support the expansion of nursery education, but fails to present a credible mechanism for delivering it. It claims to endorse our quality aims, but criticises the necessary costs of expecting all providers to ensure that quality. It claims to support parental choice in theory, but in practice it clings—as ever—to the idea of LEAs being in control and
  114
  constraining that choice. The debate has highlighted which party is addressing the real issues of expanding nursery education. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 253.

  Division No. 31]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Deva, Nirj joseph

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Devlin, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ancram, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baldry, Tony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Booth, Hartley

  Forman, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Gallie, Phil

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gill, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butcher, John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coe, Sebastian

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Congdon, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  115

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilymn (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sweeney, Walter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Malone, Gerald

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thomason, Roy

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Walden, George

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Ward, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Watts, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilshire, David

  116

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Eastham, Ken

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Etherington, Bill

  Ainger, Nick

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Alton, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Flynn, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ashton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Austin-Walker, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Galloway, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Gapes, Mike

  Battle, John

  Garrett, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  George, Bruce

  Bell, Stuart

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godsiff, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Betts, Clive

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Grocott, Bruce

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

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ronnie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hodge, Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Church, Judith

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

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Keen, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Darling, Alistair

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

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  117

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Randall, Stuart

  McCartney, Ian

  Raynsford, Nick

  McCartney, Robert

  Reid, Dr John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rendel, David

  McFall, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McKelvey, William

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Salmond, Alex

  Maddock, Diana

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mendelson, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Clare

  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

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Speller, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Milburn, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Paul

  Turner, Dennis

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tyler, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wallace, James

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wardell, Gareth(Gower)

  Olner, Bill

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Neill, Martin

  Watson, Mike

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Welsh, Andrew

  Parry, Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pearson, Ian

  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, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

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

  NURSERY EDUCATION AND GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS 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 Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  118

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants in respect of nursery education or for making payments to any person exercising any function by virtue of the Act,

  (b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act, and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act and of fees received by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England or Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales under the Act.—[Mr. Streeter]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  REPORTS ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
  That this House takes note of European Parliament Resolution A4-0102/95 on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union with a view to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference; the Report of the Council on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union, Cm. 2866; the Report by the Commission on the operation of the Treaty on European Union, SEC(95) 731; the Report by the Court of Auditors on the operation of the Treaty on European Union; the Report of the Court of Justice on certain aspects of the application of the Treaty on European Union; and the Report of the Study Group preparing for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Iain Mills: I beg leave to present a petition from more than 12,000 residents of the constituency of Meriden and nearby. It declares
  the grave concern of residents of Solihull over the detrimental effect that the present proposal for the introduction of nursery vouchers will have on Early Years Education (3–4 year olds in nursery and 4–5 year olds in reception) in Solihull.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education to reconsider this proposal.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Policing (Birmingham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  10.17 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: I welcome this opportunity to debate policing and law and order in the city of Birmingham.
  As well as bringing to the Minister's attention issues concerning our city, I want to refer to important issues in Yardley. In such a debate I risk giving the impression that our city is crime ridden and that half of those who live there commit crimes against the other half. That is not so. Birmingham is a thriving and successful city, which has fought its way through successive recessions and marked out a real future for itself. In discussing my constituency I also risk giving the wrong impression of what it is like to live there. It is on the outer ring of Birmingham and is a sought-after place in which to live. Like citizens throughout the city, the majority of my constituents are decent and honest people who want to live in the knowledge that they are safe in their community and secure in their homes.
  As I refer to young people throughout my speech and comment on the problems that we have with some of those committing crime, I am only too well aware that most young people in our country are good people who contribute to their communities and want nothing more than to work hard, contribute their skills and be part of our society. I hope that the Minister will accept my comments against that important background.
  The Government tell us that things are getting better and that they are winning the battle over crime. But whatever the Government's statistics show, the perception of my constituents is that things are getting worse. We know what the Government's figures say about crime in the west midlands. The figures show that crime has almost doubled under this Government and that violent crime has more than doubled. We know that there is a one in nine chance of being burgled and a one in four chance of a vehicle being broken into.
  People in Birmingham feel vulnerable on all fronts. The headline news in the region today was of three incidents of stabbing—major crime in Birmingham that has been committed over the past weekend and recent months. That is the serious crime, which makes the headlines and shocks us all. Over the Christmas period, two Birmingham police constables, PC Jon Jackson and WPC Vanessa Greening, were viciously attacked and badly injured while patrolling in the Kings Heath area. Ten shoppers were attacked by a man with a knife in the Bordesley Green area and in recent weeks gangs of youths in the Aston area of the city have taken to the streets to battle out their differences. I am sorry to say that Mr. Tommy McGregor, a victim in the Netto supermarket stabbings, died in hospital yesterday as a result of the wounds that he received.
  As well as big, horrifying crime that we all know about, there is what I term the lesser crime—anti-social behaviour and criminal behaviour that occur day in, day out, and the fear of crime to which that behaviour leads. I am fed up of having to listen to stories from constituents who tell me that they have been burgled three and four times in a year. There are families whose neighbours have
  120
  made their lives so miserable that they want to move. Youths hang about street corners causing disturbances; pensioners no longer open the door after dark; our public buildings and open spaces are vandalised and covered with graffiti. Such crime does not make the headlines and it does not lead the regional news; most of it does not even reach the official statistics, but it blights the lives of too many people.
  I wanted to be sure about the views of my constituents in Yardley and over the summer I distributed a survey to every household in the constituency. I am not claiming that it is scientific, but it represents the real voice of thousands of people who live on the east side of Birmingham. The results were shocking: 40 per cent. of my constituents felt that they had been victims of crime in the past two years; 17 per cent. had not even bothered to report it to the police; more than one third felt that they had been treated badly as victims. Is it any wonder that 60 per cent. of my old-age pensioners feel vulnerable in their homes?
  Yardley is not a high-crime area. I am not pretending for a minute that those with responsibility for securing law and order are sitting idly by and doing nothing. The West Midlands police acted promptly and bravely at the supermarket stabbings, as they did this weekend at New Street station. They have recently uncovered a lorry full of drugs in my constituency, in Tyseley; they support neighbourhood watch groups and work with schools. I acknowledge those achievements and thank them for their work and for the co-operation that I receive.
  One of the consequences of effective police action on big crime is that officers are pulled out of areas like mine and drafted into the problem spots in the city, which is why the low-level crime goes unreported and undetected. Whatever those in power and authority have done, it is not enough. People in Birmingham feel that the situation is becoming worse, not better. Crime and anti-social behaviour are still major problems.
  There is probably agreement between the Minister and everyone in the House on the need to work together if we are to get anywhere. But there must also be leadership, which is what the Government should be showing. There is no recognition by Ministers that the decimation of our youth service can encourage anti-social behaviour. There is no acknowledgement that more than 55,000 unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds can lead to problems. There seems to be no understanding that too many of our young people do not feel that they have a stake in the future of our city.
  Why did the Home Office stop the funding of the safer cities project, which everyone agreed was successful? What sort of leadership cuts local government funding so drastically that crime prevention measures get squeezed out? Where is the initiative for dealing with anti-social behaviour before it turns to crime? Why do police tell people that they know who is committing crime, but that it is pointless to try to do anything about it? The Minister will not be surprised to learn that in my survey people called for longer sentences for those who commit crimes. It is also interesting to note that people felt that crime could be reduced by giving young people more to do and more opportunities.
  Governments are judged by their actions not by their words, and the verdict of the people of Birmingham is that the Government have failed them on the issue that is

  121
  most important to them: ensuring a safe and secure city. We must change the underlying values of society if we are to tackle the problem, but that must wait until we have a new Government. Meanwhile, something must and can be done.
  I shall tell the Minister what initiatives I and others are taking in my constituency and elsewhere in the city following the survey that I carried out in the summer. It is not for me to detect and deal with those who break the law; that is the responsibility of the state. However, we can take initiatives locally.
  First, our local newspaper, the Birmingham Evening Mail, is stepping up its attack on crime. The newspaper already has a good reputation for working closely with the national organisation, Crimestoppers and it runs a weekly slot on Thursday appealing to the public for information about crime. I am pleased to announce that from next week the Crimestoppers contact number will be displayed very prominently across the pages of the city's biggest newspaper every day. I am grateful to the editor, I am Dowell, and to the deputy editor, Ray Dunn, for their support for the initiative and for the way in which they have always worked, and shall continue to work, with people throughout the city to fight crime and anti-social behaviour.
  Secondly, Crimestoppers will do all that it can to ensure that its telephone line is answered personally 12 hours a day and that an answer phone is available at other times. Thirdly, in my constituency there will be door-to-door leafleting of Crimestoppers information. Fourthly, we shall be piloting a project in Yardley to help the elderly to protect themselves against crime.
  I shall be working with the Comet group and with the voluntary organisation Age Concern, which is making available to every pensioner in my constituency a fact sheet about safety in the home. In conjunction with that, the Comet electrical superstore will provide money-off vouchers so that pensioners can buy timed plug sockets in order to give signs of occupancy when they are home alone or when the house is empty.
  That is what we are doing locally to combat crime. However, the Government must take action and show more leadership if we are to solve the problem. In my survey, people said that having more bobbies on the beat would reduce crime. Beat bobbies make a difference and crime decreases with regular police patrols. We also need stable policing. There must be sufficient police available so that when crises arise—as occurred in Birmingham recently—police are not diverted from my area and similar outer ring areas to problem areas.
  We welcome the money that the Government have allocated to provide extra police and we look forward to seeing extra constables in the West Midlands force. However, the measure is very little and very late.
  We need money for simple crime prevention. Every street should be lit and every back entry should be cleared. Subways that people are too frightened to use should be closed. The safer cities project should be reinstated so that communities can work together. We need a proper youth programme so that young people have somewhere to go and something to do. We need all those things, yet the local council has been told to make cuts of £48 million next year.
  Young people who break the law need supervision. I do not want them locked away unnecessarily, but I want action taken against those who commit crimes and then
  122
  brag about it on the street. The probation service has a good record in working with young people. Why cannot that service be expanded? It is easy to be alarmist about crime, but it is also too easy to refuse to stare the problem in the face. Any Minister who tells the House that crime has been conquered and any Government who pretend that crime is decreasing are burying their heads in the sand. We cannot remove the fear of crime while we have a Government who give people a message that does not match those people's experience.
  As a country and as a city, we are good at tackling the big crime. That is a real success, and the people involved should be congratulated. What gnaws away at people's lives, however, is the incessant, everyday crime and what they consider to be crime. Every person in the city of Birmingham knows a relative, friend or neighbour who has been a victim of crime. That is not how the people of Yardley, of Birmingham or of the United Kingdom want to live. They deserve better, and the Government have an obligation to show some leadership so that they may have better.
  I have outlined to the Minister the action that we shall take locally, but the responsibility for law and order lies with him. We need to know what action he will take to lessen people's fears. I look forward to hearing his comments.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) on securing the debate and I thank her and the Minister for giving me a couple of minutes to say a few words in the debate, which is so important to the people of Birmingham and to all the people of the west midlands.
  In the west midlands, the risk of a household being burgled is one in nine, the risk of a vehicle being broken into is one in four and the risk of a person being assaulted is one in 78. All those statistics are worse than in 1979. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problem of the fear of crime and the justified worry that so many people have that if they report crime nothing will happen as a result.
  I want to tell the House of an instructive incident from my constituency, Northfield. In the summer, a man appeared outside a nursery with an air gun and fired pellets through the windows; indeed, pellets were found on the ground afterwards. The entire incident was witnessed by members of staff at the nursery, but to this day no conviction has resulted because police officers were apparently unable to reach the scene in time, even though the incident was reported while it was going on.
  That matter has been taken up with the local police. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the great efforts that the West Midlands police are making, but at that time the response rate for urgent crimes—crimes requiring police response in 10 minutes at the outside—was only 76 per cent. I am pleased that the figure has increased since then, but there remains a 15 per cent. chance that if a crime of that nature is committed the police will be unable to reach the scene within their response time.
  That means that we need changes. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the need for more bobbies on the beat and for better response times as a result of improved police staffing levels. We also need the organisation

  123
  behind that, and the back-up through the vital partnership between the police, local authorities and many other agencies. Here I pay tribute to the Birmingham Evening Mail for its initiatives in conjunction with the Crimestoppers organisation.
  The Government must realise that it makes no sense to say that one wants to reduce crime, especially youth crime, and at the same time to impose on local authorities cuts which mean cuts in the youth service and youth provision. The two just do not go together.
  I appeal to the Minister to address the considerable problems that my hon. Friend has outlined, and to build the partnership against crime that people in Birmingham, and people throughout the country, deserve.
  10.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) for the opportunity to debate issues of law and order in Birmingham. The hon. Lady drew attention to several of the anxieties of her constituents and those important issues are of interest to people throughout the country.
  For too long there has been a depressing view that we are powerless in the face of increasing crime. That is not a view to which I and my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office have ever subscribed. We have listened to the anxieties of those people at the sharp end of the fight against crime and to their opinions about how we, as a Government, should respond to those anxieties.
  We do not underestimate the problems, but we believe that we can win—although it is a tough battle. I share the hon. Lady's distress at recent attacks on officers in the West Midlands police. I am pleased to be able to report today that WPC Vanessa Greening, who suffered a broken skull after being set upon by vicious louts, is making a good recovery. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our good wishes to her, and to every other officer, not only in Birmingham but throughout the country, who is injured in the course of their duties.
  Attacks on the police, such as that suffered by police officers in Birmingham recently, demonstrate the need for the best available protection. West Midlands' chief constable is keen that his officers should be able to use CS spray for self-defence, and CS is an effective incapacitant. The Association of Chief Police Officers decided last Thursday to start operational trials in 16 forces in England and Wales, starting on 1 March. West Midlands police will be one of the trialling forces. The trials will be the subject of expert evaluation, and we shall watch progress with interest.
  Our strategy for dealing with crime has four main strands. We must do all that we can to prevent crime. We must do all that we can to catch criminals. We must ensure that when they have been caught they are tried fairly and speedily. And we must make sure that if they are convicted, the courts have all the powers that they need to deal with criminals appropriately and effectively.
  Our objectives in dealing with law and order are widely shared, and we are making progress towards relieving the fears that many of our constituents face.
  Last September, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, I was able to announce the biggest fall in recorded crime in our history. Those are not just
  124
  Home Office figures. They come from all the police forces throughout the country, who give us the figures. On top of earlier falls, recorded crime fell a further 5 per cent. for the 12 months to June 1995. The West Midlands police area was no exception, with recorded crime falling 5 per cent. in the 12 months to June 1995. Although offences of robbery rose, there were significant falls in offences of burglary—which decreased by 9 per cent—and in offences of violence against the person, which fell by 19 per cent.
  The latest recorded crime figures highlight the fact that, although the level of crime is still far too high, the dedicated efforts of the police and the community at large can result and have resulted in significant falls in the number of recorded crimes.
  Ms Estelle Morris: Is the Minister not concerned about the problem of unrecorded crime? Has his Department done anything to establish the extent of crime? In my experience, the public feel that the system will not deliver and so there is no point in reporting crime. That is why the figures that the Minister has given bear no relationship to the public perception of crime levels in the community.
  Mr. Maclean: Of course we have undertaken research. The British crime survey figures, which are published every few years, are consistent. Of course there is a lot of unreported crime, which remains fairly consistent. Recently, we have seen a declining trend in the British crime survey which measures unrecorded crime. In fact, it is self-reporting. The public, depending on their memory, tell researchers the level of crime that they have, in their belief, witnessed. That trend has been going the same way as reported crime figures.
  Some crimes, such as murder and violence, are subject to high reporting levels. Car theft produces almost 100 per cent. reporting. At the other end of the scale, vandalism is certainly subject to low reporting levels. Nevertheless, the levels of recorded crime have been falling. There has been no change in recording practice in the last two years. The police know that levels have been falling. The insurance companies will say that claims have been falling. That all follows the same trend, which is good news.
  Of course I would like the news to be even better and the fall in crime to be not just 5 per cent. each year but 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. We would all like that. The fall has shown that we are not helpless in the face of rising crime. A myth has grown up since the war: just because crime has risen under every Tory and Labour Government—it certainly rose under the last Labour Government, just as it has risen under this Government—we tend to believe that nothing can be done. People say that the rise in crime is inevitable; it is, they say, a statistical trend in every west European country, and we are all doomed to rising crime for ever more. That is bunkum. It is possible to cut into the problem—with effective police action, backed up by proper legal changes and, crucially, partnerships in the community.
  Let me turn now to the resources available to West Midlands police. This year the force's spending power is about £329.3 million. That is an increase of 4.3 per cent.—an extra £13.5 million—over the base budget for 1994–95. That is a substantial increase, above the

  125
  national average, and clearly demonstrates the high priority that the Government place on fighting crime. The police authority has sensibly taken full advantage of the additional funds available in setting this year's budget.
  In addition, West Midlands police did not have to find a further sum this year to pay for common police services such as the police national computer. The year before, that cost them £2.6 million, which they did not have to cough up this year. Those extra resources should provide scope to increase local policing levels. I understand that the chief constable is expecting force strength to increase by 181 during 1995–96.
  The Government's commitment to the police will be maintained in the next financial year too. Under our current proposals, the basic funding available to West Midlands police for the financial year 1996–97 increases by £14.5 million, or 4.4 per cent. over the equivalent figure for last year. Again, that is above the national average. Next year, West Midlands will not have to find a further sum to pay for common police services.
  The £343.7 million to be allocated to West Midlands police in 1996–97 includes their share of the funding being made available for the 5,000 additional officers over the next three years announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Under our proposals, West Midlands' share of the additional funding in the first year will be f£1 million. That alone would be sufficient to recruit an extra 52 extra constables. Based on a similar distribution mechanism, and assuming that the chief decides to spend the money on extra bobbies, this initiative alone could provide the force with an extra 258 constables after three years and will help the force to achieve high visibility policing.
  The hon. Lady said that she was pleased with the money we are putting into the West Midlands force this year. I hope that that did not give the impression that this year was a unique occasion. The West Midlands force, like every other in the country, has received substantial extra funding from the Government. The net result is that the money available to the British police service now is about double what it was in 1979 in real terms. That is only to be expected: the extra 16,000 officers and 16,000 civilians whom we have recruited do not come cheaply. The police are an expensive resource, but they are also valuable and worth while.
  The fight against crime cannot be left to the police alone. The Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994 sets out a new framework for policing which will help the police service to fight crime in partnership with the public and local police authorities.
  The Act gives police authorities and chief officers the freedom to make the best use of their resources in return for greater openness and accountability. It is not for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to set targets in relation to the national objectives that he specifies. It is a matter for local decision by the police authority as to what local targets should sensibly be. In future, police activities will be more clearly focused on the public's priorities. In turn, the public will be kept informed about the service that they can expect and how well their force has performed.
  I know that the police share my concern about the misery caused by crimes such as burglary and car theft and are determined to do all that they can to fight it. To increase the number of detections for burglaries, and to
  126
  target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem—drug dealing, for instance—are key objectives that have been set for the police. Throughout the country, police forces have undertaken initiatives specifically to tackle those types of crime, often using intelligence-based methods such as crime pattern analysis and the targeting of offenders.
  I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of Operation Christmas Cracker, which was undertaken on 5 December. It was the largest operation against burglary that this country has seen, involving 12,000 officers from 40 forces in England and Wales. The police targeted people suspected of being involved in burglary and completed 3,772 dawn raids. In all, 3,327 people were arrested and £1.8 million worth of stolen property was recovered.
  I was pleased to learn that the West Midlands force has had some even more recent successes. On Saturday 6 January the drug squad seized a metric tonne of cannabis, equivalent to a million deals and with a street value of £10 million. Three men were arrested. The following week the regional crime squad recovered Ecstasy tablets worth more than £1.5 million. Some of those were a very nasty mixture indeed of anaesthetics and stimulants. The West Midlands force deserves our congratulations for those operations and, indeed, all its other operations against crime.
  Preventing crime is as important as tackling its consequences and the concept of partnership is central to our crime prevention strategy. That vital work cannot be left to the police alone; communities have a central role to play. Successful partnerships are essentially those which have developed local solutions to local problems, and they are successful. I have seen many in operation. I came hotfoot from Durham this morning, where I witnessed yet another partnership being created by the county police force and the Royal Mail.
  All over the country, business, community groups, local authorities and the public are working with the police to reduce and prevent crime in their areas. Local knowledge and expertise is being used to solve local crime problems. In Birmingham South, for example, the police, the probation service and the city council are working together to provide a swimming training scheme for local youngsters during the Easter holidays. An anti-burglary scheme in west Birmingham, involving local residents and businesses, has contributed to a 30 per cent. reduction in crime levels. Those are good, cast-iron examples of local partnerships and we happily encourage more and more of those.
  Businesses have helped in many different ways, from offering discounts on home security products to members of neighbourhood watch schemes, to direct—and often substantial—contributions towards the cost of town centre closed circuit television schemes. In Birmingham, initiatives such as the many business watch schemes, bus watch and radio link schemes for city centre retailers show what can be achieved through local co-operation, with benefits both to businesses and to the wider community.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been(a) the percentage change in real personal disposable income and (b) the index of real personal disposable income, taking 1966=100 in each year since 1966. [9319]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on real personal disposable income and the index of real personal disposable income, both based on 1990, is published annually in the CSO Blue Book and quarterly in the CSO press notice "Quarterly National Accounts" and is held on the CSO database. All sources are available in the Library of the House. The figures are given in the table—the 1990 based index has been re-referenced to 1966=100.

  Percentage change in real personal disposable income

  Index of real personal disposable income

  1966

  2.1

  100.0

  1967

  1.5

  101.5

  1968

  1.8

  103.3

  1969

  0.9

  104.2

  1970

  3.8

  108.5

  1971

  1.2

  109.5

  1972

  8.4

  118.7

  1973

  6.5

  126.4

  1974

  -0.8

  125.4

  1975

  0.6

  126.1

  1976

  -0.3

  125.7

  1977

  -2.1

  123.1

  1978

  7.4

  132.2

  1979

  5.7

  139.7

  1980

  1.5

  141.8

  1981

  -0.8

  140.7

  1982

  -0.5

  140.0

  1983

  2.7

  143.7

  1984

  3.6

  149.0

  1985

  3.4

  154.0

  1986

  4.5

  160.8

  1987

  3.4

  166.3

  1988

  6.0

  176.2

  1989

  4.8

  184.7

  1990

  1.8

  188.0

  1991

  -0.1

  187.9

  1992

  2.3

  192.2

  1993

  1.6

  195.4

  1994

  0.7

  196.7

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households have. incomes(a) less than £5,000 a year, (b) £5,000 to £15,000 a year, (c) £15,000 to £20,000 a year, (d) £20,000 to £50,000 a year, (e) £50,000 to £100,000 a year and (f) more than £100,000 a year; and of each of these groups, how many and what percentage have incomes that are (i) wholly earned, (ii) wholly unearned and (iii) part earned and part unearned. [9324]
  2
  Mrs. Knight
  The figures are not available in the form requested.

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when section 164 of the Financial Services Act 1986 was brought into force. [10638]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Section 164 of the Financial Services Act 1986 has not been brought into force and was repealed when the Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995 came into force on 19 June 1995. Regulation 10 of those regulations contains an equivalent provision to section 164.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the enforcement of penalties for(a) carrying on, and (b) purporting to carry on, investment business without authorisation or exemption, under section 4 of the Financial Services Act 1986. [10434]

  Mrs. Knight
  Prosecutions for contraventions of section 3 of the Financial Services Act are brought before the courts where there is a realistic prospect of securing a conviction and the public interest is in favour of a prosecution. Enforcement of any penalty under section 4 of the Financial Services Act imposed by the court is a matter for the court concerned.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the penalties for(a) carrying on and (b) purporting to carry on, investment business without authorisation or exemption, under section 4 of the Financial Services Act 1986. [10435]

  Mrs. Knight
  I have no plans to do so.

  Tortoises
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what seizures of tortoises and tortoise products were made by Customs and Excise in 1995. [10153]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Statistics for Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species seizures made by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1995 are complete only for the first nine months to 30 September. In that period, there were two seizures of tortoise products imported in breach of CITES requirements together with 794 live specimens.

  The latter figure includes one large seizure of 674 specimens found in the possession of crewmen on board an east European vessel which called temporarily in the United Kingdom.

  Banks (Overcharging)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to provide that banks pay compensation to customers for the consequences of overcharging; and if he will make a statement. [9880]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: There are no plans to introduce such legislation. Arrangements already exist for customers' complaints to

  3
  be pursued, either through banks' internal procedures or, where they are exhausted, by involving the banking ombudsman.

  Banking Contracts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consult the Governor of the Bank of England with a view to making changes in the standard inclusion in banking contracts of repayment on demand; and if he will make a statement. [9881]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: No. The precise form that a particular loan takes is a commercial matter to be agreed between a borrower and his bank. Since 1992 there has been a shift in small business lending away from overdrafts, which are repayable on demand, and towards a greater proportion of fixed-term loans.

  Bank Customers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consult the Governor of the Bank of England with a view to establishing guidelines to ensure protection coverage for hank customers in cases of(a) bank malpractice, (b) overcharging and (c) breach of contract; and if he will make a statement. [9882]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The code of banking practice and the banking ombudsman scheme already provide guidance on these issues, and offer definitive and flexible methods of resolving disputes. Customers now have far more information than ever before about banking practices, fees and interest payments, and about what they should do if they wish to discuss, or complain about, the services they receive.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will implement the recommendations of the Government's 1989 review of banking services to provide for(a) the power of a bank to withdraw any complaint which has wide ramifications or raises important legal issue from the banking ombudsman's jurisdiction to be exercised only with the concurrence of the ombudsman, (b) compulsory production by a bank of any relevant documents of information and (c) publication of information about a complaint if a customer consents; and if he will make a statement. [10232]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: Recommendations (a) and (b) are now reflected in the latest version of the banking ombudsman's terms of reference—paragraphs 20–22 and 5(b) respectively. The ombudsman does not publish details of customers' complaints but his annual report does quote figures on the types of complaints received by the ombudsman. The report also quotes examples of specific complaint, without revealing the identity of the complainant, to illustrate the circumstances of a particular case.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to require banks to establish hank customer councils; and if he will make a statement. [10234]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: No. This is a matter for banks and their customers.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to provide financial support or guarantees to Eurotunnel in respect of the re-financing of the channel tunnel. [10114]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were United Kingdom relative export unit values at current rates of exchange(a) at the latest available date and (b) at the time of United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism. [9786]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply of 16 January 1996,Official Report, column 526 given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the same question.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent research has been initiated by his Department into early decommissioning of nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement. [10089]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has not initiated any research into the early decommissioning of nuclear power stations. However, my Department together with Nuclear Electric, is providing funding for the early decommissioning of the prototype advanced gas-cooled reactor at Windscale.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent research the Government have initiated into the use of robotics in the decommissioning of nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement. [10088]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have not initiated any research into the use of robotics in the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. However, I am advised that in 1993–94 the nuclear installations inspectorate identified the use of telerobotics as a nuclear safety research issue that the nuclear licensees should address. As a result, Scottish Nuclear, on behalf of the licensees, undertook research on telerobotics safety-related control and protection.

  Business Links
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to bring about a business link in East Lancashire. [10634]

  Mr. Richard Page
  The chairman of the business link national assessment panel had detailed discussions with the chairman of the East Lancashire training and enterprise council about its proposals for a business link in East Lancashire. Those proposals were considered by the assessment panel in December, which concluded that they needed to be developed further in conjunction with other partners.
  5
  The Government office for the north west has convened a series of meeting with ELTEC, the local chamber of commerce and the local authorities concerned. This has led to the establishment of a working group involving all partners and the Government Office, that is committed to developing an agreed bid for consideration by the assessment panel.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average number of clients held by personal business advisers in business links; and what is the largest and smallest number of clients. [10415]

  Mr. Page
  Our latest information indicates that the average case load of a personal business adviser is around 40 clients. Most have between 21. and 50; none are known to have more than 100.

  Resider and Rechar Programmes
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals to grant additional funds to the United Kingdom under the European Union Resider and Rechar 1994–1997 programmes were discussed at the management committee meeting of member states in December 1995; and if he will make a statement. [10422]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The committee's agenda included a Commission proposal to allocate an additional 60 mecu to the United Kingdom for Resider, Rechar, Retex and Konver together, for 1998 and 1999. These are programmes of European structural funds grant for designated areas which have lost jobs in, respectively, steel, coal, textiles and defence.

  The UK asked for a larger allocation. Before a decision is taken, the committee will meet again; the European Parliament is also being consulted.

  I plan to make a statement after the allocations for these and certain other similar programmes have been settled.

  British Coal
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list opencast deposits identified by British Coal on land in its ownership in north Wales; [10927]

  (2) if he will list the landholdings of British Coal in north Wales which are subject to sale currently; if he will list those land holdings of British Coal in north Wales which will be considered for sale in the future; and if he will give the current land use of all of these land holdings. [10926]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons details of official gifts received by Ministers in his Department are not available before 1994–95, as indicated in his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 146. [10178]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information in respect of gifts received by Ministers before April 1994 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Systematic Biological Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his Department's letter of 12 September 1995, what progress has been reported to Her Majesty's Government by the United Kingdom systematics forum, on its identification of priorities for systematic biological research. [8411]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The United Kingdom systematics forum published its "Review of 1994–95" on 6 October 1995 and produced a preliminary report, "Priorities in Systematic Research and Training" in September last year.

  I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Office of Science and Technology will be providing a further three years' funding to the systematics forum from 1 April this year, amounting to a total of £86,000. Since it was established in 1994, the forum has done much to foster closer communications within the community it serves, This new commitment will enable it to focus on devising a national strategy on priorities for systematics research.

  OST will explore integration of the forum into an existing learned society during this new funding period so that the links built within the systematics community are maintained.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10969]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative within my Department and its associated bodies since its introduction are as follows:

  £ thousand

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Staff costs

  Nil

  Nil

  111.5 (11.5)

  1163.4 (159.1)

  IT

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Other costs

  Nil

  Nil

  111.5 (11.5)

  122.4 (21.8)

  1Real costs in brackets.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10970]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No money has yet been spent by my Department on external consultants in the tendering process for projects under the private finance initiative.

  Forte Hotels
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to act under the Financial Services Act 1986 in respect of Granada group's decision to understate publicly its intention for the disposal of the Meridien and Exclusive hotels of Forte plc. [9808]
  7
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: Section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 provides that it is an offence for any person to seek to manipulate the market in or the price or value of any investments by issuing a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to he false or misleading. If the hon. Member has evidence of improper conduct, he should write to me.

  If the bid by Granada Group plc for Forte plc is successful, it is possible that any subsequent disposal or proposed disposal by Granada of assets acquired from Forte might be subject to examination under the merger control procedures of the Fair Trading Act 1973, depending on the nature of the particular disposal in question and of the acquirer.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a breakdown of the spending by his Department on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry; and how much has been spent on legal advice and for whom. [10223]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The amount so far spent by my Department on external advice in relation to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry is £293,870. The names of individuals and their legal advisers are confidential to them.

  Competitiveness
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" was modified by the results of any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [8668]

  (2) if "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"; and if he will publish the appraisal; [8666]

  (3) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead"; [8669]

  (4) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" were considered in any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [8667]

  Mr. Page
  The 1994 White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" was the first comprehensive audit of the UK's competitive position. The 1995 White Paper, "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" updated the analysis, and it will be reviewed and developed further in the competitiveness White Paper due to be published later this year.

  The White Papers have, analysed the main factors influencing competitiveness. They identified the primary responsibility of companies themselves to improve their competitive performance. They also outlined policies and initiatives across the whole of Government to help create the right framework and conditions to foster that improvement.
  8
  Against this background, the White Papers considered the relationship between environmental issues and competitiveness. The 1995 White Paper sets out the implications for business of the Government's commitment to sustainable development. It addresses the way that tax and regulatory policies are used to achieve environmental objectives and identifies the challenges and opportunities for business managers. There was no specific, separate written environmental appraisal of the White Papers themselves. It is a matter for each Government Department and individual company to consider and monitor the environmental implications of their activities in the normal way—including, where appropriate, the need for a written environmental appraisal.

  Responsibility for managing the competitiveness agenda within the Government now lies with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Office of Public Service in the Cabinet Office.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Warrants and Process (Transfer)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations his Department has received expressing concern over the proposed transfer of responsibility from the police to magistrates courts committees of the execution of warrants and the service of process; and how many of these have been received from members of police forces. [10985]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has been in consultation with representative bodies within the magistrates courts community and other interested parties, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, over the proposed transfer of responsibilities, which has now been postponed with a view to its taking effect on 1 April 1997. In addition to these consultations, my Department has received correspondence on the subject of the transfer from individual justices chief executives and clerks to magistrates courts committees, justices clerks, local authorities, the chairman of an area criminal justice liaison committee and interested private firms. I have also received representations from Members of Parliament for the Kirklees area, including the hon. Lady. My Department has received one letter from the Metropolitan police expressing concern over the progress of the transfer of responsibility.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10961]
  9
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  All expenditure on external consultancy has been incurred in the current financial year. Expenditure to date is (i) legal fees—nil, (ii) publicity costs—nil, (iii) accountancy fees—nil, (iv) management consultancy fees—£108,464.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's department what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10962]

  Mr. Evans
  All expenditure was incurred in the current financial year. Expenditure to date is (i) staff costs—£153,000, (ii) information technology—£1,500, (iii) other costs £3,000.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are in place to ensure that justice is done on the basis of accurate information in a court case where public interest immunity is claimed to suppress certain evidence; and if he will make a statement. [9498]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In each individual case, the authority for deciding claims relating to public interest immunity rests with the courts.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance he intends to issue to(a) departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arms-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9218]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer to the answer given by my right Hon. Friend, the Minister for Disabled People on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 417. I will ensure that my Department and any bodies for which it is responsible will be made fully aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will put on public display those gifts received by Ministers in his Department. [10161]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Gifts received by Ministers are not put on public display.

  Penguins (Falkland Islands)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the population change in Gentoo and Magellanic penguins in the Falkland Islands over the last 10 years. [10160]
  10
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There is insufficient recorded material from which to draw detailed conclusions on the state of the penguin populations in the Falkland Islands.

  A recent survey of Gentoo penguins indicates that there are approximately 65,000 breeding pairs which suggest a decline of around 10 per cent. over the last 10 years.

  An accurate estimate of the population of Magellanic penguins is more difficult. Figures based on recent study plots suggest a very approximate total of 300,000 breeding pairs, which could show a decrease of up to 30 per cent. over the past five years.

  Hong Kong and China
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong and Beijing. [8570]

  Mr. Hanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 January 1996, column 410]: I regret that the last paragraphs of my answer of 15 January were inadvertently omitted. The full answer is as follows

  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary, visited Hong Kong and China from 6 to 11 January.

  In Hong Kong he met the governor, members of the Legislative and Executive Councils, senior Hong Kong Government and British officials and business and community figures. This gave him an invaluable opportunity to hear at first hand the views and concerns of the people of Hong Kong about their future.

  My right hon. and learned Friend was warmly received in Peking and held frank and constructive discussions with President Jiang Zemin, Premier Li Peng, Vice Premier Qian Qichen, and the Director of the State Council Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Lu Ping. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's discussions gave him an opportunity to describe to Chinese leaders the mood in Hong Kong and to discuss with them ways of maintaining confidence there. We made substantial progress on several specific issues. The Chinese assured my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary of their commitment to a successful transition and to the preservation of a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong after 30 June 1997.

  We also agreed to develop further our bilateral links in all areas: political, economic and commercial. As part of this dialogue my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary registered our concerns over reports of human rights abuses and urged china to address these issues quickly and openly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Woodland Improvement Grant
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role the woodland improvement grant will play in encouraging coppicing for the purpose
  11
  of reducing the decline in the numbers of woodland butterflies and moths. [9322]

  Mr. Boswell
  The first projects eligible for the woodland improvement grant are those which encourage informal public recreation in woodlands. Further projects, which may include coppicing to enhance the nature conservation value of woodlands, will be considered in due course.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the treaty on straddling fish stocks; and highly migratory fish stocks; and what action has been taken to place limits on catches of(a) tuna and (b) swordfish which migrate through international waters and stocks of (i) flounder, (ii) halibut and (iii) other fish which straddle the territorial waters of different countries. [8246]

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Nations agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks was adopted by the conference on 4 August 1995. It opened for signature on 4 December 1995 and was signed on that date by 25 states, including the United Kingdom in respect of certain dependent territories. The EC and its member states have not yet completed the required internal procedures for signature.

  Much of the content of the agreement has to do with the establishment of regional fisheries organisations and their activities. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which the United Kingdom joined on 14 November 1995, adopted at its 1995 meeting further measures to limit the catches of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic and to allocate percentage national shares for the catch of north Atlantic swordfish. The North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation has adopted for 1996 a zero catch limit for yellowtail flounder and a total allowable catch of 27,000 tonnes for Greenland halibut on the Grand banks.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the latest estimate of farm income for(a) each standard region, (b) for England and (c) for the United Kingdom, together with the equivalent figures for the previous three years in constant prices, indicating the yearly percentage change and the cumulative percentage change in each case; and if he will make a statement; [9019]

  (2) if he will list the latest estimate of farm income together with the equivalent figures for the previous three years in constant prices, indicating the yearly percentage change and cumulative percentage change in each case; and if he will make a statement. [9020]

  Mr. Boswell
  The latest available estimates of total income from farming, covering years from 1990, for the 12
  United Kingdom, the four countries and each standard statistical region within England are as follows. The figures are presented in real terms, first in £m at 1990 prices and then as indices—1990=100. The latter set thus show cumulative percentage changes from 1990 and both allow easy calculation of annual changes. The figures have been derived from those shown in table 6.5 of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1994" and tables 5.2 and 5.3 of issues of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  A provisional estimate of total income from farming in 1995 for the United Kingdom will be issued by press release on 31 January and corresponding country data will be issued by the other agricultural departments. "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1995" and "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 11994–95", both to be published on 19 March, will provide further details, including English regional data for 1994.

  Total income from farming in real terms (as deflated by RPI): £ million 1990 prices

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  United Kingdom

  2,300

  2,174

  2,599

  3,531

  3,687

  England

  1,821

  1,701

  2,055

  2,775

  2,800

  Wales

  134

  131

  134

  209

  225

  Scotland

  212

  176

  218

  326

  398

  Northern Ireland

  134

  167

  194

  223

  265

  England regions

  North

  132

  128

  182

  228

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  240

  202

  230

  285

  n/a

  East Midlands

  336

  332

  317

  452

  n/a

  East Anglia

  397

  345

  363

  415

  n/a

  South East

  219

  220

  240

  428

  n/a

  South West

  164

  136

  299

  432

  n/a

  West Midlands

  171

  194

  253

  333

  n/a

  North West

  162

  144

  172

  201

  n/a

  Totals may not add owing to rounding.

  1 Provisional.

  Total income from farming in real terms (as deflated by RPI): Indices 1990=100

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  United Kingdom

  100.0

  94.5

  113.0

  153.5

  160.3

  England

  100.0

  93.4

  112.9

  152.4

  153.7

  Wales

  100.0

  97.4

  99.9

  155.7

  168.0

  Scotland

  100.0

  82.8

  103.0

  153.9

  187.9

  Norther Ireland

  100.0

  124.3

  144.1

  165.8

  197.6

  English regions

  North

  100.0

  97.2

  138.3

  172.8

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  100.0

  84.4

  95.9

  118.9

  n/a

  East Midlands

  100.0

  98.9

  94.4

  134.6

  n/a

  East Anglia

  100.0

  86.9

  91.3

  104.5

  n/a

  South-East

  100.0

  100.3

  109.4

  195.4

  n/a

  South-West

  100.0

  82.8

  182.0

  263.0

  n/a

  West Midlands

  100.0

  113.2

  147.7

  194.9

  n/a

  North-West

  100.0

  88.6

  106.0

  124.0

  n/a

  1Provisional.

  Live Animal Imports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to permit the importation of breeding cattle from North America through the port of Avonmouth. [9855]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The port of Avonmouth has applied for approval as a border inspection post—BIP—to handle imports of cattle from third countries including north America. EC inspectors have recently visited the port in order to assess its suitability as a BIP and their report is awaited.

HEALTH

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of patients dying while on the waiting list for bypass surgery,(a) nationally and (b) by region. [10748]

  Description

  Run by

  Number of calls

  Cost £

  Blood Donor line

  Managed by the Central

  78,516 (April to December

  33,074

  Office of Information for

  1995)

  the Department of Health

  Drinkline

  Drinkline (non-profit making

  44,000 (October 1993 to

  516,000 (DH funding for

  limited company)

  January 1996)

  1993–94–1995–96)

  Health Information Service

  NHS—regionally provided

  1,000,788 (April 1992 to

  8,113,170 (April 1992 to

  Service

  December 1995)

  March 1996 Includes all

  costs associated with

  establishing the service and

  in initially publicising its

  availability)

  Health Literature line (including the

  Managed by the Central

  255,885 (April to December

  108,026

  Organ Donor line)

  Office of Information for

  1995)

  the Department of Health

  National AIDS Helpline and National

  Network of Scotland Ltd.

  386,953 (April to December

  1,569,000 (estimated total

  Drugs Helpline

  (independent company

  1995)

  1995–1996 cost)

  contracted by the

  Department of Health)

  National AIDS Helpline

  Broadcasting Support Services

  4,200,514 (January 1990 to

  6,038,000

  and Network Scotland

  December 1994)

  (contracted by the

  Department of Health)

  Sexwise helpline

  Managed by the Central

  784,016 (April to December

  366,854

  Office of Information for

  1995)

  the Department of Health

  Committee safety medicines freephone

  Medicines Control Agency

  1,977 (January 1994 to

  7,510 (call costs only)

  December 1995)

  Details of other helpline services could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  Details of the helpline numbers are as listed:

  Blood Donor line: 0345 711 711

  Drinkline: O345 32 02 02

  Health Information Service: 0800 66 55 44

  Health Literature line: 0800 555 777

  National Drugs helpline: 0800 77 66 00

  National AIDS helpline: 0800 567 123

  Sexwise: 0800 28 29 30

  14
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Health (Dr. Mawhinney) gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 19 May 1994,Official Report, column 557.

  Helplines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the helplines, or schemes which include a helpline service, for which his Department provides any funding, stating which are(a) independent organisations, (b) run by his Department or agencies of his Department of (c) of another classification; how many calls each received in each of the last five years; and how much money each received from his Department in each of the last five years. [9800]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the eight main information lines and one run by the Medicines Control Agency is listed.
  Committee Safety Medicines: Dial the operator and ask for freephone CSM.

  Form AG1
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of his Department's form AG1. [9907]

  Mr. Malone
  Supplies of form AG1 are available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office in the normal way.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to making MRSA a notifiable disease; what representations he has received, and from whom, on this matter: what assessment he has made of the effect of the non-notifiability of MRSA on its recorded incidence; and if he will make a statement. [10269]

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the advantages of making MRSA a notifiable disease. [10594]

  Mr. Horam
  No representations that methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—MRSA—should be made a notifiable disease have been received in recent years.

  The statutory notification system requires doctors who are directly responsible for patient care—not laboratories—to notify diagnosed and suspected cases who are suffering from certain diseases. About 80 per cent. of people who acquire MRSA. do not develop any infection and are not therefore suffering from a disease. When MRSA infection does occur, it can take the form of many different diseases, ranging from trivial skin infections to pneumonia or septicaemia, all of which are more commonly due to other causes. MRSA infection cannot be diagnosed clinically but only by laboratory tests. Notification of clinically suspected cases of all these diseases would be wholly impracticable. Appropriate control measures are taken in hospitals when MRSA is identified—such control action is not dependent on whether or not MRSA is notifiable.

  Current data on the incidence of MRSA are compiled by the central public health laboratory of the Public Health Laboratory Service. The PHLS believes that its data on the incidence of MRSA are among the most complete of any country in the world.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to social services departments on the treatment of patients with MRSA discharged from hospital; and if he will make a statement. [10268]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department held a seminar in December 1995 on methicillin—resistant staphylococcus aureus in the community which was attended by representatives from social services departments: a further seminar is being planned. The Department intends to issue guidance shortly to social services departments about MRSA and to provide them with leaflets, which are currently being prepared, for distribution to nursing and residential homes.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's annual expenditure on(a) research into MRSA and (b) developing new antibiotics. [10598]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health is currently funding, through the regional research and development programme, two research projects totalling £46,000 per year into the detection and prevalence of methicillin—resistant staphylococcus aureus. It is also spending £2 million on studies on the surveillance and costs of hospital acquired infection including MRSA infections. The 16
  regional research and development programme includes many projects which involve antibiotics. Of these, two, totalling about £300,000 per year, are on research into antibiotics. There are also eight RHA-funded research projects relating to antibiotics totalling about £210,000 per year.

  About 20 per cent. of the NHS drugs bill goes into research and development of new drugs by the pharmaceutical industry and the industry in the United Kingdom is currently spending in excess of £1.5 billion. This includes research into antibiotics, some of which are intended specifically for use against MRSA.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service is conducting research into the genetics of MRSA and into the behaviour and virulence of different strains of MRSA, and is also co-operating with the pharmaceutical industry on testing new antibiotics.

  The MRC, which receives its grant-in-aid from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, is funding a research project costing £538,000 over five years into staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the severity of the problem of MRSA in(a) Britain and (b) France, Germany, Italy and the United States of America. [10596]

  Mr. Horam
  Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus was a considerable problem in British hospitals in the mid-1980s, then receded, but has increased again in the last two to three years. Data on incidents of MRSA are compiled by the central public health laboratory of the Public Health Laboratory Services—PHLS, which defines an incident as three or more patients with the same strain of the organism. About 80 per cent. of patients with MRSA are only carrying the organism and have no infection from it. In 1994, the PHLS recorded 1,081 incidents of MRSA and in the first six months of 1995 there were 750 incidents. Most of these incidents were short lived.

  Whilst it is clear from papers published in the medical literature that the other countries have problems with MRSA in some hospitals, the Department is not aware of any central collation of data on MRSA in any of these countries and we are unable to assess the severity of the problem there.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement outlining the department's policy on controlling the spread of MRSA. [10597]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's policy on the control of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in hospitals is contained in guidance published jointly by the Hospital Infection Society and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, circulated to the NHS in September 1994 under cover of EL(94)74 entitled "Improving the Effectiveness of the NHS".

  The Department also published guidance on the control of infection in hospitals in March 1995 under cover of HSG(95)10 "Hospital Infection Control". This includes new advice on the surveillance of MRSA. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's guidelines to health authorities or NHS hospital trusts on the number of fully medically supported intensive care beds to be available at any one time. [10320]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities and national health service trusts to determine the level of intensive care provision that is needed by their local populations.

  Mental Health Services
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the response from health authorities to his letter sent in August 1995 requesting information on the state of mental health services in each health authority; [10738]

  (2) if he will list the number of health authorities (a) providing a comprehensive mental health service, (b) who will be in a position to provide such a service if given sufficient investment by the end of 1995–96 and (c) who will not achieve it by the end of the current year. [10739]

  Mr. Bowis
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  North Mersey Community Health Trust
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the reduction in the management costs of the North Mersey community health trust will be redeployed into the trust's clinical services. [10712]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for North Mersey community national health service trust to decide. The hon. Member may wish to approach Mr. R. James, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in the year 1994–95, how many NHS prescriptions were dispensed for prescription-only medicines at the relevant standard charge which could have been purchased on private prescription at less than the relevant standard charge; [8620]

  (2) in the year 1994–95, how many prescriptions were dispensed at the relevant standard charge. [8621]

  Mr. Malone
  When an item is dispensed privately, the pharmacist may add a private dispensing fee to the cost of the medicine. The amount of that fee is at the pharmacist's discretion. It is not therefore possible to calculate the number of prescription items which would, if purchased as private prescriptions, cost less than the NHS prescription charge.

  In England in 1994–95, it is estimated that 50.7 million prescription items were charged at the point of dispensing.

  Quitline
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Quitline programme in combating teenage smoking. [9021]
  18
  Mr. Horam
  The Quitline telephone helpline which provides advice on smoking cessation for all age groups was launched as a Freefone number on 7 November 1995. The performance of the service in its first year is being carefully evaluated.

  Patient Transfers
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in 1995 had to be transferred to other hospitals because they could not be treated at their local hospital; and if he will indicate the trust to which these belonged; how many of these transfers arose from(a) a lack of beds and (b) a lack of suitable staff; how many of the patients died; and if he will make a statement. [10464]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantity of benzodiazepines was prescribed via community pharmacists in England and Wales in each of the last four years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9886]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information for England is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Number of prescription items dispensed for benzodiazepines: 1991 to 1994

  England

  Year

  Prescription Items (millions)

  1991

  15.7

  1992

  14.8

  1993

  14.3

  1994

  13.8

  The data are from the "Prescription Costs Analysis" (PCA), are for England only and are based on the number of prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the figures for disbursements by the Prescription Pricing Authority in England for each year since 1990 in respect of payments for drugs to dispensing doctors and drugs supplied by prescribing doctors in terms of(a) net ingredient cost, (b) discounted cost, (c) VAT, (d) container allowance, (e) dispensing fee, (f) on cost and (g) in total; and if he will make a statement. [9888]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the actual payments, made direct by family health services authorities to doctors in England is shown in the table.
  19

  Year

  Net ingredient cost £ million

  Net ingredient cost less discount £ million

  On cost allowance £ million

  Percentage to basic price

  Fees £ million

  Container allowance £ million

  Total payment oxygen £ million

  VAT £ million

  Total cost £ million

  1990

  163.4

  153.8

  17.2

  0.0

  30.4

  1.3

  0.0

  23.1

  225.8

  1991

  186.2

  175.0

  19.5

  0.0

  33.6

  1.4

  0.1

  29.7

  259.2

  1992

  219.3

  206.2

  23.0

  0.0

  35.1

  1.5

  0.1

  36.0

  301.9

  1993

  255.6

  240.6

  26.8

  0.0

  36.7

  1.6

  0.1

  41.8

  347.5

  1994

  288.7

  271.9

  30.3

  0.0

  38.6

  1.6

  0.1

  46.7

  389.2

  1. The information was obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  2. The total cost is the remuneration and reimbursement paid for prescriptions dispensed by doctors and for personally administered items. This is calculated from the net ingredient cost of drugs appliances and chemical reagents dispensed, less a discount calculated from the discount scale, plus an on-cost allowance, a dispensing fee per prescription, a container allowance per prescription, and a VAT allowance where applicable. Payments are made in accordance with Paragraph 44 of the General Medical Services Statement on Fees and Allowances.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated; [10054]

  (2) what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10066]

  Mr. Horam
  My Department's policy is not to gold plate European Community directives by the addition of unnecessary. burdens when implementing them in the United Kingdom. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is undertaken by his Department(a) directly and (b) indirectly by financing research elsewhere into combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder; and if he will indicate for (b) the organisations involved and the total funding provided. [10538]

  Mr. Bowis
  No such research is being undertaken by the Department of Health. The main agency through which the Government supports biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision is made by his Department for the treatment of combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder; [10536]

  (2) what provision is made by his Department for respite care for sufferers of combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder. [10539]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of health authorities to assess the needs of their population and to secure, through contracting, services to meet those needs.
  20
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of ex-service(a) men and (b) women suffering from combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder. [10537]

  Mr. Bowis
  No such estimate has been made.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of antibiotics were administered in Britain in 1970, 1980 and in each year from 1990 to 1995. [10595]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information for England is shown in the table. Information relating to Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Number of prescriptions dispensed for antibiotics

  England

  Year

  Prescriptions (millions)

  1980

  32.8

  1990

  39.8

  1991

  43.7

  1992

  43.4

  1993

  47.7

  1994

  45.8

  Notes:

  1. Antibiotics are those preparations in the British National Formulary [issue 26, September 1993] therapeutic group 5.1—antibacterial drugs.

  2. The data for 1980 and 1990 are not consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1980 and 1990 are based on fees and on a sample of 1 in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures from 1991 are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Treliske Hospital
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency referrals by general practitioners at Treliske hospital, Cornwall, the hospital was unable to admit on the weekend of 6 and 7 January. [10462]
  21
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact John Williams, chairman of Royal Cornwall Hospitals national health service trust for details.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue further regulations in respect of the crowning and capping of teeth on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [10707]

  Mr. Malone
  I announced proposals for the reform of the general dental service on 5 April 1995,Official Report, columns 1214–15. One of the measures proposed was the introduction of more rigorous prior approval procedures to ensure that the general dental service provides only those treatments which are clinically essential and for which there are no clinically acceptable, less costly, alternatives. We will implement the reforms in due course.

  Manchester Health Commission
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what submissions were made to the Under-Secretary at his meeting on 17 January with representatives of the Manchester Health Commission and the city's community health councils; what response he gave; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [10997]

  Mr. Horam
  Representatives of Manchester health authority and the three Manchester community health councils gave a verbal account of the problems affecting health services in the city, supporting their case with written evidence. I listened sympathetically to their views and undertook to consider any potential solutions.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10954]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 15 January at column 337. Tenderers bear their own costs. Further information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees,(ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10953]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 9 January at column 71.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number and percentage of the population of(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over in each of the past five years; and what are the expected figures in each of the next 20 years. [11095]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available information is shown in the table.

  England and Wales

  Men aged 65 and over

  Women aged 60 and over

  Year

  Thousands

  As percentage of total male population

  Thousands

  As percentage of total female population

  Estimates

  1990

  3,225

  13.0

  6,179

  23.8

  1991

  3,257

  13.0

  6,189

  23.7

  1992

  3,283

  13.1

  6,184

  23.6

  1993

  3,306

  13.1

  6,173

  23.5

  1994

  3,323

  13.1

  6,150

  23.4

  Projections (1992 based)

  1995

  3,355

  13.2

  6,144

  23.3

  1996

  3,384

  13.2

  6,140

  23.2

  1997

  3,409

  13.3

  6,141

  23.1

  1998

  3,427

  13.3

  6,146

  23.1

  1999

  3,445

  13.3

  6,155

  23.1

  2000

  3,470

  13.3

  6,160

  23.0

  2001

  3,499

  13.4

  6,150

  22.9

  2002

  3,531

  13.4

  6,162

  22.9

  2003

  3,567

  13.5

  6,199

  23.0

  2004

  3,603

  13.6

  6,253

  23.1

  2005

  3,637

  13.7

  6,306

  23.3

  2006

  3,657

  13.7

  6,363

  23.4

  2007

  3,696

  13.8

  6,507

  23.9

  2008

  3,757

  14.0

  6,620

  24.3

  2009

  3,832

  14.2

  6,709

  24.5

  2010

  3,904

  14.5

  6,787

  24.8

  2011

  3,977

  14.7

  6,855

  25.0

  2012

  4,133

  15.2

  6,918

  25.2

  2013

  4,253

  15.6

  6,986

  25.4

  2014

  4,349

  16.0

  7,055

  25.6

  2015

  4,431

  16.2

  7,119

  25.8

  2016

  4,504

  16.5

  7,192

  26.0

  Abortions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions in total have now been performed in England and Wales under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; how many and what percentage of that total were performed in an emergency to save the life of the mother; and if he will give a breakdown by region of that total and the relevant figures and percentages. [6796]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The total number of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act in England and Wales on residents and non-residents from 1968 to 19941 was 4,054,340. During this period 140 abortions were performed in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary, so as to save the life of the woman. A breakdown by region of the total and the relevant figures and percentages, excluding data for 1968 and 1969, is in the table.
  23

  Number of abortions 1970–19941,2

  Health authority of usual residence3

  Total number of abortions

  Performed in emergency (F of 5)4

  Percentage of total abortions

  England

  3,140,723

  100

  0.00

  Wales

  151,320

  7

  0.00

  Northern

  147,389

  6

  0.00

  Yorkshire

  189,160

  6

  0.00

  Trent

  245,489

  9

  0.00

  East Anglia

  97,728

  6

  0.01

  NW Thames

  379,451

  8

  0.00

  NE Thames

  373,285

  11

  0.00

  SE Thames

  294,696

  7

  0.00

  SW Thames

  234,336

  3

  0.00

  Wessex

  143,269

  9

  0.01

  Oxford

  144,154

  4

  0.00

  South Western

  160,792

  9

  0.01

  West Midlands

  351,747

  9

  0.00

  Mersey

  141,916

  6

  0.00

  North Western

  237,311

  7

  0.00

  Non-residents

  683,837

  3

  0.00

  Total

  3,975,880

  110

  0.00

  1All data for 1994 are provisional.

  2Figures for 1968–69 are not held on a comparable basis.

  31994 figures based on 1993 RHA boundaries. Other boundary changes have not been reflected in the figures.

  4Abortions performed under statutory grounds 5 (1970–April 1991) and F (April 1991–present)—i.e. where in the case of emergency it was necessary to save the life of a woman.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning annually resulting in death and injury are the result of a work-related incident. [9709]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.
  Statistics on incidents of carbon monoxide-CO-poisoning resulting from work-related incidents are not available.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground (Accidents)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) minor injuries were suffered by (i) passengers and (ii) employees of London Underground in each of the last 10 years. [8111]

  Mr. Norris
  The information, which has been provided by London Underground Ltd. on the basis of accidents reported by them to HM railway inspectorate, is set out in the following tables. Figures are not available for 1986.

  Injuries on London Underground 1987–1995

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Minor

  A. Passengers

  1987

  82

  25

  2,597

  1988

  59

  32

  2,999

  1989

  53

  32

  2,839

  1990

  35

  48

  1,915

  1991

  37

  45

  1,198

  1992

  32

  32

  1,491

  1993

  58

  89

  2,004

  1994

  55

  87

  1,980

  1995

  42

  82

  2,262

  24

  Injuries on London Underground 1987–1995

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Minor

  B. LUL employees

  1987

  2

  13

  369

  1988

  1

  6

  284

  1989

  0

  6

  348

  1990

  6

  17

  339

  1991

  2

  26

  474

  1992

  1

  17

  551

  1993

  0

  46

  506

  1994

  2

  41

  440

  1995

  1

  86

  354

  Notes:

  1 Fatal injury figures cover (for passengers) all non-medical related incidents including suicides and accidents involving trespassers, and (for employees) include accidents involving contractors working for LUL. Minor injuries exclude cases involving only minor cuts and bruises.

  2 1995 figures do not include data for December.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the costs per day of security staff and other security measures employed at the Newbury bypass site; [9345]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the likely delay caused by action directed to prevent the building of the Newbury bypass; [9346]

  (3) if Her Majesty's Government will now carry out a new cost benefit analysis of the Newbury bypass. [9344]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what are the costs per day of security staff and other security measures employed at the Newbury Bypass; if the Government will now carry out a new cost benefit analysis of the bypass; and what estimate has he made of the likely delay caused by action directed to prevent the building of the bypass.
  There are no figures available for security costs at this early stage; costs will in any event vary from day to day.
  The economic evaluation shows the western bypass to be very good value for money. We will not be carrying out another COBA.
  We do not expect the protest action to delay the scheme significantly. The target for completion is Summer 1998.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, columns 500–01, on what date compensation was first paid under the Newbury bypass compulsory purchase order; how much compensation has been paid to date; what negotiations with landowners are expected to be concluded; and what is the estimated total amount of compensation to be paid under the order. [10650]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  25
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the A34 Newbury Bypass.
  The first payment of compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the Newbury Bypass was made on 17 May 1994. To date the Agency has paid just over £1.2m compensation from an estimated total land expenditure figure of £8.25m.
  It is impossible to predict with any certainty when all land compensation negotiations will be concluded. Many claimants prefer to wait until the road is built and operational before submitting their claims for disturbance and injurious affection.

  Road Scheme Protests (Cost)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to carry out a new cost-benefit analysis of the Newbury bypass to take account of increases in the costs of the road; [10439]

  (2) what were the total security and legal costs that resulted from protests against the building of the M 11 through residential areas; [10433]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of the additional security costs at the Newbury bypass site on the cost-benefit analysis calculations prepared for the road scheme; [10440]

  (4) what were the total security and legal costs that resulted from protests against the building of the motorway through Twyford down. [10432]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the costs of security at Twyford Down; the effects of the additional cost of security at Newbury on the cost benefit analysis for the scheme, the total security and legal costs resulting from protests against the M11, and what plans there are to carry out a new cost benefit analysis of the Newbury Bypass following the increase in the costs of the road.
  The legal and security costs resulting from protests at Twyford Down amounted to £3.9M (including VAT).
  Costs associated with the additional site security element required to complete the Newbury Bypass cannot be established at this early stage. The final outcome will depend on the level of protest action. But given that the present value benefits of the scheme are estimated as being between £83M and £150M, the additional cost would not have any significant effects on the cost benefits of the scheme.
  The security and legal costs resulting from protests against the Al2 Hackney to M11 Link Road were in the order of £10M.
  We have no plans to carry out a new cost benefit analysis of the Newbury Bypass. Cost benefit analysis are carried out as part of the decision making process for the road schemes. In this case they showed that the scheme is very good value for money.

  Road Repairs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Highways Agency to have completed its computerised road repair database. [9334]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency operates a number of computerised databases which contain information on road repairs. Further improvements to these systems are being developed.

  School Buses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve safety measures on double-decker school buses. [9896]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Traffic and Transport Advice
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, column 48, if he will list the advice on traffic and transport matters and its legal status issued by his Department in the last year. [9898]

  Mr. Norris
  Most of the advice the Department of Transport issues each year to local authorities on traffic and transport matters is not statutorily binding but is concerned with the dissemination of good practice.

  The only binding advice issued to local authorities in 1995 originated from the Highways Agency, and concerned new or revised standards for trunk roads and motorways. The agency requires local authorities acting as its agents to comply with these standards. The following documents were published in this category:
  THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES.

  BD 41/94: Reinforced Clay Brickwork Retaining Walls of Pocket Type and Grouted Cavity Type.

  BD 42/94: Design of Embedded Retaining Walls of Pocket Type and Grouted Cavity Type Construction.

  BD 44/95: Assessment of Concrete Highway Bridges and Structures.

  BD 53/95: Inspections and Records for Road Tunnels.

  BD 57/95: Design for Durability.

  BD 58/94: External and Unbonded Prestressing.

  BD 62/94: As Built, Operational and Maintenance Records for Highway Structures.

  BD 63/94: Inspection of Highway Structures.

  HD 26/94 Amendment No.1: Flexible Composite Pavements.

  HD 27/94 Amendment No. 1: Porous Asphalt on Heavily Trafficked Roads.

  HD 31/94 Amendment No 1: Maintenance of Bituminous Roads.

  HD 35/95: Technical Information (on the use of reclaimed materials).

  SD 10/95: The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations: Requirements for Health and Safety File.

  TD 41/45: Vehicular Access to All-Purpose Trunk Roads.

  TD 42/95: The Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions.

  TD 45/94: Motorway Incident Detection Automatic Signalling (MIDAS).

  TD 46/94: Motorway Signalling.

  Volume 11 Amendments: Environmental Assessment.

  THE MANUAL OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY WORKS

  Volume 0: Model Contract Document for Highway Works—England. 1994 Edition.

  Volume 1: Specification for Highways Works—1994 Edition.

  Volume 2: Notes for Guidance on the Specification for Highway Works—1994 Edition.

  Volume 3: Highway Construction Details—1994 Edition.

  Volume 4: Bill of Quantities for Highways Works—1994 Edition.

  27
  THE TRUNK ROAD MAINTENANCE MANUAL

  Volume 1: Amendment number 5.

  Volume 2: Amendment number 3.

  Volume 3: Amendment number 1.

  The following non-binding advice was issued by the Department of Transport to local authorities on traffic and transport matters in 1995:

  Local Authority Circular 1/95—Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement outside London.

  Local Authority Circular 2/95—Transport Policies and Programme

  Submissions for 1996–97.

  TPP Submissions for 1996–97—Guidance Notes.

  TPP Submissions for 1996–97—Information Required on Individual Highway Structural Maintenance Schemes.

  TPP Submissions for 1996–97—Supplementary Guidance Notes on the Package Approach.

  TPP Submission for 1996–97—The Local Government Review.

  The Local Government Review—Local Authority Transport Responsibilities.

  PPG13 A Guide to Better Practice (joint with the Department of the Environment).

  Circular Roads 1/95—Traffic Signal and Speed Camera Signing.

  Circular Roads 2/95—Deregulation: The Control of Dogs on Roads Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1995; and Advice on Designating Roads. All Roads within Geographical Areas.

  Circular Roads 3/95—Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England.

  Local Transport Note 1/95—The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings.

  Local Transport Note 2/95—The Design of Pedestrian Crossings.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/95—Speed Limiter Signs—A Guide to Good Practice.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/95—Raised Rib markings.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/95—Cycle Routes.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/95—The "SCOOT" Urban Traffic Control System.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/95—Parking for Disabled People.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/95—Pedestrian Crossings—Assessment and Design.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 7/95—Traffic Islands for Speed Control.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/95—Traffic Models for Cycling.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/95—Cycling Bibliography.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 10/95—Traffic Calming Bibliography.

  Better Places through Bypasses: Report of the Bypass Demonstration Project.

  Working Drawings for Traffic Signs Vol. II and III.

  Road Safety Education in Schools—Good Practice Guidelines.

  Re-statement of Recommended Specification for Buses used to Operate Local Services.

  The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges:

  BA 43/94: Strengthening, Repair and Monitoring of Post Tensioned Concrete Bridge Decks.

  BA 51/95: Assessment of Concrete Structures Affected by Steel Corrosion.

  BA 53/94: Bracing Systems and the Use of U Frames in Steel Highway Bridges.

  BA 57/95: Design for Durability

  BA 58/94: External and Unbonded Prestressing.

  BA 63/94: Inspection of Highway Structures.

  28

  HA 44/91 Amendment No.1: Earthworks—design and Preparation of Contract Documents.

  HA 66/95: Environmental Barriers—Technical Requirements.

  HA 70/94: Construction of Highway Earthworks.

  HA 71/95: The Effects of Highway Construction on Flood Plains.

  HA 72/94: Use and Limitations of Ground Penetrating Radar for

  Pavement Assessment.

  HA 73/95: Site Investigations for Highway Works on Contaminated Land.

  HA 74/95: Design and Construction of Lime Stabilised Capping.

  HA 75/95: Trunk Roads and Archaeological Mitigation.

  SA 4/95: The Introduction of the Manual of Contract Documents

  for Highway Works.

  TA 66/95: Police Observation Platforms on Motorways.

  TA 67/95: Providing for Cyclists.

  Rail Freight Services
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what due diligence processes his Department has undertaken in relation to the Wisconsin Central and Loadhaul/Omnitrax bids for the British Rail Freight businesses. [9916]

  Mr. Watts
  All bids were evaluated in detail by British Rail and its professional advisers, and then discussed with my Department before a preferred purchaser was selected.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway freight grants were granted in each year since 1987; and what was their total value in each year. [10865]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government have awarded 28 railway freight facilities grants since 1987. The value of the awards were as follows:

  1987: £2,595,810

  1988: £651,473

  1989: £4,145,985

  1990: £765,000

  1991: £1,771,000

  1992: £7,601,500

  1993: £403,000

  1994: £2,911,720

  1995: £7,348,219

  The full list of awards can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of freight grants in encouraging the transfer of goods from road to rail. [10880]

  Mr. Watts
  More than 200 schemes have benefited from these grants at a cost of £90 million, removing more than 3 million lorry journeys per year from the roads.

  Socially Necessary Rail Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail services in England and Wales he plans to designate as socially necessary; and if he will make a statement. [10085]
  29
  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the Franchising Director. He considers the services to be specified in passenger service requirements on a franchise-by-franchise basis. When setting passenger service requirements he is required by his instructions and guidance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider each service individually, taking account of all surrounding circumstances. Where services are essential but unprofitable to run, the Franchising Director will set the PSR close to or at the level of the British Rail timetable in operation at the time. Where a train is exceptionally lightly used and is not an essential service he may omit it from the PSR where he considers that its inclusion would not provide value for money. He has specified a number of socially necessary but uneconomic services in the PSRs that have so far been finalised.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimated cost for the complete refurbishment of the west coast main line between London and Glasgow. [9926]

  Mr. Watts
  The overall cost of the west coast main line core investment programme has been estimated at about £1 billion.

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport where the signalling technology proposed for the modernisation of the west coast main line is currently installed; and what assessment he has made of its operational liability. [10309]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that in-cab signalling technology is currently employed in differing forms in various parts of the world, but is not identical to the system planned for the west coast main line. For this reason, Railtrack intends to let further development contracts for the signalling system during the first quarter of this year and expects that a reliable signalling system can be developed within the time necessary for the modernisation works.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, column 29, what is the budgeted expenditure for 1996–97 for the employment of consultants and other advisers in the Officer of Passenger Rail Franchising. [9942]

  Mr. Watts
  The budget has not been finalised. It will be published in the transport report in due course.

  A590, Cumbria
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the High and Low Newton improvements on the A590 in Cumbria; and how much has been spent to date in preparations, including land purchase. [10094]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my right hon. Friend.
  30
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Jopling, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the High and Low Newton improvements on the A590 in Cumbria.
  You will have seen from the Secretary of State's announcement on the Road Programme on 28 November that this scheme has been included in the main programme but against a background of continued pressure on public spending, I am unable to give you a firm start date. All I can say is that it will be brought forward as quickly as resources and statutory procedures allow.
  To date preparation costs total £889,400 in addition to lands costs of £230,000.

  Motorway Noise
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to use porous asphalt on the areas of the M4, between junctions 5 and 8, which are being resurfaced. [10193]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the use of porous asphalt for resurfacing a section of the M4 between junctions 5 and 8.
  Resurfacing of the M4 between junctions 5 and 8 is being undertaken using a conventional hot rolled asphalt surface similar to that originally laid on this section of motorway,
  There are statutory obligations which require the Highways Agency to provide noise attenuation measures but these relate only to new or substantially altered roads. Maintenance can only be undertaken in the most cost effective way. Although I recognise that porous asphalt surfacing does cut down the noise generated by vehicle tyres it is significantly more expensive to provide, requires special highway drainage, costs more to maintain and has a shorter life than hot rolled asphalt.
  Porous asphalt was not therefore considered suitable as a replacement for the existing surface for the M4.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to use major works on motorways to reduce the impact of motorway noise on nearby homes. [10183]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the use of major works on motorways to reduce the impact of motorway noise on nearby homes.
  There is a statutory requirement to consider the impact of noise on nearby homes only in the case of works involving the construction of a new road or of improvements which alter the line or level of an existing road. It is Departmental policy to regard this as covering the widening of motorways. In such cases, the scheme will include appropriate measures designed to mitigate noise and other environmental impacts. In the case of other roadworks such as minor improvements and structural maintenance which have no subsequent effect on the position of traffic relative to adjacent properties there is no requirement for such impacts to be reviewed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he encourages the use of porous asphalt to reduce noise pollution near motorways. [10184]
  31
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the use of porous asphalt to reduce noise near motorways.
  The Highways Agency has developed with industry a general specification to permit the use of porous asphalt. Its adoption is encouraged where conditions are suitable and where the benefits can be shown to outweigh the higher costs associated with its use.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new stations have been opened on the rail network in the last three years; and what estimate he has made of the number to be opened on the railway system during the next three years. [9946]

  Mr. Watts
  Twenty-two new stations have been opened on the rail network since January 1993. There are plans for 17 new stations to be opened over the period 1996 to 1998.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish for each British Rail region and for British Rail as a whole for each of the last available three years(a) the total number of railway stations and halls and (b) the total number of such stations and halls with ticket sales offices, indicating (b) as a percentage of (a) in each case. [8917]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is not available for each British Rail region. The information requested at(a) for BR as a whole is as follows:

  1992–93: 2,482 stations

  1993–94: 2,493 stations

  1994–95: 2,506 stations

  The information requested at (b) is available only for 1994–95. Of the 2,506 stations, 1,316 or 53 per cent. had ticket sales offices.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many chief executives there have been at the Driving Standards Agency in the last five years. [10485]

  Mr. Norris
  Prior to the current chief executive who joined DSA in April 1995 there have been two substantive DSA chief executives in the last five years.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the salary of the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency is linked to the performance of the agency. [10486]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the loss of the Driving Standards Agency's chartermark will affect the chief executive's salary. [10487]

  Mr. Norris
  The recent loss of the charter mark by DSA was mainly due to the fact that car driving test waiting times were exceeding the DSA service standard, and DSA was also failing to meet certain other customer service targets such as speed of telephone answering.32
  The chief executive's salary partly depends on achievement of such standards and targets, and will be reduced as a result of their non-achievement.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he is taking to improve service levels at the Driving Standards Agency following the recent loss of the charter mark award; [10490]

  (2) what plans he has to address service problems at the Driving Standards Agency; [10489]

  (3) if he will instruct the Driving Standards Agency to improve its telephone system. [10694]

  Mr. Norris
  I have reviewed the situation at DSA and authorised the following actions to improve service levels.The recruitment of 25 per cent. additional staff to increase staff numbers on the telephones and the installation of new technology phone systems which distribute calls to the booking clerks more efficiently.
  Recruitment and training of additional contract examiners to reduce test waiting times. These are being taken on at an average of 10 per month.
  Steps to reduce the number of short notice test cancellations, including measures to achieve reductions in staff sick absence. A new compensation code for candidates whose tests have been cancelled at short notice has been implemented.
  Improvement in external communications with the introduction of an external newsletter and a range of other measures.
  The implementation of customer satisfaction tracking later this year and other new systems to improve the handling of complaints.

  Heavy Vehicles (Testing)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many buses in the Greater Manchester area failed safety tests in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; [10318]

  (2) how many heavy goods vehicles were tested in the north-west region on emission standards; and how many of them were (a) prohibited and (b) prosecuted. [10319]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on the number of heavy goods vehicles tested on emission standards in the North West and how many were prohibited and prosecuted. Your other question asked how many buses in the Greater Manchester area failed safety tests in 1992, 1993, and 1994.
  Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are tested for emissions standard as part of their annual test. Details of the number tested in the North West Region and the percentage of those which failed on smoke emission are shown in Table 1. Vehicles which fail this part of the test would not be prohibited but would be required to rectify the fault before a test certificate was awarded.
  Emissions are also checked as part of the HGV spot checks for roadworthiness that are carried out throughout the year. The Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) has no single enforcement area comprising the North West "region", it is covered by 3 VI Enforcement Areas. Smoke emission checks were carried out on a total of 2,968 HGVs of which 73 (2.46%) were issued with prohibitions. Prohibitions can only be removed when the vehicle has been rectified and inspected again by VI to show that it is fit for service. Prosecution for emission offences is reserved for very serious neglect and for serial offenders. Details of the number of prosecutions for emissions as a result of

  33
  routine spot checks can only be provided at disproportionate cost. There were no prosecutions following last year's "blitz" checks on HGVs in the North West.
  Details of the number of buses which failed their annual test in the Greater Manchester area are shown below.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total number tested

  2,861

  3,868

  4,357

  Total number failed

  825

  756

  863

  Number of HGVs tested and percentage failed on smoke emission: North West

  1994–95

  VI HGV testing station

  Tested

  Percentage failed

  Carlisle

  3,733

  1.7

  Milnthorpe

  3,065

  2.4

  Barrow

  529

  1.7

  Kirkham

  8,325

  1.8

  North Manchester

  10,604

  1.6

  South Manchester

  12,317

  2.0

  Simonswood

  12,828

  0.52

  Bromborough

  2,651

  0.9

  Wrexham

  5,416

  1.9

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the profits of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company for the years from 1989 to 1995. [10330]

  Mr. Norris
  These are matters for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Details can be found in its annual reports and accounts for the years concerned.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representation Her Majesty's Government have on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. [10331]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Al Gateshead Western Bypass
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of properties compulsorily purchased by the Highways Agency in the Gateshead area from April 1994 to date in connection with the Agency's proposed Al Gateshead western bypass; and what has been the total cost of the purchases. [10555]

  Mr. Watts
  Since April 1994, nine properties have been purchased at a cost of £1.6 million. They have been purchased under statutory blight provisions which enables affected owner-occupiers to require the Department to buy their property in advance. The question of compulsory purchase does not arise.

  Royal. Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport where the royal train is kept when it is not in use; and how many times it was used by(a) the Queen, (b) the Prince of Wales and (c) other members of the royal family in the last 12 months. [10639]
  34
  Mr. Watts
  The royal train is kept at a secure rail depot in Buckinghamshire when it is not in use. During 1995 the train was used eight times by Her Majesty the Queen, 14 times by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and on 10 other occasions by members of the royal family.

  Road Building
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy when road contractors are ahead of schedule and the new work required is dependent on the allocation from the next financial year. [10488]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the policy when road contractors are ahead of schedule and the new work required is dependent on the allocation from the new financial year.
  Road building activity is governed by the terms of commercial contracts between the Highways Agency and road contractors. Within this framework, it is incumbent upon the Agency to manage its financial affairs in such a way that requirements arising from the annuality of Government accounting are met.

  M62 Relief Road
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new tenancies and on what terms have been granted by the Highways Agency or those acting on its behalf in the Bury, South constituency since the announcement of the cancellation of the M62 relief road. [10938]

  Mr. Watts
  No new tenancies have been granted by the Highways Agency's managing agents following my announcement of the withdrawal of the M62 relief road from the trunk roads programme. Twelve tenancies which had previously been secured by payment of deposits have come into effect since my announcement. In all these cases, the tenants have been granted one-year fixed-term agreements.

  Seat Belts and Child Seats
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answers of 29 November 1995,Official Report, column 752, what progress he has made on seat belt regulations and child seat concessions. [10925]

  Mr. Norris
  I intend to lay the regulations before the House in early February.

  British Bus
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to investigate the activities of British Bus. [10937]

  Mr. Norris
  None, other than the normal monitoring of bus companies' operations by the Traffic Commissioners.

  Bicycles (Light Emitting Diode Lights)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ban the use of LED lights on bicycles. [11052]
  35
  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to ban the use of LED lights on bicycles. A recent public consultation exercise was carried out asking for views on prohibiting the use of non-approved lights on bicycles. We are currently analysing the responses.

  Heathrow Flight Paths
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what factors led to the change in the main easterly departure flight path from Heathrow via Dover in the early 1990s [10827]

  (2) what inquiries about the main routing of Heathrow air traffic to the east were received by the Civil Aviation Authority prior to the change in the main easterly departure flight path from Heathrow towards Dover; [10829]

  (3) what is his responsibility in respect of setting flight paths from Heathrow; [10826]

  (4) if he will restore the main easterly departure flight path from Heathrow via Dover to its former line; and whether he will make a statement; [10830]

  (5) what efforts were made to consult affected local communities about the change made in the early 1990s in the main easterly departure flight path from Heathrow towards Dover. [10828]

  Mr. Norris
  The main easterly departure route from Heathrow towards Dover has remained unchanged for over 25 years, apart from minor but essential adjustments from time to time to compensate for movement in the position of magnetic north. At the present time, the position of magnetic north is decreasing by about 7.2 minutes a year in relation to true north and points in south-east England. This departure route has used a track of 287 deg. to the relevant navigational beacon since 19 August 1993, when it was adjusted from a track of 288 deg. to compensate for magnetic drift since the previous such adjustment made in 1986.

  The Secretary of State has taken responsibility for the routes taken by departing aircraft from Heathrow up to an altitude of 4000ft. Aircraft using this particular route must attain this altitude before reaching the area of Norbury in south London, but in practice most do so much nearer the airport. Once an aircraft has reached 4,000ft. it may be vectored off the route by air traffic control on to a more direct heading to its destination. This long standing practice is essential for the efficient management of air space.

  Car Ownership (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the projected increase in car ownership in the Greater Manchester area over the next five years. [11037]

  Mr. Norris
  Car ownership in Greater Manchester is predicted to increase by between 6.5 per cent. and 10.5 per cent. over the next five years, depending mainly on the growth in the local economy. This represents an additional 56,000 to 96,000 cars owned. The forecast is based on census data. The 1991 census showed that households in Greater Manchester owned 814,000 cars.

  Central Railways plc
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 15 January,Official Report, column 403, what plans he has to ensure that, in the event of a proposal from Central Railways plc to re-develop the central railway being deemed of national significance, Parliament will be adequately informed of the relevant national issues. [10048]

  Mr. Watts
  The documents to be deposited with Parliament in this event include a briefing note by the Department. We would expect to deal with relevant national issues in that note and in opening the debate.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that before any application from Central Railways plc to re-develop the central railway under the Transport and Works Act 1992 is submitted to Parliament(a) the application fully complies with the Act in relation to the funding of blight and (b) that Central Railways plc produces conclusive and irrefutable evidence that it can fully fund the inquiry process. [10049]

  Mr. Watts
  The Transport and Works Act rules require applicants to provide concise details of their proposals for funding the cost of acquiring blighted land within the meaning of section 149 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If Central Railway plc were unable to meet its statutory obligations to acquire such land, the application would fail. Similarly, if it were unable to finance the inquiry it would be forced to withdraw the application.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that any application made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in regard to the central railway submitted by Central Railways plc complies with all the requirements of the Act with particular reference to the submission of adequate information including maps of the proposed route at a scale of not less than 1:2500 before the application may be placed before Parliament and that local authorities affected will be consulted in this process. [10046]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering applications by Central Railway plc for partial, conditional or absolute waivers from compliance with certain application requirements under the Transport and Works Act rules. If we judge that local authorities should be consulted before reaching a decision, we will do so.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from local authorities along the route of the proposed central railway about the likely compliance of the proposals to be made by Central Railways plc with the requirements of the Transport and Works Act 1992. [10045]

  Mr. Watts
  We have received a number of representations. These will be taken into account in considering the applications by Central Railway plc for waivers from compliance with certain requirements of the Transport and Works Act rules.

  Transport and Works Act 1992
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 require the submission of a statement to justify a proposal made under the Act in relation to national planning or transport policy or economic or technical considerations. [10047]

  Mr. Watts
  There is no requirement for a statement in relation to national planning or transport policy, but Parliament has the opportunity to consider the case in principle for any application judged to be of national significance. Any applicant for a works order involving compulsory land acquisition would need to be able to demonstrate that the project is technically feasible and financially viable, and that the public benefits of the proposals outweigh any private disbenefits before the order is approved.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated; [10055]

  (2) what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10065]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department's policy is not to gold plate EC directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to ban the use of bull bars; and if he will make a statement. [11064]

  Mr. Norris
  I recently met Neil Kinnock of the European Commission. It was agreed that the best way forward was for the Commission to bring forward a proposal for an amendment to the existing external projections directive. This would specifically address bull bars and help remove obstacles to effective national action. The initiative now rests with the Commission and we will be urging them to announce their plans as soon as possible.

  Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his letter G/PSO/26593/95 of 15 December, what response he has made to summary point 8 of the report by Dr. Martin Angel of Southampton in respect of the expedition of the provision and funding of waste facilities in ports. [8413]
  38
  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 1 November 1995,Official Report, column 309.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that direct image transmission from site is installed on the MV Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [9912]

  Mr. Norris
  While we have not ruled out this possibility, we are advised that there would be considerable technical difficulties and that the cost would be significant in relation to the total resources available.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will permit two MV Derbyshire Family Association nominated technical experts to be included in the expedition to the wreck of MV Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [10245]

  Mr. Norris
  The views of the Derbyshire Family Association are being taken into account in the development of the arrangements for the return expedition to the wreck.

  No commitment can be made at this stage as to who will be on board the vessel used in the expedition.

  Rail Ticket Offices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each British Rail region and for British Rail as a whole all rail ticket sales offices on BR stations and halts which have been staffed wholly or partly by volunteers in the last 12 months, indicating the date on which such service ceased or is due to cease; and if he will make a statement. [9302]

  Mr. Watts
  Ticket offices at the following stations are currently staffed by volunteers on a commission basis:

  Clitheroe

  Gobowen

  Ledbury

  Newtown (Powys)

  The information requested on the dates that BR ticket office services ceased is not available.

  Oil Pollution (Wildlife Deaths)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the numbers and species of birds and sea mammals recently washed up on the north Humberside coast as a result of oil pollution; and what progress has been made in establishing the source of the oil pollution. [8768]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 22 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number and species of birds and sea mammals washed up on the North Humberside coast as a result of oil pollution.

  39
  During the period 27 December to 4 January an approximate total of 450 birds were affected by pollution off the North Humberside coastline. Of that number some 320 birds were recovered alive and treated by the RSPCA; these included approximately 250 guillemots, 50 Razorbills, and single figure numbers of Kittiwakes, Puffins and Shelduck. Reported dead birds totalled 127 which were made up of 72 Guillemots, 38 Razorbills, 10 Puffins, 4 Fulmars, 1 Kittiwake, 1 Little Auk and 1 Red Throated Diver. During the same period 3 seals were rescued and taken into care by the RSPCA, one of which was thought to be affected by oil.
  The Agency's Marine Pollution Control Unit (MPCU) has not been able to establish the source of the pollution. The fast indication of pollution in the area was oiled birds coming ashore in Humberside. Oil samples associated with the incident and collected on behalf of MPCU have been analysed. The analyses have concluded that samples taken from the beach and from the feathers of contaminated birds are a mixture of light fuel oils which may indicate bilge discharges by ships. We do not have sufficient evidence to identify particular ships.
  During the period 27 December to 4 January the MPCU surveillance aircraft flew 3 patrols in the sea area off the Humberside coast. These patrols were in response to continuing reports of oiled birds coming ashore in Humberside. One of these patrols detected oil at sea some 23 miles east of Spurn Point which might have caused the damage to wildlife described here.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General how many members of the Crown Prosecution Service there are at present; what that figure is as a percentage of the optimum complement of the service; and if he will make a statement. [8865]

  The Solicitor-General
  As at 31 December 1995 the Crown Prosecution Service employed 6,769 staff, including part-time workers. Staffing requirements are being reassessed in the light of expected workloads, resources and the senior management and pay and grading reviews.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve the training available to the Crown Prosecution Service. [9909]

  The Attorney-General
  The training needs of the Crown Prosecution Service are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions who carries out her functions under the superintendence of the Attorney-General.

  Training is seen as an essential tool for improving Crown Prosecution Service performance. A wide range of training, both professional and managerial, is undertaken and its relevance is continuously reviewed. The provision of training has recently been market tested to ensure quality and value for money.

  Saudi Arabia (Contracts)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in Saudi Arabia over contracts. [8866]

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has had any recent discussions with Lord Justice Scott regarding the Scott report. [8867]
  40
  The Attorney-General
  It is the intention of the inquiry that any exchanges with individual witnesses should be confidential. That is to be respected.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidelines he issued in(a) October and (b) November 1995 in respect of issuing public interest immunity certificates in the Ordtech appeal hearing; and what factors underlay his advice. [9496]

  The Attorney-General
  Any advice given to Government concerning public interest immunity following the decision of the House of Lords in ex parte Wiley in July 1994 will have taken account of the change of approach signalled in that case. However, by convention, the fact as to whether the Law Officers have advised on a given matter is not disclosed, nor is the content of any advice which may have been given.

  Departmental staff
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people currently work in his Department; at what cost to public funds; how this figure compares in similar and real terms with May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [8864]

  The Attorney-General
  Twenty-seven staff are currently employed in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers. The total staff costs for the financial year 1994–95—consisting of salary, allowances, overtime, earnings-related national insurance contributions and superannuation—were £1,040,018. This figure does not include agency staff.

  The Supply Estimates for the year 1979–1980 show 22 staff at a cost of £209,000. This figure does not include superannuation which is currently 14.9 per cent. of basic salaries. Applying this percentage to staff costs of £209,000 gives a sum of £240,141.

  Since 1979 additional functions have been conferred on the Attorney-General, principally supervision of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, and those connected with the review of certain criminal sentences which may be unduly lenient with a consequent increase in the number of criminal lawyers on my staff.

  The staff cost of £240,141 for the financial year 1979–1980 at 1994–1995 prices is £600,112. The difference between the latter figure and that for 1994–1995 is represented in part by an increase generally in the number of staff and the proportion of higher grades, and in part by the increase in staff salaries over and above the rate of inflation over the period in question.

  John Bennett and Keith Wilson
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General what consultations he has hade with the South Wales police in relation to the conviction of John Bennett and Keith Wilson for corruption in Welsh Office printing contracts. [9598]
  41
  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service forwarded to my Department a file of the evidence which resulted from the investigation into the activities of John Bennett and Keith Wilson by the South Wales police. The evidence was considered by the Solicitor-General who agreed to grant his fiat to prosecute both men under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. Neither the Solicitor-General nor I have had any direct contact with the South Wales police.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what guidance he intends to issue to(a) Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9225]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 15 January,Official Report, column 417. I will ensure that my Department is made aware of its responsibilities under the Act. I am not responsible for any executive agencies or other bodies.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are her plans for the development of policy on the distribution of lottery proceeds. [10077]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am writing today to the chairmen of the lottery distributing bodies to consult with them on changes to policy directions I issue under section 26 (1) and (2) of the National Lotteries etc. Act 1993. My proposals would allow an amount of revenue funding to help develop the skills and talent of young people including elite young athletes; increase access to the arts and sports; allow the Sports Councils to fund one-off major events in the United Kingdom; and allow the national heritage memorial fund to make awards to building preservation trusts. None of these proposals is intended to substitute for existing funding through grant in aid. These proposals do not affect the Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board. My colleagues will be writing in similar terms to the chairmen of the distributing bodies in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

  I have considered the existing rules on partnership funding. I am satisfied that there is sufficient flexibility available for distributing bodies to take account of special circumstances in individual applications. I shall be encouraging the chairmen of the distributing bodies to be
  42
  properly flexible in their interpretation of what is possible in this area, and I shall be encouraging the Arts Councils to consider what they can do to foster innovation within the existing definition of capital. The Arts Council of England has proposed using lottery money to help arts organisations gain long-term financial stability, in a way which would not substitute for existing grant in aid. I shall be discussing this further with it.

  The consultation period will last until the end of February. I will then consider the responses to the consultation process, with a view to announcing any changes to the directions at the beginning of April.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Former Prime Ministers Allowance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many former Prime Ministers claim the maximum allowance available to them. [9901]

  Mr. Freeman
  I do not think it right to disclose information about the amount of allowance claimed by former Prime Ministers, any more than the House discloses details of claims by individual Members under the office costs allowance.

  Photocopiers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 335, on costs of photocopiers, what was the estimated number of copies projected in respect of each contract and at what cost per copy. [10277]

  Mr. Willetts
  The estimated number of copies projected in respect of each contract and the cost per copy for the 25 photocopiers is as follows:

  Copies projected for contract period

  Cost per copy (pence)

  24,000,000

  0.32

  24,000,000

  0.32

  1,800,000

  0.71

  1,800,000

  0.79

  1,800,000

  0.79

  900,000

  0.65

  360,000

  0.85

  324,000

  0.90

  270,000

  0.91

  252,000

  0.91

  252,000

  0.84

  240,000

  0.91

  240,000

  0.91

  240,000

  0.91

  240,000

  0.91

  180,000

  0.97

  180,000

  0.97

  144,000

  0.91

  108,000

  0.91

  108,000

  0.95

  72,000

  0.95

  60,000

  0.97

  48,000

  0.97

  1,620,000

  0.81 per first 90,000 per annum 0.63 thereafter

  5,000,000

  first 1.2 million per annum included in contract price, next 200,000 at 0.5 per copy thereafter 0.3 per copy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Regulators
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 289, what are the reasons for the degree of variations in the salaries paid to the regulators. [10648]

  The Prime Minister
  The salaries paid to individual regulators are determined by the appointing Secretary of State and take account of various factors including the responsibilities of their particular office and what is necessary to recruit and retain a suitable appointee.

  Liverpool Dockers (Petition)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the petition presented on 9 January by the women's support group on behalf of Liverpool dockers who had been made redundant. [10427]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on 18 January,Official Report, column 689.

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions between June and October 1989 when in his capacity as Foreign Secretary he made statements, written or oral, or corresponded, on the United Kingdom's policy towards each of the participants in the Iran-Iraq war; in each case what was that stance; and if he will make a statement. [11043]

  The Prime Minister
  A comprehensive record of statements and correspondence on Iran and Iraq could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Statements made are, of course, a matter of public record.

  "Realising our Potential"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made, subsequent to the letter of 19 September to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, by the research councils an0d Sir John Cadogan, to implement the science, engineering and technology policy research set out in "Realising our Potential". [8242]

  The Prime Minister
  The research councils continue to implement the policy set out in "Realising our Potential" in accordance with their royal charters and guidance from the Director General of the Research Councils. The President of the Board of Trade announced on 16 January the science budget allocations for 1996–97 and the planning figures for the next two years to enable them to do so. A booklet explaining the allocations, "Allocations of Science Budget 1996–97" is available in the Library.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the principal statements, or documents, authorised or made by persons who are, or have been, Ministers of the Crown since 1990, which show that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to so privatise the functions of the former British Railways in a manner that made possible(a) the dispersal into separate companies the
  44
  current responsibilities of Railtrack and (b) that any such company or any other performing any of the functions of the former British Railways Board could be owned or controlled by (i) shareholders a majority of whom were not citizens of the United Kingdom or (ii) a company registered outside the United Kingdom. [8619]

  The Prime Minister
  The White Paper, "New Opportunities for the Railways", published in July 1992, announced the Government's intention to restructure the railways. Restrictions on the ownership of shares by foreign nationals are tightly controlled by international law and agreements.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on the provision of official gifts by his Office in 1994 and 1995; and if he will now make it his policy to give details of the gifts presented. [10149]

  The Prime Minister
  A total of £22,510 was spent on the provision of official gifts in the 1994–95 financial year. It is not my practice to give details of gifts purchased.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to put on public display official gifts received by him and his predecessors. [10163]

  The Prime Minister
  All gifts are handled in accordance with the provisions set out in "Questions of Procedures for Ministers".

  Mohammed al-Masari
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister who on behalf of Her Majesty's Government made representations to the Government of Dominica to inquire if they would receive Professor Mohammed al-Masari if he was deported from the United Kingdom; if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between the two Governments concerning this case; and if the Government of Dominica has indicated if it will receive Professor al-Masari. [10659]

  The Prime Minister
  The initial approach was made by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary to the Dominican Prime Minister when he visited London on 18 December. It is not normal practice to make public correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and other Governments. The Dominican Government have agreed to accept Dr. al-Masari and to grant him asylum, if he applies for it.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the French Government's current series of nuclear tests in the Pacific. [10499]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 29 November,Official Report, column 790–91.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the staff employed in the Cabinet Office in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10986]

  The Prime Minister
  The responsibilities of staff in the Cabinet Office employed on matters relating to the inquiry are to provide Ministers and officials with advice on matters arising from the inquiry, and to liaise with the inquiry.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions staff employed in the Cabinet Office in relation to the Scott inquiry have had on matters related to the Scott inquiry with persons(a) employed by and (b) working as consultants for Conservative Central Office; and what subjects were discussed. [10987]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister for how long a currency must be in the exchange rate mechanism before it can be abolished in favour of a single European currency; and what are his current plans regarding the exchange rate mechanism and the pound. [9304]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), on 9 January,Official Report, column 114.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions mobile or car phones retained for his use or the use of his staff have been cloned during(a) the last two years, (b) the last 18 months, (c) the last 12 months and (d) the last six months; [9570]

  (2) on how many occasions mobile or car phones retained for his use or the use of his staff have been cloned since his appointment. [9571]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: As far as I am aware, one, and that was in 1994.

  £000's

  1990–91 Cash

  1991–92 Cash

  1992–93 Cash

  1993–95 Cash

  1994–95 Cash

  Cash

  1984–85 prices

  Cash

  1984–85 prices

  Cash

  1984–85 prices

  Cash

  1984–85 prices

  Cash

  1984–85 prices

  No. 10 capital and running costs and costs of Chequers

  7,990

  5,660

  8,420

  5,620

  9,620

  6,170

  8,950

  5,570

  7,440

  4,550

  Grant-in-aid to Cheques trust

  240

  170

  240

  160

  250

  160

  270

  170

  230

  140

  Total

  8,230

  5,830

  8,660

  5,780

  9,870

  6,330

  9,220

  5,740

  7,670

  4,690

  Figures rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  All figures at 1984–85 prices using GDP deflator

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his latest estimate of the cost to British trade of sanctions against Libya. [8167]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: It is not possible to estimate the loss of trade as a result of the United Nations sanctions.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of travel incurred by his office in each year since 1990–91. [8965]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: The information as requested is as follows:

  (£000s)

  1990–91

  880

  1991–92

  1,310

  1992–93

  1,730

  1993–94

  1,490

  1994–95

  1,230

  Figures rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds arising from all duties in each complete year since 1990–91 and for 1995–96 to date; and if he will indicate the figures separately for (i) accommodation and (ii) expenses. [8964]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December, Official Report, columns 1053–54. The information as requested for earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide the figures from 1990–91 to 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date for(a) the cost of maintaining and running No. 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers, (b) the grant-in-aid to the Chequers trust and (c) the costs on a consistent basis and expressed at constant 1984–85 prices. [9534]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: The information as requested is in the table.

  Road Investment
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if the recent statement of the Minister of State at the Scottish Office about the fundamental importance of road investment to Scotland's economy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government; if a similar policy exists for the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on his policies on road investment in(a) Scotland and (b) England and setting out the basis for differences between the two. [10238]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: The Government believe that an efficient transport infrastructure, of which trunk roads form an integral part, is essential to national competitiveness. My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Transport for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland develop their plans in that context taking account of transport needs of each country within the United Kingdom.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many mobile phones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [9130]

  Mr. Newton
  Excluding the office of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, the information for the Privy Council Office is as follows. Three mobile phones were purchased between 1989 and 1992, all from the same supplier; the exact year of purchase is no longer recorded. One telephone was supplied in 1993. Two telephones were purchased in 1995, from two different suppliers. No telephones were supplied in 1994.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure that disabled people are represented on the health boards and health councils which he is responsible for appointing; and if he will make a statement. [9364]

  Mr. Moss
  A number of disabled people already serve in a non-executive capacity on health boards and as members of health councils and their contribution brings a necessary and important perspective to the bodies to which they are appointed. Nominations to serve as non-executives on health boards and as members of health councils are sought from a wide range of community, voluntary and health groups.

  Responsibility for appointments to health boards and health councils in Northern Ireland rests with the Department of Health, which seeks to ensure a broad representation of members appointed to these bodies.

  Autism
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the services available to(a) children and (b) adults with autism; and what plans he has to enhance these services. [9256]

  Mr. Moss
  It is the responsibility of the education and library boards to assess and provide for the special educational needs of all children in Northern Ireland, including children with autism. Placements may be made in special schools, in special units attached to mainstream schools or in mainstream schools themselves.

  The health and personal social services needs of people with autism are met by the four health and social services boards within their learning disability programmes of care. Services include residential and nursing home care, day care and respite care and a wide range of community nursing, social work, psychology and paramedical services. There is, however, growing awareness among health and social services boards, trusts and professional staff of the specialised needs of people with autism. One board is organising a series of courses to train staff in TEACCH—treatment and education of autistic related communication handicapped children—a structural treatment and educational programme.

  These courses will enable staff in adult settings to continue and develop the TEACCH programmes started in schools and to introduce TEACCH to others who would benefit from it.

  In addition, the Department of Health and Social Services is providing financial support for Professionals and Parents and Autism—PAPA—a local voluntary organisation.

  Edgewater Development, Donaghadee
  Mr. John. D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what breaches of planning permission have occurred at the Edgewater development to the north and west of Norfolk avenue, Donaghadee; and if he will make a statement. [9311]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department considered that the continued use of Norfolk avenue to access the development site would be a breach of planning control. The Department contacted the developer about this and the matter is resolved as the access is no longer in use.

  Carers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has ensure that carers are represented on the health boards and health councils which he is responsible for appointing; and if he will make a statement. [9239]

  Mr. Moss
  Nominations to serve as non-executives on health boards and as members of health councils are sought from a wide range of community, voluntary and health groups, a number of whom will represent the interests of carers.

  Responsibility for appointments to health boards and health councils in Northern Ireland rests with the Department of Health, which seeks to ensure that a broad representation of community interests is available through the appointment of members.

  Buddy Bear Conductive Education Centre
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that the Department of Education endorses all statements from education boards, placing children in the Buddy Bear conductive education centre. [9931]

  Mr. Ancram
  Under article 31(3) of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986, a proposal by an education and library board to arrange for the special educational provision for a child to be made otherwise than at a grant-aided school is subject to the approval of my Department. My Department considers each proposal made under this legislation on its merits, taking into account the professional advice, parental representations, proposed costs and any other circumstances relevant to each case. There are, however, proposals currently before Parliament to change this legislation: under these proposals, my Department's approval role in individual placements would be replaced by a power to approve institutions other than grant-aided schools as suitable for the placement by boards of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a statement will be approved, and appropriate fees and costs authorised, by the Department of Education for Anna Marie Treanor and Daniel Murphy, currently attending the Buddy Bear conductive education centre in Dungannon. [9932]

  Mr. Ancram
  The two proposals referred to, which have been made by the Southern education and library board, are still under consideration. These have been submitted to my Department in the form of a proposed pilot scheme and further information is being sought from the board about the scheme, including its proposed structure, costs and duration.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the educational statement issued by the North Eastern education and library board for James Agnew was approved by his Department; and from what date the fees and transport costs of his placement at the Buddy Bear conductive education centre in Dungannon will be paid. [9933]

  Mr. Ancram
  The proposal made by the North-Eastern board to place this child in the Buddy Bear school was approved by my Department on 20 November 1995. I understand that the board will be meeting the associated fees and transport costs with effect from May 1995, when the school received final registration as an independent school.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the pilot conductive education project proposed by the Department of Education, with particular reference to(a) the date when the proposal was completed, (b) the reasons for abandoning the proposal and (c) the reasons for questioning the basis of the pilot proposal presented by the Southern education and library board. [9934]

  Mr. Ancram
  My Department has not proposed a pilot conductive education project. A pilot project was the subject of discussions between my Department and the North-Eastern education and library board in 1992, and 50
  subsequently discussions about possible pilots took place with the Southern education and library board and the Buddy Bear trust. It was however decided in April 1994 not to proceed with a pilot project. In coming to this decision, particular regard was had to resource considerations and the potential value of the pilot projects in the form proposed in the light of the findings of a Government-funded research project carried out at the Birmingham Institute for Conductive Education which became available during the course of 1993.

  The Southern board has recently sought approval to place two children with special educational needs at the Buddy Bear school in Dungannon for a four-term pilot scheme, but no information was given as to the nature of the proposed pilot. In order to form a view on the value for money which would be obtained from the significant additional expenditure which would be incurred through the proposed pilot, my Department therefore sought further information from the board as to the nature, objectives and operation of the proposed pilot, and its relationship to another pilot which I understand the board has also been considering at one of its own special schools. Some information has been provided, and discussions with the board are ongoing.

  Prison Service
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many prison officers are currently employed in(a) HMP Maze, (b) HMP Maghaberry and (c) HMP Belfast; [10341]

  (2) how many prisoners are currently in (a) HMP Maze, (b) HMP Maghaberry and (c) HMP Belfast; [10342]

  (3) how many prison officers and staff will be made redundant in the proposed round of staff reductions in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland; [10343]

  (4) what percentage of the proposed reductions in staffing in the Prison Service will occur in Northern Ireland; [10344]

  (5) how many prison staff in Northern Ireland will be eligible for redundancy packages accompanying staffing reductions in the Prison Service; [10345]

  (6) when HMP Belfast will close; how many of its prisoners will go to other prisons in Northern Ireland; and if he will list the prisons concerned. [10346]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subjects in question have been delegated to the Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Ms Marjorie Mowlan, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to the Parliamentary Questions in which you asked:

  (i) the number of prison officers who are currently employed in certain Northern Ireland prisons;

  (ii) the number of prisoners in certain Northern Ireland prisons;

  51

  (iii) the number of prison officers and staff who will lose their jobs in the proposed round of staff reductions in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland;

  (iv) the percentage of the proposed reductions in staffing in the Prison Service which will occur in Northern Ireland;

  (v) the number of prison staff in Northern Ireland who will be eligible for redundancy packages accompanying staffing reductions; and

  (vi) when HMP Belfast closes, how many of its prisoners will go to other prisons in Northern Ireland; and to list the prisons concerned.

  Sir John Wheeler recently announced the closure of HMP Belfast and the construction of new prisoner accommodation at HMP Maghaberry. The inmate population of HMP Belfast will be reallocated to other accommodation some of which is currently vacant and un-staffed. The staffing implications of this decision are currently being assessed, but preliminary studies suggest that around 15 Governor posts, 200 officer posts and 25 civilian posts will no longer be required. It is hoped that the reductions can be achieved through natural wastage and voluntary redundancies.
  The recent announcement of staffing reductions in HM Prison Service does not have any impact on the staffing levels of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, which is a separate organisation.
  The management of the NIPS is currently consulting with the relevant Staff Associations about the precise terms of any redundancy package which may be offered. The extent of the application of any package forms part of this consultation and has yet to be agreed.
  On 18 January 1996 the staffing and inmate figures for each of the prisons was:

  Staffing

  Inmates

  Prison Officers

  Others

  HMP Maze

  588

  1,241

  86

  HMP Maghaberry

  1293

  618

  65

  HMP Belfast

  254

  400

  46

  HMP Magilligan

  258

  448

  45

  1 Includes 27 female prisoners.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10965]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A range of projects across all Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office are under consideration, but none are yet at the invitation to tender stage. The administration costs incurred to date in the tendering process are part of the normal work of departments and are not separately identified.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10963]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A range of projects across all Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office are under consideration, but none are yet at the invitation to tender stage. However, the following external consultancy costs have been incurred in 1995–96 in moving towards this position:

  £ thousand

  Legal

  58

  Publicity

  2

  Accountancy

  1

  Management consultancy

  97

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Mechanical Restraints)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since January 1990 inmates at Her Majesty's Prison, Holloway, have been(a) detained in a strip cell and (b) restrained by body belts for (i) medical or (ii) non-medical purposes. [8440]

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of occasions inmates at Holloway prison have been detained in a strip cell and restrained by bodybelts for medical or non-medical purposes.
  The number of occasions since January 1990 that prisoners have been restrained are shown in the attached tables.

  Special cell

  Year

  Non-medical

  1990

  9

  1991

  1

  1992

  13

  1993

  13

  1994

  17

  1995

  14

  Body belt

  Year

  Medical

  Non-medical

  1990

  0

  0

  1991

  0

  0

  1992

  0

  0

  1993

  0

  0

  1994

  0

  1

  1995

  1

  1

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he intends to issue to(a) departments (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside

  Calls

  Funding

  Helpline

  Run by

  Year

  Number

  Year

  £

  The National Volunteering Helpline1

  Independent company

  1995

  14,000

  1995

  130,000

  The Prison Service Victim Helpline2

  Agency

  1994

  24

  1994

  39,000

  1995

  238

  1995

  12,000

  Prisoner Location Service

  Agency

  1993

  48,000

  1994

  60,000

  1995

  68,000

  1995

  460,000

  UK Passport Agency inquiry lines

  Agency

  1991

  1.5 million

  1991

  750,000

  1992

  1.5 million

  1992

  760,000

  1993

  1.6 million

  1993

  800,000

  1994

  2.1 million

  1994

  890,000

  1995

  2.3 million

  1995

  910,000

  54
  bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9221]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer to the reply to the hon. Member's question given on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 417, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People. I, too, will ensure that my Department and bodies for which it is responsible are made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  Frankland Prison
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost of, and reasons for, replacing the locks at Her Majesty's prison, Frankland; [9266]

  (2) where the master key to the locks of Her Majesty's Prison Frankland was found. [9265]

  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. A. J. Pearson to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the replacement of the locks at Frankland prison.
  The keys to the security locks of Frankland prison were compromised by the loss of a cell key. In the circumstances it was decided to replace all cell locks and other pass locks in use in the prison.
  The cost of locks and labour in fitting them was £93,500. The missing key has not yet been found.

  Helplines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the helplines, or schemes which include a helpline service, for which his Department provides any funding, stating which are(a) independent organisations, (b) run by his Department or agencies of his Department or (c) of another classification; how many calls each received in each of the last five years; and how much money each received from his Department in each of the last five years. [9804]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department funds a number of telephone, inquiry lines which the public can ring for advice. It has not been possible in all cases to attribute costs, but details which are readily available are as follows:
  55

  Calls

  Funding

  Helpline

  Run by

  Year

  Number

  Year

  £

  Immigration and Nationality telephone inquiry bureau

  Department

  1991

  5358,000

  —

  —

  1992

  395,000

  —

  —

  1993

  436,000

  —

  —

  1994

  458,000

  —

  —

  1995

  501,000

  —

  —

  Nationality Directorate telephone inquiry

  Department

  1991

  205,080

  —

  bureau

  1992

  202,000

  —

  1993

  225,000

  —

  1994

  240,000

  —

  1995

  218,000

  6140,000

  —

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar inquiries line

  NDPB

  1990–91

  38,000

  —

  —

  1991–92

  42,000

  —

  —

  1992–93

  44,000

  —

  —

  1993–94

  48,000

  —

  —

  1994–95

  66,000

  —

  —

  1Commenced 1 March 1995. The helpline is run by Network Scotland with a grant from the Home Office.

  2Commenced 5 December 1994. Excludes additional running costs of £4,000–£5,000 incurred as a one-off basis in the first four and a half months of the service only.

  3Includes start-up costs of £8,000.

  4Estimated cost for 1995. In previous years separate costs have not been recorded.

  5Figures do not include recorded messages.

  6Estimated cost for 1995. In previous years separate costs have not been recorded.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public response he has made to the publication by Amnesty International last June of "Playing Human Pinball-Home Office Practice in Safe Third Country Asylum Cases"; if he will place copies in the Library of letters he has sent to Amnesty International in reply to letters from it concerning matters contained in the pamphlet; and if he will make a statement. [10660]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My predecessor wrote to Mr. David Bull, director of Amnesty International, on 27 July in response to this report. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time taken by his Department to reach substantive decisions on asylum applications lodged since the coming into force of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, when applications are made(a) at a port of entry, (b) by persons given leave to enter the United Kingdom for a limited period and (c) by persons liable to removal as illegal entrants; [10080]

  (2) what is the average time taken by his Department between receipt of an asylum application under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and the carrying out of substantive interview with the asylum seeker when applications are made (a) at a port of entry, (b) by persons given leave to enter the United Kingdom for a limited period and (c) by persons liable to removal as illegal entrants. [10081]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the average time taken during 1995 to reach a substantive decision on those asylum applications submitted after the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 is given in the table. Reliable information on the time between application date and interview date is not held centrally.
  56

  Average time taken to reach a substantive decision1 on post 1993 Act asylum applications, 1995

  1995

  Average decision time Months

  Port cases

  8.6

  In-country cases previously granted leave to enter2

  13.4

  Illegal entrants

  7.6

  All cases decided3

  9.5

  1 Excludes without foundation refusals and refusals under paragraph 340 of immigration rules.

  2 Includes those who applied after deportation action had been initiated.

  3 Excludes those cases where the applicant's immigration status was unknown at the time of application.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library all material issued on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the UN human rights committee concerning the appeal rights of asylum seekers. [10623]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The fourth periodic report by the United Kingdom to the committee, dated October 1994, which included a description of asylum appeal rights under the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, is already available in the Library. The committee's record of oral evidence by United Kingdom officials to the committee on 21 July 1995 about the report will be placed in the Library when it becomes available.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Tamil asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom on 13 February 1989(a) have been repatriated and (b) have been given leave to remain or are remaining in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [10460]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the Home Office circular dated 13 January 1994 setting out the circumstances in which the Home Office may exercise its
  57
  discretion and consider asylum cases substantively in potential safe third country cases. [10661]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have done so today.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions agreed at the meeting his Department hosted with a delegation from the states of Jersey and Guernsey on 5 January; and if he will place in the Library copies of all documents or briefings made available to the Channel Islands delegation during the meeting. [10087]

  Mr. Sackville
  This meeting was that looked forward to in the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) on 29 November 1995,Official Report, column 774, to an earlier question from the hon. Member. At the meeting, officials from a number of Government Departments and British Nuclear Fuels briefed political representatives of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and the Isle of Man, and accompanying officials and advisers, on a range of nuclear matters, including the dumping and transport of nuclear waste, the monitoring of radiation levels, contingency planning, and possible developments in the French civil nuclear industry and at Sellafield. Departments undertook to provide further information requested at the meeting or for which the islands might ask subsequently, and to arrange further meetings as need be. Our aim is to ensure that the island authorities have continuing reassurance in these matters. I am arranging to place in the Library copies of all the papers provided to the insular representatives at the meeting, all of which are also available publicly.

  Director General, Prison Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions have taken place between the parties on the amount of compensation to be paid to the former Director General of the Prison Service; and whether a quantified offer of compensation has been made by his office; [10324]

  (2) how long was taken to agree compensation for the former Director General of the Prison Service; and what is the norm in such cases. [10334]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It would be inappropriate to disclose details of the discussions which are continuing between lawyers representing both parties. The length of time taken to conclude such matters depends upon the circumstances of each case.

  Crime Reduction (Suffolk)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the outcome of the positive people bid from the Suffolk consortium of police, education and business for funding for the crime reduction programme; and if he will make a statement. [9303]

  Mr. Maclean
  The positive people bid is one of a number of second stage applications for funding under the criminality reduction development programme. The matter is being given very careful consideration and I hope to be able to make final decisions shortly.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders sentenced under section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 were in custody on the last date for which figures are available; and of those in custody, how many were(a) in local authority secure accommodation, (b) in prison department custody and (c) detained under mental health legislation. [9887]

  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. Alex Carlile, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about young offenders sentenced under section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
  On 15 January 1996 there were 51 young offenders, including 9 juveniles, sentenced under section 53(1) of the 1933 Act in custody. 48 were held in Prison Service custody and 3, all juveniles, in local authority secure accommodation. There are currently no young offenders who have been sentenced under section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 detained under mental health legislation.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the convicted prison population aged over 21 years had also been convicted of an offence under the age of 21 years, for the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [9875]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: 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. Alex Carlile, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what percentage of the convicted prison population aged over 21 years had also been convicted of an offence under the age of 21 years for the latest year for which information is available.
  The latest available information is contained in the attached table.

  Adult prison population1 in Prison Service establishments under sentence on 30 June 1994: by whether an offence2 is recorded under the age of 21

  England and Wales, Adults

  Percentage

  Population

  Previous history not found3

  No conviction 2 aged under 21

  Conviction 2 aged under 21

  Males

  28,896

  5

  26

  69

  Females

  1,128

  11

  54

  35

  Total

  30,024

  5

  28

  67

  1 Excludes fine defaulters and is based on samples of 4,606 males and 1,105 females. The adult population consists of those aged 21 and over apart from some young offenders aged 21 who have not been reclassified as adult.

  2 Relates to convictions for "standard list" offences only. These offences include all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences.

  3 Information on prisoners was matched to records on the Home Office Offenders Index. In some cases no set of matching records can be found. A prisoner may not be matched because he or she may not have been sentenced to a "standard list" offence and has

  59
  no previous record for such offences or alternatively there may be an inconsistency between personal details held on the Offenders Index and those held on prison records.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons aged 15 years were held in young offenders' institutions and remand centres in England and Wales on the last available date; in which establishments they were held; and if they were held on remand or under sentence; [10145]

  (2) how many persons aged 16 years were held in each young offenders institution and remand centre in England and Wales (a) on remand and (b) under sentence, on the last available date. [10146]

  Population of 15 and 16-year-olds in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 19951

  Remand

  15-year-olds Sentence

  Total

  Remand

  15-year-olds Sentence

  Total

  Remand centres

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Exeter

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Feltham

  1

  —

  1

  5

  —

  5

  Glen Parva

  8

  —

  8

  26

  —

  26

  Gloucester

  1

  —

  1

  4

  1

  5

  Hindley

  5

  —

  5

  17

  4

  21

  Low Newton

  5

  —

  5

  10

  —

  10

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  11

  Norwich

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5

  8

  Total remand centres (male)

  21

  —

  21

  81

  10

  91

  Closed YOIs (male)

  Aylesbury

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Brinsford

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Deerbolt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Feltham

  —

  4

  4

  —

  11

  11

  Glen Parva

  —

  2

  2

  —

  11

  11

  Moorland

  —

  1

  1

  —

  6

  6

  Onley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Portland

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Stoke Heath

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  3

  Swinfen Hal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Total closed YOIs (male)

  —

  11

  11

  37

  37

  Juvenile YOIs (male)

  Brinsford

  9

  7

  16

  12

  10

  22

  Deerbolt

  —

  14

  14

  —

  43

  43

  Feltham

  5

  22

  27

  29

  43

  72

  Huntercombe

  —

  2

  2

  —

  16

  16

  Lancaster Fms

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  5

  Onley

  —

  13

  13

  —

  33

  33

  Portland

  —

  9

  9

  —

  46

  46

  Stoke Heath

  —

  11

  11

  —

  50

  50

  Thorn Cross

  —

  4

  4

  —

  4

  4

  Werrington

  —

  13

  13

  —

  31

  31

  Wetherby

  —

  11

  11

  —

  29

  29

  Total Juvenile YOIs (male)

  14

  106

  120

  45

  306

  351

  Closed YOIs (female)

  Bullwood Hall

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  New Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Styal

  —

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Total closed YOIs (female)

  —

  4

  4

  —

  3

  3

  Open YOIs (female)

  Drake Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  East Sutton Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total open YOIs (female)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  60
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: 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. Alun Michael, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking, how many persons aged 15 and 16 years were being held in young offenders' institutions and remand centres in England and Wales on the last available date; in which establishments they were held; and if they were held on remand or under sentence.
  The latest available information is for 31 December 1995 and is given in the attached table.
  61

  Population of 15 and 16-year-olds in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 19951

  Remand

  15-year-olds Sentence

  Total

  Remand

  16-year-olds Sentence

  Total

  Other establishments

  8

  5

  13

  24

  16

  40

  Total all establishments

  43

  126

  169

  150

  375

  525

  1 Provisional figures. Remand includes both untried and also convicted unsentenced prisoners.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the significance of emotional disturbance among young people as a factor associated with inmates of detention centres; what estimate he has made of the proportion of the cost to detention centres accounted for by such young people; and if he will make a statement. [9018]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: Detention centres and youth custody centres were replaced by young offender institutions in 1988.

  Two studies have been commissioned by the Home Office into the mental health of sentenced and unsentenced prisoners. Both include findings of young males in prison, although data on young females was not collated separately from data on adult females. The report of the first study was published in May 1991 under the title, "Mentally Disordered Prisoners". The report of the second study, "Mental Disorder in Remand Prisoners", was received by the Home Office in late September 1995.

  The 1990 study showed that 33 per cent. of sentenced young male offenders in the sample group were diagnosed as suffering., from some form of psychiatric disorder, including harmful or dependent misuse of substances. The corresponding figure for unsentenced young male offenders in the 1995 study was 53 per cent. of the sample group.

  No figures are available on the cost of maintaining inmates with emotional or mental health problems, as opposed to those without such problems.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated; [10060]

  (2) what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10072]

  Mr. Howard
  It is my Department's policy not to make regulations implementing European directives which add to the burdens imposed by such directives. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of firefighters and officers per fire service for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [10239]
  62
  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the numbers of personnel in each fire authority is published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services for England and Wales. The reports for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993–94 and 1994–95, Cm 1581, 2008, 2275, 2679 and 2998, each contain a table giving establishments and strengths at 1 January 1991 to 1 January 1995 respectively. However, these tables do not provide a breakdown into firefighters and more senior ranks and such information could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the incidents involving illegal immigrants arriving at Gatwick in December 1993 absconding. [10469]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons arriving at United Kingdom ports of entry have been allowed to go to temporary addresses in each of the last five years; and how many have absconded in each year. [10459]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available is given in the table.

  Passengers at United Kingdom ports of entry

  Passengers granted temporary admission

  Passengers who absconded1

  1991

  13,220

  601

  1992

  16,967

  530

  1993

  19,063

  667

  1994

  19,327

  1,240

  19952 3

  23,084

  1,577

  1 Either from temporary admission or detention or the control area at ports. The time period relates to when the passenger was recorded as an absconder, not when the passenger entered the country.

  2 January to October.

  3 Data for 1995 are provisional.

  Immigration (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Hong Kong citizens have applied for United Kingdom passports; and how many dependents are estimated to arrive from each application. [10461]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to applications for British citizenship made under the British nationality (Hong Kong) selection scheme. As at 26 November 1995, 108,768 principal beneficiary applications had been received. This figure includes invalid, ineligible and withdrawn applications and second applications from some of those unsuccessful in the first tranche of the scheme. So far, 48,376 of these
  63
  applicants have been registered as British citizens, along with 80,207 dependants. The scheme allows for a maximum of 50,000 principal beneficiaries.

  James Hanratty
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a public inquiry into the case of James Hanratty; and if he will make a statement. [10468]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No. In 1974 Mr. Lewis Hawer QC was appointed to carry out an independent assessment of the case and his report, which did not conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice, was published as Cm 6021. Following a request in July 1994 by solicitors acting for the late Mr. Hanratty's family, my officials arranged for scientific tests to be carried out on certain material relating to the case, but these proved inconclusive. We are currently considering what further action may be necessary in relation to other points raised by the solicitors.

  Immigration (Detention)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were detained under Immigration Act powers(a) overnight, (b) between one night and one month, (c) for a period of more than one month up to two months and (d) for more than two months in (i) Harmondsworth detention centre, (ii) the Queen's building, Heathrow, (iii) Terminal 4, Heathrow, (iv) the Beehive, Gatwick, (v) HM prison Haslar, (vi) HM prison Pentonville, (vii) Campsfield house detention centre, (viii) HM prison Rochester, (ix) HM prison Holloway and (x) other establishments during (1) 1994 and (2) 1995 to the latest date for which information is available; and, of these people, how many in each category were (B) women, (B) children under 18 and (C) men; and what were the names of the establishments in (x); [7423]

  (2) how many people were received into (a) Prison Department establishments, (b) immigration detention centres and (c) police cells under Immigration Act powers during (i) 1994 and (ii) 1995 to the latest convenient date; how many of these were (1) asylum-seekers or (2) applying to remain on non-asylum grounds, by individual prisons establishment or detention centre; what was the average daily population of persons so detained in each of those years; what was the average length of time spent in detention by persons so detained in each of those years; and what was the nationality of persons so detained for each of those years. [7424]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: Information on the total numbers of persons detained, analysed by nationality; is given in table 1. The number of detainees received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 is given in table 2 for 1994 and for January to November 1995. The number is shown by the establishment of initial reception. The average population in 1994, including persons originally received for a criminal offence, was 487. The average for January to November 1995 is 481. A breakdown of receptions into Prison Service establishments by nationality is given for 1994 and for January to November 1995 in table 3.
  64
  The average period of detention for detainees released in 1994 and in January to November 1995 is provisionally estimated at 21 weeks and 19 weeks respectively. The other information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1: Passengers at ports1, illegal entrants and deportation cases2 detained under Immigration Act powers

  Geographical region and nationality

  1994

  1995 January–September3

  European Economic Area

  Austria

  1

  1

  Belgium

  7

  2

  Denmark

  1

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  France

  28

  16

  Germany

  7

  1

  Greece

  1

  2

  Iceland

  —

  —

  Ireland

  —

  —

  Italy

  27

  15

  Luxembourg

  3

  —

  Netherlands

  41

  8

  Norway

  —

  —

  Portugal

  32

  8

  Spain

  3

  —

  Sweden

  7

  2

  Total EEA

  158

  55

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  33

  67

  Cyprus

  345

  150

  Former Czechoslovakia

  59

  47

  Hungary

  18

  15

  Malta

  1

  2

  Poland

  503

  429

  Romania

  215

  224

  Russia

  53

  62

  Other former USSR

  100

  119

  Switzerland

  3

  5

  Turkey

  543

  283

  Former Yugoslavia

  124

  190

  Other Europe

  58

  59

  Total Europe

  2,055

  1,652

  Americas

  Argentina

  8

  6

  Barbados

  15

  16

  Brazil

  109

  85

  Canada

  26

  23

  Chile

  13

  6

  Colombia

  212

  135

  Guyana

  33

  26

  Jamaica

  411

  325

  Mexico

  16

  10

  Peru

  43

  33

  Trinidad and Tobago

  30

  17

  USA

  115

  80

  Venezuela

  16

  10

  Other Americas

  200

  199

  Total Americas

  1,247

  971

  frica

  Algeria

  542

  314

  Angola

  93

  43

  Egypt

  25

  15

  Ethiopia

  57

  24

  Ghana

  865

  431

  Kenya

  195

  131

  Libya

  23

  16

  Mauritius

  40

  32

  Morocco

  105

  44

  65

  Table 1: Passengers at ports1, illegal entrants and deportation cases2 detained under Immigration Act powers

  Geographical region and nationality

  1994

  1995 January-September3

  Nigeria

  1,633

  985

  Sierra Leone

  319

  45

  Somalia

  111

  64

  South Africa

  108

  70

  Sudan

  35

  17

  Tanzania

  89

  77

  Tunisia

  30

  10

  Uganda

  65

  32

  Zaire

  190

  101

  Zambia

  37

  35

  Zimbabwe

  55

  46

  Other Africa

  684

  386

  Total Africa

  5,301

  2,918

  Asia

  Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  311

  228

  India

  827

  616

  Pakistan

  566

  390

  Total Indian sub-continent

  1,704

  1,234

  Middle East

  Iran

  48

  59

  Iraq

  43

  38

  Israel

  34

  21

  Jordan

  11

  1

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  21

  14

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  1

  Syria

  6

  3

  Yemen

  3

  1

  Other Middle East

  8

  8

  Total Middle East

  174

  146

  Remainder of Asia

  China

  172

  371

  Hong Kong4

  33

  30

  Indonesia

  6

  4

  Japan

  30

  11

  Malaysia

  112

  130

  Phillippines

  58

  10

  Singapore

  8

  7

  South Korea

  13

  14

  Sri Lanka

  279

  147

  Taiwan

  1

  3

  Thailand

  26

  18

  Other Asia

  58

  35

  Total Remainder of Asia

  796

  780

  Oceania

  Australia

  21

  17

  New Zealand

  4

  5

  Other Oceania

  2

  2

  Total Oceania

  27

  24

  British Overseas citizens

  16

  10

  Stateless5

  568

  450

  All Nationalities

  12,046

  8,240

  1 Passengers detained overnight or longer.2 Excluding persons detained pending deportation following completion of a custodial sentence.

  3 Data for 1995 are provisional.

  4 Includes Hong Kong stateless persons.

  5 Excluding Palestine and Hong Kong stateless persons.

  66

  Table 2: Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: by establishment 1994 and January-November 1995

  Number of Persons1 2

  Establishment

  1994

  1 January–30 November 1995

  Remand Centres

  Blakenhurst

  36

  3

  Brinsford

  15

  11

  Dorchester

  13

  2

  Exeter

  12

  11

  Feltham

  10

  16

  Glen Parva

  1

  1

  Haslar

  462

  412

  Moorland

  1

  —

  Northallerton

  1

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  2

  —

  Local Prisons

  Bedford

  1

  3

  Belmarsh

  22

  26

  Birmingham

  218

  226

  Bristol

  24

  42

  Brixton

  71

  68

  Bullingdon

  5

  3

  Canterbury

  52

  9

  Cardiff

  6

  4

  Chelmesford

  12

  1

  Doncaster

  1

  3

  Dover

  36

  —

  Durham

  9

  4

  Elmley

  24

  1

  Gloucester

  6

  1

  Highdown

  40

  26

  Hindley

  7

  12

  Holloway

  34

  45

  Holme House

  10

  2

  Hull

  14

  2

  Leeds

  20

  27

  Leicester

  —

  4

  Lewes

  2

  3

  Lincoln

  2

  5

  Liverpool

  23

  13

  Manchester

  88

  45

  Norwich

  19

  2

  New Hall

  —

  2

  Pentonville

  62

  21

  Preston

  1

  1

  Reading

  3

  —

  Risley

  8

  2

  Rochester

  122

  512

  Shrewsbury

  6

  —

  Swansea

  7

  —

  Wandsworth

  35

  24

  Winchester

  10

  —

  Wolds

  8

  11

  Wood Hill

  1

  3

  Wormwood Scrubs

  44

  74

  Closed training prisons

  Dartmoor

  —

  1

  Establishment not recorded

  2

  2

  Nationality not recorded/other

  33

  25

  All Establishments

  1,641

  1,711

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Provisional figures.

  67

  Table 3: Receptions into Prison Service establishments by nationality, 1994 and January to November 1995

  Number of Persons1, 2

  Nationality

  1994

  1 January to 30 November 1995

  Afghanistan

  —

  3

  Albania

  7

  9

  Algeria

  15

  124

  Angola

  24

  21

  Anguilla

  2

  —

  Argentina

  2

  1

  Ascensioni Island

  1

  —

  Austria

  —

  1

  Australia

  —

  3

  Bangladesh

  38

  53

  Benin

  —

  2

  Barbados

  3

  1

  Belgium

  1

  —

  Bolivia

  —

  1

  Bosnia-Herzogovina

  1

  —

  Brazil

  1

  7

  Bulgaria

  3

  7

  Burkina Faso

  —

  2

  Cameroon, United Republic of

  6

  5

  Canada

  4

  —

  Chad

  1

  —

  Chile

  2

  1

  China

  18

  79

  Colombia

  7

  9

  Congo

  —

  2

  Cyprus

  15

  8

  Czech Republic

  4

  4

  Denmark

  1

  Dominica

  1

  1

  Djibouti

  1

  —

  Egypt

  7

  4

  Ethiopia

  7

  5

  Equador

  —

  4

  Estonia

  —

  1

  Fiji

  —

  1

  Finland

  —

  1

  France

  7

  7

  French Southern Territories

  1

  1

  Gambia

  7

  39

  Georgia

  —

  4

  Germany

  3

  5

  Ghana

  124

  79

  Greece

  —

  4

  Guyana

  2

  2

  Haiti

  1

  —

  Hong Kong

  4

  5

  Hungary

  2

  —

  India

  281

  294

  Indonesia

  —

  2

  Iran

  11

  13

  Irish Republic

  4

  2

  Indian Ocean Territories

  1

  —

  Israel

  3

  2

  Iraq

  4

  10

  Italy

  4

  8

  Ivory Coast

  17

  2

  Jamaica

  58

  83

  Japan

  1

  —

  Jordan

  2

  —

  Kazakhstan

  1

  1

  Kenya

  13

  9

  Laos Peoples Democratic

  —

  1

  Republic

  Lebanon

  6

  2

  Liberia

  19

  21

  Libya

  12

  3

  Lithuania

  1

  2

  Malaysia

  3

  1

  Maldives

  —

  1

  Mali

  2

  —

  Moldova

  1

  —

  Morocco

  19

  13

  Mauritius

  1

  2

  68

  Table 3: Receptions into Prison Service establishments by nationality, 1994 and January to November 1995

  Number of persons1 2

  Nationality

  1994

  1 January to 30 November 1995

  Malawi

  1

  —

  Mozambique

  4

  1

  Netherlands

  7

  5

  Netherland Antillies

  1

  —

  Nepal

  4

  1

  Nicaragua

  —

  1

  Niger

  4

  1

  Nigeria

  237

  235

  Pakistan

  100

  106

  Peru

  —

  9

  Philippines

  —

  1

  Poland

  14

  14

  Portugal

  7

  1

  Romania

  26

  71

  Russia

  9

  15

  Rwanda

  2

  8

  Senegal

  —

  2

  Serbia

  —

  1

  Singapore

  1

  1

  Sierre Leone

  21

  14

  Slovakia

  1

  —

  Somalia

  8

  11

  South Africa

  14

  14

  Spain

  2

  5

  Sri Lanka

  25

  28

  St. Lucia

  1

  1

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  —

  1

  Sudan

  8

  4

  Taiwan

  —

  1

  Tajikistan

  —

  1

  Tanzania

  6

  5

  Toga

  1

  2

  Tonga

  1

  —

  Thailand

  1

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  3

  Tunisia

  5

  1

  Turkey

  104

  53

  Uganda

  1

  11

  United Arab Emirates

  1

  —

  United States of America

  3

  11

  Venezuela

  —

  1

  Vietnam

  1

  1

  Yugoslavia

  13

  33

  Zambia

  5

  4

  Zaire

  38

  22

  Zimbabwe

  5

  3

  Nationality not recorded/other

  35

  27

  All

  1,641

  1,711

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of remand prisoners in England and Wales were(a) male and (b) female for each of the last 10 years. [9874]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: 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.
  69
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, what percentages of remand prisoners in England and Wales were (a) male and (b) female for each of the last 10 years.
  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Percentages of male and female remand prisoners1 in prison service establishments2 in England and Wales, 1984 to 1994

  Year

  Percentages of remand prisoners

  All remand prisoners3

  Male

  Female

  1984

  95.9

  4.1

  8,741

  1985

  96.0

  4.0

  9,742

  1986

  95.7

  4.3

  10,081

  1987

  95.8

  4.2

  11,162

  1988

  95.6

  4.4

  11,440

  1989

  95.6

  4.4

  10,499

  1990

  96.1

  3.9

  9,905

  1991

  96.2

  3.8

  10,157

  1992

  96.2

  3.8

  10,090

  1993

  96.3

  3.7

  10,662

  1994

  96.0

  4.0

  12,357

  1 Remand prisoners covers both untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners.

  2Excludes those held in police cells.

  3Average population.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners were held for over three months prior to their trial on 30 June for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [9876]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 22 January 1996:
  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 remand prisoners were held for over three months before their trial on 30 June for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
  Information for 1994 and 1995 is given in the attached table. Information for 1985–1993 is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (table 2.3 of the 1993 edition, Cm 2893), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House

  Untried prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1994 and 1995 held on remandfor over three months1

  Year

  Number remanded for over three months

  On 30 June

  1994

  3,500

  1995

  23,000

  1 Untried prisoners awaiting trial. Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes any time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded provisional estimate.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated time spent in custody for untried prisoners in gaols in England and 70
  Wales for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [9877]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: 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. Alex Carlile, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, what was the estimated time spent in custody for untried prisoners in England and Wales for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
  Information for 1994 is given in the attached table. Information for 1984 to 1993 is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (table 2.1 of the 1993 edition, Cm 2893), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Average time spent in custody for untried prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales in 19941 by sex

  Type of custody

  Average number of days in custody3

  Male

  Female

  Untried2

  59

  44

  1 Provisional figures.2 Time spent in custody before conviction.

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

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the remand population in England and Wales on 30 June for each of the last 10 years and up to the latest period for which figures are available; how many were aged under 21 years for each of those years; and if he will make a statement. [9878]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: 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. Alex Carlile, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, what was the remand population in England and Wales on 30th June for each of the last 10 years and up to the latest period for which figures are available and how many were aged under 21 years for each of those years.
  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Prisoners held on remand1 in prison service establishments2 in England and Wales, 30 June 1985 to 1995

  Aged under 21

  Aged 21 and over

  Total Remand

  30 June 1985

  3,185

  6,754

  9,939

  30 June 1986

  3,149

  6,816

  9,965

  30 June 1987

  3,416

  7,253

  10,669

  30 June 1988

  3,344

  7,469

  10,813

  30 June 1989

  3,186

  7,078

  10,264

  30 June 1990

  2,754

  6,359

  9,113

  30 June 1991

  2,791

  6,472

  9,263

  30 June 1992

  2,724

  6,835

  9,559

  30 June 1993

  2,795

  7,837

  10,632

  30 May 1994

  3,063

  9,430

  12,493

  30 June 1995

  2,728

  8,328

  11,056

  30 November

  1995

  2,796

  8,588

  11,384

  1 Remand covers both untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners.2 Excludes those held in police cells.

  Prisoners (Resettlement)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps have been taken by his office to monitor additional services in resettlement services and accommodation required by prisoners losing their entitlement to housing benefit under the new regulations; [10446]

  (2) how many ex-prisoners were placed in hostels for the homeless in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 to date; and at what cost. [10448]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: The general use of approved probation/bail hostels and other offender accommodation is monitored through the collection and analysis of routine information on occupancy.

  Specific information about the take-up of places by ex-prisoners is not collected centrally; but inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation and reports from probation services may draw attention to particular pressures or problems.

  As for the cost of offender accommodation, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 9 January 1996, Official Report, column 188.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners released after serving between 13 and 52 weeks were homeless on release in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 to date in respect of (i) male and (ii) female prisoners. [10449]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: 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. Keith Bradley, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners serving between 13 and 52 weeks who were homeless on release in (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, and (c) 1995–96 to date in respect of (i) male and (ii) female prisoners.
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance on the changes in housing benefit regulations has been given to prisons receiving(a) remand and (b) sentenced single prisoners with tenancies. [10450]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: 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. Keith Bradley, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about guidance issued to prisons holding (a) remand and (b) sentenced single prisoners with tenancies on the changes in housing benefit.
  The latest edition of the Prisoners' Information Book, which is available in all prisons and to all prisoners, refers to the changes in the rules on housing benefit and advises prisoners to seek further advice from prison staff and/or the Housing Benefit Office.
  72
  By April 1996 all prisons are due to be offering Inmate Development and Pre-Release (IDPR) training covering the main obstacles to effective resettlement, including housing advice, and to have a pool of officers trained by NACRO's Prisons Link Unit (PLU) to deliver a housing and employment advice service to prisoners. The PLU also provides establishments with a substantial set of directories with relevant information and an updating service changes occur.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how employment levels in the Employment Service will be affected by the implementation of the jobseekers's allowance; [9790]

  (2) how many surplus staff there will be in the Employment Service as a result of the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance. [9789]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the planned staffing levels in the Employment Service (ES) as a result of the implementation of the Jobseeker's Allowance, and how many surplus staff there would be as a result of that implementation.
  There is no target for specific efficiency savings in staff numbers as a result in the implementation of JSA. In fact during the implementation period some additional staffing will be required. However, if unemployment continues to fall fewer staff will be required and the expectation is that there will be a modest reduction in total staffing. The actual staffing figures for ES—and therefore possible staff surpluses—have not yet been finalised and this will, to some extent, depend upon discussions with the Benefits Agency about staff transferring.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if individuals voluntarily leaving their job will receive any contributory jobseeker's allowance after 8 April. [10298]

  Mr. Forth
  Jobseeker's allowance will be introduced on 7 October 1996. If people have voluntarily left their employment as employed earners without just cause, contribution—based JSA will not be payable to them for a period of at least one week but not more than 26 weeks. Decisions will be made by independent adjudication officers, who will also decide the period of non-payment in each individual case.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be in the implications after 8 April for claims for contributory jobseekers's allowance of suspension of an applicant's unemployment benefit because that applicant voluntarily left a job. [10323]

  Mr. Forth
  Jobseeker's allowance will be introduced on 7 October 1996. Until that date, claims for unemployment benefit will continue to be suspended pending an adjudication officer's decision as to whether claimants have voluntarily left their employment without
  73
  just cause. After 7 October, provided the jobseeker satisfies the entitlement conditions that he is available to be employed, actively seeking employment, and has entered into a jobseeker's agreement, payment of JSA will be made in full pending an adjudication officer's decision on a leaving voluntarily question.

  Redundancy Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many representations her Department has received in the last 18 months on the operation of part IV of the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994; and if she will make a statement; [10082]

  (2) what plans she has to amend Part IV of the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994; and if she will make a statement. [10083]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has received 17 representations on this matter in the last 18 months. Amendments to the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994 are for the Department of the Environment to consider.

  Secondary School Inspections
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of secondary schools inspected under section 9 of the Education Schools Act 1992 are judged to have been in the(a) very good, (b) good, (c) sound, (d) unsatisfactory and (e) poor category. [10417]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors led her to put the business start-up scheme into the single regeneration budget. [10414]

  Mr. Paice
  The introduction of the single regeneration budget gave local partnerships greater scope to determine the right mix of measures to support the development of their local economies. As helping unemployed people to set up their own business is an important element in regeneration, the business start-up scheme was incorporated into the single regeneration budget.

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many foreign post graduate students were studying at United Kingdom universities at the latest date for which figures are available; and what this number is expressed as a percentage of all post graduate students of United Kingdom universities; [10903]

  (2) how many foreign students were studying at United Kingdom universities as undergraduates at the latest date for which figures are available; and what proportion this was of the total number of undergraduate students at United Kingdom universities. [10892]
  74
  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 December,Official Report, columns 975–76.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permit applications for soccer players from abroad were received by her Department in 1995 including those for extensions to existing permits. [10157]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The number of work permit applications for soccer players from abroad, including those for extensions to existing permits, received by the Department in 1995 was 65.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons information regarding work permit applications for soccer players from abroad is not available in respect of clubs, player nationality and refusal numbers as indicated in her answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 1341. [10177]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Each work permit application is considered on its merits against the agreed criteria for soccer players. Information about clubs, and the players' nationality and numbers refused is not recorded separately by the work permit computer system as these factors are not relevant to the decision to approve or refuse a permit application.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new systems she has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10067]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's policy is not to gold plate EC directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to her efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated. [10053]

  Mr. Forth
  Official guidance on gold plating of European legislation is currently being reviewed by the Cabinet Office deregulation unit in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Dance and Drama Students (Funding)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what results were obtained from the consultations between the then Department of Education, the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council on the subject of securing improvements in the funding for students of dance and drama. [10348]

  Mr. Forth
  Discussions on this issue are continuing. No final decisions have yet been taken.
  75
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students of dance and drama are(a) presently on course, (b) receive discretionary awards and (c) finance themselves; and what were the equivalent figures for 1992–93. [10350]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Upper Secondary Graduation Rate
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what examination the upper secondary graduation rate of 63.6 per cent. was based in the information which her Department supplied to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for "Education at a Glance: OECD" indicators, published in 1995. [10534]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The statistic is based on the number of pupils in the United Kingdom who left school at the end of the 1991–92 academic year with at least one GCSE at grades A to C or equivalent or higher academic qualifications including CSEs at grade 1, Scottish certificate of education standard and higher grades, GCE O and A levels and AS examinations.

  Oral Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many parliamentary questions for oral answer have been transferred to another Department by her since her current Department was set up; and which Members were involved. [11066]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Four oral questions, tabled by the hon. Members for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), have been transferred to other Departments since the establishment of the Department for Education and Employment.

  Dartford Schools (Playing Fields)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she plans to issue a decision on the dispute concerning the allocation of playing fields between the Dartford West high school for girls and the Dartford grammar school for girls; and if she will make a statement. [10771]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already informed the parties of the decision that she is minded to make. Further representations have been made, some only very recently, and these are receiving urgent attention. The case raises a number of complex issues and is further complicated by another case which is now before the Education Assets Board. The outcome of that case may affect my right hon. Friend's consideration of this one.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which schools with grant-maintained status had financial deficits in the financial year 1994–95; and how much the deficits amounted to for each school at the year end. [10981]
  76
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the amount and purpose of each bid from each grant-maintained school for 1996–97; and if she will list the allocation made per school. [11063]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to arrange for replies to be sent to the hon. Members.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs; [10946]

  (2) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10945]

  Mr. Forth
  The procurement of projects under the private finance initiative in the education sectors is entirely a matter for individual institutions and local education authorities. The information which the hon. Member requests is, therefore, unavailable for projects undertaken at universities, colleges or schools.

  The Employment Service has procured a personnel administration system under the PFI. Information about the running costs relating to the tendering process would be available only at disproportionate cost. The ES relied solely upon consultancy provided by CCTA—the Government centre for information system. Costs for this service are not disaggregated in the form sought in the question, but the service included both legal and procurement advice. Payments totalling £26,711 were made to CCTA over a 13-month period from November 1994 to November 1995.

  Out-of-School Child Care Initiative
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the full evaluation of the out-of-school child care initiative will be published. [10338]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: I expect to publish the second evaluation report on 23 January 1996. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Employment Advertisements (Age Limits)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 520–21, on the banning of an upper age limit in employment advertisements, what is her policy in respect of legislation to ban such advertisements. [10442]
  77
  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: I have no evidence which suggests that such legislation would have any effect on employment. The Government remain convinced that the way to combat age discrimination is through persuasion.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into a link between noise levels from military low flying and deafness in children; and if he will make a statement. [10086]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has not conducted specific research into the subject. We do, however, closely monitor scientific research on noise and hearing including that relating to possible hearing loss in children due to aircraft noise. We believe that the restrictions we place on the heights, speeds and operating procedures of military aircraft should ensure that the level of noise experienced on the ground is not harmful, particularly given the brief exposure involved.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the cost of peacekeeping in Bosnia is to be borne by each of the member states of NATO. [10253]

  Mr. Soames
  Those costs which have been accepted as common costs for the IFOR operation will be borne by all members of NATO according to the appropriate cost share formulas.

  All other costs will be borne by the individual troop-contributing nations, largely by each meeting the cost of their own national deployments. The United Kingdom has assessed its own costs to be in the region of £300 million for the duration of the operation. We have no visibility of the costs other nations will have to incur.

  Armed Forces Driving Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) what savings and (b) what costs will flow from moving the Royal Air Force driving school from Saint Athan to Leconfield; and when he expects the cost of the move to be paid back by the savings made. [10028]

  Mr. Soames
  The investment appraisal carried out as part of the study into the future of the tri-service driver training indicates that moving the RAF driving school from RAF St. Athan to.Leconfield will:

  (a) Provide savings of £47.222 million at net present value—over 25 years. This saving takes into account the additional costs,

  (b) require additional costs of £10.616 million over 25 years,

  The additional costs will be paid back by the fourth year following implementation—currently FY200/01.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the qualifications of the management accountants who visited the three sites affected by the 78
  proposal to amalgamate the armed services driving schools; and whom they interviewed at each site. [10027]

  Mr. Soames
  The investment appraisal into the future location of driver training was produced by a member of management accountancy services (Army), the MOD's own internal management accountancy service. All members of the service are qualified management accountants.

  The management accountant and other members of the study team interviewed a number of civilian and military personnel at each of the sites visited. Information was also obtained by telephone, by facsimile and by letter. The management accountant and the study team also visited policy and finance staffs in the services.

  HMS Malabar
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have visited Hamilton since the closure of HMS Malabar; and at what cost. [10254]

  Mr. Soames
  Since the closure of HMS Malabar on 31 March 1995, three Royal Navy ships and a Royal Navy submarine and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship have visited Bermuda. The bills for the three Royal Navy ship visits have not yet been received, but the ships' broker and agent has estimated a total approximate cost of £33,000, excluding refuelling costs. The cost of the submarine visit was £107,559; that for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship is not yet available.

  Royal Naval Publications
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of writing, publishing, printing and disseminating the Royal Navy promotional literature "Broadsheet 1995–96" and "VJ The Final Victory". [9939]

  Mr. Soames
  "Broadsheet" is an annual publication produced by the Royal Navy to promote awareness of wider naval issues among a broad audience, including serving and retired personnel, and hon. members with an interest in such matters. Some 44,000 copies of the present issue were produced. The "VJ The Final Victory" brochure was a one off publication to commemorate the substantial contribution of the East Indies and Pacific Fleets to the victory in the far east. Some 85,000 copies were produced. The total cost of producing and disseminating "Broadsheet 95/96" and the VJ day brochure was approximately £235,000.

  Royal Marines School of Music
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected date for the Royal Marines school of music to occupy the former RNDQ premises in Her Majesty's naval base, Portsmouth. [10321]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 17 January 1996,Official Report, column 581.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who provided external legal advice for Ministers in the Department in relation to the Scott inquiry. [11050]
  79
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The source of legal advice to witnesses to the Scott inquiry is a confidential matter.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions staff employed in his Department in relation to the Scott inquiry have had on matters related to the Scott inquiry with persons(a) employed by and (b) working as consultants for Conservative Central Office; and what subjects were discussed. [10995]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the responsibilities of the staff employed in his Department in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10994]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The responsibilities of the staff employed in my Department in relation to the Scott inquiry are to provide Ministers and officials with advice on matters associated with the inquiry, and to liaise with the inquiry.

  HMS Ocean (Damage. Costs)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the damage done to HMS Ocean; what is the cost of rectifying the damage; and who is responsible for paying this cost. [10494]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The minor extent of the damage to HMS Ocean when she was launched in October was confirmed at a dry docking over the Christmas period. We now await proposals from the contractor in respect of the arrangement to make good the damage and the estimated cost of repairs. An element of the cost will be borne by the contractor with the balance being covered by MOD's normal self-insurance arrangements

  Maritime Patrol Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the contract for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [10496]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our assessment of bids continues, and we expect to let a contract with the selected prime contractor in late summer this year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10944]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The tendering process of a particular project may consider a number of procurement routes and it is not possible to separately identify those costs attributable to the private finance initiative. The procurement route selected is that which provides best value for money over the whole life of the project.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii)
  80
  publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10943]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information required is available only at disproportionate cost. The private finance unit of the MOD has in this financial year spent some £200,000 on management consultants in support of projects which may have a PFI element.

  Falkland Islands (Argentine Mines)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the number of Argentine mines remaining in the Falkland Islands; and what contribution is being made by Argentina towards the cost of clearance. [10159]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 February 1995,Official Report, column 321.

  Dishonourable Discharges (Army)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of dishonourable discharges from the Army as a result of breaches of military discipline in the period November 1992 until December 1993 together with the units from which they were discharged. [10498]

  Mr. Soames
  "Dishonourable discharge" is not an expression used by the services. Fifteen personnel were discharged with disgrace from the Army during the period 1 November 1992 to 31 December 1993.

  The list of those discharged under this heading is as follows:

  Discharged with disgrace

  Date

  10 November 1992

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Manning and Record Office

  23 November 1992

  7th Signal Regiment

  7 December 1992

  The Royal Dragoon Guards

  13 January 1993

  32 Engineer Regiment

  11 February 1993

  16th Signal Regiment

  12 March 1993

  Army Medical Services Training Group

  20 April 1993

  7 Armoured Workshops. REME

  4 July 1993

  Army Medical Services Training Group

  4 August 1993

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

  26 August 1993

  Combined Manning and Record Office

  3 September 1993

  26 Engineer Regiment

  13 September 1993

  Support Battalion, Allied Rapid Reaction Corps

  20 September 1993

  12 Transport Squadron Royal School Military Engineering

  30 October 1993

  Royal Green Jackets

  2 November 1993

  Army Training Regiment, Lichfield

  The list does not necessarily show the units at which the individuals were serving at the time they committed the disciplinary offences for which they were discharged. In many cases the personnel may have been discharged from holding units or their manning and record to which they were transferred after the disciplinary offence.

  The manning and record office accounts for those personnel who are not held on the establishment of a specific unit.

  Stores Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on 14 December.Official Report, column 762, what are the 20 most valuable items which have been (a) stolen and (b) lost from the armed services stores in the past five years; and what is their estimated (i) value and (ii) replacement cost. [11096]

  Mr. Soames
  Figures for items lost or stolen valued at below £100,000 could not be provided without disproportionate cost since a central register is not held.

  A central register of stores losses of over £100,000, however, is maintained. From this register there are two cases of items lost from armed services stores.
  (1) Stores lost in transit from stores depot to RN vessel.Description
  A Thermal Imager was lost in transit. Extensive searches have failed to locate its whereabouts.
  Value: £118,000
  Replacement Cost: £118,000
  Date of Loss: July 1993(2) Stores lost in transit on return to stores depot Description
  A consignment of 3 inch rockets being returned to a Royal Naval armament depot in Scotland after the Gulf conflict was lost in transit. Despite extensive investigation, the exact cause of the loss could not be determined.
  Value: £104,000
  Replacement Cost: £104,000
  Date of Loss: April 1991
  Both losses are detailed in the 1995 appropriations account which was approved by the National Audit Office.

  NATO (Interoperability)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning NATO command, control and communication information interoperability. [9976]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: Much work has been done, in recent years, to improve interoperability of United Kingdom and NATO command, control, communication and information systems. The pace of change in information systems technology means that it has been necessary to maintain a constant programme of work to build on current achievements.

  Recently, major initiatives such as the joint Warrior interoperability demonstration and the interoperability symposium in The Hague have assisted progress. Particular successes have been achieved in naval and air systems including the joint tactical information distribution system.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government (House Sales)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total receipts to local government from the sale of their homes for rent; by whom the balances are now held; and what is(a) the
  82
  amount and (b) the proportion of these receipts that has been used to write off local authority debt. [9861]

  Mr. Clappison
  Total receipts to local government from the sale of local authority dwelling since 1971–72 are about £23 billion. Most of these receipts will have been used to repay debt or for new capital expenditure, but no breakdown is available relating to housing receipts. Unused amounts remain with the authorities that received them.

  Rented Property
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if properties remain subject to assessment by the rent officer service where a tenant's consent has been obtained on form RR1. [10251]

  Mr. Clappison
  Schedule 11 to the Rent Act 1977 sets out the procedures for rent officers receiving applications for the registration of a rent.

  If a landlord and tenant apply jointly on form RR1 for the registration of a rent, the rent officer may, after making any enquiry he thinks fit or asking for any information he requires, simply register the asking rent if he thinks it is a fair rent. If he does not think it is a fair rent, he may determine a fair rent.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment (1) what action was taken by local authorities in England for those households accepted as homeless and in priority need by reason of old age, in each quarter of 1993 and 1994 and in the first two quarters of 1995; [10262]

  (2) what were the reasons for homelessness among those households accepted as homeless by local authorities in England, who were in priority need by reason of old age, in each quarter in 1993 and 1994 and in the first two quarters of 1995. [10266]

  Mr. Curry
  The quarterly P1(E) return on which local authorities in England report information on their activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 does not provide a breakdown by priority need category of the data collected on the use of temporary accommodation for households accepted for re-housing, the type of accommodation in which households are finally placed or the reason for the loss of previous settled accommodation.

  Wild Birds (Shooting Licences)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by species the number of licences issued in 1995 under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the destruction of wild birds; and how many birds were killed in each case. [10152]

  Mr. Clappison
  Details of licences issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are contained in reports by the Untied Kingdom to the European Community on derogations under article 9 of the directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC). The latest report for which figures are
  83
  available covers 1994. Figures are not yet available for 1995, but when the report has been prepared a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rough Sleepers (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what emergency provisions were made for rough sleepers in metropolitan areas during the very cold spell over Christmas and the new year; and if he will make a statement. [9972]

  Mr. Curry
  Under the Government's rough sleepers initiative, an annual programme of winter shelters provides additional beds for rough sleepers in central London between December and March. The 1995–96 programme is providing 310 beds in seven shelters. Extra emergency beds are opened during particularly cold spells and, so far this winter, up to 125 beds have been made available between 5 and 13 December and between 21 December and 7 January.

  Extra assistance for rough sleepers during the winter is also provided nationally by local authorities and voluntary sector agencies.

  European Regional Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bids have been successfully made for objective 1 status funding in Merseyside; and how many relate to(a) the Wirral and (b) the Liverpool side of the river. [10458]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A total of 1,521 bids have so far received approval under the objective 1 process. Of these some 300 are based in or being delivered directly in the Wirral. A further 178 training projects involve some beneficiaries from the Wirral and a further 30 business support and technology transfer projects will benefit companies across Merseyside. This leaves 1,013 projects based in or directly aimed at residents of the other four Merseyside districts.

  East Cambridgeshire District Council
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take in relation to East Cambridgeshire district council following the notice served on it on 19 May 1995 in respect of anti-competitive behaviour in awarding a refuse collection contract in-house. [10588]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 19 May my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, served a notice under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 on East Cambridgeshire district council, setting out his view that the authority had acted anti-competitively during a competition for refuse collection work.

  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the response to that notice. East Cambridgeshire awarded the contract for refuse collection to its direct service organisation when it had received substantially lower bids from private companies. In my right hon. Friend's view they did not have well-founded reasons for doing so. He has therefore today given the authority a direction under section 14 of the Act which requires them to retender their
  84
  refuse collection work by 22 January 1997. It must seek his consent if it plans to assign the work to its direct service organisation.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs; [10948]

  (2) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10947]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment and its sponsored bodies have achieved increases, year on year, in the amount of private finance attracted in support of departmental programmes. In 1995–96 we estimate that £4.6 billion will be levered-in. The administrative costs of this activity are not separately identified.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the bids for reorganisation costs for 1996–97 that have been made by those local authorities subject to reorganisation on 1 April 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the proportion of the bids which have now been allocated supplementary credit approval cover for 1996–97. [10840]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The amounts are as follows:

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  1995 Reorganisation

  Isle of Wight Council

  1,029

  500

  49

  1996 Reorganisations

  Hartlepool Borough

  Council

  3,638

  2,150

  59

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Council

  3,980

  3,400

  85

  Middlesbrough Borough

  Council

  3,200

  2,750

  86

  Stockton on Tees Borough

  Council

  7,209

  3,250

  45

  Bath and North East

  Somerset Council

  11,742

  1—

  Bristol City Council

  13,826

  1—

  North West Somerset

  Council

  5,301

  3,000

  57

  South Gloucestershire

  Council

  9,541

  3,000

  37

  East Riding Yorkshire

  Council

  18,940

  1—

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Council

  10,544

  1—

  North Lincolnshire Council

  5,625

  3,500

  62

  North-East Lincolnshire

  Council

  6,808

  4,000

  59

  North Yorkshire County

  Council

  492

  400

  81

  Selby District Council

  100

  100

  100

  York District Council

  19,975

  1—

  85

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  1997 Reorganisations

  Bedfordshire County

  Council

  4,000

  300

  8

  Luton Borough Council

  6,355

  3,250

  51

  Milton Keynes Borough

  Council

  3,452

  2,500

  72

  Derbyshire County Council

  6,180

  300

  5

  Derby City Council

  7,840

  2,500

  32

  Bournemouth Borough

  Council

  8,210

  2,500

  30

  Poole Borough Council

  2,980

  2,500

  84

  Durham County Council

  965

  300

  31

  Darlington Borough

  Council

  4,702

  2,500

  53

  East Sussex County

  Council

  3,585

  300

  8

  Brighton Borough Council

  1,254

  350

  28

  Hove Borough Council

  1,710

  350

  20

  Hampshire County Council

  5,131

  300

  6

  Portsmouth City Council

  9,561

  2,500

  26

  Southampton City Council

  6,040

  2,500

  41

  Staffordshire County

  Council

  5,326.7

  300

  6

  Stoke on Trent City

  Council

  11,539

  2,500

  22

  Wiltshire County Council

  1,555

  100

  6

  Thamesdown Borough

  Council

  9,193

  2,500

  27

  1 The councils of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull City, Bristol City, Bath and North-East Somerset and York District have been asked to reconsider whether the reorganisations in their area could be implemented more economically. If they submit revised bids by the end of January, they will be considered and allocations made during February.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update his answers of(a) 17 July 1995, Official Report, columns 868–69, to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and (b) 17 July 1995, Official Report, column 869, to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) for the financial year 1994–95. [10942]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list by region of the amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts for each English local authority at 31 March 1995 has been placed in the Library of the House. Figures for the amounts set aside as provision for credit liabilities at 31 March 1995 are not yet available.

  The regional totals for these amounts are:

  Amounts held at 31 March 1995 (£ million)

  Region

  Usable receipts

  South-East

  958

  South-West

  123

  East Anglia

  74

  West Midlands

  78

  East Midlands

  64

  North-West

  91

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  37

  Northern

  39

  Miscellaneous authorities (all regions)

  86

  Total

  1,550

  Nottingham Unitary Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to lay the orders making Nottingham a unitary authority. [11226]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what agreements his Department and its executive agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones; and if he will list the companies having these contracts, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement. [9758]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The companies with which my Department and its executive agencies hold air-time contracts are:
  BT Mobile; Carphone Warehouses; HL Communications; Hutchinson Orange; Martin Dawes Communications; Mercury One 2 One; Peoples Phone; Talkland; Vodac; Vodacom.

  Contract duration varies but the standard arrangement is for a minimum of 12 months subject to a termination period of between one or three months thereafter. Figures are not available for the cost of each contract.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures were used by his Department in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to his Department and its executive agencies; and which companies were involved in tendering for these contracts. [9759]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The procedures followed depended on the value of the contract being awarded and ranged from full competitive tendering processes to obtaining quotations from a number of potential suppliers. The companies involved with these processes were:
  BT Mobile, Carphone Warehouse, HL Communications, Hutchinson Orange, Martin Dawes Communications, Motorola, Mercury One 2 One, Peoples Phone, Securicor Cellular, Talkland, Uniqueair, Vodac and Vodacom.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs his Department and executive agencies have incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and if he will list the companies concerned. [9760]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: None. My Department has withdrawn from over 250 air-time agreements but has done so by exercising its right to give notice of termination in accordance with the terms of the contract.

SCOTLAND

  Prison Population
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average daily population in each penal establishment for each month from 1990 onwards. [7788]
  87
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter E. W. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 22 January 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the average daily prison population in each establishment for each month from 1990 onwards.
  I enclose tables which provide the information requested for the calendar years 1990–1994 and January 1995–November 1995. As this information is rather lengthy. I have also arranged for a copy of these tables to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Severe Weather Conditions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by local authority area, the total number of houses in each local authority which have been reported as suffering damage as a result of the recent severe weather conditions. [8939]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not yet available centrally as local authorities are continuing to assess the damage caused. However, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is collecting information from individual local authorities on the position. When I met COSLA's housing committee on 12 January I asked for the information that it collects to be passed on to the Scottish Office as soon as a full picture emerges and it has undertaken to do so.

  Local authorities may have limited information about houses where the occupants did not call upon the council for assistance.

  Flood Prevention Schemes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what impact the abolition of ring-fencing in relation to the capital programmes of local authorities will have on his plans to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to assume responsibility for flood prevention schemes. [9285]

  Mr. Kynoch
  It is for each local authority to determine the relative priorities of schemes within its capital programme in the light of its statutory duties and identified local needs. The financial implications of any changes in flood prevention responsibilities will be taken into account in the review which the Secretary of State announced on 1 November 1995. A consultation paper will be issued soon.

  Hafez Dalkamoni
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions there have been between the Crown Office and the German authorities concerning Hafez Dalkamoni, and if he will make a statement. [9402]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been no recent discussions between the Crown Office and the German authorities concerning Hafez Dalkamoni. Any decision concerning the release of a national of a third country from a German prison is solely a matter for the German authorities.

  Disabled People (Sport)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to the development of sports for disabled people. [9214]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government are committed to the development of sporting opportunities for disabled people and significant progress has been made in this area in recent years through the Scottish Sports Council. In December 1994 the council appointed a co-ordinator of sport for people with a disability within the framework of the successful team sport Scotland initiative. This appointment came in the wake of the launch of the national ready, willing and able scheme aimed at improving the opportunities for people with disabilities to take part in sport. Ready, willing and able is a partnership between the Scottish Sports Council, the Scottish Sports Association for People with Disabilities and the Royal Mail, whose sponsorship of the programme has been matched through the sportsmatch scheme.

  Carpet Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish carpet manufacturing industry, with particular reference to European competition and European Community regulations; what plans he has to promote, enhance and develop the Scottish carpet industry; and when he next plans to meet representatives of the industry to discuss economic advancement. [9288]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  The census of employment estimates that in September 1993 some 1,300 people were employed in the Scottish carpet manufacturing industry. A wide range of business development advice and assistance to the industry is available from the Scottish Office, the Scottish Enterprise network and the Scottish Textiles Association.

  Article 92 of the treaty of Rome requires that all support to the carpet industry from any public source has to comply with the European Community state aid rules. Where aid has been found to be incompatible with the rules the European Commission has ordered its repayment The UK Government monitor closely cases which arise in other member states. The Government also maintain close contact with representatives from the UK carpet industry.

  National Waste Strategy
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish a national waste strategy for Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [9207]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 1995, provides for the preparation of a national waste strategy for Scotland. It places a duty on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to prepare a strategy as soon as possible. The agency will become operational on 1 April 1996.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent assessment he has made of dangers arising from the New Zealand flatworm; and what finance the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland allocates to(a) Invergowrie and (b) other research establishments for investigations relating to the New Zealand flatworm. [8412]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In 1991 the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department commissioned and funded a survey of the distribution of the New Zealand flatworm in Scotland. Further surveillance on horticultural and farm businesses is presently being undertaken and will be completed later in the year.

  There is no current funding made available to the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie or to any other research establishment for investigations relating to the New Zealand flatworm. However, it is proposed to commission shortly a three-year project which will look at the environmental and ecological impact of the flatworm. This is part of a joint approach to research into the flatworm by the UK Agriculture Departments.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated. [10056]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office is currently considering with other Government Departments the introduction of guidance about gold plating in relation to EC directives.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10064]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My Department's policy is not to gold plate EC directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is undertaken by his Department(a) directly and (b) indirectly into combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder; and if he will indicate for (b) the organisations involved and the total funding provided. [10546]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Department of Health is not undertaking any research, either directly or indirectly, into combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what provision is made by his Department 90
  for the treatment of combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder; [10544]

  (2) what provision is made by his Department for respite care for sufferers of combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder; [10547]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of ex-service (a) men and (b) women in Scotland suffering from combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder. [10545]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Health boards in Scotland are responsible for purchasing health services to meet the needs of their resident populations. Services are purchased nationally only in the case of a few rare highly specialist treatments. These do not include services for people suffering post-traumatic stress disorder.

  The Scottish Office Department of Health has not, therefore, specifically assessed the numbers suffering, nor has it made specific provision for treatment of, or respite care for, people suffering from this condition. These are matters for health boards.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to revise the definition of rural areas following the introduction of new local authority boundaries in April. [10590]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department is planning to commission research which will review the existing definitions of rurality and develop an appropriate formula in the light of that research and taking account of forthcoming changes to the structure of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to ensure that all agencies with an interest in rural affairs work to a common set of definitions. [10591]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Rural White Paper "Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership", which was published on 15 December 1995, sets out the Government's policies for rural communities in Scotland and proposes measures to put these into practice.

  The White Paper proposes a Scottish rural partnership system, based on local rural partnerships, supported by a Scottish national rural partnership and resourced through a Scottish Partnership Fund. The national rural partnership will provide a forum at national level for a range of agencies and organisations concerned with rural Scotland to formulate and implement their policies in an integrated manner and to work towards the achievement of the objectives laid out in the Scottish Rural White Paper.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the rural local authorities, according to the Scottish "Economic Bulletin" Randall definition, updated to take account of data for the 1991 census of population. [10589]
  91
  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish "Economic Bulletin" Randall definition defines rural as those local authority districts which have a population density of fewer than 100 persons per square kilometre.

  The information set out in the following list details the local authority districts classed as rural under this definition, taking account of data from the 1991 census of population.

  Angus

  Annan

  Argyll and Bute

  Badenoch

  Banff and Buchan

  Berwick

  Caithness

  Clydesdale

  Cumnock and Doon

  Ettrick

  Gordon

  Inverness

  Kincardine

  Kyle and Carrick

  Lochaber

  Moray

  North-East Fife

  Nairn

  Nithsdale

  Orkney

  Perth and Kinross

  Ross and Cromarty

  Roxburgh

  Shetland

  Skye and Lochalsh

  Stewarty

  Stirling

  Sutherland

  Tweeddale

  Western Isles

  Wigtown

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recent representations he has received calling for an extension of the powers and role of the Scottish Grand Committee; and if he will make a statement. [2542]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: During my statement to the House on 29 November 1995, Official Report, columns 1228–42, setting out my proposals for extending the role of the Scottish Grand Committee, three hon. Members called for the Committee to be given voting powers. However, my proposals to raise the profile and increase the activity of the Scottish Grand Committee were well supported and welcomed by hon. Members from both sides of the House; and during the debate on Standing Orders on 19 December 1995, Official Report, columns 1408–33, the proposals were approved without amendment.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4240]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Minister

  Total number of visits made

  Number of visits abroad

  Percentage of visits abroad

  Michael Forsyth

  27

  1

  4

  Lord James

  Douglas-Hamilton

  45

  2

  4

  Raymond Robertson

  69

  2

  3

  George Kynoch

  68

  3

  4

  Earl of Lindsay

  115

  3

  3

  Consultants
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost of consultants' reports commissioned by his Department since April 1992; and what identifiable savings have been achieved as a result of implementing report recommendations. [5148]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: The total cost of consultancy projects commissioned by the Scottish Office from April 1992 to the end of March 1995 was £12,971,654. Consultancy reports do not invariably result in savings but my Department will summarise the benefits resulting from major projects over this period and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those consultants, outside organisations and individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purpose of their employment and the individual payments and total payments made to those contractors. [5512]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: The available information regarding consultants engaged by my Department is being collated and I shall write to the hon. Member on this subject as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  The information requested regarding other organisations and individuals is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the members of the boards and (b) the chief executives of the new Scotland water authorities, together with their salaries, performance-related bonuses and membership of other non-departmental public bodies in Scotland. [5645]
  93
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: In relation to the membership, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Local Government to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donahoe) on 11 December, Official Report, columns 470–71.

  The Chairmen of the North and West of Scotland water authorities are paid £40,000 per annum; the chairman of the East of Scotland water authority is paid £24,000 per annum. The chief executives of each of the three water authorities are paid £80,000 per annum, and the members £6,000 per annum.

  Only chief executives are eligible to receive a performance related bonus, which is limited to a maximum of 20 per cent. of salary.

  The following are members of other NDPBs in Scotland as indicated:
  North of Scotland water authority

  Mr. John Robertson: Chairman, Highland health board

  Mr. Alasdair MacCallum: Member, Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Mr. Nicolas McAndrew: Member, Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Mr. David Paton: Member, North East River Purification Board

  West of Scotland water authority

  Councillor Robert Reid: Chairman, Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  Mr. Ian Young: Member, Cumbernauld development corporation.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what have been the costs to date of establishing each of the new Scottish water authorities; [5509]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the transition and set-up costs in respect of each of the new water authorities in Scotland. [5511]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: Grant-in-aid provision for the three new water authorities in Scotland in 1995–96 and their expenditure are as follows:

  Grant-in-aid, 1995–96 £million

  Expenditure to 11 December 1995 £

  East

  3.2

  900,099

  West

  3.2

  175,000

  North

  3.3

  635,000

  Total

  9.7

  1,710,099

  Scottish Office (Media Coverage)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist for the Scottish Office Information Directorate to monitor media coverage of Scottish Office activities; how long such arrangements have been in existence; and if he will make a statement. [7271]
  94
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: Two independent press cuttings agencies have been providing, on a sequential basis, a trial monitoring service since October 1995. Tenders for the service were invited and these are presently being considered.

  Messrs Kynoch of Keith
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what progress he has made in recovering moneys paid to Messrs Kynoch of Keith by the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise, following that firm's withdrawal from Scotland; [8180]

  (2) what at constant prices is the amount of Scottish Enterprise's investment in Messrs Kynoch of Keith; and what is its current value. [8181]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: Scottish Enterprise's investment in Kynoch Group plc, formerly G and G Kynoch plc, is an operational matter within the delegated authority of Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9591]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs his Department and executive agencies have incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and if he will list the companies concerned. [9766]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: No costs have been incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures were used by his Department in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to his Department and its executive agencies; and which companies were involved in tendering for these contracts. [9765]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: Mobile phones and car phones are purchased as and when required, taking advantage of offers on the market at the time with a view to, securing the best value for money.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the all-Wales average increase for standard spending assessments for 1996–97; and what was the standard spending assessment provisional announced sum for the Bridgend unitary authority for 1996–97. [8840]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average increase between 1995–96 indicative standard spending assessments and 1996–97 provisional standard spending assessments for county councils and county borough councils is 2.9 per cent. Bridgend county borough council's provisional standard spending assessment for 1996–97 is £107.537 million.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the revenue settlement for local government provides per head of population in(a) Wales and (b) England. [8845]

  Mr. Hague
  The provisional settlement proposals for 1996–97 provide for total standard spending per head of population of £984 in Wales and £922 in England. Comparable figures for central Government support for that spending are £864 and £732.

  Both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will announce our final settlement decisions at the end of the month.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received following the announcement of the 1996–97 local government finance settlement. [8853]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I discussed the provisional settlement with representatives of local government at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on local government finance on 18 December 1995. We have also received various written representations.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's latest estimate of the percentage change in the average council tax bill in Wales for 1996–97 compared with 1995–96. [9774]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  1996–97 council tax levels will depend on the budgetary decisions local authorities take following my right hon. Friend's final revenue settlement, which he will announce shortly.

  Tourism
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest trends in tourism in Wales. [8842]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Latest information for 1995 suggests that domestic visitors to Wales increased by 11 per cent. with spending up 8 per cent. There were 690,000 overseas visitors to Wales in 1994 with spending up 10 per cent. to £190 million.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources have been allocated to provide more closed circuit television cameras to fight crime in Wales. [8843]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  £1.6 million has been allocated over the next two years under the strategic development scheme for new closed circuit television camera projects in Wales, with over 100 additional cameras being brought into use for the fight against crime. Welsh projects can also compete for a share of the £15 million Home Office funding for CCTV schemes in England and Wales in 1996–97.

  Cardiff International Airport
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what developments have taken place to improve the facilities at Cardiff international airport. [8846]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Several, including a new international arrivals hall opened officially by my right hon. Friend last November.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for male unemployment in(a) Newport, Gwent and (b) Wales at the latest available date and expressed in percentage terms. [8847]

  Mr. Richards
  In December 1995, the unadjusted number of males on the claimant unemployment count in the Newport travel-to-work-area was 5,841. This compares with 82,839 in Wales. The unemployment rates were 10 per cent. and 11.1 per cent. respectively.

  Government Spending
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about Government spending and tax receipts per head in Wales. [8849]

  Mr. Hague
  A Welsh Office report, "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1993–94", published on 8 January, estimated that total Government expenditure on behalf of the population of Wales in 1993–94 was £14.7 billion. This is equivalent to £5,040 per head in Wales compared with expenditure of £4,871 per head in the United Kingdom as a whole. Total tax receipts from Wales in the same year are estimated at £9.3 billion or £3,020 per head. This compares with the UK figure of £3,973 per head.

  Trade (Far East)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what activities the Welsh Office is undertaking to promote trade in the far east. [8850]

  Mr. Richards
  General advice is available to any company which is considering exporting to any overseas market, including the far east. In addition, the Welsh Office trade mission programme and trade fair representative service specifically encourage small and medium sized Welsh companies to export to new markets worldwide. Eight visits to various countries in the far east have been made or are planned under current programmes between 1993 and spring 1997.

  public transport
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to protect and improve the level of local public transport services in Wales. [8852]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The level of services is primarily a matter for operators. It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that essential public transport services are provided where it cannot be done commercially.

  Grant-maintained Schools Foundation
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much it has cost to set up an office for the Grant-maintained Schools Foundation in Wales. [8854]

  Mr. Richards
  The Grant-maintained Schools Foundation's regional office in Swansea opened in January last year. The costs incurred in 1994–95 were £15,298. Payments so far made to the foundation in 1995–96 are a little over £20,000.

  Cycle Paths
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to encourage the development and use of cycle paths in Wales. [8855]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I recently announced that £1.3 million has been allocated over three years under the strategic development scheme to help create 326 miles of cycle paths in north and south Wales.

  The Welsh Office is also assisting with the funding of a feasibility study for the proposed Swansea to Newport cycle route.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from headmasters and others on the level of education expenditure in schools in Wales. [8857]

  Mr. Richards
  Many representations have been received on the level of expenditure on schools in Wales. However, it is for individual local authorities to determine how the resources that are made available to them are allocated between services, including education, in the light to their statutory responsibilities and their perception of local needs and priorities.

  Carers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that carers are represented on the health boards and health councils which he is responsible for appointing; and if he will make a statement. [9366]
  98
  Mr. Richards
  People representing all sections and interests of the community are encouraged, through open advertisement, to apply for non-executive appointment to NHS trusts and health authorities and to become members of community health councils. An equal opportunities policy in the selection process is adopted for all appointments.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his policy is in relation to the supply of incontinence pads to those who require them because of disability; what plans he has to review these arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [9211]

  Mr. Richards
  The organisation of continence services in Wales and the manner in which they are delivered, including the provision of continence pads, are matters for district health authorities and hospital and community units. They are under a general obligation to provide these services where need exists and having regard to their resources and priorities.

  NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs, which include the provision of community health services such as the supply of continence pads, are set out in Welsh Health Circular WHC(95)7.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest assessment of the impact of local government reorganisation on the provision of services of disabled people; what guidelines he(a) has issued, and (b) intends to issue, to unitary authorities on the provision of services for and to disabled people; what arrangements he intends to put in place to ensure the continuation of services which are currently provided across the new local government authority boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [9237]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The new unitary authorities will be responsible for deciding how their statutory responsibilities for social services can best be discharged. The Welsh office issued guidance in August 1995 to all shadow unitary authorities in Wales, summarising local authority 'social services functions and responsibilities. This highlights the particular features of social services which the new authorities will need to consider as they plan the effective provision of social services for the people who need them.
  Sections 32–34 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 allow my right hon. Friend to take certain steps if the arrangements for any service or aspects of that service appear to be unsatisfactory or appear likely to become unsatisfactory. These powers are available until 31 March 1999.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that disabled people are represented on the health boards and health councils which he is responsible for appointing; and if he will make a statement. [9363]
  99
  Mr. Richards
  People representing all sections and interests of the community are encouraged, through open advertisement, to apply for non-executive appointment to NHS trusts and health authorities and to become members of community health councils. An equal opportunities policy in the selection process is adopted for all appointments.

  Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the national lottery on raising funds to support the development and operation of the hospice movement and hospices; what plans he has to ensure the financial security of hospices; and if he will make a statement. [9282]

  Mr. Richards
  There is, as yet, no conclusive evidence concerning the impact of the national lottery on the fund raising activities of the voluntary hospices in Wales. However, the Government have given a commitment to monitor charitable income, and the Welsh Office is associated with a Home Office research project which will analyse and monitor changes in charitable income, following the introduction of the national lottery. One hospice in Wales has benefited from the national lottery.

  Since 1 April 1995 funds for hospices have been included in the health authority allocations. Authorities will be expected to assess local health needs and commission an appropriate level of palliative care, entering into three-year rolling contracts, where possible.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many eligible young people in Alyn and Deeside, Clwyd, Gwynedd and Wales are currently unable to obtain a place on a youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement. [9551]

  Mr. Richards
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, at 30 November 1995—latest available—no young person in Wales eligible for the Government's youth training guarantee was waiting for an offer to start a training place.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of under-fives' education in Wales is on a full-time basis. [9552]

  Mr. Richards
  Of children estimated to be under five years of age at 31 December 1994 and enrolled in school at January 1995, 58.8 per cent. were attending on a full-time basis.

  Flintshire Unitary Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to respond to the request made to his Department in November 1995 for more funds for the Flintshire unitary authority in the financial year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [9555]
  100
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Flintshire county council's views are being considered as a representation on the provisional local government revenue settlement, consultation on which ended on 5 January. My right hon. Friend will announce his final settlement proposals shortly.

  Smoking
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce a programme to tackle the problem of teenage smoking on similar lines to the Quitline programme in England. [9022]

  Mr. Richards
  The Quitline telephone helpline in England provides advice on smoking cessation for all age groups and is not aimed specifically at teenage smokers.

  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales currently delivers a wide range of programmes designed to prevent the take up of smoking or to help individuals to stop smoking. Many of these programmes, including the "Smokebusters" initiatives—which aim to discourage 11 to 13-year-olds from starting smoking—and "Quit and Win" project— aimed at 15 to 19-year-olds—are designed specifically to address the problem of smoking among young people. There are no plans to introduce a programme similar to Quitline in Wales.

  Under the new arrangements for funding Health Promotion Wales which are to be introduced from April 1996, it will be primarily for health authorities to commission future programmes to deal with the problem of teenage smoking in Wales.

  Council Tax
  Mr Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his estimate of the average council tax—band C, two adults—in constant prices for each of the new unitary council authorities and for Wales as a whole for 1994–95 and 1995–96 together with his estimate for the same categories for 1996–97. [9198]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average council taxes for band C dwellings with two adults for 1994–95 and 1995–96, at constant 1995–96 prices, are £303 and £348 respectively. No information is available on a unitary authority basis for 1994–95. Implied band C taxes for individual unitary authorities for 1995–96 are given in the following table. The figures have been derived from the final disaggregated budget and indicative standard spending assessments (SSAs) issued on 27 October 1995. These redistribute 1995–96 budgets and SSAs for the existing councils to the new authorities.

  Council tax levels for 1996–97 will depend on the budgetary decisions of individual authorities in the light of the final settlement which will be announced at the end of the month.
  101

  Band C council tax estimates for unitary authorities: estimates based on the latest budget and indicative SSAs for 1995–96

  Implied band C council tax 1995–96 £

  Anglesey

  285

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  375

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  259

  Denbighshire

  437

  Flintshire

  379

  Wrexham

  327

  Powys

  309

  Cardigan

  525

  Pembrokeshire

  331

  Carmarthenshire

  394

  Swansea

  309

  Neath and Port Talbot

  458

  Bridgend

  348

  Vale of Glamorgan

  308

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  435

  Merthyr Tydfil

  387

  Caerphilly

  361

  Blaenau Gwent

  466

  Torfaen

  312

  Monmouthshire

  215

  Newport

  218

  Cardiff

  330

  Wales

  348

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people currently serve in his Department; at what cost to public funds; what were the figures in real and current terms in May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [8848]

  Mr. Hague
  There are currently 2,400 full-time equivalent staff in my Department, with a total running cost budget of £76 million for 1995–96. In 1979–80 there were some 2,600 staff with recorded running costs of £18 million, which is equivalent to £46 million at 1995–96 prices. However, these running cost figures are not comparable; for example, running costs in 1979–80 did not include superannuation charges, the training and enterprise council management fee and various overhead costs including accommodation, which have added at least £22 million to the 1995–96 figure. The Welsh Office has assumed additional functions over this period; for example, further responsibilities for industry, higher education and training.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10063]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department's policy is not to gold-plate EC directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the United Kingdom. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.
  102
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated. [10057]

  Mr. Hague
  I shall arrange for a copy of the current guidance on deregulation to Welsh Office staff to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. This guidance is already subject to review and will be affected by the outcome of the official review of guidance on gold plating.

  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what research is undertaken by his Department(a) directly and (b) indirectly into post traumatic stress disorder and if he will indicate for (b) the organisations involved and the total funding provided; [10550]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of ex-service men and women in Wales suffering from combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder. [10549]

  Mr. Richards
  None.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what provision is made by his Department for the treatment of combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder; [10548]

  (2) what provision is made by his Department for respite care for sufferers of combat-induced post traumatic stress disorder. [10551]

  Mr. Richards
  None. The provision of services is a matter for local determination.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the hospitals, registered nursing homes and homes for the elderly that have suffered outbreaks of MRSA, indicating the severity of the outbreak with special reference to the number of victims and of deaths. [10592]

  Mr. Richards
  The epidemiology of MRSA is a complex Matter. Certain data are available on an England and Wales basis, but the Welsh element could be disaggregated only at disproportionate cost. MRSA is undoubtedly a rising problem. For this reason, last year, the Chief Medical Officer in the Welsh Office invited the Public Health Laboratory Service in Wales to undertake separate surveillance on MRSA in Wales.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instruct NHS trust hospitals to publish information about the number of cases of(a) MRSA and (b) other infections in their annual report. [10593]

  Mr. Richards
  There are no plans to require NHS trusts to provide this information in their annual reports. However, details should be available from the Chief Executive of NHS trusts on request, since they have been asked to ensure that adequate infection control arrangements are in place within their hospitals.

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the tender and the other associated expenses in demolition and adaptation of block T05 of phase 2 of the Wrexham Maelor hospital carried out in the second half of 1995. [10352]

  Mr. Richards
  The cost of the tender for the scheme, to provide an expanded rehabilitation unit as part of the redevelopment of the hospital, carried out in the second half of 1995 was £133,457. The total cost of the scheme was £244,000 which included the cost of the professional fees, equipment and VAT.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was block T05 designed for when phase 2 of the Wrexham Maelor hospital was constructed; and if it was used for this purpose. [10353]

  Mr. Richards
  Template T05 within phase 1 of the Wrexham Maelor hospital and provides accommodation for rehabilitation services, that is, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy. It has been used for this purpose since it was opened in 1986.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the budget of the Welsh development agency for 1996–97. [8856]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Chunghwa Picture Tube Company
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance or inducement was offered to the Chunghwa Picture Tube Company of Taiwan by the Welsh development agency to locate its new United Kingdom assembly plant in Cardiff. [10684]

  Mr. Hague
  There were many discussions with Chunghwa about a wide range of support, including financial assistance, to encourage the company to locate in Wales. The package included support from my Department; the Welsh development agency; the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council; South Glamorgan county council; and Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Theatr Clwyd, Mold
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts he has included in Flintshire's standard spending assessment specifically for Theatr Clwyd, Mold. [10841]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The formula for calculating standard spending assessments comprises objective indicators of relative need which are relevant to local government as a whole. The formula for 1996–97 has been agreed with the local authority association and ratified by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

  The formula does not include specific indicators for expenditure items, such as Theatr Clwyd, which are relevant to individual authorities. However, as a major recreational facility Theatr Clwyd will influence Flintshire county council's SSA and revenue support grant
  104
  entitlement since the SSA formula includes indicators which contain estimates of day and night visitors to the authority's area.

  Clwyd county council's budgeted expenditure for Theatr Clyd in 1995–96 is being disaggregated into Flintshire's notional amount figure. Flintshire will have the spending power associated with that.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs; [10941]

  (2) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10971]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  For 1995–96, the only Welsh Office running costs and consultancy fees relating to the tendering of private finance initiative projects are as follows: staff costs £195,300; other costs £550, and management consultancy fees £18.580.

  No costs were incurred before 1995–96.

  Roads (Porous Surfaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on which roads in Wales porous surfaces have been laid. [11067]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Porous asphalt has been laid on the M4 between the Coryton and Miskin interchanges.

  Traffic Separation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on which roads in Wales chevron road markings are used to encourage traffic separation. [10998]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  NHS (Priorities)
  Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his priorities for the national health service in Wales during 1996. [8844]
  Mr. Richards
  The priorities are clear. My right hon. Friend wants the NHS in Wales to redouble its efforts to provide effective care, care that has been shown to be of benefit to patients with minimum bureaucracy and delay and with maximum efficiency.

  Our priorities in detail are:

  (i) more emphasis on services of proven benefit to patients;

  (ii) more responsive services;

  (iii) partnerships with Social Services and voluntary groups;

  (iv) co-operation within the NHS; and

  (v) improved efficiency.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the proposed family credit ceilings in 1996–97 for a family with(a) one child aged under five years, (b) two children aged under 11 years, (c) two children aged over 11 years, (d) three children aged under 11 years, (e) three children age over 11 years and (f) two children under 11 years and two children aged over 11 years. [8158]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  At the new benefit levels proposed for April 1996, the family credit ceilings represented by the highest amount of net earnings and other relevant income, including child benefit, a family can have and still qualify for family credit at the minimum payment of 50p will be as follows:

  Parent working 16 to 29 hours per week £

  Parent working 30 hours or more per week £

  Family with one child under five years

  168.43

  183.14

  Family with two children under 11

  194.01

  208.73

  Family with two children over 11 (but under 16)

  216.01

  230.73

  Family with three children under 11

  219.60

  234.31

  Family with three children over 11 (but under 16)

  252.60

  267.31

  Family with two children under 11 and two children over 11 (but under 16)

  267.19

  281.90

  These ceilings may be increased by up to £15 where maintenance is received and by up to £60 where there are relevant child care expenses.

  From October 1994, up to £40 a week per family in respect of formal child care charges incurred can be offset in the calculation of normal earnings for family credit. It applies where the care is for a child under 11 in the family of a lone parent or a couple where one is working and the other is incapacitated. This increases the potential ceilings still further.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reassess the appropriateness of the interval between qualification for cold weather payments and receipt of the money. [8416]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will reassess the appropriateness of the interval between qualification for Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) and receipt of the money.
  The Metrological office supply the Agency with temperature data on the basis of forecast and recorded periods of Cold Weather. A forecast period is seven consecutive days during which the mean
  106
  daily temperature is forecast to be equal to or below zero degree centigrade. A recorded period is seven connective days during which the mean daily temperature was recorded as equal to or below zero degree centigrade.
  Once a Cold Weather period has been identified a scan of the Income Support computer is run to establish those who are eligible for a Cold Weather Payment (CWP). If a period of Cold Weather is identified ending on a Thursday, a scan is run that weekend. A Cold Weather period identified ending on a Friday will be included in a scan the following weekend. The scans can only be run at a weekend when District offices are closed and the computer system is not needed. Payment is sent out automatically the following week.
  This method ensures that payment is made timeously and without the customer having to make a claim. Where payment is made on a forecast period of Cold Weather potential qualifiers can be established more quickly than waiting for a period of Cold Weather to be confirmed.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claimed extra heating allowance in the areas covered by the Peterlee and Seaham area benefit offices during the recent cold weather; and on which dates they qualified. [9511]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Cummings dated 19 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people claimed the extra heating allowance in the areas covered by the Peterlee and Seaham area benefit offices during the recent Cold Weather; and on which dates they qualified.
  Cold Weather Payments, are paid automatically when the average daily temperature in an area, as reported by the weather station covering that area, has been or is forecast to be Zero Degree Centigrade or below for seven days. A customer is entitled to a Cold Weather Payment, if for at least one day in the Cold Weather period, they receive Income Support which includes an amount for a dependant under five, or one of the following premiums; Higher Pensioner, Enhanced Pensioner, Disability, Severe Disability and Disabled Child.
  The benefit offices of Seaham and Peterlee are part of the North Durham District. Geographical areas are linked to weather stations by post code. Postal codes covered by the North Durham District are linked to the weather stations at Leeming and Tynemouth.
  The information you requested is provided at Annex A.
  I hope my reply is helpful.

  Annex A

  Weather station

  Qualifying period

  Leeming

  23 December 1995 to 2 January 1996 inclusive

  Tynemouth

  22 December 1995 to 3 January 1996 inclusive

  Benefit office

  Number of payments

  Peterlee

  6,678

  Seaham

  1,985

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current annual overall cost of unemployment to his Department; and what is the average cost per unemployed claimant(a) per week and (b) per annum. [9536]
  107
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The total estimated outturn expenditure by the DSS on unemployed people in 1994–95 was £9,100 million. Of this, £1,260 million is unemployment benefit, £5,323 million is income support, £48 million is social fund payments and £2,470 million is housing benefit and council tax benefit. The average weekly amount received by unemployed claimants receiving a specific benefit is: income support £55.38, unemployment benefit £48.60, housing benefit £42.65 and council tax benefit £7.44.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners who are in receipt of(a) income support and (b) housing benefit. [10207]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The numbers of pensioners receiving income support and housing benefit are 1.78 million and 1.94 million respectively.

  Notes:

  1. Sources: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1995 (5 per cent. sample), Housing Benefit Management Information Systems 1 per cent. sample May 1994.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  3. A pensioner is defined as aged 60 or over.

  Pensions (Women)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when his Department received the results from the research it commissioned from Ms Julia Field and others in 1994 into women's pension provision for retirement, the financial effects of divorce and the treatment of occupational pensions; [9920]

  (2) when his Department will publish the findings of research it commissioned from Ms Julia Field and others in 1994 into women's pension provision for retirement, the financial effects of divorce and the treatment of occupational pensions; [9921]

  (3) what was the total cost of the research his Department commissioned from Ms Julia Field and others in 1994 into women's pension provision for retirement, the financial effects of divorce and the treatment of occupational pensions. [9922]

  Mr. Heald
  Preliminary results of the research on women's retirement provision and on the treatment of pensions rights on divorce commissioned from social and community planning research were received in the Department by the end of December 1995. We expect to receive the final draft reports by the end of March 1996 and will publish the findings soon afterwards. The total cost of the four linked surveys that constitute this programme of research is £457,100.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider his decision to prevent local authorities from paying housing benefit in advance to housing associations. [9925]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Proposals for changing the rules for paying housing benefit from payment wholly or partly in advance to payment in arrears were put to the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations in December 1995. The committee decided 108
  to consult more widely on the proposals with interested bodies. Its report and the views of the local authority associations are due in February and will be taken fully into account when deciding what changes, if any, should be made to the housing benefit rules.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to place in the Library the report of research undertaken by the Benefits Agency Security, benefit review team, into housing benefit fraud. [10495]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 19 January 1996,Official Report, Column 834.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount of state benefits recouped by the compensation recovery unit in each of the last three years. [10133]

  Mr. Heald
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, 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 19 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the total amount of state benefits recouped by the Compensation Recovery Unit in each of the last three years.
  The information requested is given in the table below

  Financial year

  Amount £million

  1992–93

  51.3

  1993–94

  81.9

  1994–95

  110.1

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.The figure for the current financial year to 31 December 1995 is £96 million.I hope you find this reply helpful.
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses, in addition to his formal one, he has made to the report of the Social Security Committee of 1994–95 (HC 196) concerning the compensation recovery unit; and if he is conducting a consultation exercise with interested parties regarding the work of the compensation recovery unit and its future operations; and if he will make a statement. [9470]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on 10 January. My letter explained that a compliance cost assessment of the Select Committee's proposals for reform of the compensation recovery scheme would be published shortly. A consultation exercise on the Select Committee's proposals was conducted in late 1995. I shall publish a summary of the results of the consultation shortly.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10068]
  109
  Mr. Roger Evans
  This Department's policy is not to gold plate EC directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed by all Departments.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated. [10052]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The largest block of EC legislation on social security is in the form of Council regulations, which are directly effective. There is relatively little other EC legislation on social security. This has been implemented on a case-by-case basis in line with overall policy of not gold plating directives, the guidance on which is currently under review. In addition, the Department has its own action plan on deregulation and EC law which is designed to ensure that there is no over-implementation of EC directives.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of people awarded national insurance contribution credits in 1994–95, (b) the average number of credits awarded and (c) the cost of funding these national insurance credits; and if he will indicate the different groups being credited with national insurance contributions. [10770]

  Mr. Heald
  Some 10.5 million people in the United Kingdom in one or more of the categories listed were awarded an average of 39.4 national insurance credits in the tax year 1994–95.1 Estimates of the costs arising from these credits are not available.
  Categories of people awarded national insurance credits:

  Young people, for the tax years containing their 16th, 17th and 18th birthdays.

  People over age 18 undergoing courses of approved training.

  People entitled to invalid care allowance.

  People who are unemployed or incapable of work.

  Men age 60–64 who are not liable to pay class 1 or class 2 contributions.

  People on jury service.

  Women receiving statutory maternity pay.

  People whose course of full-time education, training or apprenticeship has terminated.

  Widows on termination of widowed mother's allowance.

  Source:11 per cent sample of national insurance records.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total annual expenditure on income support to cover mortgage interest payments in each financial year between 1989–90 and 1994–95. [10710]
  110
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Total number of cases with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  Total amount of estimated annual expenditure

  £ million

  1989–90

  281,000

  353

  1990–91

  310,000

  553

  1991–92

  411,000

  949

  1992–93

  499,000

  1,143

  1993–94

  529,000

  1,145

  1994–95

  511,000

  1,001

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and expenditure to the nearest million.

  2. Caseload figures are for May each year, except for 1994–95 where February 1995 figures have been used.

  3. Expenditure estimated for 1989–90 to 1992–93 is derived by multiplying the number of cases by the average weekly amount then multiplying by 52. Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are based on an average of four quarters.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1989–92.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries May 1993 to February 1995.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to review his policy in respect of the award to children under five years of age of the mobility component of disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement; [10842]

  (2) how many applications have been made on behalf of children under five years of age for the mobility component of disability living allowance in each of the years since 1993; [10843]

  (3) how many children under five years of age were exceptionally allowed to claim the mobility component of disability living allowance in each year since 1993. [10984]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Claims for disability living allowance are for the benefit as a whole and not for an individual component. The Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 specifies that a person must be aged over five to be entitled to the mobility component of DLA. There are currently no plans to review this policy.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii)publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10967]
  111
  Mr. Roger Evans
  In 1994–95 this Department's private finance initiative projects spent £1.044 million on external consultants in the PFI tendering process on the areas of consultancy identified. This figure comprises (i) legal fees of £420,000; (ii) publicity costs of nil; (iii) accountancy fees of £167,000 and (iv) management consultancy fees of £457,000. In 1995–96 prices these costs would be £1.073 million in total and (i) £431,000; (ii) nil; (iii) £172,000 and (iv) £470,000 respectively.

  The Department's PFI projects forecast that in 1995–96 we will spend £2.774 million on external consultants in the PFI tendering process on the areas of consultancy identified. this figure comprises (i) legal fees of £359,000; (ii) publicity costs of nil; (iii) accountancy fees of £95,000 and (iv) management consultancy fees of £2.32 million.
  112
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10968]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In 1994–95 this Department's private finance initiative projects incurred total running costs relating to the PFI tendering process of around £1.5 million, rounded either as a cash figure or at 1995–96 prices. In 1995–96 the Department's PFI projects forecast that they will have incurred total running costs of around £2.5 million relating to the PFI tendering process. A breakdown of the costs is not available in the format requested.

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

The Lord Bishop of London
Richard John Carew, Lord Bishop of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chichester and the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Speech Therapists: Equal Value Claim
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the total legal costs incurred by the respondents (the Secretary of State and Frenchay Health Authority) in defending the speech therapists' equal value claim brought by Dr. P. Enderby, and how long have these proceedings taken.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the costs of the respondents' defence so far have been in the order of £400,000. The legal proceedings have taken almost 10 years.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is amazing that so much public money should be spent resisting a claim which the European Court of Justice has decided should be conceded in principle? How much longer will these very committed women—most speech therapists are women—have to wait before they receive justice and equal pay?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when the speech therapists and MSF (the Manufacturing, Science, Finance Union) set out on that path, they knew that it would be very long and tortuous. From 1988 the Government have not lost a single hearing. I appreciate that it is in all our interests to have this case settled as quickly as possible. But it takes two to tango. I again point out that the Government have not yet lost a single hearing since 1988.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that speech therapists have been making a vital contribution to the recovery of people disabled by strokes or similar conditions, following the first few, who assiduously helped servicemen with head wounds in World War II, as I witnessed when I spent over a year in the ward of a brain surgeon? I should add that in my case he was operating on my back and not examining my head, as uncharitable friends have suggested.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to endorse my noble friend's view. Speech therapists do an enormously valuable job, not only among elderly people who have had strokes, but also among children. One only has to consider how very few young people today have stutters or speech impediments. I believe that much of that is due to the work of speech therapists.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapy. Dr. Enderby was chairman of that body last year. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are genuinely seeking a solution of the problem or whether they are trying to save money at the expense of speech therapists by prevarication and procrastination? Is she aware that it is not true that the speech therapist assumed that there would be a very long case? Is she further aware—as a fair person I am sure that she is aware—that speech therapists treat their patients very considerately? Is it not time that the Government accorded the same courtesy to the therapists?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in that Dr. Enderby is an exceptional person. She is somebody of international standing. I believe that that has caused some of the problem in using her case as a comparator with other cases. But, as I said, it takes two to tango. In fact, between 1986 and 1991, it was the applicants who asked for judicial review. They lodged two appeals without asking for the proceedings to he expedited. I believe that that has been the cause of some of the delay.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that my wife is a speech therapist, but, happily, she has retired, so there is no financial interest involved. Dr. Enderby is very distinguished. I am absolutely staggered that the Government find themselves on the other side. Would it not be rather more reasonable if the Government were on the side of the speech therapists and if this case had not happened in the first place? Is she aware that I find it doubly puzzling because I know exactly the Minister's views on this matter, which, if she could state them—which perhaps she cannot—would be exactly the same as mine; namely, that it is about time that the speech therapists—most of whom are women—received a little justice in this matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is a little presumptuous in believing that he knows exactly what is in my mind. However, I know that Lady Peston is also a very distinguished person in her own right. I should point out that in this case the industrial tribunal found that the machinery that we have been using to determine pay is completely free of any sex discrimination. Secondly, the counsel for MSF is withdrawing 1,000 cases. Surely that is an admission that for these claims there is no case to answer.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister said that it takes two to tango. Is she aware that the union would not in the first place have started on that path, eventually leading to the European Court of Justice, which, incidentally, found for the union, had it been possible to negotiate decent terms and conditions for these very valuable people at the outset?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there was an error of judgment in the first place because the speech and language therapists decided not to opt for the pay review body system of pay determination; they decided to stick with the Whitley system. I believe they would now say that it has not served them well in terms of increases in pay compared with other professional bodies. That group, and the MSF who is representing them, were clearly knowledgeable in regard to the tortuous path they intended to take; indeed, when they started they said that they would take it to the highest court, the European Court.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the MSF has had the support throughout the proceedings of the Equal Opportunities Commission?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is a long and tortuous case. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others that the sooner it is resolved, the better. But it is wrong to think that only speech therapists have a case. From the point of view of the Government, this is an important settlement, not only for the NHS and public pay, but also for the whole economy. It is right that it should be contested.

Special Dividends and Takeovers
2.51 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to change the law which currently appears to permit corporate raiders on the London stock market to use the device of "special dividends" payable by the victim company to finance, in part, takeover activities at a considerable cost to United Kingdom taxpayers.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no present plans to change the provisions of the Companies Act relating to the payment of special dividends. However, we are reviewing the law on financial assistance by a company for the acquisition of its own shares. If the noble Lord has a suggestion to make in that context, I shall undertake to consider it. Her Majesty's Government are of course attached to the principle of equal treatment for both parties to a takeover bid.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It indicates an encouraging situation. However, is the Minister aware that the scale of the present proposed takeover by Granada of Forte is £500 million in terms of special dividend? That is way beyond any other type of special dividend paid before. It is distinguished by the fact that it is a hostile situation. In order to pay the dividend, Granada will have to change the board of Forte after it has acquired control. It is that aspect which distinguishes the situation. If that position is taken to the extreme, it will soon be possible
798
for one company to take over another without offering any consideration at all. Does not the Minister agree that that cannot be right?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware of the broad outline of the bid that Granada made for Forte. However, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me, at this Dispatch Box, to offer any comment on the terms put forward. I can add nothing further to what the President of the Board of Trade said in relation to the desirability of Granada acquiring Forte's motorway service areas. He is awaiting further advice on that aspect of the bid from the Director General of Fair Trading before making his final decision. As the noble Lord is clearly aware from his professional background in the matter, the special dividend device has been used on a number of occasions recently. The specific example he indicates is an extreme one. As I said in my first Answer, we have no present plans to change the provisions, although I am aware of the arguments advanced for such a change.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, the Question suggests that the special dividend device will cost British taxpayers a great deal of money. However, does my noble and learned friend agree that income tax is paid on special dividends by the recipients?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are some quite difficult considerations affecting those shareholders who are exempt. However, I am advised that the Inland Revenue's present assessment is that the result for the Exchequer by way of special dividend payments will be similar whenever those profits are distributed.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to use shareholders' funds to achieve the removal of a few directors from the board of the target company is also inefficient?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord is tempting me to offer a judgment on the present takeover bid which is at the centre of financial consideration at the present time. Whether or not the method is inefficient is for those involved in the takeover to determine.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the Question on the Order Paper highlights two separate but not necessarily unrelated problems? The first is the concentration of the ownership of ordinary shares in the hands of tax-free institutions; the second is the taxation of corporate profits which encourages distribution at the expense of retention.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I indicated that my advice is that the results for the Exchequer will be similar whenever the profits are distributed. I understood the Question to consist of two parts and indicated that we will be reviewing the law on financial assistance by a company for the acquisition of its own

799
shares. If any views are expressed, I undertake to consider them, but it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further.

New Drivers: Accident Risk
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the introduction of a probationary period for newly qualified drivers of motor vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 provides for a probationary period of two years from the date of first passing a driving test. During that period drivers who accumulate six or more penalty points will have their driving licence revoked and return to learner status until passing a re-test.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, so far as it goes. Can he confirm that a disproportionate number of accidents involve drivers under the age of 20? As newly qualified drivers in Northern Ireland have to display a plate bearing the letter "R" for one year, why cannot something similar be adopted in other parts of the United Kingdom? Is there not more danger to other road users from a newly qualified driver on his own, with no cautionary plate, than from a learner with L-plates who must be accompanied by a qualified passenger?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is correct that there is a disproportionate rate of accidents among young and inexperienced drivers. It is a serious problem. However, there is a lack of clear evidence that the use of probationary plates significantly reduces the number of accidents. In addition, where such schemes exist it is difficult to separate the actual effect of the plate itself from other restrictions that may be associated with it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it my noble friend's intention to recommend to the authorities in Northern Ireland that they should do away with the probationary plates?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords. The system in Northern Ireland has the acceptance of the public and people are used to it. However, there is no clear evidence—it is difficult to compare like with like—that the probationary plate system has a significant effect and that we should adopt it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House as to when the provisions of the Act, which we fully supported—I am not sure that "we" is strictly correct as it was a Private Member's Bill which I supported in a personal capacity—will come into operation? Will there need to be consultation with the courts concerning the application of the Act? If so,
800
in the interim period, will the Minister agree to look further at the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as to the efficacy of the probationary driver's plate, which may have some relevance to the requirements in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, those are two slightly different issues. We hope to bring in the provisions of the new drivers Act by commencement order later this year. That will be the machinery that brings it into play. We maintain an open mind on the issue of probationary plates. We looked at schemes used elsewhere, including the scheme in Northern Ireland. At the moment there is a lack of clear evidence that it has a significant effect. If more evidence comes forward, we may reconsider the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there any evidence that newly qualified and perhaps rather timorous drivers cause more accidents than more experienced ones?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. There is a considerable body of evidence on that point. Inexperienced drivers of any age are more likely to have accidents than experienced drivers of the same age. I understand that, taking all age groups together, accident risk reduces by some 30 per cent. once the first year of driving after passing the test has elapsed. That analysis was done by the Transport Research Laboratory.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, do not overall statistics show that British drivers are relatively good? To target novice drivers as a group is probably not right. We should he targeting the loutish and inconsiderate across the whole age range who may not be novice drivers.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we must address those people as well. The courts have shown that where people drive badly they receive heavy penalties. It is right that we should concentrate on that aspect. But there is a problem with young and inexperienced drivers. We feel that the provisions of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act, coupled with better road safety information and schemes designed, for instance, to address the problem of speeding, are the right approach.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the department has been studying these statistics for at least 25 years and has resisted almost every effective argument? Is he further aware that the parents of many new drivers have reached the point of impatience and now require those drivers to display green L-plates? I do not know whether those have any official standing but they are an indication to other drivers that someone has recently passed his driving test and therefore needs to be given extra consideration.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, they arc available if people want to use them, but it is purely voluntary. We have to look at what has been the real effect of such schemes. In Northern Ireland, for instance, the scheme

801
has been operating for 26 years and it has been well accepted. But in Northern Ireland slightly more drivers in their first year have accidents than is the case in Great Britain. The evidence is not there that major road safety gains would be achieved by bringing the scheme into Great Britain.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in considering the evidence, will the noble Viscount give an assurance that he will consider the statistics by gender and look at the record of young women drivers as opposed to that of men? Can he confirm—here I must declare an interest as a mother of sons, although none of my sons is now in the appropriate age group— that women drivers of all ages have a better safety record?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I declare an interest as a man, so perhaps we might not necessarily have exactly the same perspective. If any scheme were introduced it would be equitable to introduce it for both genders.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that the green voluntary L-plates are used only by the timorous or careful driver and certainly not by the real tearaways who are the very ones we would want to identify as probationary drivers within their first two years of driving?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that may well be the case.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that British drivers as a whole have a better safety record than other nationalities? With reference to the point raised by my noble friend and namesake Lord Campbell of Alloway, is he further aware that a large proportion of all accidents—around 30 per cent.—involve drivers who have been qualified to drive for only a short time and that most other comparable countries have special arrangements or restrictions, going further than those set out in his first reply today, after a person has passed the driving test?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, many countries have such schemes. But, as I said, it is not altogether clear that the schemes per se have the required effect. We have to look at the actual restrictions in individual cases. Some countries have associated lower speed limits, some a total ban on alcohol consumption, and so on. There are a number of different measures. I believe that in general we have a good road safety record in this country. However, there is room for improvement. That is why we have brought forward schemes to increase driver training after a driver has taken the driving test. As part of the "pass plus" system there are associated insurance benefits.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has given answers about the effectiveness or otherwise of schemes which would indicate whether a driver is a new driver. Would he give a comparable answer to the question of whether a speed restriction for new drivers, such as that imposed in France, has any beneficial effect?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have sought to indicate that associated with the issue of probationary plates are often a wide range of other measures such as lower speed limits, a complete ban on alcohol, and so on. With many of the schemes there are consequent disadvantages as well. We would have to consider that. For instance, by its very nature imposing a lower speed limit can cause problems with other traffic.

Business: Starred Question
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, under Standing Order 40(2), I beg leave to ask the Question standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the right of schools to choose their pupils is more important than the right of parents to choose their children's schools.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, notified the House that he would not be available and perhaps just overlooked arranging for some colleague to ask the Question for him. It is an important and topical Question and I know that the House would wish to discuss it. Under Standing Order 40(2), with the unanimous leave of the House we are entitled to consider this Question. I hope that on such an important issue the House will grant me leave to ask the Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, leave is not unanimous.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 4th December last be discharged and the Bill be committed to a Scottish Select Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.

803
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Circumstances in which orders are made]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a divorce order, there is no child of the family under the age of sixteen;").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Bill in effect reconstitutes marriage as an arrangement for the parties to live together until one of them, without cause to be assigned or shown, gives unilateral notice of one year's duration that the arrangement shall come to an end. Most of the amendments so far have concerned that aspect of marriage and, if I may say so with respect from the Cross-Benches, your Lordships heard a most moving and cogent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on that aspect. The amendments have also concentrated on the inherent likelihood that a divorce by unilateral repudiation without cause will promote injustice, especially to married women. Throughout those debates, though, there has been a sub-text—the welfare of the children—and this amendment now brings it to the fore.
When we considered the Child Support Act for the first time it was launched by a White Paper entitled Children come First. In this Bill they come last. Their welfare is postponed to the wish of their parents to be rid of each other; indeed, to the wish of one parent only to be rid of his family commitments undertaken at the time of marriage.
Amendment No. 6 proposes to take the children right out of the danger area and that there shall be no divorce where there are children of the family under the age of 16. That is grouped with an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady Elles, which proposes the age of 18 and raises the question of the age up to which the law should concern itself with the welfare of children. In a letter to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor adverting him to the fact that I was going to ask about the various ages, I believe that he took it that I wanted a reply before the debate and let me have one. I am extremely grateful to him. I believe that it would be advantageous if he were to repeat to the Committee what he wrote to me.
Amendment No. 6, removing children right out of the ambit of danger and the potentiality of harm to them, which is now shown very clearly both in the anecdotal evidence and in the official statistics, is, I concede, a radical proposal. But then a desperate situation requires a radical measure. This was not considered by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce nor by the Law Commission in its paper, Divorce: the Field of Choice, although it chose a rather narrow field. These matters were not then considered and certainly no one at that time envisaged that we should be faced with the sort of divorce reform to which I referred; namely, the unilateral repudiation of the other spouse after the lapse of one year, nor did anybody at that time envisage that there would be upwards of 200,000 children under the age of 16 years in any one year whose background had been disrupted by the divorce of their parents. So I concede that it is a radical proposal, but one that is called for in the circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 do not go so far. They merely indicate that the welfare of the children should he considered at the stage of divorce and not merely at the stage of mopping up the consequences of divorce. As I said, Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is parallel to Amendment No. 6, but pitches the age at 18. There is another amendment today, which has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, and that is Amendment No. 35A. I shall not speak to that because it seems to me that it can be much more conveniently discussed with the important series of amendments starting with Amendment No. 35 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady David.
It was vaguely questioned at the last Committee meeting whether marriage could be properly described as a contract. It was rightly said that marriage is much more than a contract. But saying that it is much more than a contract does not mean that it is anything less than a contract. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, quoted on that occasion from the Book of Common Prayer 1662, which proclaims as the first, and primary, object of marriage the procreation of children and their nurture. The 1928 version is differently phrased, but to the same effect. I imagine that sociologists would readily agree that a primary purpose of marriage in society is the procreation of children and their nurture to become responsible citizens on their own. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has put his name to these amendments. I am very glad because he is the leading figure in this field of sociology and the Committee will be wanting to hear his views now that he has come back to this country. I hope that he is present. I am afraid that I cannot see that far.
Noble Lords: The noble Lord is here.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The continuation of society being the purpose of marriage, one asks this question. The contract of marriage being a special one and one to be construed fairly, whatever an individual's faith, in the terms of the citation of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, it is a type of contract and arrangement which obviously envisages from the outset the introduction of a third party; namely, a child. As soon as a child is born, the family alters its character. When we talk of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, I believe that we have always tended to look to the spouses only, but if we look to the wider family, including the child, is it possible to say that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as long as the parents can fulfil their duties towards the child and their responsibility to the being they have brought into the world?
On the last occasion one noble Lord spoke of the parties being locked in a loveless marriage, again only looking at the spouses, but when there is a child can it really be described as a loveless marriage? I believe that practically every family shows love for the child and the child reciprocates. It is very rare that a family with children can properly be described as loveless.
The damage to children can arise in three different ways which are very difficult to separate statistically. First, there is the acrimony between the parents which

805
leads to the divorce. Some weight has been put on that. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, honoured us by giving us his personal experience—that the separation and divorce were a relief from the tension of the preceding acrimony. However, responsible parents will guard their children from the tensions of their own differences, if they exist. As the possibility of remarriage approaches, the acrimony is apt to increase. On the other hand, the acrimony is decreased if the parties have considered beforehand that the children come first and have given thought in advance to their responsibilities to them. The parents may perhaps decide to make the best of what seems to be a bad mistake. They may make that choice in the interests of their children.
We have had the anecdotal evidence to which I have referred and which cannot possibly be isolated, but there is anecdotal evidence on the other side. I remember a colleague of mine saying to me, "My brothers, sisters and I suffered greatly because our parents were on very had terms with each other, but we knew that, where our own interests were concerned, they would come together immovably". Certainly, he grew up into a very well adjusted man.
In any case, however, anecdotal evidence must always be measured against the statistical evidence, which is overwhelmingly that the children of broken homes suffer grievously. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor summed up the assessment of such research in the following terms:
"Research work has shown that there is a significant excess in the signs of emotional disruption among children of broken families, not just in the short term but, apparently, on into adolescence and even adulthood. The research points to increased delinquency, increased ill health and a greater likelihood of divorce in spouses who themselves were the children of broken homes".—[Official Report, 31/1/91; col. 800]
That summary of research has been brought up to date. In particular there has been some important research by Exeter University which tends to show that it is not the preceding tension that does the real damage, but the separation and the divorce. No doubt included in that—I think that they are difficult to measure—are the strains that I have suggested which inevitably arise on remarriage after divorce, as was vividly illustrated when we considered the Child Support Act.
The Bill's provisions on mediation are welcome. They could well mitigate the harm that is done to many children. Mediation was at the very centre of our proposals for a family court, on which, unfortunately, we were rebuffed by the Government. However, surely it is better not to engage in damage limitation—valuable though it is—but in obviating the cause of the damage.
I do not propose to take any of the amendments to a Division because this is a subject that has not been sufficiently discussed and is one on which I should welcome the views of your Lordships, as I am sure would everybody. The question that we are now facing is whether we believe that children should come first and whether we believe that their welfare should be considered before there is a divorce. This gives us the opportunity to show forth our commitment not only with our lips but in our legislative lives. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Did the noble and learned Lord include Amendment No. 146 in the list of amendments which, as I understand it, were grouped together?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. I did not speak to Amendment No. 146 advisedly because it is really only a drafting amendment. It need not be considered separately. The important amendments are those numbered 6, 7, 8 and 10, to which I have referred.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I support the noble and learned Lord's amendments in the hope that they may stimulate the Government and the Committee to reconsider this aspect of the Bill. I wish to add to what the noble and learned Lord said only that it is notorious that very large numbers of immature children have experienced their parents' divorce—almost 3 million between 1971 and 1990, and some 153,000 in 1990 alone. The current trend in divorce suggests that one in four of all children will share that experience in future.
The Children Act 1989 requires the child's welfare to be treated as the paramount consideration in family matters. I find it odd that we retain statutory powers to regulate the circumstances in which childless adult spouses may obtain a licence to marry again, but impose no special requirements in respect of immature children under the age of 16 in relation to remarriages. The case for providing that the court should have discretion to withhold a decree unless it is specified that the divorce is in the interests of the children is irresistible. Only the court is in a position to make an assessment of what the interests of the children in the future are likely to be in such circumstances.
On the first day in Committee, a good deal was said about the messages that this place should he sending to the general public by means of the Bill. Might not we send the message that in a period when most parents control their own fertility, the birth of their children should be regarded as being intended, and therefore carries a peremptory obligation to care for them until their maturity? That obligation should not be lifted in divorce unless the court believes that the interests of the children will be best served by the divorce. I support the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, because they point in that direction.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Elles: I support the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. I have tabled an amendment but I do not intend to put it to a Division today. I agree that it is a matter that needs to be debated in this place, especially in view of the diverse statements made during Second Reading. Many noble Lords thought that the Bill would be in the interests of the children; that if they are living in a family of conflict, divorce should be quicker and children should not have to live in a home where there is conflict. There are many views on that topic which I hope will be put forward today.

807
Having been married for 50 years, and having children and grandchildren, I, too, of course have many anecdotal stories that I could tell about relationships of children and grandchildren whom I have known through the years, and also from doing voluntary social work. I therefore declare that whatever might be my private views on family and moral values, they are not my primary objectives during today's debate. My primary objective is to contribute towards ensuring that the happiness of children and their future prospects are not marred by some of the elements which appear in the Bill, where no protection has been given to the children of marriages which are about to break down.
The size of the problem is well known to the Committee. The noble and learned Lord has already touched on that point. Apparently every day 630 children are affected by divorce proceedings. There were 176,000 in 1993. There are well over 2.5 million children on income benefit, as revealed in an Answer to a Question tabled recently by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Although not all of them, of course, are living in one-parent families, the vast majority will be.
The social effects are also well known to the Committee. They have been discussed many times in this place. Crime, vandalism, drugs and child sex abuse are frequently shown to be connected with broken homes. The reason I tabled my amendment to raise the age to 18—the noble and learned Lord proposes the age of 16—is to deal with the question of the young homeless. So many of the young homeless are between the ages of 16 and 17. When we have asked, "Why don't you go back home?", how many times have we heard them say, "I have no home to go back to. My mother does not want me, because her boyfriend does not want me in the house"? Money is not the answer to the problem. More than money is needed to deal with that problem.
The results of a national survey of young people between the ages of 14 and 25, which have recently been released by the Home Office, show that one of the most important keys to whether they started to offend and carried on offending was their relationship with their parents. The report stated:
"Those young people living with both natural parents were less likely to offend than those living with one parent or in a step family".
I cannot quote the paper because it is not yet available in the Printed Paper Office. The survey was published in various newspapers on Friday. But that would seem to be obvious common sense, based on the practical experience of so many Members of the Committee who are involved with voluntary organisations. Unfortunately again there is no reflection of that in the Bill.
A glance at some statistics supports those observations: four-fifths of children in care come from broken homes, and only one quarter of persistent young offenders live in two-parent families. Those two-parent families include of course step-parents and mothers living with a boyfriend and so forth. They arc not two-parent families with the natural biological parents. In tribute to so many one-parent families who bring up their children and manage in some extraordinary way to overcome the problems, I must say that what we are
808
saying today is not meant to cause offence to those who make tremendous efforts and produce wonderful young people. That does them much credit.
It is surprising that in the White Paper entitled Looking to the Future there was little to show that there was any new approach towards safeguarding children's interests. They have been almost ignored. Yet there is overwhelming evidence from the various studies and research that children living in families of high conflict arc still better off than those who have been forced to live in one-parent families.
Research has been done by the National Child Development Study, the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University, Supporting Families by David Utting and a whole host of others. I hope that, if I quote some research studies, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not make quite the derogatory remark he made to me the other day when I referred to the no-fault research being carried out in the USA. He implied that there was not enough evidence from which to draw conclusions. Perhaps I may support what I said the other day by informing the Committee that Connecticut, which has had no-fault divorce for 20 years, is now reintroducing fault because it has seen what has happened to the number of divorces resulting from no-fault divorce.
In the White Paper Looking to the Future there was reference to the research done by Exeter University, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Paragraph 5.16 states:
"It is confirmed that marital conflict is harmful to children. These findings are significant".
Of course they are significant. They are also common sense. What is even more significant is that there is no reference to all the other findings in the report which show conclusively that it is infinitely more harmful to children to be brought up separately and to go through not merely the trauma of the divorce but the post-divorce period where they suffer all the other problems, to some of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred.
I regret that the White Paper did not tackle more honestly some of the problems caused to children who are no longer living at home—even a home in conflict. As the report states:
"The outcomes for children in high conflict families more closely resemble those for children in intact families"—
that is, families with both biological parents—
"than those in reordered families. The assumption is that parental conflict will cease following divorce, but that is not true. In some families divorce instigates conflict which will continue into the post-divorce period".
I am sure that many of us are aware of such situations.
Detailed examples are given in the report, which is strongly recommended reading. Those examples show low self-esteem, deep unhappiness, health problems, especially psychosomatic problems, low educational attainment, school changes, home changes and fewer possibilities for employment and career prospects and future family relationships. It continues:
"Poverty obviously played a role in the situation where the mother retained the children, resulting frequently in economic and social change, and of course going further towards poverty".

809
In many cases where the mother introduces a boyfriend, or partner, or eventually a stepfather, the young people no longer feel that they have a home to go to. One of the most important adverse factors, as was emphasised in the report, is the loss of a parent and its consequences. Even if the parent who left the home clearly might have appeared to be the guilty party or was violent, the children of the marriage always resented and regretted the departure of that parent. As was reported by Dr. Richards of the Cambridge Centre for Family Research, when children were asked what they would like:
"They would almost always say they only want one thing; that their parents should stay together".
If this Bill is to support the institution of marriage it should be making provision for safeguarding the interests of children within marriage—the victims of their parents' conduct—but there is no evidence of that so far in the Bill. If it is true that among the objectives of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to cut down or restrain rises in the cost of legal aid for divorces, he can do no better than to recognise that the retention of family structure would produce considerable benefits to the Exchequer. The cost in welfare alone as a result of divorces approaches £3.2 billion a year. Even at that low level of argument on costs, surely it would be of infinite benefit to the country if such expenditure were not going to help divorced parents in their separate lives.
There is nothing on the face of the Bill which enforces, or seeks to enforce, legal obligations as between husband and wife in relation to their children. I do not mean moral obligations but the obligation to provide together a common and stable home background. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can give any comfort as regards what he intends to do about helplines and reconciliation before the stage of statement is reached, because there is no evidence on the face of the Bill. Regrettably, the Bill appears to many of us not as a family Bill but as a further step to increase poverty, poor education, homelessness and, through a lack of stable parental relationships, the number of children in care and young offenders
Earl Russell: It will give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, no surprise to hear that I cannot support this group of amendments. I gave my reasons for that in the debate on Amendment No. 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on 11th January. The Committee as a whole may he relieved to hear that I am not going to repeat them. I shall confine myself to remarks that have been made today.
The noble and learned Lord took up some of the remarks that I made on 11th January and argued, if I understood him correctly—I will check the Official Report again—that none of the points would have been necessary if people were responsible. But the noble and learned Lord's argument did too much. If people were responsible the vast majority of the legal system would be unnecessary. I am afraid we know all too well that it is not.
810
It seems to me that the opponents of the Bill are on a fork and they must tell us on which prong of it they wish to rest if the argument is to be developed further. We need to know whether they want to prevent divorce or separation. If they want to prevent divorce they must explain why it is better if the couple are living apart but cannot regularise the position by divorce than if the law recognises the situation as it is. If they want to prevent separation they must undertake the challenge of explaining how they are going to make the couple live happily ever after. That, of course, is a very stiff challenge indeed.
That is relevant to the point that the noble and learned Lord made about statistics. The problem with all divorce statistics is the difficulty of getting a control group. I do not believe that anyone disputes that it is better for children to have two happily married parents than it is to have any of the reasonable and likely alternatives. If there is any child for whom that is not so I suspect that that child is a masochist and therefore not likely to give grounds for general legal rules. What we really want to know is the comparative effects on children of having divorced parents, parents who are separated but not divorced, or parents who live together but are unhappy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, mentioned the existence of research hearing on that topic. I have heard of the existence of such research but I have not yet had the opportunity to see it or managed to track down its place. If the noble Baroness could give me a reference I should be happy to read it before we come to the next stage of the Bill. When I look at that research I shall want to check the definition of the sample. It seems to me that if one looks at couples whose relationship has placed a strain on the children a good many are couples who would never admit to being in any way unhappily married. In fact, some of them believe that they arc blissfully happily married. They just happen to have a competitive relationship and the competition happens through the children. On occasion they may enjoy that very much but children do not always enjoy it nearly as much. In that way it is very hard indeed to obtain a control group for any proper scientific academic study. I will study that question with care when I look at the research to which the noble Baroness referred.
I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness raised the issue of child poverty. The statistics that she quoted about the proportion of children on income support are worrying. It is about one-quarter of all children in the British Isles. But that is made up of four groups; the divorced, the separated, the widows and the never-married single parents. Those groups get to that position by many different routes but they all have a common problem. It might be better to think of tackling the problem directly by a solution that deals with all of those groups rather than by trying to block the entry of one group to the sample, leaving all the others unhelped.
I hasten to reassure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am not about to make a social security speech. His noble clansman of Ardbrecknish knows my views on that subject perhaps rather better than he would like. I will mention only the words, "childcare disregard, nursery education, flexible

811
working hours and the problem of childcare in general", including the opportunity for men, if they wish, to take part in it on equal terms. Those are the areas in which solutions should be sought and that is the way in which I should tackle that problem. I will not develop that point now because I have done it often enough.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I too wish to give great weight to the interests of children. I would not support Amendments Nos. 6 or 7. Amendment No. 8 may be helpful but I wish to hear the explanation of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as regards her amendments relating to children.
In no way do I wish to argue against the damage that is done to children by divorce but one cannot by law protect children from the place of acrimony. The researchers produce their evidence and they do not always agree. I come down on the side that the greater damage is done when parents have divorced. However. without question a great deal of damage is done when children live within a home that is full of bickering and bitterness. We cannot say simply that that is not the case. Alas, parents do not always protect their children from acrimony. Parents cannot fool their children too much of the time.
At several points in the Bill we must recognise the limits of what law can do in changing peoples' behaviour. Many members of the Committee will have heard the interview given at the weekend by Cardinal Hume. It followed an article that he wrote in The Tablet magazine. I pick up the matter at the moment at which he was talking about the rise in cohabitation. He says:
"I do not ignore the rise in cohabitation which is a widespread social trend but the answer is to make marriage more attractive by doing all we can to ensure more marriages flourish".
That is the part that I hope we shall help to strengthen within the Bill—the support for good counselling and good preparation for marriage.
Were we to accept the amendment, which would make divorce impossible for parents with children under the age of 16, what would be the effects? Just as Cardinal Hume was saying about the judgment that must be reached as regards the length of time over which divorce may be agreed, we must make some sort of judgment as to how much notice people will take of it. Not everybody will wait to be married. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, spoke of the mother living with her boyfriend. It is very likely that that is not a case of a woman who has gone through the divorce courts. Is it not the lesser of evils that when there has been that breakdown, the couples should work through divorce with insistence upon a proper concern for the children?
The cardinal has been widely quoted as expressing concern about the length of time and the view that perhaps 18 months is a better time than 12 months. It should be clear to the Committee that in the article he continues to support the Bill but hopes that it may be strengthened in some respects. He says—and it is very clear—that a prudential judgment must be reached as to what is the best length of time over which the decision as regards divorce should be made. There cannot be a clear theological message.
812
I was very sorry that I was not able to be here for Second Reading. I read what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about those working with children who were consulted on the matter. Members of the Committee will be aware of the support for the Bill of many agencies supporting marriage and children and their welfare. The noble and learned Lord said that those who work with children point out—it is a thought I would commend to the Committee—that although 12 months may not seem long to us, it is a very long time indeed for a young child living with uncertainty. A lengthy period would prolong the agony not only for the adults but for the children. Children are not always fooled. When they know that a relationship has lost the love and trust between people, damage will be done as assuredly as it is done through divorce. Given the effect that the law can have on behaviour, I doubt whether we should be wise to go further than insist that the interests of children are firmly taken into account.
Lord Moran: On Second Reading I suggested that in all ordinary circumstances it should be unthinkable that parents with children under the age of 16 should be divorced and put their own gratification before the welfare of their children. Therefore, I have great sympathy with the arguments of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
All the evidence we have seen shows the misery and the lasting ill effects on children whose parents divorce. There are also serious social consequences. I believe that today the requiem mass is to take place for the headmaster who was so tragically killed by a gang of youths. Gangs of that sort, which are an increasing menace on our streets, are all too often made up of children of broken homes.
It is too drastic to prohibit divorce altogether for parents with dependent children. There must be an escape hatch for extreme cases; for example, a woman who finds herself married to a husband who is a drunken bully or something of that sort. But surely we should do all we can to discourage the divorce of parents with young children who simply want to make a change and go off with someone else. Therefore, I suggest that the Government might take account of what has been said and see whether a way cannot be found to make divorce much more difficult for couples with children under 16 than for childless couples, perhaps by giving the courts more discretion, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I start from the basic position that it can make no sense at all to compel parties to remain married if the marriage is dead. The law cannot compel people to remain together. The disgruntled partner will simply leave, start a new relationship and have more children who are innocent and who are just as entitled to be brought up by married parents as are the children of the first marriage.
Even if people who are determined to part could be compelled to live together—and I do not believe that that is possible—I rather think that compelling them to live together against their will would cause greater harm

813
to the children since the children would be brought up in a loveless home and be denied the advantage of even one happy parent.
Therefore, I start from the basic position that you cannot compel people to live together. The law can deny divorce but it cannot make people live together. Once that is recognised, what is the point of denying divorce? I repeat, as I have said on previous occasions, that overall the Bill, in the balance of its provisions, is right as regards those difficult choices.
I suggest that the amendments rest on the fundamental fallacy that the law, by denying divorce, can prevent broken homes. I can and do believe that children should come first at the same time as I oppose the amendments.
I find it difficult to see how divorce could ever be described as positively in the interests of children. Of course not. What would be in their interests is marriages not breaking down, but they do. To deny divorce does not prevent breakdown. Therefore, I see no point in denying divorce and denying the regularisation of new relationships after marriages have broken down irretrievably. I recognise that the amendments are well meaning but I believe that they are not well judged and, therefore, we oppose them.
Baroness Seear: Surely if we deny people the right to divorce, they will merely separate and live somewhere else. In that case, they will have none of the benefits—and they are real benefits—of the mediation and conciliation built into the Bill. Despite the good intentions behind the amendments, we shall be creating a worse rather than a better condition for the children. Separation which is unrecognised and unaided in any way must surely be a worse solution than a properly conducted divorce.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree absolutely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and his supporters that divorce is a disaster under any circumstances for any child. Having said that, I must say, not from statistics but from dealing personally with children whose parents are divorced, that to force a child to stay with parents who are warring with one another provides a very bad role model for that child in his daily life. I can only say that teachers find a difference in schoolchildren who come from homes where the parents are at odds with one another. Therefore, I cannot accept the recommendation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. While divorce is disastrous, I believe that to have the role model of warring parents at home affects the children to a serious degree. I do not support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness David: I have a great interest in both the welfare and the interests of the children, as I hope is obvious from the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I have tabled. I prefer the approach that we have taken to the one taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will consider sympathetically the amendments that we have tabled
814
and will appreciate that they are a better way of tackling the matter than the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who said that there was nothing about children in the Bill. That is something about which I spoke on Second Reading, as, indeed, did the noble Baroness, Lady Faith full. Therefore, I hope that we can write something into the Bill which deals with children.
Lord Milverton: I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As some Members of the Committee have already said, I do not see how it would really help. I can think of only two ways to describe what it would do: it would aggravate and rub up the wrong way parents who, for whatever reason, were finding it impossible to live peacefully together and give decent love to their children. In so doing, it would also rub up the children the wrong way.
As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, the situation also affects the children. I speak with knowledge of what my wife, who has experience of teaching children from homes which are not as one would wish, tells me. People may think that if the children have one loving parent when the marriage has broken up, that is far better. I do not believe that all stepparents are hopeless. Many love and care for their stepchildren as much as, or indeed perhaps more than, one of the previous parents did.
It is going too far to say that one cannot allow a man and a woman to divorce if the child is under 16 years of age. As has already been said, it is asking for trouble. Surely the couple will just separate and then the children will receive far less help and benefit. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. The Bill could be the basis not for destroying marriage but for helping it.
I put down my name to speak on Second Reading but, as I was right at the end of the speakers' list, I decided that enough had been said. However, what I am saying now is roughly what I would have said then. We are not helping the situation if we make this stipulation.
Lord Mishcon: I believe that noble Lords will agree that the principle behind the amendment is an honourable one. However, the practice, if I may refer the Committee to it, would be disastrous. I ask Members of the Committee to imagine for a moment sitting inside the judge's room if such an amendment were carried. He would have in front of him a child under the age of 16, and possibly more than one. What question could he possibly direct to the child or children if the amendment were accepted other than, "Do you want mummy and daddy to be divorced, or don't you?" What answer is the child expected to give other than, "No, sir, I prefer that they didn't"? I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged. I should point out to the noble Lord that there is an amendment which says that the statement "must also state" the ages and "relevant circumstances" of the

815
children. Therefore, if there is a child under the age of 16, the divorce proceedings will not start and there is no question of the child being in the judge's room.
Lord Mishcon: If that he so, I confess to the Committee that I have wrongly read the amendment. I thought that it would mean that no divorce order could be obtained where the court was not satisfied that it was in the interests of the children. Therefore, if an argument were to take place where the petitioner says that it is in the interests of the children, it is a matter that the judge would have to hear. I do not understand how in other circumstances the amendment would have any practical value.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. His judgment in such matters carries great weight, but I believe that he has concentrated on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, whereas I moved Amendment No. 6.
Lord Mishcon: The Committee will he saved from a speech of mine on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. However, I regard the matters as being so correlated that possibly I shall not be deemed to be irrelevant if I continue shortly with my remarks.
If the matter is to be brought judicially to the attention of a judge in order that he may decide whether it is in the interests of the child or children that a divorce order he made, the possible interview that I have brought to the attention of the Committee would be one that would take place and is one that would be absolutely fatal in its results. I repeat: the question would have to be put, "Do you want your parents to be divorced?" The answer would probably be, "No, sir". The judge would then ask, "Why don't you want your parents to he divorced?", and the child would say, "Because I want them to stay together". How could a judge then say that it is in the interests of the children that a divorce should take place? Worse still, if the answer is the one that the child is expected to give, what respect in after life would that child have for the judge who decided that presumably it was in the interests of the children that the divorce should go forward?
Baroness Young: I believe that the whole Committee should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for tabling the amendments and for drawing our attention to the important fact that the Bill leaves out the whole issue of the effects on children. We should also be most grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles who indicated that much of the Bill seems to be based on a completely false premise—namely, that what is bad for children is conflict—when all the recent evidence and research show that what is really bad for children is divorce.
Several Members of the Committee have quoted from various documents. I received a most interesting letter this morning from which I should like to quote one paragraph. The writer says:
"I have recently retired as a Comprehensive School Headmaster and I am a family man. I have seen so much distress and disturbance amongst children of divorced parents—I need no convincing that the distress in families which have held together in spite of major problems and conflict is not to be compared with the short and
816
long-term effects of divorce. Furthermore it is very evident that divorce in one generation is perpetuated in the next and the more so as it is made easier".
I believe that that simply confirms what has already been said. In our consideration of the following amendments about children, it is most important that we should remember those facts.
I know that my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have tabled a number of amendments. I can tell both of them that I support them in principle. I believe that those amendments would he helpful. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will also look favourably upon them. It is most important that he should do so.
My anxiety about this Bill is that it will make divorce easier, and the easier we make divorce the greater the army of unhappy and miserable children we shall have. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in the Chamber at the moment. He wondered about the evidence. He should read the Exeter study to which reference is made, rather passingly, in the White Paper where it is indicated that it is considered to be valuable. I quoted at Second Reading from the important study Families without Fatherhood. That document should be compulsory reading for everyone. It indicates that the statistics and the evidence are absolutely clear that children from broken homes where there has been a divorce do less well at school, suffer from more ill health, are more likely to be unemployed and take to crime, and are more likely to repeat the pattern of instability.
Of course we must do what we can in this Bill to try to mitigate the trouble, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said earlier, but the idea that somehow, under this Bill, we will save many children from an unhappy life is a mistake. I was disturbed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, say so categorically that there is nothing one can do about a dead marriage. I am not an expert on this but I do not think that marriages can be divided into those that are blissfully happy and those that are dead. There are many grey areas. There are quite good marriages just as there are good enough parents. Those parents and those marriages are perfectly good enough.
No doubt the noble Lord has come across, as I have, people who have divorced and who have regretted it later. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to show that that applies to many couples. To say categorically that were these amendments to be passed we should be propping up dead marriages, or trying to make dead marriages work, is not necessarily true. I accept there will be some marriages that are over, but they are not all over. Surely we should be looking at those that are not completely over—in the interests of children, if not in the interests of anyone else. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, do not intend to press these amendments, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider carefully the points that have been made to make quite sure that this legislation does not do even more damage to children who are already damaged so much by divorce.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has congratulated the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on bringing forward these amendments. They are important amendments, even if they are not to be voted upon, because they concentrate the mind of this Committee on the children, who will be worst affected by divorce.
It seems to me that we often forget the objective of marriage. The objective of marriage is for two people to come together and, by a civil or ecclesiastical process, make promises to each other that they will remain together, and indeed remain together to look after and bring up any issue of the marriage. If there is no issue of the marriage, it really does not matter whether the people are married or not; it is the issue of the marriage which counts, and it is the interests of the children of a marriage that count above all.
It seems to me that in the sort of society in which we live we are overlooking the prime duty of society to look after the interests of children. Society at the moment is, if I can describe it thus, rather looser than it was in my younger days. Indeed the media—television, the newspapers and what have you—seem to say to people, "Just gratify your ideas; never mind about the consequences, just gratify your desires, whatever they may be, sexual or what have you. Never mind about the consequences". But, of course, it is not for the state to say that that is all right when there are children involved. It is for the state to ask, "Is this where we want to go? Is this what we want to condone; or, indeed, is it something which we, for the sake of children, would like to alter?" That is the mistake of this Bill because what it does is to condone what is happening in society instead of trying to send a message to society saying, "Look here, we believe that society is on the wrong track and it is hurting the future generations upon which the society in which we live, the country which we love and the institutions which we have obeyed, depend". That is why I am so opposed to this Bill because, unlike the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I believe it will make divorce a lot easier and therefore more children will be hurt by it.
I pose a question and perhaps a challenge to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Does he believe that this Bill will result in fewer divorces or more divorces? We need an answer to that question because we shall want to hold the noble and learned Lord to that answer in the future. My noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg says that one cannot compel people to remain married if the marriage is dead. I agree with that, but when is a marriage dead? We do not know when a marriage is dead. Under this Bill it will be dead when one of the parties says it is dead. They may have been married only a, year before they can say that the marriage is dead. Our objective ought to be to say to people, "Think once; think twice; think many times", but that is not the message in this Bill. Although we shall not vote on this provision, I hope that the discussion that we have had on the noble and learned Lord's amendments will make people pay a lot more attention to children and a lot less attention to the immediate desires of people who might decide, for not
818
very serious reasons, that they have had enough of a marriage which could, with a little trying, carry on for a much longer period of time.
Lord Elton: This is bound to he a most painful debate because we are discussing what is the least damaging outcome of what is in itself a disaster. Therefore, I find myself in some despondency in joining in and trying to understand how it is that people whose values I share, as I believe, come to completely opposite conclusions on this issue to those of myself and my noble and learned friend. It is probably not too much of an over-simplification to say that those who support these amendments, which are admirable in their intention, are working to a world as it should be. I think the Bill is working to the world as, regrettably, it is. It brings us back to the question pertinently put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He was not in the Chamber to respond to the fly cast over his empty place a moment ago by my noble friend Lady Young and to return to the issue. However, the question is this: are we trying to prevent separation or divorce, and what will be the effect of these amendments in desolate homes where a marriage has broken up?
The law cannot keep the couple physically together. They will in extremis go their separate ways and the children will fall between them without the care of the courts if these amendments, or anything like them, are carried at the next stage. It seems to me that we have to recognise that we are dealing with something unpleasant, regrettable, but actual. We have to minimise its destructive effects as much as possible. The amendments rightly put the interests of the child at the top of the agenda, but I do not think that they succeed in keeping the child there. They leave the child exposed, to be the victim of an unsupervised separation rather than a legally supervised divorce.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have listened carefully to the debate and it is obvious that the arguments are evenly balanced. However, I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to deal specifically with Amendment No. 8 which seems to adopt a more balanced approach than the other amendments. Admittedly it imposes on the court a very difficult task. I do not underrate that. On the other hand, it does what a great many Members of the Committee have said should be done; namely, it mentions specifically the interests of the children. All who have spoken in the debate have been concerned, one way or the other, with the interests of children and with the sad effects that a divorce can have on the children of the family. Therefore, when my noble and learned friend replies I shall be most grateful if he deals fully with the arguments for and against Amendment No. 8, which seems to set out the interests of the children without going as far as Amendment No. 6. That amendment seems to me to go too far.
Viscount Cross: I venture to say a few words on the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because it concerns children. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that children need both parents—the mother and the father.

819
The child support legislation talks about the "caring parent" which usually means in practice a mother with young children. I suggest that it is a totally misleading term because it implies, in another sense, that the father does not care. In most cases fathers care very much indeed.
I recall a case some years ago where, after the divorce had taken place, the parents agreed to share the holidays 50–50. The children, who were girls, were quite young at the time. The result was that the children had two happy homes in different parts of the country and they had two sets of friends. They had a very happy childhood. The arrangement worked extremely well, and the children were not spoilt by either parent. Of course no two cases are ever the same and divorce is always regrettable. I mention that particular instance to the Committee simply because it shows that divorce need not always be harmful to the children.
Lord Stallard: I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time because I do not want to start another Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly says that we should concentrate on Amendment No. 8 if we are thinking of dividing the Committee. We have all read the results of the Exeter study which goes into the extent and reasons for damage to children affected by divorce. We all understand the position. As I said, we are not all lawyers, but nor are the people who are affected by these proposals. Most are not lawyers; most wish to God they had never met a lawyer. However, that is beside the point.
My noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg has been quoted by my noble friend Lord Stoddart as speaking of a marriage being dead and saying that it is better for a child to live in a home where there is one happy parent. It is not the experience of most people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, put it, live in the real world, that the one parent who is left is a happy parent. On the contrary, often that happy parent is out looking for somebody else much of the time and the children are left to contend with the guilt that they feel because they think that they have broken up the marriage. It is not necessarily true that the parent who is left is a happy parent and brings up the children in a happy background. Oh that it was! It is not like that and we have to take account of that fact.
The phrases "in this day and age" and "we have to keep up with the times" always grate on me whenever I hear them. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke to that effect. Those phrases are used in connection with much legislation, and particularly legislation dealing with divorce. We are told that we have to come into line with things as they are. What an awful mess we would be in if we believed that and managed our affairs on that basis. In fact, what a mess we are in, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, rightly says. We fall for that argument too often on many social issues. We are told we must move with the times. God help us, what times these are! There are some of the worst excesses we have ever known. We are all supposed to jump into line and forget our beliefs, whatever they might be, Christian, Moslem, or whatever. There is a basic belief that a marriage contract is made forever and that you break it only after a long period of reconciliation. That is what is missing
820
from the Bill. The Bill goes straight from somebody saying, "I'm fed up with you. I'm packing it in, the marriage is over. You have 12 months notice and that's the end of it" to mediation to decide who gets what. There is nothing to say that the parties should assess the situation and not act too hastily.
For my sins, I have been married for 52 years. I would not say that it is an idyllic marriage. It is the same as everybody else's marriage. It has its up and downs, its rows and arguments. Of course it does. But there is a permanent state of reconciliation. That has to be so if a couple are determined to make a go of it and there is any feeling between the parties concerned, as there should be if they have had sufficient education before embarking on marriage.
Couples have to be taught what marriage means before they enter it. That is done by most Churches, or used to be. I understand that because they have come up to date and in line with the times some of that is now disappearing and that it no longer suits all Churches to act in that way.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am sorry to intervene, but I feel I must correct the noble Lord. I can assure him that preparation for marriage for couples getting married in the Church of England is taken more seriously than it has ever been. It now takes a number of evenings. It is not simply a matter of a little chat with the couple or going through the service. It is taken very seriously. Often professional marriage support agencies are brought in to help.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and I am delighted to hear it. That is how it should be. That is what we want to extend. We ought to extend our support to all those organisations which concentrate on that aspect. Even in schools we ought to be looking at preparation for what is a serious contract.
As it stands the Bill does not take care of that aspect. We are left with the amendments, which try to reduce the conflict. It is not only conflict which makes children suffer; the legal process makes them suffer even more. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take note of what has been said, which has all been in the same vein, before he finally wraps up the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: It is certainly my business to listen carefully to all that has been said. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, there is a theme, mentioned more than once, upon which all who have spoken are agreed. I should like to begin by responding to my noble friend Lady Elles. I certainly did not mean to treat her remarks on the last occasion other than with the utmost respect. I meant to show why it is not easy to say, from the experience of other jurisdictions, what causes a rise or fall in the divorce rate. That is what I sought to say. In no way was I seeking to minimise or undervalue what the noble Baroness said.
That brings me to the suggestion that the welfare of children is not at the forefront of what is proposed in the Bill and in the White Paper which preceded it.

821
Speaking for myself, I consider that the welfare of children affected by marital breakdown is the centre of what we are about. I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said a moment ago, that the divorce process does not make the situation worse for the children. That is exactly what the Bill is intended to achieve: that the divorce process does not make it worse than it needs to be for the children and, of course, also for the parents.
I am the first to acknowledge, indeed to assert, that breakdown between parents is a disaster for their children. I believe that, in the ordinary course of events, children grow up to love and to be united to both parents as a unity because they have been accustomed to treat the parents as a unit. I think that good parents do their best to give that impression to their children at every opportunity. When the parents start to come apart, the child is almost torn apart because there is an affection in the child for each of the parents.
It is that thought which is behind my view that we should do everything that we possibly can to persuade the parents to stay together. That is the philosophy which underlies the Bill. However, if, having had every opportunity to consider that, the parents decide that they wish their marriage to be dissolved, a regime should be in place which minimises the danger and damage to the relationship with each parent. I think that it is clear that breakdown damages children. But it is also clear that to be able to maintain a relationship after the breakdown with both parents is the best outcome for the children in that sad situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, shakes his head rather deliberately. I do not know whether he means to contradict that proposition. I think that it is absolutely plain that of the children who, sadly, are afflicted by divorce, the ones who do best in later times, who develop best, are those who are able to maintain a good relationship with both their parents.
I believe it is clear that the Bill seeks to give parents every opportunity, before the final decision to divorce is taken, to consider those matters. One of the matters to be considered in terms of the Bill is the arrangements made for the children. Where there is difference about that, all the machinery of the Children Act applies. I believe that in practice the Children Act has been found in private and public law provisions to be of very great value.
We have to keep another matter in mind. When parents come into conflict there is a tendency, sadly, in some situations for them to seek to treat the children as pawns or as symbols of victory on one side or another. We must do everything we possibly can to prevent that.
I should like to follow what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. The centre of this debate is on what can be done in relation to the interests of children in connection with the divorce order. I think that it would be going too far to try to prevent divorce in every case where there is a child of the family under 16 or under 18.
This may be the right time to mention the letter referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale in introducing his amendment. He asked
822
me a little time ago whether I could give the different relevant ages of children in relation to certain proceedings. I shall summarise the letter as it is rather long. The Children Act 1989 private law proceedings allow residence orders to children up to the age of 16 but it also provides for orders to continue beyond that age where the circumstances arc exceptional. In care proceedings, no care or supervision order may be made in respect of a child who has reached the age of 17, or 16 if he or she is married. Wardship may be awarded up to 18. A child is defined in the Child Support Act as a person under the age of 16, or under the age of 19 when receiving full-time non-advanced education who has not been married. Under the Children Act, financial provisions for children apply where the child is aged under 18 but Schedule 1(3) allows a periodical payments order to be extended for a child over 18 who is or will be undergoing education, or where there are special circumstances. I believe that those are the main headings. I shall not weary the Committee with others. A number of different ages ranging from 16 to 18 arc relevant to the matter. In any event, I submit to the Committee that to attempt to prevent divorce where there are children under the age of 16 or 18 is going much too far.
On Amendment No. 8, for many the fact that the order of divorce is being made at all would be regarded as contrary to the interests of the children if one embraces the philosophy that I mentioned earlier, in the sense that it would be better for the children if there were no marital breakdown and the parties stayed together. On the other hand, later amendments are directed also to the hardship bar which may well mean that at that stage a discretion should exist in the court to postpone the order of divorce. Indeed, Section 41 of the Act—it is already taken into account in connection with the arrangements for children—would allow the order to be postponed in some circumstances. Therefore, there are ways in which the interests of the children, in so far as they can be attained by a postponement of the order of divorce, may be taken into account. We can perhaps consider that in more detail later.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that the Bill has the effect of increasing the scope for divorce. In my submission to the Committee, the whole purpose of the Bill is to do what reasonably can be done to give the parties an opportunity to consider carefully before they go forward to an ultimate divorce. Perhaps I may emphasise one aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that mediation is about what will happen. One important consideration in deciding whether to divorce is what will happen. Sometimes, parties go ahead and divorce without realising what the practical effects will be. They know what the present situation is and the aspects of it for which they do not care. But it is very difficult to know what the future will be like.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, sometimes echoes the views of Families Need Fathers on this aspect. One of the most devastating consequences of divorce for some fathers is that they have the greatest difficulty maintaining suitable contact with their children. A firm realisation of that at an earlier stage in the development of the relationship with

823
the mother of their children might have a very salutary effect in preventing them going forward. It is therefore important that the mediation provisions are in the Bill, and that the Bill envisages mediation as a way of examining the future in order that parties may consider whether they want such a future or whether they would prefer to seek to repair the relationship and proceed with their marriage.
We should do everything we can within the framework of the law to encourage parties to stay with a living marriage and to have that marriage continue alive. There are obviously different standards and measures of that. But in reality it is the parties who must ultimately conclude the matter in the light of all the circumstances.
The interests of the children are at the heart of the Bill. This is one of the most important matters to be resolved before a divorce goes forward. I agree that it would be unwise to stipulate that no divorce should take place where there are children under 16 or 18. I share entirely the anxiety about children expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale in moving the amendment, by my noble friend Lady Elles and by all others who spoke on these matters. If I could achieve that all who are married stay happily together married, I should be absolutely delighted. I believe that marriage is the most rewarding of all human institutions and the best possible background and atmosphere in which children should be brought up. I do not seek to encourage divorce when I say that we have, however, to face the fact that marriages break down. We have to make the best arrangements we can when that happens and do everything we can within that framework to preserve, as far as possible, opportunities for the parties to keep their marriages going.
I hope that in the light of this discussion my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, realising that many of the sentiments that underlie his moving of it are embraced in all parts of the House and that we are all anxious to secure the best practicable arrangements for achieving those results.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, replies, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could reply to my question. Does he believe that this Bill will increase or reduce the incidence of divorce?
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: It is always tempting to don the mantle of the prophet. One commentator on matters of divorce law cautioned very strongly against doing so. It would be unwise for me to disregard that caution. Many factors can affect the rate of divorce. The precise terms of divorce law are only one such factor. However, what I do claim, for the Bill is that it provides the best framework that I have been able to come up with so far to encourage people whose marriages get into difficulty to try to heal their relationship rather than divorce. Therefore the tendency of the Bill is to reduce rather than increase the number of divorces. It will not be the only factor in the future, assuming that it passes into law in something like its present form, that will influence the number of divorces at any given time.
The Earl of Perth: I was particularly interested in the noble and learned Lord's description of mediation. It seemed that he was saying that if we have mediation, as part of it we may have reconciliation, and that is what we want. But so many of us feel that reconciliation is the more important factor. It is not clear from the Bill as I read it that reconciliation is the purpose rather than mediation, which is to make things easy for the divorce. I hope that we can try to get round this dilemma and be quite clear that, before there is mediation, there should be a separate section dealing with reconciliation.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I have not properly explained the situation. The point about mediation that I was trying to make is this. It concentrates on what the relationships will have to be if the parties go forward to a divorce. They need to discuss that. It involves past conduct because that raises questions in relation to the distribution of property. It is quite wrong and unwise to suggest that reconciliation and mediation should be separated.
I have heard it suggested that I do not know the difference; I believe I do understand the difference. My point is that it is unwise to put them into separate, watertight compartments. My experience, such as it is, is that when people look to the future and see what the form for the future will be, it may well persuade them that they are better off with what they have. Therefore, instead of going forward to destroy their relationship completely, they may go back to try to repair it. If parties have reached the second part of the divorce stage—namely, after getting information, they want to go ahead—the situation has gone a fair distance. I want to make sure that there is no stage before the very end at which reconciliation is finished. It is important to keep it alive for as long as possible. One factor that may assist is consideration of just what the future will be. Apart from anything else, the most obvious consideration is that two households will not be able to live as cheaply as one. The dawning of that realisation on some people might just have a salutary effect on whether or not they want to go forward.
Lord Coleraine: I am sorry to detain the Committee at so late a stage in a long debate, especially after my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench has spoken. However, there are points still to be discussed and I wanted to hear his remarks before doing so. We have not yet delved into, and got to the bottom of, the question of parental conflict and whether it is the conflict or the divorce that so damages the children.
The right revered Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who is no longer in his place, referring to remarks made a fortnight ago, made the point that the period for reflection and consideration—presently 12 months—is a long time in the life of a child. It is a long time during which that child may be subjected to conflict. He contrasted the 12-month period with a possibly longer period of 18 months, but in doing so, he begged the question. He assumed that at the end of the 12-month or 18-month period the conflict would cease. But it does not cease. It goes on. The real question is how long it would take to resolve the problems for the future which affect the children. It is not sufficient to say that 12 months is a long time in the life of a child.

825
The White Paper has a great deal to say about parental conflict. It says at paragraph 2.11:
"While children are inevitably affected when their parents separate, research shows that it is conflict between the parents which has been linked to greater social and behavioural problems among children rather than separation and divorce itself".
At paragraph 2.22:
"Research has shown that children suffer and are damaged as a result of conflict between their parents, whether the parents are living together or apart".
The word "conflict" is there emphasised.
At paragraph 3.10:
"As noted in Chapter 2, while these children are inevitably affected when their parents separate, it is conflict between the parents which has been linked to greater social and behavioural problems among children rather than the separation and divorce itself".
At paragraph 4.37:
"As mentioned earlier, research has demonstrated that children are greatly harmed by conflict between their parents, especially if they are drawn into that conflict as go-betweens or intermediaries, as happens all too often in present divorce cases".
What exactly is the recent research which has so clearly established that proposition? That is an important question, on which many other questions depend and which I hope my noble and learned friend will be able to answer, though not necessarily today. The kind of points that depend on the answer to that question are questions such as the length of the period of reflection and reconciliation and whether there should be some right for a limited period of one spouse not to be divorced against his or her will.
For my part, I am happy to concede that I am not in a position to give any definitive judgment on the value of the Exeter Family Study, to which reference was made earlier in the debate. However, I remind the Committee that, unlike the White Paper, it makes no categoric statement as to whether parental conflict or divorce is worse for children. The study merely states that children whose parents have been through divorce are worse off than children whose families remain intact. The study states that the data suggests that parental separation itself has a major association with difficulties for children. But the study goes a little further. It suggests that the belief that it is better to resolve a high conflict situation by ending the parental relationship than by allowing it to continue may, in fact, be a misunderstanding of the situation.
It appears to me that the authors of the report make their points with scrupulous integrity and, given the appalling consequences of divorce for the children involved in that divorce, with the loss of parents, it must be up to those who believe that in high conflict families divorce is in the best interests of the children as well as of the parents to produce some evidence. That has not yet been done. It is taken for granted in the White Paper, even if stated to be demonstrated by recent research.
The general question is whether families should stay together for the sake of the children or whether they should separate for the sake of the children. Both points can and have been argued. Overwhelming logic suggests
826
that it is for those who argue the second case to put their cards on the table and show exactly why they feel that way.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may just supplement what I have already said. First, in connection with these amendments, I am suggesting that the process—assuming that there is a divorce—should minimise the following conflict. At this juncture I am not concerned with whether or not divorce is or is not better than constant squabbling. That must be a matter of degree, on which it would not be for me to make a judgment. It must be for the parties to judge ultimately whether or not their relationship can survive the conflict.
The point that I am trying to make is a separate one; namely, that it is quite clear from every study that if a child retains a good relationship with both parents the child will be the better for it. Therefore, the thesis on which I am operating is that we should do nothing to damage the relationship of the child with either parent by introducing any unnecessary conflict between the child and parents in the divorce process.
Let me answer the question put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. He pointed out that it is not conflict that is at issue when judging the length of the period. What is at issue then is the question of uncertainty: how long should that uncertainty he which is involved in the period of consideration and reflection? It has been suggested that a year is a long period of uncertainty in the life of a child. I agree that that is a difficult question and we are not absolutely sure of it at present.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. Naturally, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for bringing us his experience as an academic sociologist, well used to handling statistics, and his knowledge of the need for a control group. After all, not only was he a member of two important committees and not only does he have an academic background but he was one of the three people who carried through the very important statistical survey on separated partners.
I am grateful also to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for giving the figures in relation to age of responsibility for the laws concerned with the welfare of children. He did not deal with all the details. He gave sufficient to enable us to make up our minds but, with his consent, I shall place his letter to me in the Library.
Considering the argument on age, it seems preferable to plump for 18, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I took the age of 16 largely because that is the age that appears in most of the statistics and because it is the age of consent to marriage and the age of leaving school. But in these days of further and higher education, one wants to look further, as indeed the law does in some circumstances, as my noble and learned friend suggested.
My noble and learned friend was noticeably cautious in reply to the crucial question put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon; namely, whether this

827
measure will lead to more divorce, about the same number, or less. If there are more divorces, more children will he placed at risk.
Although he was cautious, on the whole my noble and learned friend's argument was optimistic; that is, that it is best for children to have a happy relationship with both parents after divorce. The Committee was perhaps reminded of the highly optimistic speeches that were made in 1969. Lord Stow Hill declared himself enthusiastic for the Bill, whereas we now have it denounced by its very author—the Lord Chancellor's Department. Not only is there that background, but also is it reasonable to be optimistic when we have seen the fall-out from the Child Support Act?
The only other point I wish to deal with was adverted to by my noble and learned friend, but put with characteristic clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. He asked how the law can help if a marriage is dead. The central argument in this debate is that, if there is a child, it is impossible to say that the marriage is dead; it is living in the child; it is living in the responsibility of the parents to the child.
I said that this was an exploratory amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line I, at end insert—
("( ) there is subsisting no relevant agreement in affirmation of marriage under section (Affirmation of marriage);").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 9 is different. It gives the parties to a marriage the right to enter into a binding agreement that the marriage,
"shall be indissoluble except by death",
Or,
"indissoluble except by death so long as there is any child of the family".
The crucial amendment in this group is Amendment No. 96 which states:
"The parties to a marriage may at any time before, at or after their marriage agree in writing that their marriage shall be indissoluble except by death".
That is a general agreement in affirmation of marriage. The second alternative is that:
"The parties to a marriage may at any time before, at or after their marriage agree in writing that their marriage shall be indissoluble except by death so long as there is any child of the family under the age of 16 years".
As a result of the last debate, we should perhaps raise the age to 18. The rest of the new clause is mainly consequential. It, provides that:
"A general agreement in affirmation of marriage may be discharged by an agreement in writing to that effect by the parties to the marriage".
In other words, the provision treats marriage like any other contract. What is strange about the Bill is that it does not treat the agreement to marry like any other contract which can be discharged by consent; it treats it as the type of contract that can be discharged by
828
unilateral repudiation by one of the parties. I have read most of the subsection. But it continues that the agreement may not be discharged even by consent where there is a child under the age of 16, or 18—that turns on the arguments canvassed in relation to the last amendment.
It should not be necessary to provide that the parties can enter into that sort of contract. On the face of it, whether at a registry office or in some religious ceremony, the parties have already promised. However, the law regards such promises, made even in such solemn circumstances, as being able to be cast off not only by consent but also by the wish of only one of the parties, however much to the detriment of the other, however oblivious to the welfare of the children. It is only because we have got into that situation in the law and are getting into it further with this Bill that the Committee may wish to consider this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may be a bore once again and ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is also speaking to Amendments Nos. 17, 34 and 96, which are grouped with Amendment No. 9.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Those amendments are all ancillary. I shall not speak to them specifically and shall not move them in due course if I withdraw Amendment No. 9. Does that satisfy the noble Baroness? Evidently it does; so my day is made.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend explained the effect of these amendments, the principal one of which is Amendment No. 96. In the past, in the majority of marriages both parties entered the marriage with the view that they wished it to continue for as long as their joint lives. The circumstances which give rise to divorce are supervening circumstances which are not envisaged by the parties at the time they enter into the marriage.
As I said earlier, preparation for marriage is an important matter and we should consider the nature of available help in that area. Subject to that, creating a second tier, a new arrangement under which there is one type of marriage which is more easily dissoluble than another, would not be very satisfactory.
Since divorce has been available under our law, the possibility has existed that the marriage will come to an end in law before the death of either party. To try to make some new arrangement for one type of marriage where that could happen and another where it can happen only by agreement would not be a desirable development. I believe that what we want to concentrate on is the institution of marriage which we have and we hope that it will he as effective as possible in providing a satisfying life-long relationship between the parties. I would not myself be in favour of supporting this group of amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I rise briefly to support what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. In considering divorce, there have been times when Christians have been tempted to

829
suggest that civil marriages are somehow less than religious marriages. It is a profoundly unhelpful notion that there are two layers of marriage. It would damagingly and seriously weaken what we mean by marriage, which is when two persons willingly in public make their vows to each other. There is one marriage and it is a true marriage.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord and with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. It is the marriage ceremony itself which affirms the marriage. To accept these amendments would be to devalue the solemnity of marriage, whether celebrated in church or in a registry office. I agree that there should not be two tiers of marriage and I associate myself with the noble and learned Lord's desire to strengthen the one institution of marriage that we have. I therefore oppose these amendments.
Lord Stallard: I wish to support the noble and learned Lord's amendments. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said. We accept civil marriage. There is an arrangement and agreement. The point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, makes that influences me is that the Bill sets up a new structure where one party to the marriage can say, "It's over and all we have to do now is wait 12 months". That is what makes the arrangement different from what the original marriage agreement was.
One is undermining the marriage agreement by saying that that is the agreement but that it is all right if one of the parties says to the other one, "I'm fed up with this. Let's wait 12 months and get out of it". We have set up this new agreement and many people will take advantage of it. That is why we are concerned that the Bill diminishes the sanctity of marriage. That is why the amendment needs a little more consideration than it has been given.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am again grateful to those who have contributed to the debate. The normal principle of English law and, I think, of Scottish law too—in fact of most civilised systems of law—is that the parties can enter freely into such agreements as they choose provided the agreement is not contrary to public policy. What I envisaged in this amendment is that the parties can affirm the promises now regarded so lightly by the law that they made at the marriage ceremony. They can affirm those promises. In particular they can affirm the indissolubility of marriage so long as there are young children to whom they thereby recognise they owe an obligation. Is that against public policy? Is it not rather in accord with public policy? If so, why are we so reluctant, why are we so avid for divorce that we refuse the couple that freedom to contract?
I undertook at the beginning of the Committee stage not to press any of these amendments. Having said that, and, I am afraid, being dissatisfied with three of the speeches that have been made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("attending information sessions") and insert ("obtaining information").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment, if I may spare the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, an unnecessary intervention, your Lordships may find it convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 77 and, although I think it is not included on the written list of amendments, 75, in the name of my noble friend Lady David.
Amendment No. 10 is as one born out of due time because really it is a paving amendment for a group of amendments to Clause 8. I hope your Lordships will not think the less of it for that reason. Clause 8 seeks to provide that before making the statement which effectively initiates these proceedings the party making it must have attended an information session. If the other party wishes to make or contest an application, that party must attend an information session. Clause 8(4) defines the expression "information session"— I paraphrase—as a meeting for the purpose of providing information about matters which may arise under the Bill.
We have no quarrel with the purpose of providing information to the parties about the provisions of the Bill. I presume to say "we". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, who was kind enough to add his name to my amendment, has explained to me that he has an unavoidable commitment and consequently has to be absent and my noble friend Lady Birk has for family reasons to be absent too. But I think I can presume to say that we have no quarrel with providing information on the provisions of the Bill and, I suppose, the consequences of making or opposing an application. That seems to be a valuable idea which might be extended to other areas of law. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in an earlier debate, it may be that a clear understanding of what is involved may serve to dissuade the parties from proceeding with the divorce. Although I think the noble and learned Lord said it in the context of mediation, it may apply very much too to the giving of information.
What troubles us is that the Bill appears to envisage a meeting as the only method of providing that information. That raises a number of questions in our minds. First—this is perhaps the most glaring one—are both parties to attend the same meeting? I think we have the answer to that because on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to confirm, in answer to a question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that no one will be compelled to attend a meeting with the other partner to the marriage. That is what we would expect. It does not seem appropriate that they should attend the same meeting, particularly when it may have been a marriage where violence was involved. But even where the husband is not present some women may be so reluctant to attend a meeting where friends, neighbours or other people they know can see them coming and going that they actually may decide not to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill. It would be helpful if the Committee could be told

831
whether it is envisaged that meetings will he on a one-to-one basis or whether a number of potential divorcees shall attend at the same time.
We would also be grateful for some indication of the kind of venue that is envisaged. National Family Mediation has wide experience of matters relating to mediation and, presumably, to the giving of information. It emphasises the importance for this purpose of accessible, comfortable and relaxed premises. Clearly, if someone who is already under stress is on the verge of a nervous breakdown because they could not get through the door or make themselves heard, or who had to pass through a group of friends and neighbours, that is not going to assist the purpose of the provision.
Will there be guaranteed privacy? Parties wishing to discuss their position as opposed to sitting silently and listening to a more or less formal lecture—and I assume that is not what the noble and learned Lord has in mind—must be entitled to privacy and confidentiality. From time to time I have occasion to visit venues where tribunals are heard. I have sometimes been in attendance when the tribunal was deliberating in private and discovered that we could hear every word of the conversation taking place in the next room. I assume that anyone sitting in the next room could hear every word of the conversation. So clearly some attention has to be paid to the venue.
All this may be particularly true of women from minority ethnic groups where there are frequently cultural inhibitions about public discussion of private issues. The Women's Aid Federation, to whom I am indebted for a great deal of advice on this, is concerned that these problems may bear disproportionately on wives since in any event more women than men seek divorce.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord can tell us whether the information session is seen as a substitute for legal advice and representation. The normal way for a person to obtain information of this kind is to seek it from a solicitor. There may be circumstances where those considering the grant of legal aid may be satisfied that the applicant has access to all the information and advice which may be relevant, but normally, I assume, a party will want to discuss the various orders which may be made in the circumstances of that specific family in relation to maintenance, property and provision for the children. Unless a confidential discussion can take place with a knowledgeable individual who is there to look after the interests of the party concerned and who is on that party's side, no meeting can be a substitute for a session of that kind with a solicitor. When he replies perhaps the noble and learned Lord can assist us as to the relationship between the information session and the proposals for mediation. I assume that part of the information to be given at the information session will be about the availability of mediation and how to approach a mediator. Presumably, it will not be the same people who do both. Any assistance which the noble and learned Lord can give us on that matter will be welcomed.
There are various ways of getting information and Relate has made some helpful suggestions about that. One way is to provide information packs or videos.
832
There is a whole spectrum through to sessions with trained counsellors. Our problem of course is that the provisions relating to all these matters are to be in regulations. Clearly, the noble and learned Lord cannot anticipate in detail the regulations which he is proposing to make, but in considering Clause 8 I hope that he will feel able to share with us his thinking on how this proposal will operate.
The noble and learned Lord spoke of a number of pilot schemes. I am not clear whether the operation of the Bill is to be postponed until those schemes have operated and the results are known. Obviously that, too, is going to be part of our judgment about the workings of Clause 8. I hope that this debate itself may prove to be an information session because that was our purpose in setting down these amendments. Any further information which the noble and learned Lord can offer as to his intentions may help to alleviate some of the anxieties which have been expressed and enable us to decide whether they are well founded. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 75, which has been allowed to be grouped with these amendments as it was on the previous Committee day, llth January. This amendment is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It is a probing amendment, the intention of which is to obtain further information about the plans by the Lord Chancellor's Department for pilot schemes to establish the best means of conducting the information sessions provided for in the Bill. We would like to find out how the operation and evaluation of pilot schemes will fit in with the drawing up of regulations and the implementation of this part of the Bill.
We support the provision of information for those considering divorce, which the Bill introduces, but we want the Government's assurance that this information will be given in such a way that those receiving it will be helped to envisage and fully understand the divorce process before they are caught up in it.
Already National Family Mediation's local services are approached by a large number of individuals seeking impartial and child and family-focused information that they have come to associate with mediation and which is available nowhere else. In 1994, 16,000 people approached the then 62 services around the country. These people are already confused, often shocked, by the beginning of a breakdown in their relationship and nearly always undecided about their course of action. Many who first approach a Family Mediation service in preference to a solicitor say that they are fearful that going to a solicitor will begin a legal process over which they will have no control.
It is important that the Government make clear that they intend that information given under the provisions of the Bill will be in a form that continues to be perceived as helpful to those receiving it, so that they will feel safe, comfortable, unstigmatised and treated with dignity; and that the information will be imparted in ways which ensure that they understand it.

833
The venue for information sessions is important, as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, and it should not be in a lawyer's office or in a room at the court, unless these are specifically redesigned for the purpose.
For example, National Family Mediation offers a pleasant, professional, informal provision. The venues are furnished with comfortable chairs, with literature displayed about the needs of both children and adults in divorce. There are receptionists experienced in dealing with people caught up in the emotional upheaval of marital breakdown.
National Family Mediation hopes that it will be able to run some of these schemes in order that its professional but non-legal, child and family-focused approach to the provision of information, may be evaluated, along with others. National Family Mediation would wish to encourage the Government to pilot different combinations of a variety of forms of provision of information and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer mentioned some of them. NFM has a number of proposals for these information sessions and I hope that the noble and learned Lord's department will discuss with it the various ways of providing this service.
I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord for the letter he wrote to me after Second Reading in which he said, about the information sessions:
"As I said in closing the debate, I do not yet have a definite idea of how the sessions should be arranged, and would welcome any advice or comment on the subject".
I believe that both my noble and learned friend and I have made some comments, which I hope very much will be helpful.
The Duke of Norfolk: I say very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I believe that this Bill will have a very great effect on marriage. I believe it is the turn of the tide and that we are going to see far less divorce and more family life as a result of it. I greatly support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in all his efforts to bring this legislation before your Lordships' House and in particular his White Paper.
I turn now to the enormous group of amendments which basically deal with counselling and advice. I want to refer to the totality of the advice that is given to married couples. Unfortunately, at the moment couples tend to get married but the Churches then have less and less effect on their lives. In some ways, we are living in a country that is becoming more and more pagan. Oh that the Churches had more effect after the marriage ceremony! I am speaking not merely about the Church of England, but also about the Popish Church to which I belong. People get married in my Church but do not see enough of their priest or talk about their marriage difficulties with him.
At the moment, marriage counselling is successful in 25 per cent. of marriages. That is an enormous figure. I should like marriage counselling to start with advice being given by the social welfare people and, of course, by the Churches to try to assist the very young before
834
they become engaged. That should continue after the engagement, during the marriage and once there are children. Marriage counselling and help should continue throughout a marriage.
I have heard it said that there are very few people available who can carry out marriage counselling. My eldest daughter is a marriage counsellor. She has passed her marriage counselling exams and interviews. She is an example of one category of person who is most suitable for marriage counselling work. She has four children. They are now on their way, having been to university, or about to go. She has what in America would be called an "empty nest". That is a wonderful phrase. It means that she has the spare capacity with which to help people. Someone who has had a family of four and who has an empty nest not only knows a lot about bringing up families but has the spare capacity to help.
Another group of people who would make very good marriage counsellors are widows or widowers. They know a lot about marriage and they too have the spare capacity. Another group are, of course, the divorced because they often see the sadness of their break-ups.
We should increase the assistance that is given to married couples from the very start to the very end of their marriage. We should do so through marriage counsellors and the Churches. It is essential that state money is provided. At Second Reading we talked about £3.5 billion being the cost of divorce in one year with only £3 million being given to marriage counselling. I should like to see an enormous sum of money made available to marriage counselling under the supervision of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in order to stop the awful increase in the number of divorces and to protect married life and the family life of our young children.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Some important questions have been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. We on this Bench shall listen with interest to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says.
I should like to stress two points from the Bishops' point of view. First, we place great store on the information sessions. They are a crucial feature of the Bill. It is at such sessions that people will be offered information about, and told of, the availability of, marriage counselling and mediation services. Therefore, the context in which the information is purveyed and the people who purvey it are desperately important. It is vital that those who attend the sessions are ready to hear such information.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was looking ahead—to the great value of the Committee—when he referred to a later group of amendments about marriage counselling. It is at the information sessions that the availability of marriage counselling will be made known. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is willing to accept what I say I hope that it will be free marriage counselling. We place great stress

835
on the information sessions. It would be appalling if they became a perfunctory formality. They need to he taken with the utmost seriousness.
Baroness Hamwee: I agree very much with what the right reverend Prelate said, including his points about the need for marriage counselling and the necessary funds. The point was also mentioned by the noble Duke. I have to say, however, that I do not altogether agree with the noble Duke on one matter. I think it is important that counsellors are trained so that they bring their professional expertise, and not their personal experience, to bear as their major contribution to the counselling sessions.
In supporting the group of amendments on information sessions, perhaps I may say that it seemed to me on Second Reading that the word "session" was too prescriptive, despite the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained what those sessions might comprise. The noble and learned Lord said that he hoped to arrange pilot sessions. I use the word "session" although I do not think it a good word to use because it suggests something large and communal such as a group. I do not think that that is helpful. I hope that that is not what is intended, at any rate not for all of those who require information.
The word "session" suggests that, even though it may not be open to the general public, the fact that the session is taking place may be public information. That in itself may lead to considerable difficulties for those who may be attending. Indeed, it may act as a disincentive to those who should attend and who are considering what steps they should take next. I refer, for example, to the fact that their attendance at a session may become general knowledge within their own community and to the effect that that may have on the children. Your Lordships have already discussed the effect on children at great length. I am deliberately using an extreme example, but if public figures were involved, tabloid newspapers could "doorstep" the sessions.
It is because of the difficulties surrounding the word "session", without questioning the underlying proposal that information should he made available, that I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reconsider the terminology used to describe the information sessions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may advise the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, that although we differ on the effect of the Bill, I hope that he is right and I am wrong and that there will be fewer divorces as a result of it. On this occasion nothing would please me more than to see the noble Duke proved right and myself proved wrong but, unfortunately, I do not think that that will happen.
I agree with the noble Duke that marriage counselling is most important. It always has been important; it still is; and I hope that it will remain important in the future provided that it is directed at saving the marriage. I fear that much marriage counselling does not go that far. I am sure that the noble Duke's daughter would agree with me completely that marriage counselling is about saving marriages, not the reverse.
836
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not accept the amendment. I sincerely hope that the least that will be required is that the person who is asking for a divorce—and, indeed, the person who is at the wrong end of it—will attend at a face-to-face session with somebody who can give him or her some information.
As the amendment stands, a person embarking upon an important and far-reaching step could rely upon hearsay information. He or she might receive it over the telephone, or someone else might telephone and pass on the information second hand. Under those circumstances, unless the person were to attend the session face to face, he might receive quite the wrong information through third parties. I do not often disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, for whose abilities I have a great respect, but I fear that in this case I have to disagree with him, because I believe that the amendment he has moved is not merely wrong in principle; it is badly drafted.
The Lord Chancellor: It is a great pleasure for me to find the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, wishing to support a measure in the Bill as against amendments proposed from his Front Bench. That is just an indication of the fact that there is much more common ground between us than a superficial observer of these debates might think. I believe that we are all anxious to do what we can, in practical terms, to support the institution of marriage.
The provision with which the substance of the amendments is concerned is vitally important. In the ordinary course of events, people whose marriages get into difficulties are in the general structure of our society, and whether they know of the existence of services that might help them may be a matter upon which it will be difficult to ascertain their position.
When someone thinks of approaching a court for the purpose of initiating a divorce process, there at least is a contact that will have to be made. I wish to build upon that essential fact to try to ensure that people do not just obtain the information but that they obtain it in such a way that they understand it. In my conversations with district judges, and in conversations between my officials and district judges, it is apparent that often people who are already quite far into a divorce process do not know of the existence of mediation and counselling services. It is important that before people begin—that is where the information session is placed—they should have as good information as we can give them and that also—this is the motivation behind the reference to the word "session"—there is some attempt to ensure that they have taken that information on board. There is a limit to what anyone can do about that matter, but that is why I have suggested an information session.
The first point is to try to obtain some method by which people do not merely have pieces of paper presented to them, but that some effort is made on behalf of the state to ensure that they have assimilated the information as it affects them.
Secondly, I am anxious about the bias of the information. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, suggested that some marriage counsellors are not so

837
much about marriage counselling as about preparing the way for divorce. I think that is a summary of what he said. My understanding is that marriage counselling has a high success rate. I believe, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said, that some 25 per cent. or so of those who are separated at the time of going to counselling reconciled some six months later, and of those who are still together at the time of going to marital counselling, the majority stay together. That is an important fact. In a sense they have attended earlier in the deterioration of their relationship than the first group, and it would not be surprising that the rate of success is greater. I believe that the earlier the service is available, the better. That is why, like my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, I attach a good deal of importance to the preparation for marriage, which is referred to later.
The next thing I feel about the sessions is that there should be no bias between the different types of service that may be available. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, referred to legal advice. Legal advice is one of the services about which I would wish information to be available. I also wish information about mediation and marriage counselling to be made available.
One cannot be certain that if one goes to a mediator one will receive a completely objective view about what the lawyer can do. If one goes to a lawyer it is just possible that one might not have as full an appreciation as otherwise of what a mediator could do for one without the help of a lawyer. Therefore I thought that if possible I would like the people who offer the services to be able to present them in the information session. I used the word "session" in the sense that more than one interest would be presenting information.
I want unbiased information on the whole range of services available to be given effectively to anyone who is thinking of starting a divorce process. Those are my requirements. What is the best way of achieving them? I think the best way is to try to find out in trials what could be done. Some people may be willing to attend an open session with a number of people. Others would not. It is a question of what is the best method. That is what I want to pilot. My present view is that the Bill. with its new provisions, should not come into force until the pilots are concluded. Obviously I am open to persuasion as the Bill proceeds, but the information session is so fundamental to the whole idea that it is wise to have it in place, with the proper regulations, before the grounds of divorce set out in the Bill become effective law.
I am anxious to secure a phrase in the Bill which emphasises the importance of those provisions of information; the need that they should be effective; and one which still gives me reasonable flexibility to try as many different models as possible. It is fair to say that a regulation-making power is always looked upon carefully by Members of this place. I am anxious not to open it too widely. On the other hand, I believe that what I have said are the essential qualifications—whatever words the Committee might think appropriate—should be considered.
838
I am loath to depart from "information session", for the reasons I have just given. It may he that we could devise alternatives if the Lord Chancellor were satisfied that in given circumstances they were as effective as face-to-face sessions. Obviously there are some people who might be unable to attend a face-to-face session. Regulations would have to deal with the special circumstances of the housebound and people of that sort who might he in a difficulty. It is the essential quality, the essential nature, of what is in issue that I wish to set before your Lordships. I also attach a good deal of importance to confidentiality. In many cases, the last thing that a person wishing to repair his or her marriage will wish to disclose is that it is in difficulty. Therefore, for some, confidentiality of the information might be important.
I have the impression that a video presentation may be a useful way of presenting the matter to many people, having regard to the extent to which such visual means of communication are used today. That is what I want to try, and I wish to give people the chance to ask questions but not about their own particular circumstances. The last thing on earth that I want the information sessions to do is to pry into the circumstances of the individual who attends, except in so far as he or she wishes to ask about the nature of the services. That kind of discussion will take place at the taking up of the appropriate services. The information sessions are intended to be preliminary. That is what I have in mind, and the wording that I have used is designed to encapsulate that. If Members of the Committee can improve on it while still giving the essential quality to the efforts that I have indicated, I shall be happy to consider it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for saying what was in my mind even if I had not expressed it—that those of us who have tabled the amendments regard the information sessions as of great importance to the whole scheme of the Bill. As the right reverend Prelate said, one of the points that might emerge from the information sessions is the availability of marriage guidance and conciliation so that divorce may not proceed. I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, for having pointed out the importance of that aspect among the various kinds of information we are discussing.
Clearly, I misled my noble friend Lord Stoddart. When he and I disagree it is always important that we look carefully at where we are disagreeing. I suspect that in many cases it is that I did not express myself very well and I misled him. Believing as I do in the importance of the information sessions, it was no part of my intention to propose that they should be dealt with in a cavalier way and that the information should he given in a perfunctory manner. Quite the reverse. I had hoped that the Committee would wish to be satisfied that the information sessions would be in a form which would not deter any of the parties from wishing to attend, would not intimidate them before they arrived and would ensure confidentiality, if that was in their minds. That was the purpose of our initiating this debate.

839
I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put her finger on the point when she said that the word "session" could be misleading in this context. Perhaps if anything has emerged from the debate about the actual form of the Bill it is that we could all direct our minds more carefully to the use of that word. It conjures up the kind of public procedure that will ensure that some people will not avail themselves of it.
Another matter emerged largely from the comments made by my noble friend Lady David, and I am grateful to her for her amendment. We wished to know the kind of information that would be placed before the parties at these sessions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been extremely helpful in sharing his thinking with us. Clearly, all the various kinds of information of which people may wish to avail themselves will be made known to them, including the possibility of seeking legal advice where that is appropriate. I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord shares our view on that.
As for the pilot schemes, I am heartened to learn that many flowers will be encouraged to bloom. Perhaps afterwards we can assess the results. My question as to whether at the moment the noble and learned Lord was thinking of implementing the Bill before the pilot schemes have taken place has been answered. I am relieved to hear that at the moment that is not his thinking. It may be helpful if the noble and learned Lord can tell us the kind of time schedule that he has in mind as regards the schemes. Perhaps he is unable to tell us off the cuff now—
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I believe that something in the order of two years is reasonable for testing out the information-giving methods which we wish to use. It will take some time to set up the pilot schemes and, as I said in my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady David, we shall wish to take account of all the views. We have already received some views, but there are so many issues in the Bill that I am sure there will be more detailed views about the form that the information-giving technique should take. I should like to set up the pilot schemes in the light of that advice and information and test them out. We would wish to give the pilot schemes a reasonable chance to work before we try to assess which we should adopt. Therefore, two years seems to me to be a reasonable estimate at the moment. As Members of the Committee know, estimates are apt to vary, but I would not wish to hurry the implementation of the Bill to the prejudice of effective information-giving arrangements. They are at the heart of the Bill as I see it. They are an aspect of the Bill which is not so obviously helpful on first reading. I believe that underlying this is an important consideration and I would be inclined to take time over the matter.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for again sharing his thinking with us. Getting the balance right is difficult. I fully understand that it may take a little time to put the pilot schemes in place, then to pursue them and then to evaluate them. As a lawyer—and I am sure that the
840
noble and learned Lord will understand my thinking—I am always reluctant to legislate by having a statute in limbo for too long a period of time. However, achieving the right balance may be a matter to which we all need to give our minds.
No doubt in due course my noble friend Lady David will decide whether to move her amendment. Having ascertained from the noble and learned Lord the substance of his thinking, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, leave out lines 4 and 5.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 11 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 85, 87, 88, 92 to 95 and 190 to 196. It is a preliminary to the debate on Clause 9. I have tabled it in order that the Committee might spend a little time considering a matter on which the Government disagreed with the Law Commission. It is whether a divorce should be granted before all the arrangements relating to children, finances and property have been made, where the balance should lie between the finalisation of those arrangements and divorce and whether it is appropriate to provide that in most cases those arrangements should be completed with exceptions to the position. In the debate on Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor commented that it was an important and "significant" change from the Law Commission's recommendation. Perhaps I may apologise to the Committee but my speech will consist largely of selected quotations from the Law Commission's report because it seems to me that that is the most helpful basis on which to proceed.
At paragraph 5.56, the Law Commission reported that a number of respondents had argued that divorce should not be granted until the arrangements had actually been made but that the major objection to requiring that in every case was that it played into the hands of an unreasonable, spiteful or malicious spouse who could delay the resolution of issues for a very long time and thus deny the protection of divorce to, usually, the weaker spouse and to the children and create a formidable bargaining chip for the more powerful party.
The Law Commission said:
"A new system must obviously try to balance the injustice which would be caused by allowing an unreasonable, irresponsible or vindictive spouse to delay matters indefinitely against, on the other side, the injustice of allowing a spouse to escape the marriage without making a serious attempt to consider how to discharge responsibilities towards the children and the other spouse".
It added:
"The court should have a discretion to postpone the granting of a divorce or separation but only where this is desirable to safeguard the interests of those who would be prejudiced if the divorce were to go ahead before proper arrangements were made and that it would rarely be in the interests of anybody to prolong the uncertainty".
One must agree with that.
At paragraph 5.60, the Law Commission said that it,
"recognised that ability to apply for postponement could be a powerful weapon in the hands of an obstructive or vindictive party".

841
It recommended that where one party applied for postponement on the basis that proper financial arrangements had not been made, the court should direct its mind specifically to whether there were any circumstances making it appropriate for the arrangements to be made before the divorce and separation took place and referred to the conduct of the parties and any prejudice that either party or the children would suffer in the event of delay. The report stated:
"One party should not be allowed to take advantage of his or her deliberate failure to make or contribute to the making of financial arrangements to the prejudice of the other party or children".
That is the nub of it—whether one party, by his or her own action, can use his or her own deliberate failure.
The Government have chosen the other course; namely, to provide for arrangements to be required with the specific exceptions set out in Schedule 1. I well understand the view that it must be best to have everything agreed before the divorce takes place. I hope that in the new arrangements that are being made the mediation process will very frequently achieve that, especially because the new procedures should ensure that financial and other arrangements, particularly regarding the children, should not be used as a bargaining chip. It was not only the view of the Law Commission that the balance should be the other way round. It was also the view of the Solicitors Family Law Association which represents some 3,500 family law practitioners. I appreciate that many amendments in this group have a completely different thrust from my amendment. Nevertheless it may be helpful to spend a little time on the question of that balance as well as on the question of whether the bar should be made more difficult. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: This is an important group of amendments because it raises a question which is fundamental to the structure of the Bill as regards arrangements for the future being reached before a divorce is granted. I believe that to take that out and follow the Law Commission's recommendation would remove from the Bill one of its major aims and significantly weaken its impact. The Committee can be assured that with the Law Commission's views before the Government, this was a carefully considered decision.
The reason I feel strongly that what the Government have put in the Bill is right is that, first, I think it correct that before parties are granted a divorce they should be required to face up to the responsibilities that they have undertaken in marriage. Those responsibilities are of a fundamental nature, particularly, of course, the responsibility for the care and support of the children. There is also the issue of how their own mutual arrangements are to be conducted after divorce. The first purpose is to make the parties face up to the responsibilities they have already undertaken and to face them in a clear and unequivocal manner.
The second point, which I sought to make in answer to the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is that it is important that parties look to the future as
842
realistically as they can and compare what the future is likely to hold with what they have at present. For example, if it sinks into a father that he may see his child, whom he loves very dearly, only very rarely and in rather difficult circumstances, he may feel that it is better to try to restore the existing relationship than to go forward into the wilderness.
The third point I wish to make is that an examination of statistics shows that second marriages of people who have been divorced are likely to be more fragile than the first. There may be many reasons for that; at least one is that the responsibilities of the first marriage continue to intrude upon the second. Both as Lord Chancellor and before, I have seen circumstances in which both parties to the second marriage make strong references in relation to discharge of responsibilities of the first marriage. It is extremely important that before an order of divorce is pronounced, the parties should face up to their responsibilities in order to ensure that before they go forward to any other relationship they know as precisely as it is possible to know what is the position. Of course, circumstances in relation to maintenance and so on may have to change.
I understand well that the practitioners of the law in this area may go along with the Law Commission for reasons set out in the Law Commission's report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us. Naturally that weighs with me. However, I consider that, ultimately, the court has power and is very astute in knowing how to handle people who are being deliberately and unnecessarily obstructive.
On the other hand, I believe that it is really fundamental to the existing marriage that, before it is dissolved, the parties should face up to their responsibilities. Of course, that is a change from the existing law so far as concerns property. I also believe that it is a change which will have the effect of supporting the institution of marriage by requiring people to face up to their responsibilities.
We hear from time to time about making divorce easier. Whatever can be said about that, the proposal would not make it easier; indeed, it would make it more realistic and comprehensive. Therefore, I wish to resist amendments to remove it. Obviously we need to look at the provisions of the exceptions, and there are later amendments which will deal with that aspect. However, I have endeavoured to detail the exemptions in order to try to address realistic problems in the area. I believe that the principle is one which is fundamental to the Bill. I hope that Members of the Committee will support me in that point of view.
Lord Meston: Grouped with this amendment are several amendments which arc tabled in my name, including Amendments Nos. 95, 195, 196 and also Amendment No. 85. As Members of the Committee have been told, Clause 2 states that the "requirements" of Clause 9 must be satisfied and Clause 9 itself stipulates that,
"requirements as to the parties' arrangements for the future",
must have been put in place. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not quite clear as to the amendment to which he is speaking. I realise that it is my fault but, nevertheless, I should like clarification.
Lord Meston: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I am adhering to the groupings list, which, as I read it, has grouped Amendment Nos. 85, 95, 195 and 196, among others, with the current amendment. I hope that I am right in that respect.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged.
Baroness Trumpington: I believe the noble Lord has left out certain amendments. Is he aware of that fact?
Lord Meston: Yes. I hasten to say that I did use the words "among others" to cover that fact. I am confining myself to the amendments which concern me directly.
The principle which the noble and learned Lord just stated is one with which I would not argue. In particular, the noble and learned Lord struck a chord with me in suggesting that the present system has a fault in allowing the parties to carry into their second marriage too much unfinished business from the recently dissolved first marriage.
The first point that I would like to make is merely a drafting matter. Clause 9(4) states baldly:
"Schedule 1 supplements the provisions of this section".
Thereafter, Clause 9(5) refers one to the three existing exemptions which are set out in the first schedule. As a matter of drafting, I wonder whether it might be easier to read if subsections (4) and (5) were merged and, better still, if the exemptions presently in the schedule were set out more clearly in the main body of the clause. However, that is a peripheral point.
I turn now to my main point, which relates to Amendments Nos. 95, 195 and 196. In the schedule as presently drafted, there are three specific exemptions from the requirement that financial arrangements should have been finalised before a divorce or separation order can be made. They deal with situations where the other spouse is absent or is so awkward or so afflicted that it is impossible to make arrangements. The amendments which I wish to introduce into the schedule would provide a fourth and fifth exemption.
In Amendment No. 195, I seek to insert a fourth exemption which would provide that the circumstances,
"are that the children of the family, or any of them, are the subject of care proceedings and it is in their interests for a divorce order to be made notwithstanding that the parties are unable to make arrangements for them".
That is designed to deal with the situation where the children mentioned in the original statement will become the subject of care proceedings during the following year, so that the parents are unable to make arrangements for them. It may be very much in the interests of those children for there to be a divorce before the care proceedings are resolved as it may facilitate their return to one or other of the parents.
Amendment No. 196 suggests another exemption in the following terms. The court must he satisfied that,
"the requirements of Section 41 … have been satisfied; [that]
844
"both parties have considered and reflected on their financial arrangement and concluded that it is in their interests or that of a child of the family not to determine their financial affairs finally until some future date; and,
that it is reasonable for the parties",
to have reached that conclusion. That is designed for parties whose financial affairs cannot he fully or finally determined until after divorce at some possibly uncertain date.
There are those who have good reason to wait because important imponderables have not been clarified. For example, the outcome of a financial settlement can, quite often, depend on an expected inheritance, the attitude of a pension fund or even—dare I say it in these days?—the crystallisation of substantial Lloyd's losses. It is my suggestion that that sort of provision should enable parties to proceed to a divorce if they can satisfy the court that there is a good reason to wait.
Amendment No. 85 is designed with a different purpose in mind. As the Bill stands, the requirements in Clause 9(2) involve the possibility that "one of the parties" may declare to the court that he or she has "no significant assets" and that,
"the party making the declaration does not intend to make an application for financial provision and believes that the other party does not intend to; and [that]
there are therefore no financial arrangements to be made".
The amendment seeks to question whether it is appropriate to proceed on the unilateral declaration of one party. I suggest that the declaration should be something that is made by each of the parties to the marriage.
As drafted, the provision that a divorce may be granted on the declaration of one party that there are "no significant assets", that he does not intend to make an application for financial provision and that he believes that the other party does not, is a potential gift to the unscrupulous. At the very least, the court should have a duty to investigate the bare assertion by one party that there are no significant assets and that he believes that the other party does not intend to make a claim. Otherwise, the unscrupulous husband could simply tell the court that he thinks that there are no assets of any significance and that he does not believe that his wife (whom he may have bamboozled in some way) intends to make a claim. He can then proceed to obtain a divorce. Surely the declaration in Clause 9 is of such importance in these sorts of cases that it should be a declaration of each of the parties to that effect.
I am conscious of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has his own amendment, Amendment No. 87, which includes a provision that,
"no objection has been notified to the court by the other party."
I suggest with respect that even that is rather too weak to prevent misuse of Clause 9 by the unscrupulous.
Baroness Young: The grouping contains at least three amendments to which my name is attached. It may be helpful to address them now. However, if my noble and learned friend would rather reply to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, first, I am happy to speak later. I understand he is happy for me to continue.

845
I believe that Amendment No. 92 should not be included in this group of amendments. I would prefer to speak to it separately. It may he helpful, however, if I speak to Amendments Nos. 93 and 190.
Although the amendments are grouped together, my amendments have quite the opposite effect of those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which widen the provisions whereby a divorce can he granted against the wishes of one of the parties. As this seems to me in principle undesirable, my amendments operate in exactly the opposite direction. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord's proposals but as far as I can see he is not only extending the scope of Schedule I but adding another provision under that schedule which makes a further exemption regarding children who are—I believe he said this—subject to care proceedings. That simply widens the number of exemptions in which the Bill gives power to the court to make a divorce order at the request of one party even if no financial agreement has been reached at the end of the one-year waiting period.
I am unhappy about Schedule 1. The purpose of Amendment No. 93 is to prevent the court making a divorce order under this provision in the case of hardship as defined in Clause 10. A further amendment in my name, Amendment No. 115, seeks to insert a new subsection which substantially widens the definition of hardship. Cardinal Hume contributed a remarkable article to The Tablet last week. The cardinal made a point about hardship and stated that safeguards to prevent it should be strengthened. I have amendments down to that part of the Bill. However, in the part of the Bill we are now discussing I feel it important to recognise that the Bill contains powers for the courts to impose a divorce against the wishes of one party to the marriage. I recognise, of course, that there can be vexatious and difficult people. Sometimes people who are being divorced against their will and who have the misfortune still to be in love with their partner do become unreasonable and do not want the divorce to happen. It seems to me that their needs might at least be considered. We need to think of that kind of case.
As I understand the Bill—I am not a lawyer and I may not be correct—there are no effective powers for the court to bar a divorce. I believe that we shall discuss the hardship question later. I shall be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend has to say. It seems to me there are various dangers. It will be possible for one party to be divorced against the wishes of the other where the discussion on financial matters can effectively be guillotined. That could lead to hasty and unfair arrangements and could allow arrangements to be made in the absence of one spouse. There are further difficulties under Schedule 2 which, on my reading of it, is in parts loosely worded. For example, paragraph 23B(1)(b) states:
"Where the court is not satisfied that there are special circumstances making it appropriate for the order to take effect at an earlier date".
The term "special circumstances" seems rather loose. I do not know what it means; perhaps we shall have that explained to us as the Bill proceeds. As I indicated,
846
these are not amendments which I wish to press today but they open up a whole area where we need more clarification and debate as regards what we are proposing under the Bill for a divorce where one party to it is unwilling.
Lord Meston: I hesitate to interrupt but the noble Baroness is perhaps wrong on one, or possibly two, points. However, we are not as far apart as she may have suggested. The exemption I seek to introduce in Amendment No. 196 would only operate if both parties decided that there was a good reason to proceed to a divorce without having finalised their financial arrangements. In other words, it is an agreement of both parties which does not, and indeed could not, depend upon a unilateral action. Amendment No. 85 is designed to remove the possibility of one party proceeding by a unilateral declaration that there are no significant assets and persuading the court to provide a divorce on that basis. It requires that both parties are agreed that that is the situation, so that there is no abuse of the provision unilaterally.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall deal with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, first. I accept the view that it is necessary for the view of the other party to be taken into account in connection with the suggestion that there are no assets and the like. The noble Lord does not care for my amendment. I am perfectly content to review that in the light of his amendment because I think we are agreed. As regards the amendments which introduce new exemptions, I have more difficulty.
As regards the new fourth exemption, I believe that the court, when considering whether the requirements of Section 41 of the 1973 Act have been met, will consider if the child is in care, and, if so, will not bar a divorce simply for that reason, assuming that no order or no further order is needed under the Children Act. Therefore I do not think that another exemption is required because that is a situation with which the court could deal.
The new fifth exemption deals with the possibility of change. I believe I picked up the examples of expected inheritance and possibly the opposite of an expected inheritance—the quantification of a particular type of loss. I should have thought that it would not necessarily he wise to postpone the arrangements completely on that basis. It should be possible to deal with the arrangements. If an expected inheritance is to be taken into account, who knows how long that might affect the situation? I find it difficult to accept that we should regard that as a reason for not making arrangements so far as they can he made. There may be aspects of the arrangements which cannot be fully finalised, but that is taken care of. I do not believe that it is satisfactory to say that that should be an exemption from making the arrangements as a precondition of obtaining a divorce.
As regards the amendments of my noble friend Lady Young, I am concerned that the arrangements should be as tight as possible. I believe that the arrangements contained in the schedule are as tight as is reasonable. Amendment No. 92 seems to go in the opposite direction, and I would find it difficult to accept it.

847
My noble friend explained Amendment No. 93 as a matter which will arise in connection with the hardship bar. I entirely agree with her that the hardship bar is a very important aspect of the proposals. Obviously the precise terms in which it is expressed require consideration. My noble friend referred to Cardinal Hume's article in The Tablet, which was also published in an edited version in The Times on Saturday. I found it extremely helpful. It focuses on the hardship bar as a matter which requires further consideration. I believe that that is right, particularly in relation to children, but there are also other aspects which are brought forward in later amendments.
I believe that the arrangements requiring people to face up to their responsibilities are as tight as they reasonably can be. I believe that they are correct in principle. I believe that my noble friend agrees that there should be a requirement for those responsibilities to be faced before a divorce is granted. So far I have not been persuaded that we need to enlarge the exemptions, which are dictated only by the practicalities of the situation.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question for clarification. My concern about this particular group of amendments and this part of the Bill is how far the court can go against the wishes of the spouse who does not wish to have a divorce. If I understand correctly what my noble and learned friend said, he feels that he cannot go further than what he has already said. However, there could be circumstances in which it could be unjust for someone to face a divorce before they are convinced about the financial and other circumstances being settled necessarily within the year.
The Lord Chancellor: It is a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill to suggest that the settlement of the financial matters could in any way reduce the period for consideration and reflection. Under the terms of the Bill, the year is a minimum. The need to settle financial matters may well extend that period. That is why I say that a year is the minimum. The need to settle financial matters and other matters, including most importantly of all the arrangements for the children, is a requirement which may well mean that the divorce is postponed for longer than a year, depending on how the arrangements are made. Therefore, the mere fact that a settlement has taken place, if it takes place, in the sense of agreeing what the future should hold, within a year does not mean that the divorce will be granted within a year.
I am not sure whether I have answered my noble friend's question, but I hope that I have.
Baroness Young: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I shall certainly read carefully in Hansard what he said because this is an important point. He now says that the divorce cannot he granted in certain circumstances until after a year or until agreed arrangements are made in respect of finance and the children.
We shall return to this matter when we consider the hardship bar, which is relevant to the amendment. In the meantime, I shall not move my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I realise that with this somewhat awkward grouping of amendments in the absence of my noble friend Lord Russell I should perhaps have referred to his amendment—Amendment No. 1 93—which seeks further to extend one of the exemptions. However, perhaps that is a matter to which we can return at another stage, although the noble and learned Lord may wish to comment briefly.
In Amendment No. 193 my noble friend seeks to add to the second exemption the words:
"where there is continuing violence, to the applicant, other party or child of the family".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may say that the reference to injury in paragraph 2(c)(i) extends to violence. It may be helpful if he cares to comment on that point now.
The Lord Chancellor: Briefly, the circumstances between the parties for interim arrangements and so on are matters that will have to be dealt with under, for example, the provisions in Part III relating to domestic violence and the family home. I do not believe that it is wise to allow the facing up to responsibility to be damaged further by considerations of that kind.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It may be helpful to review this matter together with the hardship bar and the comments that may be made in that context, even though they are different issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested, although the noble Baroness and I have rather different perspectives on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("or before the second anniversary of the marriage").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 13 and also to Amendment No. 53, which proposes the omission of Clause 7(4). I hasten to say that I am sorry that Amendment No. 53 may have been misunderstood. What I am about to say should not in any way inhibit the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who support Amendment No. 53, from taking an entirely different point of view. They have their own reasons for seeking the omission of Clause 7(4).
What I propose is purely a drafting simplification. Clause 2(3)(c) refers to Clause 7(4), which re-enacts the provision that proceedings for a divorce may not he commenced within a year of the marriage. I do not propose to debate whether that provision has any value. It is the existing law and it is preserved by this Bill. In the context of this Bill there might be something to be said for an earlier intervention if a marriage, sadly, is in difficulties in its first year. However, if the bar is to remain I suggest that it may he clearer to state it in Clause 2(3), as proposed in Amendment No. 13, by simply referring to,
"the second anniversary of the marriage".
I emphasise that it is a drafting matter. I hope that it is an endeavour to add clarification to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I believe that Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 are grouped with this amendment. Is that not right?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 16 because it takes up the point with which the noble Lord has dealt. Amendment No. 16 arises out of some confusion which I am sure was my fault. It arose on an earlier amendment, I believe Amendment No. 2. My noble and learned friend dealt with the timings and resumed the point later. I wanted to be quite sure that I understood. It is for that reason that my amendment proposes to leave out,
"until after that anniversary".
Perhaps I may put this situation to my noble and learned friend: there is some very great fault within the first few months of the marriage. At an earlier stage I gave as an example the communication of a venereal disease by, say, the husband to the wife. The wife is clearly entitled to withdraw from cohabitation. As I understood my noble and learned friend's second answer, let us say that she withdraws within a month and at the end of the month she is entitled to move for a separation order. The first question, therefore, is: what about her maintenance during the currency of consideration of her application for a separation order? That cannot take effect—my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—until after a year. In other words, that is 13 months after the marriage in the situation that I postulated. How is the wife to be maintained during that time? When the ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction in those circumstances they awarded alimony pending suit. That was subsequently taken over by the civil courts. Is that provision still available? If so, will my noble and learned friend remind me of it?
At the end of that 13 months, or perhaps at the end of 12 months, the wife can move for a divorce order. Is there another year after she moves for a divorce order? If so, does the period come to an end 24 months or 25 months after the marriage? Again, I ask about her maintenance during that period. That is the point on which I wish to have my mind clear.
Amendment No. 14 leaves out subsection (3) of Clause 2 which states:
"If the court is considering an application for a divorce order and an application for a separation order in respect of the same marriage it shall proceed as if it were considering only the application for a divorce order".
In the example that I outlined as regards the later amendment, the wife is applying for both orders—first, for a separation order, and then a divorce order. However, it might be the husband, at the end of the 12 month period after the marriage, who applies for a divorce order. If that happens, the court is enjoined to give priority to his application for a divorce order.
850
I draw attention to that because it is, again, an aspect of the predilection of this Bill towards divorce rather than separation. We saw it earlier as regards an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We shall see it later in the Motion that Clause 18 shall not stand part to be moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and myself. Why is there this predilection for divorce rather than separation?
I do not know whether I should formally move those two amendments. The noble Baroness stays silent.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: No, never silent. The noble and learned Lord is speaking to the first amendment which has been moved. The other amendments can be spoken to but not moved until it is their turn. That is my understanding.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. It is quite clear.
The Lord Chancellor: My understanding is that Amendments Nos. 13 and 53 are drafting amendments intended to simplify the provisions of the Bill. However, they would allow a statement of marital breakdown made in the first year of the marriage to be effective for the purpose of eventually applying for a divorce order after the second anniversary of the marriage. I believe that to be the effect of the amendments. If I have understood them correctly, that is not the policy on which the Bill is drafted.
Under the current provisions of the Bill, a statement made in the first year is effective only for a separation order which can then be converted into a divorce order after the second anniversary of the marriage. While the actual period of time of obtaining a divorce in both those circumstances is the same, the reason behind the policy was to maintain the one year ban under the current system on petitioning for divorce. In other words, couples would not be able to initiate proceedings with a view to divorce in the first year of their marriage.
Amendment No. 14 is in the nature of a probing amendment, but it is perhaps worth while my indicating how I see it. Its effect would be to leave the court to decide with which application it should proceed in cases where it had applications before it for both divorce and separation orders in respect of the same marriage.
In order to keep the parties' options open for as long as possible, and in order not to commit parties to applying for a dissolution of the marriage at the outset of the period of reflection and consideration, it is intended that only at the end of the period will either party, or both parties jointly, need to choose for which remedy they need to apply.
It is also intended that, with the exception of the hardship bar, the same conditions as apply to divorce should apply to separation orders. Marriage breakdown has the same serious consequences for the parties and their children whether the parties decide to apply to the court for divorce or separation orders; so the process which leads to a court order being made in relation to

851
the marriage, and therefore to important orders relating to children, should be as demanding as that for a divorce.
Not many parties use judicial separation under the present system. However, it is right that a separation order should be available as an alternative to divorce, particularly for those who have, as I said on the last occasion when this point was raised, a religious or conscientious objection to divorce. The reality is, however, that generally judicial separation cases involve irretrievable breakdown; and in practice, when dealing with children and financial matters, the courts treat judicial separation as if it represented a final breakdown.
Adopting the same ground for judicial separation as for divorce would not act as a deterrent to reconciliation. Reconciliation can still occur during the 12-month period for reflection and consideration, just as it does under the present system, and indeed at any time after a separation order is made.
Where, however, at the end of the period one party applies for a divorce and the other spouse applies for a separation order, the court should make a divorce order, provided that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and other requirements relating to attendance at information sessions and decisions about future arrangements have been met, unless an order preventing divorce has been made and subject to the statement not having been made in the first year of marriage. So the important difference is the availability of the hardship bar and the order preventing divorce from being made.
Once a marriage has irretrievably broken down and parties have decided on arrangements for a life apart, there is no benefit for either party or their children in keeping the empty shell of a marriage in existence, unless of course the dissolution of that marriage would result in grave financial or other hardship for the spouse who wants a separation rather than a divorce.
Amendment No. 16 would have the effect of leaving the court to decide whether it should proceed with an application before it in respect of divorce or separation. As I said, in order to keep the parties' options open, we have provided for this.
Financial provisions during the period between the making of a statement and obtaining a separation order can include interim and final periodical payment orders, so that in the case that my noble and learned friend postulated there is the possibility of the court making an order for interim periodical payments during the currency of the litigation. That could be made into a final order for periodical payments—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend for giving way. Might not the provision in this part necessitate the investigation of hardship? Let us suppose that the wife says, "I am withdrawing because I have had a venereal disease communicated to me", and the husband says, "That's not true. My wife is withdrawing purely because she has decided she does not like the marriage".
The Lord Chancellor: The basis on which an interim periodical payment should be made would be a
852
consideration of the whole circumstances and whether or not in the circumstances the court thought it right that such an order should be made—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think my noble and learned friend's answer is yes, is it not?
The Lord Chancellor: I am always a little cautious in case I have not fully understood my noble and learned friend's question. I have never suggested that there is any limitation on the particular facts that would be required in order to justify an order for interim periodical payment.
Regarding the rest of his question, as I understand it, if the application was made within the first year, a month after the marriage, the divorce order could not be made until 24 months after the marriage. But during the whole of that time the court would have the power to make interim orders to deal with the justice of the situation.
I heard my noble and learned friend refer to, as it were, a predisposition in favour of divorce over separation. The explanation is that that has to be the structure, subject to the hardship bar. 'The question of hardship might arise in circumstances other than in an application for an order based on the bar, and I am not conscious of ever having said anything to the contrary. But it is quite clear that interim orders would require to be justified on the same basis substantially as exists at present.
Lord Meston: Amendment No. 13 was purely a drafting amendment, intended to simplify the provisions of the Bill to the ordinary reader. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that it may have gone too far in producing an effect, which certainly I did not intend, of facilitating a statement with a view to a divorce being made within the first year of the marriage. It is a matter that I wish to examine a little more closely and perhaps return to at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at two minutes before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
6.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order has been the subject of consultation with a range of educational interests in Northern Ireland. All of their

853
comments were carefully considered and a number of changes have been made to the draft order as a result of their constructive and largely supportive responses.
The order introduces new provisions relating to the education of children with special educational needs; empowers boards of governors to decide whether pupils should transfer to secondary education a year early or later than normal; redefines the four key stages of the curriculum; and fulfils the Citizen's Charter commitment to provide lay involvement in school inspection teams. It also makes a number of amendments to existing legislation relating to administrative procedures. I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I say a few words abut the main provisions of the order.
The largest single element in the order consists of provisions relating to special educational needs which mirror those introduced in England and Wales by the Education Act 1993. Specifically, the order will introduce new rights of appeal for parents and will establish an independent tribunal to determine all appeals; it will enable parents of children with statements of special educational need to take the initiative and express a preference for a particular grant-aided school; it will require the Northern Ireland education and library boards and schools to draw up special educational needs policies; it will provide powers for a code of practice to be introduced and for the time taken by boards to assess and statement children to be regulated; and it will restate the duty to integrate statemented pupils with their peers in mainstream schools, so long as that is consistent with parental wishes, with the needs of all the children concerned and with the efficient use of resources.
A number of provisions are not given direct effect by the order itself but will be the subject of further full public consultation before being introduced in detailed form. Among these is a code of practice which will establish workable guidelines for schools, boards and others in relation to the identification of children with special needs, the process of assessment, the making of provisions to meet their needs and the procedures for making statements. Regulations will also be drawn up under this order for establishing rules and procedures for the new appeal tribunal.
The appeal tribunal will determine appeals by parents against decisions by education and library boards and will assume the role at present exercised by the Department of Education. This will ensure that appeals are heard independently of government. The tribunal will have a legally qualified chairman sitting with two other people selected from a panel of lay members, and its decisions will be binding on all parties.
The remainder of the order contains a number of miscellaneous provisions, the most significant of which are new arrangements for children transferring to secondary education a year early or a year later than the normal age for transfer. Each year a number of children are considered to have the ability to benefit from early transfer to secondary education, while others benefit by remaining an extra year in primary school. Currently the Department of Education is required to give a direction
854
in each case. The order provides that a child may transfer to secondary education a year early or a year later provided the board of governors of the school consider it to be in the child's best interests and the parent agrees. Parents will have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal if they believe that the board of governors did not reasonably comply with the department's guidance.
Articles 40 and 41 provide for a limited incorporation of schools and colleges of further education respectively. These articles will ensure that members of boards of governors will not be held personally liable for actions arising from the responsibilities of the boards.
This order implements the Government's commitment to develop the lay principle in all inspectorates, including the Department of Education Schools Inspectorate. This will bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales. The primary intention is to enable persons outside the education establishment to assist, on a voluntary basis, the department's inspectorate in the inspection of schools. Lay members will not be involved in matters of professional teaching. Rather they will bring a fresh but common-sense approach to the inspection, for example, of a school's organisation and financial and personnel management.
These are the main provisions of the order. We believe that they will bring significant improvement to the education of children in Northern Ireland, in particular those with special educational needs. It is a very worthwhile order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yet again I am most grateful for the courtesy and clarity with which the Minister introduced this order. Once again, unfortunately, one finds that the people of Northern Ireland are dealt with after a delay which many may find regrettable when one thinks that the Education Act 1993 is, as the Minister said, the essential base model for this order.
One welcomes the general thrust of the order, in particular in respect of the provision for children with special educational needs. I am happy to pay tribute to teachers and head teachers who have to deal with such children, whose education is often an extremely delicate art. Is the Minister able to indicate the kind of level of financial resource that will be available for such children? In particular can she say whether or not on an annual basis there will he careful auditing to establish whether the funds intended to he spent on children with special educational needs have been put to their intended object?
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to cast her eye over Article 3(3) of the order on page 6. I am happy to say how grateful we are that:
"A child is not to be taken as having a learning difficulty solely because the language … in which he is … taught is different from a language … spoken in his home".

855
Had it not been for that clear indication of government policy, the formidable Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, would be here and the revered and respected Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would be here, as well as me, to complain bitterly about the suggestion that someone who came from a Welsh-speaking home was a child who had special educational needs rather than one who has infinite educational advantage and benefit over the monoglots we know.
Perhaps, a little more seriously, I may suggest that Articles 17 and 22 need quite careful attention. It is good that there is a tribunal (Article 17, at page 17) which is available to a child's parent. Article 22 sets out essentially the method of selection and the composition of the tribunal of appeal. As the Minister has said, subject to a case stated to the High Court, the decisions will be binding on all.
I have noticed increasingly lately in Northern Ireland, across a wide spectrum of view, a very great feeling, which is sometimes a feeling of anger, about the inexorable growth of quangos and quasi-judicial tribunals. This will be yet another. I ask the Minister whether she can give an undertaking—if not, I can well understand—or at least transmit—the feeling that when the personnel to be appointed to such tribunals by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department are being considered, there ought to be the minimum requirement of consultation with the president of the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the chairman of the Bar, Mr. Eugene Grant. It seems to many people that there is legitimate concern that appointments are being made to public bodies of great importance and power (and consequence in this particular context) without a feeling that those who might have some useful input have been fully consulted.
We know that there are substantial delays in England and Wales in the operation of similar tribunals. Can the Minister tell us that she is satisfied that there will be enough personnel to avoid delays? After all, a delay of six months, nine months or a year in the context of a child's education is a very significant delay indeed. Once those months have passed, they can never be recovered, in the sense that the child's education can be restored fully to what it ought to have been.
My only other question relates to Article 32 and corporal punishment. Article 32 (page 32) still entitles a member of staff or someone on behalf of a member of staff to assault a child in his care, though such punishment cannot be justified if it is inhuman or degrading. Whether it is inhuman or degrading depends on the circumstances of the case, including various different criteria. Why is it, in 1996, that a child who goes to a state school is not allowed to be hit, assaulted or beaten, even if the parents wish it, whereas a child whose parents pay for private education is likely to be hit, assaulted or beaten? Is it not time the Government attended to such recent reports as the Gulbenkian Report, which seriously questioned whether a child should any longer be struck simply on the artificial distinction of whether or not the parents have paid for the child to be hit?
I have no further questions. I believe that the last time we met I wished the Minister a happy Christmas. I wish her a happy new year and God bless Tiny Tim.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, among the tiny band of us who pursue the affairs of Northern Ireland in this House there is always a welcome level of mutual courtesy which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reinforces each time he stands up. Perhaps I can do my hit by thanking the noble Baroness for the way in which she presented the order. She is busy, but always has time for us and is clear and helpful in her presentation.
An order of such importance underlines the need for progress on the political track of the peace process. It is not acceptable that matters of this importance to the people of Northern Ireland should be dealt with by a handful of Members in this House. How much better it would be if Northern Ireland legislators debated key Northern Ireland proposals like this in a proper devolved body of their own. In that context, though it is a long way removed from the order, perhaps I can take the opportunity to wish good fortune to Senator Mitchell and his colleagues in the last days of their deliberations. A lot depends on their progress and we look forward to their report.
I welcome the wide-ranging consultation done by the Government. It has been extremely useful. On the whole, it means that the order is a sound order, though I have several anxieties and points that should like to raise with the Minister.
First, in relation to Articles 36 and 37, the noble Baroness knows my enthusiasm for the cause of integrated education in Northern Ireland. There is steady progress. There are now 28 integrated schools in Northern Ireland, including nine secondary schools. However, only 2 per cent. of pupils are taught in integrated schools; but there is growth of two or three schools a year. I believe I am right in saying that currently three schools, Rathenran Primary in Antrim, the Hilden Primary in Lisburn and the Kircubbin Secondary in County Down, are awaiting ministerial approval. I hope that that comes through. The order allows boards of governors to have only one positive resolution, rather than two, before the issue of integrated status can be put to the parents in a ballot, which makes it slightly easier for a school to achieve integrated status.
I take this opportunity of pressing the noble Baroness on the question of funding for integrated schools. The transitional costs of becoming integrated, of increasing the number of governors to make them more representative in providing a balanced school make-up, and so forth, are not always minor matters and need to be considered. I hope that the helpful change in Articles 36 and 37 can be taken as a development whereby the Government are moving from being neutral towards the schools to being actively in favour of them. However, I suspect that is not the case. The noble Baroness may like to comment on that in her reply.
The most important part of the order is the question of special needs, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke. He is right to pay tribute to those involved in special educational needs. Special needs require special dedication from both teachers and parents. I welcome the recognition in Article 8 that it is better for pupils with special educational needs to be educated with other pupils rather than to he set aside

857
or segregated. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I am somewhat suspicious of the funding for special needs education.
Article 8(2)(c) says that special needs funding must be compatible with the efficient use of resources. I am certainly in favour of efficiency, but that sounds suspiciously like a Treasury insert into the Bill. I hope that in supporting the order we are not supporting staff cuts where fewer teachers teach more pupils or fewer books serve more students. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we need regular auditing and review to be sure where the money is spent. If there is any doubt about that, we should consider the ring-fencing of special needs education which, from these Benches, we support in England and Wales.
We welcome the special needs tribunals and particularly the assurance from the Minister of State that it will be conducted "with the minimum formality" and that legal aid will be available. Quangos have a habit of persisting; it is easier to set them up than it is to get rid of them. The Minister went on to say that the tribunals would establish a number of precedents and then, at some point in the future, will be used far less. We need to keep such a system under review. If the tribunals become redundant we shall need to think again. If they establish a set of precedents we shall need to consider those as well. I suggest that we review the working of the tribunals after two years.
Perhaps I can also press the Minister on the question of special needs and the issue of consultation with parents. Article 5(2) gives the Department of Education in Northern Ireland discretionary power to consult such persons as it thinks relevant. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that includes, crucially, parents.
I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in relation to corporal punishment. Throughout Europe the practice of corporal punishment in schools is rightly seen as brutal and medieval. Can we not take the violence out of education as we encourage others to take the violence out of politics?
Finally, on the question of the history syllabus, Schedule 3 sets out the need for history to be taught at key stages 2 and 3. What progress, if any, is being made towards at least an element of common history syllabus for Northern Ireland? It must be true that until the two communities in Northern Ireland—the two main communities—can begin to accept each other's history and therefore a history they share, the prospects for a lasting settlement are not good. That mutual understanding—reciprocal acceptance of each other's history—should start at school. When the noble Baroness replies perhaps she can say whether she sees that as a desirable aim and what the Government arc doing to promote it.
With the exception of those questions, from these Benches we have pleasure in supporting the order.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their input and, as has been rightly said, their courtesy. Of one thing I can be certain: I have
858
always spent considerable time pointing out to people, in relation to Clause 4 and opportunities for women, that it is always the quality that counts and not the quantity. The same can be said about our Northern Ireland representation in the House of Lords.
I am constantly delighted by the commitment and the concern shown for the Province from the Benches opposite. That is something that is also respected and welcomed by Members from Northern Ireland. We seem to look at the overall as well as the individual legislation under review. Of course, we would like to see movement towards an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to be involved in the legislation to a greater degree.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for the good wishes he sends to Senator Mitchell's commission. Anything we hope to achieve in Northern Ireland will be better achieved in an absolutely solid, peaceful atmosphere. In working towards a political solution, we bring benefit to the community as a whole. I shall take back to my honourable friend with responsibility for education those items on which noble Lords have expressed concern and where they would like to see further activity. I am sure that their views will he taken into account as we work forward.
Before I go into detail, perhaps I may say that one of the greatest treasures in Northern Ireland is the high level of education, which has benefited many. But at the same time as it benefits many, we have to be certain that we protect the individual who has less advantage. In bringing forward legislation on special needs, we are doing that.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, commented on the delay in bringing forward the provisions of the Education Act 1993. It is important that in Northern Ireland we have full and proper consultation. We have had that. It was extensive. I should not like to bring before the House Northern Ireland legislation on which we had not consulted. The noble Lord asked us to ensure that we consulted on the appointment of people to the tribunals. It is important that we listen. Changes have already been announced in appointments to public bodies in Northern Ireland. We have the advantage that it is easier in a Province of 1.6 million to talk to people quickly and to meet them quickly. The appointment of special educational needs tribunal chairmen and members will follow consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the chairman of the Bar. I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to my honourable friend the Member for Devizes in another place.
The noble Lord referred to resources for special educational needs and asked how they are administered. Special education has recently substantially benefited from additional recurrent allocations of £2 million in 1994–95 and £3 million in 1995–96, plus additional teaching staff to the tune of £1.6 million. Among other things, that has funded a significant number of additional educational psychologists' posts, which is where it is estimated the greatest pressures currently lie. We increasingly have the benefit in Northern Ireland that people who would not have contemplated coming to the Province to take up a professional post are now

859
able to recognise the quality of life. That also helps with the ability to fill posts. In the LMS funding arrangements allowance is made for pupils with special educational needs. That means that schools receive additional funding for such pupils. Under the financial delegation arrangements it is a matter for each school to decide how it makes use of these funds. The schools arc accountable to parents at the annual parents' meeting. It is important that parents take responsibility. We encourage that. The provision made for pupils with special educational needs is looked at by the education and training inspectorate in the regular conduct of school inspections. Again I would stress that there is the benefit of closeness which allows us to be well aware of what is happening.
The education allowance under the public expenditure survey was good. The settlement for education gives an uplift of 3.5 per cent. and is still in real terms a plus of 0.7 per cent. Resources for schools are up almost 2 per cent. in real terms. The sooner we can take the costs of fighting terrorism totally off the agenda the more we can spend on the important matters of education, health and training. In the education and training areas we are already spending funds that were released from security forces' overtime. We should like to see it possible to take much more out of the security area to invest in the future of our people.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the volume of appeals we would expect in Northern Ireland. The record is extremely low compared with the number of appeals in England and Wales. For example, last year there were only four such appeals and the maximum number in any recent year has been 15. That compares with more than 1,000 appeals registered during the first year of operation of the tribunal for England and Wales. Our most generous estimate is that the appeal number in Northern Ireland may increase to some 50 a year under the new legislation because it rightly draws attention to rights which are available to parents. We believe that no problems are likely to arise in funding the tribunal at this level of operation. I assure the noble Lord that it is something of which we have been conscious. In bringing forward legislation later we can learn from practice here. We will be well able to protect the need to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about individual appeals and precedents. The essential purpose of the special educational needs tribunal is to determine individual appeals made by parents, not to establish precedents for use by boards. However, boards will take account of the tribunal's decisions in so far as these may affect and inform future decisions in similar cases. I shall ensure that my honourable friend takes note of the noble Lord's remarks. The consultation process required by Article 5(2) of the order will include all bodies, groups and individuals with an interest in special educational needs in Northern Ireland. We would find it difficult not to take those needs into account.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The reassurance I was specifically seeking was that the Government intended under Article 5(2) to consult parents.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can safely say that this Government have a commitment to consult and inform parents on all our education legislation. However, I shall come back to the noble Lord in writing on this matter in order to give him absolute reassurance.
Both noble Lords expressed concern on the issue of corporal punishment. The purpose of the article in this order is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the relevant legislation in Great Britain. The article provides that corporal punishment in an independent school should not contravene Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which outlawed treatment or punishment which is inhuman or degrading. It would not he appropriate to go further than that in terms of actually prohibiting corporal punishment at independent schools in Northern Ireland, where it is a matter of parental choice that pupils should attend such schools. The independent schools sector is extremely small. There are only about 20 small independent schools attended by under 1,000 pupils, and there is ample alternative provision for those pupils in the grant-aided sector should parents so wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about religious education. It is important that we should look at history and religion in order to allow people to understand different views and arguments. Not only are we required to adhere to the statutory core syllabus for religious education, but parents have a right to make a formal complaint if they are unhappy about the way religious education is being taught or to withdraw their child from religious education and collective worship in exercise of their conscience. We are very aware of the different views. In history, which is also communities building up an understanding of each other, Key Stages 1 to 4 are currently being revised and updated. The new programme will be operated from September 1996. One hopes that future generations will benefit from opportunities met.
We have all learnt lessons from the past in Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are not neutral on integrated education whether for new schools or the transformation of existing ones. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland has a statutory responsibility to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education. Immediately the integrated schools have satisfied the department as to their potential by ability, they receive 100 per cent. recurrent funding.
As the noble Lord pointed out, we see growth in this area. It is steady, but there is evidence that it is successful. We have made our financial commitment very visible. Spending on grant-maintained integrated schools has risen from £6.7 million in 1993–94 to £12.7 million in 1995–96.
I shall read Hansard carefully and if there are any points that I have missed in my reply I shall write to the noble Lord. This order is introducing changes to the education system in Northern Ireland which will be for the good of the education service as a whole and will ensure that the children and young people of the Province continue to receive a high standard of

861
education of which parents, children and the Government are rightly proud. We are grateful to the people who nurture the youngsters in the Province and who give them the right to look forward to a bright future. We all work constantly towards that. I commend this order to your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I coax her on two matters which both the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and I have raised? Does she not agree that a parents' meeting cannot do the job of an audit, and neither can the inspectors? Our concerns remain unsatisfied on the question of audit. I would welcome a firm commitment, even in writing.
Can the Minister offer in a sentence or two the intellectual, moral, social or educational justification for the distinction between a parent who pays and who has his child hit and a parent who does not pay and whose child is not hit?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I shall deal with the second question first. I was not suggesting that there was a distinction between them. I was suggesting that there was provision in grant-maintained schools for parents who choose specifically not to have their child subject to corporal punishment. In the independent schools, which are not supported by government, there is a choice for the parent. I was saying that and not that the Government were saying that there was a right to pay or not to pay. As regards an audit, I shall consult my colleague and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, I am most grateful to the Minister.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until two minutes before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.32 to 7.58 p.m.]

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 [Conversion of separation order into divorce order]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Marital breakdown]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before I call Amendment No. 18, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to, I cannot then call Amendments Nos. 18A to 20.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
8 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("one (or both)") and insert ("both").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving Amendment No. 18A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today. The purpose of the amendment is to consider cases where divorce is permitted only where both parties consent to it. I raise this point because one of the issues that has been exercising the minds of many of us is that under the terms of the Bill, unlike the 1969 Act where divorce is available without the consent of one spouse after five years, divorce will become available against the wishes of a spouse at the end of a year, which is a very short time.
It seems to me that in our discussions there has been broad agreement that where both parties agree to a divorce, particularly where no children are involved, it is a relatively straightforward matter. However, when it comes to a divorce in which children are involved, bearing in mind the great concern expressed by noble Lords of all parties in earlier debates, the amendment is helpful. It is not an amendment I wish to press, but I have received much correspondence expressing great concern about divorce being available after a year against the wishes of one party.
It was said at Second Reading that we have the highest divorce rate in the European Union. I have no doubt that the statistic is correct although I have not had an opportunity to check. Of course, divorce could be more difficult to obtain in other European Union countries which is why their divorce rates are not as high as ours. I do not know whether that is the case.
I know of a case in Switzerland which, I recognise, is not in the European Union. One party could not divorce without the consent of the other. It was very many years before the divorce finally came through on the death of one of the parties. There is clearly a great variation in legislation. If we are worried about the increase in divorce and the easiness of divorce, the matter should be considered.
It may help the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 29, 165 and 166 which deal with a completely separate point. Amendment No. 19 replaces the concept of marriage breakdown with the concept of a state of failure. That is more than a semantic point. I recognise that the concept of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage has existed in law for a very long time. But it is a completely fatalistic philosophy. I thought that Christians believed no human situation to be irretrievable; perhaps I am wrong.
In real life, couples can be reconciled even after periods of difficulty in their marriage relationship. The language of marriage breakdown also removes responsibility from the couple itself. The marriage, rather than individuals, is held to be at fault. I recognise that it is dangerous to use the word "fault", but that is how it is interpreted. As we know, every year there are some 20,000 to 30,000 more petitions for divorce than there are divorces. That at least suggests that many people come to the edge, then consider the whole thing and withdraw at the last moment.
Under the Bill, one or both parties to the marriage must make a statement of marriage breakdown. Under Clause 4, that act alone is sufficient to prove irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The only proviso is, of course, the waiting period of one year under Clause 7. The White Paper states:
"At least some divorce petitions, possibly many, represent a 'cry for help', which may not reflect a seriously thought out decision to end the marriage".
That is something with which I am sure we would all agree.
I have tabled Amendment No. 19 and the consequential Amendments Nos. 29, 165 and 166 because I think that the fatalistic language of the Bill could be improved by indicating that in difficult situations we should encourage people, wherever possible, to consider reconciliation and not to see everything as immediately at an end. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend say whether Amendment No. 21 fell with Amendment No. 18 or whether it remains in the group? If so, is she addressing that amendment also?
Baroness Young: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 18A, 19, 20 and 21.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not catch what the noble Baroness said. Is she speaking also to Amendment No. 29?
Baroness Young: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 19, 29, 165 and 166. My noble friend Lord Elton asked whether I was speaking also to Amendment No. 21. The answer is yes.
Baroness Elles: I support my noble friend Lady Young, especially on Amendment No. 18A which she introduced on behalf of our noble friend Lord Ashbourne. There is enormous concern about the way the Bill is drafted. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will explain and elaborate on the issue. At the moment it is a unilateral demand for divorce. Where just one person makes a statement of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, or believes that the marriage has failed, the other party has no say in the matter. As I understand it, under the Bill—perhaps my noble and learned friend will elaborate—there is no obligation on the other party to go through the process of mediation. Only under a later clause—perhaps Clause 10—could the non-agreeing party claim a hardship of one kind or another and try to stop the divorce.
As my noble and learned friend, as a great connoisseur of human nature will know, and as most Members of the. Committee will know, there are cases where people have a quarrel and think they are going to divorce. Time then somehow heals the situation and people change their minds. In the way the Bill is conceived, if someone says, "The marriage has broken down. I have made a statement," the other party will have great difficulty in ever trying to restore the situation. Where both agree, that is one situation which is being proposed. But it does not cure the defect in the
864
case of one party who wants a divorce against another party who does not. That does not solve the issue; it creates a new situation where both parties want a divorce. That happens and it is understandable. It would he a reasonable amendment in that particular case but other amendments would be required to deal with the other situation. Where both partners for various reasons want a divorce, and where there are no children and no problems about the division of assets, the Bill is in a reasonable state. However, it does not solve the case in which one partner wants to stay married.
There is no amendment covering the situation in which the person making a statement must have undertaken some form of reconciliation with both parties present. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend can answer my concern about the form of obligation on the person who makes the statement to notify the other party that the statement has been made. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend will be issuing regulations on the way in which the procedure is carried out. There is nothing in the Bill to enable one to say that, if X goes to a court or to a registry office and makes a statement, the other party will know even if he or she is abroad, or ill or looking after children or a member of the family somewhere else. That is a minor point but it is of considerable concern to people in that situation. I should be glad if, in answering my noble friend Lady Young, my noble and learned friend could address those points.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is in India and was unable to table his amendments. He asked me to table amendments for him in my name. I am speaking to Amendment No. 25. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wanted both partners to sign the statement. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor kindly saw me and explained why that was not possible. Perhaps I may raise the matter now because it refers to a point made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Coleraine: We have a mixed bag of amendments and I am speaking to Amendment No. 20 standing in my name, which provides that the statement being made will be a statement that the maker believes that the marriage may have broken down and not that the marriage has broken down. That is in line with Amendment No. 19, to which my noble friend Lady Young has spoken.
What I wish to know from my noble and learned friend is the same as was requested by my noble friend Lady Elles. What will happen to the statement when it gets to court? Will it be seen by the other side, the spouse who is to be divorced, assuming that the statement is made by only one spouse? Whether or not it is seen by the other side, the other side will know that the spouse who has made the statement has stated that the marriage has broken down and the spouse making the statement knows that he is making a statement that the marriage has broken down. In my view, it would be less confrontational and more liable to keep the peace between the parties if the statement were not made in the form in the Bill but in the form of my amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may make two points. First, we are suffering from over-generous grouping. In respect of an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to which I listened platonically, I found it extraordinarily difficult to follow all the various points. They seemed to be disparate amendments that were grouped together. That was again the case in respect of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Secondly, I wish to comment on the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 29. For the reasons that I explained earlier, I do not like the word "irretrievable". The noble Baroness indicated that her amendments were exploratory. I agree that the point is more than a semantic one in this sensitive area. I wish to suggest for her consideration and that of my noble and learned friend that the better word is "crisis". It can be stated that the marriage has come to a crisis. It has not necessarily failed nor necessarily broken down and certainly it may not be irretrievable. The hope of my noble and learned friend's arguments today is that the marriage may be retrieved in the course of mediation, conciliation and reconciliation at an early or late stage. Under those circumstances, it would be a better message, indeed a better test, to say that the marriage has come to a crisis.
Irretrievable breakdown is a recent intellectual phrase. Practically nothing was heard of it until the Royal Commission on marriage and divorce reported in the mid-1950s. Then only one of the 20 members, Sheriff Walker, suggested that irretrievable breakdown was preferable to the views of both majorities which were divided, I believe, 10 and nine. Once he had suggested irretrievable breakdown it was taken up enthusiastically by the extreme divorce reformers, who had little love for family and marriage. The whole issue of the modern law review was devoted to advocating Sheriff Walker's view. That was where the phrase came from.
The then Lord Bishop of Exeter, in Putting Asunder, took up the phrase and, following Sheriff Walker's recommendation, provided that it should not be mixed up with allegations of fault. Everybody told him immediately that it was quite impossible to investigate irretrievable breakdown judicially without having regard to evidence supporting it. He then rapidly agreed with the Law Commission the mixed test that was in the 1969 Act.
Even though it contradicted what his committee had recommended in Putting Asunder, he nevertheless was one of the Tellers in your Lordships' House in favour of the 1969 Bill. Another right reverend Prelate voted against the Bill and a leading matrimonial lawyer, Lord Hodson, and a leading proponent of women's rights—in particular married women's interests—Lady Summerskill, were the Tellers against the Bill. That was the line-up. With the prelacy divided and the Lord Bishop of Exeter telling in favour of a Bill which contradicted his committee, no wonder we are in a state of confusion at the moment.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: We are talking about a bunch of quite different amendments. I wish to pick
866
out one or two pieces of language used by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, as regards Amendment No. 20. It strikes me that if somebody says, "My marriage may have broken down", that is the right moment at which to go to a marriage guidance counsellor. That is not the right moment to he talking about divorce. I would hope that if that is what somebody feels is true about his marriage, he would always be encouraged or advised to go to a counsellor. The same applies to a marriage in crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of Christians believing that there can be redemption. Thank God. I know story after story of marriages in crisis but the faults have been faced. The people involved have gone for help and have strengthened and rebuilt their marriage.
But alas, the law must deal with the occasions when the marriage has broken down. I pick out the word "failure" in Amendments Nos. 19 and 29. Yes, of course, there is an immense sense of failure in the people I know who have been through the pain of divorce. They feel a failure of the central commitment of marriage which is to build, cherish and sustain a trusting and loving partnership. That failure or fault is at the heart of what is meant by a broken marriage.
But how would it help us to use that failure? My experience of those going into a second marriage is that they often have an over-pronounced sense of failure and an acute nervousness as regards not being able to build where they have failed before. I feel that it would be breaking the bruised reed if we rub in that failure.
The word "fault" has almost inevitably come back into matters. I want to say very little about that. Those great faults of unfaithfulness and cruelty are very serious matters but they do not of themselves break a marriage. As I said, thank God there are wonderful stories of people being forgiven and healed and of marriages being rebuilt. But it is the arriving at a decision that a marriage has irretrievably broken down which brings the marriage to an end. There are many difficulties and I have total sympathy with the wish to protect the partner who does not wish the marriage to come to an end. Marriage is a union of consenting partners. If one partner firmly and irrevocably withdraws that consent, the marriage will not go forward from that place. There can be bitter motives on both sides. There can be bitter motives in the one who leaves; there can be bitter punitive motives in the one who has, with the law as it is, refused to give someone their freedom, as they say, until five years have passed.
Does waiting for that period of five years really help? We all know that fault and faults are part of the story. The question about law is whether law can correctly unearth and apportion fault. Surely the experience of us all is that the law has proved an exceedingly clumsy instrument which has frequently apportioned fault unequally and unjustly.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the right reverend Prelate agree that the Church courts apportioned fault without any real difficulty for some 1,500 years?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: It may not have found any difficulty but I guess that, in particular, many of the women concerned found a good deal of difficulty in what the Church courts would have found in those years.

867
Before we leave the word "fault" it is worth saying that it was the 1969 fault-based law which opened the floodgates with which we are concerned today. When I have known a couple closely through the pain of divorce, I have realised that there has been fault on both sides. Even if I knew people many times better than any court could, it would be very difficult to apportion the blame fairly. It seems to me that there is a Christian view of fault and that is that I should be more concerned with my own part in the fault than in trying to establish my partner's part.
The question which we must ask, which I believe the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has asked very carefully, is whether there is a better chance of fault being examined properly, including one's own fault, in the adversarial context of a law court or in the more relaxed atmosphere that we hope will exist for mediation.
One of the most tragic figures about divorce is the number of divorces of second marriages. The point has been made already today that people sometimes rush on from the breakdown of a first marriage without seeing their part in it. One of the great reasons for divorce over time in this way is that people will he given the opportunity to reflect on their part in the breakdown of a marriage before they are free to go forward to another marriage.
I believe that irretrievable breakdown is not a fatalism. Couples know they have failed but I do not believe that we need to exaggerate that profound sense of failure which so many people feel.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to say a few words on Amendment No. 18A moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I come back to the messages that we are sending out. I am sorry to be repetitive about that but I believe that that is really the crux of the matter.
What are we saying? Two people solemnly enter either a Church or a civil contract to establish a relationship not on a day-to-day basis but on a supposedly permanent basis. It is not one person who agrees to do that; it is two people. There are two people involved in making a contract of marriage—and we do call it a contract of marriage, whether it is made in heaven or in the registry office. It is a contract. But here, against all the laws of contract, we are saying that the contract can be unilaterally abrogated. We are saying that a contract made by two people can be set aside by one of the people who is party to that contract; and, even worse, that can be done without giving any reason.
There is no need to give a reason for the breakdown between the two who made the contract because, as we have just heard from the right reverend Prelate, fault has gone. The Government want to do away with fault. Therefore, all one party has to do to break the contract which was entered into solemnly is to say that it has irretrievably broken down. There is nothing in the Bill to say that there must be justification for that. Unless there are certain other conditions involving children or hardship and so on, the other party will have to put up with that. That is not a very equal contract.
As I said, that sends out the wrong message to people who are about to marry because at the back of their minds when they are marrying now they say, "Well,
868
if we want to put it asunder, there are certain things which must be done and we may be blamed by society". They may feel that there will be a bit of a stigma if the contract is ended unilaterally. Indeed, one of them may feel sorry for the other partner and may feel that he or she is "wronging" that person. It is not so much a case of it being a social stigma: there are social reasons why people do not embark upon such action.
However, what we are now telling people when they are about to get married is that they do not really have to think very much about it because, after two years, one of them can simply go to court and say that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. That means that they will, perhaps, not think too seriously about their marriage vows. That is the last thing we want. We want them to think more seriously about such vows. But the Bill sends them the message that they do not have to think too seriously because, if they are not getting on after a couple a years, one party can say, "I've had enough of this; the marriage is irretrievably broken down. No matter what my partner thinks and no matter what my fellow contractee has said, I can end this unilaterally". I believe that we are sending the wrong message. I believe it most sincerely, despite the remarks of the right reverend Prelate. We must reflect on the matter. That is why I believe we should give serious consideration to this group of amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: I believe that my noble and learned friend can help to resolve a couple of anxieties which are felt by a wider group of people than perhaps have attached their names to amendments. The first anxiety relates to Amendment No. 29 and the debate about words. I accept that it is not a debate about semantics.
The right reverend Prelate said that it was not a question of crisis. That is when you start trying to save a marriage and not when you start initiating a divorce. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, described a sequence which many of us thought we had detected in the Bill; namely, a process which starts with making a statement followed by compulsory mediation during which conciliation is offered and mediation can be put on one side and concluding in reconciliation or, if that fails, in divorce. So crisis would be the right word for the beginning of the process but the wrong word for the beginning of something which presumably could only end in divorce.
Perhaps my noble and learned friend can say more about the relationship between mediation and conciliation. I know that it belongs in Clause 5, but it is relevant to this group of amendments. The key amendment is Amendment No. 18A which lays down that there can only be divorce between consenting partners. That amendment is itself amended, as it were, by Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 which suggest an alternative route where there is no consent and which returns to the issue of fault.
I do not wish to return to the issue of fault. However, many of us are disturbed by the way in which it is possible to describe the Bill as providing a contract of marriage which can be abrogated unilaterally after a short time. There are cases where one of the parties does

869
not actually despair of the marriage and where in fact hope is justified, as my noble friend said when speaking to one of her earlier amendments.
It would be helpful if my noble and learned friend could explain the position of the other party. Indeed, any party, whether consenting or not, needs to know that such a statement has been made. As my noble friend Lady Elles, I believe, pointed out, it would seem quite possible under the Bill for a statement to be made without the knowledge of the other party. But where the other party actually wishes to continue to try to salvage the marriage then, a fortiori, we would like to know what the arrangements would be.
Lord Coleraine: I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the size of the groupings of amendments. I suspect that the intention is benevolent; namely, that we should have large, general debates in which all the issues involved on any particular broad group of subjects can be discussed. However, my own feeling is that the discussions tend to get sidetracked and are not conclusive. All we are doing is building up trouble for the Report stage. Indeed, we shall end up with very long Report stage debates on matters not properly discussed at this point.
Baroness Trumpington: I understand—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will agree—that groupings are set down by arrangement between the usual channels. If anyone objects to anything, he or she is perfectly at liberty to degroup an amendment. Equally, that does not stop someone moving the amendment when we come to the relevant point. I hope that I am correct in my assumption.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I can only speak on behalf of the official Opposition. We are invited to agree to the groupings proposed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Irvine wishes to raise a particular matter in a short while. The problem is that unless everyone whose amendments are put into a group is consulted—Members of the Committee can see by the size of the groups how difficult, if not impossible, it was in this case—then he or she is entitled to make the kind of comments that have just been made.
Lord Coleraine: I am most grateful but I should like to continue. It is correct to say that one can change the grouping and degroup. However, there were special difficulties today in that when one telephoned the Whips' Office one got a continual ringing sound because the telephone was not working. Moreover, the groupings list was available only shortly before the Committee sat. I find that amendments which were in one group 10 days ago now turn up in another. Indeed, one paving amendment has been detached and put into an altogether different group. Although such large debates are clearly designed to achieve a good effect, I doubt very much whether they do so in the long term.
The right reverend Prelate referred to Amendment No. 20. I am certainly aware that if one puts in the statement the fact that the marriage may have broken down it runs the risk of starting proceedings prematurely and that in
870
such a case it is possibly better if the divorce does not start at that point. However, the amendment we are discussing is largely an amendment of benevolent semantics. Whatever happens the party considering making the statement will make such a statement as and when he or she has decided that the marriage has broken down and a divorce is required. I do not believe that that should necessarily prevent the statement containing the words "may have broken down" as opposed to "has broken down".
Lord Meston: I cannot help but suspect that one of the concerns raised by the amendments is an anxiety about how far one party can go down the path to a divorce without the other party knowing about it, let alone consenting to it. I believe that some confusion has crept into our discussions.
I have assumed that all the various documents which must be put before the court—in particular, the initial statement—will have to he served promptly upon the other party. I suspect that that is not perhaps as clear as it might be on the face of the Bill. However, I presume that that would be covered by the rules to be implemented under Clause 11 whereby the Lord Chancellor,
"may make rules … requiring the parties to be given, in such manner as may be specified, copes of such statements and other documents as may be specified".
I have to say that earlier today I was especially concerned about the provision for a declaration under Clause 9 by one of the parties that the family has "no significant assets", and so on.
However, I return to the point of the amendments. Whatever the legal mechanism which happens to be in operation at the time, the reality is that the parties to a marriage will probably have different views as to whether or not the marriage is at an end, at least at the beginning of the process.
This Bill has been criticised as allowing for unilateral repudiation of marriage. However, I invite the Committee to consider what is the present state of the law. As the law stands, divorce in reality quite often represents a unilateral repudiation of the marriage by one party which is only reluctantly and eventually accepted by the other party. The other party—the reluctant party—may not have the resolve or the funds to fight a divorce and cannot therefore stop the process, and indeed by trying to stop the process merely emphasises to the court the fact that the marriage has in reality hopelessly broken down.
The defect, as it seems to me, of the existing system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, put it, is that there is no time given for the marriage to heal, if it is possible to heal the marriage. It seems to me that the virtue of this Bill is that it provides a mandatory period of a year to enable such healing to take place if it is at all possible. However, I suggest that consideration might be given to an indication at this stage as to how the rules under Clause 11 for service of documents on the other side arc to take shape in reality.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I desire to say a word or two in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said about the groupings. I have to say for myself that I find the groupings far too heavy, each incorporating a series

871
of unrelated issues. Therefore they are monstrously muddled. I hope that we can do much better in the later stages of this Committee. I do not know how many draft versions of the groupings—I think it was about three—I looked at in the half hour between 2 p.m. and 2.30. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, says that this has to be agreed between the usual channels. That should indeed be the case, but the previous Committee day was on llth January; we are now at 22nd January and these draft groupings were only being circulated about half an hour before the Committee sat. In my submission, that does not begin to be good enough.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that what overladen groupings of this kind entail is an invitation to a series of Second Reading debates and speeches on a broad range of issues. There is a loss of focus on specific amendments and therefore denial of an effective Committee stage. I hope that we can do much better at later stages in this Committee and that there will be longer notice through the usual channels.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I find the particular groupings that have been attempted quite difficult. On the other hand some form of grouping is required. If we can all do better, I shall be very happy. I shall try to deal with the grouping that we have, which starts with Amendment No. 18A. The principle behind this amendment is based on consent and it alters the period, or allows the period to operate, by virtue of consent. I think that this is a point that arises under the present law. It is worth remembering what the present law is. I believe that this particular part of the present law continues to be reflected in Amendment No. 23 of my noble friend Lady Young.
The point is that the various aspects of the ground for divorce under the present law affect the time it takes to obtain a divorce. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says we must consider the messages that our law sends out. The message the present law sends out, and the message Amendment No. 18A, with Amendment No. 23, would send out is that if parties are agreed that they may get rid of their marriage, that can happen comparatively quickly. If one of the parties is at fault, that may also lead to an early divorce. However, if no fault is alleged against either party, neither of them can remarry for a period of five years. That does not appear to me to send out a signal of disapproval of fault, because the person at fault is apparently free to remarry much earlier than the person who is not at fault.
I come to the second point. My noble friend Lady Young says that the proposals I have are in a sense fatalistic and that it is important to consider the situation of the spouse who does not want the divorce to go ahead. I do not agree that the structure that the Government are proposing is fatalistic in that sense. What the Government are proposing is, first, the information session if the marriage is in crisis. One might hope that people would seek help before it reached that stage. However, if they are at the stage of thinking about a process in court, they have the information session which is intended to help them to deal with the situation as it then exists.
872
At that stage the position is that they need not do anything more if they can get help and can resolve the crisis. One has to measure these crises:, they are all in a sense crises. The next stage is where one of the parties considers that the marriage has broken down. This is, of course, the matter that is focused primarily by the later amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 29, 165 and 166. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has criticised the phrase "irretrievable breakdown" as having originated from a Scottish sheriff. However, I believe it has the merit—there may be other phrases available—of referring to stages of crisis. The crisis of breakdown is the one that triggers the process, and then a period has to elapse before one reaches the next stage of irretrievable breakdown.
The trouble with "failure", I believe, is that it is difficult to establish in degrees. I believe that "breakdown" is a word that one can accommodate in degrees whereas "failure" appears to me to be complete. If one starts off considering that a marriage has failed, it is difficult to see how one can, as it were, progress to some more definite conclusion about it. I would respectfully suggest to the Committee that to start off suggesting that a marriage has failed is more fatalistic than the way we have sought to go about it.
In Amendment No. 18A my noble friend Lady Young has put a requirement at the centre of Clause 4 that both parties should take the view that the divorce should go ahead. I regard consent as a somewhat dangerous basis on which alone to allow divorce to go ahead because, as has already been said, the relationship is one that depends on the active support of both parties.
I have already dealt with the point about failure in Amendment No. 19 and later amendments.
Amendment No. 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine makes the first declaration more provisional. I would regard it as undesirable to make it easier than we have made it to make the first statement. In other words, one ought not to seek to initiate a divorce process unless one is of the view that the marriage is in the state of crisis which involves breakdown. If it is less than that I would hope that the help that is mentioned, and about which information will be available at the information session, will help people to take other steps than to go forward to the divorce process.
Amendment No. 21 is an introduction to Amendment No. 23. I shall return to that amendment, but in the meantime there is my amendment, Amendment No. 22. That is no more than a drafting amendment to make clear what is intended in Clause 6. I propose to amend the Bill by removing Clause 6 and replacing it with Amendment No. 22 as an improvement.
As Clause 6 currently stands, if a statement were made jointly but only one party wanted to make an application for a divorce order the other party could effectively prevent the divorce by refusing to make the appropriate declaration. The declaration should only be made by the party or parties who make the application, with no reference back to who made the original statement. The effect of Amendment No. 22 is to make that clear.

873
Amendment No. 23 requires allegations to he made. Those are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred to the judgments in the ecclesiastical courts over the years. I believe that the grounds that were before the ecclesiastical courts were a good deal less ample than the grounds contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), particularly in relation to paragraph (b). I believe that the ground for divorce set out in that paragraph—namely, that,
"the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent"
—enables divorce to be obtained on that basis with comparative ease.
In any event, that amendment, with its paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), points sharply to the message that if there is grievous fault such as adultery one may be allowed to remarry very quickly, but if one has not been responsible for any fault in a marriage except living apart one may have to wait for at least five years. That is a problem with a law which is based on fault.
Before I leave that amendment I should like to say that the suggestion that the Government are trying to make out that there is no such thing as fault is not a justified criticism of the Bill. The Government are trying to secure a framework for divorce law which makes it as easy as possible to keep marriages going and to restore those where there is any hope of restoration. However, in my submission it is not realistic to think that in the situation with which we are faced it is possible to improve on that situation. The best that we can do is to provide a framework in which those marriages are restored if at all possible.
Amendment No. 24 is consequential. Amendment No. 25 would require the applicant for the divorce in its final form to be the same person who made the original statement. One of the purposes of this structure is to leave it as open as possible for the marriage to be restored. I believe that it is therefore important that where the process is initiated it should be possible for either party to take steps under the process equally.
I was asked about the way in which the provisions that we are dealing with at this stage would operate. The intention is that any document put before a court shall he properly served on those who arc interested. That is normally a matter dealt with under rules of court or regulation. The powers contained in Clause 11 are ample to secure that. I give the Committee every assurance that where it is possible to serve such a statement it will be served. It is only in the case of somebody who has completely disappeared or something of that kind when no service would be required. That applies to all the documentation, including the type of document that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned.
I wish to make a second point in this connection in answer to what was said by my noble friend Lady Elles on this aspect. The arrangements between the parties are intended to reflect what has happened between them. One of the provisions dealing with these matters is that where conduct is of such a nature that it would be
874
inequitable to disregard it, it is to be taken into account in connection with dispositions of property. Therefore, the nature of the conduct as between the parties will have to be faced where it is important in connection with the arrangements that are made between them and the way in which they face up to the responsibilities which this Bill requires them to face. Therefore, the nature of their conduct is not left out of account. It is accepted that it requires two to make a continuing marriage. If one has demonstrated by as long as a year's refusal to take the marriage forward then it is clear that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The consequences of that are to be reflected in the arrangements that are made between the parties in so far as it is appropriate and equitable for that to be required.
9 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble and learned Lord puts forward a serious and interesting proposal. Is he saying that, despite what has been said, there will remain fault in marriage, and that that will be punished by depriving the person who is at fault of a given amount, say, of money or property in any marriage settlement? That seems to be something new. I had not quite understood that.
The Lord Chancellor: It is not something new. It may be new to express it in quite the way that the noble Lord does. However, what I am directing attention to is that the conduct of the parties, where it would be inequitable to ignore it, is taken into account in the financial arrangements between them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: So they will be punished for it.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not use that language. But it is right that where the conduct is of such a character that it would be inequitable to ignore it, it is taken into account if the court has to adjust property rights between the parties.
Lord Stallard: We do not take that into account in the irretrievable break-up of the marriage. It is a no fault situation when it applies to the marriage, but it is a fault when it comes to the settlement.
The Lord Chancellor: These things are not entirely separate. One of the proposals in the Bill—we debated it earlier and I wish to emphasise it—is that before a divorce is granted under these proposals the parties will have to face up to the responsibilities flowing from their marriage. The way in which that is done includes the provision to which I have referred; namely, that if the conduct of a party is of such a character that it would he inequitable to disregard it in these arrangements, then the court will take it into account. In the proposals the Government have put before Parliament that factor is available for consideration.
My noble friend Lord Elton raised the question also in connection with the abrogation unilaterally after a short time. How short? In my submission to the Committee, a year is quite a substantial time in the context of this situation. The important factor is that it

875
is a year with a purpose; namely, of consideration and reflection. The Bill seeks to put into the law, so far as the law can, a purpose for that period. It is not just an aimless delay; it is not done for no purpose, but to enable the parties to consider carefully in the light of all the help they can gain, and as regards the whole view of the future, what the future holds for them. The logical consequence of that is that if there is hope for the marriage to be saved, that is what will happen.
I believe that I have dealt with all the matters that arise under these grouped amendments. In due course I shall move my Amendment No. 22 and indicate then that I do not propose that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. At Report stage your Lordships will have the Bill as the Government consider it should be on this aspect.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am sorry to delay the Committee but I have to have this clear. Earlier on the noble and learned Lord said that under the present arrangements the party to the marriage who is at fault is able to remarry sooner than the party not at fault. Is that correct? Did I understand that correctly?
The Lord Chancellor: Not quite. If you have a situation such as is contemplated in these amendments. a party who is at fault in a marriage will obtain a quick divorce—in less than five years—and therefore will be able to remarry more quickly than a party to a marriage who is not said to be at fault who has to wait at least five years for that. That is the point I seek to make. It is a very important point. It is a very profound message; and it is a message which in my view the law should not send. In my view, far from frowning, as it were, on these breaches it rather suggests that the breaches will be rewarded in a great number of cases by a rather rapid licence to remarry.
Lord Coleraine: Before my noble and learned friend leaves that point, is that not the situation under the present law as envisaged in 1969: that the issue was going to be fault based, and if you committed adultery you could be divorced but, otherwise, if the parties were not agreed upon a divorce, you had to wait for five years, separated during that period? Surely the positions are analogous one to another.
The Lord Chancellor: That is right. That is what I think is so wrong with the message that the present law sends out. Far from penalising that kind of fault, far from saying that the law disapproves of it, the message appears to be that the law commends it by the rapidity with which it will be blessed by a licence to remarry. I am sure that that is not what many of us would like to see, but that is the logic of the present position. It is one of the reasons that I feel that it is extremely difficult to have a sensible law which makes a distinction between a divorce based on fault and a divorce that is not based on fault unless the same timescale applies. In that case, having the fault base makes no real difference.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, my noble and learned friend said that under the existing law a party who is at fault can obtain a quickie divorce—he did not use these words
876
but I think that it is what he was referring to—and therefore can marry sooner than a party who has to wait five years who he assumes is not at fault. But the party who has to wait for five years may or may not be at fault himself. Indeed, he is more likely to be at fault than not at fault in actual situations.
My noble and learned friend dwelt much, as did the White Paper, on the imperfections of the present law. But in my respectful submission it is wrong to credit the critics of this Bill either with responsibility or with any affection for the 1969 Act. On the contrary, those who are critical of this Bill stand in place of, and are successors of, those who were critical in 1969. Many of the supporters of this Bill are the successors of those who supported the 1969 Act.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend just pointed out that the five-year separation does not imply that a person is or is not at fault—which in a sense makes the point about the present law: it may or may not involve fault. My point is that if fault is alleged against a person, under the existing law the divorce can be much quicker than if no fault is alleged.
Regarding support for the 1969 Act, I am not concerned to say who is responsible for that. I am simply concerned to answer questions about messages. One takes the law as it is and says that this is the message it sends out. I do not want to say that opponents of the present Bill have any responsibility for that. All I am saying is that these are inevitable consequences of a particular position. That is what we have to examine.
Baroness Young: First, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his very detailed reply to these amendments. I shall read it with very great care. There are two issues to which we shall unquestionably return and in relation to which one cannot be entirely happy.
I am sorry to raise the question of fault once again. But as I understood my noble friend, he argued consistently that it is the fault provisions under the 1969 Act that have led to quick divorces. To take the divorce rate for the United Kingdom, I understand that it is only in England and Wales that this uniquely quick situation exists whereby divorces can take place, as some 30 per cent. do, in under six months.
In Northern Ireland, the corresponding figure for divorces that take place on the basis of two to five years is some 73.4 per cent. I understand that in Northern Ireland the statute law is identical to that which applies in England and Wales; the main difference is that there is no special procedure, introduced here in 1973, which I understand allows divorce by post, whereas in Northern Ireland a court appearance is required.
For reasons that I do not fully understand (I am not an expert in this field) we not only had the provisions of the 1969 Act but, in order to speed them all up a little, we made the process easier.
Presumably, the statutory instrument under which the special procedure operates could simply he repealed. Then we could have fault without the process happening so quickly. I do not quite understand why it should

877
apply in one part of the United Kingdom and not in another. But there it is. There is still a lot of question in relation to fault.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Is it not possible that there is a difference in Northern Ireland because there is a much higher proportion of Roman Catholics?
Baroness Young: I cannot possibly say whether it is a result of the composition of the population. In Scotland, for reasons I do not fully understand, a much higher proportion of divorces take place after two to five years. There may be all sorts of reasons for that; I do not know what they are. But we might examine the situation within the United Kingdom. Whether, under the statutory instrument, the special procedure that was designed to speed the process up and save money (perhaps that is a good thing; it could be said that quicker divorce is cheaper for the Government) really contributes to the good of society and to an ultimate saving of public money is another question. This argument could continue.
I am bound to say that I was very disappointed in the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. He says that, on the one hand, he believes in redemption but, on the other, one has to accept that a marriage has broken down. He is adopting a completely fatalistic approach on that point.
On the whole question of the wording, there is a good philosophical discussion as to whether "breakdown" is susceptible to the degrees of description that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave to it and whether "failure" is. It is not a matter with which I intend to trouble the Committee at length at this stage of the evening. But the issue here is the message that we are sending out on these matters. "Irretrievable breakdown" has a very fatalistic sound to it: it suggests that that is the end.
I feel that this has been a valuable debate. It opened up a number of questions about which we have some concern. We are concerned particularly in Amendment No. 18A that there can be unilateral divorce, one party against the other, after a year. I believe that that should concern us all. It is a very serious point.
Amendments Nos. 99, 109 and 106 refer to provisions for a court to make an order barring divorce for two years where one spouse objects to the divorce. In practice that would prevent divorce for possibly four years. It is a way of extending the time—not punishing anyone—and giving people the opportunity to consider further whether they have a chance of getting back together again.
The question of conduct came up at the end of the discussion and my Amendment No. 108 refers to that. There will be a number of issues which need to be raised over the hardship clause, to which I shall certainly return at a later stage in the Committee's proceedings. I do not intend to raise them at this time. I shall read very carefully what my noble and learned friend has said on these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) the period for reconciliation fixed by section (Period for reconciliation) has ended; and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment and speaking to those grouped with it I come to a completely separate issue which concerns reconciliation. Amendments Nos. 21A, 21B, 21C, 32A, 33A, 35B, 38A, 38B and 39A incorporate a one-year period for reconciliation before a year for mediation.
There has been a great deal of discussion at both Second Reading and Committee on the importance of reconciliation. I accept that these amendments may not be properly drafted, but I hope very much that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will look very seriously at incorporating into this whole process a period of reconciliation. He said today in Committee that he hopes that during the period of mediation couples will come together. There has been much debate about what mediation can do, and no doubt we shall discuss the matter further. But, as I understand the Bill, there will be a statement of the intention to divorce and then mediation will begin to operate, but not until the couple have reached that stage. Therefore, it is concerned much more with dividing up the assets. One hopes that there will be a more amicable settlement. One cannot imagine that it can be made compulsory. I do not believe that anyone would necessarily go if he or she did not want to do so. Be all that as it may, I do not argue against mediation. I submit that we want something more than mediation. We want reconciliation.
I believe that that is perfectly possible. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, at the last Committee stage made that very point about the importance of reconciliation. I believe that many people quite wrongly may see divorce as a solution to their marital difficulties. In fact, divorce can be a cry for help. Indeed, the White Paper, as I said before, admits that some, possibly many, divorce petitions represent a cry for help which may not reflect a seriously thought-out decision to end the marriage. It seems to me that if we are left with a no-fault provision in the law, the provision for reconciliation becomes even more important. It becomes important to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because the cost of family breakdown is at least some £3 billion every year.
I understand that the Bill envisages one year for mediation during which a couple, having faced up to the realities of what life will be like after divorce, may have second thoughts. I hope that they will do so. Certainly I am not against that. It will be easy, under mediation in the Bill, for the couple to talk immediately about splitting their assets; then, where no financial agreement is reached at the end of one year, under Clause 9 a spouse can apply to the court to end the discussion and make a divorce order.
That matter was referred to in an earlier debate and I shall read again what my noble and learned friend said on that point. The Bill appears to remove a number of obstacles to divorce and does little to encourage people

879
to think again. Mediation and reconciliation will be difficult to carry out at the same time because they do not serve quite the same purpose.
I hope that in this series of amendments we can consider including these measures in the process, perhaps when the marriage is in crisis or when concern is expressed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said. That is when one wants reconciliation—before one ever reaches the stage of statements or mediation.
I do not know what the answer is, but there is a great deal of feeling in the Committee that we ought to write into the Bill some provisions on reconciliation. That was a point made by Cardinal Hume in his article; he was concerned about this. I believe everybody is concerned to improve these arrangements. If we are to strengthen marriage and help those in difficulty, this is what we need.
I shall he the first to admit that none of the amendments may be quite appropriate. The ideal would be for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to come back at Report stage with an amendment of his own that meets our worries. However, at this time of the night I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the arguments in relation to the buttressing of marriage. We dealt with those on the first amendment and said, when we agreed generally on the importance of that amendment, that other amendments should be judged against it.
The first point of the first amendment was to buttress marriage. A provision incorporating reconciliation would do that. That is something that is not only wanted in your Lordships' Chamber but, judging from the correspondence that I received and the people to whom I have spoken, it is one of the issues about which a great many people feel very strongly. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that we must concentrate on reconciliation. However, does she not agree that there are some powerful organisations already in this country which deal with reconciliation? For instance, Relate receives core funding from the Home Office and covers the whole country. We have a Roman Catholic marriage guidance council, a Jewish marriage guidance council and many other councils doing reconciliation work.
As my noble and learned friend will be aware, in Scotland the reconciliation and mediation services share the same office. A person goes to the reconciliation department before going to mediation. Perhaps taking into account what my noble friend Lady Young said, we can build on what we already have.
Lord Hylton: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised important points in the amendments and more will arise when we come to Clause 7.
I feel strongly that reconciliation is important. But if that is what we want on a national scale, far more resources will be required than are presently available. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned some of the organisations. In theory they provide a national service, but what percentage of the separating or divorcing couples do they actually reach? It seems to me that far more trained marriage counsellors will be
880
required and far more money to pay for them. That is one of the points which Cardinal Hume was attempting to make in his article.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved the amendment most modestly because she acknowledged that she may not have got the balance right, while at the same time correctly drawing the attention of the Committee to the need to get a correct balance between mediation and attempts at reconciliation.
I do not desire to anticipate—it would not be right to do so—the argument and discussion there will be on Amendments Nos. 40 and 55 which stand in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. At that stage I shall attempt some suggestions as to what the correct relationship should be. If the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying so, in relation to her amendments, I do not think that a mandatory year for reconciliation is the right way through. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that mediation is not as such about reconciliation. That is what the mediators are always telling us. The mediator is not a reconciliator. He is a mediator of solutions for parties who have reached the stage of having agreed that they must part and he is the mediator of solutions for them to try to agree, if they are able.
However, in considering the important relationship between mediation and attempts at reconciliation, we shall have to consider whether mediators should be put by Parliament under some kind of duty to encourage the parties to consider attempting reconciliation. That would not be a duty to be put on the mediator to engage in a process of trying to persuade the parties to become reconciled. It would merely be a duty to say to them, "Do consider attempting reconciliation. It is an option that is still there although you have embarked on mediation". If the answer was no, the mediator would have to accept that answer without demur and get on with his job, which is mediating. If the answer was, "Yes, we would like to think about reconciliation", the mediator should refer the parties for counselling if that is acceptable to them both.
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, what I think lies at the root of her concern in this area is to avoid legislating in such a way that mediation acquires a momentum of its own so that once embarked upon it excludes attempts at reconciliation. However, I do not think that a mandatory period for reconciliation, whether of a year or any other period, is the right way forward because one cannot compel people to attempt reconciliation. They have to want to attempt it. If in the view of both the marriage has broken down and neither wants to attempt reconciliation, that is the state of affairs in the hard world in which one simply must engage and then the mandatory period of a year for reconciliation would be a period of delay and would be, in my view, to no sensible purpose.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: This amendment is of tremendous importance in our discussions on the Bill. It seems to me that in fact there is a certain amount of loose

881
thinking reflected in the Bill as it stands. Perhaps I may go back a little. A couple decide that they want to get married for one of many reasons. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate that if they are to be married in the Church of England there is time for very serious instruction. I am all for that. I am equally clear that it happens in the Roman Catholic Church and in others. The parties are told what marriage is all about. They come to a judgment—I am forgetting about the civil registration—and get married. They have been told all about it. They live together for a period of time, then things begin to go wrong. If one is not careful, they go wrong rather quickly.
Under this Bill, as I read it, there is no real provision made for knowing anything about that or, if one does, of being able to help. There is no specific mention or allotment for counselling and reconciliation. I shall read what the noble and learned Lord, The Lord Chancellor said. He said that in the course of mediation the parties may get counselling. I am all for that, but counselling has to be recognised in the Bill and is on its own. The Government must face up to the fact that it is not enough to have all these bodies that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned, to do voluntary work, although I am all for them.
I do not believe that that provision is in the Bill. I want the Government to put aside money for counselling, reconciliation, call it what one will, before one gets to the stage of mediation. This is one of the very critical issues about this Bill, because that provision is not clear. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred to the length of time. That is a very difficult subject. If one believes that this is a very important matter for everyone concerned, then a year or two years—I put my name to a two-year period—is not too long because it affects not only the whole life of the couple but, more importantly perhaps, it concerns the children and their well being.
Even if the marriage is a failure or has broken down—whatever the word is that everyone uses, because it is very difficult to distinguish between them—I return to the one matter: one must try to make the marriage work. Having taken vows or even having been in a register office, one really has to try, so the period of time is very important. I repeat: as I now read the Bill there is no real provision for counselling, reconciliation, call it what one will. For that reason, I wholly support the various amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this matter.
Lord Meston: The groupings suggest that my Amendments Nos. 54, 56, 58 and 60 should be debated now, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as regards his Amendment No. 40, I believe that it would be more appropriate for what I want to say about Clause 7 to be debated with his Amendment No. 40. In so doing, I simply indicate that perhaps the point of Amendment No. 54 is really to draw attention to the fact that the only specific provision in the Bill for attempted reconciliation and for such an attempt to stop the clock, depends on a notice being lodged with the court. I question whether it is appropriate to require the
882
parties—or one of them—to lodge a notice with the court at the time of an attempted reconciliation if they wish to stop the clock running. However, I shall return to that point.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: The groupings are a little confusing, but I hope that it is in order for me to say something briefly about the two amendments which stand in my name and which are part of this grouping as it stands. I refer to Amendments Nos. 123 and 125. I hope that they are uncontroversial because they are designed to add precision to this debate and in particular to the relationships between reconciliation, marriage counselling and mediation.
Clause 11(2) states:
"The Lord Chancellor may make rules requiring a person who is or has been the legal representative of a party to a marriage".
to inform that person of various points; the first being:
"(a) whether he has discussed with that party— (i) the possibility of a reconciliation".
We firmly support the retention of the reference to "reconciliation" at that point.
However, we have worries about sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) which appear at the top of page 7. I refer particularly to the reference to "counselling facilities". We believe that that should be a clear reference to "marriage counselling facilities". Many amendments relate to marriage counselling. Some are designed to make clear what is meant by "marriage counselling" and who might be approved by the Lord Chancellor as a proper body to carry out marriage counselling. Therefore, we think it important to have a reference to "marriage counselling" at this point in the Bill rather than simply to "counselling" generally.
We should also like the order of the provisions to be reversed so that,
"the availability to the parties of any counselling facilities",
would come before,
"the opportunities for the parties to take part in mediation".
Clause 11(2)(c) states:
"whether he has given that party names and addresses of persons qualified to help".
We should like to reduce the following three references to two, simply because where it states,
"names and addresses of persons qualified to help— (i) to effect a reconciliation",
which is to be distinguished from the provisions which relate to the
"names and addresses of persons qualified to help … (iii) by counselling",
we think that that is muddling. We should like there to be one clear reference to, "people who are qualified-to give marriage counselling". Marriage counsellors are concerned with reconciliation. They are the properly approved bodies and we feel that it is muddling at that point to have three references rather than two. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be sympathetic to those attempts to make the Bill more precise on that point.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps I may say how strongly we support what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. I refer particularly to Amendment No. 32A which relates to the statement to be made by a party.
Clause 5(2) states,
"it must also state that that party— (a) is aware of the purpose of the period for reflection and consideration".
The noble Baroness suggests that we should leave out the words "reflection and consideration" and insert instead "reconciliation and mediation". The noble Baroness was modest about the wording but I am sure that the Government will want to take the amendment away and think about it. I believe that the phrase "reconciliation and mediation" is better than the phrase "reflection and consideration" which appears in the Bill because "reflection and consideration" is very broad whereas in the context of the Bill both "reconciliation" and "mediation" have particular meanings. I believe that there is firm support for that on all sides of the Committee.
Of course, there would be some cost implications if marriage counselling and counselling with a view to reconciliation were to appear on the face of the Bill, but the noble Baroness was right to remind us of the huge cost of divorce and of the fact that putting some money into prevention would save a great deal.
Lord Irvine of Laing: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for indicating that he will postpone discussion of his Amendment No. 54 until I am called upon to move Amendments Nos. 40 and 55. It is just one out of the many bizarre features of the groupings with which we are faced that his Amendment No. 54, which covers the same subject matter as my Amendments Nos. 40 and 55, should have been grouped with the amendments we are currently considering and not with Amendments Nos. 40 and 55. I am grateful to him for leaving discussion of his Amendment No. 54 until later.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There has been a good deal of confusion about the terminology of the matters with which we have been concerned. That has not been the fault of the principal speakers in Committee, who have been completely clear, not least the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in his speech on this amendment.
I am inclined to think that it would be better if the terms we use here were statutorily defined because some are overlapping. Conciliation is an overlapping concept. Counselling to some extent is an overlapping concept. What I believe all Members of the Committee wish to see is an opportunity for reconciliation—a process of mediation. I agree that our discussion would be better if postponed.
Although reconciliation must be entirely voluntary, I differ from some Members of the Committee in not holding the same view about mediation. Reconciliation is the first concept. We all desire to see that in the sense of helping the parties to restore their relationship, one to another, and therefore also to their children.
As for mediation, I understand that to be an alternative, or preparatory, to adjudication, rather than, as the noble Baroness put it on an earlier occasion, the
884
parties engaging adversarially in conflict before the judge. The mediator can help them resolve their differences. It is the unresolved differences which would go to the judge.
The third concept is counselling. Although it is an overlapping concept, we should bear in mind that counselling may be needed independently to reconcile the parties to the predicament in which they find themselves with the crisis in their marriage and possibly its termination. Parties can suffer severely, and traumatically, when they come to consider the fall-out of a divorce, or indeed of a separation; the effect on the children; and the financial effect. Counselling can help particularly at that stage. That is a late stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned that in Scotland the reconciliation agent shares an office with the mediator. That is very important. When we were envisaging the family court, we had in mind that it would be in two parts, a welfare division and a judicial division, rather like the Conseil d'Etat in France. The welfare division would have agents to help in reconciliation, in mediation and in counselling, all sharing the same outer office. The difference would be that counselling and reconciliation, I entirely agree, must be voluntary.
I happen to think that mediation need not be, indeed should not be, because it is an alternative to adjudication. However, I wish to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and postpone my arguments on that to a more appropriate occasion. I believe that we need to have the terms defined, otherwise not ourselves but many outside will continue to confuse mediation with reconciliation, conciliation and, indeed, counselling.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that, although in the Bill as originally proposed the matter of marriage support services was not directly addressed, I explained that, with the agreement of colleagues, I had set up an inter-departmental working party to look at it. One of the results has been that I have proposed Amendment No. 162, which is intended to enable the Lord Chancellor, with the approval of the Treasury, to make grants in connection with the provision of what we have called marriage support services, research into the causes of marital breakdown and research into ways of preventing that. That is intended to apply outside the ordinary matter of divorce.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the sooner help can be asked for the better. However, that depends on the parties asking for it. It would not be right for anyone to go around asking people whether their marriages were in crisis. People need to come for help and we are investigating the spread of that help, the extent to which it is known about and what can be done to make it better known.
As regards the principle of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young, I am entirely in support of the view that everything we can do to assist reconciliation should be done. One of the problems that

885
I have is that I believe it is difficult and unwise to separate out the period into lengths of time for reconciliation and for other things. I have attempted not to include mediation in the Bill on that basis either, but to talk about a period for reflection and consideration.
It is suggested that those words can be improved upon, but it is important that there is one period. I believe that an effective aid to reconciliation is the kind of consideration that arises out of mediation when people are facing the future. Perhaps I may make that point good. The situation is made clear in Amendment No. 46, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It states:

"(a) first a period of 6 months to reflect on whether the marriage can be saved; and if it cannot,

(b) a subsequent period of 12 months to consider what arrangements should be made for the future".

My point about that, is that in a sense, it suggests that at an earlier stage the conclusion has been reached that the marriage cannot be saved. I am contemplating a later stage at which that point would be reached, rather than concluding that it cannot be saved, I wish to leave that point open for as long as possible. That is the problem about separating out the two aspects.
It is extremely important that both should be in contemplation for the whole period, because sometimes at the very last minute, when the reality of the future is seen, reconciliation might take place. Therefore, I am very much in favour of emphasising reconciliation as an important part of that period but I think that it is unwise to separate out the period as though there were a period for reconciliation and then, if that does not work, a period for mediation.
My view is that mediation requires to be by consent. It may be that my noble and learned friend will wish to return to that later. But at least the sort of mediation that I have in mind is not backed by compulsion. If there is an element of compulsion, then it is the court that I have in mind for that.
Lord Elton: Before my noble and learned friend leaves the point of mediation versus conciliation, perhaps he will tell us whether there will be, either in orders or in some corner of the Bill which has escaped me, any obligation on the mediator to put before the parties encouragement to enter into conciliation?
The Lord Chancellor: Of course, the purpose of the information session right at the beginning, before any process is embarked upon at all, is to give full information about reconciliation and the aids to reconciliation in the form of counselling.
The right reverend Prelate said that he would like that to be emphatically marriage counselling. We shall hear more about that later. Obviously marriage guidance counselling is included but there may be other types of counselling, more specific counselling which may be relevant. For example, a bereavement may require counselling. Many Members of the Committee may know of a situation where a tragic bereavement of a child has caused a great difficulty in the marriage. In such a case, it is not specifically marriage guidance
886
but guidance as to how the parties can cope with the bereavement which may assist the marriage to carry on. But that is a minor point.
But such provision arises in the information session. There are later amendments, not in this group—and that is saying something because it is quite a large group—which deal with the question of whether a code of practice should be enacted.
I am not in the business of trying to regulate the professions. I believe that on the whole, professions should be self-regulated except, of course, where matters affecting other interests are concerned. It is right that the mediation profession should develop its own methods and standards. But the principal provisions in relation to mediation in the Bill are concerned with its funding by the Legal Aid Board. Subject to what may be said later, I believe that it is possible to have indications in a code as regards what we should expect of mediation before the Legal Aid Board could fund a particular type of mediation service. It would require to attain certain standards. That would be consistent with the view that the professions should not be regulated in detail by the Government.
Baroness Seear: The noble and learned Lord has said that he is very much in favour of conciliation, but of course it does not come cheap. Will the money be available to help people have access to such conciliation? That point is not very clear in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: So far as concerns money, I have pointed to a clause which I am seeking to insert in the Bill by way of amendment which would allow me to make grants in support of the provision of marriage support services. The precise amount of such grants will obviously be determined from time to time by reference to the effectiveness of the services. As has been said, if marriages can be saved, that is likely to he effective although it may not be immediately apparent. However, that is a matter to be considered. Obviously, the precise level of funding that will be required is a matter which will need to be considered from year to year in the light of the special situation.
In Amendment No. 162, I am asking Members of the Committee to insert in the Bill a clause which would authorise the Lord Chancellor to fund such services by grant, with the approval of the Treasury. As my noble friend mentioned, it was once a matter for the Home Office but it is now the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. Whether that is an improvement is a matter for debate. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Elton: I was waiting to interrupt but, as the opportunity has now arisen, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend a question. When he is considering the issue before the next stage, will my noble and learned friend recall the number of occasions upon which he and other people have said that, during mediation, people will discover what the future may hold and may wish to draw back from it? Surely that is the point at which conciliation ought to come into effect. I believe that the mediator ought to have a duty to point

887
that out at the earliest stage. He can see the fracture in the ice floe first and, therefore, would be able to encourage the parties to remove it.
The Lord Chancellor: That is what I was seeking to say. If it is right to have a code—and that is something which we will have to discuss later—then that is a provision which could he included. I do not believe that that is the kind of thing that one would put on the face of the legislation.
As I was saying, the Home Office did fund marriage guidance through Relate and the other organisations which have been mentioned. That responsibility was transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department at about the time that the White Paper was issued but no statutory power to that effect was granted. That remains the case unless and until something along the lines of Amendment No. 162 becomes part of the law.
What I have said deals, I believe, with Amendments. Nos. 21A to 21C, 32A, 33A, 35B, 37A, 38A, 38B, 39 and 39A. Amendment No. 46 is the one I particularly referred to, but the principle runs through the earlier amendments. Amendment No. 54 has been postponed until later; Amendment No. 55A is again to the same effect.
There is an amendment in the grouping tabled under the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which speaks of domestic violence. I am not sure that any special mention needs to be made in that respect. Then there are several consequential amendments. I shall move Amendment No. 59 later. It proposes to insert the phrase "received by the court" instead of the word "made", thus making it clear that the document is to be lodged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also has an amendment which she is not following up. That brings me to the amendments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, to which he referred. The precise order in which these matters are put forward is a matter of some importance. I am interested in the way in which the right reverend Prelate has supported these amendments. In passing I have already asked whether it is right to restrict this matter to marriage counselling in the strict sense, because I can see that other types of counselling might, in some rather special circumstances, be relevant. Therefore I wish to ensure that all those who may be qualified to help effect a reconciliation could be covered under this clause. Marriage support services or something of that kind may be possible.
I am happy to consider the matter further and perhaps the right reverend Prelate will bear in mind the special types of counselling that I mentioned and consider whether he thinks that some further changes are required in that area. I should be happy to discuss that kind of matter without taking up the time of the Committee, because I think we are probably fairly well agreed as regards what it might cover. I might therefore be able to come forward with a better amendment at Report stage than if I were left to my own devices.
I have already spoken briefly to Amendment No. 128. I believe that the information session is extremely important in this connection. If the information has been given effectively, I would hope that the parties would
888
not forget it as they discussed the matters that arose between them, and that the scope for reconciliation would continue.
10 p.m.
Baroness Young: Once again I thank my noble and learned friend for his detailed reply. I am bound to say that at first I found it disappointing because I felt that he had not really taken on board what has been a major concern on all sides of the Chamber as regards the importance of reconciliation. If I have understood him correctly, he is against the separation of periods of mediation and reconciliation and feels—so far as I can understand it—that there ought not to be time limits on either. However, if that is his view, it adds materially to the strength of the argument for extending the period of a year; otherwise everything will have to be dealt with within a short period of time. After all, we are now at 22nd January. If that is when the clock starts, it will stop on 22nd January 1997. That is a short period in anyone's life for all these things to be considered. We need to think about that.
I hope that, when we reach the next stage of the Bill, my noble and learned friend will have filled out his thoughts to a much greater extent on a number of these issues, because, if I may say so, we are being asked to take on trust an enormous number of matters. I regret to say that experience of parliamentary life has taught me one thing; namely, that if one does not see the small print at the time one lives to regret that considerably afterwards. Nothing could be truer as regards this particular Bill.
My noble and learned friend has already said that he will conduct some pilot schemes on the information session. That is extremely important. We do not really know anything about who will conduct these sessions or what will emerge out of them. We do not really know anything much about the whole process of mediation except that one cannot make people go to mediation if they do not want it. We are being invited to take all these matters on trust. We need to see more detail. I am, of course, entirely in favour of the subsequent amendment, Amendment No. 162, of my noble and learned friend, which concerns research into marriage breakdown and grants to organisations to support marriage.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford will be pleased to know that I support his amendments, which I believe are valuable. Again, we need to know who is to do the counselling and what they will say when they give the counselling. I have supported what appeared to be sensible actions but which in the end did not square with what anybody expected. Therefore, it will be interesting to have more detail on that aspect.
The question of the code of practice on mediation seems to have arisen this evening for the first time. I have no objections in principle to such a code of practice, but it would be nice to know what it will contain.
I have two serious points to make. There is a need for reconciliation. I am flattered that anyone should think that I am being modest about the amendments. I am not

889
a lawyer. I said to my noble and learned friend at the start of the proceedings that I would put down a number of amendments covering the same point because I hoped that one of them might be acceptable to him, or that if none of them were he would come forward with an amendment of his own. That would have been ideal.
I shall not argue about whether there should be a separate period for reconciliation and whether it should come first or later. We want to know how it will work. I am still very unclear about how mediation suddenly becomes reconciliation, which seems to be the view in the Bill. We shall need a great deal more information before the next stage of the Bill.
One point which emerges from this discussion is that if there is not to be a separate period for reconciliation, which is what I should like to see, that adds weight to the argument for extending the period of a year. I believe that most people are agreed that it ought to be extended. My noble friend Lord Perth made that point clearly, as others did earlier.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21B and 21C not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("the appropriate declaration") and insert—
("a declaration by the party making the application that—

(i) having reflected on the breakdown, and

(ii) having considered the requirements of this Part as to the parties' arrangements for the future,

the applicant believes that the marriage cannot be saved.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 22 with Amendment No. 18A. It makes clear what I wish this provision to state. The amendment is coupled with the fact that I have given notice that I do not wish Clause 6 to stand part of the Bill because I have altered Clause 4 to take account of that provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 44, leave out from ("statement") to end of line 7 on page 3.
The noble and learned Lord said: I say at the outset that this is a probing amendment, moved in a spirit of genuine curiosity, although the Committee may observe that a probe can sometimes be an instrument of excision.
Our curiosity centres on the relationship between the statement and the application for an order of divorce. Clause 4(3)(a) provides that a statement may not be the basis for an application for divorce if the parties have jointly given notice withdrawing it. That is understandable. If each party has agreed not to rely on that statement then neither party should be permitted to say, "I didn't really give up my right to rely on the statement, I had my fingers crossed". That does not disturb us.
The subsection then goes on to say in paragraph (b) that even if the parties have given no such joint notice, the statement may not be the basis of an application if more than six months have passed since the earliest time when an application could have been made. I observe, first, that there have been those who say that that appears to admit of some ambiguity. Does it mean that the statement cannot be made the basis for an application more than 18 months after it was first made—that is, when it could have been made had there not been some impediment? Alternatively, does it mean that it cannot be made the basis for an application more than six months after all the requirements of Clause 2 have been satisfied? For my part, the natural, literal meaning seems to be the latter. I assume that what the provision means is that a party wishing to proceed to divorce will have been able to do so and there will have been nothing to compel them to wait for the further six months.
I understood what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in an earlier debate as to the need, where possible, to finalise the situation. Reflection cannot go on for ever, and uncertainty is not in the interests of anyone, least of all the children. But let us suppose that both parties need just a little more time for reflection, either in order to reflect on the arrangements for the future or to consider whether they want a divorce at all. They would have breathing down their necks the constraint that if they deferred their application a day beyond the statutory limit, they would need to file a further statement and to wait a further period of 12 months. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances which might cause them to wish for a little more time in order for some relevant situation to crystallise.
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, gave some examples. The arrangements may depend upon whether a child of the marriage obtains a particular employment requiring the family to stay in a specific area or obtains admission to a specific school or university.
The provision imposes what may he a severe sanction. If the purpose is to encourage finality, if it is clear that no reconciliation is possible and the purpose is, for example, to protect the children from further uncertainty, then it may achieve precisely the opposite effect. The very child whose needs are in question could be visited with another year of uncertainty. As was observed in an earlier debate, when you are a child 12 months can seem a very long time.
It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could tell us the reasoning behind the provision. Members of the Committee may then be able to judge whether the purpose is so important that it is worth the undoubted disadvantages of so rigid a provision. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: It may be almost churlish to suggest that, rather than over-grouping, there has been a little under-grouping. I believe that I can usefully say what I need to say about Amendment No. 27, which concerns the same provisions in Clause 4 as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has just addressed.

891
Clause 4(3) provides that:
"An application may not be made under section 2 … if … a period of more than six months has passed since the earliest time when an application for a divorce order could have been made by reference to the statement".
It is hard to understand the justification for this blanket prohibition. As the noble and learned Lord suggested, it may not be easy to define in some cases exactly what is the earliest time that an application for a divorce order could have been made. If the parties have not yet managed to reach agreement but are still trying to do so, or the applicant is relying on the other spouse's obstructive behaviour as a reason why financial arrangements have not been made, does the 12 months run from the date of the application, or only when agreement is reached, or when the applicant decides to give up trying to reach agreement? The issue of when exactly a written agreement was reached is likely to be a very fruitful source of litigation.
While it is obviously undesirable that an application should be made years after it could have been—particularly if there has been a reconciliation or attempted reconciliation—it is hard to see why a couple who have not reconciled and have sorted everything out, but who fail through some inadvertence or apathy to go on to issue the application for a divorce, should go through the hollow charade of a further 12 months' reflection and consideration. Therefore Amendment No. 27 would provide that the period should he 12 months from the date when the period of reflection ended, with the court having a discretion to make an order after that date if it is satisfied, on a joint statement by the parties, that,
"there has been no reconciliation … [that] each accept … the arrangement, which they made at the time … or those arrangements are the subject of a subsisting court order",
and that they should continue to regulate their future under those provisions. It is also necessary that there should have been no relevant child born and there has been no other significant change of circumstances that would make it inappropriate for the divorce to be ordered by reference to the original statement. This is a matter for further thought and clarification, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, suggested.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As to the meaning of this clause, the earliest time an application for a divorce order can be made is provided for by Clause 7(1); namely, when the "period for reflection" has passed. Clause 7(1) defines that phrase precisely. It states:
"Where a statement has been made, a period for the parties … to reflect … to consider … must pass before an application for a divorce order or for a separation order may be made by reference to that statement".
That is the phrase that is intended to be picked up in Clause 4(3)(b):
"the earliest time when an application for a divorce order could have been made by reference tc the statement".
That is the intention of the clause. Now to turn to the reality—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the nohle and learned Lord for giving way. It seems that my
892
construction was wrong. I had assumed that the earliest date when an application could be made was when all the requirements of Clause 2 had been satisfied. Presumably, even if some of the requirements have not been satisfied, the six-month period runs.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, that is the intention. It is reasonably plain, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord; the phrase is exactly the same one. But in a sense it makes more difficult the justification of the period on that basis.
The justification for "a period" is that it is important that proceedings are not allowed to drag on interminably, causing uncertainty for spouses and their children. The notice that says the marriage has broken down is intended to be an important one, and to be under consideration. It would not be right to allow that to drag on interminably. Nor would it be right that one party could hold, as it were, a Sword of Damocles over the other for an indefinite period just to enable one of the parties to rush for a quick divorce in the future, having laid the ground work, as it were, way back in the past and left the matter open to rush forward on the basis of such a statement as this without a time limit.
On the other hand, precisely what the time limit should be is a matter that requires consideration. That is the idea behind Amendment No. 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and also the amendment in this grouping by my noble friend Lady Young, Amendment No. 27A which reads:
"leave out ("six") and insert ("eighteen")".
It may well be that the period that we put forward, a total of 18 months, is too short. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I believe that there could be some intermediate position. Amendment No. 27A goes for 18 months and we suggested six months. Amendment No. 27 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, goes for 12 months. That seems to me to be an intermediate, and therefore possibly attractive, period on which to settle.
The principle of requiring some period is, I feel, reasonable. I also put in the Bill the power to extend the period in the light of experience. It has been suggested that that should be done by instrument in a slightly different form from the one that I proposed and I do not object to that suggestion. But, in the light of the considerations which I have received since the Bill was published, I believe that a period in the order of 12 months is appropriate here. If noble Lords allow me, I shall certainly consider bringing forward a government amendment to give effect to that at Report stage.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The noble and learned Lord cannot say fairer than that. Perhaps I may say one word about the construction of this provision. I understand that it follows the wording of Clause 7(1). I should have thought that at least a possible construction of the words:
"the earliest time when an application … could have been made",
means the earliest time when all the necessary conditions have been fulfilled. Indeed, that was how I did construe the words. It may be that I was more than usually confused when I read the passage but it is a confusion shared with other members of the legal

893
profession. It may be that the noble and learned Lord would like to reconsider this point before a great deal of time and money has been spent on litigating about it.
The Lord Chancellor: Most certainly. The noble and learned Lord said that he had read the passage in that way and I certainly wish to keep the proceedings as free from litigation as I can. As the noble and learned Lord knows well, it is not possible to be categorical about that but I shall certainly do my best.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful for that response. As to the merits of what we seek to achieve, I accept that there has to be some limit on the period before the application is made. One could not allow a statement to drag on for years and find years later someone waking up and saying, "I think I shall make an application for a divorce order." If the noble and learned Lord were minded to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, certainly I should not seek to dissuade him. This is clearly a matter on which we might all reflect further. I am most grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("six") and insert ("eighteen").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I just want to ask a question for clarification. I recognise that my noble and learned friend suggested that in consideration of Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 he could possibly extend the time from 6 months to 12 months. I hope that I am correct about that. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, indeed.
Baroness Young: In fact, my amendment, which suggests 18 months, would have the effect of extending to 30 months the maximum time to obtain a divorce based on one statement. I hope that I have the arithmetic right and that by suggesting 12 months instead of six, the period would be reduced to 24 months. So we are talking about a period of two years. I hope that I have understood that correctly.
The Lord Chancellor: Indeed.
Baroness Young: I thank my noble and learned friend. It is quite late at night. In following all those figures, I wanted to make sure, as they refer to more than one clause, that we had got them straight. I am pleased that the period of time has been extended. To that extent I welcome the indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Any statement made under this section shall specify whether the maker or makers of the statement wish to apply for a divorce order or a separation order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 28 raises a simple point but one which occasions some anxiety to practitioners. Indeed, it caused the Law Society to express some concern. As the Bill is drafted, the statement does not need to specify whether the maker envisages a divorce or a separation. That is a matter to which your Lordships adverted in an earlier debate. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out that the Bill does not seem to make clear the precise effect of a separation order. In the days when I practised under the old divorce jurisdiction—admittedly long ago—it used to be said that the effect of a separation order was that the parties could live apart without either being guilty of desertion. However, the concept of desertion is passing into history. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, indicated, the precise effect of a separation order may be the subject of a debate on Clause 18.
Amendment No. 28 is directed to a rather different question. The statement really initiates the proceedings as in the past a petition did or, in other contexts, a writ may. Presumably an important part of its function is to give notice to the other partner that the proceedings are about to begin and that that is what the maker of the statement intends to say to the court. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in an earlier debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained that there were to be provisions for ensuring that it reached the other partner and that that was indeed part of its function.
An important piece of information necessary to enable the other party to act appropriately is the remedy that is being sought. Without knowing what remedy the other partner has in mind, it is not easy to see how a party can decide whether to oppose the application, how to reflect on arrangements for the future, or how to react at all. The amendment does not permanently foreclose the options.
Clearly, the Bill envisages that a separation order may be converted into a divorce order. It may even be appropriate, though the Bill does not actually mention it, to permit of some flexibility by amending the statement if the court considers it just and convenient to permit it. That may well be what is in the mind of the noble and learned Lord in relation to the regulations. Surely any document initiating legal proceedings ought to make clear what relief is at present in contemplation. That is the purpose behind the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention behind the Bill was to leave open the options to the parties for as long as possible. We are attempting to produce a situation in which every possible option remains open to the parties in the hope that, instead of going ahead to any order, they may be able to repair their marriage. For that reason we do not require them to specify in the original document what it is that ultimately they may want. As I said, the fervent hope is that they may not want anything at all and that the follow-up will not occur.
In moving the amendment, the noble and learned Lord indicated that, if the amendment is accepted, there may need to be scope for allowing an amendment to the

895
original statement. If the philosophy behind the amendment is accepted, that would not be required: the matter would be left open. If that was so, the parties would know that either a divorce order or a separation order would be competent in the end, if matters went that far, but that they may not. So far as concerns the consequences in relation to the parties, they would have to decide that certainly by the time they came to apply for a final order. But this matter might well be raised in discussions between them in the period in question. That is the reasoning on which we have not required that they should specify which of the two ultimate orders they might seek.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful for that guidance from the noble and learned Lord. I cannot say that I am wholly persuaded. One can envisage a situation where, if the party filing the statement says,"I am asking for a judicial separation", the other party may say, "I agree that there has been irretrievable breakdown. I won't put any unnecessary obstacles in the way"; whereas if there were a possibility that there might be an application for divorce, that partner might take a very different view.
The Lord Chancellor: It occurred to me as the noble and learned Lord was speaking that we might be able to have a middle course in which it was open to the parties to specify. At the moment it is not intended that they should specify at all. It may be that it would be right to leave it open to them to specify without requiring them to do so. That option might be worth considering.
Baroness Elles: I am very interested in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said and in what my noble and learned friend has now said. Surely it would be quite useful to have some kind of middle way—for instance, in the case of those who are Catholic who do not have divorce but would want a separation—so that there is the possibility of one or the other being inserted in the Bill in order to open up one or two of these matters which could cause a difficulty for the acceptance of such a statement.
The Lord Chancellor: For my part, I am rather attracted to that as a possibility. Certainly, if a person were forced to say in advance, it might be that it would be difficult for them. On the other hand, if a difficulty of this kind is envisaged, one of the parties might be quite willing to try to assuage that difficulty by indicating from the outset he or she was interested only in a separation. That is certainly a possible middle way which the noble and learned Lord might contemplate.
I do not have very strong views about this. The general philosophy I have tried to follow is to keep every possible option open for as long as possible in the hope that ultimately none of them would be taken up.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful for both of those interventions. I can see the merits in the middle way and it might be something on which we could all reflect. I do not think this is the occasion to be dogmatic in any of these matters. If there really is a prospect that
896
by keeping open the options the party filing the statement may ultimately decide not to take up any of them, that must clearly be a bonus. In that state of the argument, and for the purpose of further reflection, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Statement of marital breakdown]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("If') and insert ("Whether").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33. It is also grouped with Amendment No. 34 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and with three further amendments of mine, Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38, although I hasten to say that I recognise that the last three are almost certainly otiose if Clause 6 is not to stand part of the Bill. In any event, the point is the same as the one I seek to make in Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33.
I should also mention that there is a mistake in Amendment No. 30. The word I seek to insert is "Where" rather than "Whether". I do not know where the mistake crept in. I suspect that it was my fault, for which I must apologise.
I should also indicate very simply that these are simply drafting amendments and an attempt to dispense with subsection(3) of Clause 5 by combining the two subsections together. As it stands, there is a provision in Clause 5(2) for the way in which the statement made by one party is to be constituted. In subsection (3) there is a provision dealing with a statement made by both parties. I wonder why that is necessary. I suggest that it would be simpler to combine the provisions into one subsection as my amendments seek to achieve. The result would be that the first line of Clause 5(2) would read:
"Where a statement is made by one or both parties it must state that that party or each of them",
and so on. I hope in that way to do away with the necessity for Clause 5(3) altogether. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I believe that Amendment No. 34 is grouped with this amendment. In speaking to it I venture first to protest as strongly as I can that on a Bill of this kind the Committee should be kept sitting well past half-past ten. This is probably the most important Bill of the Session, if not the most important of this Parliament. When we debated the Rippon Report on the sittings of the House, we were promised that we would not be kept very late at night. It is really a parliamentary indecency to be discussing a Bill of this sort at this hour. There is nobody on the Back Benches of the official Opposition and as far as I can see there is nobody on the Back Benches of the Liberal Democrats. Although there is a sprinkling of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, the House is by no means representative. We have only one right reverend Prelate still present.
Amendment No. 34 is in two parts. It says:

897
"A statement must also state— (a) the ages and relevant circumstances of any child of the family".
Paragraph (b) is no longer relevant. It refers to an earlier amendment which I moved and did not press to a Division. It seems to me that a statement should contain information about the children. I should have thought that that would be needed by anybody attempting reconciliation, certainly by a mediator, and by the court if the matter has to go to adjudication. After I have heard my noble and learned friend and Amendment No. 34 is called I shall consider whether to move the amendment formally.
The Lord Chancellor: There are some government amendments in this group. As we received it, the drafting amendment appeared to have a different effect from that which the noble Lord intended. It might therefore be a waste of time for me to say what we thought about it as we understood it.
Turning to paragraph (a) of the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, I would expect the rules to contain a requirement in relation to the relevant children and possibly more detail about their circumstances than would be appropriate on the face of the Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept my assurance that the regulations about the form of statement will include such information, with possibly more detail about the relevant circumstances than is normal on the face of a Bill.
This group contains the Motion relating to my intention to oppose Clause 6. I have already spoken to that in relation to Amendment No. 22.
I speak now to Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 which seek to clarify the drafting. The word "or" at the end of Clause 17(3)(a) should not be there, while the provision to the effect that marital proceedings are both divorce proceedings and separation proceedings at a time when no application for an order has been made was not
898
included, although it appeared in the earlier printing. There was an error on the final print, which is why I need to correct it now.
I believe that I have covered all the amendments that have been spoken to in this group. I shall move my amendments when we reach them in due course.
Lord Meston: I am glad not to have been told what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought of my amendment in its mistaken form on the Marshalled List. It was designed only to achieve a form of drafting conciseness which I suggest is lacking on the face of the Bill, but now is not the time to develop that point.
The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, enabled the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make the point that, as under the existing procedure, a statement of arrangements for the child or children will be lodged with the court. Under the existing procedure, that is still an important document but it is a separate document from the originating process. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I may say that I am very well content with the assurance given by my noble and learned friend, who has said that he will make a rule covering the substance of my proposed amendment. That seems entirely appropriate and I express my thanks to him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

  Diplomatic Service Staff: Non-executive Directorship
  Diplomatic Service Staff: Non-executive Directorship
  Treaties in Force
  Treaties in Force
  Treaties: Guidance Notes
  Treaties: Guidance Notes
  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  South Lebanon: Israeli Use of Banned Weapons
  South Lebanon: Israeli Use of Banned Weapons
  European Union: Commonwealth Views and UK Policy
  European Union: Commonwealth Views and UK Policy
  Saudi Arabia: Prime Minister's Message
  Saudi Arabia: Prime Minister's Message
  Chinese Orphanages: UNFPA and IPPF Statements
  Chinese Orphanages: UNFPA and IPPF Statements
  Arrest and Detention Powers
  Arrest and Detention Powers
  Small Fishing Boats, East Anglia
  Small Fishing Boats, East Anglia
  Specified Bovine Offals: Inspection Visits
  Specified Bovine Offals: Inspection Visits
  National Maritime Museum: De-accessions
  National Maritime Museum: De-accessions
  Parliamentary Documents in Electronic Form
  Parliamentary Documents in Electronic Form
  HMSO Supply and Service Agreement
  HMSO Supply and Service Agreement
  Parliamentary Copyright: Administration
  Parliamentary Copyright: Administration
  Trident: Refitting Contract
  Trident: Refitting Contract
  Army: Premature Voluntary Release Numbers
  Army: Premature Voluntary Release Numbers
  Armed Forces: Specialist Medical Services
  Armed Forces: Specialist Medical Services
  Leasehold Flats: Measures to Strengthen Owners' Rights
  Leasehold Flats: Measures to Strengthen Owners' Rights
  Land Contaminated by British Coal
  Land Contaminated by British Coal