Sitting of 9 July 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Base Vehicle Depot, Ashford
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the base vehicle depot at Ashchurch. [34897]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): We continue to update the investment appraisal that led to the decision to opt for a single site at Ashchurch for long-term Army vehicle storage.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and also for keeping me continuously informed by answers to parliamentary questions and in correspondence. Originally, the decision was made to transfer all the Army's storage and vehicle maintenance to the site at Ashchurch in my constituency, and yet, a year after that decision, a further investment appraisal has been commissioned. That is very unsettling for the 206 civilian employees in my constituency. I understand that the results of the further appraisal will be announced at the end of July. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the case, so that my constituents can get on with making a private sector bid under the private finance initiative bid—which is a huge undertaking—in line with the Government's thinking?
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has lobbied hard for his constituents in this matter. I also regret that we should—of necessity in such a big project—have found it necessary to go back and to confirm the investment appraisal estimates—something that happens often in projects of this size and type. I urge him not to be alarmed in any way. While we await the results—which I confirm will be at the end of July—I see no sign that the earlier decision should be called into question in any way.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that his attempts to merge the two Army vehicle depots into one at Ashchurch simply have not worked, and that the entire
    158
    scheme now needs to be reviewed? Does he accept that his estimated savings of £25 million over 30 years will be completely wiped out by huge increases in transport costs and by a £33 million bill for new roads and new buildings? Is that not just another example of classic financial incompetence?
    Mr. Soames: I can agree with none of that claptrap, which is ill-founded, ill-informed, ignorant and wide of the mark in every respect and to every degree. It is an entirely sensible and rational decision. We have no reason to believe that very substantial savings will not be made. We regard it as another example of decisive, clear decision making and clear leadership by a Government who are quite clear of the way they are going.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend have another look at those plans to reassure himself that they are adequate when reinforcements and military vehicles are required in the light of the call for independence for the Isle of Wight by the leader of its Liberal-controlled council? I do not know what the Liberal Democrats as a military dictatorship on the Isle of Wight do to the enemy, but, politically, they scare the hell out of me.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend may be wholly reassured that the position of Ashchurch is entirely compatible with the whole-hearted defence of the Isle of Wight.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit Bosnia to discuss the deployment of British forces. [34898]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): I shall be visiting British forces in Bosnia in September.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it not part of IFOR's mandate to apprehend war criminals and to bring them to the tribunal in the Hague? Why cannot changes be made to secure that objective in IFOR's mandate—or are we, as usual, simply ducking the issue?
    Mr. Portillo: The primary role of the implementation force is the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement and, in particular, the separation of forces, the returning of forces to barracks and getting the weapons of the warring factions into compounds. The forces will hand over to justice those indicted war criminals with whom they come into contact, but it is not a part of their primary objective to conduct a manhunt for the indicted war criminals. Those are matters for the international tribunal that is conducting the indictment, and it will issue the warrants for the arrest of the indicted war criminals.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in Britain's national interest to continue to play our part in the United Nations and NATO operations in Bosnia? Will he also confirm that, if the reported proposed cuts in the defence budget of some £400 million proceed, we shall not be able to do so? Is he aware of the vast support among Conservative Members—also, I dare say, from a number of Opposition Members—for the defence budget

    159
    to be not only maintained at its present level of 2.8 per cent. of gross domestic product, but restored to last year's level of 3 per cent?
    Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important to retain strong national defences and to make the appropriate commitment to our defence budget. We have given undertakings to provide stability following a period of great change that our forces undertook with great distinction. My hon. Friend must not become carried away with what he reads in the newspapers.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the full horror of the consequences of the fall of Srebrenica is revealed to us, is it not offensive that Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic continue to be at liberty? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the question whether or not they should be taken into custody is one of timing and not principle? Does he accept that there is a connection between that and an early decision on whether there should be a follow-on force to the implementation force as a demonstration of our commitment to ensure that all who are guilty of war crimes will ultimately be brought to justice?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree that the continued liberty of those two men is offensive, and there can be no ultimate solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina unless they are brought to justice. I certainly agree that they will, in time, be brought to justice and there is no issue of principle whatsoever in the matter. I am not so sure that I agree that a decision about a follow-on force needs to be taken yet, and a little patience on that question is appropriate. Whatever it may decide on that issue, the international community is committed to the Dayton peace agreement and to a strategy to make sure that the agreement is successful in the long term.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: If my right hon. Friend believes—as he says he does—that those two men should be brought to justice, does he agree that it makes a mockery of the whole process that, although IFOR has a large force in Bosnia, they remain at large? Should they not be taken to The Hague and put on trial? Would that not do more than any other single factor to bring this appalling and terrible tragedy to a more satisfactory conclusion?
    Mr. Portillo: That is a judgment for the international community. It is a difficult one, and there are other factors. The international community's top priority at the moment in Bosnia is the holding of free and fair elections to produce a Government that is democratic and representative of the wishes of the people. My hon. Friend must remember that many other hard-liners stand behind Karadzic and Mladic, and the removal of those individuals will not necessarily deal with the whole problem. My hon. Friend must bear those factors in mind when he considers the way in which the international community addresses the problems.
    Dr. Reid: Whatever reservations on specific issues have been raised, I am sure that the whole House agrees that our troops and IFOR have played a vital role in the transition from war to peace. Surely it is now right to give serious consideration to a follow-on force. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has made it plain that the Opposition believe that British troops should play some part in that force. Does the Secretary of State
    160
    agree that it is important that that force should be composed of significant numbers of all our allies? Will he therefore illustrate to the House for operational and political reasons that he will urge all our allies to play a part in that force when and if it is established?
    Mr. Portillo: I have argued not that it is too early to consider the matter but that it is too early to reach conclusions or make announcements about them. If there were to be a follow-on force, it would be essential that it should be a NATO force, that the NATO allies should be involved—and involved in the same way as each other. If there were to be ground forces, they would have to come from all the nations. The hon. Gentleman is pushing against an open door. It is understood that, whatever NATO decides to do in Bosnia, NATO will do together.

    European Security
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French opposite number to discuss European security issues. [34899]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence meets his French counterpart regularly; they last meet during the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels on 13 June.
    Mr. Jenkin: Whatever bilateral or multilateral arrangements we make with our European counterparts, does my hon. Friend agree that, unless they are supplementary to the fundamental alliance we have in NATO across the Atlantic with the Americans, we are treading down a dangerous path? Has he considered what risks are posed to the credibility of NATO by new Labour and the new danger of its proposal to give up the veto?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: As always, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. I agree that closer ties with France, with Europe and with the United States are all essential, especially for defence procurement. We shall continue to procure equipment in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States: from wherever it is best, and financially and economically sensible, to do so.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State would have been able to discuss those issues with the French Minister of War Veterans and Victims of War had he been present a week yesterday at the Somme commemoration at Thiepval? A constituent of mine who was present has written to express his "disgust and dismay" at the fact that, while the French had a "splendid contribution" of
    "a full company of over 200 French troops and a full French military band",
    our regular forces were represented by
    "a lone Scots Guard piper and a couple of … buglers."
    What explanation does he have for my constituent and for all the people who mourn those who fell on the Somme?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to make cheap points out of a very important commemoration, at which we were fully

    161
    represented at the highest level by a Cabinet Minister whose father fought on the Somme. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to behave in such a way.

    NATO
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future development of NATO. [34900]
    Mr. Portillo: NATO is the cornerstone of European defence arrangements. It must evolve to reflect the demands of its new missions, to absorb new members, and to develop a European defence identity within the alliance. We shall play our full part.
    Mrs. Gorman: Given that NATO has preserved the peace in Europe for the past 50 years and that, throughout that period, our nuclear weaponry has been jointly under control of our Government and of the NATO allies, will my right hon. Friend comment on the report issued by the Defence Committee of the European Union which calls for our nuclear weapons, together with those of France, to be placed under the control of a new European defence force?
    Mr. Portillo: That proposal is severely misguided. Our nuclear deterrent has, as my hon. Friend said, had a dual purpose since its inception. It has been available for national defence and has been made available for NATO defence. NATO is the appropriate body for the security and defence of Europe. It will remain so, and Britain will remain among its firmest supporters.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is not the credibility of the NATO mission in Bosnia constantly being eroded by the continued freedom of Karadzic and Mladic? Is it not time that NATO took serious action to bring them to justice, and is not a NATO follow-on force inconceivable while they are at large in Bosnia?
    Mr. Portillo: I have largely dealt with those points already. I add only that, although the long-term peace of Bosnia-Herzegovina depends upon those people being brought to justice, I do not conclude that if, for any reason, they were at liberty at the end of the year, we could not have a follow-on force; nor do I believe that the credibility and effectiveness of the NATO force is called into question by the matter.

    Horseshoe Barracks, Shoeburyness
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make a decision on the future of the Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. [34901]
    Mr. Soames: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we decided last Friday to dispose of most of Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. My Department will retain a small enclave to provide facilities for Defence Evaluation and Research Agency staff at New Ranges.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, as the barracks have been under-used for a long time. Can he give me a clear assurance that he will
    162
    work together with the local council to make sure that, as far as possible, this superb site is used to increase employment in Southend, where it is very much needed?
    Mr. Soames: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I thank him for all the work that he has done to push us forward to this conclusion. I regret that it has taken so long. As my hon. Friend knows, there is no further defence use for the site. We will therefore establish a joint working party to consider all the options open to us. It will consist of the Ministry of Defence, Essex county council, Southend-on-Sea borough council and possibly English Heritage. I am happy to give my hon. Friend all the assurances that he seeks.

    Married Quarters Estate
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the sale of armed forces' married quarters. [34902]
    Mr. Portillo: The Government are committed to providing decent quarters for service families and to maintaining military communities which provide service families with security and support. The sale will enable us to spend money on improving the condition of the houses and will progressively remove from us the burden of empty properties.
    Mr. Bayley: Why does the Secretary of State think that the Royal British Legion does not know what it is talking about when it says that the Conservative party's proposal to sell off the homes of the families of members of the armed forces
    "demonstrates ignorance of service people's real needs"?
    Mr. Portillo: We obviously have a need to explain this policy carefully to all those who have an interest. Ministers will be meeting the Royal British Legion to make sure that it is explained. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the chiefs of staff, who are concerned with the needs of the armed forces today, are supportive of the policy, and publicly so. That is because they know that it is in the interests of service families, that there is no other way in which we could spend £100 million on improving the properties in which our service families live today and that the safeguards that have been put in place are rigorous.
    Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend find it rather surprising that there should be so much ado about a scheme which will provide better married quarters for service personnel? Will he confirm that there is no other way in which £100 million could have been spent on upgrading the majority of service homes to grade 1 condition in five years? Does he accept that the cause of good accommodation for the services should be one that unites rather than divides the House of Commons?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree with that. I know that, when my right hon. Friend held responsibility in the Ministry of Defence, he wrestled with this question and came to a conclusion similar to my own—that the sort of money needed to improve the quality of the housing could be released only by this method. I believe that it will enable the Ministry of Defence to take a much clearer view of

    163
    the way in which the housing estate should be managed—that is to say, to make sure that we have the right sort of properties in the right place at the right time and that when we dispose of properties, which is something that we need to do, we pay more attention to preserving the integrity of military communities.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State not realise how much anguish, concern and worry this ill-thought-out scheme has caused the families of our service men and women? Does he not yet appreciate how important it is for the peace of mind of men and women serving abroad that their families are safe and secure back here in Britain? Will he not, even at this eleventh hour, look at this scheme again, follow the suggestion of the Royal British Legion and announce a postponement of the scheme pending a full review?
    Mr. Portillo: No, I do not think that that is a good idea. It is not an ill-thought-out scheme and has not been put together in a hurry; it is something about which the Government have been thinking for a matter of years. The proposals in their present form have been communicated to people since last November; there has been a lot of time for people to think about them. My Ministers and I have been rigorous in explaining the scheme's details. I regret that some people have been caused unnecessary anxieties and have been led to hold fears about the scheme that simply should not arise from it. While I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it is extremely important to allay the fears of families, particularly when the service person may be serving abroad, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to add to those concerns and anxieties unnecessarily.

    Independent Nuclear Deterrent
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received in support of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. [34903]
    Mr. Portillo: The contribution made by the United Kingdom's independent nuclear forces to overall deterrence and security in Europe continues to be widely recognised, including by our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to read recent reports that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have suddenly become strong supporters of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent? Does not the picture of former members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament thrusting forward to put their finger on the nuclear button strain credulity to breaking point?
    Mr. Portillo: I confess that I am at a complete loss to understand it. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition was a determined opponent of nuclear weapons while we faced the Soviet Union, but is now strongly in favour of them. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition has not seen fit to give the House an explanation of his change of view. My hon. Friend is too generous to the Opposition: as I understand the position, the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of pushing the button, the defence spokesman has said clearly that he
    164
    would not be in favour of pressing the button and the shadow Foreign Secretary has said that he is glad that the decision would not be for him. If a decision were to be made by a Labour Cabinet, the Prime Minister of that Labour Government would be in favour of using the nuclear option, the Defence Secretary would be against it and the Foreign Secretary would leave the Cabinet Room to wash his hands.
    Mr. MacShane: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence is in talks with the French Ministry of Defence about nuclear collaboration? Can he further confirm that British war planes will fly down the Champs Elysées on Sunday to salute the French revolution and its slogan of liberty, equality and fraternity? Many people in this country are glad that the Ministry of Defence is the most pro-French and pro-European Ministry—in practice, if not in rhetoric.
    Mr. Portillo: I am pleased to find that the French have the most pro-British Ministry of Defence. President Chirac has again and again paid compliments to British armed forces, to the defence costs studies, to the way that we have gone about reforming our armed services. He has said on a number of occasions that he wishes to remodel the French forces with an eye on the professionalism of the British forces. There is a good deal of admiration in this country for French forces; we admire them very much and we co-operated with them in Bosnia. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the feeling is mutual.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only have we won the argument about retaining a nuclear capability based on the Clyde in Scotland, where CND used to practise its marches and other activities, but we have demonstrated clearly that the Labour party is divided on the issue, defence is unsafe in its hands and it is unfit to govern?
    Mr. Portillo: We won not only the argument, but the cold war. We would not have won the cold war had we followed the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which were supported by hundreds of Opposition Members and by the Leader of the Opposition. If today in eastern Europe hundreds of millions of people enjoy freedom and if today in Russia people are voting for their Government in a democratic state, those hundreds of millions of people enjoying those freedoms owe nothing to the Labour party.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister agree that
    "Complete and general nuclear disarmament remains a desirable and ultimate goal"?
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] It appears that one or two Conservative Back Benchers do not recognise those words, which are probably familiar to the Minister; they are from the Conservative Government's Defence statement in 1994. Does he accept that Labour policy clearly states that a new Labour Government will retain Trident and that we will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons? Is not it about time that he stopped trying to score cheap party political points and put the national interest first?
    Mr. Portillo: The British Government will continue to observe their obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which are to pursue in good faith measures towards nuclear disarmament.

    165
    The hon. Gentleman failed to tell me two things during his intervention. He failed to correct my impression, which is that the defence spokesman is not in favour of using nuclear weapons if it were necessary for the defence of this country, and that he did not commit himself to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent. So we have had only a limited amount of movement from the Labour party, and it is now time for Labour to come clean on the rest of its policy.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Is not one of the key reasons for retaining and upgrading our nuclear weapons the real problem of the threat of nuclear proliferation, which, despite the fact that we have a treaty, is going on? Does he agree that what divides us from the Opposition is the fact that we will say to any potential enemy, "We are prepared to use these. Dare you at your own risk?" whereas they would say to a potential enemy, "We are not sure whether we might use these. Dare you? We are not sure. We might pack it in first"?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. We have moved out of a cold war into an era when many dangers could be presented to this country and to her allies. This is not a time to lose nerve or to send uncertain signals. We have always made perfectly clear the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent, and that that means that, ultimately, we would be ready to use it in the defence of our country and of our allies.
    The message that comes from the Labour party, which purports to want to form a Government, is that now the Leader of the Opposition says that he is in favour of the nuclear deterrent—who can believe him when he has been against it for 10 years?—that the defence spokesman is against the nuclear deterrent and that the shadow Foreign Secretary is merely pleased that it is not his decision to take. What sort of signal does that send about Britain's determination?

    Official Hospitality
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in his Department on official hospitality in 1995–96. [34904]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: During financial year 1995–96, my Department spent £5.105 million on official hospitality.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Banks: Some of my colleagues seem to think that £5.1 million is a lot of money. Actually, the Minister has got the answer wrong, and it pays to come into this place knowing the answers to questions. The actual figure is £5,334,092.80, which represents a 9.62 per cent. increase on the figure for entertainment in 1994–95.
    Does the Minister feel that, at a time when military service people are receiving P45s and being thrown out of their houses, it is wrong for Ministers and brass hats—including the Secretary of State—to spend so much money on hospitality, unless the Minister is about to announce a new defence policy whereby we get all our enemies together and party with them till they drop?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman jokes with us. The problem with political jokes is that sometimes they get elected, and he is the living embodiment of that. It is
    166
    because of questions similar to the one he asks that we commissioned an independent report by Sir Peter Cazalet, which said last year that the level of entertainment carried out is probably about right.
    I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can remind us whether he returned the Greater London council silver—or did he hang on to it for home entertainment?
    Mr. Wilkinson: Let me give my hon. Friend some free consultancy advice about MOD entertaining. Would it not be appropriate in the financial year 1996–97 to invite representatives of the Baltic states to Headquarters Allied Forces North-West to see how Norway has been a first-class member of NATO without allowing the stationing of foreign troops or nuclear weapons on its soil? Could this not be a useful precedent for the enlargement of NATO, and a good use of taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree with my hon. Friend that Norway is a first-class member of NATO. He raises an important point, which is that, overseas, perhaps more than in the United Kingdom, entertainment is used as a normal method of doing business. The majority of our overseas posts could not operate nearly as effectively in the United Kingdom's interest without taking part in the social activities that are involved. The entertainment is therefore worth every penny that we spend on it.

    RAF Hospital, Wroughton
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to dispose of the site of the former Princess Alexandra RAF hospital at Wroughton. [34906]
    Mr. Soames: The site will be sold on the open market later this year.
    Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, although I could not hear it. Is he aware that, since the MOD left the RAF hospital at Wroughton, virtually no maintenance of the site has been undertaken? As a result, the grass is now very high and represents a distinct fire hazard to all those who live in the neighbourhood. Could he arrange for something to be done about that? Does he recollect his promise to me in the House last year that, if the RAF hospital were closed, the service to my constituents would not deteriorate? Does he realise that there is now a £2 million shortfall in the money needed to continue to give my constituents a proper health service? Will he therefore join me in making representations to the Department of Health to ensure that those with that responsibility match up to it and improve the service by reintroducing the £2 million that has been lost?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter in the first part of his question. Vacated buildings deteriorate quickly, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall have the matter dealt with at once. On the funding of the local NHS trust and other matters, which I well remember my hon. Friend raising with me, I regret that he should find himself in that position, and I shall draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health so that he may see what we can do to help.

    Armed Forces' Medical Services
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in co- ordinating the training and control of the medical services of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. [34907]
    Mr. Soames: The Surgeon General is satisfied that the reorganisation of the defence medical services is progressing well.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has inevitably been turbulence as the medical services of the Army, Navy and Air Force are moved to the Royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency? Does he share my hope that there will be some stability in future? Will he make a progress statement on the medical college's move to HMS Dolphin, adjoining the Royal hospital, Haslar?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. I endorse his view that bringing the three medical services together under one roof inevitably involves a change of culture, and there has been some turbulence. The House can take great satisfaction from the extraordinarily clever and able way in which the medical services have handled themselves in Bosnia. No decision has yet been reached on the college's move from Millbank to HMS Dolphin, although I have noted the splendid case put forward by my hon. Friend, which I am sure is receiving detailed attention. I look forward to giving him what I hope will be positive news later in the year.

    Procurement Programme
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with defence contractors and their employees to discuss the procurement programme. [34908]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with defence contractors and take the opportunity of visiting the many excellent UK companies that support the armed forces, such as Pains Wessex in my hon Friend's constituency, which I visited last week.
    Mr. Key: We were grateful for my hon. Friend's visit to that important company in my constituency. Will he bear in mind that there are some 400,000 jobs in the defence manufacturing industry and that, apart from providing the best possible equipment for the best services in the world, those jobs depend on our export market, not least to our important friends and allies such as Saudi Arabia and many other countries around the world?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right: we are doing well in defence exports. We do not want our defence exports to be stifled by the dead hand of regulation and we do not need defence diversification agencies, such as would be imposed by the Labour party. For example, Pains Wessex—the company that I visited recently—has been diversifying and, over the past few years, it has reduced its dependency on defence from 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. yet, at the same time, its defence business has grown.
    Mr. Jamieson: In the Minister's discussions with defence contractors, has he considered the possibility of the United States Government going to war and commandeering the assets of United States companies, which would include the assets of the Devonport dockyard? Those assets could be used for the war effort of the United States against the will of the British Government.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that he is doing everything in his power to promote British exports overseas, particularly the excellent EH101 helicopter, which is now flying and has great potential in the export market?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, it is an excellent helicopter, and I take every opportunity to tell people how excellent it is. The Government, in conjunction with Italy, have spent a great deal of money to develop one of the best medium helicopters in the world. I thank my hon. Friend for his support in this regard.

    Armed Forces (Overstretch)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the extent of overstretch in the armed forces. [34910]
    Mr. Soames: The armed forces are working extremely hard to meet their operational and training tasks. I am confident that our armed forces are robustly configured, well equipped and well able to meet their varied commitments around the world.
    Mr. Cunningham: British forces are overstretched throughout the world. Will the Minister explain why there is a shortfall of 4,000 men in the armed forces? Will he also explain the Government's incompetent handling of our defence forces?
    Mr. Soames: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mastered the brief that he was given. He asked why there is a shortfall of 4,000 men. There are many reasons, which I rehearse at every Defence questions, and I do not propose to go through them again. We believe that we handle defence matters very well, and many Governments abroad share our belief. That is marked out, for example, by the decision of the French Government to remodel their forces entirely on the English model.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that search and surveillance are of the utmost importance to our defence industry? On that basis, what plans does he have to upgrade the maritime patrol aircraft?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, I agree that they are important matters. The Government hope that the discussions will come to a conclusion shortly.

    Land Mine Policy
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on domestic production of his Department's land mine policy. [34911]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My Department's land mine policy will have no significant effect on domestic production.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister confirm that he intends to modernise Britain's stockpile of anti-personnel mines? It does not matter whether he does that by creating a domestic capacity or by purchase from abroad, it will run counter to his stated policy of discouraging the production and use of land mines worldwide. Is not this a case of the Government saying one thing and doing another?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We have taken no decision to modernise the stockpile. If—contrary to our wish for a global ban on land mines—it becomes necessary to modernise the stockpile, we will take that decision later. In those circumstances, it would be better if we had land mines that self-destruct and therefore are of less danger to civilians, instead of the land mines that we have at present that do not.
    Mr. Fabricant: While I recognise that the sale of non-self-destructing land mines is an evil, is it not the case that our exports of arms is 19 per cent. of the world market?
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire is on his feet.
    Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is it not also the case that Britain is second only to America in exporting arms? Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about hospitality—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are British parliamentarians and should be respected as such, not treated as Roman gladiators. Does not the House agree? Carry on.
    Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for enabling me to ask the longest question I have ever asked. Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about hospitality demonstrated that the Labour party has no interest in jobs and that that is just one of the new dangers of new Labour?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who made the decision that certain land in Bosnia could be used for target practice by UK forces. [34912]
    Mr. Soames: The land to which the hon. Member refers is being used as a range for essential training of all troop contributors under an agreement between the implementation force and the local Bosnian Croat authorities.
    Mr. Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the land around Glamoc is a plateau that used to be occupied by Serbian villagers but was cleared by Croats? Does he feel that there is something obscene about peacekeeping forces using such cleared lands for target practice and further exploiting land that has been war-torn and divided enough?
    Mr. Soames: No, I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Public safety on firing ranges, wherever they are, is a matter for highest priority. The troops are undergoing essential training to enable them to carry out their mission which, as I am sure the whole House will agree, has been an extraordinary and exceptional triumph.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34927]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that one part of the historic greatness of President Mandela is that he is prepared to forgive and forget the collusion of the Tory Government at the time of apartheid because he knew that, in his struggle against an evil system, he had the overwhelming support of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: President Mandela is a very welcome guest to the United Kingdom as President of the Republic of South Africa and I look forward to my talks with him tomorrow. I enjoyed my visit to South Africa and our discussions then, and I have no doubt that the President will be given a warm and friendly reception in this country by everyone he meets.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that the headmaster of the London Oratory school in Fulham—a school well known for its ability to attract the brightest pupils from all over London—recently said that, if Labour won the election, he would consider taking his school private? What advice does the Prime Minister have for parents of children at the school, apart from the obvious advice to vote Conservative?
    The Prime Minister: All parents at every school will be concerned about the quality of education in their school, and I am sure that that also applies to the London Oratory.
    Mr. Blair: Given the Chancellor's admission today that there will be an extra £12 billion of borrowing this year and next—double last year's forecast—what is the Prime Minister's explanation for the appalling state of the public's finances?
    The Prime Minister: I find the right hon. Gentleman's question astonishing. If he had read the economic forecasts this morning, he would have read of better economic prospects in this country than in any country across the European Union, and better economic prospects than we have known for many years. Those prospects could not have been obtained other than by following the policies that we have followed in recent years.
    Mr. Blair: When the Prime Minister reads out his list of statistics, perhaps he will also confirm that Britain has a higher inflation rate than many of its main competitors—it has higher interest rates than France, Germany, the United States or Japan—and that it is the only country anywhere in the European Union, apart from Spain, to be running a trade deficit, despite the 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he promised that he would cut public sector debt, but that it has doubled under his stewardship of the public finances, and that we now spend £25 billion a year servicing that debt—more than on law and order and more than on defence?
    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone in the House will wonder why, on every conceivable occasion, the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the country's performance. I shall tell him what is happening: we have the lowest levels of inflation for 50 years—an achievement never remotely matched by any Labour Government—the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, four years of falling unemployment and growing employment, and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. Furthermore, the debt ratio is lower than it was in 1979—unlike in France, Germany and every other G7 country. That is the impact of the Government's policies since 1979, and it is unmatched by anything that the Labour party ever remotely achieved in office.
    Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker, he does not deny a single fact that was put to him: that his forecasts have been wrong or that job creation and employment growth over the past 10 years have been lower in Britain than in any of the 10 main world economies. No Government—Labour or Conservative—have ever had £120 billion in North sea oil and squandered it or sold off every asset that the public owned and blown the money. Is it not true that, having promised that he would cut tax, he raised it; and having promised that he would cut borrowing, he raised it? Is not the lesson that, just as the Tories are untrustworthy and incompetent over tax, they are untrustworthy and incompetent over the state of the nation's finances?
    The Prime Minister: I note—as will people here and abroad—the way in which, on every conceivable occasion, the Leader of the Opposition tries to sell this country short. I remind him that the economy is in the fifth successive year of sustainable growth. Since the last election, we have enjoyed the strongest recovery of any major European country.
    172
    As for forecasts, the right hon. Gentleman sits next to the shadow Chancellor: the man who cannot say whether interest rates are too high or too low, or whether inflation is too high or too low, and who famously predicted in 1992 that unemployment would go up month after month after month. Since that time, unemployment has fallen month after month after month. The right hon. Gentleman should stop living in a world of his own and see that this country is leading Europe economically and regaining its place among the strong economic and industrial nations of the world.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in Sheffield yesterday a Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly was set up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of councils is to look after local interests and not to set up offices in Brussels or create regional assemblies?
    The Prime Minister: I see no justification for regional assemblies and more bureaucracy. That may be the policy of the Labour party, but it is neither the wish of the electorate nor the policy of the Government.
    Mr. Ashdown: The day after it appears that ethnic cleansing has come once again to Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister emphasise to all he sees that those who wish to widen conflict only serve the purposes of the IRA and help those who wish to revert to violence rather than peace?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the whole House will join me in condemning the scenes of violence that we have observed across Northern Ireland in the past couple of days. They are indefensible. The search for peace in Northern Ireland will not be assisted by such behaviour, but it could well be put back. In my judgment, that is emphatically not the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. At the moment, we need dialogue to ensure that we can move forward from the present situation, which is doing nothing but causing misery, hardship and damage. We need that dialogue speedily so that a resolution can be reached without delay.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Benefits Agency in Lancaster on a combined operation which has netted tens of thousands, if not millions, of pounds in fraudulent benefit claims? Those people are now saving the taxpayer huge sums that can be devoted to proper causes.
    The Prime Minister: I willingly congratulate those involved in that development. Perhaps I might add the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has put in place the most comprehensive anti-fraud devices in the social security system that we have had at any stage.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34928]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKelvey: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why this country is up to its neck in debt? The national debt is £320 billion and the public sector borrowing requirement is £30 million, yet the same team can turn the Tory party debt of £17 million two years ago into a £20 million profit this year. Where did they get the money, and will they publish their accounts?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman talks about the same team. Since I became Prime Minister, the national debt has averaged 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. Under the previous Labour Government, it was 62 per cent. of GDP.

    European Union
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the Union's relations with those west European states which decided not to join the Union. [34929]
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the remaining three nations outside the EU have very low unemployment—around 4 per cent. compared with the tragic and growing unemployment of around 20 million within the European Union, largely as a result of lunatic Brussels policies—will the Prime Minister, who has, happily, excluded Britain from some of the Euro-mess to the advantage of the nation and its people, ask the European Union at the intergovernmental conference to have another think about the future, especially in view of the nightmare of unemployment being created within the European Union which no one seems to want to talk about?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about unemployment across the European Union, which is more than 18 million. There is no doubt that the primary responsibility of Governments across Europe is to try to create the conditions in which unemployment can fall and new jobs can be created. As my hon. Friend knows, I have always argued that the way in which to reduce unemployment in Europe is through the supply-side policies we have followed in this country, which are aimed at increasing the ability of companies to compete and to create new jobs.
    Figures that will be published later today will show comprehensively that Britain is continuing to attract record inward investment. I very much welcome that, and it has helped to create many jobs. As my hon. Friend says, it would be utterly wrong to attempt to impose any kind of European social model, adding extra costs to employers and, as a direct result of that, condemning more people in Europe to remain unemployed. That is the wrong way in which to get people back to work.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a closed question. I call Mr. Stott.
    Mr. Stott: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he believes that one of Her Majesty's loyal chief constables had the right—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman, who should have read the Order Paper, that this was a closed question.
    Mr. Spearing: Norway was one of the countries that recently chose not to join the European Union. Is the Prime Minister aware that most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists said that there would be dire consequences for Norway if it did not join? Does he agree that most of the indicators have shown that, far from being disadvantageous, it has been in Norway's interest not to join? In view of that fact, what credit can we give most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists in this country who are urging us to join economic and monetary union?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is comparing two separate things: first, whether Norway should join the European Union and, secondly, a particular subsequent development that may or may not take place in the European Union. If he sought the views of those in the United Kingdom who trade with Europe, he would find that surveys of leading business men have consistently shown that more than 90 per cent. favour membership of the European Union and do not see the European Union simply as a trading area. Each country must make its own judgments. Norway made its judgment, and we must respect that judgment, but it would be intolerable for the United Kingdom to be outside the European Union, in practice affected by its legislation but unable to have any say in framing it.

    Engagements
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34930]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend will know of the importance of defence manufacturing in the north-west. Does he agree that—as thousands of employees in the industry await the contract for the replacement of maritime reconnaissance aircraft, among others—if we took the road to ruin and cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion, as suggested by the Labour party, our action would devastate the industry in the north-west and cost thousands of skilled manufacturing jobs? Is this not yet another example of new Labour, new danger?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his case very persuasively. Another £4.5 billion off defence—which is what the shadow Chancellor would like—would indeed have dramatic effects on the capacity of the armed forces to undertake their role. As for contracts, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, a decision will be announced as soon as we have completed our assessment of the bids for the replacement of various pieces of equipment that are now due for replacement. I hope that we shall be able to make announcements before too long, but a wide range of factors remain to be considered.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34931]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Will the Prime Minister join me—along with, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—in sending heartfelt concern to the families of those who were injured during the dreadful attack on the Wolverhampton school? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to give our children the protection that they richly deserve?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House will have been appalled by the incident at St. Luke's school, and I have no doubt that everyone in the House and beyond will wish to send sympathy to the victims of that attack and hopes for their speedy recovery. The hon. Gentleman's sentiments will be shared not only by the Government but by everyone in the House, and I shall ensure that they are carried into effect.

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(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

IMMIGRATION RULES
That the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 329), which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

LANDFILL TAX
That the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1529) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1527) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.

Constitutional Change (Referendums)
3.32 pm
Mr. David Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of referendums to be held throughout the United Kingdom when constitutional change affecting one part of the United Kingdom is proposed.
My Bill gives Scottish, Welsh and English Labour Members of Parliament their first opportunity to back or reject the Labour leader's latest new idea—that at least two questions are needed in any referendum on Scottish devolution. He was forced to concede the need for two questions in any referendum by the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's campaign on the tartan tax.
That campaign has brought home to Scotland the dangers of such a tax. My right hon. Friend has demonstrated that Scotland would lose jobs and investment if it had to pay for devolution through a tartan tax, and has single-handedly forced the Labour leader to accept that Scots do not want to pay higher taxes than English people. The Labour leader has had to retreat, and I believe that my Bill demonstrates the ludicrous nature of his and Labour's current position.
I do not want my Bill to be implemented, because I believe in the Union; but I would like it to be discussed by Labour, Liberal, Conservative, Scottish nationalist and Welsh nationalist Members of Parliament in Committee, so that the ridiculousness of the Labour leader's proposals can be exposed in debate.
My Bill shows the British people why new Labour means new dangers, but, if Labour Members really have confidence in the two-question referendum, my Bill offers them the opportunity to vote for their leader's policy today. I suspect that Labour Members will not vote for their leader's policy, because it has been criticised by Labour Members, Liberal Members and Scottish Constitutional Convention members. Even the political editor of The Scotsman complained about being misled by Labour.
Under any Bill on Scottish devolution, a three-month timetable would be impossible. My Bill would, for example, promote a proper discussion of the issues, instead of a complete fraud on the United Kingdom electorates, who are being told that the issues are so simple that 300 years of union can be broken in three months, and that 85 per cent. of the people affected will not be given a say or a vote.
My Bill is contingent on a decision being made by any future Government to hold referendums on Scottish and Welsh assemblies. I hope that that will never happen. However, my Bill would ensure that, in the event of a referendum in Wales or Scotland on constitutional changes, those changes would also be put in referendums to English people for their views. My Bill does not provide for an English Parliament or for English regional assemblies, as we in England know that such bodies are unpopular, unnecessary and a complete waste of money, and would damage jobs and inward investment.
My Bill envisages that at least five questions in each of two referendums would be needed in each country. Why does the Labour party think that there should be only two questions? I hope that it can count further than two, because

179
the implications of devolution are much more important than the two simple questions that the Labour leader has proposed. Additional questions undoubtedly need to be asked. The first two questions are clear: "Do you want a Scottish assembly?" and "Are you prepared to pay a 3 per cent. tartan tax that might have to go higher than 3 per cent?", but there are three other important questions.
If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should Scottish Members have the same rights at Westminster as English Members—the West Lothian question, as it is being put by the Member who represents West Lothian, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should the number of Scottish Members at Westminster be reduced from 72 to 55? If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should the public expenditure allocation formula be the same per head of population for all parts of the UK? [Interruption.] I hear many hon. Members saying that, yes, those three questions need to be put, as well as the other two questions. Those three questions should be put to English voters, as well as to Scottish and Welsh voters.
My Bill then deals with the eligibility to vote—it makes provision for who may vote in the referendum. Here I have to ask a personal a question of the House. Why should my Scottish wife, who was born in Scotland and who maintains strong family connections with Scotland, be banned from voting in any referendum in Scotland, whereas an Englishman resident in Scotland for a short period would be entitled to a vote? It would be ludicrous not to allow Scottish people living in England, in Europe and in other countries a vote.
My Bill would provide for fully costed proposals. The Government of the day who initiate the referendums would have to have those proposals costed and approved by the National Audit Office, and passed by the UK Parliament as appropriate for public consultation. There would also be discussion in a Special Standing Committee. How often I have heard Labour Members say that they want Special Standing Committees to hear witnesses and to take evidence before their Bills are considered in the House of Commons. Why should there not be a Special Standing Committee to consider any proposal for referendums in the UK, or any proposals for devolution?
The proposals would have to be formulated in detail, so that the consultation could take place properly. There would have to be detailed discussion of the powers that the Scottish Assembly would have in relation to local authorities. Scottish, Welsh and English local authorities would need to be consulted in the context of the consultation document that would have to be issued by the Special Standing Committee.
The Bill would enable all local authorities to face those problems, and would make English Labour Members think about the implications for their constituencies and local authorities of devolution policies and constitutional change. Scottish local authorities would have to face the inevitable tensions that would arise between them and a Scottish Assembly that would seek to control their purse strings and exert a squeeze on cash.
Labour Members tell us that they want consultation. Let them provide for that in any changes they propose for a Scottish Assembly. The Bill would provide an
180
independent body to oversee such referendums, and would allocate finance for "Yes" and "No" campaigns. The five key questions must be properly put, in a referendum that covers the whole of the United Kingdom. It is essential for everybody in the United Kingdom to have an opportunity to express a view on any changes in the United Kingdom.
The Bill would enable English, Scottish and Welsh Labour Members to face the problems of devolution. I am offering an opportunity to Labour Members to decide whether they want to back their leader by voting to make his policy their policy. Under the Bill, they would have to face all the problems associated with any devolution proposals.
3.40 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: There is a temptation to ignore the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but in view of some of the issues that he has raised, his Bill should be opposed. It represents an unexpected development in enthusiasm in the Conservative party for referendums and constitutional change. After all, the Conservatives have been in government for 17 years, and there have been many proposals for a constitutional referendum in Scotland. However, until now, there has been a distinct lack of support in the Conservative party for such proposals.
Scotland has had a stomachful of rigged referendums. In recent history—in 1979—there was a referendum in Scotland which had in it a 40 per cent. rule, a device so undemocratic that it has no precedent in developed European democracies. If it had been employed in France, that country would never have signed the Maastricht treaty; if it had been applied in Greenland, that country would still be part of the European Union. If it had been used in American presidential elections, not a single President would have been elected this century. If the 40 per cent. rule had been employed in United Kingdom elections, we would not have had a Government elected for the past 30 years. That is probably the best argument for having such a rule.
The hon. Member for Dover should understand that, after the rigged referendum in 1979, there is no enthusiasm in Scotland for going through the process again. The rigging that the hon. Gentleman proposes is to apply the referendum not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. In 1991, when the Baltic states were having referendums on independence, some of the last-ditch apparatchiks of the old Soviet Union argued that the referendums should apply throughout the Soviet Union. International opinion, and even the Conservative party laughed that out of court as a totally undemocratic device.
It is argued that devolution is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Member's case fails, because he believes that independence is affected by the same argument. Independence is a matter not for Scots but for those who live in Scotland and have a stake and an interest in the country. Devolution is entirely different.
The hon. Member for Dover looks confused, so perhaps I can explain it to him. If he wanted to change the rules of Dover bowling club, he would go along to the annual meeting and try to convince a majority of other members. That is like devolution. However, if he wanted to leave Dover bowling club, he would simply tear up his

181
membership card, because that is a matter for him and him alone. The hon. Gentleman should learn to distinguish between devolution and independence.
Some argue that it is up to the people of Scotland to propose devolution, and for the House to take a view on it. Until recently, that view was generally held in Scotland.
However, over the past few years, there was some agreement in Scotland that, if we were to have another referendum, it would have to be a genuine referendum and to contain all the options for constitutional change on the ballot paper. Although that position was opposed in the previous Parliament by the Labour party, it was adopted immediately after the last election by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who was then leader of the Labour party in Scotland.
The House should understand that, in Scotland, there is not a majority in favour of devolution. The various opinions in Scotland are balanced. It is true that the smallest body of opinion supports no change at all. The most recent opinion poll on this matter was in The Scotsman last month, and showed that 44 per cent. of the population were for devolution, that 33 per cent. were for independence, and that 20 per cent. were for the position favoured by the hon. Member for Dover, which is no change at all. If we are to have another referendum in Scotland, all those three options must be on the ballot paper and available for people to choose.
People in Scotland are not interested in a rigged referendum—such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Dover, or that proposed by the leader of the Labour party, which excludes independence from the ballot paper. If we have a referendum, let us have a genuine one, with all the options available.
Over the past few years, there was some agreement in Scotland on the issue of Scottish sovereignty. The agreement was that, whatever our constitutional future might be, Scots had the right to determine that future. That was the agreement that the opposition parties signed in a democracy declaration in front of 25,000 Scots at the European summit in December 1992.
The Labour party has reneged on that concept, and replaced Scottish sovereignty with Blair sovereignty. But many of us in Scotland are still interested in and will argue for it. We resent Scottish politics, the claim on Scotland and our nation's constitutional future being used as a plaything in this House or in the politics of England.
The hon. Member for Dover was entirely wrong when he argued that the change in Labour's position was due to the campaign waged by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The change in Labour's position was caused by the Prime Minister's campaign in middle England—his thumping-the-Union-Jack campaign, fighting on an anti-Frog, anti-Scottish platform and wrapping himself in the flag. As The Guardian said last Monday:
"Sources close to the Labour leader said his tough stance on devolution will play well in the home counties."
It does not matter whether it is the Prime Minister fighting his little England campaign, the Labour party leader fighting his middle England campaign, or the hon. Member for Dover with his southern England perspective: people in Scotland want the case for their constitutional future to be debated and decided in Scotland on its own merits. In Scotland, we will determine that future—without the help or interference of the hon. Member for Dover. That is why I ask the House to reject this Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 139.

Division No. 180]

[3.47 pm

AYES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Bendall, Vivian

Thomason, Roy

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Whittingdale, John

Wilkinson, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Wilshire, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholls, Patrick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Mr. John Marshall and Mr. Graham Riddick.

Shaw, David (Dover)

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Heppell, John

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Alton, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Hinchliffe, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Barron, Kevin

Home Robertson, John

Bayley, Hugh

Hood, Jimmy

Beggs, Roy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Byers, Stephen

Hutton, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Illsley, Eric

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)

Canavan, Dennis

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Cann, Jamie

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Chidgey, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Clapham, Michael

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Khabra, Piara S

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Connarty, Michael

Lewis, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Corston, Jean

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Loyden, Eddie

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Cunningham, Roseanna

McAllion, John

Dafis, Cynog

McAvoy, Thomas

Davidson, Ian

McFall, John

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

McKelvey, William

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dewar, Donald

McNamara, Kevin

Dobson, Frank

MacShane, Denis

Donohoe, Brian H

Mahon, Alice

Eastham, Ken

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Etherington, Bill

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Faulds, Andrew

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Flynn, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Foster, Don (Bath)

Meale, Alan

Foulkes, George

Michael, Alun

Fyfe, Maria

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Galbraith, Sam

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Gapes, Mike

Miller, Andrew

Godman, Dr Norman A

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morgan, Rhodri

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morley, Elliot

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Gunnell, John

Mullin, Chris

Hain, Peter

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hall, Mike

Olner, Bill

Hanson, David

Pike, Peter L

Harvey, Nick

Pope, Greg

183

Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Radice, Giles

Touhig, Don

Rendel, David

Trickett, Jon

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Tyler, Paul

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Wallace, James

Rooney, Terry

Walley, Joan

Salmond, Alex

Wareing, Robert N

Wigley, Dafydd

Sheerman, Barry

Winnick, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wray, Jimmy

Skinner, Dennis

Wright, Dr Tony

Soley, Clive

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Spellar, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May we have a rerun of that vote, as it is clear that many Labour Members were unaware that they were voting against their leader's policy on referendums in Scotland and Wales?
Madam Speaker: That is a matter for argument, not a point of order.

Opposition Day
[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Water Metering
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.59 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
  That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon its hidden agenda to force water metering on every household, which would prove expensive, unjust, dangerous to health and the least cost-effective way of protecting the environment.
  The Tory Government want to force every family in the land to install water meters. They will not put that proposal in their manifesto for the general election, but it is on their secret agenda. The water regulator the Government appointed is even worse. He is obsessed with promoting water metering for domestic customers. He seldom misses an opportunity to push water metering.
  Yet the drive to force everyone in the country to have a meter flies in the face of common sense.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The hon. Gentleman has made an allegation which is entirely untrue. The Government do not wish to force people to have water meters. We are opposed to compulsory water metering. The Government have no intention of introducing it. Will he please withdraw the terms of his motion and the proposition that he has put forward, as it is entirely untrue?
  Mr. Dobson: The answer to that is no, I will not.
  Compulsory water metering cannot be justified, on economic, social or environmental grounds. That is why it is opposed by the Labour party.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No. I think I am entitled to reach at least the second page of my speech, let alone the second paragraph.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If someone unwittingly tells an untruth, is told that it is a lie and then refuses to withdraw it, is that not an outrage—
  Madam Speaker: Order. It is part of the debate in a democratic society—the cut and thrust of debate. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand that by now.
  Mr. Dobson: Compulsory metering is opposed not only by the Labour party but by such diverse organisations as the Consumers Association, the British Medical Association and the Save the Children Fund. More important still, it is opposed by the vast majority of people in Britain, and how right they are.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  Everyone accepts the need to save water, to restrain the growth in demand and to make sure that our use of water is environmentally sustainable, but that does not mean that everyone should be forced to have a water meter. There are other ways of saving water and reducing demand. We believe that the alternatives to water metering would give better value for money, would have a quicker impact, would be more equitable, and would be less of a threat to public health.
  Forcing everyone to have a water meter is a course that is being promoted by people who are so hooked on metering that they will not listen to reason. They do not seem to care about the expense and bother. They ignore the social consequences. They exaggerate the impact of metering on overall water consumption. They dismiss and cheaper ways of protecting the environment.
  Let us start with the costs. Estimates of the costs of installing water meters vary. Actual costs of installing them also vary. They can be relatively cheap to install as part of a new house on a new estate. Installing them in existing houses can be very expensive. It is as well to remember that new houses form only a small addition to the housing stock each year, so most water meters would have to be installed in existing houses. Thus the process of installation would be more complex and expensive, and would take many years.
  The latest official cost figures range from £165 to more than £200 per meter bought and installed. The total number of households which have a water meter at present is about 21.8 million, so the total initial cost to the nation could be as much as £4 billion or more to install water meters. It is hard to believe that the installation of meters is the best environmental use of that sort of money.
  Mr. Gummer: But as I have said that I am opposed to the compulsory use of water metering, because it would be expensive and as we would not do it, why is the hon. Gentleman pretending that anyone would do it? Is it not the fact that he could think of nothing else to debate, so he decided to debate an entirely fictitious motion against a Government who have no intention whatever of doing what he says they want to do?
  Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State needs to bear it in mind that, for people living in new houses in some areas, water metering is compulsory. He has not stopped it. He has appointed as water regulator someone who says that he is in favour of compulsory water metering.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  If he is saying that no one wants the metering, will he explain why an independent market research exercise involving Anglian Water showed that no less than 80 per cent. of the people thought it was a good idea?
  Mr. Dobson: We need to look in detail at some of the surveys carried out by those companies that favour water metering, as they have tended to adjust the outcome to suit their argument—not that that is unknown in the House of Commons.
  186
  Metering produces further costs. A metered system of water charging clearly costs much more to run than the present system. Estimates vary from £21 to £24 per meter per year, giving an extra running cost of about £500 million per year. Many people could think of better ways of spending £500 million of their money than having a more expensive system.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
  There are other extra costs. A water meter lasts only about 10 years on average, after which it needs to be replaced—once again, at enormous cost and disturbance to householders. All those costs could be avoided by using other methods of charging for water; the existing methods incur none of those expenses.
  The promoters of metering claim that water meters give customers an incentive to save water. But they seldom give honest answers to common-sense questions such as whether meters provide an incentive to save water, whether poor families would be hardest hit by water metering, whether saving water might hurt some families and the elderly, and, above all, whether there is a cheaper, quicker and more just way of saving water.
  I shall take each of those questions in turn. If meters are to provide customers with an incentive to save water, they must first be read by those customers; secondly, they must be readable; thirdly, they must affect people's use of water. But according to a recent survey by the Consumers Association, 60 per cent. of people with water meters never read them. National meter trials showed that meter failures, including inadequate measuring, range from 18 per cent. to 29 per cent. of all meters installed—equivalent to about 7 million families a year having an inaccurate meter, if every family is to be forced to have a meter.
  The installation of metering in some parts of the country has led to less water being used, at least at the outset. But even the official report of the national metering trials makes it clear that that reduction may be partly caused by the publicity surrounding the trials, and partly by the recession. The Water Companies Association said yesterday that the current evidence to the Environment Select Committee had established that metering has only a short-term impact on conservation.
  It appears from the figures that, in some parts of the country, the introduction of water meters has led to an increase in demand for water. According to Ofwat, 40 per cent. of households with a meter said that it had not caused them to reduce their consumption. The recent Consumers Association survey found that only one third of those surveyed had cut their consumption, and the others had increased theirs.
  It is fair to say that a large permanent drop in consumption could not be guaranteed, even by spending £4 billion on water meters. That does not mean that no families would cut their use of water. The only objective of installing water meters is to get people to use less water. Like everything else, the families with the least money will be hit first and hit hardest—that is typical of the Government's policies.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.

  187
  According to the water regulator, people in houses with high rateable values, benefit—save money—through the introduction of water metering, but badly off families may be hit, and forced either to pay high bills or to reduce the water they use. The supporters of water metering want to put the squeeze on people—but not on comfortably off, professional people like themselves. Their favoured system puts the squeeze on poor people, particularly poor, large families—it does not contain a shred of justice.
  The Save the Children Fund survey found that, on an estate in Essex, four out of five families on low incomes found it hard to pay their metered water bill, and were reducing the water that they used. One person affected said:
  "You go round smelling … you can't afford a bath. I'd like a bath each day but can't. I'm frightened in case the bill comes in too high."
  Another said:
  "When I work my money out, I just can't do it. Is it the bill or is it feeding my kids?"
  Another said:
  "Living with two kids you worry. I pay £7 per week for his nappies. It is either the water or him go without a nappy."
  Presumably Ofwat and Ministers regard those remarks as part of the success story of water metering. Most human beings would be more likely to agree with the Save the Children Fund's conclusion:
  "As a society, for the past 150 years in the UK, we have made a priority of access to clean water for all our citizens. Historically, it has been seen as unacceptable for families not to be able to afford water. Why has this suddenly changed …?"
  The Save the Children Fund is entitled to ask that question.
  Mr. Gummer: It has not suddenly changed, and the Government are opposed to compulsory water metering. Why is it that the hon. Gentleman tables a motion that he knows to be untrue, and therefore implies that I have told a lie three times in the House? I have not so done. The Government are opposed to compulsory water metering. The hon. Gentleman should accept my word, as I would accept his word—and, given how silly many of his words are, he should at least be grateful when I say something sensible.
  Mr. Dobson: It is not entirely by people's words that you judge them, Madam Speaker. In this country, at the moment, some families are forced to have water meters. The Minister has not lifted a finger to stop it. The water regulator, appointed by the Secretary of State or his predecessor, is in favour of compulsory water meters, and does nothing about it. Until he takes action to prevent the compulsory use of water meters, we will not believe him.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
  The British Medical Association produced a thoughtful and authoritative report, which warned of the consequences if metering caused people to economise by reducing standards of personal and family hygiene. The report drew attention to the special needs of people who
  188
  are incontinent or suffer from psoriasis or eczema, and to the extra water needed by families with babies and older children.
  I point out to Conservative Members that, if one is incontinent, if one suffers from the diseases I mentioned, or if one is a baby, one needs the extra water, no matter how much money one has. We are trying to protect those who do not have the money. The supporters of water metering offer no solution to that problem.
  Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the last time, if his intervention is as daft as they usually are.
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has spent no less than 13 minutes saying that he opposes water metering. What form of water charging does he support?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman had better listen to my speech.
  Compulsory water metering, while costing billions of pounds, may not save much water, would hit poor people hardest, and might harm their health and well-being. My final question is: is there an alternative to the trouble, expense and injustice of water metering? Is there a better way of saving water? The answer is obvious: of course there are easier, cheaper and fairer ways.
  First, we must stop the water companies wasting the millions of gallons that leak every day from their pipes.
  Mr. David Jamieson: Water prices since privatisation are now two and a half times as much in the south-west. I visited a new estate in my constituency where water meters have been fitted. Many of the people living there are families, and I assure my hon. Friend that metering has made a difference to them: their bills are not two and a half times as much, but three times as much.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sure that that is the case. The Secretary of State is not listening. I presume that that is because he does not want to hear evidence that people have been forced to have water meters.
  As everybody knows, the real water wasters are not the customers but the water companies.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
  When the Tory Government privatised the water industry, they gave it no less than £14 billion. Since then, the privatised companies have made £9.8 billion in profits and paid out dividends of more than £3 billion. Over that period, they have been a tax-free zone, paying no mainstream corporation tax, yet they have not invested in mending the leaks in their pipes. Every day, 855 million gallons of water, cleaned at the customer's expense before it leaks away, is wasted by the companies. That is more than half a million gallons a minute—four times the amount that leaks from customers' pipes.

  189
  It is therefore clear that the best way to protect the environment by saving water is for the companies to put their pipes in order rather than putting the squeeze on customers. It is not just the Labour party that says that. Last October's report, "Saving Water", issued by the National Rivers Authority, showed that cutting leaks was twice as useful as installing water meters, and that cutting leaks and installing more water-efficient household appliances are the most cost-effective ways of conserving water. It concluded that the water regulator was not doing enough to force the companies to reduce leaks from their pipes.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
  So cutting leaks was top priority, and the National Rivers Authority called for the introduction of mandatory leakage targets. Yet mandatory targets have still not been introduced, because the Government and the regulator do not like them. The long-term effects of compulsory metering would not encourage the water companies to mend their leaks—quite the reverse. The introduction of compulsory metering would reduce the pressure on the water companies to cut back on leaks in their pipes.
  That is not the end of the story. To charge domestic customers according to the amount of water used would give the companies an incentive to promote the sale of water. Water company takings would be related directly to the amount of water they sold, and they would have a vested interest in encouraging consumers to consume more. As a result, the drive for water conservation would become as bedevilled by the profit motive as the drive for energy conservation has been hindered because it conflicts with the financial interests of the gas and electricity industries. That would be bad for the environment.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, although I was listening to part of it upstairs. I was unavoidably detained. I shall try not to ask my question in a polemical way.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is difficult to do much about leakage. One can go only so far in restraining leakage. In those circumstances, and faced with the problem that water is a diminishing resource as the climate becomes increasingly prone to drought, how does the Labour party suggest that we convince people that water as a resource must be conserved? If the hon. Gentleman does not approve of voluntary metering, what is the alternative?
  Mr. Dobson: As I told the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—who, as usual, made an intervention and then left the Chamber—I shall come to that point in the course of my speech.
  Compulsory water metering fails the economic, social and environmental tests, yet it has been heavily promoted by some—but not many—people in the water companies. It has been promoted most of all by the Government and the water regulator, who between them have gone to enormous lengths. In order to promote metering, they rigged water privatisation; they rigged the law; they rigged the price formula; they misled the House of Commons; they hindered the water companies, which
  190
  wanted to consider other charging systems; and they played down water company leaks. At every turn, their first priority has been to promote metering.
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman cite a single occasion on which the Secretary of State for the Environment has promoted compulsory metering? Will he cite all the occasions on which I have said categorically that we are opposed to compulsory water metering?
  Mr. Dobson: If the Secretary of State had listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), he would have heard that people have been forced to have water meters on an estate in Plymouth. That has occurred under the present law, under the present Tory Government and under the present Tory Secretary of State—and the Secretary of State has done nothing about it, because his secret agenda is to promote it.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State for the Environment has intervened four times, and he has protested too much. We do not believe him when he says that he is not in favour of compulsory water metering. Why? Because, before the Tories were elected, they did not say that they would privatise rain, but when they got into power they did.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon Friend makes a cogent point—[Interruption.] Dimmer I may be than the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. All hon. Members know my views on seated interventions. The highest standard of debate should prevail.
  Mr. Dobson: I agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Government Members should listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said. The water industry has a bad reputation because people have an instinctive feeling that the water starts off free, goes through the pipes of the companies and ends up very expensive. If Government Members do not realise that, they will not understand the public mood in this regard.
  Mr. David Hanson: I advise my hon. Friend of something that the Secretary of State said in answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes):
  "The Government believe that metering is in the long term the best basis for paying for water".[Official Report, 4 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1054.]
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has made a cogent point.
  I will explain why we believe that water metering is on the Government's agenda. To put pressure on the companies to introduce meters, the Government prohibited them from basing their charges on rateable value after 2000, or from using council tax bands in England and Wales. In Scotland, council tax bands have been used. This is all part of the Government's promotion of metering.
  As far as we can see, the Government and Ofwat have not done much research into alternative ways of charging, and, worse than that, they have tried to prevent the water companies from doing research into alternatives. As a

  191
  result, only one option is being promoted: metering. There is no choice for the companies or for the customers. The Government line is a paraphrase of Henry Ford: "You can have any system you like, so long as it's metering."
  The Government started to rig the system in favour of metering right from the start of privatisation. They laid down a code of practice for leaks which did not mention leaks from company pipes but which gave the companies the power to force customers to repair leaks in their pipes, and to charge customers for repairing the leaks. Things got off to a bad start and, sadly, they got worse.
  In 1991, the water regulator said:
  "I encourage water companies to develop targeted programmes for compulsory metering of domestic supplies in those places where the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs … I would not regard the phased introduction of selective compulsory metering as involving undue discrimination or preference."
  The water regulator is in favour of pursuing compulsory metering.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Director General of Ofwat. Many Conservatives do not agree with the Director General of Ofwat, particularly his comments about water metering.
  Mr. Dobson: I agree with the hon. Lady, and I do not agree with the director general's comments, but the Secretary of State presumably does, because he does not say anything about them.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is opposed to compulsory metering for people with excessive, non-essential use of water, such as sprinklers or swimming pools? Some water companies are introducing such compulsory metering, and I wish to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's position.
  Mr. Dobson: That is a different matter. There is a case for metering people who use excessive amounts of water on domestic premises, but the vast bulk of people do not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is no good Conservative Members saying, "Ah," as if they were at the doctor's trying to show him the bottoms of their deep throats.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Dobson: Oh, for God's sake.
  Mr. Gummer: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his attacks on the independent head of Ofwat, will he confirm that he would sack the independent head of Ofwat if he disagreed with him, and if he were in a position to do so? Or does the hon. Gentleman agree that an independent figure should run Ofwat? If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the head of Ofwat should not be independent, the House should know that, were there a Labour Government, Ofwat would have no independence, and the hon. Gentleman would decide what it should do.
  Mr. Dobson: We have made it clear that we do not approve of the present regulatory system, which leaves both the customers and the managers of industries victims
  192
  of the quirky views held by individual regulators. In many cases, those views are damaging the interests of customers, and in some cases damaging the interests of companies at the same time. It is no good the Secretary of State acting like Pontius Pilate and claiming that that public official, who is in favour of compulsory meters, is nothing to do with the Government. That is unacceptable.
  The Environment Act 1995, passed by the House last year, continued the disreputable tradition of putting the blame on the customers. It required each water company to promote the efficient use of water, but by its customers, not by the company itself. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) proposed that that requirement should also apply to the companies, her arguments were dismissed with the combination of effortless ignorance and arrogance that Environment Ministers have brought to the issue.
  The regulator—the public official whom the Secretary of State apparently does not even dare to try to influence—wrote to water companies to warn them that he would monitor their promotion of metering as a way of discharging their new duties under the Environment Act 1995. He advised the companies to promote metering in press releases and in other dealings with the local media. He even suggested that the companies should try to use organisations representing elderly people as a front for installing meters, because—I quote the regulator—
  "customers distrust the company's intentions if they are approached directly".
  He is not kidding about that.
  This year, the regulator told three companies to improve what he called "their meter options" to comply with his interpretation of the law. One was the York Waterworks Company, which supplied water to people in the middle of Yorkshire when Yorkshire Water, which covers the area surrounding York, failed to do so, but the regulator did not chide Yorkshire Water about anything. As recently as June this year, the regulator obliged companies to consider—I ask the House to listen carefully—water restrictions on unmetered customers to avoid cuts in supplies to metered customers. It is part of his drive to force us to have meters.
  The regulator has rigged the water price formula, beginning with the startling decision that the cost of installing meters should fall not upon the customers who get the meters, but upon those who do not have meters. He also came to the extraordinary conclusion that the fixed cost element of the charge to unmetered customers should be higher than that for metered customers. He said that it would be short-sighted to include in the fixed cost to metered customers items such as the cost of reservoirs, treatment plants, mains sewers and sewage treatment plants. Apparently that did not go far enough, so in March 1994, he ordered the companies to reduce further the standing charges for metered customers.
  The regulator was still at it in May this year, saying that he would press for further reductions in the standing charges for metered customers—which would be met at the expense of unmetered customers. As a result, average water bills in England and Wales for customers on unmeasured supplies have risen by 39 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. In the same period, water bills for customers using water meters have fallen by 2 per cent. in real terms. In the words of the Consumers Association, it means

  193
  "that consumers who are still paying for their water by the old rateable value system are now effectively subsidising metered customers".
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
  The water regulator's promotion of metering at the expense of non-metered customers is so excessive that I believe that he may be breaking the law. In 1991, he said:
  "charges must broadly reflect the costs of providing water and sewage services to particular customers".
  That is the reverse of his present policy of loading the cost of meters on to non-metered users. Case law in the electricity industry makes it clear that excessive action, even to achieve a legitimate aim, can be unlawful, and that it is lawful to require an occupier to contribute to the greater capital and maintenance costs incurred in serving his or her premises. Yet the costs incurred in serving the premises of metered customers are being loaded on everyone else.
  It seems to me that, if it is lawful to load customers, it may be unlawful to unload them. Even if it is not unlawful, it is certainly unfair, and an abuse of the regulator's discretion. It cannot be right to charge unmetered customers but not metered customers for the cost of installing meters.
  The water regulator is not alone in his obsessive pursuit of compulsory water metering: Ministers have been at it as well. They have tried to promote metering at every opportunity, no matter how far they strayed from the truth.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough has devoted much effort to explaining the shortcomings of compulsory metering. She knows a great deal about the subject, as she will demonstrate when she winds up tonight for the Opposition. She was duly denounced by the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)— I warned him that I intended to mention him—then an Environment Minister, on 15 February 1995. He said that she had conducted an
  "obsessive campaign against water metering"
  and delivered the following magisterial ministerial statement:
  "I would like the House to know the facts. First, most of the water leakage comes from domestic pipes, not company pipes … the increased incidence of metering will help to solve the problems of leakage."—[Official Report, 15 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 983.]
  The only problem with that magisterial statement is that it is the reverse of the truth. I do not know whether the Minister knew the truth—he certainly should have, as should the Secretary of State and his officials. The Secretary of State was sitting next to the Minister on the Front Bench, but he did not tap him on the shoulder and tell him that he was wrong. None of the officials passed notes to the Minister—I checked that when I watched the video earlier today.
  No one corrected the Minister's statement, until February this year, when the Secretary of State finally admitted, in a written answer to me, that the answer had misled the House. He added later that it was no more than a slip. We all make slips—I am as guilty as anyone—but it was a very convenient one. It was such a large slip that it might be described as a slide. It furthered the promotion of water metering, and it went uncorrected for a whole year.
  194
  The official promotion of water metering did not end there. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough promoted a private Member's Bill to set mandatory leakage targets for water companies. It had all-party support, and was also supported by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. What happened? The water regulator, ever willing to take an opportunity to do down any other way of saving water and to promote metering, issued a press statement headed "Mandatory leakage targets will mean higher customer bills." That was designed to coincide with the Bill, and to discredit it.
  The press release also included the claim, which was being peddled at the time by Ministers and water companies, that the companies were pledged to spend £4 billion on reducing leaks. That was, to say the least, a bit of an exaggeration. The real figure being spent that year on identifying and mending leaks was £65 million, just 1.6 per cent. of the total referred to so favourably by the regulator and the Government.
  All those statements were, of course, made in pursuit of the holy grail of water metering. All that shows how water metering has been promoted by the Government and the regulator. It is also promoted by some in the water industry, but the Water Services Association went on record in September 1994 as saying that compulsory metering was
  "an untenable option"
  because of
  "the cost, impracticality and effect on customers' bills".
  Despite all the efforts of the promoters of metering, who stick to their dubious economic theories in the face of all the evidence, we find that compulsory water metering has no good in it. It would be wildly expensive, costing as much as £4 billion to install, £500 million a year to run and further billions in replacement costs every decade. Surely the country has better things to do with that money.
  On top of that, it is not at all clear that charging people for the amount of water they use would save much water. Badly off families, however, would find it hard to pay the bills and would start to reduce their water use, which could harm their health. Saving water by cutting company leaks would do much more for environmental sustainability, and would come into action more quickly.
  Other measures could reduce domestic water consumption. More effort should be put into promoting more water-efficient household appliances, such as washing machines and dishwashers. The building regulations and water byelaws could be changed to reduce water wastage. That could have been done in the Housing Bill or the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill which have recently gone through this House.
  Was that opportunity taken? No, it was not. Little or no effort has gone into those sensible ideas. Everything has been subordinated to the drive to promote water metering. The water companies could also be required to provide domestic customers with a free service to detect and mend leaks on their premises, but that has been ruled out.
  This Government are mad keen on tests, but they will not accept that compulsory metering fails the economic test, the social test and the environmental test. The Labour party is campaigning on this issue to expose the

  195
  Government's secret agenda and to stop the metering madness. We shall be supported in that by all sorts of organisations, but above all, we shall be supported by the people of this country.
  In 1991, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys found that 54 per cent. of the public were opposed to compulsory metering. In 1992, a survey carried out for the regulator showed that 82 per cent. of water customers were satisfied with the existing method of charging. Half believed that the money they paid into the companies should be spent not on metering but on replacing old water mains and sewage pipes.
  By the autumn of last year, opposition to metering had risen to 67 per cent., and 87 per cent. said that the companies should do more to cut the leaks. In March this year, a survey for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds found 69 per cent. saying that the best way in which to save water was to set mandatory targets to reduce leaks.
  This month, the Consumers Association published a survey which stated that 87 per cent. believed that everyone should have equal access to water whatever their income, which is incompatible with compulsory metering. Perhaps that view was a result of the regulator's efforts to drive down the cost of water to the 8 per cent. minority who are meter users, at the expense of the 92 per cent. who are not.
  I am confident that, as the months go by, more and more people will see the common sense of our opposition to compulsory water metering, because it is expensive, unfair, wasteful and harmful to the environment.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  The Secretary of State is welcome to promote his hidden agenda, but I cannot believe that many Tory Members will be happy to join him tonight. Opposition Members willingly vote against compulsory water metering, because it is expensive, unjust—
  Mr. Arnold rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will not give way; the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) must resume his seat.
  Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) promised to answer my question, and tell us what alternative charges he would devise. He has not yet done so, and he has nearly finished his speech.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman had stayed in the Chamber, he might have been in a position to comment.
  As I was saying, Opposition Members willingly vote against compulsory water metering, because it is expensive, unjust, ineffective and harmful to the environment. What we do will be right, proper and popular.
  4.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that Her Majesty's Government is committed to sustainable development and recently published an assessment of global warming in the United Kingdom with its sharp reminder of the increasing pressure on water resources; further notes that the increasing demand for water therefore requires a long-term approach to the management of water resources and that an important part of that task is to discourage unnecessary wastage of water both by companies and by customers; therefore welcomes the new duty on water companies to promote the efficient use of water and, although the Government has never supported a policy of compulsory metering, notes that metering can also be effective in encouraging customers to use only the water that they need and that this helps to increase the sustainability of water use; and looks to the water companies to use the flexibility available to them to develop their own tariff structures and methods best suited to the needs of customers and to local circumstances.'.
  I have been wondering for some time why the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put his name to a motion that says something that is untrue.
  Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has said that the motion says something that is untrue. If it did, would it not be out of order?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of points made in any motion.
  Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear, not only today but on many other occasions, that the Government are not in favour of compulsory water metering, and that there is no hidden agenda for that. Therefore, the motion is both otiose and as near to misleading the House as is possible within the rules of order.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I will do so when I have finished the first paragraph of my speech. I want to suggest why it is that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has put his name to what would otherwise be an inconceivable motion. The reason is simple: he has been the leading Opposition spokesman on the environment for nearly two years, and throughout that period the Opposition have not taken the chance to debate their environmental policies or sought to focus attention on the great global issues that should concern us.
  We have had no Supply day debate pressing us on global warming; no Opposition debate on the ozone layer, sustainable development or biodiversity. None of the matters that will really affect our children and grandchildren appear to have touched Opposition Members at all. In two years as Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has managed to make hundreds of speeches, but only one concerned the environment. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras put his name to the motion because he dare not debate the environment. He has

  197
  nothing to say about the environment, and has said nothing about it for two whole years. There has been no debate; there have been no speeches and no commitment.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to do so.
  Mr. Dobson: Do not the Government command the majority of business in the House? If the Secretary of State wants to debate the great environmental issues of the day, he has about 10 times as much opportunity as the Opposition to decide what is to be debated. I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman: I am sorry that he cannot convince the Cabinet that such matters merit debate.
  Mr. Gummer: The reason is that the Government lead Europe on the problems of climate change, the ozone layer, pollution and every other major environmental issue. We have moved to that position without any help or pressure from the Opposition. My only explanation for the Opposition's behaviour is that, in the face of a Government who are increasingly recognised to be leading Europe and the world in environmental matters, they dare not express their view. I am not complacent about the United Kingdom's record, or about the wider record of the European Union; but I can understand an Opposition view that recognises that the Government have already established so firm a footing on the environment that there is little scope for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, or any of his hon. Friends, even to raise the issue.
  What is incomprehensible is the way in which, in the face of huge environmental challenges, the Opposition turn their back on principle, ignore the dramatically serious world environment situation, throw the future to the winds and seek to win a few short-term votes by adopting fundamentally anti-environmental policies. Let me give an example.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I will after I have given my example, as the hon. Gentleman may wish to change his intervention as a result.
  All over the country, the Labour party has dropped an appeal for funds through the letter boxes of decent people. It starts by praising itself for its attack on environmental taxation. It makes no positive suggestions in regard to how it would help to counter climate change; it merely makes a crude and undisguised appeal to people's immediate self-interest, with no concern about long-term environmental damage. No wonder that, in its approach to a manifesto last week, the Labour party managed no more than two paragraphs making glancing references to the environment.
  When I pointed that out, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras attempted to excuse it by saying that environmental concern was found in every area of policy. Today's debate, however, shows that environmental concern cannot even be found in the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. Even in his shadow Department, he has no idea—so he advances the idea of a hidden agenda. A shadow Minister has proposed a hidden agenda. It is not, of course, a true agenda; it is contrary
  198
  to the truth. That, no doubt, is why the hon. Gentleman will remain a shadow Minister dealing in hidden agendas and shadow views for the rest of his life.
  The hon. Gentleman expresses his views; but, in a week that has produced the most detailed report on global warming and the effect of climate change on water resources in Britain, the Labour party can manage only a pathetic motion designed to grub up a few votes rather than grappling with the real issues. [Interruption.] As usual, the hon. Gentleman giggles at global warming, sustainable development and all the real issues of the environment. No wonder every environmental organisation in the country considers him a laughable figure, especially those who were formerly willing to support the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that his giggle has become the symbol of Labour's anti-environmental policy, and its inability to come to terms with the real needs of our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Skinner: Why should anyone believe that the Secretary of State wants to do something about the environment throughout the world? This Government agree with market forces, and implement that philosophy to the nth degree. How on earth is it possible to patch up the hole in the ozone layer with a man, a bike, a ladder and an enterprise allowance? The truth is that that can be done only through co-operation among all nation states. Market forces cannot solve the problem; as a matter of fact, market forces created it.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that this year, as Secretary of State for the Environment, I was given an award by the environmental organisations for being the Member of Parliament who had done most for international co-operation on the environment. The hon. Gentleman has, in fact, reminded us that this Government and this Secretary of State have done precisely what he wants us to do.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras must begin to be asked whether he and his party are yet ready for a proper debate on environmental policy as a whole, instead of on some narrow issue on which they detect there is short-term political gain to be had. In every other Parliament in Europe, the Government, whether they be Conservative or Labour, are under constant pressure from their Opposition on global warming and all the other major issues. This Opposition either have decided that the Government are so right on these issues that they cannot attack us, or are so confused on the issues that they dare not expose their policy.
  When he intervened on the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) asked a simple question: what was the Labour party's policy? The hon. Gentleman promised, as he always does, that he would tell us what his policy was before the end of his speech. I did not leave the Chamber during his speech. I listened with rapt attention, but he still did not say what the Labour party policy was. He has never said what the Labour party's environmental policy is. Even in its manifesto, he did not point it out, apart from giving a few generalised words.
  The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, however, is directly connected to the single most important matter that faces the world in environmental policy. At this moment, the parties to the United Nations framework

  199
  convention on climate change, the very people that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggests should be tackling these matters together, are meeting in Geneva, and I shall join them later, to consider the recent report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. That report is unanimous that there is now a discernible human influence on global climate.
  Last week I published a report on the consequent changes to our climate—changes that we know cannot be avoided or deferred. We can ask ourselves only how we can live sustainedly in the light of them. The United Kingdom has set ambitious targets for the reduction of pollution, targets which only two other countries in Europe have begun to meet, but which most of the other European countries are beginning to consider seriously. We have set our face in the clear determination to reduce the impact of climate change, but we have accepted that so much has been damaged that real change is inevitable, however successful our crusade may be.
  The report points out that, in the next 50 years, south-east Britain will be hotter and drier, and the north-west of these islands wetter. Our country's most populous regions will have less water to use. At the same time, demand for water is growing and is likely to go on doing so. The major cause of the increase is changing life styles. As we grow wealthier as a society, which is happening, and have more leisure, we have more dish washers and power showers. Most important, we want to water the gardens in which we rightly take so much pride, but, on top of that, demand will increase simply because the climate is hotter and drier.
  The Opposition's panacea is to cure leakage in the distribution system. Do that, says the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and all will be well. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was invited to give us a comprehensive policy statement. He did not do that and therefore I think I have every right to suggest that, overwhelmingly, his speech was concerned with the suggestion that we did not need to do a number of other things because the one thing that really mattered was leakage, which I will deal with later.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that we shall not need to have water meters or changes to tariff structures. He and the Consumers Association think that all we need to do is invent an alternative charging method that more or less replicates the old system of rateable values, and that we should turn our faces resolutely against payment by volume, even though the rest of the developed world concluded long ago that that is the only sensible basis on which to charge for water.
  That is interesting from the hon. Gentleman's point of view because, yet again, he has used a well-known, but wholly unacceptable, rhetorical trick. He quotes about water metering and concludes about compulsory water metering, as if the two were the same. He quotes someone's support for water metering, quotes someone's antagonism to compulsory water metering and then says that that shows that the Government's policy, which is in support of voluntary water metering, is therefore wrong.
  The hon. Gentleman was challenged, for example, by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), the spokesman for the Liberal party. He will agree that I am not always entirely enthusiastic about the Liberal party's policies, but
  200
  he asked an important question and it turned out that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was not opposed to metering in general—he was opposed to compulsory metering. That means that we agree—we are on the same side. So why is it that he should feel it proper to suggest that there is a hidden agenda, unless he wants to divert the public's attention from the fact that he has no agenda at all, hidden or exposed?
  We are longing for an exposure of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. We need to know what he really believes about water, as we have not heard it.
  Mr. Martlew: I served on the Standing Committee that created the privatised water industry. In that Committee, the Government put through a clause that said that all new houses had to have compulsory water meters. Is the Secretary of State telling us that there has been a change and that, from now on, people moving into new houses will have a choice between the old system, which they have in Scotland, and compulsory water meters, or are meters compulsory for those people?
  Mr. Gummer: In those circumstances, almost everyone—and I use the word "almost" because one of the great advantages of having a privatised system is that different companies make their own decisions—already has an option. The meter is installed, but the company allows people to decide, either immediately or after a period, whether they want the rateable value alternative or the meter. Anglian Water, my own local water company, used to have a compulsory water metering system. It has retreated from that and offered everyone who was compulsorily metered the choice of continuing that or returning to the rateable value system. Almost no one has chosen to move. The majority of people have wanted to stay.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), I clearly take the view that people should have the choice. I believe in choice, but I also believe that one should not set one's face against any sort of metering or make the farrago of allegations that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made, slipping from compulsory to voluntary water metering, which so disfigured his rather over-long speech.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: In making a point about the question that I asked the Opposition spokesman, the Secretary of State got things a little wrong. I asked how the hon. Gentleman felt about the compulsory metering of people who use water excessively, in relation, for instance, to swimming pools. He suggested that he might be in favour of compulsory metering in those circumstances. Could the Secretary of State tell us whether he is in favour of compulsory metering in those circumstances?
  Mr. Gummer: Unlike the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I am going to go through each area of water metering precisely, point by point, so that no one has any doubt where I stand, because it is the duty of anyone who believes in sustainable development to say clearly how to deal with that important issue. When I have gone through each of those points, I hope that, if the hon. Member for Truro feels that I have not been absolutely clear on each point, he will stand up and I will be happy to give way.
  Mr. James Pawsey: May I immediately say that I am an unpaid consultant to Severn Trent and advise my right hon. Friend that I took advantage of Severn Trent's scheme for providing free and voluntary water meters? Since the installation of a water meter in my home, our bills have been almost halved and we now have a positive incentive to reduce the amount of water that we consume. That is good for our pocket and for the environment.
  Mr. Gummer: I shall come to the issue of incentives. Does not my hon. Friend find it rather odd that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said in reply to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that he favoured compulsory metering for non-essential uses because it would reduce consumption, although earlier he said that he was against metering for everything else because it had no effect on consumption? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, and I shall explain why he has got it wrong.
  The problem with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is that he lives in the past and pretends that climate change will go away or need not concern us. I know that, because he made no public statement welcoming our report on climate change or encouraging people to take seriously the effect of that on the nation. His stance is in stark contrast to that of all Labour spokesmen in every other European country. They have been willing to use the climate change issue as one of the reasons for accepting cross-party agreements. The hon. Gentleman had not a word of support for the independent statement that was produced on the very best scientific advice. He made no attempt to make people in Britain recognise that there is much that we can do to avoid the worst effects of climatic change.
  I hope that the current discussions in Geneva will produce agreements that will halt or reverse changes that are still to come. However, we must recognise that those which have already occurred will inevitably have their effect. We must put sustainable development and the "polluter pays" principle at the centre of water policy. That means relating the use of resources directly to their cost of provision and of avoiding unacceptable impacts.
  One of the ways to manage water use sustainedly will be to create a link, where that is right, between what is used and the amount that is paid for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was right to point to that. In turning their backs on metering, the Opposition are ignoring a tool for achieving sustainable water use that virtually everyone else recognises as essential. That is one of the tools, but our approach should not be misrepresented.
  We must dramatically reduce leakage and we must design and install water-using equipment that does its job without unnecessary waste. In some places we shall probably need, somehow or other, to provide additional water resources without damaging the environment. However, if we turn our backs on linking payment and consumption in almost all circumstances we shall make it harder to achieve the sustainable use of water and make inevitable the development of more new reservoirs, in some cases with attendant environmental damage.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras needs to understand those linkages better if he is to shape an environmental policy. I should like to encourage him to shape such a policy, because it is becoming a serious embarrassment to the United Kingdom that every Labour party abroad asks me why the British Labour party does not
  202
  have an environmental policy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman again giggles. He would not do that if he heard what the leaders of Labour parties in the rest of Europe say about his party and the environment. It is the only serious anti-environment party in Europe and that is worrying.
  It is difficult to believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is truly committed to the principle of sustainable development because the words "sustainable development" and "biodiversity" do not appear in the recently published and much trumpeted Labour party manifesto. Most people cannot discuss the environment without referring to those core concepts, but those words are not part of the thinking of the modern Labour party. New Labour has no role for sustainable development or biodiversity in its statement of its view of the future of this country.
  If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras were interested in sustainable development, he would sign up to the principle—to which every country has signed—that, where possible, sensible and cost-effective, there must be a connection between the cost of using resources—whether water or any other resource—and the charge that is paid for those resources. That means we should sensibly move towards metering, because that enables the water company to measure the amount that has been used and charge the consumer accordingly. It provides consumption information for the company and the consumer can see how much water he is using.
  But that must be done voluntarily: it must not be compulsory. By his constant attack on water metering, the hon. Gentleman discourages those for whom metering would be a good idea. In that sense he sets himself against every Labour spokesman in every country in the European Union.
  Mr. Hall: The Secretary of State has suggested that the occupants of new houses with water meters who want to go back to the rating system have only to contact their local water authority. Will the Secretary of State place on record that that facility is available from United Utilities, which was formerly North West Water? I have a water meter but I have been given no such option, and I do not think that one is generally available.
  Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to look into the hon. Gentleman's case. In many instances even more than that is offered. For example, right from the beginning Anglian Water customers are told about that choice; they do not have to approach the company to find out about it. Customers are asked to use the meter for a couple of bills to make a comparison, and the majority of customers want to retain water metering. If the hon. Gentleman knows of people who do not do as well as that, I shall be happy to propose to the water company concerned some forward-looking companies which offer that choice. I think that the majority offer it.
  Metering is not the only answer; not the only way forward. I favour it as part of a progressive and sensible approach that will gradually extend the use of meters as appropriate. Some companies will wish to proceed more rapidly than others, and metering will be more cost-effective in some areas than in others. We have no hidden agenda for compulsion. It is a sensible agenda which says that water metering should play a part in any positive and sensible policy of sustainable development and the protection of our resources for future generations.
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment after I have dealt with the current point.
  In the long term, metering must be the best basis for paying for water in a range of circumstances. It is equitable in that it relates charges directly to the amount that has been used. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has said, that method is also favoured by the Director General of Water Services and by many people who consider that payment in proportion to the volume that has been consumed is the fairest way of charging. The hon. Gentleman issued strictures on the director general. If instead of reappointing the director general I had sacked him and put someone else in his place, the hon. Gentleman would have said, "There you are: he can't stand the independence of Mr. Byatt. He is trying to fiddle the arrangements and not standing up for the independence that he has always claimed."
  We know that Labour's hidden agenda is not to have an independent figure at all. Instead of what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras called the "quirky views" of the independent regulator, we would have the quirky views of the hon. Gentleman, and we certainly know about those. They are about the quirkiest that hon. Members have heard and they do not contain any concept of sustainable development, a phrase that he did not manage to get his leader to put in the Labour document.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment.
  The House should ask about the position of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in the shadow Cabinet when he cannot get the words "sustainable development" and "biodiversity" in an innocuous paragraph, in a footnote, or even in half a sentence in Labour's manifesto for the future. It is called "Towards a Manifesto" but, of course, the party is checking to see whether everybody agrees with it and then it will take out anything that is controversial.
  I noticed something very interesting. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that his policies would not be decided on sustainable development, based on requests from the United Nations or designed to take the necessary actions on climate change, but they will be decided on the basis of what might be popular.
  That is it. The Labour party says, "What we will do is a little public opinion poll and see if we can find a policy that will be popular." Even though it destroys the nation in the future and damages us and our children irrevocably, the policy of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can be stated as: "It was popular at the time, and I might have got a half a dozen votes in Holborn and St. Pancras."
  That is new Labour, new danger. I shall tell the House of the new dangers. They are that new Labour would leave our children and grandchildren unprotected against global warming if it were unpopular to pass any necessary measures. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has shown us today that new Labour means new dangers for each new generation.
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I give way to the hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins) in case he can give us an answer.
  Mr. Jenkins: May I ask the Minister to explain something, please? I am little lost on what he said about the independent regulator. Are you telling me that you have no control at all over the regulator—no guidelines and no democratic accountability—but that that individual is simply a maverick out there running loose? As a Government, surely you must lay down the guidelines. You must—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing me.
  Mr. Jenkins: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely the Secretary of State must give us some guidance on exactly what guidelines the Government have laid down for the regulator. He is assuring me and Opposition Members that he has no guidelines to lay down for the regulator.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that guidelines are laid down as a result of decisions made in the House. That is the regulator's independence. The regulator is a statutory figure whose operation comes within the purview of what the House decides. If the Secretary of State could overrule him or push him about, he would not be an independent regulator.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should realise that. I realise that he is preparing for what he hopes will be—it will not happen—a Labour Government, when the idea of independence will be as foreign to that relationship as the idea of Labour Members' independence now is to the leader of the Labour party. We all know about independence in the Labour party—it is having the right to say that one agrees with the leader. That is independence in the Labour party, and the regulator would be subject to that. He would have the independence to say that he has the right to agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, which would make the field for competition for that job extremely small and extremely poor.
  I remind the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of what I said before. I think that it is an abuse of the House to make a proposition, which is absolutely and categorically denied, on three separate occasions in the debate and not be prepared to withdraw it. It is perfectly understandable if the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake or what he referred to as "a slip". It was interesting that he attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) for making a slip in the House when responding to a question, but that he has not apologised for a slip in which he has tabled a motion making a statement that has been categorically denied by me.
  In those circumstances, I should think that hon. Members would feel it incumbent on an hon. Member to withdraw such a statement. Clearly it is no place for the Speaker to intervene in the terms of a motion, and that is perfectly right. I would not for a moment suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a role for you, and I would not have raised it as a point of order.
  It is a matter for the conscience of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to decide whether it is proper to spend three hours of the time of the House debating a motion that he knows is not true. He knows that because

  205
  hon. Members have given him their assurance that it is not true. It is a very sad fact that the House has reached such a position.
  I should like to encourage companies and customers to consider switching to meters. I have no intention of demanding compulsory transfers to metering of existing domestic customers in existing premises or of water used for essential purposes. That is not the sensible way forward. However, I believe that companies should extend the availability of meters as far as is reasonable.
  I support a selective approach to metering, and not universal or crash metering programmes. It is sensible to meter where it is cheap or economic to do so, such as in new properties, in commercial properties, in households that use large amounts of water for non-domestic or non-essential purpose—such as garden sprinklers or swimming pools—and where resources are limited.
  In wishing to see a wider use of meters, we should not ignore three important aspects. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson)—for whom I have considerable respect—will listen carefully to these three statements. If the hon. Lady agrees with them, I hope that at least she will admit that this motion is less accurate than she would like it to be.
  I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is giggling again. I have noticed that, when he is on weak ground, he giggles. I hope that Conservative Members will note that and, please, point it out when it occurs. He has giggled a lot during this debate, and the reason is that he has been on a great deal of very weak ground.
  First, we should like systems to be developed that particularly take account of the needs of poorer families. There are a number of ways in which that might be done, and it is of course for the companies to develop appropriate charging structures, or to offer an alternative method of charging where necessary. I hope that, even when people are given the absolute choice whether they want meters, the companies will be sensitive to the needs of large low-income families, and particularly the needs of those with special medical conditions who require greater than average water consumption.
  I should tell the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that it is unacceptable to describe to Conservative Members why people who are incontinent or who have certain diseases require more water. For many years, many Conservative Members have looked after people in those circumstances. The concept that the hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Member who understands such matters is unacceptable and should not be given credence.
  Some companies have already taken action by providing budget payment units where requested. What has the Opposition's reaction been, even though those units have been installed only on request, and will also be removed on request? They have said that they will ban the units. So much for customer choice. Even if someone wants a meter, he or she cannot have one because of the quirky views of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
  Secondly, we should recognise that, in some parts of the country and in some circumstances, metering may not be cost effective or appropriate. For example, there are some properties—older properties or blocks of flats—in
  206
  which metering may be impractical. As I have already mentioned, there may be some customers with special needs who should be taken into account.
  Thirdly, as a general rule, we should avoid the use of compulsion. We want to take people with us in this enterprise and to convince them about the benefits of metering. I believe that the vast majority of customers, once they get used to the idea of having a meter, become convinced of its advantages. That is not only what I believe but, according to recent tests, is a fact: when people have been asked whether they want to return to the old system, they stay with meters. That is particularly true in East Anglia.
  Anglian Water is gradually installing meters in existing properties, but the existing customer has the option of continuing to be charged on a rateable value basis if he or she prefers. The customer can compare the rateable value based bill with what the metered charge would have been, and can then decide to switch to the meter at a later date.
  Where customers have opted to have a meter installed in a property, 14 companies now allow them to revert to rateable value based charging if they wish. When people have gone to the company and said, "I want to have metering," they can still opt to go back.
  I welcome that element of flexibility, which will make metering generally much more acceptable to consumers. Of course, that has had very little effect on the number of meters, because the vast majority of people want to go on—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Hanson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall go on for a moment. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
  The Opposition persist in putting all their emphasis on reducing leakage, as if that were the whole story—the be-all and end-all of water resource management. But that is only part of the story. The Opposition constantly say that recent legislation placed a requirement only on the customer to make the best use of water. That is because water companies already have that requirement. Section 37 of the 1991 Act places a duty on
  "every water undertaker to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area".
  We did not repeat that requirement, because we are always being told by Labour that we do not need to double the burden on companies or individuals. If something is in the law, we do not need to say it again. "Say it again, Sam" may well be the policy of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, because most of his speeches repeat the ill-founded view that we have not provided water companies with the requirements.
  The Government's approach is to use all the options available. That means selective metering and appropriate tariff structures, as well as utilising modern, water-efficient technology, particularly when supplying new properties.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall go through all the options in detail, and he will not miss out.

  207
  If one is serious about global warming—as the Government are—it is necessary to use all the means at one's disposal. But, until today, Labour appeared—as the hon. Member for Truro will be aware—not to be prepared even to consider metering.
  Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State claims that the privatisation law makes it possible for the regulator or the Government to oblige the water companies to stop leaking water. Why have they not done so, as the companies are leaking more now than when they were privatised?
  Mr. Gummer: Certain companies have not done well since privatisation on leakages, but others have done extremely well. We given every company a target. If a company does not reach it—or if it looks like the company is not doing enough to reach it—I will make the target mandatory and force the company to do what it has voluntarily agreed to.
  By introducing a voluntary system, we were able to get the companies to agree to a speedier change than would have been possible if we had a general figure enforced by law. If one can get people to do something voluntarily, they will do it better and more effectively. The problem with Labour is that it is never prepared to do anything voluntarily. It wanted to jump immediately to mandatory levels, even though it did not know what those levels were and could get an idea only by discussing it with the companies. What company could operate satisfactorily when the Government is saying, "Give us the figures and we will hit you as hard as we can"? That is not a satisfactory way of getting the best figures or the best answers.
  The Government should go to a company and say, "Look, this job has to be done properly. Let us look at these things together and get the toughest figure we think we can achieve. Frankly, we will screw it a bit further afterwards. If you do not reach that figure, we will have to use mandatory arrangements." That works more effectively, but I know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has little experience of making anything work.
  Mr. Hanson: I am interested in how the Secretary of State envisages the charging system after 31 March 2000. It will be illegal to use rateable value, and the Secretary of State has ruled out using council tax—leaving only water metering. What does he intend to do?
  Mr. Gummer: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for being out of date—his party's Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, is out of date also. We announced 18 months ago that we will change the law so that the rateable value system can continue after 2000, and we have made that clear. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras knows that, but chose to explain to the House that that was not so. If he did not know that, he was ignorant. If he, as the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, is ignorant, he has no business moving any motion—particularly not the one we are debating.
  Sir Anthony Grant: A classic example of my right hon. Friend's voluntary approach can be seen in Anglian, which has the lowest leakage rate in the country. That rate is continuing to fall on an entirely voluntary basis.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend's area also has a succesful record in water metering and the most flexible system possible. A large number of people have opted for meters, and a large number who were given the opportunity not to have them decided that they wanted meters.
  Using metering to help to reduce demand can provide a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to costly capital schemes to develop new water resources, lessening the requirement for new reservoirs and further depletion of our rivers. Studies have shown that the installation of a meter in an unmeasured household can lead to an average reduction in per capita consumption of between 10 and 15 per cent., and a reduction in peak demand of up to 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should realise that peak demands impose peak costs, which must be paid by everybody—metered or not. Water has many uses—some essential for public health, and others optional, such as swimming pools and watering lawns.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has not faced the fact that we need as widespread a metering system as is voluntarily acceptable and widely reasonable and a reduction in leakages. Only in that way can we start to use water responsibly. The fact is that the system works. In dry regions, companies that had extensive metering programmes in place during the summer of 1995 generally experienced lower peak demands and fewer supply difficulties than companies without such programmes—the very issue about which the hon. Gentleman made such a fuss.
  Where water companies have a programme of meter installation, there is no installation charge. However, when a customer requests a meter under the meter option scheme, an installation charge is normally payable. I welcome the fact that companies are reducing this cost, and that the average cost of installing a meter has fallen by 51 per cent. since 1993. I am pleased that eight companies—Severn Trent, Wessex, Anglian, Folkestone and Dover, Mid Southern, South East, Sutton and East Surrey, and Wrexham—now offer free installation under their meter option scheme.
  One of the best ways of testing our views is so see how our partners in Europe operate, in case we may learn from them. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras must accept that he is the odd man out. Metering is widely used in Germany, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, France, Sweden and Spain. The Labour parties in those countries would have been amazed by the hon. Gentleman's speech today. They would think that he had taken leave of his senses.
  Is the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggesting that, in many cases, the socialists in those countries have supported compulsory water metering to do all the terrible things that he says it brings about? Did not socialist President Mitterrand compulsorily stop the system that previously obtained in much of France and turn it over to compulsory water metering? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that kind of socialism was designed to hurt the poorest families? Of course not-he is trying to make a party political point and gain a few votes by proposing a policy that is manifestly barmy and entirely opposed to anything proposed by any European Labour party.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State realise that those European states that have had water metering for a long time will not incur the installation costs that we will face? As a result of the Government's policy, this country will be voluntarily taking on extra costs that other European states do not face, as they spent the money years ago.
  Mr. Gummer: That is why I pointed out the approach of President Mitterrand, who totally changed the system in southern France and imposed new metering throughout that area, incurring, in the process, the costs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. But President Mitterrand was concerned with sustainable development, knew the meaning of biodiversity, had heard about the environment and would not have made the speech that the hon. Gentleman made today. He would have been laughed off the podium if he had even begun to do so. None of the European socialist parties would recognise the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Labour is the party that wants to give up the UK's veto, yet it is already entirely out of step with Europe on a mere matter of water. What would happen if Labour gave up the veto and the rest of Europe said, "Well, Mr. Dobson, we think by a majority that we ought to have water metering for all"? What would he do? The hon. Gentleman would be in some difficulty. All his socialist friends would favour it, but he would have given up the veto. Few hon. Members have a better claim than he to enthusiasm for our membership of the European Union, but the British Labour party would find it impossible to live with the Labour parties of the rest of Europe, because many of them have moved into the 20th century. To judge from his speech, he clearly has not.
  There is no doubt that the Government, the Office of Water Services and the Environment Agency regard the reduction of leakage as an important element of sustainable development. We have made it clear that we expect water companies to reduce their leakage rates as rapidly as possible. All the water companies are answering that call. Last October, they committed themselves to reducing leakage to levels comparable with the best international practice. We compare ourselves with the rest of Europe rather than pretending that it has nothing to tell us.
  The water companies have announced long-term targets. The Director General of Water Services has published each and every company's long-term leakage target and those for the next financial year. Some water companies are aiming for levels as low as 10 per cent. within the next four years, but if the director general judges that any company's proposals are inadequate by reference to achievements elsewhere, he will insist on more demanding targets.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State has moved on from metering, but would he make it compulsory to take meters for people whose water use is excessive, such as those who use sprinklers? Some water companies are doing that and it is important to know whether he agrees with that practice. Given that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that some properties are unlikely ever to be metered because of their construction, for how long will it be acceptable to use the rateable values of 1974—into the next century, or the one after?
  Mr. Gummer: Of course, some properties will probably be entirely unsuitable for metering for many
  210
  years. That is why we have extended the use of rateable values. The Liberal party is keen on using council tax bands, but a third of people would be much worse off as a result, and many of them would be the poorest people.
  Mr. Taylor indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gummer: I do not say that only because of our evidence; the Consumers Association has made that clear. The hon. Gentleman is in a minority. If the Liberal party wants that, I shall have to tell the people of the south-west how damaging it will be to the poorest people. He advocates it only by promising those who would benefit that they would do well and not telling those who would suffer that they would do badly. What is new about that for the Liberal party? That is the mechanism that they use for everything.
  The recent speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on local government reform was a wonderful example. He told one ward that he was in favour of a unitary authority for Newbury, but he opposed them for the rest of Berkshire. The hon. Member for Truro follows in a long line of Liberal policy: one policy per ward; if that does not work, it is one policy per person on the doorstep. What are the principles of the Liberal party? "We've got many, just you choose between them." That is the fact of the Liberal party. As someone said to me, if God had been a Liberal, we would have had the ten suggestions.
  The hon. Gentleman is spreading liberalism into the furthest corners in trying to explain his water policy. Come off it; when the Liberal party is prepared to tell the poorest that they are going to pay more under the council tax system, we will believe that it has a serious contribution to make to the water debate. I give way to a more serious figure.
  Mr. Martlew: I thank the Secretary of State for that. Does he realise that we have had to listen to him for 52 minutes? When will he conclude?
  Mr. Gummer: When I have finished answering the points raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) deserves at least one water policy this evening; he has not had one from his party.
  Reducing the use of water through demand management makes sense. Since 1 February this year, all water companies have been under a new duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers, which is the parallel to the duty that they have to use water efficiently themselves. The independent director general is empowered to enforce that duty. I have made it clear that all companies need to carry that through. He has written to them to explain what he expects from them, including the development of material to promote water conservation by the consumer and the consideration of more attractive meter option schemes. He has asked them to submit strategies in the form of water efficiency plans by 1 October.
  The plans will be considered in the light of each company's circumstances and the views of other interested organisations. They will be published and, in tune with the Consumers Association's report, they will

  211
  be available to the public so that they can see what their water company is doing. Companies will be required to submit annual reports on progress to the regulator.
  We are also making sure that, when the water companies' byelaws for the prevention of contamination, waste, misuse and undue consumption of water expire next year, they will be replaced by regulations. I shall shortly announce the membership of the committee that will make recommendations on the technical provisions for inclusion in those regulations.
  I am not going to do it in a quirky way, off the top of my head, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would. I shall ensure that the people concerned with the matter and who have a wide understanding of the business produce the propositions. That will afford the opportunity for new requirements on water usage via fittings and appliances to be considered. It will include recommendations on WC flush volumes and the consumption of shower units. Again, the Consumers Association regards those matters as significant, and we are already tackling them.
  Mr. Fabricant: On the use of flushing systems, will my right hon. Friend continue to resist moves by certain European sanitary ware companies to introduce non-siphonic systems? Dare I say that the system we have in the UK, which cannot leak, was invented by Mr. Thomas Crapper? More than 400 million gallons of water are wasted every year in France alone through non-siphonic systems.
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent and valuable pressure on the matter. I want to go further than merely ensuring that we do not have something worse than what we have got; I want something better. Thomas Crapper did a fine job in his time. I published his biography, which was a successful, widely sold book. It is to be found in most of the best smallest rooms in the house. I want lavatories that use less water but provide an equally efficient service.
  The Opposition must find a way to advise the water companies on what they regard as the best method of charging. They do not appear to know. The hon. Member for Truro did us a favour by pressing the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on compulsion for non-essential uses, which I favour. There are many circumstances in which that can be a sensible way to proceed. The only difficulty is that many of the mechanisms for so doing are as yet not properly developed. I would not like that to be an excuse for compulsory water metering where it would obviously be unsatisfactory. Clearly, people who use water to fill their swimming pools should pay for it differently from how they would pay for washing their hands or flushing the loo.
  The Opposition failed to put forward any constructive suggestions. We know that they are against metering, but what proposals do they have? What do they favour? What does new Labour want to say? It says what it does not want but not what it wants. That is the danger with new Labour. We know that it must have a hidden agenda, or it would have no agenda at all. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has not explained whether his
  212
  problem is that he does not have an agenda and so cannot tell us about it or whether he does have one but it is unacceptable and therefore he will not tell us about it.
  We have heard about the Liberal Democrats and the council tax valuation bands. The Consumers Association states:
  "Linking the finely defined rateable value of a property to its much broader council tax band would be difficult."
  Many low-income families could experience a considerable increase in their bills with this switch. We must ensure that everyone in the south-west, in Truro and the villages round about—one of the lowest income areas in the UK—knows that the hon. Member for Truro wants to push up the water bills of the poorest because of Liberal party dogma.
  Companies should continue to provide a wide range of charging options so that they can suit the system to the circumstances. In addition to rateable values and metering, they can use a flat rate fee or a charge based on the number of occupants or the characteristics of the property. Some areas such as South Staffordshire are pursuing wholly different, innovative proposals, to which I hope the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will listen. Nevertheless, in the long term the demands of sustainable development must make the increasing use of metering especially important.
  It is sad that today the Opposition have used an Opposition Supply day not to discuss global warming, sustainable development or the issues that our children and grandchildren most need us to discuss, not to deal with the great issues, but to discuss a proposition which is entirely untrue. They have used it to oppose compulsory water metering when no one is proposing it. It is the oldest debating trick in the world: if one cannot answer the real arguments of one's opponents, one proposes a wholly fictitious argument which one can answer. It is knockdown for people who cannot even land a blow.
  The trouble is that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has not won a single debate, a single Question Time or a single issue on the environment in the two years since he became environment spokesman—his anniversary is about now. The hon. Gentleman is the least environmentally friendly shadow Secretary of State for the Environment that the country has seen in 25 years. Given the Labour party's history on the environment, that is a pretty difficult thing to be.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has been exposed today. His hidden agenda is something that we now know. It consists of no answers to no real questions, no future for our children, no answers to the problems of our grandchildren. He has proved again that new Labour means new dangers not just for this generation but for the next and succeeding generations.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that we have had some global warming tonight—we have just had 61 minutes of hot air. The last time I heard the Secretary of State speak in that way was when he told us, as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that there was no problem with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. He is as guilty as anyone in the House of causing the current problems with BSE. I fear for the environment while he is in charge.

  213
  I shall have to make a short speech because the Secretary of State took so long and hon. Members wish to get on. When the legislation to privatise the water industry was going through the House, many of us believed that we would move to a system of water rationing. That is what metering is about—rationing by price. The Government believe in rationing by price. There is no argument about it.
  I always find that people who are in favour of compulsory water metering are mean in spirit and, therefore, tend by their very nature to vote Conservative. They are the sort of people who have had a large family and whose children have left home. They write to their Member of Parliament when they live on their own or as a couple, saying that there should be compulsory water metering. They forget that they benefited for many years from a system under which they paid less than they would have paid under compulsory water metering.
  The point that I should like to bring home concerns pre-payment meters, which the Secretary of State touched on only for a sentence. He used plenty of time, but he skated over this one. The idea is put about that poor people would like a pre-payment system and want to use it. The only saving to poor people would be when they were disconnected.
  I am proud to say that my local authority has joined the battle against North West Water, which is now United Utilities—that just means that the company can cut off our water and our electricity. My council, led by the mayor, who is a fine Labour member of the council and a fine mayor, has joined the campaign against pre-payment meters. However, not only Labour councillors, but Tory councillors in my constituency, along with other agencies such as housing associations and the British Medical Association, are opposed to pre-payment meters. They are against such a system because they realise that the water company could cut off poor people's supply without having to go through the courts. That is what it is all about. North West Water actually said so in last week's edition of the East Cumbrian Gazette. It was reported as saying of the pre-payment option:
  "It will he aimed at low income customers, who may already be in debt to us".
  I bet it will be. Such people will cut themselves off because they cannot afford water.
  It may sound dramatic, but I can envisage people who have no electricity using candles, a fire starting and there being no water to put it out. That is how serious the matter is. That is what we have come to in this country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) dissents from a sedentary position, as he is prone to do—as you pointed out earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I am saying is the reality for some people, and all we get is arrogance from Conservative Members.
  Not only the Labour-controlled council is against pre-payment meters. Dalston parish council, which is not Labour, will come into my constituency, I am glad to say, following the boundary review. It has written to me, and perhaps to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), asking me to bring its objections to pre-payment meters to the attention of the House. It says that they would create a special problem for people who live in rural areas, where there is often no public transport, who will have to travel great distances to obtain pre-payment cards—or smart cards. The council does not
  214
  think that such a system is in the interests of its parishioners. I do not think that it is in the interests of my constituents. I hope that the Government will reject it.
  I hope that local authorities in the north-west will pursue their threat to apply legal pressure. I believe that pre-payment meters are illegal. All they are about is reducing the debt levels of United Utilities. There is great alarm in my constituency about the matter, and great anger. Nine miles to the north of my constituency is Scotland, where households cannot have their water cut off. Perhaps the Secretary of State does not know that, but that is the reality. Within nine miles of the border we will have a system under which people who cannot afford to buy smart cards will cut themselves off and have no water. They will have no redress through the courts. That is a situation the Government seem prepared not only to tolerate, but to encourage. The Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the people he will put in that position.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are fewer disconnections of households with water meters than of those without? In any case, what is the hon. Gentleman suggesting? Is he committing his party to renationalising the water companies?
  Mr. Martlew: As I said in the debates on the privatisation Bill, I believe that water is a matter of health and that therefore everyone is entitled to an adequate supply. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not think that. I am talking about pre-payment meters. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands. People who live in new houses, most of which have water meters, tend to be able to pay their bills. The hon. Gentleman may be able to figure that one out for himself.
  Pre-payment meters will be installed for people who have difficulty paying their bills. They will cut themselves off. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that that is fine. I came into politics to oppose hon. Members like him and to stick up for the people who need to be protected.
  Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that a water meter is installed only if the customer requests it and agrees to it, and that it has to be taken out if the customer wishes. Does he agree that it is interesting that, when water was nationalised, there were twice as many disconnections as there were last year under privatised water? Will he consider the difference between the supply in Scotland during the difficult period in the winter and the supply in the privatised industry in England?
  Mr. Martlew: The Minister has spoken for an hour, but insists on coming back to the Despatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question: first, a Conservative Government nationalised water. I was a member of the Carlisle water committee, and we did not cut people off. Secondly, people do not volunteer. We shall be arguing tomorrow about whether we have a salary of £34,000 or £43,000, but I bet that none of us will have a pre-payment water meter in our house. People are being forced, under threat of court order, to have meters in their houses. They are told that, if they do not install a meter, their water will be disconnected. The only saving they can make is if the water is cut off.

  215
  The meters would be fine if they did not have the disconnection valve. It is often easier for the poor to pay small amounts frequently. That would be fine, but if someone is poor, the fault of, and punishment inherent in, the system is the self-disconnection valve, which they will use to cut off their water supply. It is a disgrace, and the Government should ban it. I hope that a Labour Government will.
  5.50 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this short debate. As vice-chairman of the all-party water group, I have spent quite a lot of time during the past year or so listening hard to what people have been saying. We have heard from everyone—consumers, providers and plumbers—and their views have given us all a much broader sense of reality. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's decision not to introduce compulsory metering for domestic customers. I know that companies can continue to use rateable values into the next century—we do not yet know how long into the next century that provision will continue.
  We have just heard the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) talking about pre-payment meters. Perhaps he is not old enough to remember when households had pre-payment meters for everything and people put shillings—
  Mr. Martlew: Or pennies.
  Mrs. Peacock: Yes—or pennies. That system helped many families with limited means to budget much more carefully. As the hon. Member for Carlisle rightly said, it enabled them to pay in cash for small amounts of whatever they were using rather than have to pay big bills. There is still a place for pre-payment water meters. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about people cutting themselves off, but if the system helps them to budget better, I hope that that will not be an option—for many families, it will not be an option. Voluntary metering is an excellent idea for many households, particularly those with only one or two residents, to whom it is a great advantage.
  I wonder what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would have to say about my local Labour Member of the European Parliament, who is in the process of installing a swimming pool at his property, which is supposedly a farm worker's cottage, as he does not have time to go to the swimming baths. I hope that he has a meter when he starts to fill his pool, as it will take a lot of water.
  The Government must be involved in all the discussions with companies about water metering and about exactly how the rateable value system will be replaced in the next century. A recent Office of Water Services survey showed that the majority of customers believe that pay-as-you-use is the fairest method of charging—it is for some people, but I cannot imagine where it carried out the survey or to whom it talked. Many people still believe that water is free and should never be charged for.
  If people place water butts outside their houses, as people did for many years, water is free. It can be collected in the butt and, if people want to use it and
  216
  dispose of it without a drain, that is free, but people must realise that there is a charge if they want someone to collect it for them and take it away after they have used it. It is not free. We also realise, particularly after last year, that water does not automatically fall from the sky to fill our reservoirs. We must all try to conserve water whenever we can. Last year's drought also showed that we need better water management.
  We heard about the number of disconnections that now take place. That number has fallen dramatically since 1988–89, when there were more than 15,000; in 1995–96, there were 5,800. I appreciate that the figure may not include those who, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, disconnected themselves through necessity. We should not become over-enthusiastic, but there is a move in the right direction.
  There should be no disconnections—as we have heard, they are not allowed in Scotland. I know that Scotland has different laws in many areas of daily life, but why should we have disconnections in England? I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to that point when he winds up the debate.
  We have spent many years ensuring that all housing has running water. If the water supply is cut off, we shall return to the wording of the original housing legislation and have to declare accommodation unfit for human habitation because it does not have running water. We must strive to avoid that situation in the late 1990s.
  When we are discussing changes in charging for water and water supply, we must also study leakage and what action the water companies are taking to reduce such wastage. It is impossible to eliminate leakage—we would never be able to find a small drip in the millions of kilometres of pipes that run to people's properties—but it must be possible to eliminate many of the leaks that we have heard about, and many companies could do better. I understand that North West Water aims to reduce leakage to 22 per cent. by 2000. Yorkshire Water aims to reduce it to 20 per cent. in the longer term—I am not sure what that is and shall ask the company about it soon.
  While those targets have to be applauded, leakage is still a great concern and a great waste of water. Given the climatic changes about which we have been hearing this week, we should study carefully how all our precious water is used. For too long we have accepted that water is there as of right and falls from the sky to fill up our reservoirs. We think that we can all turn on our showers, dishwashers and washing machines—we do not all have swimming pools—as if there were an unlimited supply. In the past year or 18 months, we have learnt that the supply is not unlimited, and we must consider that carefully.
  I shall consider what has happened and what the water companies have done, and give a little credit where it is due. Since 1989, the water companies have replaced or relined 18,000 km of pipe. During that same period, 8,000 km of new mains have been added. When we compare that figure with the total amount of piping, we realise that it is only a start, but nevertheless they are taking the right route. A great deal of investment will be needed to achieve the targets set by the water companies, and I trust that that investment will be made as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who I regret is not in his place, spoke about the increase in water use by those with meters,

  217
  and said that meters did not help to reduce consumption. In fact, the Water Services Association paints a completely different picture. It says that, in all but one area—Severn Trent—there were reductions of 3.8 per cent. to 21.3 per cent. Severn Trent had a slight increase of 1.6 per cent. That stands on its head the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave.
  It is important to note that the many people who do not have the opportunity to pay their water bills by direct debit are penalised when they want to pay them at the post office, where they have to pay an 80p charge. I checked with my local post office yesterday to see whether that charge had changed, but was told that it is still 80p. Many people cannot afford to pay that extra 80p. If there is no water company office, why should they pay it for the convenience of going to the post office? I urge, and my hon. Friend the Minister will urge, water companies to ensure that that charge is not passed on to the consumer; it is a deterrent to paying the bill. In Yorkshire, we do not like to part with any money we do not have to, and 80p every time we pay a bill is not on.
  I mention last year's drought in any debate about water. I know that it is often said that, in 1995, there were only 60 drought orders—much fewer than in previous years—but my hon. Friend the Minister, who knows Yorkshire well, knows that West Yorkshire residents know all about drought orders and all the mismanagement last year. We had to have standpipes, we had to have our supplies interrupted and, unbelievably, our industry was told to relocate elsewhere.
  Yorkshire Water's new management has started well by apologising for the mess and saying that it will set out to do better, but we all suffered and are still suffering. Today, I received a letter from a lady asking whether the rest of the world knows that we still have a hosepipe ban. I have written back to say that we do know, and the Minister knows.
  I wish to draw attention to a paragraph in Ofwat's summary of its annual report of June 1996. It remarked:
  "Companies worked hard to avoid water restrictions. They acted quickly and generally maintained domestic supplies, despite high peak demands during the drought which were attributed to garden watering."
  I am sure that companies did work hard, but in Yorkshire we were not enamoured of the way in which Yorkshire Water handled the crisis that we all suffered. As the company rightly says, it never cut off anyone's water, but the aggro of seeing the standpipes go up and of companies being told that they would have to close down every other day when most of them have continuous 24-hour processes, seven days a week, was difficult to put up with.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not now present, who have always been most helpful in discussions on water issues. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ribble, South (Mr. Atkins), who was very helpful when he was an Environment Minister.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister realises, we need to visit the Department and communicate the comments, frustrations and anxieties of our constituents. If we do not, we are not doing our job property. Although we may sometimes get hot under the collar, we have always been received courteously, and I believe that we are listened to.
  218
  In the past year or more, many people with varied interests in water have realised that, in our all-party water group, they have a powerful voice directly into Parliament and government.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: For many reasons, not least those connected with global warming, the way we use and pay for water is likely to become an increasingly important issue. The privatisation of the water industry, a natural monopoly, has inevitably brought problems for water users and the environment. Bills have soared, there are continuing water restrictions and a clean-up of our coastline and rivers is far from complete. Increasing demand and dry summers have also contributed to environmental problems as lakes and rivers have been drained to make up the shortfalls which too often have resulted from inefficient and short-sighted management. Obviously, supply and demand are out of synch.
  The Labour motion argues that enforced compulsory water metering is wrong. If by that Labour means that metering would not of itself solve the problems, that is correct, so far as it goes. An attempt at universal metering would be expensive and unjust and would create a potential health hazard as more vulnerable families sought to save money by turning off the taps. Research carried out by Save the Children shows that 70 per cent. of low-income families with water meters attempt to use less water by sharing baths, washing clothes less often and even flushing the toilet less often. If the Labour party wishes to suggest that it constitutes a fit alternative to the Government, however, it must go beyond saying what it is against. Problems of water resources, the environmental and social impact of water use, pricing and financing mechanisms, all need imaginative solutions.
  Privatisation of the water industry has coincided' with massive increases in water charges as the consumer has been forced to pay a large proportion of the costs of investment in infrastructure and environmental measures, not to mention profits. Since privatisation, water prices for domestic customers in England and Wales have increased by an average of 39 per cent. in real terms. In my constituency, and throughout the rest of the region served by South West Water, the price increase has been much greater. Since privatisation, average water bills have increased by more than 100 per cent. in the south-west.
  We have also witnessed the development of huge regional variations in price. People living in some regions have been forced to pay an unfair share of maintaining what in my view is a national resource. Thus, in the south-west, the region that has suffered most from this privatisation, 3 per cent. of the country's population are being asked to pay for a clean-up of a third of the national coastline. Pensioners reliant on the state pension can be paying 10 per cent. or more of it on bills for which no extra help is available. It is no wonder that people are angry.
  Labour must understand that the existing charging system is indefensible. New investment has been, and undoubtedly will continue to be, needed. However, company profits and dividends have increased drastically and the consumer carries too much of the financial burden of clean-up and other essential investment programmes. Since privatisation, the water companies' profits have increased on average by 167 per cent. Just yesterday,

  219
  South West Water announced an increase in dividends which again exceeded its increase in profits. Senior managers have received huge bonuses and huge pay-offs.
  There is strong evidence to support the argument that, while customers have borne much of the cost of investment, company shareholders have received most of the financial benefits. The Consumers Association concluded that more than 80 per cent. of the companies' investment has been funded by increases in domestic consumer bills, despite the fact that we were told that privatisation was intended to allow greater access to private funds through borrowing and equity raising.
  Within and across regions, these huge increases in water bills have affected different sectors of the community in radically differing ways. Many single pensioners, who use little water, are discriminated against by the fixed charge elements of water bills. A person living alone in the south-west, surviving on the state pension, may spend on average one tenth of his or her income on water bills. Yet on the whole, amid the rising bills, the water companies have failed to secure sustainable future water resources or to invest adequately in water conservation and distribution.
  Shockingly, water companies such as Yorkshire Water have admitted to boosting dividends to shareholders by using money earmarked by the water regulator for leakage reduction, which consequently did not take place.
  The issues are not merely about bills. The unsustainable policies of successive Governments of both colours have degraded Britain's rivers, lakes, reservoirs and underground aquifers. In some parts of the country, existing water supplies cannot cope with demand throughout the year. Abstraction of water from rivers and underground supplies is already causing major environmental problems.
  Increasing water demand will surely lead to demands for further development, but it is estimated that more than one third of the clean water produced by water companies never even reaches the consumer, due to leakage. Investing in new water resources is costly for the consumer and the environment, so we must insist on starting by making better use of the water that we already have.
  Liberal Democrat policy on water is clear. We want to protect the water needs of future generations, fairly share the cost of investment in environmental standards, provide higher standards of consumer service and make companies more accountable to those consumers.
  There is obviously much to be done. The Government appear to have recognised some of the problems that their rash privatisation of this industry has caused, albeit belatedly and only after their by now ritual period of denial. They cannot fail to have noticed the theory that consumers appear to be paying more and more for less and less. It is difficult to tell people who face rising bills that they should use less water, let alone pay for water that they do not even receive.
  We must strive for a fairer charging system and ensure that such a system encourages water conservation and promotes the efficient use of what is, ultimately, a scarce resource. To combine the two aims of promoting water efficiency and ensuring that an adequate supply of clean
  220
  water is available to all at a price that all consumers can afford is not easy. The present charging system clearly does neither. It is outdated, unfair and unpopular. Nobody argues that the system does not need changing. I dispute, however, whether the Government's sole response—water metering—is likely to be an overall answer. On the contrary, it creates as many problems as it attempts to solve. The only worse answer is the one that the Secretary of State gave: the indefinite use of the existing water rates system for properties that cannot be metered. That makes no sense.
  For how long can valuations conducted in 1974, which by the early 1980s were regarded as outdated and unfair for local government taxation, be continued as the basis for water charging? That is why the Liberal Democrats seek a new basis of charging that is fairer and more up to date than rateable values. At the same time, we want to ease the unfair burden of the present system, coupled with rising water charges, which is placed on vulnerable members of the community.
  An alternative charging basis is needed. At present, more than nine out of 10 customers' water bills are based on rateable values. That method is clearly unfair as it bears little relationship to consumers' ability to pay. It is also increasingly anomalous, given that rateable values are based on information collected in the 1970s. Although the council tax is far from perfect as a means of raising local taxation, it is at least based on a recent assessment of property values and recognises situations in which one adult lives alone. That system would enable vulnerable households to be targeted by providing extra support through the social fund in cases of genuine need.
  As we heard from the Secretary of State again today, the Government try to argue that some low-income groups may be adversely affected by such a measure. That problem can be tackled by phasing the changes in and designing the charging structure to ensure that such a move does not impact on middle or low-income groups. It would depend on the charging structure used, which is not an inevitable outcome of using the council tax band. That would merely provide the basis for the structure, not the level of tiering to be applied.
  That system, however, will not solve the problem of water shortages, which is why I support the introduction of stricter controls on the water companies to reduce leakage. Rising consumption, diminishing returns and the threat of global warming mean that leakage control alone can be only a short-term solution. It can reverse the current problem, but it cannot continue to meet rising demand indefinitely for the future. Leakage control can be only one component of a comprehensive demand management strategy. Even taken with tighter building standards and water byelaws, in the long run the problem of water demand exceeding supply will return.
  In addition, targeted domestic metering will undoubtedly be another component of such a demand management strategy. Metering makes clear to consumers the value of the resource being used and provides an incentive to conserve water and prevent leaks. But for both economic and social reasons, the Liberal Democrats do not support the introduction of universal compulsory metering. It would be staggeringly expensive, and the money could be better spent on improving water efficiency elsewhere. The best way forward is to combine a system based on council tax bands with compulsory water metering only for those who consume excessive

  221
  amounts of water for non-essential uses, such as swimming pools and garden sprinklers, or in circumstances where water supplies are under stress.
  Under present charging arrangements, the costs of meeting peak demand, including for such non-essential uses as garden sprinklers and swimming pools, are averaged across all users. It is only right that those who use a great deal of water for non-essential purposes such as those should pay for the privilege. On a hot, dry summer's day, garden sprinklers can use more water than the whole industrial demand in some regions, so metering should be targeted on those non-essential uses.
  In areas where there is plenty of water, universal compulsory metering would simply impose extra costs. But in areas where water supplies are under stress, general metering might be considered, provided that certain conditions are met. Where metering is introduced, particularly on a compulsory basis, the needs of vulnerable members of the community must be protected by reforming the tariff structure—for example, through a rising block tariff. We want a progressive tariff structure to meet essential water needs at low cost, the abolition of standing charges and assistance to introduce water conservation measures. In cases where special needs can be shown, help would need to be given with the payment of bills.
  For people who are not heavy consumers of water for non-essential uses and whom we would not require to install a meter, additional reforms to the current system are needed if it is to be made fairer. The regulatory regime must be toughened and reformed. We aim to share the costs and benefits of investment more fairly between companies and their shareholders and customers. The creation of long-term capital assets should not be financed so heavily from current earnings. The regulator should require each company to finance a higher proportion of investment through borrowing. The level should be set for each company individually, taking its circumstances into account, including the economic life of the assets being financed.
  The lower price cap that Ofwat has now implemented will have some effect in that respect, combined with the new EC directive. In the past, many companies have made higher profits than Ofwat anticipated. Some companies have chosen to share their efficiency savings with their customers through customer rebates and discretionary investment. Welsh Water announced a rebate of £9 a year for the next five years, and South West Water has just set a rebate of £10. There is no reason why the regulator cannot force all water companies to redistribute higher-than-expected profits when, through efficiency gains or other reasons, they achieve higher returns than those on which Ofwat based its pricing figures. The companies and their shareholders should naturally be rewarded for their success and encouraged to continue it, but so should other stakeholders in the enterprise: their customers.
  Furthermore, unreasonable costs should not be imposed on regions with high infrastructure costs and major environmental challenges. I have already mentioned the problem in my area. The chairman of the South West Water consumers committee believes that the average bill will rise a further £150 per year if the problem is not dealt with. The problem exists not just in the south-west. The cost of meeting the urban waste water directive will soon fall on the customers of North West Water, Wessex Water
  222
  and Yorkshire Water. Lead will be a major concern in the north-west and nitrates will have an impact on areas such as that covered by Anglian Water.
  Under the current system, all those problems are likely to lead to increasing regional differentials and bills at various times, as the cost of cleaning up regional problems falls virtually exclusively on consumers. To help reduce such differing regional water charges, a new independent water services trust should be established, funded by a 2 per cent. levy on water profits. It should be used to subsidise water projects of national environmental importance. That should be in addition to the benefits that I have already mentioned of requiring more to be funded from borrowing and equity raising.
  That is a more sensible approach than Labour's one-off windfall tax which, incidentally, might raise water prices. It would also directly benefit water customers. The water services trust could also take on the role of a water efficiency promoter, assisting households and small and medium-sized enterprises with water efficiency measures. That would also help to drive down bills.
  Much could be done to ensure that the cost of providing clean water is decided more equitably. There is clearly still more to do. Compulsory water metering is not the answer. To that limited extent, Labour is right. But it is time to stop concentrating on the problems, which are well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must now strive for solutions. Our amendment suggests such solutions. In this debate, the Labour party has been entirely vacuous in failing to deal with the real problems that the industry and consumers face.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: This debate has been not only vacuous but specious. The Labour party attacked the Government's policy of enforcing compulsory water metering, yet it has been said time and again in this debate that there is no Government policy of compulsory water metering. Watch my lips: no compulsory water metering.
  What is so astonishing about compulsory water meters? They have them in Belgium, Greece, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, France, Sweden and Spain—and that is just in western Europe. Norway is the only country in western Europe, other than the United Kingdom, that does not have compulsory water meters.
  Labour Members are particularly blinkered in relation to water meters. They have no ideas about how we can improve the water delivery infrastructure, reduce water leakage or reduce water loss in the home. This week, a number of magazines, including Nature, have said that there will be a growing water shortage in the United Kingdom and in the whole of northern Europe in the years to come.
  Labour Members have referred to the cost of water metering. However, the statistics do not bear this out. In 1995–96, the average water bill was £267 metered or £211 unmetered. In the coming years, however, the figures will be reversed and homes with water meters will have smaller bills.
  Labour Members have not addressed the issue of water wastage in the home. It has been shown that, where there are meters, there is a saving of water of between 10 and 15 per cent. It is not because people do not flush the loo,

  223
  as the alarmists on the Labour Benches have suggested—it is because people do not use half-loaded dishwashers and half-loaded washing machines; they use water sensibly. That has to be one answer to the nation's water shortage.
  I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was able to give me and a company in my constituency, Armitage Shanks, an assurance that we would not bow to pressure from the Europeans who would have us introduce their system of toilet flushing. In France alone, 500 million gallons of water are lost every year because of its sub-standard toilets.
  I congratulate two water companies in my constituency—Severn Trent is one of eight companies that have introduced water meters free of charge and the South Staffordshire Water Company is looking at a new charging method based on property characteristics, which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) would welcome.
  I have often spoken about the need for us to look at a whole new approach to the way in which we conserve water and transport water in the United Kingdom. It is a dream of mine—as I suspect the hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins) knows—to see a canal opened up in Lichfield. A canal would bring joy to the people of Lichfield and it would be a cheap means of transporting water from north to south.
  This whole debate is specious because it is based on a false premise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that his accusation that it is the Government's policy to have compulsory water metering is a lie, but the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his accusation. I was shocked.
  Has new Labour attacked the heart of Conservative party policy? No, because compulsory water metering is not the Government's policy. Has new Labour addressed the problems of water wastage in the home? No, it has put forward no new ideas in the debate. Has new Labour acknowledged the impact of a changing climate, with increasing droughts? No, it does not have a commitment to the future.
  Has new Labour, through its Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, shown some integrity tonight? Did the hon. Gentleman withdraw his accusations about Government policy? No, instead he ploughed through his poorly written brief and accepted very few interventions. Has new Labour, despite criticising the water companies for being privatised, said that it will commit to nationalising them? No, it recognises the past underinvestment in the water infrastructure by the old-fashioned nationalised industry and it wants the same thing.
  We have heard nothing but empty rhetoric from Labour Members. They have empty minds and an empty future. New Labour has no vision for our future. New Labour with tired old bearded faces. New Labour: the new danger facing our environment.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) cannot have been at the same debate as me—in fact, I do not recall seeing him. He
  224
  has missed the point completely about the Labour party's proposals. We are concerned about the prospect of compulsory water metering. In the short time available to me, I shall cite evidence that the Labour party's premises are not false.
  For example, in April last year, the Secretary of State for the Environment answered a question from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), and made it clear that he had a preference for water metering. He said:
  "The Government believe that metering is in the long term the best basis for paying for water … It is fair and equitable in that it relates charges directly to the amount of water used. It gives customers some control over their bills."—[Official Report, 4 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1054.]
  The Secretary of State ruled out the possibility of allowing council tax to be used as a method of payment for water-based bills. The motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is clear. If the Government believe that water metering is in the best interests of consumers, ultimately they will reach a situation in which water metering occurs on a voluntary, and later on a compulsory, basis. Water metering will be the way in which water companies will get people to pay their bills.
  Water metering is not an acceptable way forward. It ignores a number of key points. First, the cost of implementing water metering has been avoided. In my area of Welsh Water, it will cost some £125 to install each water meter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, some £4 billion will be spent on capital expenditure to introduce water metering.
  Secondly, water metering will be socially regressive. Regardless of what Government Members say, water metering is socially divisive, is a regressive way of paying, and will not benefit the poorer members of our community, who will find themselves rationing water and rationing their money to pay for their water.
  For example, the British Medical Association has found that families with an income of £100 to £125 per week spend 4 per cent. of their weekly budget on water, while the national average is only 1 per cent. The Save the Children Fund has said that it fears that water metering will result in poorer sanitary conditions, less cleaning and a poorer quality of life for people on low incomes.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanson: No, not in the short time available to me, because the hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  The cost of implementing and operating water metering will be about £500 million a year. The Government will move towards water metering, and that is not acceptable. I would rather see a much stricter control of water, such as the control of leakage. In Welsh Water, 64 million gallons of water are lost every day of the week as a result of leakage—that is 45,000 gallons every minute. Almost 30 per cent. of the water distributed by Welsh Water is lost daily through leakage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has made a number of suggestions, including universal domestic recycling, better improvements in relation to shower installation, lower-volume shower heads, and efficient washing machines. There are fair and equitable ways for us to save water, and they do not include water metering.

  225
  Water metering is unfair and unjust, but the Government are edging slowly towards it. After 2000, despite the assurances that have been given, the Government will—if the Conservatives remain in government, which they will not—continue to force unwelcome water metering on the British public.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the five minutes for which I intend to detain the House, I start by saying that this debate has been based on a false premise, and, from the remarks by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), we now understand what that is. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have a preference—I think that was the word he used—for seeing water charging done by metering, but it is not true that that preference also entails a hidden agenda to make metering compulsory.
  To be fair, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's suspicion, but the Secretary of State has said, over and over again, that there is no hidden agenda. Despite what a cynical public sometimes say, Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, do not lie. I cannot remember a time in my 13 years in the House when such a categorical assurance from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box has been rejected by his opposite number. I hope I have not raised the temperature unduly, but I found that rejection surprising and saddening, and it did not do much for the reputation of the House or the quality of debate.
  The principal problem is that there is no ideal way to charge for water. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested that some water companies seem to think that they can charge for the privilege of sending water down their pipes, but in a complex society, the water companies cannot take water out of the sky. It must be processed, and if sewage was not removed from properties, people would have problems. The distribution of clean, wholesome, potable water and the disposal of sewage are complex and expensive operations.
  However the charges are made, whether by ratable values, by subvention in the social security system or by metering, the solution will not be easy or popular. For that reason, the water companies bear a high responsibility to gain the confidence of the people they serve. It is asking a bit much for companies that appear to charge for one of the essentials of life to make themselves popular, but they can be respected, and they can ensure, by the service that they deliver to customers, that they have a reputation for competence and fairness, so that people understand that water has to be paid for. The companies may have to sell a difficult concept, such as water metering, and the public will accept it only if their local water company is conducting its business in a wholesome and potable way.
  I have the disadvantage of coming from the south-west and having my water supplied by South West Water. It would take far more than the three minutes I have left to begin to explain the horrors of South West Water. By any measurement, it is a remarkable company, which has shown a stunning disregard for the sentiments and feelings of the people it is supposed to serve.
  Its activities include little things such as pouring inappropriate chemicals into reservoirs and allowing cryptosporidium to break out in parts of the water supply earlier this year, so that large sums of compensation had
  226
  to be paid by South West Water to the 100,000 households affected. At the height of the drought last year, people telephoned me to say that no water was coming through their taps. We know why now—because South West Water had emptied billions of gallons from a reservoir into the sea. Against such a background, people do not develop much confidence in the mechanisms that the company might use for charging for water.
  Only yesterday, we discovered that the managing director of South West Water, who resigned shortly after the cryptosporidium problem—a prosecution is now pending, so I shall say no more—has been given a severance deal totalling £800,000. That mind-boggling deal is made up of £226,000 of basic severance, extra pension contributions of £100,000, non-cash benefits of £10,000, a full salary of £109,000 and a performance-related bonus of £9,000.
  Not many issues unite the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and me, but misery acquaints a man with strange, bearded bedfellows. Best of all the payments in that package is the £50,000 paid to the managing director for making his services and expertise available to win foreign customers. That is money well spent, because if the company gives him £50,000, he may not feel the need to go abroad.
  What on earth can be said about a water company that can treat people in the way they have been treated in the south-west? The company did everything in its considerable power to appeal against the water charges that had been efficiently pegged by the water regulator. I simply do not have the words at my command in the next 60 seconds to tell the House about the outrage, disgust, anger and sheer fury of people in the west country. They are paying the highest combined water and sewerage charges in the country, at the same time as somebody is paid £800,000 for being a lamentable failure.
  We have had a short debate, and I do not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to respond to my points tonight. I hope it will be an encouragement and threat to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment if I say that I shall write to them to suggest certain initiatives that might be taken to deal with the situation. I do not expect a reply tonight, but my letter will not be late.
  6.37 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: It is interesting that two of the three Conservative Back Benchers who have participated in the debate have been driven to do so by exasperation at their experience of their local water companies. That gives the lie to the wealth of rhetoric, rather than considered argument, that we had from the Secretary of State earlier.
  Today we have focused on one aspect of the water industry—the charging, or rather, the overcharging, of its domestic customers. What do we pay for when we pay our water bills? After all, we expect a lot from the water industry, including clean water; safe sewerage; enough water to cultivate land; unpolluted river systems, for fish and flowers; water-based leisure activities; security from flood and drought; and efficient road drainage. That is quite a list. It flies in the face of economic reason, and the costings, to think that the most effective way to pay for the overall management of the water environment is according to the amount of water that comes out of domestic taps.

  227
  The cost of drinking water is less than half the overall cost of the whole industry. The fixed costs of supplying drinking water are four times greater than the costs related to supplying the volume of drinking water; and, as Which? said in a publication this week,
  "basing water charges solely on the volume of water used does not make sense."
  Ofwat has published a little leaflet that puts a cost on each use of water in the home, but it would do better if it published some facts about what we actually pay for when we pay the bills from the water industry.
  The Environment Select Committee is considering water conservation at the moment. It is becoming clear that there is total confusion between the need to measure for the purposes of good management and the need to measure to charge, and the Secretary of State made that point again today. The two are quite different.
  The industry should, of course, measure what goes where, if only to discover where the leaks are. Nobody suggests that, because health services are available to everyone who needs them, doctors should not record how many patients come to them with what problems; but that does not mean that each patient has to pay extra every time he sees a doctor—at least, not yet. Careful district metering is the key to careful leakage detection, as the Environment Committee has discovered.
  We have heard much today about water metering and conservation, but the Government have said nothing about the most cost-effective way of achieving those aims—and they have put cost-benefit analyses into every line of every piece of environment legislation. The contributions from the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) show just how costs affect customer attitudes to the water industry.
  As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) pointed out, water metering is very expensive. Leaving aside the cost of installation—about £200—and the cost of replacement every seven years and of repair every time the meters get grit in them, the extra costs of maintenance, reading and billing are estimated at £27 per year.
  My figures show that, through metering, it costs £1.95 to save 1 cu m a year. According to the National Rivers Authority, if one compares metering with other methods of water conservation, it is seven times more expensive than saving the same amount of water through leakage reduction, and four times the cost of saving the same amount of water using water-efficient devices in the home. That does not take into account the minimal cost of common-sense measures such as installing water butts in every garden to catch the run-off from roofs and gutters.
  A specialist in the water industry—I will not embarrass him by naming him—told me:
  "I have no time for those"—
  such as the Secretary of State—
  "who advocate looking at demand management from an economic viewpoint, and then ignore the messages which do not suit their agenda."
  228
  It is a sign of the regulator's obsession with metering that last year's enormous peak demand for water for gardens was met by calls to meter everything. He did not question whether we should pour gallons of drinking water on to grass.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Jackson: No, because the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber.
  The same obsession with metering has led the Government and the regulator to fail to take action on every other water conservation front. As hon. Members have pointed out, water leakage is worse now than at the time of privatisation. The Secretary of State mentioned the revision of the water byelaws, which could be used to upgrade standards of water efficiency and improve the design of water appliances in the home. They have been awaiting upgrading since 1992. This afternoon, the Secretary of State said that he will announce the members of the Committee that will consider the byelaws. He has been promising to do that for four years.
  Research into water-saving toilet devices by the Building Research Establishment was well under way, but it was shelved by the Government in 1982, because it placed greater emphasis on other ways of conserving water—such as metering. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras detailed the way in which the water conservation legislation, which was supported by every member of the all-party parliamentary group—I pay tribute to hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) for her contribution to that group-was rubbished by those on the Government Front Bench. Only yesterday, the Government had an opportunity in the housing grants legislation to introduce a grant aid scheme for water efficiency in the home, but again they failed to act.
  Is water metering is fair? The Secretary of State again parroted the phrase, "You pay for what you use"—the old poll tax argument. However, that approach is distinctly unfair when we are talking about essentials.
  Some months ago, the parliamentary group decided to explore which charging system reflects most fairly people's ability to pay. We asked Ofwat and the water companies what research they had conducted in that area, and for their comparative range of billing on rateable value and metered charges. We immediately discovered how little work had been done in that area.
  Ofwat conducted its only study in 1992, and that is now out of date. In its recent document issued to water companies about efficiency action, Ofwat does not refer once to the social impact of proposed efficiency measures. Even Anglian Water—a company that has embarked on more systematic work—admits:
  "Income was not one of the criteria used in setting up the programme".
  It was left to the Save the Children Fund, the British Medical Association, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to point out what water metering means for poor families, who must try to cut down on water usage in the home by not flushing the toilet so often, sharing baths or not allowing the children to play with water.

  229
  Our exercise has shown that both billing systems—metering and property value—have a correlation with household incomes, but for different reasons. The property value link with income is well understood. With a metered supply, those with higher incomes have higher bills, as they are less likely to cut down on water usage. Poorer families have lower bills, because they must cut down on their water usage as they do not have the money to pay. Pensioners—among whom water meters are popular—try particularly hard to economise around the home. They worry even if extra water usage is essential for their health care regime. That concerns Labour Members.
  Two classes of customers stand out as exceptions: first, large, poorer families who have low incomes and high bills; secondly, single wealthy individuals or couples, perhaps with more than one house, who have low bills and high incomes. At the top of the rateable value scale, the folk with large houses and gardens make a killing if they switch to a meter—even if they run their sprinklers all day in the summer, that amounts to a mere 4 per cent. of usage when spread over the year. Savings for some must be paid for by others.
  Conservative Members have congratulated water companies on installing free meters, but those costs must be met by someone—by the 92 per cent. of customers who are paying for water in the usual way. The public should be warned about the regulator's latest attempt to alter the rateable value charge. In his recent tariff reform document, he states:
  "the overall revenue from unmeasured customers remains the same, but the range between the highest and lowest bills is reduced".
  In everyday language, it means that the poor will pay more, and the rich will get another handout.
  Nobody wants water metering. By last autumn, only 20 households in Scotland took up the metering option. Ralph Symons, an eminent pensioner from Huddersfield, has collected 47,000 signatures from people protesting at Ofwat's failure to introduce proper water conservation measures. It makes no mention of metering. Has there ever been a petition in favour of metering?
  The fact is that water should not have been privatised in the way it was. The obsession of the Secretary of State and of the regulator with water metering is both misguided and anti-social. It is driven by a dogmatic desire to make us view water as simply another commodity: like a pint of milk or a pound of butter. It is an irresponsible attempt to justify irresponsible legislation.
  When it comes to water and sewerage, there is no freedom to choose, and there can be no competitive market. We desperately need a new approach to the industry that puts the public first; recognises the social and environmental obligations; understands the uniqueness of water and sewerage as a utility; and, above all, brings fairness back to the industry's financial management. Universal compulsory metering has no part to play in that approach.
  6.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): It would be churlish of me not to begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) to the Opposition Front Bench—at least on this occasion. Her great interest in the subject is well known.
  230
  I congratulate her on the good judgment she displayed this evening in choosing not to pick up any of the specious arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in opening the debate. The hon. Gentleman's argument that there is some sort of secret agenda to enforce compulsory water metering was not sustained by Labour Front Benchers or Back Benchers during the debate.
  The hon. Gentleman said at one stage that we were embarking on a quest for the holy grail in seeking water metering. The longer I listened to the hon. Gentleman, the more I thought that he was embarking on a quest for the holy grail—not that I see him in terms of Arthurian legend.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough has been given the accolade of queen of water by her hon. Friends; she would no doubt make a comely Queen Guinevere. However, I do not see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras as a King Arthur, or even as a Sir Galahad or a Sir Lancelot. In his performance this evening, he more closely resembled one of those mediaeval abbots who suddenly discovered the remains of King Arthur when there was a need for funds to pay for rebuilding the monastery. That is the status of the hon. Gentleman's points about compulsory water metering.
  Let me make the position absolutely clear. We believe that water metering is a matter for the water companies. We believe that there are advantages in water metering, but that it is a matter for the companies. There is no secret agenda to enforce compulsory water metering.
  As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should know, we have allowed water companies to continue to use rateable values after 2000. If there was a secret agenda, that decision would be wholly inconsistent with it. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to know that we had taken that decision. If he had known, he might have taken a different view, and he might not have embarked on the ridiculous charade of his speech.
  Mr. Dobson: As far as I can recall, I welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State a year or more ago that rateable values could be used. However, the Opposition look forward to changing the law as he promised to do, because he has not changed it yet.
  Mr. Clappison: I find that an interesting remark, because, as Hansard will clearly show, the hon. Gentleman used what he described as the proscription on the use of rateable values from 2000 as an argument in support of his contention that there was a secret agenda to impose compulsory water metering. Apparently he knew all along that that was not the case, and that rateable values could be used after 2000.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is it sufficient that the Secretary of State has made a speech in the House, or is there a need for legislation? That is my understanding.
  Mr. Clappison: Indeed, that is the case. My right hon. Friend made his announcement in April 1995, and he made it clear that rateable values could be used after 2000. The hon. Lady will be unable to rescue the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on this occasion, because we have yet to hear from him or her what Labour's policy will be on water charging. They have asked us questions,

  231
  but we have heard nothing from them. We heard repeated challenges from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but we heard nothing about what his policy would be.
  We had some interesting contributions by other hon. Members, who plainly did not follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was concerned about budget pre-payment units, but, as he was rightly told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, they are a matter of choice. Consumers can choose to have them, and they can later be removed. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is entirely a matter for consumers.
  The hon. Gentleman may know that the Ofwat National Consumer Council has endorsed budget pre-payments, and that surveys show that 80 or 90 per cent. of customers are in favour of them.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clappison: I will not give way, because time is getting on. The hon. Gentleman had plenty of time, and I wish to reply to other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), another hon. Member who is very interested in water issues.
  She battles hard on behalf of her constituents, and I note her comments about the drought. She is particularly concerned about low-income families, and she wanted a specific response on disconnections. She will be pleased to know that disconnections are on a downward trend. However, there is still a need for disconnection to be available to deal with those who can pay but refuse to do so.
  My hon. Friend will know that low-income families are dealt with under special provisions by the Department of Social Security, and that there is a provision in each company's water licence that the supply of water to domestic premises should not be disconnected if the person liable to pay the charges informs the company that he or she is applying for help from the Department of Social Security. I hope that that allays my hon. Friend's concerns.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the south-west, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), in his usual robust terms. The hon. Member for Truro referred to the clear-up in the south-west. I hope that he welcomes the fact—I know that he is interested in environmental statistics and information—that statistics have been released which show a marked improvement in bathing water quality and river water quality, and the high standard of drinking water quality. He will know of the connection between that and the programme of investment that is being carried out.
  The hon. Member for Truro is concerned about price increases in the south-west. I hope that he will join me in welcoming the fact that prices in the south-west, as elsewhere, will be limited. In the case of the south-west, prices up to 2000 will be limited to 1 per cent. in real terms, and after 2000 there will be no increase in real terms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that limit.
  232
  The hon. Gentleman knows the problems in his proposal for using council tax bands. He is at least putting forward a proposal, which distinguishes him from Labour Members, but it is, unfortunately, a bad proposal. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear—the hon. Gentleman himself said that he was particularly concerned about poorer families—the Liberal Democrats' policy would lead to arbitrary changes, especially for people in the lower band. As the Consumers Association said:
  "Many low-income families could experience a considerable increase in their bills with this switch."
  That is why the hon. Gentleman's policy is a bad idea.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) helpfully mentioned the extent of metering throughout Europe and in many other countries, including countries with socialist Governments—a point that seems to have eluded the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. My hon. Friend battled for manufacturers in his constituency, such as Armitage Shanks and GEC Alsthom. They and many others will be interested in the current review of water byelaws. Clearly there is some scope for improving efficiency and reducing waste, contamination and the like.
  The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) was concerned about poorer families. I remind him of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. It is important that lower-income families should be taken account of, and it is important that water companies should choose tariff structures that are adapted to the needs of lower-income families. That is an important point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge made a valuable contribution in his own way. He too emphasised that there is no hidden agenda; it is as plain as a pikestaff that there is not. What is clear is that the Labour party has no agenda at all. One only has to look at the recently released outline Labour manifesto to see the extent of Labour's disregard for the environment. The environment is not mentioned in the introduction, it does not have a chapter to itself, and it does not even have a heading within a chapter. It is buried away in a few short sentences in one paragraph. The manifesto does not mention the importance of sustainable development.
  I know that the hon. Member for Hillsborough, who is so interested in water, will be disappointed by the fact that there is no mention of water in the outline manifesto. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was present when these matters were being discussed, he must have bitten his tongue. I am sure that the hon. Lady cannot have been there, because she certainly would have wanted to say something about water, and she would have been foaming if the subject had been missed out.
  The hon. Lady and other Labour Members who are water enthusiasts can take some consolation from the fact that they are not alone in their plight. There is no mention of water and the importance of water conservation for the environment, sustainable development, air quality, climate change or biodiversity. The only mention I could find of biodiversity was a promise of a free vote when enacting legislation to ban hunting with hounds, which is rather different from our idea of biodiversity.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: The point about the environment is that it would be part of every Department's policy under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Clappison: Judging by the efforts in the manifesto, the environment will have to struggle to

  233
  become part of the policy of a Labour Department of the Environment. It is clear that Labour has no interest in the subject.
  That is the problem with the Labour party. That is the real risk and danger it presents: that the environment will be neglected and will fall behind in the list of priorities, as it did in terms of investment when Labour was last in power. Let me remind Labour Members that the last Labour Government cut investment in the water industry. They slashed it almost in half in the second part of the 1970s, and, in 1976, they were forced to impose a six-month moratorium on water authority capital expenditure.
  The water industry is now spending far more than it did then—some two or three times more a year. That investment will provide higher standards: better drinking water, better river water—river water quality is improving according to any standard—better bathing water and, indeed, better quality all round. That real improvement results from a successful quality. Opposition Members will have to think again, and come up with something a bit more convincing than the policies that they have advocated.
  As we made clear in our amendment, we believe that water conservation is an important issue. We are committed to the environment; we are committed to the single issue of water conservation, just as we are committed on all the other great international and national issues. It seems, however, that the Labour party has no interest in, and no policy on, climate change, biodiversity, air quality, forestry or any of the other important national and international obligations that we have taken on and are fulfilling.
  The longer the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke, the plainer it became that he had no ideas. He refused to say at any stage how he would charge for water: he had no idea whatsoever. He refused to say anything about that, even when intervened on by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—who, had he remained in the Chamber for the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech, would not have heard a word about water charging.
  It is obvious from what the hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party is bankrupt in regard to the environment. This fictitious, ridiculous motion, based on a charade, is plain evidence that Labour neglects the environment, does not know what sustainable development is, and has not the commitment that the Conservative party has.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 288.

  Division No. 181]

  [7.01 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bates, Michael

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ashby, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  234

  Booth, Hartley

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butler, Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clappison, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Horam, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Keen, Alan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Day, Stephen

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

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Khabra, Piara S

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lewis, Terry

  Dover, Den

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Duncan, Alan

  Litherland, Robert

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Elletson, Harold

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  McAllion, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  McCartney, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faber, David

  McFall, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  McKelvey, William

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Maclennan, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacShane, Denis

  Forth, Eric

  McWilliam, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madden, Max

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maddock, Diana

  French, Douglas

  Mahon, Alice

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gamier, Edward

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  235

  Martlew, Eric

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

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

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Stott, Roger

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Straw, Jack

  O'Hara, Edward

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Timms, Stephen

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Parry, Robert

  Touhig, Don

  Pearson, Ian

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis

  Pike, Peter L

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wallace, James

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radics, Giles

  Watson, Mike

  Randall, Stuart

  Welsh, Andrew

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reid, Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Salmond, Alex

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Greg Pope.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Keith

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Alton, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Barron, Kevin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Battle, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chidgey, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bell, Stuart

  Church, Judith

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Betts, Clive

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Coffey, Ann

  Blunkett, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Boateng, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  236

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jowell, Tessa

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Denham, John

  Key, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dobson, Frank

  Knapman, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dowd, Jim

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Knox, Sir David

  Eastham, Ken

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Etherington, Bill

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lament, Rt Hon Norman

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fisher, Mark

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Flynn, Paul

  Lidington, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lord, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Luff, Peter

  Fraser, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fyfe, Maria

  MacKay, Andrew

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Galloway, George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gapes, Mike

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garrett, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Malone, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mans, Keith

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marlow, Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mates, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gunnell, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hain, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Hall, Mike

  Mills, Iain

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Harvey, Nick

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Henderson, Doug

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Heppell, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hodge, Margaret

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hoey, Kate

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Home Robertson, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Page, Richard

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  237

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walden, George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Watts, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitney, Ray

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Whittingdale, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilshire, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Steen, Anthony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stephen, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Allan

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mr. Simon Burns and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Sykes, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that Her Majesty's Government is committed to sustainable development and recently published an assessment of global warming in the United Kingdom with its sharp reminder of the increasing pressure on water resources; further notes that the increasing demand for water therefore requires a long-term approach to the management of water resources and that an important part of that task is to discourage unnecessary wastage of water both by companies and by customers; therefore welcomes the new duty on water companies to promote the efficient use of water and, although the Government has never supported a policy of compulsory metering, notes that metering can also be effective in encouraging customers to use only the water that they need and that this helps to increase the sustainability of water use; and looks to the water companies to use the flexibility available to them to develop their own tariff structures and methods best suited to the needs of customers and to local circumstances.

  Family-friendly Employment
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.15 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I beg to move,
  That this House sees helping parents combine responsibilities at work and home as fundamental both to maintaining stable family life in the UK and to the long-term success and strength of the British economy; deplores the Government's failure to support working parents which has placed extra strain on family life and created a situation where one in five households have no earners; believes Government has a responsibility to ensure employment is compatible with stable family life and can work in partnership with employers to this end; congratulates the employers, who, in the absence of Government support have introduced working practices which allow parents to strike the right balance between work and home; endorses the range of positive proposals Labour has put forward to support working parents, such as a national minimum wage, individual learning accounts and targets to achieve nursery places for every three and four year old whose parents want it, alongside the development of new partnerships to increase the availability of childcare; and looks forward to seeing a Labour Government implement these proposals and give British families and companies the support they seek.
  It gives me great pleasure to open the debate and to speak in support of the motion.
  The balancing of responsibilities between work and family life is not an issue that is often raised on the Floor of the House—perhaps because so many right hon. and hon. Members have, sadly, concluded that a life in politics and family life are hopelessly incompatible. When a politician resigns to spend more time with his family, it is not him, or indeed his family, who make the choice: it is made for him, and usually much against his will. In this place, to spend more time with one's family is a brutal euphemism for political failure.
  The House is probably the last place in the world to talk about family-friendly employment; for that reason it is probably the best place to do so. This is the home of the long-hours culture. This is a place where Whips enforce presenteeism. This is a place built on an infinity of Monday goodbyes and Thursday night or Friday morning hellos.
  We cannot deny that our working habits affect our ability to understand how most people cope with the daily dilemma of managing the priorities of family and work. Nor can we deny how badly we have handled the problem in our own patterns of work. We are not yet setting an example that others should follow, but although we may signally have failed in tackling the competing priorities of work and family, this issue dominates the lives of working mothers and, to a lesser extent, fathers up and down the country. Out there, the issue is more relevant than almost any other. When mothers become workers, they do not stop being mothers preoccupied by their children. Mothers who work, even full time, are also full-time mothers.
  The last labour force survey showed that 71 per cent. of women in the country now go out to work. Women make up nearly half the work force and the proportion of women earning more than their partner has risen from one in 15 to one in five over the past 10 years. This factor has had a huge impact on women's lives and on those of their families. That is why this issue, which is at the margin of concern at Westminster, is at the centre of women's

  239
  concerns throughout the country. It is a revolution that the Government can observe as a detached spectator, as they have, or they can put dogma aside and stand as an ally of mothers, fathers and their families.
  The number of women working full time has not increased since the 1950s, but the huge increase in women's employment has come about as a result of the increase in the number of women working part time. The scale of that is reflected by the fact that 84 per cent. of the part-time work force are women.
  For most women, part-time work is their employment of choice. That is obvious, because, if the hours are right, they leave time at the beginning and the end of the day for mothers to look after their children. Part-time employees are generally more satisfied with their working hours than full-time workers because they can combine the responsibilities of caring for dependent children and, increasingly, dependent elderly relatives, with their hours of work. That underlines the importance of ensuring that part-time workers are properly protected and it is why we shall ensure a framework of minimum standards in the labour market that will support good flexibility and provide protection against unfair treatment.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Lady is gallant in giving way. She may not have finished what she intends to say about the part-time employment of women. Will she say that most of them are against it? Many women want to work part time and should not that be made clear, set out straight and true?
  Ms Jowell: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening closely he would have heard me say that part-time workers are among the most satisfied with their working conditions and that for many women that is the employment of their choice. However, for many women, part-time work is synonymous with low pay and insecurity. Ruth Milkman has described the feminisation of poverty, with the women's labour market polarised between what she describes as the elite corps of professional and managerial women and the large and increasing number of low-paid part-time workers.
  The women's labour market is typically concentrated in the service sector, in which there has been such rapid expansion over the past 10 years. The last labour force survey in spring 1995 showed that women formed the majority of workers in four industrial classifications: retailing and distribution; hotels and restaurants; public administration; and education and health. The incidence of women doing more than one part-time job in those sectors just to make ends meet is also increasing. Over the past 10 years there has been a 132 per cent. increase in the number of women doing more than one part-time job.
  A Labour Government will introduce a national minimum wage which will put a floor on the earnings of those women and in many cases do away with their need to work excessive hours to make ends meet. The case rests on decency and fairness, but it is also about efficiency. A minimum wage is a basic right that is recognised in almost every industrialised country, including the USA and Japan, which is the world's most successful capitalist country.
  The poverty pay of many at the bottom is generating spiralling family credit and benefit bills for the taxpayer and business. It was more than £2.5 billion at the last
  240
  count. It is a transfer from the taxpayer to the sweatshop owner. A minimum wage will staunch this subsidy to bad employers.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady has opened the debate extremely clearly. For further clarity, can she say whether the Labour party is still in favour of a minimum wage of half male median earnings, or does it intend to jump straight for two thirds of median earnings—which, of course, is the target after a few years of a Labour Government?
  Ms Jowell: By now the hon. Gentleman should be clear about that aspect of Labour policy. If Conservative Members were not so intent on producing the kind of rubbish that they produced last week, the hon. Gentleman might have had time to study our proposals for proper consultation with employers and trade unions about setting a national minimum wage.
  The Government's obsession with competition under any circumstances has some perverse and uncompetitive results. For example, for every £1 saved by the employer as a result of compulsory competitive tendering, the taxpayer has to find £2 in benefits and unrecovered tax. The further expansion of part-time work and flexible employment for women may do little to ease women's exclusion from the more responsible and rewarding work opportunities, and will do even less to challenge male absenteeism in the home. The alternative, that women should adopt male working hours and employment patterns, does not meet the aspirations of most women. For many, their experience tells them that they can have a job but not a career after having a baby. Of course the difference is that a career assumes progression, increased responsibility and long-term commitment.
  Increasingly, the main family-friendly employment for women is to work part time. Of course there are enormous benefits to business from the new flexible labour market, but a heavy social cost has to be borne when "flexibility" becomes a euphemism for insecurity and exploitation. That is why we must be sceptical about claims that women's increased participation in the labour market is in itself progress.
  Women want to work, but in jobs that enable them to combine earning a family income, the benefit of social contact and caring for their families. Does working for £2.50 an hour represent a new equal opportunity of which we can be proud? No doubt the Minister will be quick to proclaim the Equal Opportunities Commission finding that flexible working has increased opportunities for women and will use that as evidence of the success of the Government's policy of deregulation of the labour force. May we also assume that the Minister will take responsibility for the further negative consequences of flexible working that emerged from the same survey?
  Britain's long hours culture is having a destructive effect on the career development of women and on family life. The survey concluded:
  "Even in higher status jobs the long hours culture stops women from getting promoted and in lower status jobs women have to work long hours to make ends meet. British men have the longest working hours in Europe and consequently less time to spend with their families".
  While the social imperative for action to support parents in getting the balance right is well established, many businesses realise that there is a strong business case for investment in employees' peace of mind.

  241
  Women will deal with the delicate balancing act in different ways, and no one prescription will apply generally. The Government's job is, first, to recognise the changes that are taking place and, secondly, to realise that the revolution in women's lives becomes a revolution for families and is not wholly a private matter. The Government who understand the nature of the changes in women's and particularly working mother's lives can help families to deal more easily with the stresses that are inevitable at a time of such rapid change.
  There is ample evidence that child care determines whether women can work. It is estimated that one in three of all lone mothers are unable to work because they cannot afford child care. But the perversity of the social security system means that the biggest gulf is not between lone mothers and married mothers but between those whose partners are working and those who are not. That is the origin of the work-rich/work-poor family and it means that in one in five families there is no earner. It is born of the outdated assumption that women are necessarily economically dependent on men. That is why a Labour Government will modernise our welfare state to promote independence and employment rather than dependence and poverty.
  There is a widespread need for a partnership between employees and employers which recognises the scale of the changes in the lives of men and women and the consequences for their children and which takes into account that a working mother can give of her best at work only when she is happy and feels secure about the arrangements that she has made for her children at home.
  The issue for parents is not only about the equation between work and child care. Crucially, it is also about time at home with their children—or, increasingly, their elderly relatives. Getting that right is a vital part of our rebuilding stability and security as a society.
  Opposition Members realise that the world has changed, and that when mothers are at work they do not stop being mothers. We do not see that world through the prism of nostalgia for a world in which women are dependent and treated only as the property of their husbands.
  Governments can provide the support that parents need to negotiate this transition only by understanding the nature of the profound changes facing families in all their compositions, by realising that the possibility of a choice between work and family is no longer relevant, and that work must accommodate the needs of families, just as parents accommodate the demands of work.
  British parents are now the only parents in Europe without the benefit of parental leave. As a part of the social chapter, parents across Europe are entitled to up to three months unpaid parental leave until their children are eight years old. If fathers are to do more at home as mothers do more at work, the practical possibility of parental leave is essential. That is a specific example that draws such a clear dividing line between the Opposition and the Government.
  As the balance between home and work has changed so dramatically for women, so too must the balance of father's lives. As the recent survey "The 60-minute Father" revealed, fathers want to spend more time with their children and to be more instrumental in important decisions, such as choice of school, and a lack of time was identified as the most important barrier to a closer
  242
  relationship with their children. As Penelope Leach—who I suspect advised most hon. Members on bringing up their children—observed on the importance of fathers bonding with their new babies, even three days off work when the baby is born can make all the difference to the relationship as the child grows up.
  There is also real concern about the impact of insufficient parental time on the security and well being of children. This "parenting deficit" is felt by many parents to be just that, and there is no point in the Government standing by, bewailing the collapse of social order and refusing to take the type of practical action that ensures the security and stability of parents and families.
  Many large firms realise, in the words of Christopher Tugendhat, that there is a business case for equal opportunity and that family-friendly practices may cost more in the short term, but that they mean savings in the long term. Those savings are found particularly in recruitment and retraining costs. Recruitment, for example, costs on average about 20 per cent. of annual salary.
  Research—notably that by Prof. Susan Macrea—has demonstrated clearly the business benefits of family-friendly flexibility. Those benefits include continuous production without the need for overtime payments, accommodation of seasonal peaks or irregular work loads, and changing operational requirements—particularly six-day working—which can be accommodated more easily. In part-time working and in job sharing, productivity is always greater.
  Opportunity 2000 cites a list of initiatives against which an employer's aspiration to be family-friendly will be judged. They include part-time working, time off to care for sick dependents—children and, increasingly, elderly relatives—job sharing, career breaks and term-time contracts. Opposition Members are pleased to congratulate the efforts of Opportunity 2000.
  We look forward to hearing from the Minister about the action that she intends to take to ensure that Departments and next steps agencies—which are supposed to be members of Opportunity 2000—take their membership seriously and develop flexible working policies in practice. They have so far dramatically failed to do so. The Minister's record on this issue is long on platitude and short on accomplishment.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jowell: I have very little time for this speech, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand. I shall finish this point first.
  For many women, the transition to motherhood spells the end of their career aspirations. Too many women consider that as an inevitable choice, but Opposition Members do not. That is why, among the specific measures that we are proposing, we are proposing individual learning accounts that are specially adapted to the needs of women returning to work after a period at home or of women who would like to make a career change. That is part of our determination to improve people's employability by raising their skills.
  Mr. Greenway: It is very unclear what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she saying that the Labour party, given the opportunity, would legislate for fathers to have leave from work when a child is born and each year after that until the child is eight? What is the cost of the proposals that she suggests? Is not the Labour party suggesting imposing heavy costs on industry?
  Ms Jowell: Again, had the hon. Gentleman been listening carefully to what I have been saying, he would have realised that parental leave will be one of the benefits that British fathers will have when a Labour Government elected after the next general election and we sign up to the social chapter.
  Ministers frequently bemoan the falling standards of general morality, as if we all lived in a moral universe of free choice. People do not live in such a world. They live in a world of tough choices and uncomfortable compromises, and when they fail, their failures are often manifested in their children. Quite frankly, it is sanctimonious hypocrisy to moan about the decline of family values and to do nothing to help families—particularly working mothers—to cope in a world of changing employment, threats and opportunities.
  In the words of the excellent organisation, Parents at Work:
  "family-friendly working is not just a women's issue, it is an economic issue, a social security issue and a family issue too."
  Labour Members are committed to ensuring that Government will be responsive to the real needs of working parents in the changing labour market—in the interests of employers, in the interests of those who work for them and in the interests of the millions of children who depend on them.
  7.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes with approval the Government's successful economic and deregulation policies which have created more job opportunities and its voluntary approach to encouraging employers to adopt family-friendly policies which make it easier for individuals to combine work and family life. and agrees that this is not an area for legislation.'.
  As I am the first Minister from the Department for Education and Employment to speak in the House since the appalling incident at St. Luke's church, I should like to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department, that we were appalled by the incident at St. Luke's Church of England school in Blakenhall, Wolverhampton. It is particularly upsetting when such young children are involved in incidents of this type. My every sympathy goes to those involved and to their families. The courageous and professional reaction of the school's staff is to be commended. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing those who were injured a speedy recovery.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity today to set out the Government's position on family-friendly policies and to outline some facts—in contrast to the rhetoric that we just heard from the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). However, I should like to welcome her and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who I
  244
  understand will reply for the Opposition at the conclusion of this debate. In the spirit of equal opportunity, I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who will reply for the Government.
  Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich, it seemed to me as if she was making a bid to halve her time in the House of Commons, and certainly to double the number of hon. Members, because obviously the job is too arduous for her to perform.
  I shall be surprised when Opposition Members get on to family-friendly policies during the debate, which is very much a repeat of the debate that was held on International Women's Day and was called by the Government.
  "It's easy to say 'support the family'. It is harder to find specific policies that will achieve it."
  Those are not my words but a direct quotation from the latest Labour party policy document. The document goes on to say:
  "we have put forward proposals for childcare, on support for lone parent families, and on flexible working".
  These are not policies but proposals; in other words, the Labour party finds it impossible to produce policies on family-friendly employment and prefers to make a few suggestions.
  That shameful admission contrasts with the Government's record. We have taken steps to support all families by delivering real policies that are producing real results in the labour market. One of the most fundamental changes in the UK labour market this century has been the increasing participation of women. Women now make up a larger proportion of the labour force—some 44 per cent. in 1994, compared with 37 per cent. in 1971. Some 12.3 million women are economically active. In the past 10 years, women's economic activity rate has increased from 67 per cent. to 71 per cent. The increase in the economic activity rate for women with at least one child under five was even greater—from 42 per cent. in 1985 to 52 per cent. in 1995.
  In 1994, the United Kingdom had the second highest female participation rate in the European Union. There are more women in employment in the United Kingdom than in any other European Union country, except Germany. I would have thought that the Opposition would acknowledge that welcome news—it is good news for women and for families.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: When the Minister said that more women are in work in this country, did she mean as a percentage of the work force or the total number? That is quite important, as she may find that Sweden and Denmark have higher percentages.
  Mrs. Gillan: I will clarify what I said. We have the second highest female participation rate in the European Union. One of the reasons for that high rate is the availability of part-time work in the United Kingdom. Some 45 per cent. of women in employment work part time, an option that many women with family responsibilities prefer. Of the women who work part time, only 11 per cent. do so because they cannot find a full-time job. In addition to the increase in the numbers of women in the labour market, we have falling unemployment. The United Kingdom enjoys the lowest level of unemployment among women in the EU.

  245
  Arguably the most important factor in allowing parents successfully to combine work and family life is child care. Child care matters to men and women, but it is still women who in practice have the leading responsibility of caring for children. No mother with pre-school children can return to work without arranging some form of child care. The Government have acted and intervened where we can have the most impact. The child care disregard has helped to offset child care charges against earnings when benefit entitlement is calculated. From April 1996, the disregard was increased substantially from £40 to £60.
  The out-of-school child care initiative supports the Government's aim of encouraging economic growth and greater access and flexibility in the labour market. It was introduced in 1993 and provides grant support towards the start-up costs of new out-of-school provision outside school hours and during the school holidays. This Government initiative has been highly successful. Its original aim was to create up to 50,000 places in three years throughout the country, but that was exceeded by more than 40 per cent., with more than 71,000 places created by the end of March this year.
  There is no point in having a programme unless one can evaluate its success. We carried out an evaluation that showed that nearly 90 per cent. of the parents were in employment, 98 per cent. of the places were still available and 95 per cent. of the parents expressed satisfaction with the child care. More important, more than 40 per cent. of parents had enjoyed an improvement in their labour market position since they began using the scheme. That shows that the policy is working. As a result of that success, the Government decided to allocate further funding for three years. Overall, that will mean investment by the Exchequer of nearly £64 million.
  We have also helped parents to gain qualifications by giving training and enterprise councils discretion to assist with child care costs. Only last week, I visited an excellent training centre for hairdressers in north London. One of the trainees I met—a young mother returning to the labour market after a break—had just finished her NVQ level 2 and had already received three job offers. She told me that these opportunities were only open to her because North London TEC had provided assistance with nursery provision for her young child while she was training.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich should know by now that child care is high on my agenda. As it happens, only this morning I met representatives from an Equal Opportunities Commission-led group of child care experts to discuss proposals for a national child care strategy. I have also separately invited the CBI, Parents at Work, the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors and the Family Policies Studies Institute to discuss how child care policy should be developed. Child care is not an area where the Government can act alone. Governments need to develop strategies that suit the individuals concerned and those who wish to employ them. Our policy is to build on our success to ensure that we have a strategy on child care that will continue to benefit families.
  I now want to examine the development of flexible working and how its progress is helping families. We are now in our fourth successive year of rising employment and falling unemployment. With the best inflation performance for almost 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for a generation and the prospect of further economic growth, we have the right economic climate for job
  246
  creation. Our policies are family-friendly in that they create the jobs that people want and attract inward investment.
  The UK has fewer restrictions and controls on employment, so that we have a higher percentage of people in work than any other major EU country. It would be utter madness to start placing rigid and specific requirements on all employers and employees, as the hon. Member for Dulwich suggested. To remain competitive, firms must be able to adapt to changing economic circumstances and patterns of employment. We must not place unnecessary burdens in their way.
  For example, the idea that all employers should be forced to give three months parental leave to every employee may at first sound very attractive, but such a move would be very damaging to job creation. We estimate that the parental leave directive—which other member states have just adopted under the social chapter—would cost British business some £200 million a year.
  The Government favour voluntary arrangements that help people to reconcile work and family life. Flexible working patterns make it possible for employers to respond to peaks and troughs in their business and to recruit and retain staff while cutting overheads. The drive for a better qualified and more flexible work force has been spearheaded by this Government, and it will do more to help parents than any legislation.
  As women become increasingly skilled and well qualified, it will be even more in employers' interests to introduce family-friendly policies to retain them. Flexible working patterns give employers the greatest flexibility in the way in which they work. Flexible working enables individuals to balance a career with other domestic commitments, whether child care or care for the elderly or infirm. A wide range of flexible working arrangements, including those that the hon. Lady outlined—part-time work, teleworking, job sharing, flexitime, annualised hours and term-time working—have been developed by this Government.
  I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Dulwich criticise the civil service and the way in which we conduct our affairs, but the written reply to her question of 7 May shows that good provisions are in place at the Department for Education and Employment.
  The introduction of a national minimum wage, which blindly obsesses both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, would strike at the heart of the job opportunities that would be available to women. It would put women out of work. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who said:
  "It would create a jobs shake out. Any silly old fool knows that"—
  except perhaps the silly old fools who remain in the Labour party.
  We need employment practices, available to men as well as to women, that help people to share the care of their children and at the same time assist women to work. The Government consistently impress on employers the need to explore the benefits that flexible working can bring in all jobs and at all levels—for example, through publications such as "The Best of Both Worlds" and "Be Flexible". I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dulwich has had the chance to read them.

  247
  Last autumn, the Government's development unit on women in science, engineering and technology, together with Opportunity 2000, published the booklet "Making the Most". I hope that the hon. Member for Dulwich has had the chance to read that, because it highlights the business benefits of family-friendly employment policies, with science and technology especially in mind. It shows that taking action with flexible employment policies to prevent the loss of highly qualified staff can have real business benefits—for instance, Rank Xerox's family-friendly programme called "Changing the Culture" has brought the company a return of some £1 million over five years through savings in recruitment, retraining and productivity.
  In my constituency, Amersham International runs a scheme of career breaks, where women scientists who take time off to raise families can return to work at intervals during their breaks to update and maintain their scientific knowledge. That is an excellent initiative, which is to be commended.
  Ms Jean Corston: Has the Minister not said that family-friendly employment policies would be a burden on business but in the next breath said that they had saved Rank Xerox a lot of money? Which is the truth?
  Mrs. Gillan: I told the House that legislation would place a burden on business and industry. We believe in voluntary arrangements that are introduced by companies. Not all companies are large or can sustain long leaves of absence. We have calculated that legislation would put a burden of at least £200 million on businesses.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Gillan: No, I am answering the other intervention. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) might welcome the fact that unemployment in her constituency is down by 7 per cent. over the year.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) was right to suggest that voluntary arrangements would cost no more or less than statutory ones. If the Minister believes that they should be made by individual companies, she must say why she thinks Amersham International cannot pursue such policies for fathers as well—unless, of course, she thinks that being a father is not important in bringing up children.
  Mrs. Gillan: I think that being a father is extremely important in bringing up children, as do all Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dulwich referred to men only about four times in her speech. We believe that businesses should arrive at voluntary arrangements because they make economic sense for them. We do not want to burden business with excess legislation.
  The civil service seeks to be a good employer in this respect and has a range of family-friendly policies in place. I hope that the hon. Member for Dulwich has been able to read the equal opportunities strategy that has just been published by my Department, which recognises that
  248
  all staff should have the opportunity to strike a reasonable balance between work and outside life. A wide range of flexible working patterns is available.
  For example, in the Department's sex and race equality division, there are four sets of job shares at different levels of management, as well as other part-time workers. The civil service also supports child care: by October last year, there were about 55 civil service nurseries and about 120 holiday play schemes. In addition, there were 20 nursery joint ventures with other employers and 16 schemes where places are bought in private nurseries.
  Finally, in contrast to the eleventh-hour visit of the hon. Member for Dulwich to women's organisations to find out what they think, I am in regular touch with them through the Women's National Commission, the Fair Play partnership programme and the follow-up work to last year's United Nations world conference on women in Beijing. I have valued those opportunities to discover what concerns women in Britain.
  In the context of Fair Play, I have been invited to visit Peugeot Talbot in Coventry, which is investigating the possibility of establishing a day care centre for elderly relatives of workers in the car industry. I very much look forward to that visit.
  The Government have held regular meetings with the UK's non-governmental organisations about women's issues. We also initiated, and are keen to promote, the continuation of the regional Fair Play consortiums, which are tackling an enormous range of women's issues, including family-friendly employment. Our policy of sensible deregulation of employment rights has relieved employers of unnecessary administrative and cost burdens and left them free to develop the flexible, family-friendly policies that we all want.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Gillan: No, I shall keep going now.
  To attempt to legislate for the introduction of such policies would be neither appropriate nor practicable.
  Before I finish, I should say something about the Opposition motion. We are puzzled about the difference between old Labour and new Labour. I have given some thought to that. I can see that there is some confusion among the Opposition. The minimum wage is old Labour. It is a Canute-like attitude to the economic and employment consequences of legislation. New Labour wishes to remain Canute-like but will not tell us what level of wage it envisages. Whatever the level, how it can believe that lower employment can help families is beyond my imagination.
  To congratulate employers, as the motion does, seems to be new Labour. Old Labour believed that all good things came from trade union activity. However, new Labour still does not realise that employers can create jobs only if the prevailing economic and employment conditions are right. In criticising the Government's level of action, the motion fails to recognise that we have swept away unnecessary regulations and burdens in the process of creating a better economic climate.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend will recall that, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked the hon.

  249
  Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) what would be the level of the minimum wage, her only answer was that Labour would consult. My hon. Friend may remember the Marxist phrase
  "Workers of the world, unite!"
  Is new Labour's equivalent phrase "Workers of the world, consult!"?
  Mrs. Gillan: There is nothing that I can add to my hon. Friend's brilliant intervention.
  With the benefits that I have outlined, employers have been able to increase employment opportunities, both full and part-time. I join in congratulating them on taking full advantage of the opportunities that the Government have provided.
  On nursery education, the motion promises nursery provision for all three and four-year-olds. Old Labour insists that that should be provided by local education authorities. However, new Labour concentrates on depriving the parents of four-year-olds of nursery vouchers starting next April and substitutes pious promises of provision for all at some distant time in the future after it may have come into office.
  The Government have a proud record of putting into action policies that clearly benefit families in the workplace and the home. Labour represents new dangers with every new policy it utters: dangers to jobs with the social chapter and the minimum wage; dangers to employers with the extra financial burdens that it expects companies to bear; dangers to the economy by putting off inward investment with higher costs; dangers to families by trying to deprive them of nursery education next year. I repeat the words in the Labour party document:
  "It's easy to say 'support the family'. It is harder to find specific policies that will achieve it."
  Labour has not found the policies. Labour is not the friend of the family. With friends like Labour, who needs enemies? I urge the House to reject the motion and to approve the Government amendment.
  7.59 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Minister boasted about the number of women now at work. She displayed throughout her speech a lamentable ignorance of the reality of the world of work for millions of women. She seems to think that having any job for any length of time under any conditions is somehow an advance for women. I beg to disagree. Shorter hours than they want in insecure, low-paid jobs are not beneficial to women.
  The Minister says, as if it is a great discovery to which we are oblivious, that many women want part-time jobs. Of course they do. We fully agree with that. For much of my working life, before I came into the House and did a double job, I worked part time. I do not need any lessons. Part-time work used to mean that employees worked two days a week, 20 hours a week, mornings or afternoons—something recognisable, steady and secure. People knew where they were and could make their arrangements accordingly.
  Part-time work now is a euphemism for being told that 20 hours will be 12 in future, never mind whether the workers want it; for being told that the contract will be as little as seven hours, with the proviso that, when the employer wishes, the workers will be called in to work
  250
  the whole week at very short notice or no notice, and if employees say, "I am sorry, my child care arrangements do not allow for that," they are told that there are plenty more willing to take the job.
  Although I fully accept the congratulations to good employers in the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends—of course there are good employers—we are amply justified in complaining bitterly about employers who take advantage of high levels of unemployment. The fact that the Government are happy to say at regular intervals that such conditions are the price that women are prepared to pay to have any work that fits in with their domestic commitments seems to me to show the Government's real motivation.
  Of course we want a minimum wage. The idea that it will cost jobs is not borne out by any real evidence. All advances in social conditions have been accompanied by the dismal cries that the country cannot afford the policy and that there will be ruination. Everything from measures to stop boys working up chimneys to legislation to take children out of factories has met the response that the country cannot afford it. Every advance has been accompanied by cries that the country cannot afford it.
  The country was not supposed to be able to afford the Equal Pay Act 1970—the modest measure which came into operation in 1975. People said that it would cost women's jobs, yet we are told that more women are now in work. The Minister must learn that some of us can remember rather more than from one sentence, or one paragraph, to the next.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady is robust on these matters. I am sure that she will be able to tell her Front-Bench team what rate she would recommend. What minimum wage does she think is right?
  Mrs. Wise: The Labour Front-Bench team has established that it will set up tripartite consultations between employers, trade unions and government. It has done that, in my view possibly unnecessarily, as a concession, to meet the cries of Conservative Members. I expect the trade unions and a Labour Government to ensure that employers do not take undue advantage of that concession, and that the formula results in some sort of fair play. If that rather longer way round than I would have liked results in a solution that employers are more likely to operate, some good may come of it. One of the adverse characteristics of the wages councils system was the widespread evasion of the minimum wages that were laid down.
  I hope that what comes out of the consultations is a worthwhile figure which will benefit a substantial number of people. I also hope that, having been involved in it, employers will not be sufficiently bare-faced to evade the minimum wage and fail to meet their legal responsibilities.
  Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It is most kind. The hon. Lady will not put a figure on the minimum wage. I understand that she has a problem with her Front-Bench team and the consultation process. Will a Labour Government take child care costs into account in the minimum wage calculation? If not, why not?
  Mrs. Wise: The hon. Lady is wrong to think that I have any problem with my Front-Bench team. The

  251
  Government's attempt to divert attention with what I can only describe as nit-picking and quibbling simply shows the poverty of their argument.
  I remind the Minister of what she said. She said that she wanted employers to operate the policies that made economic sense for their business. So, if an employer thinks that it makes economic sense to introduce career break arrangements, that is fine. The benefit to the family is clearly incidental to the benefit to the profits of the employer. Conversely, if an employer feels that it is to his benefit to pick up a worker and put her down, to have a zero hours contract, or to employ her for eight or 10 weeks and then say, "Sorry, dear, no more at the moment," that is permissible because it makes economic sense for the business. Family-friendly policies are strictly incidental. I happen to think that it is long past time when work was organised to suit people rather than people's lives were distorted to suit the profit-making desires of employers.
  Women are clustered disproportionately in low-paid, insecure jobs in which their hours are not simply part-time but seven hours, zero hours or whatever suits the employer. Casualisation removes the strength of those workers. Most are women. I am in favour of flexible working as long as the flexibility is mutually beneficial and does not involve treating the worker as a disposable, dispensable commodity.
  The other side of the coin of short hours is long hours. The Government have resisted the extremely modest proposed European Union directive which would place a maximum of 48 hours on the working week. I was horrified to hear on the radio this morning employers talking happily about workers who work 100 hours a week. One employer said that his workers were young men with young families who wanted to earn as much as they could and therefore wanted to work 100 hours a week. I suggest that those young men with young families do not fulfil their family responsibilities properly; they see themselves as a walking pay packet. If a worker has to work 100 hours a week to pay his mortgage, something is drastically wrong with the housing market, the labour market and the wages.
  The idea that we are doing families a favour by resisting a modest maximum of 48 hours a week is disgusting. The Government's case is that it is not a health and safety at work issue. Those men who work 100 hours a week are not only gravely damaging, and putting at risk, their health: they are risking the health, well-being and happiness of their families. Even though they may think that they are acting for the best, they are not being good fathers.
  I believe in proper maternity leave. It is disgraceful that the European directive had to be watered down to suit the backwardness of this country, to the disadvantage of women throughout Europe. The Government behave disgracefully in resisting such provisions. I would go further and say that it is long past time that working and maternity leave arrangements acknowledged that babies benefit greatly from breast-feeding, and that mothers should not be prematurely forced back to work.
  I believe in paternity and parental leave. It is long past time that work was organised for people. The Government talk about heavy costs on business; I draw the House's attention to the heavy—in many cases, unbearable—costs
  252
  on families. The Opposition have every right to talk about family-friendly policies, as they are exactly what we shall be introducing.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. It has been interesting to follow the hon. Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and to note the contrast between them. The hon. Member for Dulwich introduced the debate in a glossy—I do not mean to be rude, perhaps I should say smooth—way and the hon. Member for Preston continued it in a more fiery and emotional way.
  From both speeches I gained the strange feeling that new Labour's image of partnerships between business and employees, and between Government and business, is being brushed away. Businesses are profitable when they deal with their employees sensibly. By over-regulating a market, one restricts businesses and prevents them from introducing the policies in which everyone in the House believes.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich spoke of people, particularly women, who are in the part-time labour market, their satisfaction with their working hours and the way in which this country has provided more part-time work than virtually any other country in the world. I thought that she was going to come to the conclusion to which her words naturally led: that market forces and deregulation were at work.
  In this country, we do not place a tax on jobs for people who earn under a certain amount; we do not charge employers national insurance. The more we place extra on-costs and social costs on employers while trying to hide them away so that employees do not realise that those costs constitute a tax on their jobs, the more we reduce our ability to create jobs in the marketplace.
  I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire for 12 years. Many of the people who came to me were women; many of them were women who wanted to be returners. I had filing cabinets full of lists of people wanting part-time work. It was always difficult to persuade people to take full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs, but there was no shortage of people wanting part-time work.
  There is no evidence that, when workers work side by side in an organisation, with one person working part-time hours and another working full-time hours, there is a significant difference in the hourly rate. I know that Opposition Members would love it if no differential were allowed. I can well remember companies in which people would rather go from full-time to part-time working even if it meant taking a lower hourly rate. There is resistance among the work force to believing that someone working full-time hours should not receive a slight premium over those working part-time hours. It is important to maintain flexibility—the flexibility that the hon. Member for Dulwich was describing when she talked of creating so many jobs in the United Kingdom.
  The Labour party has started to talk about market forces. Labour Members mouth off about how they would like to see market forces, but they do not seem to accept the inevitable consequences. The hon. Member for Preston clearly said that she did not believe that people should work for low wages and she would be happy to see those jobs disappear if those doing them were not paid

  253
  the wages that she believed should be paid. That is the natural consequence of what she was saying and of what the Labour party constantly says.
  If employers are told that they will have to increase labour costs, that will inevitably put pressure on profitability and a company's ability even to clear its costs. The sort of businesses that pay less than £3.50 or £4 an hour employ large numbers of people—in my constituency, such businesses include the leisure industry, hoteliers and bars. It is extremely important that we consider Government policy of supporting people with low incomes versus the Opposition's policy of the minimum wage.
  The Government believe that people on low incomes are entitled to family credit, which is even being extended, in trials, to people who do not have children. The Government say that, if someone takes an entry level job in a business that does not pay high wages and that would collapse if it had to support such wages, we should consider the social costs and consider whether that employee needs help from the state to boost his income. We must be careful: the Labour party thinks that it will not be a tax-and-spend Government if it ever comes to power, but a large number of people—particularly young people and people with few skills—move through entry level jobs on low wages; if those people live at home or have low outgoings, they will not be entitled to family credit or to any other boost from the social security system.
  Mrs. Wise: Is there any wage level that the hon. Gentleman considers too low?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady asks that question as though, in our economy, which does not have a minimum wage, someone cannot go out and see what wage he can earn. As a Conservative, I believe that it should be up to the individual to decide what he or she will work for. I often work for nothing, as I am sure the hon. Lady does. If someone volunteers to do something that brings economic benefits to someone else and does not charge for it, that must be the minimum wage. I believe that I have the right to decide how little or how much I am willing to work for. However, I readily accept that, if a wage were unsupportable—if a person could not keep body and soul together on it—that person would obviously apply to the state for a back-up for their money. That is why we have the present system.
  The hon. Member for Preston spoke at length about terrible employers, but where are they? One can always find a group of workers—they make up 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the working population—whose conditions are unsupportable, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about the vast number of companies in this country in which employers know that, to be profitable, they must share the good things that happen in the company with their employees. It is often noticeable that employees who know that their companies are not doing especially well in the marketplace are willing to earn lower wages to keep the company going and wages coming in, in preference to losing their jobs.
  It is interesting to view the cost of child care in the context of regulation and deregulation. I am surprised that so many local authorities and Opposition Members constantly try to raise "standards of child care." They actually believe that if a woman looks after a couple of
  254
  children for a neighbour and charges for doing so, that woman, who probably has a couple of children of her own, should be subject to special regulations and standards and be assessed by an inspector.
  Such regulation is all very well, but it often means that a person cannot afford to go out to work because they cannot afford the on-costs of extra regulation of child care. It is extremely important that we try to allow people to make their own arrangements in the community while providing a long-stop to ensure that children are not abused. But who is the best person to ensure that children are not being abused by a child minder? It must be the parents. We should trust people to take those decisions themselves.
  We hear much from Opposition Members about letting people return to work and allowing children the benefits of nursery education. Yet when the Government make available ring-fenced money to force local authorities to set up a nursery provision for four-year-olds, they are immediately condemned by people such as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). When Dorset had that opportunity, it found every possible excuse to continue its existing policy whereby only very few children received a full year's nursery education. The Government set up that scheme. They ensured that money went to those nurseries. So much for the family-friendly policies of Opposition Members—they did, and will do, everything possible to frustrate that policy.
  What about partnership in business? It is important that we develop policies that allow businesses to give their work force good conditions, which ultimately benefits the business. However, I am convinced that we should go for co-operation rather than forcing them into it. As we all know, and as the hon. Member for Preston said, if onerous and silly conditions are imposed, employers find ways round them and employees collude completely with the employers. They say, "This is daft: I am happy to work for the conditions that I have been given, and I do not believe that I should blow the whistle on this employer, because it is a silly rule."
  Mrs. Wise: Is the hon. Gentleman condoning employers who break the law?
  Mr. Bruce: No. I am not suggesting for a moment that employers should break the law or that employees should collude with them in so doing, but the reality is that employees do collude with employers because they are happy to make a deal with an employer and they do not want the law to intervene. I am arguing not for breaking the law, but for not having silly laws.
  It is incredible that we all bang on about parental leave—leave to allow men to go and help their wives when the child comes home, and to be with the child for a time. The European Community suggests that we should have a rigid system, whereby fathers should be able to insist on taking three months off at a time. An employer is likely to have great difficulty with that, but very few people would want to take that route, because the leave is unpaid. Almost every father in that position has four or five weeks' paid leave available: it is called annual leave, and there are also holiday periods. I am quite certain that if they decide, as we all believe that they should, to take time off, they prefer it to be paid by taking their annual leave at these times. It is logical and sensible for them to

  255
  do so. It is nonsense for the House to suggest that every man must take unpaid leave, get in there and decide to do his fatherly thing.
  I have repeatedly criticised the Labour party, but in the days of Harold Wilson, a Labour Government did one especially good thing: it founded the Open university. Many open learning systems, made available by correspondence course, the Open university or now the Internet, benefit people at home with children by freeing them to get new training and helping them to decide on future careers.
  I have spoken for more than long enough to set some of the aspects of this policy in perspective. I would say to any employer reading my words in Hansard that it is to their benefit to seek ways of ensuring that both men and women in their company are enabled to fulfil their family responsibilities far more. It is good for the community, for the individual's development and for their mental and physical health. Getting those conditions right thereby contributes to the health and profits of the company—and remember that "profits" is not a dirty word. Profits to companies means that they keep in business and that they continue to create the jobs that we want to be family-friendly.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I am slightly disappointed by the wording of the motion. This is a very important debate in which we have an opportunity to tease out the different views and policy options of the Government and the Opposition. Because Labour Members included in their motion the words
  "That this House … looks forward to seeing a Labour Government",
  I shall be unable to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we join them in the Lobby tonight. That is a great pity.
  I was also disappointed by the contributions to the debate by the Minister and the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). The hon. Member for South Dorset said that people would want to read his words in Hansard. I hope that very many Members—certainly Opposition Members—will go out of their way to publicise his words and ensure that they receive wide coverage, because they confirmed my party's anxieties about the Government's lack-lustre and laissez-faire approach to family-friendly employment policies.
  The Government have professed a great deal of concern for the family but, as we heard, especially in the comments of the hon. Member for South Dorset, their policies do not provide support for the family. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that he should have the choice as to who he worked for, for how long he should work, and the amount of income that he should earn. If only most people had such choices, we would not be so concerned about the importance of introducing policies to support the family.
  The majority of people do not have those choices. Many of them, especially women in part-time jobs, have the problem not only of low income but of considerable insecurity. The hon. Gentleman talked with glowing praise of the Government's deregulation policies as though deregulation were the ultimate panacea. He is right to say
  256
  that getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape is sensible, but to reach the level of deregulation which I suspect that he wants would not be in the interests of anyone in work, and will not ensure that new jobs are created.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a number of years now. I have been here for nine years and no one has yet written to me saying that he or she is working too many hours and asking me to ensure that working hours are reduced to 48 per week or less. Has the hon. Gentleman ever received a letter from a constituent on that basis?
  Mr. Foster: Not only have I received such letters, but I have seen detailed reports of surveys carried out among the work force to that effect. I do not know whether it appeared in the hon. Gentleman's local newspaper, but a recent survey showed the problems of stress that affect many people, their family life and, more importantly for the hon. Gentleman, the productivity and competitiveness of the organisation for whom they work. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen such surveys, he would do well to look at them, because they show the importance of introducing policies to provide protection and security for people in employment.
  Another slightly odd aspect of the contributions that we heard from Conservative Members is that they did not seem to recognise the changing nature of society but simply gave lots of statistics. The nature of society has changed significantly in terms of working patterns and the role of men and women. It is therefore vital that social and employment policies are changed to reflect that. Appropriate employment policies must continue to support the family in those changing circumstances.
  I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have no intention of giving a detailed analysis of many of the Government's policies that have harmed family life. If I did so, I would discuss the effects of unemployment on the family, the current housing crisis, the implementation of the Government's care in the community policy, and the work of the Child Support Agency. All those policies, or in some cases lack of policies, have damaged family life. Instead, I shall touch on just one or two issues, some of which have already been mentioned, which I consider important.
  It was disappointing to hear the comments of the hon. Member for South Dorset and the Minister on nursery education. They said that those who oppose the nursery voucher scheme are keen to deny the opportunity of nursery education to four-year-olds. They could not be wider of the mark. Our objection to the scheme is that it is cumbersome and bureaucratic and will not deliver the increased expansion of high quality early-years education that is needed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): It will.
  Mr. Foster: The Minister says that it will. He knows only too well that in the pilot areas additional sums have had to be made available to make even the pilot scheme work. Those sums will not be available when the scheme is fully implemented. The Minister looks puzzled. I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will rule us out of order if we go too far down that road, but the Minister would do well to look at some of the relaxations of regulations in respect of capital allocations, for example, which had to be offered to the four pilot areas.

  257
  The expansion of high-quality early-years education is critical if we are to have family-friendly support, particularly for people who want to work and are currently denied that opportunity. The Liberal Democrat party is committed to that expansion and has said honestly how we would pay for it. I give some credit to the Government for recognising the importance of child care provision. In the past two or three years, the Government have made positive moves to increase provision for child care. Those measures have not gone far enough, however, and I am worried that only 8 per cent. of firms say that in the next two or three years they are likely to make child care provision for their employees. More progress needs to be made in that direction.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been pleased to hear the Minister say that she had invited a range of groups to talk to her about the development of child care policies. Talking, however, is easy. I hope that we shall see positive proposals to expand provision quickly.
  To help the hon. Member for South Dorset—who is no longer in his place—to understand the position, I wish to discuss in more detail the position of part-time workers. Some 5 million women are currently in part-time work. It may have been a slip of the tongue by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), but she said that the majority of those women were satisfied with their conditions. I do not believe that that is the case, because the majority of part-time workers do not share the same benefits, holiday entitlement or even pay and conditions as full-time workers. Six out of 10 part-timers receive lower hourly pay and fringe benefits than full-timers doing the same work in the same firm. Women part-timers earn less than three quarters of the hourly pay of female full-timers and take home only 58p for every pound that men earn. The hon. Member for South Dorset said that he was not aware that any such figures existed.
  Because of my concerns about those inequalities, in March this year I introduced a 10-minute Bill calling for equal pro rata rates for part-timers. For similar reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) introduced a Bill to deal with the lack of statutory paid annual leave for part-time employees. On that occasion, I was disappointed that the official Opposition were not prepared to support him in the Division Lobby.
  Conservative Members have said that giving pro rata entitlement to benefits would place undue burdens on employers, reduce competitiveness and profitability, and inhibit a firm's ability to employ more people. But as the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said eloquently, all the evidence points to the fact that, if such measures are introduced, they will greatly benefit the employing organisation as well as employees.
  In the public sector, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has introduced a range of family-friendly measures which not only support its employees, enabling them to be more involved with their families at the most convenient times, but enable the agency to cope with the fluctuation in demand for its work. In the private sector, Glaxo research laboratories has introduced a wide range of measures in that respect. Its director of human resources said of those measures:
  "From a business point of view as well as from a cultural point of view, these policies have been a great achievement. They actually save us money."
  258
  I make the important point—which echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Preston—that, while we welcome the moves by organisations such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Glaxo to do something in this direction, we must ensure that measures are in place for those organisations and employers who are not willing to take on such measures.
  I believe that the Government could introduce a whole range of measures but, sadly, they are only concerned with deregulation and with removing what they believe to be burdens on employers. I believe that such measures could provide more support for employees and help them spend time with their families. Such measures could benefit the employing organisations and assist the competitiveness and the future employment opportunities of the country. While I cannot support the Labour party's motion, some of the measures that have been discussed have our support.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. David Porter: Yet again, the Labour party has chosen a subject for debate that has turned out to be weak ground. Presumably, the spin doctors who monitor the health of Labour's image and the mediadontists who come up with the sound bites thought that family-friendly employment would be a happy, snappy, catchy phrase. However, it has to have the backing of solid policy—it does not stand up alone.
  Today's editorial in The Independent— a paper much admired by some Labour Members—describes think tankery as a thing of parts: part charlatanry, part opportunism and part chutzpah. The Labour party, which claims to be the family-friendly party in employment terms, scores on all those counts.
  In these politically correct times, we hear a lot about rights. In that context, the right to work is often misinterpreted. It could be said that having been born—which is a God-given right—the only right we then have is to die. However, as human beings we have a number of imperatives that drive us: the need to feed, shelter and clothe ourselves and our own is a moral imperative that comes before the layers of civilisation that time has put on top. We have to work to provide for ourselves and for our dependants. That is an economic necessity now, as it always has been. It arises out of an ancient instinct—a sort of early-man version of "Those who do not hunt, or farm or toil, do not eat."
  That is the basics in today's terms, and those of us who still believe that the family is the right and natural structure of society have to see work and the family as our greatest challenge today. The realities of that challenge are stark and clear. A generation ago, 7 million people were employed in manufacturing, and today 4 million people are employed in manufacturing but they produce more than the 7 million people did, because of technology.
  A phrase much bandied about is that the distance between the sunrise and the sunset of industries is getting shorter because of technology. Everywhere we look—every profession, every process, every trade, every occupation, every corner of our lives—things are changing because of technology. Technology cannot be stopped, tamed or wishfully thought away.
  An increasing number of households have two earners—and a lot of households have young adult earners as well—20 per cent. of households have a single earner,

  259
  and a frightening 20 per cent., and rising, of households have no earners at all. Potentially, a generation will reach retirement without practically having worked at any time in their lives. We can see the scale of the problem—it is the challenge of the next decade.
  What do we have in front of us as solutions so far? We have heard about the minimum wage and the social chapter. As has been amply demonstrated, the negativity of the social chapter—that is, the extra business burden and the undermining of competitiveness—and the negativity of the minimum wage—that is, adding to employer wage costs, loss of part-time work and wage differentials that would ignite wage inflation—outweigh any positive benefits that the economy might gain.
  Surely the biggest benefit to families, the most obvious piece of policy making, is to allow people to keep as much of their own income as possible. Whatever we have done on taxes, our instinct remains to cut them. That philosophy is fundamental to achieving a balance between the state and the individual, between big brother and freedom of choice.
  The dilemma about that philosophy is at the heart of the Labour party's current problem. It so desperately wants to be like us in terms of harvesting votes when people consider their own economic family well-being, but it cannot suppress for ever its basic roots: the urge to spend other people's money for them and to prescribe other people's lives for them. That is why the Labour party's policies are only manifesto-deep in the main, and they are not very convincing however they are packaged.
  I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that a drive to cut taxes must be beneficial to all employment. Successful businesses make it easy for customers to buy from them. We have to make it easy and profitable to employ people, train people, retrain people and trade. I have always thought that the easiest way to cut taxes would be to look at our subscription to the European Union. More and more employers are seeing through the deceit of the argument that we have to be in to trade. Our strength has always been trading around the world—we did not need to subsume ourselves to do that before, and we do not need to now.
  In 1995, every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom paid £415 to Brussels, and Brussels graciously handed back £271—therefore, each Briton donated £144 to the European monster. A family of four was £576 worse off. In addition, a potential Labour Government would take £560 a year off each child in the 16-to-18 range because of the abolition of the child benefit. We can see why the Labour party's claim that it is full of family-friendly employment policies is a sick joke.
  We have done much to assist more women back into the jobs market. Of course, many have been obliged to work because of economic necessity. The presence of women in the market has meant that it has had to become more flexible, with more choice and varied opportunity. It has focused on qualifications and training in the national context, and it has driven up living standards and generated economic growth.
  Measures such as nursery vouchers—which I believe will be a forerunner of a major take-off in choice in lifetime learning, from post-nursery onwards, in the future—are moving in the right direction. We are using
  260
  British taxpayers' money to let British taxpayers have empowerment in a free market. We need to be a bit bolder now. The nursery vouchers are the toddlers' steps in this—we need to get it running in adult steps as fast as possible for all ages.
  We have taken measures to liberalise the economy, to deregulate, to privatise, to stimulate enterprise, to stop the trade unions running the country. We have taken the first steps to use public money to help people off benefits and into work—such as family credit and job match. These measures have been welcomed, but more needs to be done. To be better off out of work than in work must be a reality that is consigned to history as a matter of employment policy priority.
  We need to integrate tax and benefits. We could save on administration and achieve a better balance between working families and non-working families. There should not be a penalty for a parent staying at home, any more than there should be no advantage if both parents work. There should not be a positive benefit to being a single parent over being married. We will need some tinkering with the balance in all these areas. I believe that there should be a positive encouragement to being married, and that a widowed person should not be treated the same as a person who was a single parent from the outset.
  The most effective instrument of social engineering in this country is the tax and benefit system—it can be used for good or evil, it can influence behaviour and attitudes, and it can affect culture. It has to be exercised alongside employment, job and wealth creation and family policy. We have seen pilots of new policy before—nursery vouchers and a form of workfare.
  Perhaps we could set up a pilot scheme of volunteers on some integrated tax, benefits and jobs package where they lose, say, 10 per cent. or less of their income towards supporting state essentials, and then they buy the rest of their needs. That could be a true incentive to generate more wealth and well-being. If that is not possible using people, it should now be possible using computer technology.
  The current arrangements for funding the insurance benefits we need when we are sick or out of work are not working absolutely and cannot work in the future if working patterns continue to develop as they are now. If we continue to live longer, more active and more mobile lives, we need to look at how we fund the schemes to see whether a wider choice of insurances to suit changing families would be more effective. Perhaps people could have different insurance when they are in work. We have done a lot on portable pensions and we have looked at mortgage protection and private health cover for retirement, but we need to push this on and extend the choices.
  We hear a lot about job insecurity and stress—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to stress. We hear about the way that our reforms have heightened stress in professionals—there appears to be a lot more stress about. However, it is not being honest with the nation to say that we can wave a magic legislative wand and tell people, "You will live in a totally stress-free world." On the contrary, we should be saying, "What legislative support is necessary for us to bring in health and safety, tax and family policies to buttress the sorts of choices that individuals and families make for themselves?" I believe that they would do even more if we encouraged them.

  261
  More and more people choose to work from home, as well as those who are obliged to, because the new technologies make it possible. The ease with which young people use technology should be an inspiration to those of us who are just learning. We have seen telecottages and other schemes in rural areas for some time. Those schemes harness technology, widen the skill base and help to reduce the jobs disadvantage of rural isolation.
  Now the Internet has made all geographical isolation irrelevant. Jobs in my area have long suffered from relative isolation, but the Internet and the related communications revolution have wiped out the disadvantage of location. Futura, a new project to put Waveney at the mouse and keyboard of job creation and enhancement, is one of many nationally, but it is undoubtedly the best.
  Of course, we will need to regulate the Internet in a global attempt to control pornography and criminal activity, but we should regulate by agreement, not by European Union directive. We must recognise the power and the potential of the Internet to create wealth for our children and their children, to support themselves and us in our old age.
  Some 40 to 50 per cent. of the jobs being done today were not even dreamed of when I was born. Twenty years ago, no one thought that tourism would be the biggest job creator in the world today. Few of us can foresee the jobs that our children's children will do, but if the family is not the bedrock of what they do, they will be the poorer.
  It is our duty today, en route to tomorrow, to deliver family-friendly policies that enable families to work, be creative and support each other. The Labour party's ideas are not sustainable or credible, as its motion tonight shows. The Conservative party's ideas are sustainable and credible, if pushed a little further, because they would let people decide as much as possible for themselves.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I had thought that the best contribution that I might make to the debate was to suggest that the House of Commons became a family-friendly place, move that the debate be brought to an end, have a vote and let everybody get home an hour or so earlier, but—as the number of hon. Members in the Chamber is swelling as I rise to my feet—I feel that I should continue with my speech.
  I touched on this subject in an Adjournment debate some six months ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) made a speech nearly as good as the one she made earlier tonight. At that time, we were faced by a different ministerial team, because the Government sent along the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. Clearly, competitiveness was what family policy needed.
  Tonight, the Government have sent two Ministers from the Department for Education. I commend a crash course in George Orwell to the Under-Secretary, because I do not recognise as English phrases such as "improving labour market position."
  Mrs. Gillan rose—
  Mr. MacShane: I shall gladly give way to the Under-Secretary when I have finished with her errors.
  262
  Many of her facts were wrong. The total labour force in the United Kingdom is shrinking, not increasing. The participation of women in the United Kingdom labour force is 69 per cent. lower than in three other European Union countries. Long-term unemployment among women in the United Kingdom is higher than in Germany and in France. Monthly flows in and out of employment for women—this is the slightly complicated problem of churning, as it is technically called—show that the inflow in 1985 was 0.53 per cent. of the source population, but the outflow of people who lost their jobs was 8.4 per cent.
  In 1993, the last year for which we have the figures, the inflow of women into the labour force remained the same, but the outflow had increased by more than a third. More than 10 million people have lost their jobs in the past four years, and, although many have found another one, albeit with lower pay, that deep insecurity is so destabilising for the family.
  Mrs. Gillan: Perhaps I can also give the hon. Gentleman a lesson. It is no longer only the Department for Education: it is the Department for Education and Employment.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her correction. She will shortly visit my constituency to present prizes at a private school, or so I read in the Rotherham Advertiser last Friday, although I have not been officially informed of her visit. No doubt the letter is in the post. When the Under-Secretary visits Rotherham, I hope that she will take time, whether she is a Minister for education or employment, to talk to some of the poor and unemployed women in my constituency, who have had no help of any sort from the Government or her Department.
  According to the OECD, some 45 per cent. of part-time women workers would like full-time work. People should be clear about that figure as they eulogise the value of part-time work, much of it on zero-hours contracts, at awkward times—some women have to get up for work at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning—and without any rights, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned. Those women are obliged to take such work: they do not want it. It would be very exciting if half the Conservative Members of Parliament were prepared to work full-time. We have heard a lot of chatter from Conservative Members about job creation in recent years and, indeed, many Conservative Members have half a dozen of those jobs each.
  One issue that should be addressed, which has not been addressed in a single speech by a Conservative Member, is the fundamental hostility of our political economy to the family. The responsibility for that for the past 17 years rests with the Conservative Government. In any of the main indicators of the health of family life—including the number of divorces or the number of children born to single mothers under the age of 18—the figures from Britain are worse than any other leading European and most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. That is reality as it is lived for families in much of this country.
  I deeply hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will put the family at the front of many of our policies. What should those policies be? For a start, we should bring working time under control. At business questions last week, we heard a clamour from the Europhobes—the anti-European Goldsmith faction on the Conservative Benches—for a debate on the 48-hour week directive.

  263
  I would welcome that debate, because one of the most destructive sulphuric acids that eats into family life in our society is the obligation that we place on so many citizens, men and women, to work hours far more than those that should be necessary in a modern economy. Benjamin Disraeli legislated for the 56-hour week in 1876, and Tory Ministers oppose the 48-hour week 120 years later.
  I was taken with the reference to the leisure industry by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). I agree with him. We have some wonderful country parks in Rotherham. I recently took my children to a butterfly farm, and I recommend it to all visitors to South Yorkshire with time to spare. Such attractions are not visited enough, because too many of my constituents have too long a working week, and others who have no work do not have the discretionary income to spend on the modest charges that the leisure industry reasonably demands. Controlling and reducing working time would greatly advantage the leisure industry.
  The issue of parental leave is mocked in the same manner as maternity leave was when it was first suggested. If one looks back through Hansard, one can see that the arguments deployed against maternity leave are now deployed against paternity leave.
  The child-care issue is often raised. I can speak from experience on that subject, as I have lived in countries where child care is provided for all women as a social right. Child-care provision assists women who wish to participate in the work force. It strengthens families, who do not have to scabble around for unsatisfactory child care, because they know that they are entitled to it. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench to put nursery provision for three to five-year-olds—I am more ambitious than Labour policy; I am honest about that—at the forefront of our policy concerns when we form a Government.
  I turn now to the problem of wages. I have been in trouble in South Yorkshire for suggesting that we should have a labour market in which it is not obligatory for two wage earners in each household to go to work to earn sufficient money to provide not luxuries, but a decent living. Both a husband and wife or couples—I am not interested in their religious or civil status—are often obliged to work to earn a fair household income.
  I repeat that I want to see a labour market—I do not believe that it would be turning back the clock, as the problem affects both men and women—in which one income is sufficient to meet household needs, allowing one adult in a household to devote his or her time to sharing care for the family.
  The minimum wage is undoubtedly a step forward in that regard. In the past four years, the Americans have created 10 million jobs—many of them for women. Some 77 Republican Congressmen now vote to increase the minimum wage. Ron Brown, the United States Commerce Secretary who died tragically in Croatia recently, published an article in The Wall Street Journal arguing for an increase in the US minimum wage. It is profound economic nonsense to claim that a minimum wage destroys jobs, when the evidence from the United States and Asia says the opposite.
  The Conservatives parade themselves as the party of the family. However, they ultimately view the family in rather mechanistic, 19th-century terms—as depicted in a
  264
  Rossetti painting. The family is the most important unit in any society. The family unit looks after the weak and the old, and it protects those who are unable to protect themselves. It does not privilege the strong, the mighty and the fleet of bank account.
  In most families, the cleverest and the high achievers are teased and put in their place. The opposite has occurred in the past 18 years: the weak have been asked to relinquish wealth to the rich; the poor have been asked to become poorer so that the wealthy can become wealthier; and the less fortunate in society have been decanted on to our streets in order to set an example to those who would express solidarity and community with them. In many ways, I view the nation as a family, which encourages the strong and looks after the weak. Government policy has denied that notion in the past 18 years, and the position must now be reversed.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) paints a Dickensian picture of our country, which he knows bears no relation to reality. However, as he announced earlier, he is a representative of old Labour, and as such, we welcome him to the debate. I suppose that there is an element of socialist coherence in what he says, so he adds to the debate.
  The same could not be said of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) who opened the debate. She used the phrase "sanctimonious hypocrisy." I would not be so ungallant as to refer to her speech as reeking of "sanctimonious hypocrisy," because she is clearly not hypocritical. She was trying to sustain an argument, but she found it impossible to sustain it to the end of her speech.
  The reason is that those who speak for new Labour, on this subject or any other, have realised that we live in a deeply conservative nation. Whatever their socialist or radical instincts may be, they have to temper them when they devise policies or draw up their manifesto. An obvious example is the minimum wage. It is not unreasonable for any Conservative Member or any Labour Member—the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) is a case in point—to inquire what the minimum wage would be. It is a fundamental question which needs to be answered.
  I teased the hon. Member for Dulwich about Labour's new slogan being "Workers of the world consult," but at least the old-style socialist programme had some coherence. The minimum wage is like a piece of detritus of old Labour which has been washed up on the beach, left behind by the Blairite revolution. Labour is saddled with the minimum wage, but Labour Members are so embarrassed by it that they will not inform us what the level will be. Every study shows that the introduction of a minimum wage could put up to 900,000 people out of work.
  Mrs. Wise: Would the hon. Gentleman be embarrassed to tell us what he thinks is the lowest acceptable wage? Is there too low a low wage?
  Mr. Leigh: No, I would not be embarrassed to answer that question. Clearly, people want to work. The marketplace and their own skills will decide the question. I do not know what the lowest wage per hour is in my

  265
  constituency; I suspect that it is very low. It is probably well below £2 an hour. That is a very low wage, but if it is the only wage available, it is better to work for that than not to have any wage at all.
  I am not trying to dodge the question. I believe that, ultimately, people must be allowed to seek work where they want, and that we should not throw up to 900,000 workers, many of them women, out of work. The minimum wage was the first problem that the hon. Member for Dulwich faced. She had grave difficulty in telling the House what her solution would be to the very grave problems we are talking about.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham was right to allude to the problems of society with which we are all trying to grapple, and he was right to allude to the high rate of divorce in this country and to the enormous pressures being placed on family life. However, none of us, including the hon. Member for Dulwich, has an instant solution. At the end of the debate, she is short on solutions. I quite understand that, because I would find it difficult to offer solutions.
  There is a fundamental philosophical divide between Labour Members and myself. I now want to give my own perspective on the debate which may be different from that of some of the other speakers.
  A constant thread running through the debate has been that it is absolutely right—indeed, that we should take pride in it—that more and more mothers are going out to work. The elegant and informative document that has been provided for us by central office gives us all sorts of facts and figures with which I will not delay the House. I see that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) already has a copy, obtained no doubt from some photocopying machine in this building. That document takes great pride in the number of women, most of them presumably mothers, who are going out to work.
  I do not know what sort of society Labour Members ultimately want to achieve, but I suspect that it is a society in which the old-fashioned concept of the family will be swept aside. I think it works extremely well; it is a division of labour which works well.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham spoke in glowing terms about the family, but for some reason, he thought that a Rossetti view was somehow wrong. I do not think that it is wrong at all. The whole point of the family is that it supports the weak. The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he equates the family with the state, whereas the state is very different from the family. The whole point about the family is that it is a sufficiently small and loving unit to enable people to support one another. That cannot be equated with the state.
  I suspect that there is a strong streak of feminism running through the debate. The feminist view is that women and men are fundamentally the same. Of course they are equal, but they are very different. I believe that the old-fashioned concept of the family, usually based on the man working and the woman staying at home and bringing up the children, is right. That sort of family bolsters society.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham bewails the collapse of society. Let me tell him that the reason for all the current social problems is not 18 years of Conservative government—which I suspect has made very little difference, except on the margins—but the fact that in western society, not only in this country but in France,
  266
  Germany and America, there has been a wholesale move based on increasing economic pressures. Those pressures are forcing more and more people out of work who do not actually want to work.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Dulwich said that women want to work. Of course some women want to work, but not all of them do. Is it right that we should create a society in which more and more women are forced into low-paid part-time jobs just to help to pay the mortgage? They do not want to work; they want to stay at home.
  What is the solution? Is it a socialist solution? Should we pay women to stay at home? That may seem attractive at first sight, but we cannot afford it. Is the solution a sort of nationalisation of family life? That simply does not add up. We have heard various other proposals, such as allowing parental leave, but no figures have been given: no one has worked out how some of these brilliant ideas involving the use of the state, or the taxation system, to keep people at home will operate.
  Nothing concrete has come from the Labour party. My view, for what it is worth, is that there is no instant solution, but if any hon. Member can be said to have identified a solution today, it is my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). He tried to explore what was wrong with society, and proposed sensible solutions.
  Is it right, for instance, that our tax system should discriminate against a family in which the man works and the woman stays at home? Is it right for us to have a benefits structure that, in many ways, encourages single parenthood? There is nothing wrong with single parenthood; it may be thrust on one through no fault of one's own, because of divorce or for some other reason. But is it right for us to have a housing system, a benefits system and a welfare system that encourage dependency and single parenthood?
  It is a little-known fact that this vicious, right-wing, cutting, Dickensian Conservative Government have increased social security expenditure by 75 per cent. in real terms in the 17 years for which they have been in power. [Interruption.] The cry that constantly comes from Opposition Members is that the increase is due to unemployment, or to the fact that we have created an impoverished society. Unfortunately, that simply is not true. If Opposition Members consult any statistic, they will see that we are now an infinitely wealthier society than we were 17 years ago—but we are adding to dependency and worsening the poverty trap through our own welfare policies.
  I am not saying that it is possible to slash the social security budget overnight, to deliver tax cuts next November, for instance. That is not the right way to proceed. We must, however, ask ourselves why, although this Conservative Government have increased social security spending by 75 per cent. in real terms, and although this year we are spending roughly the same this year as a proportion of gross national product as did the Callaghan Government—£90 billion a year—we have record rates of divorce and family breakdown, and all the other statistics that worry us.
  The Opposition suggest that the solution to all the problems is to spend more. They want to add to the social security budget, to introduce a minimum wage and the social chapter, and to have more regulation. All those

  267
  proposals would simply add to Government expenditure, but, apart from adding considerably to the tax bill, they would make no difference.
  Given expenditure of £300 billion a year, are the Opposition really suggesting that increasing spending on health, education or trade and industry by, say, 1 per cent. would fundamentally alter the country's economic performance? Are they suggesting that, in some mystical, mythical way, that would create the tens of thousands of new jobs that we all want? It simply does not add up—but those who frame Labour party policy know that, if they suggested anything more radical, they would be seen off by the electorate. No solutions have been proposed by Labour Members.
  I urge Ministers not to be misled by the rhetoric of Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Minister told us, with some pride, that we spend £64 million on child care facilities. Should we be doing that as a Conservative Government? Is it helping to tackle the problem?
  Mr. MacShane: That is a policy.
  Mr. Leigh: It is a policy, but is it the right one?
  This is a very difficult problem to address. Should we say to single parents, "Put your child into a state nursery; we will pay for it, and you can go out to work"? Is that a good policy for the party of the family and of tradition? Should we encourage mothers to look after their children, and, if so, are we prepared to pay them to do so? These are the problems with which we must grapple, and instead of hurling insults, it would have been interesting if the Opposition had proposed a solution.
  Mrs. Gillan: Expenditure on the out-of-school child care initiative amounts to £64 million. That is seed money to create out-of-school child care places. It enables working women to find affordable out-of-school child care for their children, and in many instances it provides new businesses for women and men who have set up initiatives in response. It is seed money, not a blanket handout from the state.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting the record straight, but in a debate of this nature, at least one speech should question the prevailing ethos, which has been that we want to encourage more women to go out to work. We should certainly give equal opportunities to women, but we should create a society in which the traditional concept of the family is nurtured.
  I am conscious that I have not proposed any obvious policies, but I do not think that politics is about proposing instant policies. Politics is surely much more about values and ethics. This place is awash with policies—from think tanks, debates and manifestos—that ignore what is happening in the outside world. We should be trying to proclaim values, which are important. If we address ourselves to those, we can gradually start to create a society in which we can all believe.
  9.17 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: I am delighted to take part in the debate and to speak in support of the motion.
  268
  At the heart of the motion is the assertion that children who live with two parents should feel that they have two parents. In far too many families, the father is a weekend guest celebrity, and that cannot be allowed to continue.
  Today, I chaired a well-attended meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on parenting. We were privileged to be addressed by Mr. Gregor Hatt, a member of the Swedish Commission on the Role of Men and Parenting. It was set up in 1992 to assess the success or otherwise of the Swedish Government's parental leave requirements, which were introduced in 1974. The requirements are that there should be 10 days' paternity leave when a child is born. Nine out of 10 Swedish fathers take up the full 10 days. That is followed by 12 months of parental leave allocated between parents—for example, six months each or half time for 24 months. Parents can choose any combination, but the father must use one month of the parental leave and the leave must be used up before the child is eight.
  It is important to stress that parental leave is seen as an individual right by the Swedish Conservative party, which has supported the proposals. In 1980, 22 per cent. of Swedish men used their parental leave entitlement. By 1992, the figure had grown to 38 per cent. and it is now 50 per cent.
  In view of what the Minister said, it is important to stress that the parental leave package costs Sweden 0.1 per cent. of its gross national product, and that the proposals apply to all workers whatever the size of their company, and include the self-employed. The benefits to Swedish society and industry have been tremendous. Women workers are not isolated in pursuing family-friendly employment policies, and there have been tremendous benefits to men workers.
  The chairman of Volvo, one of Sweden's most successful companies, recently said that, if he had to choose between two identically qualified men applying for a job, he would always choose the man who had taken parental leave. I suggest that this is because those who are responsible for bringing up children have to look after them throughout the day. They pick up many skills: conflict avoidance, dispute resolution, time management, critical path analysis and budgeting. People in commerce and industry spend a great deal of time and money trying to impart such skills to their managers.
  No one ever looks back and says, "I wish that I had spent more time in the office." Too many men suddenly realise that their teenage children are strangers to them. It is obviously right that there should be a partnership between Government and employers and that the Government should set an example in the public sector.
  In a recent speech in South Africa, President Mandela surprised his audience by saying that fathers should regularly collect their children from school; that they should share that responsibility, because it was important for them to be seen to have responsibility for their children. He was saying that absent fatherhood was not a good idea. He of all fathers had a good reason for being absent while his children were growing up, but that should not apply to other fathers.
  I advise hon. Members to visit schools in their constituencies and ask the children, "How many of you have dads who earn more than your mum?" Most children will put up a hand. The next question should be, "How many of you have dads who are cleverer than your mum?"

  269
  In response to that very few children will put up their hands. As long as we continue to pursue employment policies that corral men into working long hours during which they are disengaged from their families, such men will pay a price through ill-health and through not knowing their children. The children will grow up in a world of women, which is not good for them and we shall weaken women in the employment market.
  The twin track strategy of increasing the role of men as fathers and women's rights at work is the proper responsibility of Government. I look forward to the time within a year when we shall be in government and getting on with the job.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), who recently took over from me as the chair of the all-party parenting group. I remind the Minister that, two years ago, in autumn 1994, the international year of the family, we produced a report which was sent to some Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The majority of members of the group were Conservatives. That has changed slightly, in that one of its members joined the Liberal party, one joined the Labour party and another abandoned the Tory whip. Two are still in the group and one of them is a Minister.
  The most important recommendation in that report was the one that in my view made the most serious criticism of the Government because it related to the Government's failure to have a coherent, overall policy on parenting, children or families. That is the problem and it was not just the Labour party that said that.
  I had enormous respect, as had Conservative Members, for Baroness Lucy Faithful!, who died a short time ago. She came with me to see the then Secretary of State for Health to say that we needed co-ordination between Departments and between the Government, local authorities and the private sector to get a proper policy on families, parenting and children. She wanted such a policy as much as I did, and every organisation working in any of these spheres knows that the lack of such a policy is the problem. I cannot overstate the importance of having a policy. It is crucial to the social structure and fabric of this country.
  We have, quite rightly, heard an awful lot in this debate about changing work patterns. Five or six years ago, I became aware of this issue and its implications for children and parenting when I discovered the amazing figure that, in south Wales, close to 50 per cent. of main carers of children at home are men.
  What has happened in this country—although it is not unique to this country—in heavy-industry areas that have collapsed is that women go into part-time work. That is desirable and proper, but it leaves men in an increasingly uncertain position because they no longer have full-time jobs. The macho culture in which they were brought up has been taken away and they are no longer valued as parents. The role of father has been undermined.
  We recently heard criticisms from a Conservative Member of the St. Mellon's estate in Cardiff because it had too many single mothers. One question that the Government and the country must take on board is: if we de-skill those men and give them no role as fathers, what
  270
  use will they be to women? They do not bring in an income and they cannot bring up children. So we wind up with those male macho figures without jobs and without hope.
  The tragedy is that, when Conservative Members see some of those men in the street, they think that they are there to cause aggro and that they are yobbos. Talk to those men—scratch the surface—and one will very often find a very insecure and uncertain young man who has no hope in life. In that direction lies high crime, social breakdown and all the other problems that we find not only in this country—which I readily admit—but in other countries. But other countries are at least addressing the issue.
  What are we doing about the problem in this country? Basically, we have moralised about it and made moral statements condemning single parents, people who are not married, or this group or that group. Moralising is insufficient. Of course there is room for moral statements, but we will have major difficulties if we do not have policies to underpin them.
  I am sorry that the Minister who opened this debate is not in the Chamber. I should have liked to tell her that it is no good telling me that we have a policy designed to help families when the fact is that we still put children into bed-and-breakfast and emergency accommodation for anything up to three years, and when the Government still do not have a policy on it.
  We tell schools that they must get tough on school misbehaviour and exclude children from school. Often, although not always, that is right. But if we do not then provide those children with at-home tuition or some alternative education—leaving them to wander the streets for much of the time—we should not be surprised if we create adults who have major problems themselves.
  Let us consider the recent event at Dunblane. We greatly criticised—quite rightly—the man who committed the killings and who then killed himself. But who has forgotten that that man was brought up, as an adopted child, to believe that his mother was his sister? The two men who were recently sent to prison for gross abuse of children were abused as children. I would bet a pound to the penny that the man who took a machete to those children the other day either has a history of mental illness or has been abused in some way himself. The pattern is repeated over and over again.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that there are no quick fixes for such problems, and he is right. But unless we start finding a fix for them, the problems will get worse. With changes in technology and in the economy, there are more people who are hopeless and helpless. We also have technology—witness the guns in Dunblane—that enables grossly disturbed people to kill or to do immense harm to other people. It is not merely a matter of banning guns but of examining the way in which family structures have broken down.
  I again tell the Minister that co-ordination between Departments is vital. For example, about 25 per cent. of children aged under 12 in this country go home to an empty house or are at home in an empty house during the school holidays. Close to 2 million children are in that position, if I remember the figures correctly. The answer is not to change employment back to what it was in the 1940s and 1950s—no one is capable of doing that.

  271
  We must recognise that there is a need for good nursery care and for something like a kids' club approach that provides places for children out of normal school hours. The Government are boasting about more part-time jobs for women—something that I support. But they must recognise that, if the man is working as well, that often means that the child goes home to an empty house or has nowhere to go during the school holidays.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) said that the House of Commons was one of the most appalling examples of bad child care practice. To the best of my knowledge, there is still only one high chair for feeding kids in the House, and there is nowhere to change a baby. I have wandered round the House trying to change a baby, and I can tell hon. Members that the Clerk's desk is about the right height but lacks the supporting facilities to do it effectively. The House of Commons does not take this matter seriously.
  The problems will get worse. I am a great believer in crime prevention schemes and in doing many things that the Government are not doing, but, at the end of the day, good parenting matters. The Minister has yet to respond to the Select Committee's suggestion that there is a definite need in schools for some life skills education, including parenting. If we simply say to the young men I have described that they will somehow find a job when they leave school—despite the fact that the shipyards, the steel mills and the coal mines have gone and that they are not receiving appropriate training—we will produce another generation which is not equipped to deal with the modern technology-based economy that has developed over the years.
  The Minister should look again at the Select Committee report, which was supported by a number of Conservative Members—some of whom have since left the Conservative party—and received general support from all parties. It would be a good memorial to Baroness Faithfull if the Government were to respond to her belief that there should be better integration between Departments. That is what the Government should be doing, and what I hope the next Labour Government will do as a matter of urgency.
  9.31 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: I am pleased to have the opportunity to wind up this important debate. This is an Opposition debate, and the high quality of contributions and the interest shown in the debate outside the House demonstrate that Labour's choices for debates reflect the real concerns of people outside.
  In February last year, the Select Committee on Employment published its report "Mothers in Employment". The Committee had taken evidence on employment practices that took account of the caring responsibilities of employees, and recommended a stronger role for the then Department of Employment in promoting these. The Government responded by saying that they actively encouraged good practice, and had produced three booklets on the subject—the same three booklets mentioned by the Under-Secretary. We certainly cannot fault the Government for their production of pamphlets over the years.
  The Government said that they had been congratulated on the introduction of a range of family-friendly options throughout the civil service, and the Department of Social
  272
  Security and the Department of the Environment are mentioned in the UK's employer initiatives produced by Parents at Work. However, the Department for Education and Employment is not mentioned. It is hard to feel convinced that the Minister is serious in her commitment to this matter if her own Department cannot be cited as an example of excellence.
  It would have helped if the Government, in their response to the Select Committee report, had gone a little way towards acknowledging the problems and stress of combining home and work for the 3 million employees with caring responsibilities. However, the good news is that, in response to today's debate, Conservative central office has issued a briefing which states:
  "The Government is committed to employment practices which support the family and are available to men as well as women, enabling men to share in caring for their children and assisting women to work".
  The Government have now issued another pamphlet, but what is again missing from the paper is any briefing on the effect on the family of inflexible and stressful working practices. So much for the party of the family.
  The Government are very powerful and can legislate in a way that affects every aspect of people's lives and the choices that they can make about their lives. Their statement to the Select Committee that they do not wish to interfere unnecessarily in family life was strange, coming from a Government who, over the past 17 years, have interfered in every aspect of people's lives.
  The messages that the Government send about what they consider important and the values that they hold are powerful—people listen. The Government set the climate, especially for employment practices. The Government's message has been that they are not interested in employees and that it is up to the market or to employers to deal with them.
  If the Government are not interested, why should employers be? At the same time as Minister after Minister makes statements about the value of the family and expresses concern and regret about rocketing divorce figures, they wash their hands of responsibility for the consequences for the family of their legislative changes, as if they think that people's private responsibilities can be wholly separated from the economic and social structure in which they make their choices.
  The pace of change in recent years has had an unparalleled impact on the family. In 1991, there were 171,000 divorces—the highest figure in Europe. We have no figures for breakdowns among stable but unmarried partners. Partners' expectations of marriage have increased, and tolerance of unhappy relationships has decreased. At the same time, the demand for good parenting, spending time with children and being involved with their school work and leisure pursuits has increased. However, the pressures on those families at work have increased. We have the longest working hours in Europe. One quarter of UK full-time employees work more than 48 hours a week. That is more than twice as many as in any other European country. It does not even lead to efficiency at work.
  Everywhere else in Europe, the number of hours that people work is declining; in the UK, it is increasing. People on low wages have to work longer for a living wage because hourly rates have dropped since the abolition of the wages councils. Greater Manchester low

  273
  pay unit cites a woman who works as a legal secretary for £1.66 an hour and a man who worked 66 hours a week as the manager of a club and earned £1.50 an hour. There are other examples.
  Job insecurity and short-term contracts are driving people on higher wages into longer and longer hours. Parents at Work gives the example of a full-time employee who said:
  "I am reluctant to put my hand up in the current environment and say 'Can I do less hours?' They might just say—yes, a whole lot less, and I'd be out of a job."
  In the same survey, 72 per cent. of women reported that they were exhausted from rushing home to spend time with their children and had little time for their relationships. The current work culture does not understand that working efficiently does not mean working excessively. The consequences of downsizing, outsourcing and re-engineering the work load are longer hours for those left, and people putting in face time rather than real time to show commitment to their jobs, at the expense of their families.
  The same survey showed that half of fathers spend less than five minutes a day in one-to-one contact with their children: 96 per cent. of those working long hours cited pressure of work as the reason; 55 per cent. said that the workplace culture led to longer working hours; and a further 35 per cent. gave direct pressure from line management as the reason. At least 18 per cent. were in fear of losing their jobs. Job security is not Labour scaremongering but a fact of life.
  All the evidence suggests that long hours do not increase efficiency and productivity at work. They certainly create exhaustion and stress, which is brought back into the equally demanding roles of parent, carer or partner. The personal cost is high, as is the cost to the nation. Time off for stress-related illness costs the UK up to 10 per cent. of gross national product every year. That does nothing to help good parenting, for which we rely on the family.
  Some women with families who work have no other option because of economic pressures. About 60 per cent. fall into that category. The long hours worked by their partners mean that they have to do two jobs, at home and at work. The growth in the number of women working part time in service industry has been of enormous benefit to employers, as the Minister accepted when she said:
  "Flexible working patterns are important to a competitive labour market."
  However, often it is a one-way traffic. It means being in work at a time when the employers want them in work for the time that benefits the employer and the employer only. Yet those are the very employees who have the most domestic responsibilities.
  The Conservative party brief says:
  "If managed effectively, flexible working should enable individuals to balance a career with other domestic commitments."
  That is true, but it appears too often that effective management is left entirely with the family.
  For the 30 per cent. of women who work because they want to maintain their skills and develop their career, the pressures are often too great. All too often, they give up as full-time and part-time workers because of the stress of coping with family and work. Many of those women are highly skilled and their skills are lost.
  274
  We all agree that one of the most profound changes in recent years has been the increase in the number of women who combine a job with a family. The family as a whole is increasingly in the workplace, but the family is still the primary source of satisfaction of emotional needs for adults and the centre of support for bringing up children and caring for elderly relatives. If, for example, the current level of support for elderly relatives collapsed, resulting in heavier reliance on state provision—or what is left of it—the cost to the country would be catastrophic.
  The Government's community care policies depend on unpaid and informal care. Surely the Government need to do more to understand the problems and use their immense influence to give a lead. It is equally true that, if women pulled out of the workplace, the industry of this nation would collapse.
  The Government talk about not placing unreasonable burdens on the taxpayer, but poor working practices create unnecessary stress and impact at home. For example, if an employer is not willing to be flexible in helping parents to pick up children from school and take them somewhere else, people have to fund temporary and expensive child care arrangements. The cost of child care is four times what it was 10 years ago. That expensive child care reduces the value of people's wages, whether it can be accommodated by the employer or not. If the stress of coping contributes to marital breakdown, from which divorce may, sadly, result, what is then the cost to the taxpayer?
  Each year, £330 million is paid out in legal aid for matrimonial proceedings. That is not to mention the £115 million to fund the Child Support Agency. That is the bottom line. Then there is the cost to the health service of treatment for stress and all the associated illnesses such as heart disease and alcohol abuse, which amounts to a staggering £2,461.42 million a year. That is the burden to the taxpayer. If that does not impinge on the Government, whose propensity is to deal with the symptoms and not the causes, perhaps they will be persuaded by the overwhelming evidence that happier, less stressed employees are more efficient and more productive at work.
  The Government should listen to the employers mentioned by the Minister. They are hard-headed, tough business people. They act not out of altruism but because it makes sense. It is not good enough for the Government to view family life as solely a private matter. The success of family life is something in which we all have a vested interest. The family is in the workplace. We in the Labour party understand that. We also understand that the family has to be underpinned with support across policies from housing to education, from child care to employment—but not just any old employment. People need employment that values and respects them. We expect the Government to give a strong message to employers to be good managers and to have consideration for employees.
  The Conservative party is struggling to understand why it remains so profoundly unpopular. I shall tell it why. It is because people do not think that it cares about them or understands the realities of their life. They expect more from a Government than abandonment of them and their families to the marketplace. Their families are the most important aspect of their life. They want their families to be happy, secure and stable. They want to combine that with employment in which they are respected and rewarded. The next Government will understand that, because the next Government will be a Labour Government.
  9.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice)rose—
  Mr. MacShane: Top that.
  Mr. Paice: Well—if the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) had done the House the courtesy of replying to the debate, perhaps I would. She delivered a pre-prepared speech and made no reference to speeches from hon. Members on either side of the House.
  It has become apparent from the debate—it was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell)—that the Opposition seem to believe that only women are interested in or able to talk about the family.
  Mr. David Jamieson: At least my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) wrote her speech.
  Mr. Paice: Before the hon. Gentleman makes any more pathetic little interventions, I can tell him that I wrote my speech. Perhaps he should have listened to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich also said that mothers do not stop being mothers when they go to work, and she was right. What I found offensive was the suggestion behind that comment that fathers stop being fathers when they go to work. Both sides of a family are important to the upbringing of the children. There have been grounds for dispute about the Labour party's policies over the past few years, but there is no dispute between the parties about the importance of the family as a central part of our society. We differ on how to address the needs of the family.
  The Opposition cannot accept the central point of the debate. There is no dispute about whether there are business advantages in modern employment practice, whether it relates to staff turnover, return on training or the number of hours worked. We part company with the Labour party on whether the Government should make the decision and remove the right to make it from businesses and employees, or whether those businesses and individuals should have the freedom to decide and do what is best for them.
  Earlier in the debate, some Opposition Members suggested that the cost to business was the same whether the matter was dealt with in a voluntary or statutory way. Those suggestions demonstrated the fundamental lack of understanding of business in the Labour party. If one adopts a voluntary approach to improving standards of employment practice across the board, as the Government have, it is possible for individual businesses of all sizes and disparate abilities to decide the best way of adapting their circumstances to meet the needs of the changing world of employment and business.
  For example, businesses should be able to respond to urgent demands that may require sudden bursts of work with little notice owing to the nature of the business. If businesses are hamstrung with regulations, they cannot make that response.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Paice: No, I shall not give way.
  276
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) spoke with knowledge of the labour market and gave clear examples of the individual's right to choose the rate for which he or she is prepared to work. He also emphasised the fact—central to the issues behind the debate—that to legislate to deal with a tiny minority is to disadvantage the vast majority of society who act in a way that we believe to be right.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to employment rights for part-time workers. In its proposals, the Trades Union Congress, which obviously advocates those rights, accepts that they will result in a burden on business of £1.6 billion—that is hardly a marginal cost, and is bound to have a significant effect on employment.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made thoughtful, forward-looking speeches on policy. I cannot go all the way on the European issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, but he referred to the importance of lowering taxes. He made it clear that what matters to a household is its take-home pay. He did not have time to say that, under this Government, a quarter of all taxpayers pay tax at only 20 per cent.—a record of which the Government are extremely proud.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) suggested obtusely that 45 per cent. of women who work part time want full-time work. I do not know where he got that figure from.
  Mr. MacShane: May I enlighten the Minister? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1995 employment report, page 189.
  Mr. Paice: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a more recent labour force survey, which apparently is accepted by the Labour party, which showed that only 11 per cent. of women in part-time work wanted full-time work.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has been a Member of the House longer than many of us in the Chamber at present. [Interruption.] He is indeed a very distinguished Member of the House; I have no problem with that. I do not wish to sound patronising, but his speech was much more thoughtful than many others, because he accepted that there are no glib and easy answers.
  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), has read the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred and of which he reminded the House, and has taken those points on board. The hon. Gentleman mentioned what are known as latchkey kids—children who go home to an empty house. Of course that issue worries us, and that is why we have made the child care initiatives that my hon. Friend proposed, from which 71,000 families now benefit. She described the proposals for continuing and developing the scheme.
  Mr. Soley: Conservative Members rightly say that an increasing number of women are going out to work. If, as they say, that is a good thing, who will look after children of school age during the school holidays? That is why kids' clubs are important.
  Mr. Paice: That is precisely why the Government have introduced the out-of-school child care initiative that my

  277
  hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned. It is not an answer in itself, but, as she said in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, it is seedcorn money, designed to stimulate greater activity in the market by employers and other providers, to develop the provision that the hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly mentions.
  Surprisingly, much has been made by the Labour party of its proposals for a minimum wage. I remind Labour Members that the vast majority of research supports the Government's view that a national minimum wage would lead to considerable job losses, especially among the young and among unskilled workers. The only issue in dispute is the extent of those losses. The OECD, the International Monetary Fund, The World Economy and the European Community White Paper acknowledge that statutory minimum wages adversely affect employment prospects.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and others challenged the Labour party on the level of a minimum wage. The Labour party may escape by saying that it has not set the level so we cannot estimate job losses, but we know that the Labour party's trade union paymasters want a minimum wage of more than £4 an hour. At that level, we believe that 900,000 jobs would be lost, assuming that only half the differentials were restored. With full restoration, 1.7 million jobs would be lost.
  How would the hon. Member for Rotherham apologise to his constituents and others in the north-west—I am sorry, north-east—and in Yorkshire and Humberside? [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may wish to laugh, but, in Yorkshire and Humberside alone, 176,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the implementation of a minimum wage of only £4; and if, as he said in a sedentary intervention, it were £4.26, obviously considerably more would be lost.
  Much has also been made of the issue of parental leave. The Government do not mind if an employer gives his staff parental leave for a week, a year or any other period. We object to the imposition of those rules on every employer.
  Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe that we know what is best for every individual. Has not the Labour party learnt that increasing protection destroys opportunity? It destroyed the rented housing sector by increasing protection, and it will do the same for jobs as it did in the 1970s.
  Mr. Hoon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Paice: No, I shall not give way.
  Because we are outside the social chapter, our businesses can do what is right for them. That means that they decide on parental leave, which would otherwise cost British businesses £200 million a year. Let us also be clear about the social chapter, which means qualified majority voting on many issues. We know to our cost that even issues that, in theory, require unanimity could be forced through under majority voting, just as the Commission has spuriously used the qualified voting provision for many other employment issues.
  Mr. Hoon rose—
  Mr. Paice: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop behaving like a jack-in-the-box.
  278
  It is therefore unacceptable for the Labour party to claim that it could block any proposals that would be detrimental to Britain. It could not. Moreover, it has supported all the measures that we have blocked or attempted to block: parental leave; works councils; and the working time directive. I wonder what is the Labour party's definition of a detriment to Britain. Perhaps somebody will tell the House after this debate.
  One issue that we have not heard about this evening is child benefit. Why does the Labour party, in apparently espousing the cause of the family and professing its support for young people, now propose to abolish child benefit for over-l6-year-olds? We have heard nothing tonight about the confiscation of more than £1,000 from the family budget for every child who does a two-year course. The motion refers to "individual learning accounts", when what the Labour party really proposes is an individual learning tax.
  Another issue is that of getting people back to work. Basic skills are a top priority for the Government in getting people back to work, which is why one of our most successful initiatives in recent years is the family literacy initiative. Ninety per cent. of the parents involved, many of them women, have chosen to receive accreditation for their work, and 70 per cent. have gone on to further education. That initiative is an innovative way to tackle the literacy needs of children and their parents, which is why we are about to consult on extending the scheme to 36 local education authorities.
  On nursery education, however, we have seen the real Labour party. Nowhere has its opposition to choice been so clear. We want parents to choose what is best for their children, not what some bureaucrat in shire hall or Whitehall decides. That is why we shall enable all parents of four-year-olds to buy with a voucher the provision that suits their children, their wishes and their circumstances. Already in the pilot area we are seeing a huge uptake by parents and a surge in supply of a variety of different forms of provision.
  This evening, we have seen the real danger that is new Labour—a party that believes that it alone knows best. It knows what is best for business, for employees, for families and for nursery education. Whatever the issue, it knows better than the individual. Throughout the new Labour document, the word "choice" appears just six times—[HON. MEMBERS: "As many as that?"] Yes, but wait for it: in four of those times it is the Labour party, not the individual, that will make the choice. Just twice does the Labour party suggest that the individual might have a choice. That is hardly surprising, given its consistent opposition to every measure that we have introduced to provide that choice.
  Not for the Labour party the bright free world of empowered individuals and the chance for individuals to choose their destiny and accept responsibility for themselves. That is the Conservative way. We want a society made up of individuals, each with his or her own talents, needs and preferences. We believe that they have the right and should have the opportunity to choose.
  The Labour party cannot accept that each individual is different. It believes that individuals are just components of a homogenous mass that it calls society—in that world only the Government have the right to choose. The world that it espouses is a world of dreary and drab uniformity,

  279
  with a single prescription to the problems of every individual. That is the world that Labour proposes—that is the world that the House will reject tonight.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Thomas Graham(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I explain to the House that, in common with millions of people in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, I suffer from occupational deafness? Tonight, therefore, when the vote was called, I did not hear it. It was not pointed out by anyone that my hearing was so deficient that I could not cast my vote. That is a denial of the people who appointed me to be their Member of Parliament and to represent them here tonight.
  I ask in all sincerity and in all simplicity for the House to ensure that people such as me, who have been appointed by a democratic vote at an election, are taken into consideration. I am appalled that tonight I have been denied my vote because of my not being able to hear. I ask the House to take that point on board from now on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman has raised that point of order. Nevertheless, 10 o'clock votes are hardly an innovation in the House.
  Mr. Graham (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the timing of this vote, I can respect your views. However, at the end of the day, people who have a deficiency in their hearing must be adequately treated in the House. I respectfully ask that my views be passed on to the proper authorities.
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 289.

  Division No. 182]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Byers, Stephen

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin-Walker, John

  Church, Judith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Coffey, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cohen, Harry

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Connarty, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Corbett, Robin

  Blunkett, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boateng, Paul

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  280

  Dafis, Cynog

  Keen, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darling, Alistair

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davidson, Ian

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fatchett, Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacShane, Denis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fraser, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mudie, George

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gunnell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hanson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hardy, Peter

  Olner, Bill

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Henderson, Doug

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Heppell, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoey, Kate

  Pope, Greg

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Purchase, Ken

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoyle, Doug

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hutton, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Illsley, Eric

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Ingram, Adam

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jamieson, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Janner, Greville

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jowell, Tessa

  Short, Clare

  281

  Simpson, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

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

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Soley, Clive

  Watson, Mike

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Wise, Audrey

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

  Trickett, Jon

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Churchill, Mr

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clappison, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beggs, Roy

  Day, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bendall, Vivian

  Devlin, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bowis, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Butler, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gardiner, Sir George

  282

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant Piers

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Norris, Steve

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heald, Oliver

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jack, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  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

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  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, Sir Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  (Belfast S)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  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

  Stem, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Madel, Sir David

  Sykes, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marlow, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  283

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Watts, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whittingdale, John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Willetts, David

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon Wiliam

  Yeo.Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ward, John

  Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Richard Ottawa.

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with approval the Government's successful economic and deregulation policies which have created more job opportunities and its voluntary approach to encouraging employers to adopt family-friendly policies which make it easier for individuals to combine work and family life; and agrees that this is not an area for legislation.

  Occupational Pensions
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a tag to motion No. 5 which indicates that, when the Order Paper was printed, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had not had the opportunity to complete its scrutiny of the regulations. In fact, the Committee met this afternoon and was able to complete its scrutiny.
  The Committee found that part of the regulations were defectively drafted. They are now subject to a report, an extract of which is before the House. I understand that the Department of Social Security has admitted the fault in the regulations and has said that it will take the earliest opportunity to correct it.
  I make the point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not satisfactory for a Joint Committee to consider regulations at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and then for the House to debate them later that evening, because people have not had the opportunity to study our report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information that he gave at the beginning of his point of order. Ministers will have heard the complaint with which he concluded it.
  10.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I beg to move,
  That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
  That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.
  Mr. Heald: The regulations are an integral part of the package of measures set out in the Pensions Act 1995.
  The United Kingdom has nearly £600 billion invested in private pension funds—more than all the other countries of the European Union put together. The Conservatives are determined to build on that. The measures in the Pensions Act 1995 will give people the security that they need to invest with confidence for their retirement.
  I intend to deal very briefly with the first three draft regulations. The Pensions Compensation Board comes into being on 1 August this year. It needs a borrowing limit, and the regulations propose a limit of £15 million. The regulations relating to the contracted-out mixed benefit scheme allow a single occupational pension scheme to contract out of the state earnings-related

  285
  pension scheme on both a salary-related and a money purchase basis. That flexibility has been sought by the industry, and I believe that it will be very welcome. Under the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, trustees must obtain audited accounts within seven months of the scheme year. It will be an offence not to do so, carrying a fine of £5,000.
  I have dealt with the first three sets of draft regulations very briefly, but if hon. Members wish to take up any points, I shall be happy to deal with them when I wind up the debate.
  I shall now deal with the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996. The Pensions Act 1995 gives scheme members the right to appoint at least a third of their scheme's trustees, and the draft regulations set out how that will be achieved. Our guiding principle has been that each scheme should have flexibility to establish arrangements for the appointment of trustees that suit that scheme.
  There are 130,000 occupational pension schemes of which 100,000 have fewer than 12 members. They vary from schemes with a large number of active members and very few pensioner members to schemes with more pensioners than active members. Many schemes already have excellent arrangements in place which provide a balanced board of trustees, often involving regional balance as well as a balance of membership categories. Under these proposals, the employer will have an opportunity to propose that a scheme should opt out of the regulations, but he must propose an alternative, which must be agreed by the active members and the pensioners.
  At the heart of the regulations and the Government's proposals, however, is the position of trustees. The regulations allow them to put forward the nomination and selection rules that they believe will suit their scheme, given their detailed knowledge of it; but it is the members—active and pensioner members—who will decide whether the proposals should be implemented.
  We are confident that, in their proposals, the trustees will try to reflect the wishes of the membership. We want them to consider the interests of all members. If agreement cannot be reached after the extensive consultations for which the regulations provide, with the use of the statutory consultation scheme a default procedure can be implemented speedily and easily. That procedure provides for active members only to select the member-nominated trustees.
  This devolved procedure is designed to ensure that the time limits for appointment of member-nominated trustees can be rigidly adhered to. It means that schemes will definitely have member-nominated trustees in place by 6 April 1998, but in most cases by 6 October 1997. We have gone one better than that because go-ahead schemes have asked us if they might be able to introduce member-nominated trustees earlier, starting their procedures in October this year. That is much to be welcomed, and the regulations would provide for it.
  During consideration of the Pensions Bill, now the 1995 Act, some people argued for a mandatory pensioner trustee. Some groups who have written to hon. Members now say that pensioners and active members should vote on the prescribed rules, or that there should be a mandatory pensioner trustee under prescribed rules.
  286
  The pension law review committee, the Goode committee, considered those issues. It concluded that active members only should select member-nominated trustees and that there should be no requirement to appoint a pensioner trustee. The Government considered the issue, however, and have gone far beyond that in involving pensioners at every stage of the statutory consultation procedure. They want pensioner trustees in appropriate schemes.
  Some people say that schemes will go straight to the prescribed rules—the default procedure—overlooking the interests of some categories of member, but that overlooks the fact that scheme trustees, whose duty it is to make the proposals, must make the decision and have a fiduciary duty in law to act in good faith to all members. If, in a scheme with a large pensioner group, scheme trustees were to ignore the pensioners and go straight to prescribed rules, that would ground an action in court on the issue of breach of duty, and the matter could be referred to the pension ombudsman, who is jealous of the interests of all members.
  Mr. Michael Stern: In addition to the two courses that my hon. Friend has mentioned, would it not also be fair to say that, where pensioners wish to appoint a trustee, a reference to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority would also have considerable weight?
  Mr. Heald: It is true that, where the procedures were not followed satisfactorily, OPRA could consider a referral and take the matter forward.
  The Government have consistently said that, if it is to be speedy and effective, the default procedure must involve active members only. Fears expressed by groups such as the Federation of Post Office and British Telecom Pensioners and the Imperial Tobacco Pensioners Action Call, both of which I have met, are being contradicted in practice. In the past two days, officials from the Department of Social Security have contacted the Post Office scheme, and it is consulting trade unions and the federation on a proposal that 50 per cent. of trustees would be member-nominated, appointed by organisations representing the interests of members, including a designated pensioner trustee.
  On the British Telecom pension scheme, the federation has agreed, I understand, with the trade union to nominate half the trustees, including a designated pensioner or a deferred member to be proposed by the federation. The Imperial Tobacco scheme has two pensioner trustees and one active member-nominated trustee already. The scheme intends to keep them and to ensure that any future employer will not be able to change that. In contemplation of the regulations, Guinness, which has not previously had pensioner trustees, has appointed one.
  One prominent official of the Association of Pension Lawyers, who has spoken to officials at the Department and who has conducted numerous seminars and conferences on this matter, speaking to hundreds of scheme professionals and member representatives, has confirmed that not one scheme that he has come across intends to use the prescribed rules directly. As someone who also meets numerous groups in this category, that is also my experience.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister assure the House that the new pensioner trustee representatives,

  287
  the Pensions Act 1995, and what we are agreeing now will prevent a fraud such as that which took place in the Belling scheme—a large amount of money was misused, and members and trustees were not aware of what a couple of the trustees had done?
  Mr. Heald: The proposals are part of a package of measures that will make it extremely difficult for anyone to commit fraud of the type committed by Robert Maxwell. I am not able to comment on the Belling case, but the proposals impose tough penalties if audited accounts are not produced on time, and place a duty on the scheme administrators to provide those accounts to members on request. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the disclosure provisions, the occupational pensions regulatory authority and minimum funding provide a powerful package that will go a long way towards obviating future problems.
  Opposition Members often say that there is too much regulation, and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) may feel that it would be rather odd to propose measures that would be much more prescriptive than those of the Government. It is possible to combine flexibility and security, and the provisions do that. We have said that we will carefully monitor the provisions, which are being presented as regulations. In view of the multiplicity of schemes, the prize of flexibility is valuable, but if it is abused, the Government will certainly take action to correct such abuse as it occurs.
  Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend speaks about flexibility, but I am concerned—as are Opposition Members—about the problems of Maxwell and Belling, which should never arise again and perhaps should not have arisen in the first place. At the other end of the scale are people such as my friend and constituent Harry Wright, who, because of a technicality, was given a pension of £14 a month when he could reasonably have expected one of £140 a week. Will the new scheme allow the trustees to look into individual cases more carefully—and flexibly, to use my hon. Friend's term—than under the present arrangements?
  Mr. Heald: The measures are part of a regulatory package and will enable the trustees to act. The regulations as a whole, of which this is a small part, will allow the disclosure that is necessary for the trustees to do that. That is also provided for scheme members.
  Mr. Bennett: Is it appropriate at least to apologise to the House for the mistake in the measure, especially as it was the Minister who signed it?
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. A consequential amendment was not made, and I apologise to the House for that. We should have done better.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I wish to speak on motion No. 5:
  That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S. 1., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.
  288
  The order is inadequate and is based on inadequate legislation. The Government should take it away and think again. Before turning to the detail of that order, however, I should like to comment on the other three.
  The order for a requirement to obtain audited accounts and the one for borrowing authority for the Pensions Compensation Board are unexceptional and useful. The fourth order is for mixed benefit schemes, and we share the concern of the National Association of Pension Funds about the complexity being built into the system by, in effect, the treatment of contracted-out mixed benefit schemes as two separate schemes, thereby requiring the equivalent of a transfer procedure between the two parts. We ask whether that cumbersome procedure is strictly necessary.
  We take most severe issue with the procedure for member-nominated trustees. The background to that is, first, the Goode committee and, secondly, the Pensions Act 1995. The aim, which I am sure that we all share, is for a fair balance of control between employers and members, including pensioner members, in the running of company schemes. Hon. Members should always remember what can happen if things go wrong, and Maxwell and Belling provide telling evidence of that.
  In the aftermath of Maxwell, the Goode committee recommended, first, that, for final salary schemes, active members should be entitled to a point that is at least one third of that of trustees. Secondly, it recommended that for money purchase schemes, active members should nominate at least two thirds of trustees—a distinction that the Government now seem to have dropped entirely. Thirdly, it recommended that there should be encouragement to take pensioner trustees on board. Fourthly, it recommended that there should be a proactive regulator and a minimum solvency standard. The Pensions Act 1995 and the regulations that we are now debating water down all those Goode proposals.
  During the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, Labour Members consistently proposed two simple and important provisions. The first was that at least 50 per cent. of scheme trustees should be member-nominated trustees. Secondly, we proposed that at least one of the member-nominated trustees on large schemes should be chosen by the scheme's pensioner members. We still stand firmly by those two objectives.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: When the hon. Gentleman referred to the Goode report, he mentioned the fact that there was encouragement to take on board pensioner trustees. It seems that my hon. Friends have adopted that encouragement. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that should be mandatory? If so, I have some sympathy with that position. But he used the words "large schemes".
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to a difference between Goode and ourselves. We want to go further than Goode. We believe that in large schemes—obviously it is not appropriate in very small schemes—there should be a pensioner-nominated trustee. Had that proposal been accepted, we would have had a simple, fair and effective procedure in place. Instead, we do not.
  Mr. Stern: May I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the discussions that we had during the passage of the Pensions Bill? There are large schemes and there are large schemes.

  289
  Many of the schemes that have been in correspondence with us are readily able to find procedures for nominating a pensioner trustee. But if one considers, for example, a type of scheme that involves members in 50 countries, the fact is that it is physically incapable, however large, of finding procedures quickly to nominate a pensioner trustee. I wonder why the Opposition have not yet taken that point on board.
  Mr. Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, because the regulations that we are considering today—from a Conservative Government—require that pensioner members should be consulted at many stages of the procedure. If it is possible to consult them at those stages of the procedure, surely it is possible to consult them at the final stage, when members are nominated.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: On the subject of pensioner trustees, is there any reason why pensioners should not be able to nominate someone who is not a pensioner to act on their behalf?
  Mr. Smith: That would be a sensible solution, but it would not be possible under the fallback scheme that the Government are proposing in the regulations. That is one of our particular objections to the regulations.
  Mr. Heald: Would the hon. Gentleman care to define a large scheme?
  Mr. Smith: I would have thought that we would be talking about a scheme with, say, 1,000 members, as the Government would conclude if they were capable of taking a sensible approach.
  Our first objection to the regulations is the absurd complexity of the provisions. The Department of Social Security letter accompanying the draft regulations for consultation said:
  "the rules must be quick to implement, easy to operate and avoid unnecessary cost."
  However, the House must examine what can happen under the regulations. First, the employer decides whether to put forward proposals for alternative arrangements to replace the member-nominated trustee requirements. If he decides to put forward alternative arrangements, he must put those proposals out for consultation. The active and the pensioner members then have the right to object to the proposals by a specified procedure, and if either 10 per cent. or 10,000 members—whichever is the lower—object, the employer must go back and think again.
  If the members do not object, the employer can proceed to implement the new regulations. If, however, they object, the employer can either go to a ballot or withdraw the proposals and come forward with further proposals. If he comes forward with further proposals, the same procedure starts all over again. A tenth or 10,000 of the active and pensioner members can decide to object, and if they are succesful, we go back into the same loop.
  Let us suppose that the employer—having tried twice and been rejected twice by more than 10,000 or a tenth of the members—then decides to proceed to a ballot. The active and the pensioner members have the right to participate in that ballot. If a majority of those voting vote against the employer's proposals, the employer can go back and start all over again with a further set of
  290
  proposals. Or the employer can say, "I have had enough. I am not going to make any alternative proposals. I will put it to the trustees."
  The trustees—a majority of whom are, of course, appointed by the employer—can again activate the procedure and can make proposals for alternative arrangements. Again, 10,000 or one tenth of the membership—whichever is the lower—can object. If they do, the procedure has to go back for further decision and proposal by the trustees or to a ballot. If the ballot then rejects the trustees' alternative proposals, they can go back and propose a further scheme. Finally, if all this fails, they go to the fallback scheme that the Government have put in place.
  That is not an easy to operate, quick to implement procedure. It could involve no fewer than five ballots without conducting the exercise more than once, and possibly seven or more. It is cumbersome, difficult for members to understand and easy for employers to manipulate.
  That brings me to our second objection. It is perfectly possible under the procedures for a scheme to end up with fewer than one third member-nominated trustees. In the case of a determined employer who comes back with scheme after scheme after scheme—requiring on each occasion that a tenth of the members object—it is perfectly possible for a scheme to end up with no member-nominated trustee at all. That is not in the spirit of Goode or even of the Pensions Act.
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the period during which the employer can propose alternative schemes is only six months at the maximum? There is no question of it being longer.
  Mr. Smith: It is perfectly possible in that time scale, and within the rules laid down in these procedures, for a determined employer to reduce to a bare minimum or to non-existence the participation of member-nominated trustees. The proposed rules do not guarantee any proportion of trustees as member-nominated. I believe that they should.
  The Government should at least consider the compromise proposed by the Trades Union Congress, which has suggested that, where the opt-out proposal is for less than one third member-nominated trustees—[Interruption.] I detect some muttering among Conservative Members because we have ventured to suggest that the Trades Union Congress, which represents democratic trade unions, has a valid point. I am astonished that the Government have sunk to such depths that they can deride the participation of trade unions in framing pension regulations and legislation of profound interest to their members and to millions of employees. The Government should be ashamed of their Back Benchers' reaction.
  The TUC suggests that, where an opt-out proposal is for less than one third member-nominated trustees—which would weaken the intentions of the Goode committee and the Pensions Act, the existing practice of many schemes, and the participation of member-nominated trustees—there should be a low threshold for objection. It has suggested 5 per cent., which is sensible. In such circumstances, members will often want to ensure that they can still have a real say. But it

  291
  has suggested that, where the opt-out is for more than one third—for example, where the existing provision is 50:50—the proposed 10 per cent. objection threshold should stand. That is a sensible proposal. Even within the constraints of the Pensions Act, that would surely be a better way to proceed.
  Our third objection is that the fallback scheme fails to give any role in the final selection of member-nominated trustees to pensioner members. It should and the Government promised that it would. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was then the Minister responsible for pensions. In the light of his rise to greatness, I predict great things for my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "both pensioners and active members will be given the opportunity to influence nomination and selection arrangements"—[Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 238.]
  The Government have not made provision for that in the selection procedures in the fallback scheme in the regulations.
  Our concern is echoed in early-day motion 692, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and signed by more than 40 Conservative Members. It states:
  "this House … believes that pensioner involvement in every stage of the nominating and selection process is essential if occupational pensioners arc to be reassured of the security of their pension schemes".
  The principle of involvement at every stage is not enshrined in the procedures that have been tabled tonight. It should have been, and Conservative Members who signed the early-day motion should think long and hard before supporting the Government in the Division Lobby tonight.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main defects of the Act, if there is a defect, is that it places such burdens on employers that they are likely to shrink away from occupational schemes altogether and that that will result in a proliferation of money purchase schemes or personal pensions? That is happening in other parts of the world, including the United States and elsewhere. Does he agree that his proposals would aggravate that procedure? There is always conflict between the employer, the active members and the pensioner members. The regulations seek to resolve that conflict, however inadequately. Does he agree that the one group of people who are inadequately represented are the deferred pensioners?
  Mr. Smith: The process that the hon. Gentleman fears of employers withdrawing from occupational schemes and diminishing numbers of people taking part in such schemes is already happening here. We have fewer members of occupational schemes now than five years ago. That is a trend which deeply worries me.
  The proposals that we have made of a 50:50 split between employers and members and for a guaranteed seat for pensioners within the member-nominated segment of the board would be far simpler and easier for employers to operate than the ones that are specified in the regulations. The National Association of Pension Funds
  292
  has said that it is perfectly happy to accept that proposal. So I urge Conservative Members to think carefully before endorsing in the Lobby tonight this cumbersome procedure, which does not protect the interests of pensioner members.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No. I am drawing to a close.
  I also urge Conservative Members not to be bought off by the suggestion that a reference to OPRA might suffice to protect pensioner interests. Nor can pensioner members be particularly gratified by the Government's suggestion that they could go to court to protect their interests under fiduciary duty rules. How much better it would be to get the legislation right in the first place.
  It is surely sensible for larger schemes and those in which at least 40 per cent. of the members are pensioner members to have one place on the board nominated and voted for by pensioner members. There is a legitimate pensioner voice to be heard in the debates of the trustees of the fund. For example, there may be issues relating to the deployment of surplus funds. Pensioners have a voice that ought to be considered.
  The Confederation of British Industry has raised a mythical spectre of thousands of pensioner votes swamping the employee votes. That would easily be avoided by adopting the proposal for one member voted on by pensioners, and the others in the member cohort being voted for by the active employee members. The principle of having a pensioner member on the board is widely accepted and already in place in many schemes. Schemes operated by Harland and Wolff, Kimberly-Clark, Thorn EMI and the Commonwealth Development Corporation have all recently brought in pensioner trustees. Imperial Tobacco has recently increased the number of elected pensioner trustees from one to two. Those are wholly positive developments. The statutory framework should not only encourage and enable such provision but should ensure pensioner involvement in trustee boards.
  The Public Accounts Committee has highlighted the problem of mistrust between pensioners and pension schemes. The Maxwell scandal has reminded us forcefully of the need for proper, open and accountable procedures. The involvement of pensioner members is important and the Government do not guarantee it in the proposals that they make to us tonight. I urge the Government to take these flawed regulations away and come back with something better. A Labour Government will do precisely that.
  10.54 pm
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, and I greatly appreciate the time and trouble that he has taken to discuss my concerns about this statutory instrument. It is a complicated matter, but if the Government had accepted the amendments—supported by myself and others during the passage of the Pensions Bill in 1995—to require major pension fund trust boards to include a pensioner member, they would not be facing the controversies arising from the statutory instrument.
  In Committee on the Pensions Bill, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said:

  293
  "We are putting employees—the active members—on the same basis as the pensioner members."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1995; c. 159.]
  The Under-Secretary of State has produced a briefing paper on the statutory instrument. The paper states:
  "Pensioner members will therefore in the normal course of events have a considerable part to play in the selection and appointment of member-nominated trustees."
  Pensioner members could and will have a considerable part to play only if the employer so wishes.
  A letter that I received from the National Association of Pension Funds referred to schedule 1 of the regulations, and stated:
  "The employer decides whether to put forward proposals for alternative arrangements to replace the member-nominated trustee requirements. (He may wish to do so to exclude the participation of member or pensioner representatives on the trustee board or to ensure that such representatives are either persons whom he has selected or persons whom he does not wish to veto."
  That emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of the contents of the statutory instrument.
  Mr. Heald: Many trustee boards include independent members who protect the interests of a wide range of members, including pensioners. Is my hon. Friend saying that, if an employer wants to make such a proposal, there is something wrong in that?
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I did not hear the last part of my hon. Friend's comments.
  Mr. Heald: I am talking about the position of boards that already have independent trustees—where the employer may well suggest to the members that that provides them with adequate security.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I am not saying that in the majority of cases it will not work very well. But one of the jobs of the House is to try to foresee difficulties and problems that will arise and prevent them from arising. A large number of pensioners do not have confidence that they will be properly represented. It needs only a tiny proportion of employers deliberately to find a way round this to prevent pensioner trustees from being properly represented and from having their views heard. That occurrence will be rare, but why should the House allow any measure to go through that is not as sound and solid as possible in order to prevent it?
  In its letter to me, the NAPF said:
  "NAPF would not, however, oppose the involvement of pensioners in the prescribed rules process, especially"—
  this is a key point—
  "where the number of pensioners outweighed the number of active members."
  Neither the House nor the Government can discount the views of the NAPF in the way that they appear to be doing.
  Instead of making it more difficult for them, we should be encouraging pensioner trustees. I emphasise the point that I made to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith); a pensioner trustee or a trustee representing the pensioners does not have to be a pensioner, but may be a person with special knowledge and experience, who would be able to ensure that the pensioner case was heard.
  294
  A pensioner trustee elected by pensioners, regardless of whether he or she is pensioner or non-pensioner, provides a reliable safeguard. It is easier for him or her to blow the whistle if he believes that things are going wrong—much easier for such a person than for an active pensioner, who is involved in the company, involved in its operation, who is thinking of his career, his prospects, his promotions, which will not apply to the pensioner individual members.
  Mr. Stern: What worries me about my hon. Friend's comments is that he appears to assume that the interests of all pensioners are identical. I wonder how he would apply his comments to the circumstances that occurred in the constituencies of myself and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), where there were three different groups of pensioners in the Rolls Royce plc pension scheme, all of which had totally opposed interests.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: We might need the judgment of Solomon himself to sort that out. I am not sure whether it is possible to find the miracle person who would do that. I am sure that a person of experience and knowledge, be they retired or not retired, would be able to achieve a balance if his main—not exclusive—focus were to protect the interests of pensioners in the scheme.
  Active members of boards of trustees are much more likely to go along with employers' proposals. It would be unnatural if they did not do so.
  Mr. Butterfill: I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). As I said to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), is not the difficulty the conflict between those who represent pensioners, those who represent employers and those who represent the active members? Of course the deferred pensioners are nowhere represented. Would not the 1995 Act be better if we had a much greater proportion of wholly independent trustees, who would consider the matter in the round?
  Sir Andrew Bowden: That is a splendid suggestion, but unfortunately it is not in the 1995 Act. We cannot discuss or consider it tonight, because it is out of order in
  relation to this statutory instrument. We must deal with what is before us.
  This statutory instrument, as it stands, is not acceptable to Age Concern (England), the Confederation of Occupational Pensioner Associations, the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners and many other pensioner organisations, and it is not acceptable to me. In the circumstances, I hope that the Minister will withdraw it now and reconsider.
  11.2 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I will be brief, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and we have little time.
  I shall speak especially to the regulations concerning pensioner trustees. The Government promised, during the passage of the Pensions Bill, that pensioner members of pension schemes should have the same rights as everyone who was still paying in; yet both the draft regulations and the final regulations exclude pensioner members from nominating or voting for the selection of member-nominated trustees.

  295
  There is widespread opposition to this set of regulations. As has been said, Age Concern believes that it discriminates against pensioners. The Trades Union Congress and the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners are opposed and there is widespread opposition in the House. Already, we have talked about early-day motion 692, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), a Conservative Member of Parliament, with 170 signatures from all parts of the House. They believe, as I do, that it is grossly unfair.
  The Government spelled out what they intended to do in the passing of the Pensions Act 1995. The Official Report contains quote after quote about pensioner trustees. I shall read just one of those tonight, as time is short. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Minister of State for Social Security, said:
  "As the Bill stands, it gives equality of opportunity both to active and pensioner members and it is for scheme members to decide together the best way to nominate trustees, bearing in mind the needs of their particular scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 615.]
  Throughout the passage of the Bill, pensioners and organisations were led to believe that they would be able to nominate people from their own ranks.
  Mr. Heald: On 13 February 1995, my right honourable and noble Friend in the other place said quite specifically, in column 478 of Hansard, that the prescribed rules—the default procedure—would be restricted to active members.
  Ms Lynne: The Minister must know that, throughout the Bill's proceedings, numerous quotes support my argument. He uses just one quote; if I had time, I could go through the list of quotes before me. If other hon. Members have time, they might enlighten the Minister, because he cannot simply come to the Dispatch Box and use one quote. He knows that many Ministers said that pensioner trustees would be allowed to nominate. He cannot dispute that fact. No wonder people are upset.
  Pensioners have a high level of independent scrutiny in the task of trusteeship. For instance, they cannot be threatened with the sack, nor can they be tempted to exchange their pension benefits for higher wages or an improved redundancy package. Occupational pensioners need to be reassured about the security of their pension schemes, and the Pensions Act was designed to prevent another Maxwell-type fraud. Pensioner organisations are rightly suspicious about the loopholes in these regulations. I hope that all the hon. Members who signed the early-day motion will join us in the Lobby tonight.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. It is a great shame that the debate is taking place at all, because it is a direct repetition of a debate that took place in Committee on the Pensions Bill, when every issue that has been discussed tonight was debated at length and the House eventually accepted that it had to agree to the compromise in the Bill. Many of us would have liked the Government to lean a little further towards pensioner trustees in the Act and its regulations. It is a
  296
  pity that, in arriving at that compromise, the Government listened too well to the ultimate arm of the corporate state, the National Association of Pension Funds. Nevertheless, the Act was a compromise and, as a result of considerable debate in Committee, the legislation was accepted by the House.
  Following the Bill's enactment, a number of pension funds expressed the desire to see to what further extent the movement towards pension fund trustees could take place. With that in mind, and in conjunction with officers of the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, I drafted the early-day motion that stood in my name and those of some 150 colleagues on both sides of the House.
  The purpose of the early-day motion was not to overturn the Pensions Act 1995, as Labour Members are claiming tonight—[Interruption.] I was there, and I know what went on—Labour Members were not there, and they do not know what went on. The purpose of the early-day motion was to encourage the Government to move a little further towards pension trustees. As a result of the early-day motion and the discussions that I had with my hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend made statements about the role of the pension regulator and the pensions ombudsman in listening to the desires of individual pensioners in relation to pensioner trustees being appointed where possible.
  I approached the Confederation of Occupational Pensioners Associations and suggested that it listen to the views of Ministers in this regard. I drafted a statement of the current state of the debate for the confederation—which is way beyond what Labour Members did. However, the confederation did not bother to put forward that view—that is a shame, but it was its decision.
  The debate has moved on since the Committee stage and it is a shame that Labour Members have not noticed that the debate has moved on—it is busy trying to resow infertile ground. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has decided to put forward the regulations tonight.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Pensions are important to many of our constituents. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the Philips pension fund for a short time. Four pension schemes in my constituency have got into difficulties and the members of the scheme—some of them pensioners and some of them deferred pensioners—will not get what they expected. I shall refer to Belling in a moment, but the others were not the result of fraud—they were the result of changes in the industry and the finance not being sufficient to meet all the requirements of the pension funds.
  Earlier, the Minister could not tell me whether what we are being asked to approve tonight will stop another Maxwell or Belling fiasco from taking place—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) assured me that his answer would be no. To some degree, the Pensions Act 1995 followed the Maxwell incident—although the Belling incident involved a smaller amount of money and fewer people, it was important to them.
  I have looked at the pension funds that have got into difficulties in my constituency and found that there is a difference between those who are participating as working members and still contributing to the fund and waiting for

  297
  a pension, and those who have an actual pension at the present time. If the pension fund goes into liquidation and is wound up, there is a clear clash of interest as moneys are gathered in to meet the requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that we need to ensure that pensioners have representation in addition to the other contributing workers in the fund—especially in the larger schemes that have more than 1,000 members.
  We have to ensure that all the trustees know what is going on in the pension fund for which they are responsible. It was clear in the Maxwell and Belling cases that millions of pounds were defrauded from the schemes and few people in those schemes knew what was happening. That is not acceptable and the Pensions Act 1995 and the regulations before us tonight, about the way in which trustees will be appointed, have not solved that problem. They will not ensure that another Maxwell or Belling will happen and so I think that we should vote as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would consider the case of my constituent Ken Hilditch and others like him. Perhaps in my hon. Friend's reply he might address the question whether the regulations before us tonight, which I do not seek to oppose, will help my constituent and others like him.
  Ken Hilditch is a Hoverspeed pensioner. Hoverspeed was founded by British Rail, Seaspeed and Brostrums, trading as HoverLloyd, in 1981. In 1982, Hoverspeed set up a pension fund, backdated to 1981, that guaranteed cost-of-living increases to their pensioners. Indeed, the contracts of employment for Hoverspeed included a pension scheme that was inflation-linked, provided, as it said in the small print, that the increases were not excessive. At that time, "not excessive" was construed to mean not more than 10 per cent.
  In 1987, the Hoverspeed company was acquired by Sea Containers and in 1989 Sea Containers decided to give itself a two-and-a-half-year contributions holiday from the pension fund, which saved the company some £750,000. In 1991, when the pension contributions should have recommenced, the company decided to give itself a further nine-month holiday, which saved a further £250,000. In other words, the company, at the expense of the pensioners, saved itself £1 million, or enough, I am told, to continue inflation linking. In 1993, the company offered the pensioners no increase whatever, but in 1994, as a result of representations made by myself and others, the pension increase was reinstated and backdated to cover 1993. The £1 million was never repaid.
  When Sea Containers took over Hoverspeed, it undertook the transfer of undertakings and took on the assets of the pension fund and, of course, the liabilities of the pension fund. The company has now said that it will not, at any time, implement a cost-of-living increase above 5 per cent. Under this Government, I hope and believe that inflation will never rise above 5 per cent., but were there ever to be a change of Government, inflation would also change and pensioners under the Hoverspeed scheme could find themselves short-changed.
  At no time during the proceedings were the trustees of the fund properly consulted. I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown
  298
  (Sir A. Bowden) that those involved in taking the decision to have a contribution holiday clearly had an active vested interest in the company, not least in their own job and promotion prospects, and were not likely to act necessarily in promotion of the best interests of the existing pensioners, of whom Ken Hilditch is only one of many.
  Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give me an assurance that the regulations will strengthen pensioner representation to the extent that such circumstances will not occur? Pensioners with a clear interest in their pensions' futures should be properly represented.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wish to support the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on the basis of the contribution by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). When I opened my post to find a letter from the hon. Gentleman asking me to sign his early-day motion—or, rather, a letter in support of the early-day motion—I was foolish enough, like 150 other hon. Members, to sign. I thought that we should sign it because the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West meant business. I now learn that, when push came to shove, the Whip moved up the Gangway quickly and the hon. Gentleman gave in easily.
  Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of giving in to a Whip. He first suggested, and then withdrew the suggestion, that I had written to him, which I had not, and he then suggested that I put forward an idea for an early-day motion that I never put forward in the first place.
  Mr. Field: I merely suggested that the hon. Gentleman stood up proudly tonight—giving us a good example of self-hanging—and drew the attention of the House to the fact that he helped to devise the early-day motion. I thought that we were supposed to devise early-day motions to put on the Order Paper, but we learned something different tonight.
  People wrote to Members of Parliament asking us to support the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman helped others to compose. Presumably we sign early-day motions because we want to influence policy. It was crunch time tonight: the hon. Member for Kemptown made a clear case for sectional interests to be represented on pension funds. The answer from the Treasury Bench is, "You don't have to worry: people will talk about these things and it will be fine."
  Pensioner interests will not be represented effectively on pension funds. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) could not be answered, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) will not receive satisfaction from the Treasury Bench that his constituent's interests will be represented. Those points underscore the claim of the hon. Member for Kemptown.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Minister presented another scenario: pensioners could take pension funds to court because of a lack of fiduciary duty. That is a non-starter.
  Mr. Field: It certainly is, given the costs. The case has been made that, according to democratic traditions in this

  299
  country, interests are represented. Therefore, is it not slightly absurd that pensioner interests are not represented directly on pension funds? That is one view.
  We know that all trustees have an overriding commitment to the welfare of a fund and its members. We know also that, although one tries to meet that objective, one's background affects what one says and how one applies one's intellect to a particular decision. As most of the members of many funds are retired, it seems absurd that we are not trying to use our influence to ensure that they are fully represented. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the statutory instruments on which we shall vote later.
  I shall offer another reason for rejecting the statutory instruments. At the beginning of the debate, the Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), said that at least one of the instruments was defective. Therefore, tonight we are asked to approve an instrument that is defective and that the Government will have to amend. I confidently expected the Minister to devote a substantial part of his speech to telling us what was defective in which motion; at least then we would know that we were wrong to support it in the Division Lobby. However, we do not know what is wrong, because the Minister did not tell us—although he apologised because it was wrong.
  As the instrument does not address the real feelings in the House that pensioners' views should be represented on trusts, and given that we are asked to approve defective regulations that must be changed anyway, would it not be better for the Government not to face defeat but to withdraw the statutory instrument? The Government should listen carefully, if not to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, then at least to the 150 other Members of Parliament who signed the motion standing in his name, because we were serious about the point that we thought he was making. They could then return to the House with new regulations that we could approve with happy hearts.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for conducting reasonable discussions recently. Questions have been raised about why we sign early-day motions. We do so to apply pressure to Ministers so that discussions may follow and some movement may occur. That happens on occasion. In this instance, I must express some disappointment that we shall not appoint mandatory pensioner trustees to pension funds of a reasonable size. That is regrettable. At the same time, I take reassurance from my hon. Friend saying that he is committed to monitoring and to bringing about change, if that is necessary. I take some comfort from that.
  I now turn to the British Telecom pension and the involvement of the Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners. I welcome the fact that, induced by Government legislation and, perhaps, by the regulations, a position that was fought against recently by trade unions and employers alike has been changed. A change has been induced by the suggestion that the regulations will come into force, and I welcome that. I believe that the Government may regret not having taken the opportunity to go further. However, I am reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister.
  300
  I point to one fund in my constituency. The company has shrunk over a long period and without doubt, there are many more pensioners than active workers in that pension fund. In a company that is constantly under pressure, the work force could be under pressure from management to accept deals that would not always be to the benefit of the pension fund and the pensioners. That gives me some concern. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address that point when he winds up.
  11.26 pm
  Sir John Cope: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I am one of those who supported the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is my parliamentary neighbour. I was concerned about a number of pension schemes with very high proportions of pensioner members, of which we have a number of examples in our part of the country—I am sure that that is true of other constituencies. I have had quite a lot of correspondence and a number of discussions with successive Ministers who have been responsible for developing pensions policy, both before the Pensions Bill and in the consultation period on these regulations.
  I am concerned about the Opposition's attitude, because they seem to be trying to impose representative capacities on trustees. I do not believe that that is desirable. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that it was part of our democratic tradition for interests to be represented. I believe that it is difficult to reproduce that tradition on boards of trustees of pension funds. I believe that all trustees responsible for pension schemes should have full responsibility for what is done by the trustees and should not see themselves as representatives of the different interests. They should all, in effect, be independent, even though, of course, they will reflect their different backgrounds.
  I have another reservation about what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He urged greater simplicity and he made great play of the necessity for simplicity. However, he seemed to wish to impose simplicity by regulation. The Government are offering flexibility in schemes. That is the right thing to do, because every scheme differs in the proportion of active members and pensioner members, and in the circumstances that surround it. That is why it is right to provide flexibility as the regulations do.
  I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the fiduciary duty of trustees, to which, as I have explained, I attach importance, and by the possibility of references to the pensions ombudsman, to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and, ultimately if required—this is an important safeguard which we should not dismiss—to the courts. All in all, I support the regulations as a way to ensure that all the interests are properly represented in a flexible way on every pension trustee board.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Heald: We have had an interesting discussion, which has concentrated on member-nominated trustees. We heard distinguished and thoughtful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for North Thanet

  301
  (Mr. Gale)—and from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who has had courteous discussions with me about the issue.
  We understand what has been said about pensioner trustees—pensioners can make a very useful contribution to the running of their schemes—but we have gone far beyond the Goode recommendations, giving pensioners a significant role to play in the selection process. I think it is better for active and pensioner members, working together, to choose the trustees they really want. The Government have been consistent in what they have said about that. They have always made the point that the prescribed rules must be speedy to implement, and must include active members only.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) opened his remarks by talking about contracted-out mixed-benefit schemes, suggesting that it was too onerous to have two separate sides to such schemes. He did not seem to appreciate that that arrangement had been made to ensure that the consent of the member could be obtained before his or her accrued rights were transferred from one side of the scheme to the other. We consider that an important element of security for scheme members. It is rather rich for the hon. Gentleman to say that the proposals do not involve adequate security for members, and then to suggest a system that would interfere with that very security.
  The hon. Gentleman proposed that, for large schemes with more than 1,000 members, there should be a statutory pensioner member. What about the bulk of schemes—the 100,000 with 12 members or fewer? The message would go out to them that they did not have to have a pensioner trustee; that would apply only to large schemes. There is nothing in the hon. Gentleman's proposals for the vast majority of schemes. Moreover, the fact that a scheme has 1,000 members does not mean that it has a significant number of pensioner members. Many schemes have a tiny number of pensioner members. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman may feel that the flexibility in the Government's proposals is far better.
  Then we came to the proposals from the paymaster, the TUC. The hon. Gentleman spoke of opting-out proposals involving under a third of member-nominated trustees, completely ignoring the fact that many employers might favour existing arrangements providing for wholly independent trustees, who are thought by many to provide excellent protection for all members. He went on to propose complicating the scheme even more. The man who has previously spoken up for deregulation suggested that, instead of one threshold, we should have two—possibly more. He then suggested that we should rejig the arrangements in other ways.
  The Opposition tabled 740 amendments to the Pensions Bill, many of which added to regulation. Now they turn around and pretend that they are the friend of the deregulator. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government have the balance right.
  Mr. Gallie: Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) suggest that the regulations were cumbersome? Does he agree that, had we listened to the hon. Gentleman, they would have been still more cumbersome?
  Mr. Heald: It is no secret that members of the Labour party are the regulators and the Conservatives are the
  302
  deregulators. Nowhere is that more true than in pensions, although the Conservative party always stands for security and adequate protection. New Labour, new dangers; further regulation.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Heald: No.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) spoke of breaking commitments. The Government have always made it clear that prescribed rules—
  Mr. Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are voting on regulations that we are told are defective, will the Minister tell us what is defective about them before he finishes his speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): The Minister is responsible for his own speech.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I have time, I will come to that point.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale claimed that commitments had been broken, but the Government have always made it clear that the prescribed rules would exclude pensioner members so that, after the long procedure—which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury so well described, although he made about two mistakes—it is possible to achieve the deadlines and to get the member-nominated trustees in place, which was highlighted as a priority by hon. Members on both sides of the House during consideration of the Pensions Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet raised a particular case. Under the protections in the Pensions Act and under these regulations taken as a whole, trustees run their schemes with the benefit of more knowledge and more help. What is more, they also have the duty, on the transfer of an undertaking, to consider how fund assets may best be protected. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss that with me further on another occasion, I should be happy to do so.
  May I cover the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr? He was anxious that pensioners should be properly protected. I have set out the protections in the regulations. They are adequate, but I can give him the commitment that he wanted, which is that the Government will monitor the operation of the regulations and that, if there is abuse, they will be changed in due course. The Government believe, however, that the prize of flexibility is so important in the context of the pensions industry, that it would be right to proceed with the regulations as they stand.
  On the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I make the following points. In regulation 13(5)(ii) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations, there are words purporting to be quoted from regulation 13(2)(d) that do not appear there. An amendment is to be made to identify the actual words. It is also necessary to explain the hypothesis in the second limb of paragraph 10(2) of schedule 1. Regulation 13(2)(d) was amended in the final proof of the regulations, but the consequential amendment to regulation 13(5)(ii) was overlooked. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured, however, that these are all purely technical matters of no substance and that they will all be dealt with in due course, if the House approves the regulations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]
  Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [1 July],
  That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
  >The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 271.

  Division No. 183]

  [11.37 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Connarty, Michael

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corston.Jean

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barron, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Boateng, Paul

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Keith

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Byers, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Callaghan, Jim

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fraser, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Galbraith, Sam

  Chidgey, David

  Galloway, George

  Church, Judith

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  304

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gunnell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hain, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heppell, John

  Olner, Bill

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Hodge, Margaret

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Pearson, Ian

  Home Robertson, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North,

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rendel, David

  Jamieson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C & S)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  McAllion, John

  Snape, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spellar, John

  McFall, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Stott, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  MacShane, Denis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maddock, Diana

  Timms, Stephen

  Mahon, Alice

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mandelson, Peter

  Touhig, Don

  Marek, Dr John

  Trickett, Jon

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Vaz, Keith

  Meacher, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Meale, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Michael, Alun

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Watson, Mike

  Milburn, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Miller, Andrew

  Wigley, Dafydd

  305

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (sw'n W)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Eric Martlew.

  Worthington, Tony

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Setby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Amess, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forman, Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forth, Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Booth, Hartley

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bright Sir Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss. Michael

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  306

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stem, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, Georqe

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitney, Ray

  Pickles, Eric

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Yeo, Tim

  Riddick, Graham

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Mr. Sebastian Coe and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

  DOUBLE TAXATION
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Argentina) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th June.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mongolia) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th June.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Venezuela) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th June.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

  Mr. Siraj Miah
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  11.51 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It gives me no pleasure to raise this matter tonight, as it is a sad case. A constituent of mine who had lived in Britain for more than 20 years returned to Bangladesh in early May to see his family. At the airport, it would appear that a bribe was not paid to customs officers, whereupon my constituent was seized and beaten up. He died as a result of his injuries.
  As I said, it is a sad case. Apparently, however, this is fairly widespread in the countries in the middle east. Pakistan has a similar record of harassment towards expatriates going back home. India has a similar record, and Bangladesh—the country with which I am mainly concerned—has an atrocious record. I have brought the matter to the House because expatriates and British passport holders—people who have lived in this country for a long time—are being unduly harassed.
  I want to try to explain to the House what has been happening. It might seem light to us, but it is not for those people who are travelling back home and are being harassed by people at the airport. It seems that this has gone on for a long time, and it has now resulted in a murder inquiry, which I am led to believe is going on in Dhaka.
  It is sad to see that these things seem to be common practice and custom when they should have been stamped out. People come to see me with such stories, and I am sure that other hon. Members have similar stories. Such things may not seem much to us, but they are big problems for people travelling back to their homeland.
  The witnesses that I have interviewed over the past week say that passports are collected by immigration officers. People are allowed to pass through and their passports are returned. However, one or two individuals will be stopped and immigration officials will claim that they have not got their passports. Those people are told that they must pay around £30 or £50 to the customs office. That may not sound much to us, but £20 is a month's wages to people in Bangladesh.
  When the money is paid, immigration officials say that they have found the passports and give them back. They keep the passports under the shelf and pick on one or people to harass about not having their passports so that they can ask them for money. If such people do not want any hassle, they hand over the money. That has been going on for some time.
  Travellers are often told by officials that if they pay £50, their luggage will not be opened. Bangladesh is a hot country and the atmosphere is tense, especially after a long flight from the UK. If they pay, their cases are marked with crosses and allowed to proceed through customs. If they do not pay, all their cases will be opened. Witnesses say that their belongings are thrown all over the place and heated debates follow because they have paid nothing. That is another form of harassment. They have to pick up their belongings from the floor.
  Some travellers have to go to another airport, Sylhet, which is 200 or 300 miles away—the same distance as between London and Newcastle. They have to fly first to

  309
  Dacca, because Sylhet is not an international airport. It would not be a bad idea to make Sylhet an international airport. That would reduce harassment, because some passengers get it at both airports.
  When passengers try to catch connecting flights, they are told that there are no seats on the plane to Sylhet. If they put their money on the table, they are told that it might be possible to get them a seat. Again, they are harassed. Even if the plane flies off with half a load, it does not matter to the officials. If they have not had their money, they make the passengers wait. Sometimes, passengers have to wait 24 or more hours for the next flight, and hope that they can get on without being harassed for money at every turn. That happens even when the connecting flight has numerous empty seats. There are only three flights a day, so the wait must be at least eight hours.
  Imagine travelling with a group or family. Officials tell people that there is only room for three out of a group of five, and that the others must stop behind unless they make a back-hand payment. Few people want to leave half their family behind, so they pay. People who steadfastly refuse to pay the money are told that a seat on a connecting flight will be found when they have paid the money. If they get through without paying any money, they find when they arrive at Sylhet that their bags have not been put on the aeroplane. So they have more hassle when they arrive and find that, because they did not pay the money, their baggage is not at the other end.
  I do not know what happened to my constituent, Mr. Miah, but we can have a good guess that he refused to pay a bribe, was beaten up, and died as a result of his injuries, leaving a widow and three children back in Blyth Valley.
  I do not know how far the problem spreads, but I realise that it has spread to many countries. I do not know what the authorities in Dhaka, Pakistan or India are doing about the problem, but the British Government do not seem to be doing anything at all. I am not suggesting that the Government are affected by the colour of a man's skin, but if a white man going through Dhaka airport had lost his life, lo and behold, all hell would have been let loose in the Chamber. But unfortunately it was not a white man. It was a coloured gentleman who lived in my consituency.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should take a strong hand in the matter. It seems to me that the practice goes right to the top, even to the chief of police at the airport. It seems to me that the authorities in those countries are allowing the harassment of people going back home, resulting in injury and in this case even death.
  I understand that a murder case is being investigated in Dhaka. I hope that the investigation is not a cover-up, but that it is done properly. In many cases, airport officials seems to have more power than the government of the country. The Foreign Minister, and even the new Prime Minister of Bangladesh, seem to be burying their heads in the sand. Airport officials harass as many people as they can so that they can extort money from them. I hope that the Minister has something to tell us this evening about these people going abroad.
  Not all is well. The British Foreign Office just sits on its backside and does nothing at all. I have written to the Foreign Office about the matter, and raised it on the Floor of the House. I have received one letter since the death of this unfortunate person. The Foreign Office is burying its
  310
  head in the sand, as if it was someone else's problem. It is not someone else's problem, but the problem of our Government. It is the problem of the Foreign Office, which should sort it out with the people in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. The harassment goes on throughout the region. In this day and age, it should stop.
  International flights operated by British Airways and other airlines go into Dhaka. Why is something not done by the airlines? Why is British Airways not kicking up a fuss when it brings people to Dhaka airport knowing full well that, once they leave the aeroplane, they will be harassed by officials? Why do the airlines not ask the Foreign Office to do something?
  Are the airlines burying their heads in the sand? After all, they are receiving money to carry passengers to these countries. Surely the airport authorities in Britain, along with companies such as British Airways, should at least put pressure on someone in the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office seems to be shaking its head at every turn when these questions are raised.
  We want justice for Mr. Miah. He has left a widow and three children. If we do not get justice, we will be seen to be failing in our job in the House. It is wrong that this should happen. The utmost pressure should be applied by the Foreign Office. I see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in his place. I am not sure whether he is the right one for the job. It should have been another Minister, but never mind, I will wait and hear what he has to say.
  I hope that he has done something about the problem; I hope that he has contacted the Foreign Office in Dhaka and Bangladesh and made the point that people who live in this country and return home will not be harassed again in those airports. I hope that he has something to tell me, and I hope that the harassment stops.
  But I do not want it to stop only for a few months, just because someone has been murdered and a murder inquiry is being carried out—we do not know what is happening about that. We want such harassment to stop for good; we want Mr. Miah's death to bring something to bear on those evil men in Dhaka airport who trade in corruption and bribery. I hope that the Minister will have something to tell me this evening.
  12.4 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I apologise to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who holds ministerial responsibility for our relations with India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and for consular matters. He is presently in Indonesia on official business, so is unable to respond to the debate. I will do my best to do justice both to the debate and to the interests of Mr. Miah.
  The protection of Britons and British interests overseas is the most important role of our diplomatic missions. Consular officials react immediately to allegations of mistreatment of Britons overseas. It is also important that appropriate travel guidance is given to Britons before they travel, and that knowledge of difficulties that may be faced by Britons receives the widest possible publicity. I am glad that the hon. Member has raised the subject, and I congratulate him on using the Adjournment debate to

  311
  bring to the attention of the House some of the problems faced by British citizens travelling to India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
  From time to time, we have received reports of harassment of British citizens in those three countries—they have come mainly from Bangladesh, where our high commission has heard of British/Bangladeshi business men experiencing problems with customs or immigration officials at Zia international airport. Timely intervention by high commission staff has, on occasions, been sufficient to resolve the difficulties.
  However, as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has told us, an incident occurred recently at Zia international airport which tragically resulted in the death of Mr. Siraj Miah, a British/Bangladeshi business man, while he was in the custody of customs officials. The British high commission was not immediately informed of Mr. Miah's death.
  We are deeply concerned by this incident, and have expressed our concern to the Bangladeshi authorities. They are conducting a murder inquiry. We have urged them to complete the inquiry as soon as possible, and to let us know the result. We have expressed our deepest sympathy to Mr. Miah's wife and family, and I reiterate that today.
  We first learned of Mr. Miah's death from reports in the Dhaka press around 16 May. Mr. Siraj Miah, who, we understand, enjoyed both British and Bangladeshi nationality, reportedly died while in the custody of officials at Zia international airport on 9 May. Conflicting stories initially suggested that he had fallen against a window, cut himself and died later in hospital, or that he had become involved in a struggle and, as a result, suffered a heart attack.
  It was also alleged that Mr. Miah had been taken into custody, severely beaten by customs officers and later died. No official statement has yet been made by the Bangladeshi authorities, and we do not yet know the truth of the matter.
  Following those reports, and inquiries from groups representing the Bangladeshi community in the UK, our high commission made inquiries of the Dhaka police authorities on 19 May. They informed the high commission that the Dhaka metropolitan police had launched a murder investigation into Mr. Miah's death. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office instructed the high commission to bring this case to the attention of the Bangladesh Home Secretary and establish what action was taken to investigate the death. I should explain, en passant, that the Home Secretary is the senior official at the Bangladesh Home Ministry. These events took place during the period when Bangladesh had a caretaker Government, pending elections that took place on 12 June.
  On 22 May, in the absence of the Bangladeshi Home Secretary, Miss Miriam McIntosh, the deputy high commissioner, called on Faizur Rahman Choudhury, the Additional Home Secretary. She expressed our concern over the circumstances surrounding Mr. Miah's death, and drew Mr. Choudhury's attention to the high level of concern in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Choudhury repeated that the case was being treated as murder, and that the Criminal Investigation Division had been charged to carry out a prompt investigation.
  312
  He said that the investigation was already under way, and promised to keep us informed of developments. He said that whoever was found to be responsible would feel the full weight of the law. Subsequently, on 3 June, the first secretary of the high commission spoke to the additional secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, who confirmed that the investigation was continuing.
  On 10 June, the first secretary called on the Additional Home Secretary and drew his attention to the UK parliamentary interest in the case, referring to the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley and others, which focused on the treatment that returning British Bangladeshis received on arrival in Bangladesh. He also drew his attention to the fact that several organisations in the UK had written along similar lines.
  He asked what steps the Bangladesh authorities intended to take to guarantee the safe arrival and the smooth—in the hon. Gentleman's word, "hassle-free"—transfer of passengers from the United Kingdom. He reiterated our concern following Mr. Miah's death, and urged him to ensure that the inquiry was completed as soon as possible.
  Mr. Choudhury informed him that the murder investigation was still proceeding, and confirmed that we would be made aware of the outcome. Mr. Choudhury also assured him that the Home Ministry had instructed the civil aviation authorities on their responsibilities towards international travellers through Zia international airport. He said that the Bangladesh authorities took these responsibilities very seriously.
  Following the 12 June elections and the formation of a new Government, Mr. Peter Fowler, our high commissioner in Dhaka, called on the new Home Secretary, Rafiqul Islam, on 4 July to pursue the case. At the meeting, the high commissioner emphasised the extent of feeling about the case in the United Kingdom; concern expressed at Mr. Miah's tragic death by the House; and the strength of accumulated frustration and irritation felt in the UK at the behaviour of customs and other officials in Bangladesh, especially at Zia international airport. The Home Secretary promised to follow up on this case. We will continue to urge the Home Ministry to expedite the police inquiry.
  The high commissioner also raised the matter with the new Foreign Minister when he called on him on 8 July. The Foreign Minister repeated assurances that the case would be vigorously pursued by the Bangladeshi authorities.
  I have set out the chronology of our involvement following Mr. Miah's tragic death to show how seriously we are treating the case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees that a series of actions have been addressed to that.
  The British high commission in Dhaka has expressed to the Bangladeshi authorities its dissatisfaction at the way in which British citizens are treated at Zia international airport. It intends to work closely with the airport authorities and other interested parties with a view to improving services for British passengers.
  The hon. Gentleman to some extent majored on the issue of bribes. There have been reports of customs officials at Dhaka demanding bribes from returning British Bangladeshis. It is a difficult area, but we suggest that complaints be made to the police or to the Bangladesh

  313
  high commissioner in London, or that our high commission be informed, which can draw the matter to the attention of the local authorities in each case. That is our recommendation regarding individual cases.
  If I may widen the point a little, many people will be familiar with the consular protection services that we provide to British citizens throughout the world. There is no distinction between British citizens of any colour, creed or religion. I reiterate that point, because it is important to understand our attitude to this.
  It is worth reminding the House what we can and cannot do. We devote considerable resources to safeguarding the interests of British nationals overseas. In 1994–95, the cost of consular services overseas amounted to some £42 million. The calls on our services are increasing, as are the numbers of Britons who travel abroad. In 1995, 41.5 million UK citizens travelled overseas—an increase of 7.5 per cent. over 1994. British nationals resident overseas now number more than 10 million people. There were over 17,000 requests for consular assistance in 1995.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gives consular help and advice to Britons abroad in a variety of ways, through our consular staff overseas. Apart from such statutory activities as passport issue, birth and death registration and the certification of various legal documents, consular staff deal with many human problems.
  Those range from helping people who have lost their passport, fallen ill, been robbed, beaten up, injured or arrested—rightly or wrongly—often in a country where they are friendless and whose language and customs they do not understand. Our staff deal with football hooligans, drunks and drug smugglers, and they are required to visit regularly all prisoners who want them to do so.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a lot to get through.
  Consular staff often see people at their most vulnerable or at their worst; they may have to deal with sudden death, suicides, emergencies, major disasters and grieving relatives.
  In providing consular assistance, the Government do not draw a distinction between the different categories of British nationality. Nor do they distinguish between those who have acquired British citizenship through residence in the UK or by other means, such as the British nationality selection scheme. All receive equal treatment.
  314
  However, there are certain things that we cannot do. We have no locus to intervene with the Government of Bangladesh on behalf of one of its citizens. International law limits the formal protection that we can offer to dual nationals when they are in the country of their other nationality. We cannot interfere in the local judicial procedures of a sovereign state, nor can we investigate a crime: that is for the local police authorities. There are, therefore, legal limits to what the Government can formally do in such cases. That does not, however, prevent us doing whatever we can to help informally.
  Certainly, British nationals who are also nationals of another country cannot be protected by Her Majesty's representatives from the authorities of that other country. If, under the law of the country of their second nationality, they are liable for any obligation such as military service, the fact that they also enjoy British nationality does not offer them exemption.
  British citizens who have some connection with a foreign or Commonwealth country by birth, descent or marriage may be nationals of that country in addition to being British nationals. Acquisition of British nationality or citizenship by a foreigner does not necessarily cause the loss of nationality of origin. So we are limited in some respects.
  Relations between the UK and Bangladesh are based on long historical ties, and marked by close friendship. The hon. Gentleman alluded to that fact. The Bangladeshi community in the UK play an important role in maintaining the strong links that exist between our countries. I am well aware of the depth of feeling surrounding the case of Mr. Siraj Miah within the British Bangladeshi community, and we take their views fully into account.
  I believe that the range of actions that I have outlined shows that the British Government have taken all possible steps to ensure that a full investigation is carried out into Mr. Miah's death, and that conditions for British citizens visiting Bangladesh are improved.
  I conclude by reassuring the House that we shall continue to pursue this case with the Government of Bangladesh. Depending on the outcome of their inquiry, we will then consider what additional steps we should next take.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

TREASURY

  "Monthly Digest of Statistics"
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the number of groups in respect of which he has produced quarterly figures in table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics"; and if he will list figures for the groups hitherto excluded. [35712]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information in table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" is presented in accordance with the periodicity of collection. The data are published at the aggregate division level classified to the standard industrial classification 1992. Data are published on a quarterly basis only where the periodicity of collection allows aggregation to this level. The periodicity of collection is primarily determined by article 4 of EC regulation No. 3924/91 and as stipulated in the products of the European Community—Prodcom—list, ISBN 92–827–5164–3.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the weights to be assigned to each of the items in ratio 1 in table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics", indicating the weights attached in 1973. [35711]

  Mrs. Knight
  No weights are used in the calculation of the import penetration ratios published in table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics". However, the proportion of gross domestic product represented by each sector of industry can be derived from table 2.2 of the United Kingdom national accounts publication. Figures for 1973 are available from the Office for National Statistics databank which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the figures for import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures by imports from other EU countries for each year since 1970; [35713]

  (2) if he will list the revised figures for import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures for each year since 1970; [35715]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the shift to standard industrial classification 1992 on the figures for import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures; [35710]

  (4) what has been the import share of the United Kingdom market for manufactures in each year since 1980; and what is his forecast for long-term change in that share. [35932]
  96
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Import penetration figures for the period 1970 to 1994—and quarterly figures for 1995—the most recent figures available, can be found in publications as indicated in the following table. These publications can be assessed in the House of Commons Library, with the exception of the February 1989 edition of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics". A copy of the relevant table of this edition will be placed in the Library today. The table also indicates the standard industrial classification on which the data are based.

  Import penetration ratios—latest revised data

  Period

  SIC

  Published source

  Edition

  1970–1973

  1968

  Economic Trends

  August 1977

  1974–1975

  1968

  Monthly Digest Table 15.3

  January 1983

  1976

  1968

  Monthly Digest Table 15.3

  May 1983

  1977

  1968

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  November 1983

  1978–79

  1980

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  March 1986

  1980

  1980

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  December 1986

  1981

  1980

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  February 1989

  1982

  1980

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  September 1989

  1983

  1980

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  June 1990

  1984–1988

  1980

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  November 1993

  1993

  1992

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  May 1996

  1994

  1992

  Monthly Digest Table 15.10

  June 1996

  Figures are not available for the years 1989 to 1992. Publication of the import penetration figures was reinstated in the April 1995 edition of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" in table 15.10 based on the introduction of the standard industrial classification 1992. Revised figures for 1993, 1994, and 1995 figures for those industries where data are collected on a quarterly basis will be published in the July 1996 edition later this month. Import penetration figures are not available on an EU country breakdown basis. The Office for National Statistics has made no forecasts for future import penetration levels.

  The 1995 figures for those industries where data are collected on a quarterly basis will be published in the July 1996 edition later this month. Import penetration figures are not available on an EU country breakdown basis. The Office for National Statistics has made no forecasts for future import penetration levels.

  Defence-related Manufacturing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the civilian population was engaged in defence-related manufacturing in each year since 1979. [35967]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The available information is provided in the following table.

  Employment dependent on defence expenditure as a proportion of civilian population: United Kingdom1

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  0.9

  1979–80

  0.9

  1980–81

  1.0

  1981–82

  1.0

  1982–83

  1.0

  1983–84

  0.9

  1984–85

  0.9

  1985–86

  0.8

  1986–87

  0.8

  1987–88

  0.9

  97

  Employment dependent on defence expenditure as a proportion of civilian population: United Kingdom1

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  0.8

  1989–90

  0.8

  1990–91

  0.7

  1991–92

  0.7

  1992–93

  0.6

  1993–94

  0.5

  1 Includes exports but excludes non-equipment related expenditure in UK.

  Source:

  UK Defence Statistics, MOD and ONS.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been(a) the absolute and (b) the percentage change in the number of jobs in United Kingdom manufacturing since 1993; and what are the figures for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. [35934]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested for the United Kingdom is shown in the following table. OECD comparisons for the period requested are not available.

  Employees in manufacturing in the United Kingdom: at March (seasonally adjusted)

  1993

  1996

  Change

  000

  000

  000

  per cent.

  3,922

  3,938

  16

  0.4

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the deficit in trade in manufactures is being financed. [35988]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The current account deficit over the past two years has been less than ½ per cent. of GDP, and around one third of the deficit on trade in manufactures, with strong surpluses on trade in services and overseas investment income. The current account deficit is financed by capital account inflows—net overseas investment in the UK—reducing net external assets. But the UK's net external assets have recently been rising, to £70 billion at the end of 1996, Q1. This reflects net capital gains on our net assets outweighing any capital inflows.

  Composite Insurance Companies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the regulatory organisations within his Department which have responsibility in relation to composite insurance companies. [36034]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has no direct regulatory responsibilities for composite insurance companies as such. However, marketing of life business, including that of composite insurance companies, is regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986 for which the Treasury has policy responsibility. The main FSA 98
  regulators responsible for life business are the Securities and Investments Board, the Personal Investment Authority and the Insurance Brokers Registration Council.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on interest rates. [36273]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Interest rates are set to achieve the inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff Salaries
  Sir David Mitchell
  To as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list the staff of the House whose salary plus additional payments take their emoluments above the salaries of(a) hon. Members, (b) Under-Secretaries, (c) Ministers of State and (d) Cabinet Ministers. [35651]

  Mr. Beith
  The information requested is listed in the following tables:

  (a) Staff whose salaries plus allowances exceed the salary of an hon. Member

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Part-time)

  1

  —

  Speaker's Secretary

  1

  5

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Clerk Assistant

  1

  2

  Clerk of Committees

  1

  2

  Speaker's Counsel

  2

  3

  Principal Clerk Class I

  6

  3

  Principal Clerk Class II

  4

  4

  Deputy Principal Clerk

  25

  5

  Assistant to Speaker's Counsel

  2

  5

  Deliverer of the Vote

  1

  5

  Supervisor of Broadcasting

  1

  6

  Senior Clerk

  7

  7

  Deputy Deliverer of the Vote

  2

  7

  Clerk (Committee Office)

  1

  7

  Department of the Serjeant at Arms

  Serjeant at Arms

  1

  3

  Director of Works

  1

  4

  Deputy Serjeant at Arms

  1

  5

  Information Systems Officer

  1

  5

  Assistant Serjeant At Arms

  1

  6

  Deputy Director of Works

  1

  6

  Fire Safety Manager

  1

  7

  Furnishing Manager

  1

  7

  Principal Building Surveyor

  1

  7

  Works Manager

  1

  7

  Project Sponsor

  1

  7

  Head of Admin, and Finance

  1

  7

  Quantity Surveyor

  1

  7

  Head of Secretariat

  1

  7

  Department of the Library

  Librarian

  1

  3

  Deputy Librarian

  1

  4

  99

  (a) Staff whose salaries plus allowances exceed the salary of an hon. Member

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Directors of Services

  3

  5

  Deputy Assistant Librarian

  8

  6

  Senior Library Clerk

  9

  7

  Head of Information Technology

  1

  7

  Department of the Official Report

  Editor

  1

  4

  Deputy Editor

  1

  5

  Assistant Editor

  7

  6

  Principal Assistant Editor

  4

  6

  Committee Sub-Editor

  7

  7

  Department of Finance and Administration

  Director of Finance and Administration

  1

  3

  Accountant

  1

  4

  Head of the Establishments Office

  1

  4

  Head of the Finance Office

  1

  5

  Staff Inspector

  1

  6

  Deputy Accountant

  1

  6

  Deputy Head of Establishments

  1

  6

  Assistant Accountant

  3

  7

  Head of Policy/Project Unit

  1

  7

  Internal Auditor

  1

  7

  Refreshment Department

  Director of Catering Services

  1

  5

  Executive Chef

  1

  7

  Financial Controller

  1

  7

  (b) Staff whose salaries plus allowances exceed the salary of an Under-Secretary

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (part-time)

  1

  —

  Speaker's Secretary

  1

  5

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Clerk Assistant

  1

  2

  Clerk of Committees

  1

  2

  Speaker's Counsel

  2

  3

  Principal Clerk Class I

  6

  3

  Principal Clerk Class II

  4

  4

  Assistant to Speaker's Counsel

  2

  5

  Deputy Principal Clerk

  18

  5

  Department of the Serjeant at Arms

  Serjeant at Arms

  1

  3

  Deputy Serjeant at Arms

  1

  5

  Information Systems Officer

  1

  5

  Director of Works

  1

  4

  Department of the Library

  Librarian

  1

  3

  Deputy Librarian

  1

  4

  Director of Services

  3

  5

  Department of Official Report

  Editor

  1

  4

  Deputy Editor

  1

  5

  Principal Assistant Editor

  2

  6

  Department of Finance and Administration

  Director of Finance and Administration

  1

  3

  100

  (b) Staff whose salaries plus allowances exceed the salary of an Under-Secretary

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Accountant

  1

  4

  Head of Establishments Office

  1

  4

  Refreshment Department

  Director of Catering Services

  1

  5

  (c) Staff whose salaries plus allowances exceed the salary of a Minister of State

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Part-time)

  1

  —

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Clerk Assistant

  1

  2

  Clerk of Committees

  1

  2

  Speaker's Counsel

  2

  3

  Principal Clerk Class I

  6

  3

  Principal Clerk Class II

  3

  4

  Department of the Serjeant at Arms

  Serjeant at Arms

  1

  3

  Director of Works

  1

  4

  Department of the Library

  Librarian

  1

  3

  Deputy Librarian

  1

  4

  Department of the Official Report

  Editor

  1

  4

  Department of Finance and Administration

  Director of Finance and Administration

  1

  3

  (d) Staff whose salaries plus allowances exceed the salary of a Cabinet Minister

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Part-time)

  1

  —

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Clerk Assistant

  1

  2

  Clerk of Committees

  1

  2

  Department of the Serjeant of Arms

  None

  —

  —

  Department of the Library

  None

  —

  —

  Department of the Official Report

  None

  —

  —

  Department of Finance and Administration

  None

  —

  —

  Refreshment Department

  None

  —

  —

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are debt free; if he will list them and the party or parties currently in political control of them; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of local authority indebtedness. [35662]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table sets out the list of those authorities that expected to be debt-free on 1 April 1996, and their current political control. We continue to encourage local authorities to reduce their outstanding debt using sums that they have set aside for this purpose.

  Local authorities with debt-free status as at 1 April 19961

  Local Authority

  Political control

  Barking and Dagenham

  LAB

  Basingstoke and Deane

  NOC

  Bedford

  NOC

  Bracknell Forest

  LAB

  Breckland

  NOC

  Broadland

  NOC

  Chiltern

  NOC

  Christchurch

  NOC

  City of London

  IND

  Crawley

  LAB

  Dacorum

  LAB

  Dartford

  LAB

  Daventry

  NOC

  Dorset

  LIB/DEM

  East Cambridgeshire

  IND

  East Devon

  NOC

  East Dorset

  LIB/DEM

  Eden

  IND

  Epsom and Ewell

  Rate-payers

  Forest Heath

  NOC

  Hambleton

  NOC

  Hart

  NOC

  Havant

  NOC

  Hertsmere

  LAB

  Kennet

  NOC

  Leominster

  IND

  Malvern Hills

  NOC

  Mid Bedfordshire

  NOC

  Mid Sussex

  LIB/DEM

  Newbury

  LIB/DEM

  Penwith

  NOC

  Rochester upon Medway

  LAB

  Runnymede

  NOC

  Rushmoor

  NOC

  Ryedale

  NOC

  Sevenoaks

  NOC

  South Bucks

  NOC

  South Cambridgeshire

  NOC

  South Northamptonshire

  NOC

  South Ribble

  LAB

  South Shropshire

  IND

  Spelthorne

  CON

  St. Edmundsbury

  LAB

  Suffolk Coastal

  NOC

  Surrey Heath

  CON

  Swale

  NOC

  Tewkesbury

  NOC

  Tonbridge and Malling

  NOC

  Tunbridge Wells

  LIB/DEM

  Uttlesford

  NOC

  Vale of White Horse

  LIB/DEM

  Wansdyke

  LAB

  Welwyn Hatfield

  LAB

  West Sussex

  NOC

  102

  Local authorities with debt-free status as at 1 April 19961

  Local Authority

  Political control

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  LIB/DEM

  Wychavon

  NOC

  Wyre

  LAB

  1 Does not include miscellaneous authorities, such as police, waste and fire authorities.

  Cinema and Leisure Park, Wearmouth
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the planning proposals for a multi-screen cinema and leisure park on the site of the former Wearmouth colliery, Trindon street and Dallion New road; when departmental officials last discussed the proposals with (i) the Tyne and Wear development corporation, (ii) Cowies, (iii) Camborough Ltd, (iv) Sunderland local authority, (v) IGP Developments, (vi) Vaux Ltd, and (vii) the Bowie Group; when he expects to make a decision on the planning applications; and if he will make a statement. [35700]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has received one representation about these proposals from agents acting for Cowies. The proposals have been drawn to his attention by the Tyne and Wear development corporation and by reports on the local media. On 21 and 24 June, The Secretary of State issued directions under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 preventing the local planning authorities, the Tyne and Wear development corporation and Sunderland city council, from determining the applications until he had considered whether or not he should call them in. Copies of the applications and documentation were received by the Government office for the north-east on 21 June and these are being considered at present.

  No discussions have taken place between departmental officials and Cowies, Carnborough Ltd, Vaux Ltd or the Bowey Group. Departmental officials have spoken to Sunderland city council once and on several occasions to the Tyne and Wear development corporation, in connection with the application.

  Council Homes
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the average time taken to re-let council homes in each of the metropolitan councils; and if he will make a statement. [35859]

  Mr. Curry
  Local authorities in England are requested to provide information on the average time they take to re-let council dwellings, excluding those let after major repair work in their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns.

  The latest available figures, which relate to dwellings let during the financial year 1994–95, are given in the 1995 "HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.
  103

  Roadside Advertisements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations control the placing of advertisements on roadside verges; and what plans he has to relax them. [35966]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The display of all outdoor advertisements, including those on roadside verges, is subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. My Department issued a public consultation paper, in February 1996, canvassing the possible abolition of the regime of areas of special control of advertisements. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library. The proposals would not permit additional advertising on roadside verges, which would remain at the discretion of local planning authorities.

  If the verge forms part of the highway, additional powers to control advertisements are available to highway authorities under the Highways Act 1980, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible.

  Water Closet Cisterns
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have been held with sanitary ware manufacturers, the water companies and Ofwat to reduce the current gallonage in WC cisterns, and if he will make a statement. [35852]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  WC flush volumes have been widely discussed by all interested parties following the publication of "Using Water Wisely" and "Water Conservation Government Action".

  Any reduction in the present maximum WC flush volume will be considered by the Water Regulation Advisory Committee as part of its remit to consider the technical requirements of regulations that will replace the water byelaws. I expect to announce the membership of that committee shortly.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Environment what is the total amount contributed by capital projects through the private finance initiative for each of the metropolitan districts to date; and if he will make a statement. [35849]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information relating to individual local authority projects is not collected by my Department. However, the private finance initiative has high potential to enhance the amount and value of local authority investment, and I am taking a number of measures to promote it.

  Education Expenditure (Devon)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was Devon's education standard spending assessment in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; and in each case what was the percentage change on the previous year. [36187]
  104
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested on Devon county council's education standard spending assessment is as follows:

  Amount £ million

  Percentage increase over previous year

  1994–95

  321.710

  2.3

  1995–96

  328.421

  12.1

  1996–97

  345.862

  5.3

  1 Percentage increase over 1994–95 SSA, adjusted to £321.573 million to reflect the abolition of compulsory inter-authority recoupment for most pupils on 1 April 1995.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36012]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information cannot be provided.

  Density and Sparsity Effects
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to review his Department's guidelines on the density and sparsity effects in respect of the provision of services by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [36039]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has commissioned research on the effects of sparsity and density of population on the costs of providing local authority services. Reports from both research studies are expected to be received this month. Their findings will be discussed with the local authority associations. The findings and the associations' views will be available to us when we reach decisions on standard spending assessments for 1997–98.

  Sea Level Rises, East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of likely sea level rises in East Anglia in(a) 2020 and (b) 2050 as a result of temperature increases; and if he will make a statement. [36024]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department's climate change impacts review group has recently provided an independent review of the impact of climate change on the UK. In its report "A Review of the Potential Effects of Climate change on the UK," sea level is projected to rise by 12 to 19cm by 2020 and 23 to 37cm by 2050. Sea level rise in East Anglia will be exacerbated by the effect of land sinking. Allowing for this, a sea level rise of up to 50cm can be expected by 2050.

  We recognise that climate change is a global problem which all countries have a responsibility to address. The UK is on course to go further than the commitment that we made under the UN framework convention on climate change to return emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

  At the second conference of the parties to the FCCC in Geneva on 8 to 19 July 1996, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be urging

  105
  developed countries to honour their commitments and also to reduce emissions by 5 to 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  Health and Safety Bodies
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the forthcoming finance, management and policy review of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. [36367]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly finance, management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will conduct a thorough review of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, which will begin today. As with all prior options studies, this will assess the extent to which the HSC/E's functions are necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies, and whether there is scope for privatising, contracting out or transferring all or part of its functions to another body. It will draw on work which has already been done in this area.

  The progress made by HSC/E since the previous review in 1991–92 will be examined and the results of that examination and of the prior options study will inform a review of HSC/E's policy and financial management systems. An essential component of Government policy is to maintain high standards of health and safety and the review will reflect this.

  In carrying out the study, my Department will consult widely with relevant organisations with an interest in HSC/E's work.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 25 June. [36665]

  Mr. Gummer
  Together with my noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay, I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 25 June.

  Common positions were reached on proposed directives on the marketing of biocidal products and on the control of emissions from off-road vehicles. In both cases the United Kingdom was able to secure its negotiating objectives.

  The Council agreed conclusions on a community strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger cars and on the EU position for the second conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change, which is to be held in Geneva later this month.

  Council conclusions were also agreed on water policy and on the EU position for the first meeting of the open-ended ad hoc working group to prepare a bio-safety protocol for the conference of the parties on biological diversity.

  The Council agreed a recommendation on the keeping of wild animals in zoos, a mandate to approve the Espoo convention, and a negotiating mandate on a proposed agreement for the conservation of whales in the Mediterranean and Black seas.
  106
  The Council failed to reach a decision on the Commission's proposal on the marketing of genetically modified maize.

  There were useful policy debates about the review of the fifth environmental action programme and on the proposed amendment of directive 90/219 on the contained use of genetically modified organisms. Both dossiers will be taken forward under the Irish presidency. Progress on the negotiations with major fur-exporting countries over the use of leghold traps and on the preparations for the third conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity was noted.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue for public consultation the revised text of planning policy guidance note 1, "General Policy and Principles". [36689]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today issued for consultation our proposals for revising PPG1. The present text of PPG1 was published in March 1992. Its content has been refocused to provide a more strategic commentary on planning policy. More detailed guidance on specific planning issues is given in the other PPGs in the series.

  The revised text:
  reaffirms the role of the planning system in meeting the needs of a growing and competitive economy;
  emphasises the contribution of the planning system to achieving sustainable development;
  identifies ways in which mixed use development can be promoted;
  updates guidance on design considerations in planning in the light of the Government's quality in town and country initiative;
  restates the limited circumstances in which it is appropriate to use planning obligations to secure development;
  explains the operation of the plan-led system; and
  contains new sections on the citizens charter and propriety.

  Comments on the revised draft PPG1 have been invited by 30 September 1996.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [35758]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Birmingham, Ladywood on 6 and 7 May for the ministerial meeting of the Western European Union, and East Kilbride on 20 May for meetings at the Overseas Development Administration office there. He has announced no plans for further visits within the UK on official business in the next three months.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision of the International Court of Justice issued 8 July regarding the legality of nuclear weapons. [36125]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are studying the detail of the Court's advisory opinion which was issued yesterday.

  Mr. Raghbir Singh
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was notified of the resolution carried by the European Parliament over the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh; if he has notified the Home Secretary of the resolution; and if he will make a statement. [36475]

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Parliament's resolution on the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh was sent to member states' permanent representatives to the European Union after its adoption on 20 June. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was notified of the resolution on 3 July.

TRANSPORT

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the venue and purpose of the visits Her Majesty's Government's Transport Ministers have made to the United States of America since their appointment. [35913]

  Sir George Young
  The Minister for Railways and Roads visited Atlanta and Washington in November 1995 on a fact-finding mission on road traffic management measures. The Minister for Local Transport, Road Safety and Transport in London addressed the international congress on alcohol and drug dependency in San Diego in August 1995 and looked at San Diego's local transport systems. In 1993, he went on a fact-finding mission to Chicago to study parking enforcement systems.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits which will accrue to South Yorkshire from the construction of the channel tunnel rail link; and if he will make a statement. [35846]

  Mr. Watts
  I expect that all regions of the UK, including South Yorkshire, will benefit from the construction of the channel tunnel rail link, which will reduce journey times by 30 minutes.

  Rail Freight
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of freight is currently moved by rail; and what measures he intends to take to encourage the movement of freight by rail. [36243]

  Mr. Watts
  Rail moved 6 per cent. of freight handled in the UK in 1994–95, the most recent period for 'which figures are available. The key to improving market share 108
  is privatisation. Five of BR's freight businesses, which in total carry more than 90 per cent. by volume of rail freight in Great Britain, have already been privatised. BR aims to privatise the only remaining business, Railfreight Distribution, by the end of this year.

  We continue to make available grants to encourage the shift of freight from road to rail.

  Channel Tunnel (Freight)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the transport of freight through the channel tunnel. [36239]

  Mr. Watts
  On 6 June, the Government announced that Railfreight Distribution, BR's channel tunnel rail freight business, was to be offered for sale. Privatisation will enable the business to be put onto a sound financial footing so that the growth potential of freight services via the channel tunnel can be exploited on a commercial basis, thereby furthering the objective of transferring more freight from road to rail.

  Networker Trains
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent reports he has received of design faults leading to safety problems in the construction and delivery of the Networker trains for the north Kent lines. [36032]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: Prescribed equipment failures on rolling stock are statutorily reportable where the incident occurs or is discovered on running lines. Earlier this year a coupling failure occurred on a Networker train which was undergoing maintenance in a works depot. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is also aware of a number of brake disc failures. HSE has investigated these incidents and is satisfied that suitable measures are in place to maintain safety standards.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Drug Abuse Resistance Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding is given by her Department to promote DARE projects; what assessment she had made of the impact of DARE projects in schools; and if she will make a statement. [35907]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department provided £80,000 of support in 1995–96 to Kirklees local education authority for an innovative drugs education project, through the grants for education support and training programme. One element of the project was the evaluation of the DARE programme in the region's schools. My right hon. Friend plans to publish an evaluation document covering all GEST innovative drugs education projects, including that in Kirklees, later in the year.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have taken early retirement on medical grounds in each of the last 10 years. [35752]
  109
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the latest information for England and Wales.

  Teachers Superannuation Scheme members retiring on ill-health grounds1

  Financial year

  Maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools2

  Other sectors3

  Total

  1986–87

  2,060

  650

  2,710

  1987–884

  1,930

  620

  2,550

  1988–89

  2,680

  740

  3,420

  1989–90

  3,260

  910

  4,170

  1990–91

  3,900

  1,010

  4,910

  1991–92

  3,580

  1,050

  4,630

  1992–93

  3,650

  1,210

  4,860

  1993–94

  4,290

  1,380

  5,670

  1994–95

  4,740

  1,470

  6,210

  1995–965

  n/a

  n/a

  5,980

  1 Where a person was not in teaching service immediately prior to retirement, their last known sector is shown.

  2 Excludes those last recorded as: in sixth form colleges (except for 1987–88); peripatetic teachers; supply teachers; teachers providing nursery, primary or secondary education other than at school.

  3 Includes all other members of the teachers superannuation scheme, for example, those whose last service was in: special schools, further education, higher education, supply teaching.

  4 Includes a small number of teachers last recorded in sixth form colleges.

  5 Provisional. Information by sector is not available.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many(a) letters and (b) other communications she has received from local education authorities opposing the nursery voucher scheme; and if she will list the local education authorities; [35717]

  (2) how many (a) letters and (b) communications she has received from parents opposed to the nursery voucher scheme. [35718]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received many letters, as well as other forms of communication, from local authorities and parents. The majority have been seeking clarification and information about the nursery education voucher scheme.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those constituencies she has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies she intends to visit in the next three months; and if she will make a statement [35760]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  During the last three months I have visited the following constituencies on official business:

  Cardiff Central

  Glasgow Central

  Norfolk North-west

  Norfolk South

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Central

  Blackpool South

  Dartford

  Hendon South

  Rochford

  110

  Hastings and Rye

  Barking

  Dagenham

  Southend East

  Gosport

  Lewisham Deptford

  Norfolk Mid

  Wyre Forest

  Surbiton

  Norfolk South-west

  During the next three months, I intend to visit the following constituencies on official business:

  Exeter

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Kingston Upon Hull East

  Kingston Upon Hull North

  Kingston Upon Hull West

  Milton Keynes North-east

  Milton Keynes South-west

  Luton North

  Coventry South-west

  Shropshire North

  Norfolk South-west

  Executive Job Clubs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what criteria she uses to evaluate the effectiveness of executive job clubs; [36169]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of executive job clubs in delivering job opportunities to members. [36162]

  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. Barry Sheerman, dated 9 July 1996:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions to him about Jobclubs. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Employment Service currently maintains a network of 1,197 Jobclubs throughout the country. This will provide places for around 204,000 unemployed people during 1996/97. This includes a number of specialist Jobclubs for particular groups of people including a number catering for the needs of unemployed executive and professional job seekers.
  There are currently 121 such which constitute some 10% of the total network.
  The performance of all Jobclubs is assessed on a regular basis to provide information which will improve the effectiveness of the Employment Service in helping unemployed people back into work. Management information is collected monthly and is used to monitor the operation of each Jobclub and the programme as a whole. The latest national information shows that in 1995/96 just over 95,500 people were placed into jobs following participation in a Jobclub. Jobclubs contributed almost 15% towards the placing into work of long term unemployed people achieved by the Employment

  111
  Service. In addition a further 24,300 Jobclub participants took up other opportunities such as training places or starting their own business.
  Although regular evaluations of the programme have been carried out, none of these have specifically focused on executive Jobclubs. The criteria used to evaluate the effectiveness of Jobclubs include their success in getting people into work, whether they improve the flow of information on jobs to participants and whether participants' job search is increased.
  Details of the evaluations can be obtained through the House of Commons library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Education Awards Regulations
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to amend section 12(2)(a) of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1995 to give local education authorities powers to consider applications on an individual basis; and if she will make a statement. [36111]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has no plans to amend regulation I 2(2)(a) of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36005]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information that the hon. Member requires could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department. The Department does not maintain this information in the form requested.

  Women and Training
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will publish the figures in the report on women and training carried out for her Department by Hilary Metcalf and Claire Calender at the Policy Studies institute; and when their completed report was received by her Department. [34968]

  Mrs. GIllan
  The Department has not yet received a version of the report from the Policy Studies Institute which is suitable for publication. It is hoped that a suitable version will be received later this year.

  Local Education Authority Budgets
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish a table, in ascending order, of the amount of each shire local education authority's education budget, which is not passed on to schools,(a) in overall cash terms and (b) as an amount per child. [36369]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table gives the amount of total expenditure on schools in 1996–97, in cash terms and per pupil, not delegated to the governing bodies of individual schools. The figures have been derived from the local management of schools budget 112
  statements produced by the authorities under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  GSB—ASB (see note below) £ 000

  Per pupil (£)

  Isle of Wight

  10,293

  Staffordshire

  487

  Northumberland

  28,581

  Suffolk

  487

  Gloucestershire

  30,785

  Hertforshire

  499

  Somerset

  33,472

  Somerset

  503

  Cumbria

  36,643

  West Sussex

  524

  Lincolnshire

  38,975

  Cheshire

  532

  Shropshire

  40,890

  Isle of Wight

  541

  Wiltshire

  41,354

  Leicestershire

  546

  Suffolk

  46,321

  Berkshire

  551

  Dorset

  48,090

  Hampshire

  561

  Bedfordshire

  50,351

  Nottinghamshire

  562

  Northamptonshire

  50,982

  Essex

  567

  Cornwall

  52,334

  Devon

  568

  West Sussex

  53,458

  Northumberland

  571

  Hereford/Worcester

  54,801

  Hereford/Worcester

  574

  Berkshire

  55,269

  Northamptonshire

  593

  Durham

  56,373

  Durham

  594

  Warwickshire

  58,374

  Dorset

  595

  East Sussex

  59,551

  Gloucestershire

  597

  Oxfordshire

  60,245

  Lincolnshire

  602

  Norfolk

  66,213

  Kent

  603

  Hertforshire

  67,163

  Wiltshire

  617

  Cambridgeshire

  68,119

  Cumbria

  630

  Buckinghamshire

  71,134

  Bedfordshire

  634

  Surrey

  75,938

  Lancashire

  639

  Leicestershire

  77,323

  Derbyshire

  642

  Staffordshire

  79,299

  East Sussex

  644

  Devon

  79,583

  Shropshire

  694

  Essex

  81,222

  Norfolk

  717

  Derbyshire

  82,089

  Surrey

  723

  Cheshire

  82,104

  Cornwall

  749

  Nottinghamshire

  93,263

  Oxfordshire

  760

  Kent

  105,615

  Buckinhamshire

  782

  Hampshire

  115,905

  Cambridgeshire

  799

  Lancashire

  135,554

  Warwickshire

  859

  1. The amount held centrally in respect of LEA maintained schools is calculated by taking the General Schools Budget (GSB), the total planned expenditure on LEA maintained schools, and deducting the Aggegated Schools Budget (ASB) which is the amount delegated to an LEA's schools.

  2. All new authorities established at 1 April 1996 under the Local Government Act, 1992 have been excluded from the table.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average class size in grammar schools for the most recent year for which information is available at(a) key stage 3, (b) key stage 4 and (c) sixth forms. [35878]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The latest available information is as follows:

  Average size of one teacher classes in grammar schools in England—January 1995

  Number

  Pupils aged mainly under 14

  26.5

  Pupils aged mainly 14 and 15

  21.6

  Pupils aged mainly 16 and over

  11.3

PRIME MINISTER

  St. Andrew's Hospital, Bromley by Bow
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit St. Andrew's hospital, Bromley by Bow. [34936]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [35157]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [35158]

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

SCOTLAND

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 56, how many of the representations he has received about the proposed Cairngorm funicular railway ask that he call in the application for his own determination. [35214]

  Mr. Kynoch
  To date, my right hon. Friend has received a total of 1,920 letters requesting that he intervenes in this matter.

  Council Housing
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the changes in council housing expenditure in(a) Stirling, (b) Aberdeen, (c) Tayside, (d) Aberdeenshire, (e) East Ayrshire and (f) Dumfries and Galloway in real terms between 1989–90 and 1998–99; and what were the reasons for these changes. [35661]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Final decisions on the allocation of resources to individual local authorities for 1998–99 will not be taken until early in 1998 following completion of the 1997 public expenditure survey. However, expenditure on their own stock in 1989–90 by each housing authority covering the areas requested, at 1995–96 prices, is shown in the table.

  Authority

  £ million

  Stirling

  11.1

  Aberdeen

  18.9

  Tayside (comprising)

  Angus

  7.1

  City of Dundee

  30.5

  Perth and Kinross

  9.6

  Aberdeenshire (comprising)

  Banff and Buchan

  5.4

  Gordon

  10.1

  Kincardine and Deeside

  4.7

  114

  Authority

  £ million

  East Ayrshire (comprising)

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  4.0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  11.3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  5.7

  Nithsdale

  7.9

  Stewartry

  2.3

  Wigtown

  4.0

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed change in expenditure in council housing in real terms, between 1989–90 and 1998–99; and what are the reasons for this change. [35658]

  Mr. Robertson
  Planned net provision in 1998–99 for capital expenditure by local authorities on their own stock is £167 million at 1995–96 prices, compared with £208 million in 1989–90 on the same basis. This reflects the amount which we consider can be afforded for council housing investment within the resources available to the Scottish Office block and takes account of the reduction in council housing stock as a result of right-to-buy sales and stock transfers.

  Housing Organisations
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the organisations concerned with housing in Scotland. [35657]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Ministers regularly meet organisations concerned with housing in Scotland. This year I have met, among others, a number of local authority housing conveners, the housing committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the chairman and members of the board of Scottish Homes, and representatives from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Shelter (Scotland), the Chartered Institute of Housing and various private developers and lenders. I have also visited a number of local authorities and housing associations and participated in a number of events related to housing. Further meetings and engagements are planned for the remainder of the year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last time he met Shelter to discuss homelessness in Scotland. [35660]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend met Shelter (Scotland) and some other housing organisations on 2 October 1995 to discuss a wide range of housing issues, including homelessness. I meet with housing organisations regularly and last met Shelter (Scotland) on 21 June 1996 when I addressed its one-day conference.

  Stalking
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to ensure that the criminal and civil law in Scotland provide effective measures against stalking; and if he will make a statement. [36762]
  115
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate considers that the common law of Scotland is adequate to deal with the menace of stalking. Such conduct can broadly be described as actions calculated to lead to the harassment of another person, whether they are intended to do so or whether they in fact do so. While such conduct frequently occurs on repeated occasions, it need not necessarily do so.

  As far as the criminal law of Scotland is concerned, any conduct which is liable to create alarm and annoyance can give rise to a charge of breach of the peace. The types of conduct commonly referred to as stalking fall within that definition, even though the conduct complained of might in other circumstances be perfectly innocuous and lawful. Whether in any particular case the actings of an accused constitute a breach of the peace is a question for the court, which falls to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the individual case. The court is entitled to hold that the accused's conduct amounted to a breach of the peace, where something has been done in breach of public order or decorum and might reasonably be expected to have led to one or more members of the public being alarmed or upset. It is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that actual harm was suffered by a third party. Nor is it necessary for the prosecution to establish that an accused person actually intended such a result.

  In a case in 1961 the High Court of Justiciary upheld a conviction of breach of the peace where the accused had become infatuated with a young woman. The accused had formed a habit of waiting outside her place of employment, looking at her and following her and her fiancé. The young woman became alarmed and agitated and her fiancé angry and indignant. The High Court of Justiciary accepted that such conduct amounted to a breach of the peace. That is a good example of the flexibility with which the Scottish criminal courts can apply the common law offence of breach of the peace. In recent years persons who have engaged in stalking in Scotland have been successfully prosecuted on charges of breach of the peace.

  Those who have made improper use of the public telephone system, by making offensive or menacing telephone calls, have been successfully prosecuted for contraventions of section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  In Scotland, a police constable may arrest, without warrant, anyone he reasonably suspects to have committed or to be likely to commit a breach of the peace.
  116
  The maximum sentence available for a conviction of breach of the peace depends on the court in which the case is prosecuted. The maximum sentence of imprisonment ranges from 60 days in the district court to life imprisonment in the High Court. The choice of court, which is determined by the Crown, reflects the gravity of the particular offence.

  The joint consultation paper which has been published today by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary identifies a number of deficiencies in the existing criminal law in England and Wales. These are difficulties over the requirement to prove intent on the part of the accused. There are also difficulties where the accused's behaviour is ostensibly routine and harmless and therefore not caught by existing laws. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that these difficulties do not arise in Scotland, where the activities of stalkers are struck at by the common law offence of breach of the peace which, as explained above, covers a wider range of activity than the similar offence in England and Wales.

  The common law of Scotland also provides the victims of stalking with certain civil remedies. When personal molestation or assault is seriously threatened an order for interdict may competently be sought from the sheriff court or the court of session. Interim interdict can also be granted. A person who fails to abide by the terms of an order for interdict or interim interdict is liable to be held in contempt of court and subjected to admonition, censure, fine or imprisonment. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by way of imprisonment for contempt of court is two years. It is also competent for a fine to be imposed.

  Children (Communications Skills)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 11 June relating to the work of Maria Spychiger's Swiss institute, what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in relation to the value of music teaching for children in encouraging communications skills. [34637]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department has not commissioned research in this area. I do, however, recognise the valuable contribution which music makes to the overall educational development of students. Work currently in train to define agreed core skills may well pave the way for a fuller assessment of the contribution made by music to the development of communication skills in particular.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Community Telecommunications Council on 27 June. [35747]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council held in Luxembourg on 27 June.

  The Council reached political agreement on a common position on a directive amending the open network provision framework and leased lines directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC to a competitive environment. Germany indicated its intention of voting against the common position. The Council also reached political agreement on a common position on a directive on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector. Portugal indicated its intention of abstaining on the common position.

  In addition, the Council reached political agreement on a common position on a decision on inter-administration telematic networks for statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states—EDICOM. Germany and the UK indicated their intention of voting against the common position. The Council reached political agreement on brief conclusions inviting the Commission to present a proposal to amend the ONP voice telephony directive 95/62/EC, and to report regularly to the Council on universal service in telecommunications.

  Following discussion by the Council, three proposals—on Community postal services, telecommunications licensing, and on the promotion of linguistic diversity in the information society—were referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further discussion. There was also an informal lunchtime discussion of satellite personal communications systems, and of the problem of the century date change for computer systems.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the annual average rate of change in manufacturing output for each five-year period since 1975. [35935]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is in the table.

  Average annual change in the level of manufacturing output

  Per cent.

  1975–80

  -1.0

  1980–85

  0.4

  1985–90

  3.4

  1990–95

  0.3

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of 118
  exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries for each year since 1980; and what is his forecast of long-term change in that share. [35933]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is given in the table.

  UK value share of exports of manufacturers by the main manufacturing countries.

  Year

  Per cent.

  1980

  9.3

  1981

  8.2

  1982

  8.1

  1983

  7.6

  1984

  7.3

  1985

  7.5

  1986

  7.3

  1987

  7.8

  1988

  7.9

  1989

  7.8

  1990

  8.2

  1991

  8.2

  1992

  7.9

  1993

  7.8

  1994

  8.0

  Source:

  Based on estimates derived from OECD data.

  Note:

  Main manufacturing countries consist of UK, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, US, Canada and Japan.

  Manufactured goods are defined as sections 5 to 8 of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification.

  Steel Contracts
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total value of contracts from each Government Department for steel produced in Sheffield in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [35855]

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

  Defence Exports and Imports
  Mr. George
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value in real terms of(a) defence export deliveries for each year from 1980 to the present and (b) defence imports for each year from 1980 to the present. [35827]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available in real terms. Current price figures are published by the Ministry of Defence in "UK Defence Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each of the safeguard verification exercises that have been undertaken by international agencies in the United Kingdom since 1990, indicating those which have been adapted to assist Euratom and Russian nuclear authorities in refining safeguards applications. [35929]
  119
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since 1990 Euratom, jointly with the International Atomic Energy Agency at certain major installations have conducted several hundred safeguards inspections at installations in the UK where nuclear material is used. Euratom verification activities in the UK during 1992 alone involved almost 2,500 days of effort on the part of Euratom personnel. All these inspections contribute to increasing Euratom's safeguards efficiency and refining its safeguards techniques.

  Euratom has conducted two exercises in the UK, one at Dounreay and the other at the Sizewell A power station, with safeguards inspectors from Gosatomnadzor—GAN, the Russian nuclear regulatory body—to demonstrate the application of Euratom safeguards. Such exercises are part of a continuing programme to assist in the development of safeguards systems in Russia.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussion on the effect of the century date change on computer systems at the recent meeting of the European Telecommunications Council. [35721]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I raised this problem and described the potentially significant consequences involved in tackling it. Ministers were appraised of the seriousness of the issue. It was agreed that the European Commission should establish an informal task force to consult more widely and report back to the Council of Ministers.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Sims) on other issues raised at the Telecommunications Council.

  Rural Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent guidelines his Department has published in respect of the uniform business rate relating to rural sub-post offices. [36290]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None. Matters concerning the uniform business rate are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Stagecoach Holdings plc
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the investigations carried out by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into Stagecoach Holdings plc; if he will list those occasions on which Stagecoach Holdings plc has taken his Department to court over actions taken in response to these investigations; and on how many occasions the actions of his Department have been upheld it the courts of law. [36116]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The acquisitions by Stagecoach of the following companies were referred to, and investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973:

  Company

  Date report published, Cm. nos.

  Portsmouth Citybus Limited

  July 1990 Cm 1130

  Formia Limited

  December 1990 CM 1382

  Lancaster City Transport Limited

  December 1993 CM 2423

  Mainline Partnership Limited

  March 1995 Cm 2782

  120

  Company

  Date report published. Cm. nos.

  S B Holdings Limited

  April 1995 Cm 2845

  Ayrshire Bus Owners Limited (A1 Service)

  November 1995 Cm 3032

  Chesterfield Transport (1989) Ltd

  January 1996 Cm 3086

  The MMC carried out two further investigations involving Stagecoach:
  The Competition Act 1980
  Southdown Motor Services Limited (a subsidiary of Stagecoach). Published June 1993. Cm 2248.
  The monopoly provisions of the FTA
  The supply of bus services in north-east England. Busways (a subsidiary of Stagecoach). Published August 1995. Cm 2933.

  Three applications for judicial review were initiated by Stagecoach against the MMC and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of the MMC's reports on the company's acquisitions of Mainline, SB Holdings and A1 Service and the Secretary of State's decisions following those reports. In relation to Mainline and SB Holdings, Stagecoach withdrew its applications on 20 June 1996 so far as they related to my right hon. Friend; the proceedings brought by Stagecoach against the MMC were dismissed by the court on 5 July 1996. In relation to the A1 case the petition for judicial review by Stagecoach was dismissed by the court of session in Edinburgh against both the MMC and my right hon. Friend on 20 June 1996.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he was informed that the Director General of Fair Trading had been asked to appear before the Agriculture Committee to discuss progress in his inquiry into Milk Marque. [36044]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Chairman of the Agricultural Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir Jerry Wiggin), wrote to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 2 July 1996 to inform him that the Director General of Fair Trading had been invited to appear and give oral evidence on the progress of his consideration of the competition issues affecting Milk Marque.

  Select Committees
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many occasions the Director General of Fair Trading has been asked to explain the progress of an inquiry to a Select Committee. [36046]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand that John Bridgeman, the Director General of Fair Trading, has given evidence to two Select Committees, the terms of reference of which have touched upon ongoing Office of Fair Trading inquiries: one on the stock exchange, the other on petrol retailing. He is also due to give evidence to the Agriculture Select Committee inquiry into the dairy industry.

  Post Office
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of Crown post offices in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire, for each of the last five years. [36452]
  121
  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the Post Office that the number of Crown post offices in Crewe and Nantwich in each of the last five years was as follows:

  End March 1992: 2

  End March 1993: 2

  End March 1994: 2

  End March 1995: 1

  End March 1996: 1

  As a result of changes to the regional structure of Post Office Counters Ltd. in 1993, it has not yet been possible for them to compile the equivalent information for Cheshire. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

  Maternity Leave
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the need to review arrangements related to maternity leave with particular reference to employer notification requirements; and if he will make a statement. [34969]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I receive representations on various aspects of statutory maternity rights, but am not aware that the employer notification requirements are a matter of particular concern.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many women in each year since 1992 informed their employers of their intention to return to work after maternity leave by providing the minimum 21 days' notice. [34966]

  Mr. Taylor
  The requirement to give—where practicable—at least 21 days' notice of intention to return applies only to the right to reinstatement after extended maternity absence. Pregnant employees with at least two years service qualify for that right. The Government do not generally collect statistics on the numbers of women meeting this notification requirement. However, according to the Policy Studies Institute report "Maternity Rights in Britain", which the Government co-sponsored, the proportion of all women reporting the right to reinstatement—that is, women with the necessary qualifying service—who gave employers formal notice o return was 41 per cent. in 1979 and 72 per cent. in 1988.

  Inward Investment
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's performance in attracting internationally mobile investment projects in 1995–96. [36687]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department's Invest In Britain Bureau announced in its annual review of operations, published today, that 1995–96 was yet another record year for inward investment and jobs coming to the United Kingdom.

  Between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996, the IBB recorded 477 direct investment projects by overseas-owned companies in the UK. Based on information supplied by companies at the time of their announcements, it is estimated that these projects will create 48,256 new jobs. Compared with last year's figures, this represents an increase of 10 per cent. in terms of projects and 30 per cent. in terms of jobs.
  122
  These results demonstrate how attractive the United Kingdom's competitive business environment is to overseas investors—helping to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe.

  The results also provide evidence of the successful partnership the Invest In Britain Bureau has with many public and private sector organisations involved in the promotion of inward investment both at home and abroad.

  I am arranging for a copy of the review to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 366, from what date the placing of statistical analyses of export licences in the Library at six-monthly intervals will commence. [35667]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: A statistical analysis of export licences which have been issued and refused in the calendar period 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1996 will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it has been compiled. The exercise will thereafter be repeated at six-monthly intervals, as opposed to 12-monthly, which has been the practice hitherto.

  Energy Advice Centres
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to maintain the current level of funding to the local energy advice centres from September 1996. [35763]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Energy Saving Trust is responsible for the management and funding of the local energy advice centres. My Department has agreed the trust's proposals to use DOE funds to support the local energy advice centres up to March 1999. The trust is announcing its plans for the local energy advice centres on 8 July, at the local energy advice centres annual conference.

  Meat Exports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the size of the United Kingdom meat processing export trade as of 1 March. [24099]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  Provisional data on the exports of meat and meat preparations from the UK, from March 1995 to February 1996, as recorded in the Overseas Trade Statistics, are shown in the table. Meat originating from the UK is not separately identifiable.

  £ million

  Tonnes

  Total exports of meat, meat offal and preparations of meat and offal

  1,395

  779,022

  of which:

  Bovine meat and bovine offal (fresh, chilled or frozen)

  600

  279,804

  Other meat and other offal (fresh, chilled or frozen)

  701

  463,105

  123

  £ million

  Tonnes

  Preparations of bovine meat and bovine offal

  15

  5,826

  Other preparations of meat and offal1

  79

  30,286

  1 Includes some bovine meat which is not separately identifiable.

DEFENCE

  NATO
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on United Kingdom policy towards NATO. [34905]

  Mr. Portillo
  The UK is, and will continue to be, among the firmest supporters of NATO. We are making a major contribution to the NATO-led operation in the former Yugoslavia and to the longer-term evolution of the alliance as the key to European security.

  Procurement Programme
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's policies on defence equipment purchasing on employment in the United Kingdom. [34913]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Consideration of defence industrial factors, including employment implications, is a requirement of our central equipment procurement decision-making processes. My Department's policy of seeking best value for money, wherever possible through competition, has helped UK industry to remain competitive and successful both at home and abroad.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of United Kingdom jobs reliant on the manufacture of defence equipment. [34919]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer my hon. Friend to table 1.10 on page 12 of the 1995 edition of "UK Defence Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library. The 1996 edition of "UK Defence Statistics" will be published on 18 July 1996.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the evidence submitted by his Department to the Review Board for Government Contracts on the inclusion of marketing the selling expenses in the overhead rate on non-competitive contracts, (b) the evidence submitted during the review board's consideration of this issue as part of its sixth general review (1990), (c) the evidence submitted to the working party established to consider this issue subsequent to the sixth general review and (d) the evidence submitted on this issue as part of the seventh general review (1993). [35860]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The "evidence" held by my Department comprises a large volume of file correspondence, letters, minutes, working notes and briefing material covering a four-year period of negotiations with the CBI. The background to these negotiations over the treatment of marketing and selling expenses in non-competitive contracts is described in the reports of the Review Board for Government Contracts covering the sixth (1990), seventh (1993) and eighth 124
  (1996) general reviews of the profit formula for non-competitive contracts. There is now a clearer understanding between the Department and the CBI over the treatment of marketing and selling expenses, in the context of the relevant Government accounting convention.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the civilian technical advances which have been developed from defence contracts in the last five years. [35854]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Most defence research and development contracts let by MOD contain conditions which vest the intellectual property rights in the contractor concerned. It follows that, for many firms, the major benefit of defence contracts is the garnering of general skills and capabilities. The Ministry of Defence keeps no central record of the applications of these general skills and capabilities and to gather this information would be disproportionately expensive.

  However, in the last five years there have also been notable technical advances of a more specific nature from defence research developments funding. More than 200 exploitation agreements have been signed, examples of the technologies are:

  Flat panel loud speakers

  Acoustic filters (for mobile telephones)

  Fireman's helmet

  Frozen blood

  Fabric printing

  Radar reflectors for small craft

  Synthetic rubber

  Helmets for parachutists

  Treatment plant for polluted water

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what weighting is given to areas of high unemployment in the consideration of tenders for defence contracts. [35309]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Consideration of defence industrial factors, including employment implications, is a requirement of our central equipment procurement decision-making processes. My Department's policy of seeking best value for money, wherever possible through competition, has helped UK industry to remain competitive and successful both at home and abroad.

  Royal Navy (Electronic Systems)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Royal Navy's use of electronic navigation and charting systems. [34915]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Electronic chart display and information systems are the subject of a Royal Navy navigation research programme that ensures the most up-to-date advice is obtained on this emerging technology. The Royal Navy at present has four different electronic navigation and charting systems undergoing trials and assessment at sea, which are producing encouraging results.

  Permanent Joint Headquarters
  Mr Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Permanent Joint Headquarters. [34916]

  Mr. Soames
  The Permanent Joint Headquarters, which will very shortly become fully operational, will provide a centre of excellence for the preparation and conduct of joint operations. It will also be a focus for developing and enhancing the UK's joint operations capability.

  Nimrod
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the proportion of defence procurement jobs in the contract allocation for the Nimrod aircraft which will be in Scotland. [34917]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are currently assessing bids in response to an invitation to tender for a replacement for the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. All relevant factors, including employment considerations, are being taken into account. As yet, however, no final decision has been taken, and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to comment on the precise content of the bids.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to upgrade the maritime patrol aircraft fleet; and if he will make a statement. [34920]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A competition to find a replacement for the Nimrod was launched in January 1995. Three bids have been received and these are being assessed. Given that the competition has reached a very sensitive stage, I cannot comment in detail on any of the bids. I hope to make an announcement before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Army Recruitment
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the response has been to the current Army recruitment advertising campaign, with particular reference to the television campaign. [34918]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 21 June 1996, there had been a 40 per cent. increase in enlistments compared with the first quarter of 1995–96. This very welcome and encouraging improvement in recruiting is a result of the initiatives taken last year and in particular the increased weight placed on advertising, especially on television.

  Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of the Territorial Army and reserve forces. [34921]

  Mr. Soames
  The reserve forces are an integral and essential part of the United Kingdom's armed forces. The Government are committed to making greater and more flexible use of them in the future, and the recently passed Reserve Forces Act 1996 will allow us to do just that.

  Service Men (Active Service)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries in which British service men are currently deployed on active service. [34922]
  126
  Mr. Soames
  British service personnel are deployed on peacekeeping operations under United Nations mandate, including the implementation force, and at permanent stations, in the following countries:

  Angola

  Ascension Islands

  Bosnia

  Brunei

  Croatia

  Cyprus

  Diego Garcia

  Falkland Islands

  Georgia

  Germany

  Gibraltar

  Hong Kong

  Iraq

  Italy

  Kuwait

  United Kingdom

  This list does not include countries where loan service personnel are based, where training exercises are being conducted and where there are minor commitments involving individual service men and women.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces are currently deployed abroad at present. [34923]

  Mr. Soames
  Approximately 48,000 members of the British armed forces are currently deployed abroad. This figure includes a number of personnel temporarily engaged on UN-mandated missions in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Cyprus, Angola and Georgia.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the effect on the defence capability fo United Kingdom forces of reducing defence expenditure to the level of the European average; and if he will make a statement. [34924]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Reducing defence spending to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year, which is about half the entire procurement budget.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on the maintenance of the married quarters housing estate in each of the last five years. [36121]

  Mr. Soames
  Total works expenditure on the married quarters estate was not separately identified and aggregated FY95–96. The total expenditure on married quarters works for 1995–96 was £165.5 million, of which we estimate that £40 million was spent on improvements leading to upgrade.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Army Families Federation concerning the sale of the married housing stock. [34925]
  127
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met the chairman of the Army Families Federation on 2 July to discuss the sale of the married quarter estate and he plans to see the chairman of the Association of RAF Wives tomorrow; he has also corresponded with them. In addition, Ministers have had four meetings to discuss the sale of the married quarters estate with those organisations: on 12 June 1995 with my noble Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence; on 24 October 1995 and 4 March 1996 with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence; and with me on 30 April 1996. In addition, my right hon. Friend plans to meet the chairman of the Association of RAF Wives tomorrow. A detailed briefing was provided by officials on 13 December 1995 following the publication of the preliminary information memorandum.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has in respect of the disposal of married quarters at Dale camp, Chester. [34926]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These married quarters are included in the proposed sale of the married quarters estate in England and Wales. They are among those which we currently intend to lease back initially from the purchaser.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the sale of married quarters estate at RAF Finningley. [36124]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of my Department's married quarters at RAF Finningley were sold in December 1995. The remainder are currently intended for inclusion in the sale of the married quarters estate.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from members of the building industry, mortgage lenders and estate agents about the consequences for the housing market of the sale of his Department's married quarters housing stock in England and Wales. [36203]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of Ministry of Defence married quarters in England and Wales(a) by county and (b) by local authority at the latest available date. [36204]

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

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the level of the guaranteed payment each year to the purchaser of the married quarters estate in England and Wales, under the terms of the sale set out in paragraph 4.2.4 of his Department's preliminary information memorandum; [36192]

  (2) how many properties his Department is committed to vacating each year under the guaranteed release provision of sale of the married quarters estate as set out in paragraph 4.2.3 of his Department's preliminary information memorandum; [36193]

  (3) what is the fixed factor which will be used to reduce the open market rental value of the married quarters estate in order to calculate the MOD rent, as set out in paragraph 4.3 of his Department's preliminary information memorandum; [36194]
  128
  (4) what proportion of the profits from disposals of properties in the married quarters estate will accrue to his Department under the terms of the sale of the estate as set out in paragraph 4.4 of his Department's preliminary information memorandum. [36195]

  Mr. Arburthnot
  The detailed information requested is commercially confidential. As the preliminary information memorandum explains in paragraph 4.3, the aggregate open market rental value will be reduced by a fixed factor taking account of my Department's repairing obligation, the overall size of the letting and the quality of my Department's covenant. The guaranteed payment will be set at a level equivalent to the rent on a declining proportion of the estate, and would take effect only if my Department retained a much lower proportion of the estate than we expect to do. The guaranteed release has been set at a similarly conservative level, to leave my Department with sufficient flexibility to cope with any reasonably foreseeable requirement for quarters from the existing estate.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to collate information on the sale of the married quarters estate by parliamentary constituency. [35731]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters unfit for service families his Department owned in each district council area in North Yorkshire; and how many of these homes were empty on 30 March(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993, (d) 1994, (e) 1995 and (f) 1996. [35984]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been required to vacate married quarters in North Yorkshire as a result of leaving the armed services in each of the last four years. [35985]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: Records are not kept centrally and details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the recommendations produced in July 1992 by the review into the safety of United Kingdom nuclear weapons conducted by a working party led by Professor Oxburgh, have been implemented; which of the recommendations have yet to be implemented; for what reasons they have not yet been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [32763]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: The report of the working party lead by Professor Oxburgh published in July 1992 made 20 recommendations, of which 18 have now been implemented. Careful consideration was given to the recommendation on the involvement of UK nuclear weapons design authorities in weapon and missile inspections—recommendation 2—but it was concluded that the concerns that lead to this recommendation could be met without the direct involvement of the design authorities in all such

  129
  inspections. With no immediate requirement for a future nuclear weapons system, it is premature to take forward the recommendation—recommendation 20—on defining a strategy for the safety justification of a new weapon system.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 366, what are the established procedures for reporting unplanned occurrences involving a nuclear weapon on British territory; and when these procedures were first established. [36542]

  Mr. Soames
  The established procedures are designed to ensure that there is no delay in effecting an appropriate response to any unplanned occurrence involving a nuclear weapon. The precise arrangements would depend on the seriousness of the event. Thus an accident entailing a potential hazard to public safety would lead to involvement of the emergency services and appropriate elements of the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation. Section C of the guidance "Local authority and Emergency Service Information on Nuclear Weapon Transport Contingency Plans", a copy of which is in the Library of the House, describes the procedure for alerting the emergency services to a transportation accident. The circumstances of a more minor incident would be reported only within the MOD. A system of upward and outward alerting has existed for as long as there have been nuclear weapons in the UK: these procedures have been continually reviewed and developed over the years.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year his Department started to compile and maintain a central record of accidents or suspected accidents involving nuclear weapons controlled by Britain or the USA on British territory; and what is the current security classification of this record. [36541]

  Mr. Soames
  Compilation of a central database commenced in 1993. It is classified secret.

  Surplus Clothing and Equipment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department received from the sale of surplus(a) uniforms, (b) other clothing and (c) non-combat equipment in each year since 1990. [35973]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Disposal Sales Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DSA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 9 July 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the level of receipts received from the sale of surplus uniforms, clothing and other non-combat equipment in each year since 1990. This matter falls to me as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  The total sum received by the MOD from the sale of surplus non-combat material (ie. excluding Government-to-Government sales of warlike platforms) is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1990–91

  19.8

  1991–92

  24.3

  1992–93

  26.1

  130

  Financial year

  £ million

  1993–94

  27.6

  1994–95

  49.8

  1995–96

  39.1

  Records of sales were not kept on a commodity basis before FY 1993/94, and I regret that I am therefore unable to identify the level of receipts obtained for clothing (including uniforms) before then. Prior to FY 1995–96 surplus uniforms were usually mutilated for security reasons, and sold as scrap textiles by public auction or competitive tender, together with other soiled and scrap clothing. Our records show that the total value of clothing and textiles sold by these methods was £820k in FY 93/94 and £979, in FY 94/95. In May 1995 a storage and marketing agreement for the sale of surplus clothing and textiles was placed with a contractor on a profit-sharing basis. The MOD's share of the receipts from sales of clothing in FY 1995/96 totalled £845k, comprising £375k from sales of uniforms and £470k from the sale of other clothing. A further £456k was obtained during this period from the sale of miscellaneous textiles under the same agreement.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the Hawk aircraft which have been or will be exported to Indonesia in the current and next year are destined for service with Indonesian counter-insurgency or ground attach squadrons; and with which squadrons; [35425]

  (2) how many of the British-supplied Hawk aircraft exported to Indonesia between 1978 and 1995 have been or are in service with Indonesian counter-insurgency or ground attack squadrons; and to which squadrons these aircraft belong. [35424]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The squadrons to which Indonesian Hawk aircraft might be assigned are a matter for the Indonesian Government. We have no evidence to suggest that the aircraft have been used in a counter-insurgency role.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many British-supplied Hawk aircraft exported to Indonesia since 1978 have been situated at any time in(a) Kupang, West Timor or (b) the Oecusse enclave; and which Indonesian squadrons are involved; [35429]

  (2) how many of the British-supplied Hawk aircraft exported to Indonesia since 1978 have at any time been stationed in (a) East Timor or (b) West Papua; and to which squadrons these aircraft belong; [35423]

  (3) at which Indonesia air bases the Hawk aircraft which have been or will be exported to Indonesia this year or next year are to be stationed; and to which Indonesian squadrons these aircraft will be assigned; [35427]

  (4) at which Indonesian air bases the British-supplied Hawk aircraft exported to Indonesia between 1978 and 1995 have been stationed; and to which Indonesian squadrons these aircraft have been assigned. [35422]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Indonesian Government.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) written and (b) oral assurance Her Majesty's Government have received from the Indonesian Government since 1978 that British-supplied Hawk

  131
  aircraft would not be sited at any time in (a) East Timor or (b) West Papua. [35428]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No such assurances have been sought.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now provide details of military assistance provided to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [35826]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of military assistance remain confidential between Governments.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of each of the overseas offices of the Defence Export Services Organisation, indicating when each office was established, how many staff are employed in each office and what is the 1996–97 budget in each case. [35976]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is as follows:

  Country

  Number of staff

  Budget (1996–97) £000

  Founded

  Riyadh

  2

  95

  1984

  Kuwait

  3

  140

  1988

  New Delhi

  6

  108

  1984

  Kuala Lampur

  4

  156

  1986

  Seoul

  3

  240

  1988

  Canberra

  2

  92

  1989

  Jakarta

  3

  79

  1991

  Bangkok

  3

  123

  1992

  Ankara

  2

  73

  1988

  Brunei

  1

  135

  1995

  Former RAF Bases
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which consultants and agencies within his Department carried out the environmental assessments of the former air bases at(a) RAF Alconbury and (b) RAF Greenham Common prior to their proposed disposal; and when the land quality statements were produced for each site. [36134]

  Mr. Soames
  An environmental assessment at RAF Alconbury was carried out by ERM EnviroClear Ltd. and a land quality statement was produced in June 1996. RAF Greenham Common was passed for disposal before the introduction of the new procedures and therefore no land quality statement has been produced. Investigations have been carried out, however, by different contractors into a number of environmental and safety issues.

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies registered their interest in industrial involvement in future aircraft carrier studies as set out in future purchase number NSM13C/61713 of his Department's contracts bulletin Vol. 10 No. 16. [34852]
  132
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Twenty-eight companies registered interest following the possible future purchase announcement NSM13C/61713 for future aircraft carrier studies which appeared in the MOD contracts bulletin Vol. 10 No. 16.

  Equipment Expenditure
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on(a) imported and (b) home-produced defence equipment during each of the past three years in real terms; and if he will make a statement. [35159]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Precise information in the form requested is not available. Each year, my Department makes an estimate of the proportion of its equipment expenditure which is spent in the UK, overseas, and on collaborative projects. In the last three financial years for which estimates have been made, this breakdown was as follows:

  Year

  United Kingdom

  Collaborative (£ million; 1994–95 prices)

  Overseas

  1992–93

  7,836

  914

  748

  1993–94

  7,212

  870

  736

  1994–95

  6,846

  723

  737

  It is this series of estimates which underlies figures 8 in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996", Cm 3223, showing that over the past five years equipment expenditure (i) in the UK, (ii) on collaborative projects and (iii) overseas has been in the ratio 81:10:9.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of anti-personnel land mines currently deployed throughout the world. [35238]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I understand that the UN estimates there to be between 60 million and 110 million land mines emplaced worldwide.

  Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British forces' contribution to peacekeeping operations worldwide. [34909]

  Mr. Soames
  Our continuing contributions to peacekeeping operations around the world represent a substantial commitment, fully consistent with our position as a permanent Security Council member. They include, among others, some 10,500 ground troops with the NATO implementation force in Bosnia, supported by over 900 air and maritime personnel offshore and in Italy.

  UN Special Negotiator, Baghdad
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the work of Rolf Ekeus, UN special negotiator in Baghdad. [35743]
  133
  Mr. Soames
  My Department strongly supports the work of Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, executive chairman of the UN Special Commission, in his task of destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and establishing a long-term monitoring regime to ensure that Iraq does not reacquire such weapons. His work is wholly consistent with our security policy objectives in the middle east.

  The United Kingdom makes a major contribution to the Special Commission's activities in Iraq and will continue to do so.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by grade and by job description the total number of people employed in the Defence Housing Executive and the number in each grade with a housing management qualification, naming the qualifications concerned; and if he will make a statement. [36196]

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

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what incentives exist for employees of the Defence Housing Executive to attend accredited courses on housing management; and if he will make a statement. [36198]

  Mr. Soames
  Civil servants employed in the Defence Housing Executive are eligible to apply for assistance, in accordance with established Ministry of Defence regulations, to enable them to undertake externally-provided courses in housing management. This takes the form of an agreed number of days paid study leave plus financial assistance towards fees, registration and the purchase of text books and other materials. In addition, the DHE supports its own national vocational qualifications centre providing resource and financial support to those undertaking this qualification. The possession of such qualifications does not entitle staff to any additional pay allowance.

  In addition, the DHE actively encourages its housing management staff to join the Institute of Housing.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees of the Defence Housing Executive will be attending academic courses on housing management in the next academic year; and at which establishments. [36197]

  Mr. Soames
  Two members of the Defence Housing Executive will be undertaking academic courses in housing management during the next academic year. One is studying for BA (Hons.) at Northumbria university and the other BA (Hons.) at Southampton university. The courses are being undertaken on a part-time basis in parallel with the students continuing to perform their full-time jobs.

  Unoccupied Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, columns 38–41, how many dwellings were (a) owned by his Department and (b) unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in each county of Great Britain during 1995. [36404]
  134
  Mr. Soames
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Logistic Information Systems Agency
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for the chief executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency for 1996–97. [36647]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency has been set the following key targets for 1996–97:Key Target 1. To agree customer information systems programmes for the financial year 1996–97 and deliver them to the following criteria:

  95 per cent. on time

  95 per cent. within costs

  80 per cent. not adjusted for time or cost

  Key Target 2. To deliver the benefits of the LISA/EDS partnership as contractually agreed and develop plans to enhance revenue receipts for inclusion in the LTC planning process.
  Key Target 3. To develop a total quality action plan and make significant progress in its implementation by 1 April 1997.
  Key Target 4. To develop and implement a plan to achieve investors in people accreditation by April 1998.
  Key Target 5. To establish unit costs for LISA output, creating a baseline in FY 96–97, against which subsequent year on year reductions can be achieved.
  Key Target 6. To establish baselines and institute mechanisms which incorporate appropriate benchmarks and performance indicators and enable better management of overall agency performance against targets.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  "Making Belfast Work"
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much money has been spent in each of the district electoral areas in Belfast by "Making Belfast Work" since its establishment; [34979]

  (2) if he will list the expenditure under the "Making Belfast Work" scheme in each of the four Belfast constituencies since its establishment. [34978]

  Mr. Moss
  Information on "Making Belfast Work" projects before 1994–95 is not on a central database. However, details of projects funded under the "Making Belfast Work" initiative since its inception to the end of the 1991–92 financial year were published in the MBW strategy proposals launched in April 1994. Information for the 1992–93 and 1993–94 years is also available.

  Project details for the 1994–94 and 1995–96 years are on a central database, although it is not possible to aggregate the financial information on either a district electoral or constituency basis because projects often cover more than one electoral area or constituency.

  Documents containing the available information have been placed in the Library.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when an announcement will be made on NFFO contracts for Northern Ireland. [35780]
  135
  Mr. Ancram
  Consideration of the composition of a second non-fossil fuel obligation order is nearing completion. An announcement is likely to following within the next few weeks.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to(a) award NFFO contracts to a wide range of technologies and (b) support United Kingdom-based industry. [35753]

  Mr. Ancram
  The purpose of the non-fossil fuel obligation system is the promotion of renewable energy sources at low cost to electricity consumers. So Government made it clear in announcing the second NFFO competition in Northern Ireland on 1 November 1994, that (i) the size of the subsequent order would depend entirely on the quality and prices of the bids received; (ii) the competition would be open to all renewable technologies; and (iii) to maintain a balanced portfolio of renewables, the amount of wind power included in the order would be limited.

  Since most of the 79 NFFO bids were from UK-based developers, the final composition of the order is likely to reflect broad support for UK-based industry.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the reason for delay in publishing details of successful NFFO bids. [35781]

  Mr. Ancrarn
  The second non-fossil fuel obligation competition in Northern Ireland was heavily subscribed with 79 applications. Though a most encouraging level of response, each project required both technical and financial appraisal, and this process took longer than anticipated.

  Following completion of the appraisals the Department of Economic Development was then obliged to consult with both the Director General of Electricity Supply and Northern Ireland Electricity plc. This process has now been completed and an announcement is likely to follow within the next few weeks.

  New Businesses
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new businesses were started up in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [36149]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: There is no comprehensive count of new business start-ups. However, information on VAT registrations can provide a useful indication of the number of businesses created and estimates for the years 1990 to 1994 are given in the table. Figures for 1995 are not yet available. It should be noted that many start-up businesses are below the VAT threshold in their initial months.
  VAT registrations in Northern Ireland

  1990: 3,300

  1991: 3,700

  1992: 3,700

  1993: 4,000

  1994: 3,900

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Statutory Pay
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for 1994–95, the number of employees for whom a recovery of statutory maternity pay was claimed by employers from the national insurance fund. [35656]

  Mr. Heald
  The Government Actuary's Department has estimated that the number of employees for whom a recovery of statutory maternity pay was claimed by employers in 1994–95 was 370,000.Notes:
  1. Figure rounded to the nearest 10,000.
  2. Figures do not assume that all women will receive SMP for 18 weeks.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in a full year of allowing employers to recover fully the statutory sick pay that they pay. [35655]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated extra benefit cost in 1996–97 is £880 million.

  Note:
  1. Government Actuary's Department estimate, rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of female employees in the most recent available year who(a) received statutory maternity pay, (b) were excluded from entitlement to statutory maternity pay because of earnings below the lower earnings limit, and received maternity allowance instead, (c) were excluded from entitlement to SMP because they were abroad, and received maternity allowance instead, (d) were excluded from entitlement to SMP because they were in legal custody, and received maternity allowance instead, (e) received incapacity benefit during pregnancy and the period after confinement and (f) received no SMP, maternity allowance or incapacity benefit during pregnancy. [35646]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is given in the table and relates to 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available.

  1993–94

  Estimated number of statutory maternity pay (SMP) recipients

  1370,000

  Maternity allowance awards to women excluded from SMP as earnings less than Lower Earnings Limit

  23,300

  Maternity allowance awards to women excluded from SMP as outside the European Economic Area

  2Nil

  Maternity allowance awards to women excluded from SMP as in legal custody

  2200

  1 Government Actuary's Department estimate rounded to nearest 10,000, it does not assume that all women receive 18 weeks SMP.

  2 Figures taken from 1 per cent, sample of maternity allowance claims made in Great Britain.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of employees who received statutory sick pay, giving a
  137
  breakdown by sex and age, for the most recent available year. [35644]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Data on the number of payments made by employers in 1992–93 are shown in the table. These include figures for people who have received more than one payment.

  Age

  Men

  Women

  Under 20

  30,000

  29,000

  20 and up to 24

  247,000

  293,000

  25 and up to 29

  337,000

  394,000

  30 and up to 34

  337,000

  348,000

  35 and up to 39

  298,000

  301,000

  40 and up to 44

  271,000

  305,000

  45 and up to 49

  276,000

  333,000

  50 and up to 54

  231,000

  271,000

  55 and up to 59

  212,000

  214,000

  60 and up to 64

  167,000

  58,000

  65 and over

  40,000

  2,000

  Total

  12,448,000

  12,547,000

  1. Totals do not sum due to rounding.

  2. Figures are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of statutory sick pay payments made by employers in UK and rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for the most recent available year(a) the amount of statutory sick pay paid to all employees, (b) the number of employees receiving statutory sick pay, (c) the number of employees who are not entitled to statutory sick pay because of low earnings, and who received incapacity benefit instead and (d) the number of employees who are not entitled to statutory sick pay because of low earnings who receive no other benefits during their period of illness. [35654]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is for 1992–93 and is as follows:

  The total value of statutory sick pay payments by employers was £814 million1.

  The number of SSP payments made by employers was 4.8 million1. This figure includes people who may have received more than one payment in the year.

  The number of people who claimed sickness benefit because their earnings were below the lower earnings limit for the payment of national insurance contributions was 38,0002.
  Notes:
  1 Figures taken from a 1 per cent. sample of all payments made by employers in Great Britain.
  2 Figure taken from a 1 per cent. sample of all claims to sickness benefit in Great Britain.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amounts recovered by employers for(a) statutory sick pay and (b) statutory maternity benefit; and what were amounts paid in (i) sickness benefit and (ii) maternity allowance in each year since 1980. [35645]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the table.138

  £ million

  Year

  Statutory sick pay

  Statutory maternity pay

  Sickness benefit1

  Maternity allowance

  1980–81

  —

  —

  654

  149

  1981–82

  —

  —

  680

  158

  1982–83

  —

  —

  554

  152

  1983–84

  500

  —

  265

  141

  1984–85

  508

  —

  279

  161

  1985–86

  545

  —

  276

  164

  1986–87

  757

  —

  179

  168

  1987–88

  840

  193

  193

  51

  1988–89

  898

  250

  192

  27

  1989–90

  949

  286

  204

  30

  1990–91

  941

  314

  216

  34

  1991–92

  781

  408

  274

  31

  1992–93

  688

  434

  364

  32

  1993–94

  659

  416

  365

  33

  1994–95

  25

  443

  342

  27

  1995–96

  25

  453

  —

  32

  1 Sickness benefit and invalidity benefit were replaced by incapacity benefit in April 1995.

  Outturn figures from 1980–81 to 1994–95, and estimated outturn figure for 1995–96.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 24 June,Official Report, columns 37 and 38, if he will place in the Library the evidence from which he calculated the percentage of asylum seekers who are found to be genuine refugees. [35635]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The most recent summary of Home Office asylum decisions can be found in the Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 9/96, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the Refugee Council report, "Welcome to the UK". [35686]

  Mr. Evans
  The report highlights the fact that asylum seekers who are not entitled to benefits can rely on a network of support and assistance. The report does not show the kind of destitution that many critics suggested would come about as a consequence of our determination to tackle the problem of bogus asylum seekers.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monitoring he has undertaken into the impact of the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996. [35685]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, gave the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 25 June,Official Report, columns 142–44.

  Maternity Leave
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women took maternity leave for each year from 1992; and what proportion they represented(a) of all women employees and (b) all employees. [34967]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available.

  War Pensions
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, columns 635–36, in which wars or military operations the additional 72,727 people in receipt of war disablement pension between 1990 and 1995 were disabled. [36120]

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

  However, applications for consideration for a war pension can relate to any period of service in the armed forces including peacetime and training activities.

  National Disability Council
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the National Disability Council will report on its activities during the 1995–96 financial year. [36664]

  Mr. Burt
  My right how Friend, the Secretary of State, has today laid before Parliament the first annual report of the National Disability Council.

  The NDC has reported on its activities since it was created in January 1996 and set out what it hopes to achieve during 1996–97.

  The report shows that the NDC has been influential with Government and has a proactive approach to identifying what more can be done to ending discrimination against disabled people.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Chief Adjudication Officer (Report)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the 12th annual report of the chief adjudication officer; and if he will make a statement. [36686]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The report is being published today. The chief adjudication officer's findings record a year of mixed achievement for the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. We are pleased that, overall, the percentage of decisions correct in every respect shows an improvement on the previous year, but we are disappointed that the momentum of that year had not been carried forward to produce an even better performance.

  Both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service are committed to improving standards of adjudication. The chief adjudication officer will continue to work with the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service in this task, which will become all the more demanding and important in the short term whilst the jobseekers allowance is being introduced. His findings will, as he suggest, also provide an important contribution to the current review of the legal framework for decision and appeals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to 140
  the Director General of the Prison Service concerning the making of public statements on prison policy and operational matters. [34999]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Guidance on such matters is contained in the agency chief executives' Handbook, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police (Compensation Actions)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many actions for compensation following alleged maltreatment by police were taken in the civil courts against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1996; and, of that number, how many(a) were discontinued, (b) were decided in favour of the Metropolitan police, (c) were decided against the Metropolitan police, (d) were settled out of court and (e) are still pending. [35486]

  Mr. Maclean
  The commissioner informs me as follows:

  Discontinued

  Settled out of court

  Decided in favour of the Metropolitan police

  Decided against the Metropolitan police

  1991

  n/a

  74

  7

  9

  1992

  n/a

  85

  10

  11

  1993

  n/a

  140

  8

  6

  1994

  n/a

  174

  23

  11

  1995

  15

  140

  28

  22

  1996 (to 3 July)

  6

  47

  4

  9

  I understand that records of cases pending are not kept as a high percentage are never formally discontinued.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many cases of actions for compensation following alleged maltreatment by police taken in the civil courts against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1996, the commissioner(a) accepted liability and (b) issued an apology. [35487]

  (2) for each financial year from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1996, what was the cost of (a) internal and (b) external legal fees expended separately by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in respect of actions for compensation following alleged maltreatment by police taken in the civil courts against the commissioner; [35488]

  (3) what was the cost of (a) internal and (b) external, legal fees expended by the Metropolitan police in respect of actions for compensation following alleged maltreatment by police taken in the civil courts against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for each financial year from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1996; [35489]

  (4) on what dates between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1996, civil court actions for compensation following alleged maltreatment were decided against the Metropolitan police; and how much was awarded in each case. [35491]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1996 actions for compensation following alleged
  141
  maltreatment by police were settled out of court; and where made public, what was the amount of the settlement in each case. [35490]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally.

  Recidivism
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the most recently available numbers of prisoners reconvicted within(a) two years, (b) four years and (c) five years of discharge from each category C prison. [35595]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the most recently available number of prisoners reconvicted within (a) two years, (b) four years and (c) five years of discharge from each category C prison.
  The information requested is not immediately available and I will write to the hon. Member when we have the figures.

  Prisons (Boards of Visitors)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of members of prison boards of visitors. [35598]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of boards of visitors members currently serving as at 3 July is 1,711.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time members of prison boards of visitors currently serve. [35596]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Based on a representative sample of the 252 members who left the work of boards of visitors during 1995, the average length of time members of boards of visitors serve is 5 years 4 months.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of prison boards of visitors had served for longer than 14 years on 1 January. [35599]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of boards of visitors members who had served for longer than 14 years on 1 January is 140.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of prison boards of visitors have served for longer than 15 years. [35597]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of boards of visitors members who have served for longer than 15 years as at 3 July is 139.

  Violent Offenders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who were convicted of an offence involving violence against the person are currently in an open prison. [35689]
  142
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners, convicted of an offence involving violence against the person, currently being held in open prisons.
  The latest available information is for 31 May 1996. On that date there were 800 prisoners held in open prisons in England and Wales who were recorded as being sentenced for an offence in the group "violence against the person".

  Metropolitan Police (Civil Damages Awards)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 325, on civil damages awards against the Metropolitan police, for what reasons this information is not held on a divisional basis. [35524]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the commissioner that, as a result of a recent consultative exercise, and an improved computer system the database will contain the requested information from later this year.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the discretion of fire authorities to vary fire cover between districts and towns in their areas. [35970]

  Mr. Sackville
  The deployment of fire service resources within a brigade area is a matter for the relevant fire authority in the light of its statutory responsibilities under the Fire Services Act 1947. Under section 19 of the Act the authority may not, however, reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a particular area without the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will rank fire authorities by the capital amounts spent on(a) new fire stations, (b) renovated and upgraded fire stations and (c) fire engines for each year since 1990. [35969]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will rank fire authorities in England by the amount spent on fire cover per 1,000 inhabitants for the latest year for which figures are available. [35971]

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for the net expenditure per head of population for fire brigades in England and Wales during 1994–95 were published by the Audit Commission in April. (Local Authority Performance Indicators 1994–95; Volume 3. Police and Fire Performance Indicators—ISBN 0 11 8864467—a copy of which is in the Library).
  143
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to chief fire officers on the assessment of fire risk and the corresponding fire cover needed. [35968]

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance on the above matters is given in Fire Service circular No. 4/1985 which was issued on 22 May 1985. A copy is held in the Library.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 April,Official Report, column 366 if he will undertake an immediate review of past EC directives with a view to removing all gold plating. [35042]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 July 1996]: No. As I said in my answer to a question from the hon. Member on 29 April at column 405, I could do so only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful escapes by prisoners occurred in each year since 1988 from(a) prison and (b) escort. [35911]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many successful escapes by prisoners occurred in each year since 1988 from (a) prison and (b) escort.
  The requested information is given in the attached table. (The first full year for which figures are available is 1989–90.)

  Year

  Escapes from establishment

  Escapes from escort

  Total

  1989–90

  146

  111

  257

  1990–91

  225

  111

  336

  1991–92

  308

  155

  463

  1992–93

  232

  115

  347

  1993–94

  171

  125

  1296

  1994–95

  151

  66

  217

  1995–96

  52

  70

  122

  1 In 1993–94, 23 of the escapes were from escorts that, prior to contracting out, would have been the responsibility of the police. In 1994–95 there were 15 such escapes and in 1995–96, 34.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlay the interval leading up to the publication of the Prison Service annual report for 1994–95. [53861]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what factors underlay the interval leading up to the publication of the Prison Service annual report for 1994–5.
  144
  Factors underlying the delay included changes at Director level during a critical time in the preparation of the report and other priorities, in particular the implementation of the security recommendations in the Woodcock Report and the introduction of mandatory drug testing. In addition a major revision of the report was undertaken following the publication of the Learmont Report.
  Work is currently underway on the 1995–96 report which we expect will be published later this year.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants were made by the Prison Service to non-profit-making organisations during the(a) current and (b) last financial year. [35869]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about grants made by the Prison Service to non-profit making organisations during the current and last financial year.
  The expenditure for 1995–96 and from April 1996 to June 1996 is given in the attached table.

  Grants

  1995–96

  1996–97 April to June 1996

  Community Service Volunteers

  192,000

  48,000

  Prisoners Abroad

  88,357

  23,389

  NACRO

  226,000

  —

  National Association of Prison Visitors

  82,000

  10,000

  Prison Visitors Centres

  637,465

  189,310

  Prisons (Working Schedules)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of reviewing the locking schedules in prisons in England and Wales. [35866]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the estimated cost of reviewing the locking schedules in prisons in England and Wales.
  A review of a typical prison including checking on site and subsequent inputting of data might take up to two weeks at a total estimated cost of £1,200.

  Prisons Costs Review
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of implementing the findings of the review of the open prison estate. [35865]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  145
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of implementing the findings of the review of the open prison estate.
  The cost of implementing the recommendations arising from the review is being examined as part of the preparation of the Prison Service's implementation plan.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the statistical analysis of the cost drivers of publicly-operated prisons undertaken by the Home Office research and statistics directorate as referred to in paragraph 11 of the review of comparative costs and performance of privately and publicly operated prisons produced by Coopers and Lybrand. [35134]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will publish the statistical analysis of the cost drivers of publicly operated prisons undertaken by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate as referred to in paragraph 11 of the Review of Comparative Costs and Performance of Privately and Publicly Operated Prisons recently produced by Coopers and Lybrand.
  The Research and Statistics Directorate's analysis is undertaken every year to compare publicly managed prisons and is used for a range of management purposes by the Prison Service.
  The analysis uses regression analysis, a statistical technique, to identify the relationship between the cost of a prison, and a group of independent variables (for example, size of prison, prisoner mix and so on). In other words, to identify which variables appear to explain existing variations in costs. From this is derived an equation for calculating a "predicted" cost for each prison, in the light of the known variables, which can then be compared with its actual cost.
  Using this methodology, the variables with the greatest statistical links to costs are:

  baseline certified normal accommodation

  the number of category A prisoners

  whether of not sentenced category B prisoners are held

  the number of unsentenced adult prisoners

  the number of unsentenced prisoners under 21

  the degree to which the prison is in open conditions.

  These variables, and their relative weightings, were used to help select the public sector prisons most comparable to the privately managed prisons in Coopers and Lybrand's study.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received for appointment as chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and which recruitment consultants were appointed to assist in the selection procedure. [36253]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Thirty-seven applications were received in response to the advertisement for the post of chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and 87 candidates were drawn from other sources. Recruitment and Assessment Services was appointed to assist in the selection process.

  Mr. Raghbir Singh
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to respond to the resolution carried in the European Parliament over the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh. [36360]

  Mr. Howard
  I have noted the resolution carried in the European Parliament. I have no plans to respond.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received about the case of Raghbir Singh from(a) members of the British Sikh community, (b) right hon. and hon. Members and (c) from other individuals and organisations. [36401]

  Mr. Howard
  The number of representations received from members of the British Sikh community and from other individuals and organisations is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. For the number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members, I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 1 July 1996, column 311.

  Stalking
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his proposals to deal with stalking; and if he will make a statement. [36688]

  Mr. Howard
  I am today publishing a joint consultation paper with the Lord Chancellor on stalking. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Stalkers can have a devastating effect on the lives of their victims, who are entitled to expect that the law will protect them. But this is a difficult area in which to legislate as stalkers often behave in ways which do not overtly threaten their victims. But its sheer, oppressive persistence makes this activity so threatening.

  The consultation paper proposes a new tort which will allow the victims of stalkers to seek an injunction against further harassment. It also proposes two new criminal offences which are intended to ensure that stalkers can be punished for activity which causes people to fear for their safety or which more generally causes harassment, alarm or distress.

  It is important that any new measures against stalkers deal effectively with the problem whilst at the same time do not prevent people from going about their lawful business. That is why it is important for the Government to consult on this subject.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many temporary release failures have occurred at Buckley Hall prison since December 1994; what is the percentage of total temporary decisions that have resulted in temporary release failures at Buckley Hall prison; and what is the percentage of total temporary decisions that have resulted in temporary failures at male category C prisons. [33772]
  147
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 24 June 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 9 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on temporary release failures at Buckley Hall prison since December 1994 and the percentage of total temporary release decisions that have resulted in temporary release failures at male category C prisons.
  Since December 1994, seven hundred and sixty four prisoners have been released on temporary licence from Buckley Hall prison, of which thirty eight (4.9 per cent) have failed to return on time. Recent improvements in risk assessment at Buckley Hall has resulted in a drop in the failure to return on time rate to 2.6 per cent. for the first quarter of 1996–7.
  The percentage of total temporary release decisions at all male category C prisons which have resulted in failures to return since December 1994 is 0.4 per cent.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost, for each police authority, of policing car boot sales in the last year for which figures are available; and if it is policy for site owners to contribute to such costs. [35586]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: This information is not collected centrally. If the organisers of car boot sales request a police presence, chief officers of police can consider making a charge under section 15 of the Police Act 1964 for the provision of special police services.

HEALTH

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995 the mean and range of the delays between advice being issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines relating to compulsory variation of a product licence and a letter in terms of paragraph 6 of schedule 2 of the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994 or previous equivalent legislation begin issued; and what assessment he had made of the performance of the Medicines Control Agency and Committee on Safety of Medicines in this regard. [35090]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1993 and 1994 there were no compulsory variations.

  In 1995 there were three compulsory variations, two of which related to the same safety issue. The times between advice being formulated by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and a letter being issued under paragraph 6 of schedule 2 of the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, etc.,) Regulations 1994 were on2, 82 and 84 days.

  No specific assessment has been made of this issue.

  Community Care Funding
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the reply sent by 148
  members of the Cabinet expenditure committee to each of the eight matters drawn to their attention by the Alliance of Service Users, Carers, Advocates, Purchasers and Providers in Community Care. [35633]

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his response to the letter dated June 1996 from the President of the Association of Directors of Social Services, on behalf of the Alliance of Service Users, Carers, Advocaters, Purchasers and Providers in Community Care, headed "Funding for Community Care". [36002]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am considering my response to the matters raised by the Alliance of Service Users, Carers, Advocates, Purchasers and Providers in Community Care.

  Asthma and Diabetes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the relationship between life style and(a) asthma and (b) diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [35857]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on research commissioned by the Department of Health is contained in "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions in 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to ensure the implementation in all NHS hospitals of their "The Health of the Nation" nutrition guidelines for hospital catering with particular reference to(a) helping patients needing assistance with eating and drinking while their meals are hot, (b) reviewing patients at risk of malnutrition as agreed in their individual care plan and (c) setting up local groups including patient representatives to implement the guidance; and if he will make a statement; [35838]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure the implementation in all NHS hospitals of their "The Health of the Nation" nutrition guidelines for hospital catering in respect of patients with sensory disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [35839]

  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for local management. Further detailed guidance on catering good practice, "Hospital catering—Delivering a quality service", which includes a section relating to the nutrition guidelines, will be issued on 16 July. I will place copies of this guidance in the Library.

  Medical Reports (Access)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to entitle people to gain access to all medical reports made about them by clinicians who have not been responsible for their clinical care, with particular reference to reports commissioned by insurance companies; and if he will make a statement. [35842]

  Mr. Horam
  A person already has a right of access to medical reports, if held on computer, under the Data Protection Act 1984. The European Community directive
  149
  on data protection, 95/46/EC, requires the extension of our existing data protection to certain manually held records. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is currently consulting on the implementation of the directive in the United Kingdom. We shall be considering in due course what action is called for.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will revise the funding available for specialist speech and language therapists' posts, clarify the code of practice in respect of responsibility for speech and language therapy and ensure that children receive speech and language therapy which they have been clinically assessed as needing; and if he will make a statement. [35840]

  Mr. Bowis
  The funding of speech and language therapists' posts is a matter for individual health authorities. The code of practice already makes clear the respective responsibilities of health and education authorities in the provision of speech and language therapy for children with statements of special educational needs. The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment encourage close collaboration between authorities locally.

  Paediatric Intensive Care Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will develop a national strategy to facilitate a rapid increase in the number of training places for(a) general and (b) paediatric intensive care nurses; and if he will make a statement. [35912]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for local employers, in conjunction with their local education and training consortia, to determine the skills needed and the number of staff required to deliver the services they have contracted to provide. The National Health Service Executive retains overall responsibility and issues annual education and training planning guidance. Nurse training commissions are set to rise generally by about 14 per cent. in 1996–97. The number of students entering paediatric intensive care courses in England has increased consistently since 1991.

  Enuresis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned on the importance of regular contact between professional staff and families of people undergoing treatment for enuresis; and if he will make a statement. [35835]

  Mr. Bowis
  The National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination is carrying out a systematic review of interventions to manage enuresis.

  Continuing Health Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that continuing health care remains an integral part of the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [36396]

  Mr. Bowis
  Continuing health care is one of the six key medium term priorities for the NHS set out in the "Priorities and Planning Guidance" 1996–97 and 1997–98. Copies are available in the Library.

  Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. [36648]

  Mr. Horam
  I announced the established of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing on 10 January 1996 at column 231, when the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne was appointed chairman.

  The 13 members are:

  Professor Marcus Pembrey, Institute of Child Health, London;

  Professor Peter Harper, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff (both specialists in clinical genetics);

  Professor Kay Davies, Keeble College, Oxford (genetic science);

  Dr. Hilary Harris, Manchester (general practice);

  Mrs. Wendy Johnston, nurse and counsellor, Belfast City Hospital (nursing and genetic counselling);

  Mr. Phillip Webb, General Manager, Zeneca Diagnostics (industry);

  Dr. Sally Macintyre, Director, Medical Research Council's Medical Sociology Unit, University of Glasgow;

  Professor John Harris, Professor of Bioethics and Applied Philosophy, University of Manchester;

  Professor Robert Downie, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Glasgow;

  Professor John Durant, Assistant Director, Science Museum (public perception of science);

  Mr. Matthew Parris, The Times;

  Mrs. Christine Lavery, Society of Mucopolysaccharide Diseases and founding trustee of the Genetic Interest Group (patient interest organisation); and

  Dr. Sultana Saeed, formerly Lecturer in Law, University of London.

  Prisons (Health Services)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities are responsible for health services in which prisons in England and Wales. [34877]

  Mr. Bowis
  Responsibility for ensuring the provision of health care in prisons rests with the Prison Service, not health authorities.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Libraries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the number of public libraries in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36385]

  Mr. Sproat
  The number of public libraries in Cheshire in the last five years was as follows—all figures as at 31 March, including mobile libraries:

  1995: 68

  1994: 68

  1993: 68

  1992: 70

  1991: 70

  151
  Information about the number of libraries in individual towns is not held centrally.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36004]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department spent £11,208 on taxi services during 1995–96.

  Lottery awards in Crew and Nantwich

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount £

  Sports

  21 May 1996

  Crewe Vagrants Sports Club

  Nantwich

  495,300.00

  Sports

  9 January 1995

  Nantwich Cricket Club

  Nantwich

  90,000.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Merseyside and Cheshire Alcohol Services

  Crewe

  62,196.00

  Arts

  15 May 1996

  United Norwest Co-operatives Normid 2000 Brass Band

  Cheshire

  36,699.00

  Arts

  13 September 1995

  Lions Youth Brass Band

  Crewe

  25,000.00

  Sports

  16 April 1996

  Bunbury Cricket Club

  Tarporly

  23,560.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Our Community Association

  Crewe

  16,427.00

  Sports

  8 August 1995

  Crewe Rollers BMX Club

  Crewe

  9,412.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  3rd South-West Cheshire Wolverton Scout Group

  Crewe

  1,000.00

  Total (9 awards)

  759,594.00

  Lottery Awards in Cheshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount £

  Heritage

  3 April 1996

  Quarry Bank Mill Trust Ltd.

  Wilmslow

  537,000.00

  Sports

  5 December 1995

  Congleton Borough Council

  Sandbach

  520,000.00

  Sports

  21 May 1996

  Crewe Vagrants Sports Club

  Nantwich

  495,300.00

  Sports

  20 July 1996

  Cheshire County Council (Heathfield School)

  Congleton

  428,070.00

  Sports

  9 January 1996

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Macclesfield

  426,200.00

  Sports

  10 May 1996

  Cheshire County Council (Stanney County High School)

  Ellesmere Port

  425,534.00

  Sports

  9 January 1996

  The Adventure Farm Trust

  Macclesfield

  293,970.00

  Sports

  11 March 1996

  Warrington Borough Council

  Warrington

  286,000.00

  Sports

  10 June 1996

  Cheshire County Council

  Chester

  276,250.00

  Heritage

  26 April 1995

  Catalyst Museum of the Chemical Industry

  Widnes

  250,000.00

  Sports

  21 May 1996

  Cheshire County Council

  Chester

  244,092.00

  Sports

  23 May 1996

  Widnes Rugby Union Football Club

  Widnes

  235,900.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Citizens Advice Bureau

  Widnes

  199,122.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Halton Accommodation Project (HAP)

  Runcorn

  184,452.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Action Transport Theatre Company Ltd.

  South Wirral

  171,119.00

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the grants awarded by the national lottery to organisations in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire. [36384]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, nine awards totalling £759,594 have been made to organisations in Crewe and Nantwich. Seventy-one awards, totalling £7,567,292 have been made to organisations in Cheshire. The information is as follows:
  153

  Lottery Awards in Cheshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount £

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Halton West Bank Community Association

  Widnes

  169,900.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Cheshire Deaf Society

  Northwich

  121,510.00

  Sports

  6 June 1995

  Deeside Ramblers Hockey Club

  Tarporley

  117,876.00

  Sports

  5 September 1995

  Bollington Leisure Services

  Macclesfield

  116,397.00

  Sports

  16 May 1995

  Moore Rugby Union FC

  Warrington

  115,599.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Birchwood YMCA

  Warrington

  115,458.00

  Heritage

  23 November 1996

  Warrington Museum and Art Gallery

  Warrington

  111,000.00

  Arts

  15 November 1995

  Chester in Concert

  Chester

  95,000.00

  Sports

  9 January 1995

  Nantwich Cricket Club

  Nantwich

  90,000.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Sail Training Ass.—Merseyside and Deeside Branch

  Parkgate

  89,636.00

  Sports

  7 November 1995

  Lymm Rugby Football Club

  Lymm

  87,395.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Macclesfield Council for Voluntary Service

  Macclesfield

  84,523.00

  Arts

  2 April 1996

  Action Transport Theatre

  South Wirral

  81,718.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Citizen's Advice Bureau

  Ellesmere Port

  72,283.00

  Sports

  6 October 1995

  Macclesfield Lawn Tennis Club

  Macclesfield

  72,260.00

  Sports

  9 January 1995

  Middlewich Town Youth FC

  Middlewich

  69,500.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  The Blacon Project

  Blacon

  68,722.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Merseyside and Cheshire Alcohol Services

  Crewe

  62,196.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Chester Womens Aid

  Chester

  60,100.00

  Arts

  11 October 1995

  Ghost Drum and Bugle Corps.

  Chester

  57,796.00

  Sports

  6 October 1995

  Rode Cricket Club

  Stoke on Trent

  53,699.00

  Sports

  2 April 1996

  Warrington District Rifle and Pistol Club

  Warrington

  45,860.00

  Sports

  7 November1995

  Warrington Borough Council

  Warrington

  45,500.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Halton and District Womens Aid Association

  Widnes

  41,511.00

  Arts

  15 November1995

  Warrington Borough Council

  Warrington

  40,000.00

  Arts

  15 May 1996

  United Norwest Co operatives Normid 2000 Brass Band

  Cheshire

  36,699.00

  Heritage

  21 May 1996

  Chester City Council

  Chester

  35,800.00

  Sports

  20 November1995

  Padgate Sports Association

  Warrington

  33,281.00

  Sports

  14 May 1996

  Cheshire County Council (Penketh High School)

  Warrington

  32,500.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Cestrian Venture Scout Unit

  Runcorn

  30,000.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Northwich Gingerbread Group

  Northwich

  29,444.00

  Arts

  13 September 1995

  Lions Youth Brass Band

  Crewe

  25,000.00

  Sports

  16 April 1996

  Bunbury Cricket Club

  Tarporly

  23,560.00

  Arts

  15 May 1996

  Freshmen Drum and Bugle Corps.

  Padgate

  23,204.00

  Sports

  10 May 1995

  Macclesfield Tennis Club

  Macclesfield

  22.200.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Warrington Sea Cadet Corps.

  Warrington

  21,650.00

  154 155

  Lottery Awards in Cheshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount £

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Winsford Youth Forum

  Winsford

  20,750.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  230 (Congleton) Squadron A.T.C.

  Congleton

  16,500.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Our Community Association

  Crewe

  16,427.00

  Sports

  10 May 1995

  Davenham Cricket Club

  Northwich

  16,310.00

  Arts

  11 October 1995

  Frodsham Silver Band

  Frodsham

  15,000.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Vale Royal Disability Access And Information Service

  Tatton

  14,728.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Windmill Hill Under Fives Playgroup

  Runcorn

  11,934.00

  Sports

  7 August 1995

  Oakmere Cricket Club

  Northwich

  11,396.00

  Arts

  21 February 1996

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council

  Ellesmere Port

  10,800.00

  Sports

  12 March 1996

  Toft Cricket Club

  Knutsford

  10,564.00

  Arts

  15 May 1996

  Radio Lion, Chester's Hospital Radio

  Chester

  10,000.00

  Sports

  12 March 1996

  Winsford Flash Sailing Club

  Winsford

  9,930.00

  Sports

  8 August 1995

  Crewe Rollers BMX Club

  Crewe

  9,412.00

  Sports

  13 September 1995

  Upton Parish Council

  Chester

  7,000.00

  Sports

  8 August 1995

  Warrington Borough Council (Great Sankey Leisure Centre)

  Warrington

  4,500.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  12th Halton Guides

  Runcorn

  3,171.00

  Sports

  9 May 1995

  Mobberley Cricket Club

  Mobberley

  2,524.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Eyewitness Theatre Company

  Warrington

  2,000.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  3rd Thelwall (All Saints) Guide Company

  Warrington

  1,560.00

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  3rd South-West Cheshire Wolverton Scout Group

  Crewe

  1,000.00

  Total (71 awards)

  7,567,292.00

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what steps she has taken to maintain public confidence in the fairness and random selection of numbers in the national lottery; [34080]

  (2) if she will place in the Library copies of the correspondence and representations which her Department has received from the independent auditor of the national lottery; [34083]

  (3) what analysis her Department has made of the patterns of the numbers drawn in the national lottery in each week of its operation so far; and if she will place a copy of that analysis in the Library. [34085]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 24 June 1996]: This is an operational matter for Oflot. I have therefore asked the Director-General of the national lottery to write to the hon. Member and to place copies of his response in the Library of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Security Facilities Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to maintain the 156
  budget for the headquarters of the Security Facilities Executive in real terms over the planning period; and if he will make a statement. [35722]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is primarily for the chief executive to decide on the proportion of his running costs budget to be allocated to the headquarters of his agency, depending on estimated income from departmental customers. However, this is among the issues I take into consideration when setting annual performance targets and assessing the value for money of the agency.

WALES

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the locations of all accidents that occurred on the motorways of Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will plot this information on a map and place a copy thereof in the Library. [35304]
  157
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were 211 personal injury road accidents on Welsh motorways—M4 and A48(M)—in 1995, which were recorded by the police and forwarded to the Welsh Office. A map plotting the location of these accidents on the motorway network could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, appendix II of "Road Accidents: Wales 1995" includes a map showing the location of the 28 fatal and serious motorway accidents. A copy of the publication is available in the Library of the House.

  A list of ordnance survey grid references for each of the 211 accidents has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Woods
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of woods in Wales which(a) were open to the public in 1979 and (b) are open to the public now. [35325]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has recently been taken to increase the funding for closed circuit television cameras in Wales. [35698]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I announced the Welsh winners of the Home Office closed circuit television challenge competition on 21 June 1996. The Government made £726,000 available for 14 CCTV schemes in Wales.

  The following schemes were supported:

  Aberystwyth town centre and station

  Bryn Hafren comprehensive school, Barry

  Glan Ely high school, Cardiff

  Llanrumney high school, Cardiff

  Cardiff high school

  Cardigan town centre

  Derfwendeg primary school, Cefn Hengoed

  Llandudno town centre

  Llangefni town centre

  Gurnos housing estate, hospital, shops, school and two business estates, Merthyr Tydfil

  Blaenbaglan primary school, Neath and Port Talbot

  Dwr-y-Felin lower school, Neath and Port Talbot

  Penarth town centre

  Swansea enterprise park

  Mental Handicap (Residential Places)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many residential places for(a) adults and (b) children with mental handicap have been purchased by (i) health authorities and (ii) social services departments in the past year. [35924]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No information is held about residential places purchased by health authorities. The number of people in mental handicap hospitals is given in "Care in Wales for People with a Mental Illness and People with a Mental Handicap", the report prepared 158
  pursuant to section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, (House of Commons Paper No. 350).

  The number of people with learning disabilities supported by local authorities in independent sector placements at 31 March 1995 was as follows:

  Private and registered voluntary care homes: 238

  Registered private nursing homes: 35

  (1994 figures—the latest available—included for Clwyd and Powys).

  The number of people in local authority residential care homes for people with learning disabilities at 31 March 1995 is in the table.

  Number

  Children (under 16)

  8

  Adults

  385

  Total, all ages

  393

  (1994 figures given for Gwent and Powys).

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many kilometres of river bank run along set-aside land; and if he will make a statement. [36056]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what hectarage is currently set-aside land; and if he will make a statement. [36156]

  Mr. Evans
  The statistics for the 1996 crop year have not yet been collated. In 1995, 5,023.27 hectares were set aside, which included 4,457.45 hectares under the arable area payments scheme, and 565.82 hectares under the five-year set-aside scheme.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the likely contribution to increased rural employment of policies associated with the Government's implementation of the Agri-environment Council regulation 2078/92; and if he will make a statement. [36054]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Such an assessment will form part of the socio-economic evaluation of the Welsh schemes approved under EC regulation 2078/92 when they are subject to policy review five years after their launch.

  High-board Diving
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the centres which have facilities for high-board diving in Wales. [36251]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is one high-board diving facility in Wales, at the Empire pool, Cardiff.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have statements of special
  159
  educational needs in each of the new county boroughs; and what percentage of children of school age this is in each local education authority. [34853]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not yet available by unitary authority. They will be asked in January 1997 for information in respect of 1996.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many decisions to cease to maintain a statement were made in the last year for which figures are available for each of the old county councils. [34854]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of pupils whose statements were discontinued after their needs were reassessed during 19951 either following a review under the Education (Special Education Needs Regulations 1994 or following a parental request under Section 172 of the Education Act 1993

  LEA

  1995

  Clwyd

  110

  Dyfed

  23

  Gwent

  2

  Gwynedd

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  13

  Powys

  4

  South Glamorgan

  43

  West Glamorgan

  0

  1 The figure shown for Clwyd relates to 1994.

  NHS Trusts (Pay)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those trusts which have performance-related pay elements in their remuneration systems for executive directors; and if he will list the explicit criteria set out for the award of performance-related awards. [36199]

  Mr. Hague
  Performance-related pay is identified in the annual reports and accounts of NHS trusts, which are placed in the Library of the House. My Department expects trusts to set explicit criteria in determining remuneration, including performance-related pay, which focus on the individual's contribution towards the quality of patient care, including patient charter targets and other matters such as improved value for money or financial control.

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the auditors' report into the affairs of the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust. [36200]

  Mr. Hague
  I expect to receive audited annual accounts by 31 July 1996. This will be followed by a management letter giving details of any particular issues of concern to the auditor. The timing of the issue of the management letter is a matter for the auditor.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust concerning the calculation of the final outturn on the 1995–96 overspend, and indications arising from internal management accounts for the first quarter of 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [36201]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The first quarter runs for 1996–97 are not due with my Department until 19 July 1996.
  160

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Gwent health authority concerning the authority's report into the appointment by internal advertisement of a senior manager already in receipt of an NHS redundancy payment in January; and if he will make a statement; [36476]

  (2) what consultations he has had with his independent observer on the Gwent health authority non-executive director's study group into the appointment by internal advertisement of a senior manager already in receipt of an NHS redundancy payment in January; and if he will make a statement. [36477]

  Mr. Hague
  None. My Department has been kept informed of developments by the health authority, and I will receive a copy of the report. The authority will let me know what action it intends to take following its meeting on 12 July.

  EstateCare Group
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the transfer to the private sector of the EstateCare Group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. [36811]

  Mr. Hague
  Following extensive negotiations, the design and project management functions of the EstateCare Group have been sold to a new company, EstateCare Group Ltd., formed by Capita plc and a team of senior managers from the existing EstateCare Group.

  The purchase price of £175,000 offered good value for money and the sale ensures the best possible prospects for the majority of EstateCare's staff and continuity of service for NHS trusts in Wales.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to ensure that the new unitary authorities in Wales operate to the standards in accordance with the principles of the citizens charter. [36812]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Officials have written to all chief executives of local authorities in Wales to encourage them to produce their own local charters. These charters will need to include public services for people who live and work in rural communities, in accordance with the White paper "A Working Countryside for Wales". The letter is being circulated widely in Wales, and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he has taken to(a) consult law officers and (b) obtain counsel's opinion on the claim of the EC that it has the power to ban British beef exports to markets outside the EU; [24880]
  161
  (2) what assessment he has made of the liability of the EC for (a) actions at law and (b) payment of compensation from their imposition of a ban on the export of British beef. [24882]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Government have challenged the ban on the export of British beef—as set out in Commission decision 96/239/EC—in the European Court of Justice. A decision on this issue will take some time, so a petition for interim relief from the ban has also been entered. The Government will be seeking costs but not damages from the court.

  In the meantime, the United Kingdom is striving to work with our European colleagues to lift the ban by implementing the framework programme as described to the House on 24 June 1996, Official Report, columns 21–22.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations were made to the countries which had a ban on the import of United Kingdom beef before 20 March; and what indications were given in each case of the action that would be necessary to secure the lifting of the ban. [30358]

  Mrs. Browning
  I very much regret that the hon. Member has had to wait so long for a reply.

  Thirty seven countries had imposed a ban on the import of United Kingdom beef prior to 20 March. Details of the specific reasons given for the introduction of these bans, and of the representations made by the UK Government to each individual country, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, vigorous lobbying to persuade the authorities concerned to lift the ban has taken place in all cases.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost, in terms of beef product export sales, of bans on British beef introduced by non-EU countries in each of the last seven years. [29617]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: Any estimate of the value of beef export sales which might have been achieved had the bans imposed by a number of non-EU countries not been imposed would be highly speculative. The value of UK bovine products exports to non-EU countries would have been significantly higher than the £62.6 million they were worth last year.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will itemise all import restrictions imposed by Argentina on the importation of beef meat and beef meat products from the United Kingdom. [29620]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: I very much regret that the hon. Member has had to wait so long for a reply.

  My officials were advised by the British embassy, Buenos Aires, in August 1991 that the Argentine authorities had imposed a temporary ban on the import of all meat and meat products derived from bovines, ovines and caprines from the UK. This ban has continued despite vigorous lobbing to persuade the Argentine authorities to lift the restrictions.

  Beef (Fast Food Companies)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to make it unlawful for fast food companies not to offer their customers a choice between British and imported beef. [31763]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government, in consultation with the beef industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission, continue to do all that they can to persuade such establishments to restore British beef to their menus. However, the Government have no powers to prescribe purchasing decisions.

  Butchers
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he intends to give retail butchers whose turnover has reduced as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [34277]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 17 June 1996,Official Report, columns 378–80.

  Salmon
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in respect of cranial and opercular deformities in genetically engineered salmon; and if he will make a statement. [35871]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received no representations on these subjects.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 139, when the invoices for livestock export certification undertaken by his Department's staff between 13 and 16 February were issued; and when the amounts invoiced were received. [35755]

  Mrs. Browning
  The invoices for livestock export certification undertaken by MAFF staff were issued on 17 April 1996. Of the 12 invoices issued five have so far been paid in full. Those payments were received on 29 April, 9 May, 20 May, 29 May and 26 June 1996.

  Plant Genetic Resources Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the international technical conference on plant genetic resources held in Leipzig; and if he will place in the Library copies of United Kingdom submissions to the conference, with the global plan of action agreed at the conference. [35930]

  Mr. Boswell
  The fourth international technical conference on plant genetic resources of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations took place in Leipzig from 17 to 23 June 1996. The conference unanimously adopted a global plan of action for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of plant genetic
  163
  resources for food and agriculture, and a Leipzig declaration on conservation and sustainable utilisation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

  The United Kingdom delegation participated fully in the negotiations, but the United Kingdom made no formal submission to the conference.

  Final copies of the adopted text of the global plan and of the declaration have not yet been made available by the FAO, but I shall arrange for copies of the final negotiating drafts, as adopted, to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the payment rate to abattoirs for slaughter of £107.50 per beast was arrived at. [35774]

  Mr. Baldry
  A provisional fee of £87.50 per animal presented for slaughter under the over 30-month scheme was agreed by the Intervention Board executive agency in consultation with representatives from the slaughtering industry. There was no established rate for this work when the scheme was set up and the provisional fee, which covers slaughtering, butchering, staining and preparation for dispatch to a rendering plant or cold store, took into account uncertainty about costs on a disrupted market and the fact that income would not be derived from the offals. This provisional fee is guaranteed only for slaughterings up to and including 16 June. A substantive rate will be determined following an "open books" examination of slaughterers' costs by an independent third party which will report its findings shortly.

  Sea Level Rises, East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes to sea defence or coastal protection policy and funding he plans to make to respond to predicted sea level rises in East Anglia by(a) 2020 and (b) 2050; and if he will make a statement. [36023]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry fully recognises the need to plan for possible sea level rises and has, since 1989, issued guidance to operating authorities inter alia on allowances for particular stretches of coastline.

  For East Anglia the allowance recommended by the Ministry is 6 mm per year or 6 cm per decade. Also, MAFF advice on best practice for coastal defences recommends that consideration is given to incorporating flexibility as coastal defences are renewed or improved to allow for any future change in predictions, particularly where coastal defences have an effective life beyond 2030.

  The second report of the UK climate change impacts review group announced on 2 July 1996 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment provides an analysis of impacts in the UK and suggests that sea levels could rise at a rate of 5 cm per decade, with more rapid sea level rises along the East Anglian and south coast, taking into account predicted vertical land movements.

  The Ministry will keep under review guidance on the allowances to be made in the planning of coastal defence measures for sea level rise in the light of the CCIRG report and continuing national and international studies.
  164
  The Ministry also funds research projects addressing the implications of climate change to ensure a consonant coastal defence response. In addition, the Ministry funds a national tide gauge network which monitors changes in sea level and geological movement. Decisions on future funding, through Ministry grants, will continue to be based on an analysis of priority works, taking account of the impact of climate change.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are in place to protect Great Britain against the possibility of foot and mouth disease being introduced into Great Britain through the importation of elephants. [36666]

  Mrs. Browning
  Foot and mouth disease is a significant animal health problem in some parts of the world. That is why we have amended the Importation of Animals Order 1977. From the date of the amending order coming into force, it will be possible for elephants to be imported into Great Britain only under the authority of a licence. Any licences issued will contain specific animal health requirements to ensure that Great Britain's freedom from foot and mouth disease, and other diseases to which elephants are susceptible, is not compromised.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each year since 1989 renderers were prosecuted for failure to comply with regulations relating to BSE governing the production, distribution and supply of rendered material. [31253]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: There have been no prosecutions of renderers under legislation relating to BSE regarding the production, distribution and supply of rendered material since 1989.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on European Union negotiations of failures since 1989 by feed mills, rendering plants and abattoirs to implement fully BSE-related regulations. [31245]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: The Commission and our European partners recognise the increasingly stringent steps taken since 1988 to ensure compliance with BSE measures. Perceived shortcomings in the operation of earlier measures have not helped the UK in EC negotiations.

  Shingle
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the size in millimetres of(a) the shingle available on Shingles Bank that it is proposed is used for beach nourishment and replacement and (b) the largest licensed shingle commercially available. [35307]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]The nominal maximum size of the shingle available from Shingles Bank is 50 mm; for the commercial source offered in response to tender it was 30 mm.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what context the possibility of European Union legislation on dietary supplements was raised in the intergovernmental conference; what steps were taken at that conference by his Department to seek to promote access to consumers to such supplements throughout the European Union unless there is a proven health risk; and if he will make a statement. [35378]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The possibility of European Union legislation on dietary supplements has not been discussed at the intergovernmental conference so far as I am aware.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which division of his Department will deal with matters arising from the forthcoming European Commission discussion document on dietary supplements; what plans that division has to consult with pan-European consumer organisations, with particular reference to Consumers for Health Choice; and if he will make a statement. [35379]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: Responsibility within the Ministry for matters relating to dietary supplements rests primarily with the consumer and nutrition policy division, which will take the lead in dealing with matters arising from any discussion document on this subject issued by the European Commission. In doing so it will consult interested parties, including Consumers for Health Choice.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the 166
  research held by his Department on the effects of organophosphorous sheep dips on people; and if he will make a statement. [35514]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: As part of the continuing review of the use of organophosphorus sheep dips by the Veterinary Products Committee, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate considers a very large quantity of published scientific literature on organophosphates, including papers on the effects in animals and humans. A list of references has been placed in the Library of the House. Information received from commercial companies in support of applications for marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal produce is subject to the confidentiality restrictions of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the risks to people and the environment of(a) Propetamphos and (b) Diazinon, when used in organophosphorus sheep dips. [35515]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: Organophosphates for use on sheep and cattle are classified as veterinary medicines. Before they may be marketed in the UK all veterinary medicines, including organophosphorus sheep dips containing Propetamphos and Diazinon, must be authorised in accordance with EC and UK legislation. This requires assessment of scientific data provided by the applicant company against the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy, to ensure that they are safe and effective when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, including the wearing of protective clothing where appropriate. Safety includes safety to the operator, to the consumer of any food products from treated animals, to the environment, and the health and welfare of the treated animal.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
Lord Iliffe Lord Iliffe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.
Lord Luke Lord Luke—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Northern Ireland: Peace Process
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the value and effect of the various confidence building measures introduced by the Government in Northern Ireland since the 1994 ceasefires and what further measures they envisage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, current events in Northern Ireland demonstrate the crucial importance of developing trust between the communities. The Government believe that the talks process provides the best opportunity to achieve political stability through agreement on a widely acceptable political settlement. On the economic side, increasing employment and the EU Peace and Reconciliation Fund have steadily increased confidence. The Government will continue to meet their responsibility to protect their citizens and work to ensure they can continue to go about their business without interference.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, coming as it does in the uncertain climate of today's headlines. I am grateful for what she said about employment. Will the Government work even harder on equal opportunities in employment for all? Will they legislate for a Bill of Rights on which almost all the Northern Ireland parties manage to agree? Finally, will they prepare and have ready a fall-back plan for use if the political negotiations fail to reach agreement?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the Government had hoped that the talks process would examine the Bill of Rights issue. The Government are not ruling out any resolution. They have a genuinely open-minded approach to the form and scope of whatever new measures can be agreed. As regards a fall-back position, I assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to work to ensure that there is a peaceful future for every single member of the population of Northern Ireland. We must hope that they will work for it too.
Lord Blease: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the present sad and grave eruption of riotous disorder, in parts of the Province there has been marked and tangible social, economic and political progress during the past two years? Is the noble Baroness aware of the widespread community appreciation of the bipartisan and concerted support for the building of peaceable measures by this Westminster Parliament and by United Kingdom governments over the past 25 years? Finally, will the Minister seek to ensure that there can be no departure from the principles of parliamentary democracy in matters concerning the future governance of the Province?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has seen much of the troubles in Northern Ireland but he has seen also in recent years much of the success in building teams, peoples and communities to work together. Much of that achievement has been with the support of both Houses of Parliament and through the great efforts of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We shall continue to work along those paths. It is difficult to envisage a democracy that does not always have a peace process.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the end of the ceasefire has fortunately not led to an end of inward investment? Will she tell us more about the effects of her valuable visit to Canada in March?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend rightly draws attention to the fact that such is the strength of the economic message in Northern Ireland that despite the breakdown in the ceasefire there has continued to be significant inward investment. There has been investment of several hundred million pounds to provide in the future 4,000 new jobs. That is the best hope for all sectors of all communities. On a recent visit to Canada I was delighted to learn that Bombardier, the owners of Shorts, a globally competitive company in Belfast, was looking at transferring even more work to the company.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the extremely important work of confidence building and reconstruction the Government have had—and continue to have—the full support of the Labour Party? Does she also agree that at this difficult time everyone should do their best to avoid inflaming tensions? Is she content with the peacekeeping security arrangements presently in place at Drumcree?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me the opportunity to express gratitude for the support we have received for our Northern Ireland policy from the Benches opposite. That has been helpful and constructive and it has ensured that we can move at a speed which perhaps would have been slower and more difficult without that support. We are grateful for that. The noble Lord spoke of the need to maintain calm and of the need not to make any inflammatory remarks. Both sides have views in which they believe absolutely.

169
The aim is to have peaceful negotiations, not confrontation. That is the aim of the operational decisions of the police in association with the Army at Drumcree and throughout the Province.

Nuclear Weapons Elimination: US Report
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the US Stimson Centre's conclusion in the second report of its steering committee project on eliminating weapons of mass destruction that "the time to start is now"; and if so what actions they have taken to that end.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we and our NATO allies believe that nuclear deterrence continues to make an essential contribution to preserving peace and stability in Europe. Nevertheless we have made a number of significant reductions to our own forces, reflecting the improved security environment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that the conclusion was reached that to secure the ultimate aim of the elimination of nuclear weapons demands serious political conviction. Can the noble Baroness assure us that her Government have that serious political conviction as regards the absolute need to eliminate nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think the whole House knows that the Government are totally committed to working for the non-proliferation treaty and for the comprehensive test ban treaty. I know that many of your Lordships will agree that abolishing nuclear weapons in the simplistic terms expressed in a number of reports by academics is not a realistic short or even medium-term objective. Before nuclear disarmament can be a practical objective the international community needs to have developed much more effective solutions to a number of problems. One cannot disinvent nuclear weapons. The problems will therefore continue because we have to avoid the dangers of a renewed arms race in the future and counter the existing threat of proliferation as well as getting a CTBT.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why the UK departed company from the initial position taken by the US and France, and instead lined up with Russia and China in refusing to ratify the test ban treaty unless India and the other threshold states signed it too? Will the Government not accept that a compromise allowing the ban to come into force before India ratified
170
it would be a vitally important step in progress towards nuclear disarmament, which the generals and other military experts at Stimson are now backing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is being a little unrealistic. We are certainly not blocking the treaty in any way. We have no more plans to test. We want a comprehensive test ban treaty but we want one which will be effective in preventing proliferation. It therefore seems logical and sensible that in addition to the five, the three threshold states, India, Pakistan and Israel, should also sign up to this. I recognise that France and America may for their own reasons have different views on the best ways of achieving this. We shall be discussing the entry into force provisions over the coming weeks, along with the rest of the text. We are looking for constructive consensus to move forward.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness really saying that after all the work that has been done on reaching an agreed text on the comprehensive test ban treaty, this country may refuse to sign it? Is that what she is saying.?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot repeat exactly word for word what I said because I was speaking as I went along and not reading a text. However, I certainly did not say what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has just accused me of. We want a treaty. Let that be clear beyond peradventure. We shall continue to work for the earliest possible agreement. That is why we have been working on it as hard as anyone. I realise that to some the text which came before us in June was broadly acceptable, but we should like to see it strengthened in a number of places. We are not alone in that.
Lord Carver: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the report to which she referred as if it was produced solely by academics was chaired by a distinguished US Army general who is one of the most distinguished former Supreme Allied Commanders Europe in NATO, General Goodpaster, and that the body that produced it included another senior Army general, two senior US Air Force generals and a former US Defense Secretary? The report concluded unanimously that the total elimination of nuclear weapons, provided that it was carried out in stages and properly verified, would be in the security interests of the United States.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly did not intend to imply that only academics were involved in the Stimson Centre report. Certainly there were a number of eminent US academics involved. There were a number of former politicians as well as former leading members of defence forces.
However, the clue to what the noble and gallant Lord said was in his last remark. This agreement will be of use to the free world only if it is properly verifiable. Although the report is not specific about the timescale of the

171
reductions that it advocates, and suggests that it might happen over one or two generations, I believe that it can occur safely and securely only if it is properly verifiable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we are all agreed that any agreement reached must be verifiable. It is easy to lose sight of the real horror of weapons of mass destruction. Is the noble Baroness aware that unless the instability of the present situation is carefully borne in mind, the Government give the impression that they do not take the matter seriously?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that really is nonsense and the noble Lord knows it. We have always made it clear that we have been negotiating for a test ban treaty, not a treaty banning nuclear weapons, however much the noble Lord is after that. One can put the point briefly. Most responsible governments are working for ban the bang and not ban the bomb. I believe that that is absolutely right. Of course we want a test ban treaty. We have worked towards that for a long while. But we cannot link CTBT to wider issues. I believe that we shall be making a perfectly correct sacrifice, but nevertheless a sacrifice, in order to contribute to non-proliferation.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say what steps the Government are taking to make sure that the United Nations eliminates the nuclear weapons which it is now revealed Iraq has before it starts testing them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, we still have the team in Iraq doing its best not only to find but also to give us the information that we can use with Iraq to make those weapons non-effective in the future. But you cannot do it until you have compliance in other countries as well.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I genuinely ask for information. Is the position this: unless the three countries named by the noble Baroness sign the draft treaty, Britain will not sign it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in answer to an earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I believe that I used the phrase "looking for constructive consensus". I said that the text before us at the end of June was broadly acceptable at first sight. We would like to see the text strengthened. We are not saying that we cannot sign up to anything but we do not have the right text at the moment.

Armed Forces: Pension Scheme
2.54 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce their proposals for a new Armed Forces pension scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords,
172
Sir Michael Bett's report on personnel issues in the Armed Forces included a number of recommendations on pensions. We have been studying all of his proposals carefully and hope to make a further announcement shortly on progress and our proposed way forward.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that interesting reply. When introducing a new scheme, can he ensure that the opportunity is taken to remedy the anomalies and injustices of the current scheme which would have been remedied by the amendments tabled to the Pensions Bill by my noble friend Lord Freyberg? They were accepted by this House but regrettably rejected in another place on the Government's advice.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully understand the concerns expressed by the noble and gallant Lord. We aim to reach our own view on what is required in the areas covered in Sir Michael's report. We are giving all his recommendations the most careful consideration. However, I need to sound a note of caution on the specific point raised by the noble and gallant Lord. Sir Michael Bett's recommendations were essentially aimed at the needs of the services in the future. The outcome of the Government's consideration of his report is unlikely to affect our position on retrospective changes to the existing scheme.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that any change to the time when full pensions are paid to servicemen and women on completion of 22 years' service could bring about an exodus of well-trained, senior NCOs from all three services?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for sounding that note of warning. We have taken no decision about when service pensions should be paid, and certainly no decisions about whether we should stop paying service pensions at the age of 40. We are still examining Sir Michael's recommendations about the career incentives which he suggested should underpin his recommended career structures, and his recommendations about changes to the current Armed Forces pension scheme, alongside all the other recommendations.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, when the Government pronounce upon the Bett proposals will they clear up the apparent misunderstanding about whether or not forces' pensions are contributory? Although the contribution to the pensions is deducted from remuneration at source, apparently these are not regarded as contributory pensions. I wonder why that is. Will the Government ensure that people in the forces have a properly funded pension scheme similar to that which applies outside the Armed Forces?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that there has been a certain amount of confusion between a contributory pension scheme and a funded scheme. All serving members derive benefits from the current Armed Forces pension scheme. The longer the service, the greater the

173
benefit that accrues. However, that is quite different from the question of whether the scheme should be a funded scheme, or, as at present, an unfunded scheme. We are giving that matter close consideration.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in his Answer, the Minister stated that the Government would be making a statement shortly on the recommendations of the Bett Report. Does "shortly" mean before the House rises for the Summer Recess, or does it mean that the statement will be made possibly on the August bank holiday?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are aiming to make an announcement before the House rises. However, I am not in a position to make any promises in that regard. We are working hard to meet the deadline about which your Lordships are aware. I cannot be more specific than that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of the existing anomalous situation, can consideration also be given to an element of retroactive effect?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern on this question. Your Lordships have engaged in a number of powerful debates on this issue in the past. It is difficult to look at retrospective adjustments on cost grounds. It is also difficult to do so as a matter of principle. It is fair to say that none of the improvements introduced into the pension scheme in the 1970s could have been afforded if they had had to be extended retrospectively to recognise previous service; and that remains the case today.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, will the Government ensure that any new scheme takes full account of the special needs of the Armed Forces for a full pension at an earlier age than other government services, in order to keep the services younger, able and fit to fight?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. Any new scheme that we create will have to meet the needs of the services. It will need to bear comparison with equivalent schemes outside the services.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, following divorce, will the wife of a serviceman receive a share of his pension for life? Would it not be reasonable in equity that the widow of a serviceman should receive the attributable forces family pension for her life, regardless of her future marital status?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, pensions for life for widows are an issue which Sir Michael Bett raised. It is also an issue which affects all public service occupational schemes. The cessation of widows' pensions on remarriage, with discretion to restore them as and when that remarriage ends, is already common to all public service schemes.

National Lottery and Animal Charities
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make animal welfare charities eligible to apply for National Lottery money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the National Lottery Charities Board is able to make grants to any organisation established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes, including animal welfare charities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that through its charity the Animal Welfare Trust—the NHS of the animal world—supports the NHS? The animal NHS supports the human NHS. The animal organisation also supports the NHS by assisting many blind, disabled and deaf people who could live a near normal life through their guide dogs and their cats. Is the Minister aware that without the faithful companionship of their dogs and cats many people would have a less cheerful life? Will the Government support what I suggest?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, many people find great comfort in the company of what I believe are technically known as "companion animals". The National Lottery Charities Board feels that the fifth theme—improving people's living environment—which is due to be launched in the spring of next year, is probably the appropriate moment for the organisations to which the noble Lord referred to consider making an application.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the Government do their best to ensure that lottery money—or any other money—no longer goes to animal welfare charities which abuse their charitable status by campaigning politically against field sports?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important to be clear that it is not for the Government to direct any of the distribution boards as to where the money should be spent. The bodies which are entitled to apply for grants from the National Lottery Charities Board must be charitable, benevolent or philanthropic. Regardless of its ostensible status, any organisation which falls outside that definition is not eligible to apply.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I express my appreciation of the Government's reply. However, I remind the noble Lord that Mahatma Gandhi said:
"A country is judged on the way it cares for its animals".
He was a wise man. I believe that our country does its best to adhere to that saying and I hope it will continue to do so by helping the Animal Welfare Trust.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in pointing out that animals play a special part in the affections of the British people.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure we are all always sympathetic to everything my noble friend says,

175
especially about Mahatma Gandhi. Is the Minister aware that there are some supporters of the causes who have a habit of sending naked razor blades through the post to Members of Parliament as well as myself? Does he agree that such activities, though from a small minority, hardly qualify for, or merit, the description of "charitable".
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. The kind of activity he describes has no part in any charitable organisation in this country. Such activities can only be condemned from all quarters.

Petition: Nursery Education Vouchers Scheme
3.5 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from Jo Lovelock which prays that this House will take note of the Petition organised by Reading Against Vouchers in Education, signed by nearly 2,000 people, which calls for the nursery voucher scheme to be dropped and for investment to be made instead in free, high quality nursery education for all three and four year-olds whose parents want it.
Petition presented.

Stalking (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish to ask why it is thought right on the one hand to ban stalking in England and Wales but to do nothing about it apparently in Scotland and Northern Ireland. What is the reason for the different treatment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bill which I have been taking through your Lordships' House is confined to England and Wales because it is concerned with civil penalties. I understand that the law of Scotland has a differential provision in the civil courts and that the courts in Scotland are more satisfied with their ability to pursue stalkers, using the existing law.
Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House if I say now what I was going to say on the Question that the Bill do now pass. I wish to welcome the indication that the Government gave this week that they are making advances in their thinking on how to deal with stalking; to record the fact that the Bill, having been examined in Committee, has not been found technically defective by government Ministers; to record the fact that the Bill fulfils one, but only one, of the functions which would be provided by government legislation when it finally reaches Parliament; and therefore to express the hope that the Government may see fit to allow the Bill to proceed through all its stages rapidly in another place later this week in order that one of the objectives—although
176
admittedly only one—of the Government in pursuing the dreadful offence of stalking can be achieved earlier than would be the case if we waited for legislation in the next Session. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would it be possible for the promoters of the Bill, when it reaches another place, to consider changing the title? As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be aware, at least in Scotland stalking is an honourable pursuit. Perhaps he could indulge many noble Lords on all sides of the House on the point. The insinuation that their activities on the Scottish hills are an offence is not a good one. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider something like "aggressive and continuous molestation".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to the business managers for the fact that a debate is taking place on what was intended to be a formal Motion. Of course, your Lordships have full freedom to intervene at any stage of the Bill and I take no exception to either of the questions I have been asked.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would agree that the word "stalking" has a different resonance for most people in the country from that given it by those who spend part of their time on the moors of Scotland. Stalking is generally understood to include the activities covered by this Bill which are defined for the purposes of the Bill as being subject to a non-molestation order comparable to a non-molestation order as provided for in the Family Law Act. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel on reflection that any slight difficulties of nomenclature in his part of Scotland should not weigh against the Bill or go to argue that it should not now pass and go to another place.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly for the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who has been most patient during these exchanges. Perhaps I may be allowed to draw the attention of the House to the Companion, as amended by the fourth report of the Procedure Committee, which states that the Third Reading is taken formally and not debated. However, the Motion that the Bill do now pass may be debated. This enables the House to debate the Bill in its final form, taking into account any amendments that have been made at Third Reading. The Motion that the Bill do now pass may be opposed in the same ways as the Motion for Second Reading.
In view of the exchanges that have taken place and the patience shown by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it may be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships of the amended procedures.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
3.11 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Arrangements for making grants]:
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("grants") insert ("to registered providers").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
The purpose of these amendments is to establish the registration of all funded nurseries using educational criteria; and to require short inspections before any providers are admitted to the register.
Many people have expressed anxiety about the possibility of poor-quality provision if no formal and tough regulation is introduced for new providers entering the system. The proposed "light touch" inspection is insufficient, since it cannot control new providers from the private sector from the time that they first decide to enter the market. There is a risk that providers of nursery education that is not up to a satisfactory standard may be allowed to continue in their position for as long as over one year and for nearly two years before their initial validation to participate in the scheme is withdrawn if they are unsatisfactory. That is manifestly harmful to small children, and unfair to their parents, and it is likely to bring the whole scheme into disrepute.
These amendments are therefore intended to ensure that an additional safeguard is introduced into the Bill to require preliminary inspection before registration can be granted to new providers.
In The Nursery Education Scheme—Next Steps, the document published by the Department for Education and Employment in January this year, the proposal was that on applying to join the scheme potential new providers should assess themselves with regard to their ability to meet the standards laid down by the DfEE. It was stated in the Next Steps document that self-assessment was mainly intended to help applicant providers to decide whether they can work towards the so-called "desirable learning outcome" that the DfEE had stated.
On page 11 of the document, paragraph 4.13 states that the self-assessment forms filled in by the new providers need not be completed or returned to the voucher agency. While it might be very useful for the new providers to remind themselves of what the required standards are and to ask themselves whether they are capable of providing education that meets them, it is not likely that the second question will be pressed very hard when nobody will find out whether they have answered the question affirmatively or negatively. This kind of self-assessment is not a safe basis on which to entrust the whole responsibility of providing high-quality education for very young children—a responsibility which I am sure the House will agree is of vital importance.
An additional reason for moving these amendments is to plug a gap between the moment when new providers are validated in the first instance so that they may open a school or class, and their final validation, which is properly dependent on an inspection by qualified inspectors.
The Next Steps document states that the inspection that will provide the final validation,
"will normally take place in the first year of participation".
That has been confirmed by assurances given in another place that,
"We intend to inspect all private and voluntary providers within the first year".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/96; col. 191.]
All the same, the anxiety remains that the initial arrangements for accepting new providers should include proper inspection or screening and not rely so heavily on self-assessment.
The introduction of a preliminary registration visit by a qualified and registered inspector would offer a safeguard to parents that a new provider has been able to satisfy that inspection, that there is no cut-price or "cut corners" nursery provision on offer, and that the inspector has been satisfied that the required standard will be met from the very beginning.
After all, two or three terms without an inspection is an eternity for very young children. Three terms is a very long time for children of nursery age. That applies particularly to children who may turn out to have special educational needs. The first year of nursery provision cannot be wasted.
The amendments do not seek to lay down in detail how such an initial inspection should be arranged. The detail would be for the chief inspector and for individual registered inspectors to determine according to their own professional judgment and to the particular circumstances where the provision was to be set up. Nor should these amendments be seen as an attempt to put undue pressure on new providers or to restrict applications. They are intended only to close a significant gap, a loophole, in the quality assurance that the regulations should provide. I recommend the amendments, particularly on the ground that, if this loophole is not closed, there is a danger that the whole new nursery education scheme might be jeopardised. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment very strongly. The noble Baroness mentioned children with special educational needs. I would like to emphasise this point: the Special Educational Consortium, which is made up of 140 organisations that have special interests in those children, is particularly anxious about what would happen if this initial inspection does not take place.
Those who have not previously provided educational inspection by Ofsted may not be able to make available an educational programme capable of identifying and meeting the needs of young children with special needs. The consortium recognises that there are two types of new provider. Some have been offering care and/or play facilities and are already subject to inspection under the Children Act, though not to educational inspection under

179
Ofsted. Others are entirely new providers with no previous track record. The greatest concern the special consortium has is about this second group of new providers. Among them may be some who are entering the market to make a fast buck and will be able to set up and draw money from the scheme with impunity. It is most important that young children should be safeguarded against such providers. Registration and initial inspection, as proposed in the amendment, should provide such a safeguard.
The consortium argues that providers should return the completed self-assessment schedule as part of the initial validation process, and the arguments are strong. The schedule is largely wasted if it is not returned. There is nothing in the current proposals to ensure that providers complete it, discuss it or even read it. It has potential as a useful tool for self-improvement where it is used to identify areas for development. It could be a useful baseline for inspection. It asks some very important questions about special educational provision and it will be taken more seriously by providers if it has to be completed and returned. It seems to me quite wrong that it should not be completed and returned.
In addition, the assumption underlying the original consultation on quality assurance was that the self-assessment schedule would be completed and returned. SEC understands that Ofsted may be sympathetic to the use of the schedule in this way. A range of providers support its use in this way, not wishing to see standards lowered by those who are unable or unwilling to reflect on the quality of their own practice.
The consortium is encouraged by the fact that many of the features identified will be incorporated into the voucher scheme in Scotland. So if they can do it in Scotland it seems to me quite ridiculous that we should not follow that excellent example in England.
I support this amendment very strongly and I hope the Government can look favourably on it. It seems to me of the utmost importance.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like to add my voice briefly to those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady David. I support the arguments they have put forward and would like to ask what has been the experience during the pilot study of this self-assessment programme. My information is that checks have not been made and that the forms are still with the providers. We should like reassurance that at the present moment at least what is supposed to be happening is happening. But basically we support the proposal that we should have inspection before registration, as in these amendments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to support these amendments I would point out the need to recognise the public perception of the situation. Because we are all here going through the detail and we have the benefit of government explanation of how things will work and how things will change, we are in a very privileged position. But the vast majority of the population are not in that situation. The parents of very young children will be presented with nursery vouchers
180
which they will be able to present to providers of nursery education in exchange for provision for their young children. The expectation of those parents is that the nursery provision to be obtained on the basis of the nursery vouchers will be validated, tested and ensured to be of a certain quality.
The only two other examples, in our experience, that I can think of are milk tokens and luncheon vouchers. If one exchanges milk tokens for milk, one knows—the culture of our experience is—that you will get tuberculin-tested milk. It will be quality assured; it will be to a high standard. If one receives luncheon vouchers and takes them to the local café, restaurant or sandwich bar, one knows that the food will be prepared under fairly stringent trading standards regulations, hygiene regulations and so on. If a new sandwich bar opens in the neighbourhood and we take our luncheon vouchers to the sandwich bar, we know that the food we will receive in exchange will be to a standard determined by government inspection and control to a large extent. That is the cultural expectation that parents will have of this new nursery voucher scheme. They will presume that the new providers of nursery schooling for their young children will be tested and inspected to a high quality standard because that is the culture of our British experience. If we do not enshrine that in the legislation and ensure that that careful inspection—and control to a certain extent—is undertaken, we will be mis-selling a product to the British people and that would be wrong.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what noble Lords opposite have said about this amendment and the linked amendments. I am bound to say that it is difficult to see that this is not another attempt to delay the implementation of the Bill. That is a matter of deep regret, certainly on my part, because I believe in nursery education and I saw this Bill as a way of increasing the provision of it, which is what I think it will do. I find it strange that all those who for so long have argued in favour of nursery education look continuously for ways of slowing up the procedures under this scheme.
There is no doubt that a lot of parents have been made anxious about the scheme. A lot of parents to my certain knowledge have been made anxious about grant-maintained schools, with strong campaigning against them and, I suspect from some of the literature that I have been sent, that a lot of parents have been made anxious about this scheme. That is very unfortunate indeed. We have four pilot schemes, and if ever there was a success story it is those four pilot schemes. There has been a tremendous take-up. I believe in Norfolk it is now over 90 per cent. That is quite extraordinary, in my political experience, for any kind of scheme at all.
What has happened? Are they full of anxious parents, poor schools, children suffering? We have no evidence of that at all. I am sure there are plenty of people going round looking for it, and if there was the evidence, they would find it.
What is the position under the Bill? Those people setting out to provide this nursery education—I leave aside the maintained system—or any school wishing to

181
register needs to demonstrate that it is fully conversant with the DfEE paper, The Next Steps, and to give an undertaking that it will be in a position to make provision in accordance with the criteria that have been laid down. All the schools which register and accept pupils with vouchers will be inspected during the first year of the scheme—between April 1997 and March 1998. Already, many children are involved in pre-school education and are not inspected at all, and never have been inspected. So for the first time we shall have systematic inspection throughout the nursery world. I cannot think, now that we are going to get it, why everybody should want once again to delay the implementation of the scheme, which will obviously be of benefit to a lot of children.
As I understand the position, inspections cannot begin until the Bill has been enacted. However, it is the intention that all private and voluntary sectors participating in Phase 1 will be inspected in the autumn term. For Phase 2, if resources permit, the Government intend to inspect some private and voluntary institutions before they enter the scheme. The intention is that the rest will be inspected during the first year in which they join the scheme. Clearly, that is dependent upon a number of factors. As the voucher company will maintain a register of providers, we will have a list of the providers and know which organisations need to be inspected.
Given that the pilot schemes are proving to be so popular, it would be extremely unfortunate if the amendment were to be carried, leading to further delay in the implementation of the nursery voucher scheme. Furthermore, we must remember that it is the parents who hold the voucher and, at the end of the day, they can withdraw the child if they are dissatisfied with the provider. They will have a power which they do not have at the present time. It is important to recognise that that will put great pressure on the provider to provide a scheme of high quality, and that is what we shall see. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the amendment. We are concerned about the inspection regime; we are concerned about the Bill and would rather get it right than get it quick. The self-assessment process is wholly inadequate. The Next Steps document makes clear that the self-assessment schedule is simply intended to help applicant providers decide whether they can work towards the desirable learning outcomes, as stated in paragraph 4.11 on page 10. It goes on to state quite baldly in paragraph 4.13 on page 11 that the self-assessment schedule,
"does not need to be completed or returned to the voucher agency".
While the self-assessment schedule of itself may be handy to applicant providers to work out whether they consider that they are up to providing nursery education for the first time, in our view self-assessment alone is clearly not a certain or safe enough basis on which to
182
entrust the vitally important responsibility of providing high quality nursery education for young children. That is why we support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I hope the House will bear with me if I start by saying, as the first education Minister to come to the Dispatch Box since the horrifying events of yesterday at St. Luke's Church of England School, Wolverhampton, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and the whole House, how appalled we all were by the incident at the school yesterday afternoon. It is always particularly upsetting when young children are involved in incidents of that sort and we have seen too many of them this year. I express the sympathy of the Government and I hope of the whole House to all those involved and their families. We commend the courageous and professional reaction of all the staff at the school and those involved and we wish a speedy recovery to all those injured.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: My Lords, the effect of these amendments would be to prevent grant being paid to providers under Clause 1 of the Bill until they have been inspected for registration purposes. Schedule 1 will provide for the first time for the inspection of private and voluntary nursery education providers to a newly established national standard, should they wish to be voucher-redeeming institutions. The inspections, as I made clear, will be rigorous and will focus on the essentials of good quality education. However, I must make clear—I shall return to this later in my remarks—that those institutions are already covered by the provisions of the Children Act which means that inspections are undertaken by the local social services department.
Under the Bill providers will need to demonstrate at the inspection that they are providing education appropriate to the SCAA outcomes. The inspections will not impose unnecessary burdens on providers; nor will they involve large amounts of bureaucracy. They will ensure that all providers offer education of a consistently high standard. I am sure that there will be no disagreement that such inspection is essential. Given the large number of providers involved, it would simply be impracticable for the chief inspector to inspect all of them before the scheme begins in Phase 2. We must be realistic.
The inspections cannot begin in any case, as my noble friend Lady Young made clear, until the Bill has been enacted and brought into force. But we intend to inspect all private and voluntary sector providers participating in Phase 1 before the end of March 1997. For Phase 2, if resources permit, we now plan to inspect some private and voluntary institutions before they enter the scheme, and we plan to inspect the remainder during the first year in which they join. Achieving that goal will of course depend upon how many potential inspectors are recruited, how many pass the training and assessment course, and the number of inspections per year that each inspector can undertake.

183
To delay the expansion of nursery education until all private and voluntary providers have been inspected for the purposes of registration—as the amendment suggests—would stifle parental demand just at the time when parental demand is growing as we know from the vast amount of briefing we have received from, for example, the Pre-School Learning Alliance. And it would deprive many parents and children of the opportunity to benefit from a state-funded nursery education place, especially those who currently find it hard to afford even the relatively modest fees that some pre-school institutions demand.
Consider also the situation at present. A significant number of four year-olds are already in those settings. At the moment there are no requirements related to the education on offer, such as the SCAA desirable outcomes. The sooner voucher funding through the scheme begins the sooner those institutions can begin investment in improving what they offer. That must be of benefit to those four year-olds who are already there.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested that there will be those out to make a quick buck whose sole aim will be the making of money without regard to the provision on offer. There is concern that such people will not be inspected before joining the voucher scheme. As I made clear earlier, we have always insisted that all non-school providers will be registered and are registered under the Children Act. That means any institution joining the scheme must have passed a social services department inspection in which the inspectors satisfy themselves that staff are fit persons to work with children and that the premises are suitable. The provider must pay a registration fee and demonstrate a considerable outlay on staff and premises. It is extremely unlikely that a provider would commit to that if, after gaining an idea of what inspection entails, he thought there was a good chance of initial validation being removed shortly afterwards. That would not be a recipe for making a quick buck. For those reasons I am confident that brand-new providers do not require an Ofsted inspection before beginning to operate within the scheme.
There has been comment about the part played by the self-assessment schedule within the scheme. A draft of that schedule formed part of our Next Steps document. There has been general support for the idea of self-assessment as a way of helping providers identify their strengths and weaknesses. We want to maximise the potential benefits of the self-assessment schedule and as such, and in the light of the comments made to us, we will be considering with interested outsiders and experts whether providers should be required to complete and submit the schedule rather than work through it without subsequent submission. One possible outcome of this consideration could be to require providers to complete and submit the schedule and for that self-assessment schedule to be passed to an inspector in advance of inspection. But we are still considering that. In the meantime I still expect providers to use the self-assessment schedule as a figure for staff development and as a tool to improve the nature of the provision on offer.
184
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked what has happened to the self-assessment schedule in Phase 1 LEAs. Providers in Phase 1 are using the schedule to assess their own performance. It is proving a very useful tool. Although in Committee I outlined our plans for evaluation of the operation of Phase 1 of the scheme, it will be helpful to flesh it out a little more at this stage. We have in hand a full and thorough programme of monitoring and assessment. As I have said in the past, we shall make the resulting information available in the Library of each House as we proceed. Some very interesting early information from a survey of parents has been received and noble Lords may be aware of it. It will be placed in the Library tomorrow. I hope that all noble Lords will take an opportunity to consult it.
Finally, as to the register of providers, the voucher company will maintain such a register. It will make it available to the chief inspector for inspection purposes. I can also give an assurance that the company will make the register available on request and free of charge. It will be made available to all. With those words I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel that it is necessary to press her amendment to a Division, but should she wish to do so, I urge the House to reject it.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for some of the things that he has said. I am somewhat reassured by the undertaking that the self-assessment schedule can be handed on and not used just to check up on how a school and the providers thought they were doing and then be thrown in the wastepaper basket.
The suggestion that some nursery settings will be subject to early inspection is perhaps in a way a justification for the anxiety that these amendments gave voice to; namely, that there will be many new providers who will not be subject to this kind of inspection. I also believe that it is necessary to have a little more reassurance—it may be that the Minister can satisfy me on this straightaway—as regards the timing of the first inspections in providing nursery schools and playgroups. It is not clear from the information that we have so far that there can possibly be an inspection of the new provision within the first year let alone within the first term of that provision.
I reiterate what I said before. Sometimes for us aged persons it may well seem that a year is not very long, but when one talks about a four year-old child an enormous amount can happen to that child within one, two or three terms. A great part of their early life is taken up by a year. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify my mind about the time within which the new providers are likely to be inspected.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House and, bearing in mind that it is Report stage, I do not believe that I can go much further than I did in my initial response. As I said, we plan to complete the scheme for the Phase 1 providers by the end of March 1997. Phase 2 is subject to resources and to the training which the inspectors undergo and such matters. We aim to get a number completed before they become voucher

185
redeeming institutions. We plan to inspect the remainder during the first year in which they join. As I have said, that goal depends on a number of factors.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful for that. There is sufficient ground for belief that the new providers will be subject to scrutiny and there is hope that their self-assessment may be more rigorously carried out than was suggested in the first instance. There is sufficient hope to persuade me to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, after second ("education") insert ("that is appropriate to the age of the child and is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke about this amendment at Committee stage. The Minister responded at cols. 100–1 of the Official Report on 17th June to the effect that the amendment was "unnecessary" because the job of determining whether or not any particular provider was,
"working towards each of the outcomes",
was,
"developed by SCAA as a requirement of grant".
Because that requirement was already in place he saw,
"no particular value in prescribing such detail on the face of the Bill".
The definition of "nursery education" is to us utterly fundamental to the entire purpose of the Bill. It is stretching credulity to the point of clinical rupture to suggest that it is mere "detail". The Bill as it stands—and I invite your Lordships to glance at it—defines "nursery education" as "education"—that is utterly circular—and makes reference to the age at which it is received. There is nothing about what it is; what is in it; how it happens and what it is meant to do—just who it applies to.
This amendment seeks only to make the declaratory point in 11 words that nursery education must be appropriate to the child. It is not simply anything that might loosely be thought of as—more or less; by and large; taking one thing with another—"education", which happens to be provided for a child of nursery age.
To clarify all this would greatly assist the PSLA which needs to know what manner of provision Her Majesty's Government have in mind. To reject this helpful addition to the Bill of, as I say, fewer than a dozen words—and words which will enormously improve it—is to admit that the Government care not if provision funded by vouchers is inappropriate to the needs of its beneficiaries.
The noble Lord would have us believe that inspection, together with the SCAA "outcomes" document, is quite sufficient to ensure that the quality and appropriateness of voucher-funded provision will be secured. Would that it were. It is precisely because
186
of the professional anxiety that has been expressed on these points that we are pursuing this amendment today. We have heard from teachers, head teachers and education officers throughout LEAs across the country that they are not happy about it.
The proposition that an activity may contribute to an "outcome" at some unspecified future date is almost impossible to establish or to falsify without, if I may be technical, a longitudinal research project which is totally beyond the scope of the inspection regime or, as far as I can see, the imagination of the Government. In fact, inspectors will normally have one day only, if that, in which to arrive at this difficult, hypothetical judgment. Inspectors, whose conclusions may be challenged, must be mindful of the need to produce observational evidence to justify their decisions.
Is it not much easier and infinitely preferable for them honestly to answer the question, "Is this activity education that is appropriate to the age of the children here and now?", rather than to speculate as to whether they might have learnt something by the time they have reached five years of age? This amendment will require inspectors to adopt that approach. If the Minister believes that that will be a bad or an inferior thing, let him explain his reasons to the House. There will be a few minutes for him to think about that while I go on to develop this amendment at somewhat greater length.
I said in Committee—I make no apology for repeating it—by definition, anything that is properly "education" will be conducted according to a curriculum which is the sum total of experiences that contribute to the learning of the individual. It includes planned intervention by educators, as well as the outcome of self-directed or guided activity on the part of the learner. If the Minister wants an example of an appropriate curriculum for the nursery phase of education, let him do no more than consult the report Starting with Quality published in 1990 by the committee chaired by Angela Rumbold, the then Minister of State at the Home Office. That is a good example of education which is "appropriate". It could be used by inspectors as a reference point or a benchmark. As things stand, they will have no guidance—and they are going to need all the help they can get.
Similarly, we have heard from teachers, head teachers and education officers that their view is that the statement Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning on Entering Compulsory Education, published by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, falls sadly short of an adequate nursery curriculum. That document has been prepared to define the conditions for validation of a nursery provider who wishes to receive vouchers. We cannot avoid suspecting that that quality benchmark has been defined in that way to lower the threshold of quality for eligibility for the scheme in a panic attempt to increase the number of private providers in the scheme—and there has been no unseemly rush of private providers so far.
That is confirmed in the Next Steps document published by the DfEE on which I commented in Committee and on which I was not at all reassured. It states:
"The Government would not normally expect to validate individual child minders for the scheme. It should be possible, however, for child minders to form a group with other child minders and develop a structured programme of activities".
Are we then to believe that "appropriate education" is no more than a "structured programme of activities"? It is clear that a few potentially unqualified child minders, with the best will in the world and the highest intentions, banding together to put together a "structured programme of activities" amounts to a lot less than an institution offering a high quality nursery curriculum delivered by skilled and qualified professional teachers. Can the Government really be satisfied that at the bottom end of that range we shall have something which is acceptable and safe for the teaching of children?
Unless the Bill is strengthened in that respect, it is likely that the opportunity to expand high quality nursery education will be lost and public money voted by Parliament ostensibly for the purpose will be diverted to subsidise child care under the cloak of some vaguely education-related activity which is never defined, never even described, and for which no model is indicated at all. That is not to say that child care, nurture, and opportunities to engage in free and self-directed play are not important for young children—they are, and other amendments will show us attempting to introduce a requirement that nursery education is planned alongside, and integrated with, provisions directed at those objectives. However, the public interest is not served if the definition of "nursery education" is evaded so that appropriate funding for it can be diverted elsewhere.
A second problem which the amendment seeks to address is the danger that nursery education will be confused with an early start to primary school. The two are different. The date on which it becomes a legal requirement for parents to ensure that their children are in receipt of full-time education is the start of the term following the fifth birthday. However, a majority of schools admit children to the reception class at the start of the term in which they become five—and many do it earlier than that. The reception class provides an important bridge between the pre-school phase and the start of compulsory education in year one of primary school. Reception class teachers need to take account of the differing prior experiences of their pupils who might have had any kind of structured pre-school experience or none whatever. Some will probably get their first feel of what it is like to be in any kind of educational establishment in that reception class.
It is also necessary for the reception class to try to take account of the variation in chronological age of a group of children who will subsequently receive education on the basis of the year group into which they fall. They will continue their education in year groups. Obviously, a few months' difference in chronological age is extremely significant for very young children. It gets progressively less important as they get older. Indeed, the older we get, the less age differences seem to matter. We can tolerate even the difference between
188
the ages of the Minister and myself with a modest degree of equanimity, but if we were four and five things would feel and look very different. The fact that the noble Lord is much bigger than I am does not particularly bother me at the moment, but if we were four and five it would bother me quite a lot.
The reception class is there to provide a transition between the individual approach at nursery level and the group approach thereafter. Anxiety has already been expressed in pilot areas that some play groups are losing four year-olds because of their early admission to reception class. That seriously threatens the PSLA provision which we consider to be an undesirable and deleterious move. Currently, "nursery education", as that phrase is properly understood, covers the period from the third birthday to entry to reception class at rising five. The proposed nursery voucher scheme cuts across those arrangements by neglecting the three year-olds, but invading the funding of the older children who are really moving well beyond the true nursery phase.
The aim of this modest amendment, in conjunction with others directed at the eligible age group, is to relocate the application of the Bill towards activity which can properly be understood to be "nursery education" and to give a bit of legislative protection to the quality of the provision to which that term applies. In my view, the amendment elicited a wholly inadequate response from the Government at the Committee stage in another place. It went on for a long time and got nowhere—and so far the amendment has not fared very much better in your Lordships' House. We believe it is essential that the Government give serious consideration to the "appropriateness" of the education to be funded through vouchers. I beg the Minister to take the amendment away and to consider it with his colleagues in the DfEE and bring us back something a little more acceptable. We do not ask for very much. We would be content with almost anything that improved upon the sad and sorry state in which we find the Bill at present. This is intended to be a creative and helpful amendment. It is not intended to wreck anything. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. In fact, I think that in many ways it could be quite a dangerous amendment if passed. I respect entirely the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, with regard to the amendment which he has advocated so passionately because I understand that he, like the rest of us, wishes to see the best possible provision for young children which this nation can provide.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord has restricted the "appropriateness" of nursery education to the age of the child. That is wholly inappropriate. Children of four come from a variety of very different backgrounds. Some come from homes in which they have already been given a great deal of pre-school help: quite often they will have been taught to read and are used to books and sophisticated play. Others come from homes where, as a colleague of mine once described it, there were so few objects in the home that the child had not even had

189
the opportunity to discriminate by colour or shape because there was only one glass, one cup and one mug in the cupboard that she saw.
There is a very great variety of four year-olds. To provide an education which is appropriate to a notional four year-old may restrict matters very greatly. The noble Lord appears to have an objection to education which is defined by outcomes. Your Lordships may not be surprised that I passionately believe in education which is defined by outcomes. When the noble Lord says that teachers dislike that concept, I am not sure to which particular teachers he refers. Teachers and educationalists with whom I have had discussions welcome the concept of an outcome from nursery education which provides a common starting point for reception class teachers.
It is important that inspectors who look at nursery education ensure that the provision is geared to providing the kinds of outcome which SCAA has professionally and carefully defined and we all want as a starting point for the statutory period of education at five. I believe that most teachers welcome that approach. I have never known an inspector to be inhibited by the fact that there is no particular wording in an Act that provides a basis on which to form a professional judgment. I have a great deal of confidence in the professional judgment of inspectors. They look at nursery education to see whether it is helping children to achieve the desired outcomes and make professional judgments on that basis. I believe that the current wording of the Act allows them to do that. It provides a broad definition of nursery education which will enable a variety of providers, including child minders—many of whom are deeply caring, educated people who know exactly how to go about their task—to provide nursery education wholly to the benefit of the four year-olds concerned.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I also speak to the amendment which stands in my name. I am saddened that the noble Baroness opposes it. I suspect that if we were able to discuss this in a less formal setting we would achieve a rather greater measure of agreement than might be apparent from the debate which must take place in this Chamber. I support all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in moving the amendment. I would have said very much the same. I emphasise a number of points that the noble Lord has already made. I do not object to outcomes. I am married to a teacher and I agree with her that, on the whole, teachers support the idea. The difficulty is one of judging outcomes at this age on the basis of a one-day inspection. All of this must be subjective and subject to the judgment of inspectors. However, I believe that it is easier for them to answer the question whether the activity or education is appropriate for the age of the child here and now than to judge whether it is an appropriate outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to possible confusion with education in a reception class. Traditionally, nursery education has been understood to be that which is often provided for children from the age of three until the time they enter reception classes in primary school. In many, not all, LEAs nowadays that means before the fifth birthday. In my maiden speech
190
I said that in my view proper nursery education was not the same as a good education in a primary school reception class. One of the difficulties with this scheme is that there must be a likelihood of confusion as between the two.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to concern about the scheme that had already been expressed in the pilot areas by some play groups who were losing four year-olds because of early admission to reception classes. I suspect that I am not the only noble Lord who has received a letter from the Kensington and Chelsea Pre-School Learning Alliance which is located in one of the pilot areas. The alliance states in its letter:
"Our experience has been that the greatest increase in provision has been in the state and funded schools sector".
It quotes some examples and goes on to say:
"This has had a great effect on the local pre-school as the four year-olds have been filtered away to the school they were planning on entering in a year's time. Therefore, we have lost their voucher money. The authority have suggested that they will be withdrawing the funding equivalent to the vouchers we have received".
That is a danger which is already apparent in the pilot areas. That is another reason why there is a need for the evaluation to which your Lordships agreed at Committee stage. The letter from Kensington and Chelsea Pre-School Learning Alliance says exactly that:
"We believe that the monitoring should continue for over a year".
This is an important amendment and one which I hope the Minister will be able to accept. I suspect that my hopes will shortly be dashed. However, I believe that it is an amendment which will greatly strengthen and improve the Bill. I hope it is one which your Lordships will feel able to support.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the cogent point made by the noble Baroness. She said that different four year-olds had different skills and abilities which depended largely upon home background.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am not sure that that is a question necessarily addressed to me. What has just been said is true of children of every age. It is a consideration at every point throughout life, including school life. The scheme is specifically designed for four year-olds, and therefore it is necessary for the amendment to refer specifically to four year-olds.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I support the amendment, largely because I believe that the Bill as it stands suffers from lack of clarity as to what is meant by "nursery education". This is not an idle philosopher's desire to discover the meaning of words. This is very important in the context of a Bill which is to expend money on a voucher scheme. It should be made absolutely clear to what purpose the money is being put.
I believe that there is a shift in the Bill towards the idea of play group provision. It is suggested at one end of the spectrum that play groups may come together to provide something. At the other end of the spectrum it is suggested that nursery education may just as well be provided in reception classes in primary schools.

191
Perhaps I may draw an analogy with the 1981 Act in respect of special education. From the very beginning, that Bill was clear that the education was being provided for very severely handicapped children. The education was to be provided in the same sense that it was provided to all other children. But here there is lack of clarity about the nature of nursery education. This must be central to the Bill as it is before us. We must know what nursery education is supposed to be. I am sure that some noble Lords will suggest that parents ought to be allowed to choose provision for four year-olds. I believe that very often that is a delusory choice. A large number of parents do not know what they want, or what ought to be provided, for their very young children. Some of them—but only some—will use their vouchers on whatever is to hand. The notion that in one day an inspectorate can determine whether the ultimate outcome of the education will be good or bad is somewhat farcical. For example, all noble Lords have read submissions from the United States which indicate that the outcomes of nursery education are still visible when an individual is married, not divorced or whatever. Long-term outcomes are very difficult to assess in one day. Short-term outcomes may be a little easier, except perhaps as to whether the child appears to be happy or occupied. A test must be available to the inspectorate and to parents which concerns itself with whether the activity provided is genuinely education and is suitable for the child and the child for it so that steady progress may be made. There is a deep flaw in the Bill because it shows no real concept of nursery education as opposed to what is provided in the play groups and reception classes. I believe that the few words in the amendment would help to clarify that and I support it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, spoke for some 11 minutes on his 11-word amendment. I hope that he will not use that as an example to follow as regards his somewhat longer amendments. I dare say that I tempt the noble Lord.
The noble Lord accused me of clinical rupture. That is a new one on me; I have not had that thrown at me before. I hope that he will not throw it at me again when I say that I cannot accept the amendments as they stand. I shall give a brief explanation as to why. No doubt the noble Lord is aware that there is another stage and if before then he wishes to talk to me outside the Chamber, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, put it, that may be possible.
The purpose of the definition of nursery education in the Bill is to specify the education for which grant may be paid. That issue is separate from the quality of education, which is addressed by requirements of grant under Clause 3. I believe that the noble Lord has confused the two issues. The amendment confuses the purpose of the definition of grant-aided education with the discretion that the Secretary of State will have as to when to pay grant. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that explanation. That is why on a previous occasion I said that I made no bones about the fact that I saw no value in prescribing such detail on the face of the Bill, and that is why I certainly would not wish to see such an amendment to the Bill.
192
The noble Lord asked, why link activity to age. As my noble friend Lady Perry clearly stated, it is not always appropriate to provide education appropriate to the age. There can be children who are particularly bright, those who are less bright than others of their age and those with special educational needs. It is important that we cater for them.
As I made clear on a previous occasion, all providers will need to agree to provide education appropriate to a set of desirable outcomes on entering compulsory education. Those have been developed by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) as a requirement of grant. Despite the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Morris—and I welcome what was said by my noble friend Lady Perry—those outcomes are the framework and there is a wide variety of curricula which might be appropriate. We do not wish to override any of that. The inspections will cover that issue. SCAA is working on exemplifications which will illustrate exactly what the outcomes look like and Ofsted will collaborate in that work. The inspector must then make judgments about the appropriateness in deciding whether the outcomes are likely to be achieved. I believe that that will ensure that all providers are offering education appropriate to the age of the child and of a consistently high standard.
The noble Lord spoke at some length and perhaps moved away from the subject of the amendment. He appeared to imply that standards, were being lowered in order to let in the private sector. I believe that that is absolute nonsense. As we have made clear, all providers will be inspected to the same standard, with the outcomes defined by SCAA, on which there was expensive consultation last autumn.
I hope that with those explanations of why I do not like the words proposed by the noble Lord, and in the hope that it is a mere probing amendment—he described it as being creative and helpful after he had accused me of a clinical rupture—he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I hope that the House will understand and permit me to refrain from making a long and detailed speech attempting to counter the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, or to rebut the points made by the Minister at this Report stage. I wish to make that my practice throughout the Report stage. I do not wish to re-open anything which has previously been said.
I reiterate my disappointment on reading the SCAA document, which seemed to me to be sparse in its definition of the curriculum. It describes language and literacy in fewer than 12 lines of text and mathematics in fewer than 10 lines. It appears to be thin, shallow and weak in what it says.
However, it is quite clear that the Minister will have nothing to do with the amendment. I am content that we should differ on this matter at least, unless and until I return on Third Reading to try yet again to persuade him or to ask the House to express a view. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, after ("premises)") insert ("inspected in accordance with Schedule 1, having particular regard to paragraph 18 (Standards of inspection)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have never understood why in politics consistency is regarded as such a cardinal virtue. Politicians seem positively to rejoice in saying about whatever it is, "I said in 1946, and I still say today". Such people seem to me—a poor, provincial, Protestant poet and professor, a mere academic—to show a remarkable inability to profit from experience and a stubborn resistance to the virtues of progressive change. But consistency has its place and in relation to this Bill it is in the establishment of general and continuing standards.
The amendment seeks to introduce a set of basic minimum standards against which all nursery providers will be inspected. It would put pressure on the Secretary of State to establish common criteria relating to staffing numbers, qualifications, training and experience, as well as to those relating to indoor and outdoor space regulations.
We have been over this ground previously. In Committee our concerns regarding the quality of provision under these arrangements were discussed at some length. Today I shall be more brief. We are all agreed that a commitment to raise educational standards is one to which we would all adhere. But there is a chance now to put that into practice at the very beginning. If the Government's commitment to quality assurance under these arrangements is serious, they ought to pay heed to these arguments.
I am advised that there are more than 400,000 people working with children under five. I was astonished at that figure and I caused inquiry to be made among those who advised me as to how exactly it was arrived at. They seemed to scratch their heads a lot and say, "It is more or less that. It is somewhere in the region of that". If the Government have any better figures, I should be grateful if the Minister would let us have them when he comes to reply, having been given any information which he may seek.
A large number of people are involved. The vast majority are women, many of whom are low paid and have few qualifications. It has been estimated that one in 10 of those working with children under five has no qualifications to do so. The diverse nature of early years provision in this country has meant difficulty in obtaining accurate figure for the number of four year-olds without places, let alone statistics relating to the qualifications of those working with young children. But if the declining number of students on teacher training courses is anything to go by, the future for such children does not appear to be bright. On Friday last week I said that we shall never see any great improvement in educational standards in this country until we get down to the basic issue of paying teachers very much more than they currently earn.
This amendment would ensure common quality levels or standards for staff qualifications by which parents could be reassured that their child was obtaining the best possible educational experience. Similarly, there exist huge disparities in terms of premises, facilities and staff/child ratios. In many rural areas particularly, where parents will not realistically have any choice between the different forms of provision (unless they have access to helicopters or hot-air balloons or an extremely fast car) because these places are going to be very far apart, the choice will be extremely limited.
A requirement for inspectors to inspect quantitative factors such as staff numbers or the suitability of premises would help, because it would inform parents of how the situation with a particular provider compared with a national set of common criteria. That does inform choice. If that provider did not meet those required standards, in order to continue its registration under the scheme improvements would have to be made. Parents would then have some form of guarantee that their voucher was paying for the best possible quality nursery education. That is what choice means in this situation; it does not mean that if there are 16 different forms of pre-school education available throughout the country, any one single parent is going to have access to any particular number of them, unless they are prepared to take their child from Penzance to Wick. Without that, and until Her Majesty's Government can provide this, choice in this context is a phantasm, a snare and a delusion.
This amendment, despite Ofsted's overall responsibility for the inspection of all providers, would reduce the possibility that different providers were measured against different criteria. As the Bill stands, the proposed arrangements are such that a single registered nursery inspector, possibly with very limited training or experience, is going to be expected to make judgments about the quality of nursery education provided by any particular institution. Why should the fate of a particular institution be decided by a simple snapshot assessment, subject to the whim of a particular inspector on a particular half-day; or, worse, why should the future achievement of those four year-olds in another particular institution be potentially jeopardised because another inspector, for whatever reason, was unable to recognise the failings of that provision?
Such scenarios are not absurd. They appear to be possible under the current arrangements. Our amendment, which is put forward in a positive spirit, would go at least some way towards preventing that. We are not suggesting that the inspection process should solely involve a checklist of the measurable quality indicators. Those unquantifiable assessments which can often only take place after formal or informal conversations with the staff and children remain vitally important. We are not in favour of these everlasting "tick the box", page after page, assessments. That is a waste of time. However, let us make things easier; otherwise these half-day inspections are simply not going to raise standards or assure quality. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords—
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is Report stage, and after I have spoken, it is only the mover of the amendment who should speak, so I can give way.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I simply did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness, Lady Young. That is all.
The purpose of this amendment is to insert a new clause into the Bill, to which reference is made at the very start of the Bill and which secures that the chief inspector creates a set of common criteria against which inspections are carried out. I shall speak briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has been very comprehensive.
The Government have themselves put emphasis on the value of a common system of inspection for all providers of education for four year-olds and, notwithstanding the suggestion that the Minister made in an earlier intervention, I believe that everybody values that element of the Bill. But we want these inspections to be fairly and dispassionately made on the basis of common criteria so that, in truth, all schools, all providers, receive the same quality of inspection.
Of course, there are other factors. There are factors which cannot be quantified for the most part—what one might call "an educated hunch", and we shall return to the matter of the experience of inspectors later on. Of course, this educated hunch plays its part in an assessment of any living organisation, and a school is a living organisation. One cannot measure everything good that goes on in a school. We believe that every school should be inspected on the basis of common criteria which cover the basics of the provision within that school. That should be applied equally to those people who provide education for four year-olds under this Bill.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what both the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, have said in supporting this amendment. I was quite shocked to hear—I believe I quote him correctly—the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, talking about the "whim" of an inspector. When one is talking about people who are qualified under the Ofsted arrangements, one cannot describe professional people in those terms.
When Ofsted was being set up—I well recall the debates, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Perry will recall them as well—a great many frightening things were said about the disasters which would befall standards in schools when Ofsted was established. In fact, quite the reverse has proved to be the case. Schools are now regularly inspected; we now have accurate measurements; we have discovered where schools are failing the children; and at the end of the day it is what happens to the children in the schools that is the important point.
196
Let me make it quite clear, and repeat what my noble friend the Minister said on an earlier amendment: many of these establishments are not inspected at all at the present time, so they are going to be inspected for the first time. To describe the people who are going to be inspecting these children as having a whim and having different standards, and to talk about an educated hunch, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, did, is to bring into disrepute people who are professionally qualified and who are there to do a professional job on an issue which is of great importance, particularly to the children, but also to the parents.
As far as the schools are concerned, looking at Clause 3 of the Bill, the Secretary of State has the power to impose "requirements" on those who are going to receive the grants in respect of nursery education, and in the next set of documents I have with me there is a list of conditions which the voucher-redeeming institutions will be required to satisfy. They will have to show that they are going to work to a set of desirable learning outcomes, as my noble friend Lady Perry said earlier; they will have to agree to regular inspection; and, as I understand it, they are going to be required to publish information for parents on an annual basis. There is a whole sequence of things listed, including staffing policies, staff numbers, qualifications and training, educational programmes and activity, record keeping, progress recording and reporting to parents, premises and equipment, health and safety, equal opportunities, special educational needs, and so on. This is something which parents have never had before. It will give them an extremely important opportunity to make a judgment between one school and another and, above all, it should require that high standards are kept.
This is a very serious matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on that point. However, I believe that serious debate on it will not be advanced by impugning the standards of professional people. We must start by having confidence in the inspectors. I for one have that confidence, and I have no reason to suppose that what has been successfully achieved in other parts of the educational world will not be achieved in this area.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she will accept that my reference was in no way meant to impugn the standards of inspectors, either those inspecting today or those likely to be inspecting in the future? I was merely trying to express that unquantifiable expertise which inspectors need to acquire if they are to make the fullest inspection.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I accept immediately what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has just said. I hope that we both agree that professional standards will apply to these inspectors.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, I should like to endorse everything that my noble friend said about the value of inspection since the creation of Ofsted and all that it has done. I hope that we can continue that process with the Bill's provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Morris,

197
said that consistency is not always important. I find that rather odd, as only the other day he accused myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of a veritable series of "U"-turns. However, on that occasion he was making a different political point. I note that the noble Lord does not think it necessary to preserve the consistency of his own arguments.
In my view, it is unnecessary to prescribe the scope of the chief inspector's duty to report to the Secretary of State, or the scope of inspections, in any greater detail than the Bill already does.
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 requires inspectors to report on,
"the quality and standards of nursery education provided".
Singing the consistency song, perhaps I may make it quite clear that those provisions are exactly the same in the 1992 Act. I believe it important to preserve a degree of consistency in legislation of this kind. What interpretation would one put on the 1992 Act if this Act were drafted in a different way? Would that not imply that the 1992 Act had to be interpreted in a rather different manner? That is an important point which the noble Lord should take on board.
The provisions will embrace all aspects of quality covered by the draft framework of inspection, which is closely linked to the SCAA outcomes. The nursery education inspections will make sure that all early years' staff and all institutions are offering good quality to all children.
Further, Ofsted's Primary Subject Guidance, issued in March to primary school inspectors, for inspections of nursery and reception classes in maintained primary schools, and maintained nursery schools, also makes specific reference to the SCAA desirable outcomes. Ofsted is responsible for both systems of inspection, and has ensured that they are aligned with one another.
I should like to deal with one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. He talked about there being some 400,000 workers involved with the under-fives. I, too, have heard mention of that figure. It is an overall figure which includes, for example, something like 90,000 childminders whom we are not seeing as voucher-redeeming institutions, unless they were to get themselves together to create what would amount to playgroups.
As regards the scheme, the workers must at least be fit. When they enter the scheme, as I made clear earlier, they will, under the Children Act, obviously be inspected by social services. With the help of the voucher funding I hope that training will improve and that higher qualifications will follow. I believe the noble Lord mentioned that a large percentage of people working with children had no qualifications. Again, I would ask the noble Lord not to forget that the key theme of the pre-school—the playgroup—movement is the involvement, for example, of parents on a voluntary basis. Many of those parents would have no specific qualifications.
Of course, it is frequently the case that parents help in schools; for example, with early reading. I believe that the noble Lord will accept that that is very valid
198
assistance. I am sure that he would not want to put a stop to that sort of unqualified parental involvement. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I also hope that he will accept that there are many occasions when consistency is important, especially in legislation. As I said earlier, these provisions are the same as those in the 1992 Act.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I intend to be entirely consistent with what I said at the end of the debate on the last amendment. However, on the amendment which is now before the House, I should like to say: first, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said; secondly, I am not persuaded by it; thirdly, I think he is wrong; fourthly, I believe, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the amendment is too important to abandon; and, fifthly, I must ask the House to express an opinion.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 177.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howie of Troon, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Brace of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carlisle, E.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chorley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNally, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Methuen, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Palmer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Geraint, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Haskel, L.

Serota, B.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

199

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Stallard, L.

Tope, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Taverne, L.

Warnock, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

White, B.

Tenby, V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thurlow, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Ferrers, E.

Ailsa, M.

Flather, B.

Aldington, L.

Eraser of Carmyllie, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gainford, L.

Allenbyof Megiddo,V.

Gainsborough, E.

Ashboume, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gisborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Blaker, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Blatch, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Boardman, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Bowness, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harris of Peckham, L

Brookes, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Burnham, L.

Holderness, L

Butterworth, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cadman, L.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Kintore, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kitchener, E.

Carrington, L.

Knollys, V.

Cayzer, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lindsay, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lyell, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

McConnell, L.

Comwallis, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cross, V.

Marlesford, L.

Cuckney, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monson, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Moyne, L.

Dilhome, V.

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Iindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Nelson, E.

Dudley, E.

Norrie, L.

Dundonald, E.

Northesk, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erne, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Erroll, E.

Pender, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Feldman, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

200

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Strafford, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Strange, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Pym, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rawlings, B.

Swinton, E.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Teviot, L.

Rennell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renwick, L.

Tonington, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Trefgame, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tugendhat, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Sandys, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Waterford, M.

Selborne, E.

Weatherill, L.

Shannon, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Sharpies, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wigram, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Somerset, D.

Wynford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Young, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("(3A) No arrangements for the issue of vouchers in respect of nursery education (in this subsection called a voucher scheme) shall be made under this section in relation to Wales, other than arrangements for the experimental voucher schemes referred to in subsection (3D) and (3E) below, until the Secretary of State has made an order under this subsection authorising the making of those arrangements.
(3B) An order under this subsection shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3C) No draft of any order proposed to be made under this subsection shall be laid before Parliament until the conditions set out in subsection (3D) below have been met.
(3D) The conditions referred to in subsection (3C) above are that—

(a) experimental voucher schemes shall have been in operation for a period of 1 year throughout the area of at least two local education authorities in Wales where not less than 90 per cent. of children between the ages of four and five years receive nursery education; and

(b) the Secretary of State has consulted the Welsh Joint Education Committee on the arrangements to be authorised by an order made under subsection (3A).

(3E) An experimental voucher scheme under this subsection shall not remain in operation for more than one year.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a second attempt by my noble friends and myself to try to persuade the Government to pursue an education policy for the nursery sector in Wales by consent rather than by legislative coercion. I say that advisedly.
Earlier, in Committee, we discussed the issue of whether it would be possible to organise pilot schemes prior to the introduction of the legislation and that was nearly carried, as your Lordships will recollect. This is another compromise attempt to secure a similar course of action. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which

201
were made in Committee but there is a sociological and profound educational and cultural difference between the perception and delivery of nursery education in Wales and in large parts of England. The figures of the numbers of the relevant cohort receiving both full-time and part-time education and the extent of local authority provision indicates that at current levels, a little more than 540 pupils of that age receive private nursery education in Wales whereas the figure within the local authority sector is at 92 per cent. For that reason, we propose in this amendment that the Secretary of State for Wales should make different provision.
As we pointed out, I thought quite clearly and adequately in Committee, there is nothing exceptional about government policy for education being implemented differently in the Principality compared with England. Indeed, there is a long history of the Welsh Office doing that. I know that I have the support of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who at present is at the Statutory Instruments Committee and cannot be on the Floor of the House, in saying that there is a clear precedent for setting out a different way of implementation in Wales for government policies. This amendment allows the Secretary of State to exercise by order powers that would implement the scheme for Wales but following an experimental period which relates specifically to those areas which have 90 per cent. provision and also which enables consultation with the Welsh Education Committee, as representing local education authorities which, as I indicated earlier, are the main providers.
Such provision would be totally unexceptional if it were presented to the Welsh Grand Committee or to a Welsh assembly depending on the referendum proposed by the party to my right in this Chamber and outside. This would be an unexceptional proposal but, because the Government have taken upon themselves to implement equivalent unitary policies for the Principality of Wales and the country of England, despite the differences in provision and social contexts, we believe that the Government are making a rod for themselves even at the next election. Therefore I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage of the Bill, to take time out within the next week to think again about the way they implement this policy, and to look for ways of seeking compromise.
We propose an experimental period and a year's review subject to the experimental scheme, and then an order by the then Secretary of State to implement the scheme. There is an alternative. The Government could indicate they would be prepared to review the scheme—following implementation—in a thoroughgoing way. We shall be interested to see whether the Government can respond in that way this evening. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I support this amendment. I was somewhat disappointed at the Committee stage by the Government's response because it appeared to me to show a lack of understanding of the provision for nursery education currently enjoyed in Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has told your Lordships, some 92 per cent. of eligible children
202
are provided for. I ask my noble friend, if such a level were to be achieved in England, would we be debating this Bill today, because surely it would be unnecessary?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I very much support this amendment. I do not wish to reiterate the arguments so ably put forward by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, and which were adumbrated during the previous debate. Yesterday the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Prys-Davies and myself, had the opportunity of meeting the Under-Secretary of State. At that meeting many of these points were put to him. He will consider them in the course of the coming week.
It seems to me that this is a political hot potato of the first order from the Government's point of view. Neither I nor any other Peer has received such a postbag during our time in this House. Many of the letters were written by people in their own hand—it is mainly parents who have written to us—who are terribly concerned about this matter. This is not a party matter. I am talking about a country where 92 per cent. of the children receive not nursery education but reception class education. That is what children in Wales receive between the ages of four and five. Nursery education is largely the domain of the three to four year-olds. That figure of 92 per cent. is a higher target than the Prime Minister had in mind when he launched the scheme. Few of those children have that education privately funded anyway. The great danger is that one could disrupt that system. There is a great deal of social cohesion in Wales on the education front, even if not on other fronts. It would be a shame to disturb that situation. I hope that the Government will use the coming week to give maturer thought to this matter and will either accept something on the lines of the amendment, or an alternative such as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, mentioned.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment. We support the request for the Government to give further consideration as regards imposing upon Wales a scheme that has not even been tested there in a pilot scheme. I believe all of us in this Chamber speak from a background of supporting the Government's stated aim to offer that nursery education provision which parents choose for all four year-olds in the country. The debate is all about how that should be done; it is not about whether it is a good thing. There is also a debate as regards what is on offer.
I have listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who at the Committee stage and today has said this scheme is popular with parents. I believe she said that one can tell the scheme is popular with parents because 80 per cent. of parents—in the case of Norfolk it is 90 per cent.—have claimed vouchers. If the only way Members of your Lordships' House could see their GP was through obtaining a voucher, a ticket or a coupon, they would obtain those vouchers if they were ill. That would not be proof that the mechanism of a voucher, ticket or coupon was logical or sensible. It is that point that is causing anxiety throughout the country.
I should like to think that as a Member of your Lordships' House, and a junior member of the shadow education team, I could stir up parents to such

203
vociferous concern. I refer to parents in places such as Solihull, Cardiff, North Wales—the areas of independent colleagues, former county councillors and members of unitary authorities—and in places as far apart as Sheffield and Devon, and to church schools and to non-church schools. I refer to the Pre-School Learning Alliance in Kensington and Chelsea. The issue here is whether imposing vouchers on the people of Wales, without testing them, is something that can be justified in the cause of seeking to ensure that parents have continued access to that which they have now. That is the issue that is of such deep concern.
A growing army of school governors and parent governors are asking why we should have a voucher system as a means of recycling and circulating money which is already available in order to pay for our children to receive what we wish them to receive, but which entails a complicated procedure. A growing army of governors of church schools and of non-church schools are asking why there should be uncertainty about getting the money back. Research among parents as regards nursery education vouchers shows that in the Tory boroughs of Wandsworth and Westminster nearly 2,500 vouchers which should have been claimed have not been claimed. That means that £2.75 million has gone astray. That is serious. The Government have produced the most remarkable scheme of all time; namely, a new system for losing public funding. The Government claim that the scheme is meeting its target now and that it is in the interests of parental choice.
As regards parents choosing to remove their children from the school they are currently attending and sending them elsewhere, the Government could have produced a scheme offering that choice and put it before those 92 per cent. of parents in Wales who are affected by the proposal. I should have thought the Government were crazy to ask those parents whether they wish to forgo their children's current places in local schools. That provision is already being purchased with public money. However, the Government could have produced such a scheme. But that is not what the Government are doing. The Government are deliberately seeking to impose a new system without trial on parents, governors, schools and on the education system in Wales. I say with the greatest of respect that the figures of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, demonstrate that the Government's scheme will result in the loss of public money in a bureaucratic paper chase.
I repeat my earlier point. If I have a broken leg and have to apply to a private company for a voucher to obtain plaster of paris to put on my leg, I shall do it. However, I ask that no one in your Lordships' House takes that as proof of my commitment to increasing the cost of bureaucracy at the expense of money for the service.
5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, would expect me to let her get away with the remarks that she has made. However, before I discuss her remarks, I wish to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said in moving the amendment. I am second to none in my admiration for
204
education in Wales. I believe English people recognise that education in Wales, in Scotland, and indeed in Northern Ireland, is excellent. It is a great achievement that 92 per cent. of children in Wales—I presume that they are the rising-fives—are in a reception class. No one can be other than pleased that that is the case. As an English taxpayer one hesitates to say that parts of the country always do rather well out of the distributions of grant. Nevertheless, in this case the distribution is successful, and it would be churlish not to agree that those young children should benefit from it.
It is said that the Government will impose the scheme. Let us be realistic. No parent has to take up the voucher scheme if he or she does not wish to do so. The scheme gives an opportunity to provide variety and choice. My noble friend the Minister may say that it would be quite wrong to accept the amendment. It would have the effect that vouchers could not be introduced into Wales until an order has been approved by Parliament. Such an order will not be made until there has been a 12-month experimental scheme in at least two LEAs which have over 90 per cent. of four year-olds in nursery education, and the Welsh Joint Education Committee has been consulted. That provision would put the Bill into a completely different category from any other education Act that has been before your Lordships' House or Parliament.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, will the noble Baroness confirm that the only way in which school governors can get back the money stopped from the local education authority budget is by parents filling in the vouchers? The vouchers leave no choice; the schools are left short of money.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are not simply recycling money, as the noble Baroness has said. A great deal more money is going into the scheme generally. Therefore, many children will benefit from the scheme who do not benefit at present.
One of the many things said about the scheme to frighten parents is, "There will be no extra money; you will be told where you have to go; money will be withdrawn". There has been this extraordinary analogy with GPs. The truth of the matter is that the health Acts lay down that everyone shall have the opportunity to go to a GP. That situation is completely different from the provisions of education Acts which have never required that pre-school children have to have an education. We are not talking about similar situations. It is said to frighten parents. It is a very serious situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, shakes her head. I have been in local government. I know a lot about what goes on in local government today. I can tell the noble Baroness that many Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities set out to frighten parents about grant-maintained schools. I do not have the slightest doubt that they set out to frighten parents about this scheme. It is rather patronising for the Front Benches opposite to tell parents that they are unable to make up their own minds. Most parents are quite capable of making their own decisions.

205
It would be a great mistake for the Government to accept the amendment. It would introduce, I believe for the first time, a provision which is quite separate from other education Acts which have applied equally to England and Wales. Four year-olds living in Wales would not have the same opportunities that would be enjoyed by four year-olds in England. For that reason, among the many that I have given, I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness, Lady Young, deal with this point? I believe that the argument may be slightly misleading. If she were speaking generally of England and Wales, it may well be that more money is available. However, 92 per cent. of children between four and five years in Wales receive so-called nursery education. Of those, 79 per cent. are in full-time education. The provision for vouchers is for only part-time education. Many of the schools in Wales are in rural areas with small numbers. Therefore vouchers even for part-time education may not provide the money. That is the fear in Wales.
The theory may be all right in England where one has a much greater leeway to make up. But in Wales where 92 per cent. of those children already receive such education the genuine fear of parents is that the money will simply not be available.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that this point will be dealt with by my noble friend the Minister. However, there is no question that the education currently provided would be removed from children. I should have to have that confirmed but it is not my understanding of the way the scheme would operate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, will the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, take on board this fact: until the Government started taking parental choice seriously there were up to one million spare places in the state system of education. The noble Baroness talks about the comparatively small sum of money which she claims will be wasted in administration of the scheme. From the evidence I have so far heard, I doubt it. Perhaps the Benches opposite should consider the colossal savings that are starting to be made by giving parents the choice that this scheme provides. I urge my noble friend not to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether there have been any pilot schemes in Wales?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we made clear at an earlier stage, there have been no pilot schemes in Wales because, quite simply, no local authorities in Wales applied for the benefits of that pilot scheme and thus denied their children the possibilities of bringing choice and benefit to Wales.
It is a bit rich that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, tries to pray in aid the pre-school learning alliance. That alliance made it quite clear that it rejected the antics of
206
this House at Committee stage. It rejected the attempts to deprive a great many children of the benefits of the scheme, as noble Lords opposite sought to do. I reject the noble Baroness's allegations that the Labour Party has claimed that some £2.7 million worth of vouchers have been issued but not claimed. That is yet more inaccurate information from the party opposite.
Perhaps I may put the figures straight. Some 90 per cent. of parents have applied for vouchers, with an impressive 97 per cent. in Norfolk and 95 per cent. in Wandsworth. So far some 83 per cent. of those vouchers have been returned and more continue to come in. We do not expect them all to be redeemed. In some areas, in London in particular, parents may take their children to school outside the phase l areas, in which case they will be unable to use their vouchers during phase 1. The value of the as yet unredeemed vouchers is nowhere near £2.75 million. The party opposite simply cannot get its sums right.
Let us turn our attention to the amendment. First, it is almost a re-run of the debate at Committee stage when the noble Lord and others sought to delay the introduction of the voucher scheme in Wales until there had been a pilot phase. I accept that the noble Lord has slightly amended his proposals by suggesting that the experimental schemes, as they are called, should be restricted to high providing authorities. However, I believe that the arguments remain the same as those on which the Committee made a clear decision some three weeks ago.
Of course I recognise the concerns of noble Lords opposite and of others in Wales that the quality of provision for all should not be prejudiced; and that certain aspects of provision in Wales differ from those in England. Noble Lords opposite know that the Welsh Office has already taken steps to ensure that the Welsh dimension is being taken fully into account and has made specific arrangements to meet the particular circumstances and needs of Wales—such as the method of transferring resources from local authorities which was previously commended by certain noble Lords. The Welsh Office has sought advice from the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales—the equivalent of SCAA—on what should be the desirable outcomes of provision for four year-olds under the voucher scheme. The advice of the authority has been accepted by the Secretary of State for Wales.
The Welsh Office has done much in recent years to promote and protect the development of the Welsh language and of Welsh medium education. Only yesterday my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office announced funding for the expansion of a Welsh medium secondary school in Cardiff under the popular schools initiative. I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the meeting he had with my honourable friends in the Welsh Office. I am sure that if my honourable friends have offered further meetings, the noble Lord will take them up.
The department will obviously want to ensure that the voucher scheme contributes to the development of the language. We are convinced that it will. By putting

207
purchasing power in the hands of parents it will offer greater opportunity to those who, for example, want a Welsh medium education for their four year-olds and offer a potential stream of income to the Welsh nursery movement which it does not have now. The Welsh Office already provides significant core funding to the Welsh nursery movement and recently announced further grants of some £250,000 to that movement, the Wales PPA and Children in Wales to help them address some of the weaknesses in the voluntary sector provision in Wales identified by the inspectorate's survey published last December. The Welsh Office has given careful consideration to the Welsh language implications of the voucher scheme. It would certainly not want to do anything to prejudice the significant investment and effort it and others have made in recent years in the development of the language and of Welsh medium education.
The Welsh Office is committed to monitoring the implementation of the voucher scheme in Wales. It will do so in consultation with local authorities, the voluntary sector, the independent sector and, of course, the inspectorate. It will happily involve the Welsh Joint Education Committee in the consultation. It will have particular regard to the maintenance of quality of education for four year-olds across the whole of Wales and to the position of the Welsh language. It will be concerned to ensure that any aspect of the voucher scheme which is not working as it should will be reviewed and possibly modified. I can give an assurance to the House that the Bill provides for the detailed operation of the scheme to be governed by both regulations and arrangements. The regulations and arrangements are made by the relevant Secretary of State. If need be, therefore, separate regulations and arrangements can be made for England and Wales. It is always possible that the detail of the scheme in Wales could be amended by modifications to the regulations or arrangements setting out detailed implementation of the scheme made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales as opposed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I can also give an assurance that implementation of the scheme in Wales will be kept under continual review by colleagues in the Welsh Office.
In Wales, as in England, we want to ensure that all four year-olds whose parents want them to receive education will have access to a place for the full three terms. I know that noble Lords mentioned the much higher percentage of nursery provision in Wales, but it is not happening in all areas of Wales at the moment. The Government believe that the provision of education for four year-olds should not be the sole preserve of the local authority sector. It is not their sole preserve in the education of compulsory school age pupils. There is a thriving independent sector and grant-maintained schools have broken away from local authority control. They too are thriving. We in the Government believe that parents should be given the choice. We are prepared to let them decide what they want for their children, rather than the local authority. The proposed
208
experimental schemes, I believe, would serve no purpose except to delay giving parents in Wales the real choice we want to offer them. We say: let parents decide. The voucher scheme will allow them to do so.
I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord would mean yet further delay. I trust that noble Lords will not seek to deny that choice to parents in Wales. In the light of my assurances about the intention of the Welsh Office to keep the implementation of the scheme under close review, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the Minister gave himself away in his peroration when he talked about the Government believing that certain educational initiatives should take place in Wales. He referred to the thriving independent grant-maintained school sector. I am afraid that I have never seen it. There is a minute grant-maintained sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that in the amendment we propose some unique intervention in education legislation, but we have on the statute book under previous education legislation an organisation to which I referred at Committee stage affectionately known as the "Welsh Schools Funding Council". It has not been brought into effect. It is capable of it by order in the same way as we propose the institution of the experimental schemes and the nursery voucher scheme. It has not met and will not meet because there is no demand for it. At the moment, the powers rest with the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State
Therefore, we are dealing with the position where the Department for Education and Employment and the Welsh Office have decided to implement a certain policy. I believe that the policy is still unacceptable in Wales. I shall, of course, with my colleagues, consider the assurances given, but I am not satisfied that they go far enough to ensure that there is a monitoring of the effectiveness of the scheme which would be independent of the Welsh Office, the local education authorities and the independent providers. In our view, any monitoring scheme should assess the extent to which the nursery voucher scheme should increase the numbers who receive full-time nursery provision and whether the scheme adds to the effectiveness of the current level of provision. It should monitor whether the standards of education, both bilingually and generally in Wales, are being maintained by the new scheme.
For those reasons, therefore, although at this stage I may wish to withdraw the amendment, I shall take it for further consideration with my colleagues and the department. I ask the Minister to agree to discuss again with the department the views that have been expressed.
I neglected to declare an interest as chairman of the Welsh Language Board, and I speak in this debate on that count as well. It is a statutory board responsible, not only under the legislation of this House but also of the Welsh Office, for the provision of bilingual education. I would not wish to see any change in legislation which damaged the quality of provision in either language for any pupil in Wales. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with the

209
clear warning that we shall return to the issue. Incidentally, the Minister has still not responded to the question asked by his noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Education falling within subsection (2) above shall be given in premises conforming to such common standards as to space and facilities as the Secretary of State shall by regulations specify.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to require the Secretary of State by regulations to lay down minimum space standards for the provision of nursery voucher-funded education for four year-olds. This is a subject we debated at Committee stage and I make no apology for returning to it. I do so, first, because it is an important subject and, secondly, because we debated it on an occasion immediately after your Lordships had passed a significant amendment and perhaps the concentration of some noble Lords may have been on other matters than space regulations.
The amendment which we debated in Committee sought to lay down minimum standards not less than those prescribed in the recently revoked 1981 regulations. Amendment No. 5 backs away from that; it makes no reference to what the minimum standards should be. It states simply that there should be minimum standards which are for the Secretary of State to lay down. We hope and expect that he would have reference to the requirements of the Children Act and other standards and would set standards that were high rather than low. However, the specific purpose is to ensure that there are some minimum standards.
When we debated the matter in Committee it was suggested that we had a passion for regulation. That is a strange accusation to level at a Liberal, almost by definition. I cannot see how a requirement for a minimum standard represents a passion for over-regulation or can in any way to be said to be over-regulation. Surely minimum standards are minimum safeguards. That is what we are discussing.
In Committee I pressed the Minister to say what had changed since 1981 that meant that while in 1981 we required minimum standards, now we do not. I hope I do not misquote him. He said that the principal change was the introduction of LMS. I very much welcome the introduction of LMS. One of the features of LMS was that it was the schools themselves that campaigned most strongly against the revocation of the minimum standards laid down in the 1981 requirements. Schools want the safeguard and surety of minimum standards. I reject any argument that may follow that, because we have LMS, we no longer need minimum standards.
My principal concern, which I know is shared by other noble Lords, relating to the need for some minimum standards to be laid down, is a recognition that the value of the voucher is not sufficient in most cases to cover the cost of provision. It is certainly not sufficient to include any capital costs, training costs and
210
so on. There must inevitably be pressure upon providers to reduce standards, to reduce costs, to keep expenditure as near as possible to the value of the voucher and to have as little additional contribution as is necessary, whether from the LEA or from parents.
That makes it even more necessary for minimum standards to be laid down. That is what this amendment seeks to explore. Children need space in which to learn, play and grow. It is our duty to ensure that we include in the Bill a requirement that minimum standards are laid down for children. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we on these Benches support all that the noble Lord said. I endorse his remarks about the strength of feeling among governors and governing bodies and among all those from local education authorities of all political persuasions and none. The parents are always on the horns of a dilemma. There is always pressure where buildings are inadequate for the number of children for whom demand exists. It is fair to protect children from that. It is unfair for the Government to release themselves from any statutory level of duty to ensure that adequate capital funding is available to help governors meet both parental choice and the minimum standards necessary for young children.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly at this point. We must bear in mind that a school near Birmingham suffered tragically yesterday from an incident in the playground involving nursery school children. And we still have in mind what occurred at Dunblane. The noble Lord's remarks are important. People will not only have to look after facilities inside the school; they will also need to pay attention to what happens outside the buildings. If those working inside are not qualified teachers, and if there is not an adequate number of supply staff in ordinary nursery schools and classes, that may put some children's lives in jeopardy. I ask the Minister in replying to consider that point, following the remarks the noble Lord made in moving his amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, when my noble friend comes to reply, perhaps he will confirm the position as I understand it; namely, that anybody seeking to provide nursery education is required to register with local social services departments in accordance with the Children Act 1989, which has presumably superseded the previous Act; and that as a condition of registration providers' premises must comply with a whole range of health and safety requirements such as that of the premises regulations to ensure that children are properly protected.
As I understand it, the school premises regulations and the relevant guidance under the Children Act contain important requirements relating to essential areas of health and safety, including washing and lavatory facilities, etc., and in particular fire safety. These are all very serious matters.
No school could ever be expected to imagine the occurrence of terrible, tragic events that took place yesterday, about which we all feel deeply distressed. It

211
is very difficult to assume that anything could be done to protect schools from somebody who can only be described as a madman entering the premises in those circumstances.
For the purposes of this piece of legislation we are discussing the need for schools to be adequately protected by the regulations which I understand are in force; and also by the powers that governors and schools under local management have to consider the adequacy of the provision that they contemplate making.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, that I referred to the tragic events in Wolverhampton earlier today. However, I did not go on to say that I believe it would be wrong for me at the Dispatch Box to offer any knee-jerk reaction. I remind her that, following the tragic murder of headmaster Mr. Philip Lawrence late last year, we set up a working party to advise on security in schools. That received a further impetus, if I may put it that way, following the unbelievably tragic events at Dunblane.
The working party has now reported. It has produced a large number of recommendations, virtually all of which we have accepted and will act upon in due course. Whether further review is needed following the incident at St. Luke's is another matter.
As my noble friend Lady Young made clear, it is very unlikely that we could ever arrive at a position whereby schools were totally and utterly secure. To turn them into fortresses would have quite undesirable effects. No parent would like to see that happen. However, obviously there are certain actions that we can and will take.
I now turn to the amendment. It is important that I put this point across, because it is important that a House that prides itself on being a revising Chamber should get its amendments right. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would require all pre-school providers of nursery education, not just voucher redeeming institutions, to meet the same standards in terms of space and facilities.
I do not intend to raise questions as to whether this amendment therefore falls outside the scope of the Bill. That is for others to advise upon. However, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to include such a wide-ranging power, which would affect those schools that do not wish to become voucher redeeming institutions, in a Bill that is simply designed to give a power to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make grants to fund nursery provision. Anyone seeking to press such an amendment must think very long and hard about the precise wording. I also do not believe that it would be appropriate or sensible to impose the same premises requirements on all pre-school providers of nursery education.
Schools in the maintained sector cater mostly for children of four years of age and upwards, whereas Children Act registered providers cater for children of four years and below. Both require a premises regime which is suitable for the age ranges they make provision for, while at the same time ensuring that the quality of provision is not affected.
212
As noble Lords will know, the maintained sector will be required from September this year to adhere to new regulations—the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996—which were laid in February. I make no apologies for the fact that they are a more liberal set of regulations than those that they replace. I explained the reasoning for that at an earlier stage.
The new regulations will not specify minimum requirements for teaching accommodation or recreation areas. That is because we believe governors and LEAs are in the best position to decide how to administer their school premises. We shall, however, be publishing guidance later this year to help schools and LEAs make informed decisions.
As I have already indicated, unlike in the maintained sector, pre-school providers in the private and voluntary sectors will be providing day care for very young children, even babies. I confirm to my noble friend that they are required to register with the local social services department in accordance with the Children Act 1989. I assure my noble friend that as a condition of registration providers' premises must comply with a range of health and safety requirements which, like the premises regulations, ensure that the children in their care are protected.
Both the revised school premises regulations and the relevant Children Act guidance contain important requirements for essential areas of health and safety, like washing facilities, lavatories and, for example, fire safety.
I believe, therefore, our policies address fully the issue of premises' standards for institutions that will be redeeming nursery vouchers, while recognising the important differences between sectors. In both cases I believe that the health and safety of all children attending these institutions will, so far as is humanly possible—bearing in mind the tragedies we have seen—be protected. I therefore hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the Children Act and the requirements therein. As I understand it, the requirements there are simply in guidance, not regulation. Guidance does not have the force of regulation as, indeed, my own authority has had occasion to find out in a slightly different context.
I understood the Minister to say, correctly, that the 1996 regulations will not place any requirement on minimum space standards but that he hopes to deal with that in guidance. I feel that regulation is a much better way to specify what the minimum standards should be than is guidance where guidance implies and, indeed, it has been held, there is a degree of discretion. The financial pressures of the maintained sector, as well as the voluntary sector, must urge people to have at least a different interpretation of guidance.
I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the Minister is unable to accept this amendment and that he is unable to give minimum standards the safeguards that would be enshrined in regulation. But we will look with

213
great care and interest at the guidance that is to be issued. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall at such times as may be prescribed report to Parliament on the availability in England and Wales of nursery education to children aged three and four whose parents wish their children of those ages to receive such education.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 6 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the availability of nursery education for three and four year-olds.
The Government have stated that this scheme will lead to the expansion of provision for four year-olds. They have also said that they hope to extend this scheme to three year-olds. As I have said on a previous occasion, the extension of nursery provision for three and four year-olds is of particular importance to my party. Therefore, I hope that the Government's intentions are fulfilled, although I think that this is almost the worst way of achieving it.
However, there is little within the Bill to ensure that the current situation of existing provision will be reviewed. This amendment would at least go some way towards ensuring that the Government are made aware of the true availability of places for four year-olds and, until the scheme can be extended, that existing three year-old provision is safeguarded. That point is particularly important. As your Lordships know, there is great concern that this scheme could damage the existing provision for three year-olds. I am sure the Government do not accept that; but that is the concern of those who are well informed on the subject.
There is a common view in your Lordships' House on the desire to expand nursery education for three and four year-olds. There is widespread concern among, not least, the Conservative Education Association, the Audit Commission and many others that this is not the best way to do it and that it could, in some areas, actually reduce the existing provision, particularly for three year-olds.
Whether or not those concerns are justified will remain to be seen. But by passing this amendment we will at least have a guarantee that the Secretary of State must regularly investigate the availability of places for three and four year-olds and report on this to Parliament. If the Government really believe that the voucher scheme will expand nursery provision, they have nothing whatsoever to fear from this amendment. Indeed, they could be putting some statute behind their words by supporting this amendment and agreeing to
214
report regularly to us so that we can judge how effectively the scheme is expanding nursery provision. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, sometimes, when the weather is bright and fair, my family and I—three generations of us—walk over the moors to Hathersage. In doing so, we have to cross the river Derwent at the foot of Offerton Moor by means of a set of stepping stones. I have tried to instil in the minds of my grandchildren that it is unwise to step forward until you are quite secure on the stone upon which you are standing. So far, with Thomas and Rebecca, I have succeeded passably well. I only wish I could be so persuasive with the noble Lord the Minister.
The Government have said that this scheme will lead to a great leap forward, to an expansion of provision for four year-olds. They have also said that they hope to extend this scheme to three year-olds. All we want to do is to ensure that the current situation of existing provision will be safeguarded by being reviewed. If it is not, the Minister may find himself up to his neck in cold river water.
This amendment would at least go some way towards ensuring that the Government are made aware of the true availability of places for four year-olds and—until the scheme can be extended—that existing three year-old provision is safeguarded.
I should like to make two points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. First, there has been widespread concern that an allocation of grant via a voucher scheme will not necessarily be an effective way of expanding nursery provision. That concern has been expressed by the Government's own supporters. At the beginning of this year, the Conservative Education Association, whose work I read with great interest, produced a policy statement on pre-school provision which stated,
"there is a real chance that in some areas parents will receive vouchers but have no provision of the sort that they want available … In some areas there will be a reduction in LEA provision without a corresponding private sector increase."
Can the Minister, when he comes to reply, explain to us why those fears are groundless?
Secondly, there are other worries about the impact of the voucher scheme on expansion. For example, the low value of the voucher relative to the high cost of quality places or the lack of additional money for capital projects threaten the scheme as we see it. Can he tell us: how does the scheme cut out the cowboys? How does the scheme avoid educational slums? Whether or not such concerns are justified remains to be seen. But a guarantee that the Secretary of State is regularly to investigate the availability of good places for three and four year-olds under these arrangements would go a long way to allay some of the fears that many of us feel.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought I dealt with allegations of cowboys earlier this afternoon in response to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments I put forward on that occasion.

215
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regular reports to Parliament on the extent to which the availability of education for three and four year-olds satisfied demand. I would like to persuade the House that the amendment is unnecessary.
Of course, we shall all be watching the expansion of nursery education for children of all ages with interest, and also the extent to which there may be any unmet demand. However, there is no need for the Secretary of State to make a special report to Parliament at regular, unspecified intervals in order for information about these matters to be made public.
As part of the assessment of the nursery education voucher scheme, a survey will be undertaken of current use of places by three and four year-olds, and the results will be compared with those of similar surveys in subsequent years. In addition, a commitment has already been made by my honourable friends in another place that data on the numbers of vouchers issued and redeemed, and the number and type of institutions validated to redeem vouchers will be published annually in the departmental report.
I appreciate that in an earlier Bill my noble friend Lord Peyton was dismissive of the departmental annual report. Whatever my noble friend said on that occasion, it puts the information in the public arena and makes it available to all. Further, data on the numbers of three and four year-olds in schools in England will also be published annually in the Statistical Bulletin, as it has been for many years. Again, I appreciate that the Statistical Bulletin may be a document that some consider to be dry reading. Nevertheless, it makes the information available to the public at large and to noble Lords opposite.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is now satisfied that mechanisms are already in place to ensure that those matters are monitored; that those mechanisms are perfectly adequate for ensuring that Parliament and the general public are kept informed about the availability of nursery education, and that therefore it is unnecessary to add to what some may argue is a superfluity of documents being produced by the Secretary of State, by demanding that yet one more should be produced. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can tell the House what the mechanisms are to which he referred on two occasions. He probably knows that I write to him occasionally about these matters. Perhaps I may mention a subject I raised recently which caused considerable interest in the House. I refer to the sale of playing fields about which people both inside and outside Parliament seem to be concerned.
There is no doubt that there has been an increase in the sale of playing fields and we all know what a major part they play in education. I was astonished, as I am sure were other noble Lords, to find that there is no central register of any kind and no central statistics which show how many playing fields are being sold off. That has happened on two or three occasions.
216
The Minister may say, and I would accept, that the other mechanisms are Starred Questions, Unstarred Questions, Questions for Written Answer, or a debate. But that does not take care of the main thrust of the amendment; that is, that there should be something monitoring the situation. This scheme is an innovation in itself, and that alone should be sufficient to warrant information being sought. Presumably it will be debated, it being published in the annual report. But unless we have that level of information the Government will have a big hole in the scheme with which many of us will not be satisfied.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that struck me as a somewhat long intervention for Report stage before I sat down. However, I go back to what I said in regard to departmental annual reports. Some may find them dry reading. There is a great deal of material available in the Statistical Bulletin and therefore to the general public and noble Lords opposite to inform them where we are in a number of ways.
I appreciate the noble Lord's sadness in relation to the lack of precise statistics in regard to school playing fields. But there is a limit to the amount of statistical evidence that we can collect for the sake of planning purposes and so forth. It would not be responsible to further add to that bureaucracy and expense of the department by increasing the amount of information collected ad infinitum. There will always be gaps in the sort of information we collect.
Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to another parliamentary Answer I gave not long ago in regard to levels of language achievement by 16 year-olds at GCSE level in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The figures were deeply misleading. They implied that children in Northern Ireland were doing much better than those in other parts of the country. The simple answer was that the four parts of the United Kingdom were collecting their figures in different ways and asking different questions. The results were not comparable. That is often the case and we cannot achieve the perfection the noble Lord seeks. However, I hope that we provide a great deal of useful information and data in the Statistical Bulletin to which I referred.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I do not wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in being dismissive of the annual report. As some of my best friends are statisticians, I would not dream of commenting on the Statistical Bulletin. I do not doubt that for those who have the time, the knowledge, the ability, the resources and the opportunities afforded to your Lordships' House, it would be possible to extract the information about which we are talking. But for the Minister to suggest that the general public at large will be ploughing through the departmental annual report, studying and understanding the Statistical Bulletin and instantly and readily understanding how well the voucher scheme is or is not working, is testing our credulity a little too far.
The Minister's sole reason for rejecting the amendment is that in his view it is not necessary. In giving his reasons why it is not necessary, he

217
demonstrated exactly why it is necessary. If the Government believe that the scheme will succeed, that information needs to be transparent and readily available to the public; above all, it needs to be presented to Parliament where we can discuss and debate it. None of that will be the case. The amendment is before the House and I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to support it. Nevertheless, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote tonight and therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Arrangements made under this section shall include provision for the making of grants to the governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools in respect of expenditure incurred by them in the provision or alteration of premises or equipment for the purpose of providing nursery education at the school and such grants shall be made as if they were grants under section 281 of the Education Act 1993 (grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools).").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his expressions of sympathy with the governors, staff, parents and children at St. Luke's Church of England School, Wolverhampton. This was another of those totally unexpected and horrific events and we all feel profoundly moved. We share in the sense of sympathy which the Minister expressed. I am sure that the Whole House will want to join with him in what he said.
Amendment No. 7 is similar to an amendment tabled in my name at Committee stage but which I was unfortunately not able to move. I apologise to the House for not being in my place at that time and express thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for moving it in my place and standing in most ably on that occasion as a substitute for a right reverend Prelate. I thank also the Minister for his reply. I read the exchange most carefully in Hansard and felt that there was one matter which the exchange did not make sufficiently clear. That is my reason for returning to the matter in Amendment No. 7.
The reply of the Minister made it clear that grants will continue to be available under Section 281 of the Education Act 1993 for those governing bodies which apply for a grant in order to adapt or extend premises for the provision of nursery education. I accept entirely that assurance that in principle those grants continue to be available. The difficulty lies not so much in the principle as in the practice.
What happens in practice is that a school or governing body is responsible for finding the money for such capital expenditure—85 per cent. grant comes from the Government, but it is the governors who decide that they wish the work to be carried out. They will obtain the consent of the LEA and it and the governors together will put in a request. In doing so they are in competition
218
with all sorts of requests for grants, not only for nursery education but for all kinds of works in respect of aided schools for mainstream as well as for nursery education. Therefore, the requests for nursery education are in competition with the requests for mainstream funding. It is that competition that I wish to emphasise in moving this amendment.
The difficulty is that the requests for nursery education frequently seem to come at the end of the list because other grants are made ahead of them, and therefore there appears to be great difficulty in practice in obtaining grants for these purposes under Section 281 of the Act. I shall be grateful if the Minister can give some assurance on that. This is a probing amendment and not one that I intend to press. I shall be grateful for some recognition by the Minister of the difficulties that there are, despite the principle that he has enunciated. Perhaps he could give some indication that his department will look with sympathy on such applications for nursery education premises. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member and former chair of an education authority which has the largest number of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools in the country. I shall be grateful if the Minister can indicate to the House whether the specific request from a former Secretary of State or Minister for schools that voluntary-aided diocesan authorities' representatives do not put in bids for nursery projects has been withdrawn. There was a time in the 1980s when they were specifically asked not to put in bids.
The reason given was that the Government said that the top two priority categories for which credit approval would be given would be basic need, which is roofs over heads where otherwise none would exist for children of statutory school age, and reorganisation to remove surplus places where statutory notices were required. Since then the position on the availability of capital has worsened.
I know that the circumstances of voluntary-aided schools can vary enormously. In the centre of Blackburn, church schools are crowded and bursting at the seams. In other cases, we are dealing with very tiny rural schools where the addition of a child who is younger means that there is a need for appropriate equipment because there are no other children there in that age group. All these matters require the urgent attention of the Minister in his reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I prefer to take advice on the specific and somewhat technical points put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I shall write to her in due course and certainly before the next stage of the Bill.
I appreciate that the right reverend Prelate's amendment is a probing amendment and that he will not wish to press it further tonight but may wish to come back to it; and that he was unfortunately unable to be present at an earlier stage. We had the joy of the Church

219
of England moving on to women Bishops with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, taking his place, and very well did she do so on that occasion.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if I recollect accurately, the Minister promised that he would not tell his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment of this change.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is frequently a dangerous matter for politicians to get involved in Church affairs. Bearing in mind the debate that we had on moral and spiritual development only last Friday and the publicity that it generated, on this occasion I shall restrain myself.
I gave a number of assurances on that occasion that grants will continue to be available to the voluntary-aided and special agreement schools under Section 281 of the Education Act 1993, as now, subject to the need to prioritise bids in the light of the high demand for scarce resources.
The right reverend Prelate is seeking to go somewhat further; namely, a separate source of capital grant for voluntary-aided and special agreement schools which would be ring-fenced for nursery education. I shall give a brief explanation which he can look at in due course to decide how he wishes to pursue these matters. Schools claiming from this pot of money would therefore not have to compete with other claimants for other grant under Section 281. Schools in all sectors—county, grant-maintained and voluntary-aided—will have access to the new recurrent funding for nursery education which is being made available through the nursery education voucher scheme. The level of funding which flows to each sector will depend, as I said earlier, on parental choice.
This new recurrent funding can be used to fund capital work, perhaps by servicing debt. However, we do not envisage creating a new, separate stream of capital funding for nursery education in any sector. I must therefore make it clear that whether or not capital grant in respect of nursery education at voluntary-aided schools was ring-fenced, the grant would have to come out of the amount set aside for voluntary-aided school building generally.
If we did set up a separate pot of capital grant for voluntary-aided schools, ring-fenced for nursery education, we would need to know exactly how much money to put in. We would not wish to find that the pot was either too small or too big. In the latter case we would have deprived the rest of the voluntary-aided capital budget unnecessarily. Furthermore, ring-fencing a specific sum for capital grant for nursery education would remove the flexibility which is necessary to administer the voluntary-aided budget effectively.
The present system, under which we assess nursery cases as part of the total voluntary-aided budget, bearing in mind the need to ensure that other types of projects for pupils in the compulsory age range are not disadvantaged, secures that voluntary-aided nursery projects are considered on their merits.
220
The right reverend Prelate has given an assurance that this is merely a probing amendment. I hope that he will consider very carefully what I have had to say between now and the next stage.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask one question. Was capital funding made available to Norfolk for any nursery schools during the pilot phase?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware that it was. I shall check up and write to the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I also probe one matter? I accept what he said about ring-fencing, but will his department look with sympathy on applications which are made for the funding that we have been talking about?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, we always have to consider all applications in the light of the finite nature of resources. It is a matter of prioritising what are the most important of them.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am grateful for this brief exchange. Perhaps I may say that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, would admirably fulfil the qualities needed to be a right reverend Prelate in your Lordships' House, but I am relieved that that is a matter which we are not discussing at the moment. We do not propose to pre-empt such discussions as may be held elsewhere.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a careful reply to my question. I shall read with great care what he has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 3 [Requirements]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert (", and
(c) shall prescribe the minimum staffing ratios required in respect of four-year-olds in reception classes").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to specify staffing ratios in reception classes. Many people do not realise how much of the voucher scheme will be happening in reception classes. For some time now the age of admission to a reception class has been reducing and many of the nation's four year-olds are placed in reception classes long before their fifth birthday. Because of this gradual change in the age of admission to reception classes, many people have lost sight of the fact that statutory education does not start until the beginning of the term after the child's fifth birthday. That means that if an authority moved to admitting all

221
children to reception classes at the beginning of the year in which they became five, one-third of the children (the summer-born children) would spend all three terms of their voucher-bearing career in the reception class; one-third (the spring-born children) would spend two out of three terms of their voucher-bearing career in the reception class; and one third (the autumn-born children) would spend one out of three terms of their voucher-bearing career in the reception class.
If that pattern became widespread, the majority of vouchers would be redeemed for the education of four year-olds in reception classes. The Special Educational Consortium does not believe that it was the Government's intention that that should happen; rather, it understood that the Government intended that all sectors—maintained, private and voluntary—should play a full part in the nursery voucher scheme.
However, the conditions are not the same for all providers. Let us consider the staffing ratios in different settings. Staffing ratios vary according to the setting—according to whether it is a primary, infant or nursery school or a nursery class. They are as follows: for children at registered settings, an adult:child ratio of 1:8 for children between the ages of three and five; for nursery schools and classes, the DfEE's circular 2/73 recommends a ratio of 2:26—that is 1:13—where half the staff are teachers or 2:20—that is 1:10—where the head teacher teaches. There is no guidance on staffing levels for reception classes.
The Audit Commission study, Counting to Five, found that the highest proportion of total costs in all settings is staff costs at an average of 81 per cent. Playgroups come out cheapest because their staff receive low pay. The other main determinant of staff costs, besides pay, is the child:adult ratio. In most settings the recommended maximum ratios are set out in statutory guidance. Reception classes have no laid down ratios although the work of each class must be led by a qualified teacher. That makes it possible for them to operate with much larger ratios than are found in other settings and explains why they are the next cheapest after playgroups.
In a nursery class or school, class size has until now been limited in two ways—by pupil:adult ratio and by the recommendation that half the adults should be teachers, and by the 1981 Education (School Premises) Regulations on teaching recommendations and recreational space. However, there is no limit to reception class size. Reception classes (originally planned for children who are rising five) are not limited by pupil:teacher ratios. In addition, from September 1996, the 1981 regulations will be replaced. There will then be no limit on the number of children who can be placed in a reception class—not even a health and safety limit. That is the situation in spite of the fact that those classes may now contain some of our youngest four year-olds.
A survey by HMI in Wales last year looked at provision for under-fives in playgroups and in the maintained sector, and found that,
222
"The good adult:child ratio in nursery schools, and nursery classes in primary schools, ensures that the children receive ample individual attention, and helps them to feel secure, valued and confident. The adult:child ratio in reception and infant classes in primary schools is generally not as good. In some schools, the large size of the classes and the lack of ancillary support make it difficult for teachers to respond flexibly to the children's developing needs and abilities".
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in the report on class size, also produced last year, drew attention to the fact that for younger children smaller class size is a significant factor in better pupil performance and a higher quality of education. In that study, the particular features which inspectors identified as contributing to the higher ratings that they gave to smaller classes were good levels of involvement in tasks by pupils; plenty of opportunities for pupils to develop and to practise oral and written skills; effective interaction in which teachers could diagnose and remedy specific weaknesses; a lack of restless and ill attentive behaviour; and close matching of tasks to pupils' needs. Those points about quality highlight the very aspects of smaller classes that can benefit young children with special educational needs and give cause for concern about the fate of young children with those needs placed in large reception classes. With increasing class size, the first categories are the very features that can enable teachers to identify and respond to the learning needs of our most vulnerable children.
There are incentives for LEAs and schools to admit more four year-olds to reception classes. Local education authorities will have money deducted from their standard spending assessment to fund the voucher scheme. They can be more confident of retrieving that money if they admit four year-olds a bit younger and collect a few extra vouchers. For most primary schools there will also be significant incentives to increase the number of four year-olds in their reception class. That may be achieved by admitting four year-olds earlier or by simply admitting more.
In Committee the Minister argued that if parents did not like what was on offer in a reception class, they could take their children elsewhere. However, although in theory there may be a choice for parents, in practice there may not be, particularly in rural areas. There is insufficient provision to provide choice for parents until there are spare places in the system. It is estimated that an excess of 10 per cent. of places is needed to allow for choice, whereas there is quite the opposite: there is currently a shortage of places for four year-olds.
Parents are anxious to secure a place for their child in the school of their choice, and admission to a reception class will secure a place in the school later. The Pre-School Learning Alliance reported just last month that nearly half of all pre-schools report that pressure has been exerted on parents to send their child to the school nursery rather than to pre-school. It is impossible to assess accurately whether that pressure is real, but it is a fear which is being expressed by pre-schools in many other areas 10 months before the scheme comes into operation. It remains a concern that parents will be pressurised into taking a reception class place which will secure their child's place in that school for the remainder of his or her primary school career.
As I have said, there is already a trend towards younger admission in the reception year. The same Pre-School Learning Alliance report records planned changes to admissions policies in a significant number of schools in Norfolk so that they can admit younger children into the reception class. The Special Educational Consortium is concerned that large reception classes do not provide the best setting for four year-olds with special needs, particularly for the youngest. The particular aspects of quality lost in larger classes militate significantly against such children receiving provision which is appropriate to their needs.
There is a need for this amendment. There is a clear intention on the part of the Government that the voucher scheme should promote high quality nursery education—we all support that—and such a provision is crucial in identifying and making an early start to meeting the special educational needs of young children. It seems equally clear that the lack of guidelines on the size of reception classes will militate against the high quality that is sought by everyone. The amendment seeks regulations to limit the size of reception classes. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. As I said on Second Reading, I live in the London Borough of Wandsworth, which is one of the four local authorities which has been carrying out the pilot scheme in the current academic year. As I also mentioned on Second Reading, my daughter is just finishing her year in the reception class of our local primary school. She was too old for a voucher, but the parents of many of her younger classmates received them.
Our local primary school is very popular. It is over-subscribed. As my noble friend has just said, many parents try to get their four year-olds into the school by securing a place in the reception class. They are told that that does not guarantee a place at the school, but many parents nevertheless try to get their child into the reception class there. As a result, my daughter is in a class of 32 children, which I believe to be too large. While I have nothing but admiration for the school and teachers, I believe that the class is too large to teach four year-olds as effectively as they could be taught. I am not alone in raising this concern. Every parent to whom I have spoken has expressed this concern to me and to anyone else who will listen.
It is wrong that a school should be under pressure to maximise the numbers in its reception class in order to optimise the class size when statutory schooling starts. In today's jargon, the school wants to achieve a high market share to secure its future. We are not talking about market share but four year-olds. It should be the role of Government to set the limits within which the market can operate.
Parents have an overwhelming concern about this issue, and I believe that the Government have a responsibility in this area. It may be said that I have a choice and I can send my daughter to another school. I have an abundance of choice of nursery education, but I have chosen to send her to a school within walking distance of my home, and a school which will go on
224
to be her primary school. The Government should be responsible for ensuring that the school is not subject to market forces; or they should contain market forces to maximise the benefit to my daughter and other children of four, rising five.
I believe that this is the most important amendment to be discussed this evening. When talking to fellow parents it is the issue which is raised more than any other. I support the amendment.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will urge the House to reject the amendment. While facilities for educating children of this age are very important, I believe that if this amendment were passed it would establish an unfortunate precedent for local education authorities and schools. The words are not for guidance or recommendations but prescription. If this precedent were followed in the rest of compulsory education it could take away from local education authorities the right to determine class size. Even if that is not the intention of noble Lords opposite, I believe that it betrays a lack of trust in local education authorities. Local education authorities have determined many of these matters over the years with regard to the compulsory years of education. We should be content to allow them to exercise their discretion and make their own arrangements in the years of nursery education. I hope that the amendment is rejected.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak after the noble Lord, particularly as for many years he has been one of my colleagues in local government. I should like to put a question to the Minister. Given that there is a national maximum class size agreement in Scotland, will that apply to children going into classes who are in receipt of vouchers under the Government's proposals? Freedom to place children in classes whose maximum size is greater than a nationally agreed level is something I have yet to see supported by parents. Parents do not believe that larger and larger numbers of children in classrooms are a good idea. I repeat what I have said on many occasions. If class size is irrelevant, why does every brochure of every private school refer to the benefits of children being in small classes?
We are dealing with very young children. I believe it is possible to construct a staffing ratio to provide training and opportunities in a reception class which will cater for a child with special needs, or who is immature at the age of four, as readily as for a child aged five who is at an advanced stage of learning for that age group. But I do not believe it is possible to provide a good standard or quality of education if those two children are in the same class with no stipulation as to the adult:child ratio. Given that since the 1980s there would have been protection for children had the then Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Baker, not overturned the agreement between teachers and their employers in the final Burnham pay talks, at this stage the least that the Government can do is protect the very youngest.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise to support briefly but enthusiastically this amendment. One of the most important matters with which we should be concerned is the size of classes for very small children, or the number of people available in any class to deal with pupils; in other words, the pupil:staff ratio. A class of 25 or 30 children with two adults in the class may work very effectively; a class of over 30 with only one person in the class will almost certainly not give a good standard of education to those in the class, particularly if they are very young. We are talking about laying down not an absolute standard but a minimum standard upon which education authorities and providers of all kinds can build. We are not saying that they must have this or that but that they must not have more than a certain number.
Every parent to whom I have spoken takes this matter very seriously. Parents of children of all ages do not like large classes. It is no good the Government telling parents in various declarations that the educational attainment of children who come from large classes is different from that achieved by those who come from smaller classes. They know that the children are happier, busier and more committed to the class when they have a greater share of the member of staff's attention. If that is true of children in the primary and secondary sectors it is doubly true of children in the younger age groups. I urge the Minister to look upon this amendment with sympathy and perhaps come back to it at a later stage. I believe that across the country there is great support for a movement in the direction indicated by this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on quite rightly exercising his choice. But I remind him that he made his choice and sent his daughter to a reception class of 32. An amendment of this kind could limit his choice if it reduced the size of a reception class. I believe that that is a matter that he ought to bear in mind.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I live within the catchment area of the primary school. It would not limit my choice if I sent my daughter to that school, but it would limit the number of children within that class. Therefore, it would be to my absolute benefit if the class size were reduced.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the frankness of the noble Lord in admitting that that would not affect his choice. It would certainly affect the choice of a number of others, which is an important point to remember.
We discussed this point very late at night in Committee. I appreciate that the debate was cut short somewhat. I should like to respond in detail to the various points that have been made. Like the noble Baroness, Lady David, I begin by setting out the various staffing ratios which apply at the moment. For those settings registered under the Children Act an
226
adult/child ratio of 1:8 is required for children aged three to five. We believe that it is necessary to regulate in these settings because of the age of the children and the nature of the provision on offer—often full day care lasting up to 12 hours a day. For nursery classes and nursery schools a ratio of 1:13 is recommended—I stress recommended—where half of the staff are teachers. A ratio of 1:10 is recommended where the head teacher teaches. We believe that it is necessary to provide this guidance again because of the age of the children. Nursery schools and classes cater primarily for three and four year-olds, but it is often the case that two year-olds are admitted.
As noble Lords will know, at the moment there is no recommended staffing ratio, or adult/child ratio, for reception classes. Nevertheless, the Ofsted report Class Size and the Quality of Education published last year found that 54 per cent. of reception classes were of 25 pupils or fewer. Furthermore, 25 per cent. of classes had 20 or fewer. It is also important to acknowledge that in many reception classes there are classroom assistants working alongside qualified teachers. Indeed, it is often the case that when an LEA chooses to move to a single point of admission for all children it specifically addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords by training classroom assistants.
These figures clearly demonstrate that in many reception classes the adult/child ratio is already lower than that recommended for maintained nursery schools and classes; that is, 1:13. We should also recognise that teacher numbers have risen in recent years and numbers of support staff in primary schools have risen significantly. I believe that we also need to recognise the quality of provision that is already on offer in the majority of reception classes. First Class, an Ofsted report on the standards and quality of education in reception classes, published in 1993, found that the overall standards of work were satisfactory or better in nearly 80 per cent. of reception classes seen. And let us remember that we are focusing on outputs, not inputs. We believe that the SCAA desirable learning outcomes are the important factor here.
In assessing an amendment which seeks to impose a staffing ratio in respect of the four year-olds in reception classes, it is also important to realise that few reception classes cater for four year-olds exclusively. The nature of reception classes makes them different from nursery classes. Reception classes are to all intents and purposes, though not in law, the start of the compulsory years of education. Reception classes tend to include children aged four and five, or even four, five and six. It cannot be practical to set a staffing ratio that applies only to the four year-olds in a mixed age group class.
I believe that arbitrary limits on class size would be unhelpful. They would reduce the freedom of schools and local authorities to make the best use of their resources. I believe that we should preserve the freedom of LEAs and governors to do this. I have no doubt that they will keep the number of children in

227
reception, and, indeed, in all, classes to a reasonable, manageable and safe level, as they do at present. I do not accept that they will "pack four year-olds" inappropriately into reception classes purely for financial gain, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, implied.
Let us consider the impact on a school of a very large reception class. Once children have gained admittance to a reception class they have a secure place at that school for the duration. A school would have to cope with a large group of children as they progressed through the school. There is no question of taking in a large reception class and then excluding some children from year one of compulsory education. I cannot believe that any governing body or LEA would think such a situation desirable.
Let us also be clear about where the decision lies to admit children to school. Admissions authorities, LEAs in most cases, will decide on the appropriate admission pattern for their area. That control mechanism, coupled with LMS funding, means that LEAs are in a position to take an overall view of the nature of provision they wish to offer and the appropriateness of early admission to reception classes.
Ultimately, of course, this is a matter of parental choice. If schools, for whatever reason, do not offer the type of nursery provision that parents want they will take their children elsewhere. I expect that parents will take into account the size of the groups in pre-school compared to the size of classes in school when they make their choices. The choice was open to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as he admitted, where there was a wealth of provision in the area.
Nevertheless, so that governors are totally clear about what is expected, guidance on school accommodation is to be published later this summer. It will include a section on nursery provision.
In conclusion, I am convinced that the quality of work in reception classes will be maintained and, over time, will improve under the voucher scheme. I believe that LEAs and schools will continue to do what is best for the children in their charge. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will not consider it necessary to press her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will reply to one question before I decide what to do about the amendment. He said that guidance will be issued. Can he explain exactly what that guidance will say?
Lord Henley: My Lords, at this stage I am unable to do so. As I have made clear, we will be publishing guidance in the summer. It will be guidance for the governors to make sure that they are totally clear about what is expected.
Baroness David: My Lords, I must confess that I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I do not believe that he realises that the situation is changing all the time and that more children are being put into
228
reception classes. He said that the situation is reasonable, manageable and safe. The regulations have been changed. If there is a teacher without an assistant—and there is no guarantee that there will be an assistant—the situation may not be safe with all those children in a reception class.
Surely the quality of the provision is important. There is no guarantee that the quality will be good. Children with special educational needs may not be recognised in a large class. It is essential to have a teacher with a clear knowledge of the special needs and how they can be met. In a large class it will be extremely difficult to recognise the child who is failing and needs the special attention which otherwise would not be obtained.
The Minister quoted various figures—54 per cent. and 26 per cent. There are still 24 per cent. of classes with large numbers. He also stated that in 80 per cent. of classes the work is satisfactory. That means that in 20 per cent. it is not satisfactory.
I must confess that I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. The amendment is important for the quality of education and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bamett, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Broadbridge, L.

MarandKellie, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Donoughue, L.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sandwich, E.

Dubs, L.

Seear, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Falkland, V.

Shepherd, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Haskel, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wamock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

229

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L,

Ailsa,M.

Jeffreys, L.

Aldington, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kingsland, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kitchener, E.

Balfour, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Biddulph, L.

Liverpool, E.

Birdwood, L.

Long, V.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch,B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Bowness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brentford, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Brookes, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bumham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Cadman, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour,B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Nome, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Oxfuird,V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Pender.L.

Colwyn, L.

Perry of Southwark,B.

Courtown, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cox, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cross, V.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Cumberlege, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rawlings, B.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renwick, L.

Downshire, M.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dudley, E.

St, Davids, V.

Eccles of Moulton,B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elles, B.

Sandys, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Erroll, E.

Sharpies, B.

Feldman, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Somerset, D.

Hather, B.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stafford, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes.B.

Swansea, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinton, E.

GrayofContin, L.

Teviot, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Teynham, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

UUswater, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hertford, M.

Whitelaw, V.

Holdemess, L.

Wigram, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wilcox,B.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert (", and
(c) shall prescribe the qualifications to be required of staff employed to teach children in respect of whom grant is made under section 1 above, which shall be reviewed annually by both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment relates, to a certain extent, to something which follows on from the amendment which has just been voted on. There is no doubt that one of the main motives of government—a very admirable one—in promoting nursery education is to give the best possible chance not only to children with special educational needs, but to children whose needs may well be discovered only when they come into a nursery class, whether it be a playgroup or in a nursery school or, indeed, whether it is a reception class or a class in a primary school. We are asking that one of the requirements which may be laid on these classes is that a certain level of qualification should be held by the teachers in that class. The point of this requirement is largely so that such children may be identified. I have in mind here, as in the next amendment, those children whose needs are not already identified by medical or social services, but whose needs emerge only in the context of a classroom.
Of course, it would be wonderful if one could have in every nursery class at least one fully qualified nursery teacher with, among other qualifications, one which enabled him or her to identify special educational needs, but that would be asking far too much.
This amendment would require that, in order to qualify for a grant, teachers should have quite modest qualifications which, nevertheless, give them some knowledge of child development, even at quite ordinary and humdrum level. I am thinking of what used to be the NNEB qualification—the Nursery Nurses Education Board qualification—which was a qualification for nannies, for example, as well as nursery nurses. As I understand it, that qualification is to be changed for one which will have a greater educational component.
Then there are elements of the national vocational qualifications—NVQs at level 2 and level 3—which are connected with looking after children and which provide some knowledge as regards their development. It is hoped, ultimately, that there will be a national vocational qualification at level 4, which would be the equivalent of a teacher's qualification. That is the kind of qualification which it is thought not unreasonable to demand as a requirement for teachers in any kind of nursery class.
The second element of the suggested requirement is that the position should be reviewed every year because, over time, the level of the qualification might be raised. Similarly, perhaps money might be made available to enable people to acquire such qualifications. At present, there would obviously be a shortage of qualified people if one were to set the qualification at too high a level.
My demands are modest. However, they would, nevertheless, ensure the ongoing improvement of the quality of provision which the Government intend to ensure. I repeat: without some knowledge of the normal development of a child, it would be extremely difficult for someone running a playgroup, a nursery class or indeed a reception class to pick out the level of performance in a child which might give cause for concern.
One of the very good things that we shall be discussing later is the exact way in which Part III of the code of practice—and, indeed, the code of practice as a whole—is to apply to nursery education. That part of the code makes it perfectly clear that the process of identification and the meeting of special needs starts with the classroom teacher. It is there that what is called "Stage 1" is, in the words of the code, "triggered"; in other words, a teacher notices that there is a failure to respond and to absorb the learning that the other children are absorbing.
Sometimes it is simply a matter of the withdrawal of the child altogether, or a case of him or her not joining in. Alternatively it can be a behavioural difficulty which makes it impossible for the child to join in with the other children and which may threaten the progress of the rest of the class. The ability to recognise those characteristics as not being just a passing phase—that is, not a case of the child "just being like that"—but as something which might give rise to concern and which might well be put right if specialised help were invoked, requires some training and, indeed, skills that not everyone possesses.
The situation is particularly difficult in the case of children aged three-plus, four or five. It is well known that children vary a good deal in the degree of their development; indeed, they vary in how far they progress at those ages. It is easy to write off an apparent eccentricity of a child, bad behaviour or failure to be able to concentrate as being a matter of, "Well, that is as far as that child has reached so far". As I said, we all know that children differ.
The ability to make assessments and recognise that it is more than that and say, "We must do something about this child", requires a degree of trained skill. That is why I believe it to be extremely important to have a requirement that some degree of training, however modest, should be available in the classroom before that classroom is the recipient of a grant through the voucher system. That is the whole point of the amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Again, this is a very important amendment. Qualifications really make a difference. Qualified teachers can bring to the classroom intellectual inquiry and rigour which characterise high quality education. The demand that nursery teachers should be qualified to the same level as other teachers would give nursery education an appropriate and equal status with other areas in the education service. That equality of status is beneficial for children and other staff working with the under-fives. It is particularly important for children with special educational needs,
232
where you desperately need qualified staff who will know how to deal with them and how to recognise them in the classroom.
Can the Minister say whether any of the money which is being put into the system at present is being used for training? It seems to me that an amendment of this nature would lead to more training and, therefore, more qualified staff, even if it were not a very high qualification to start with. At least it would encourage the pursuit of qualifications. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment and give us some encouragement in that respect.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment and, indeed, to endorse what the two previous speakers have said with greater eloquence and knowledge than I can muster. One of the reasons that I want to support the amendment is that it deals with the assumption made by so many that, somehow, to teach young children is easier than to teach older children. At this point I should declare a sort of interest in that my wife is an infant school teacher. If I ever thought that it was easier to teach young children than older children, the last 22 years have taught me that the reverse is the case.
It is not the qualification as such which is important in this respect; it is the skills and the training which go with attaining that qualification. The amendment seeks to recognise the importance of those skills and of that training in looking after young children. Indeed, the point has been made, and made very well, about the particular importance of all this to children with special educational needs. That applies especially to the age group about which we are talking. It also applies more widely. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. For those reasons, and because the amendment would give recognition to the importance of teaching young children, while not over-simplifying that teaching, I wish to support the amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, a qualified teacher in every nursery setting is not a luxury; in hard economic terms, it is a good investment. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, pointed out the need in that respect, and I should just like to give the House one illustration of it. As noble Lords know, we get an enormous postbag on such matters and we read all the letters. One letter I received came from the headteacher of a tiny school in South Wales. He pointed out that, from time to time, there arrives in his school a child who has absolutely no ability to communicate. It is not a case of that child being mentally unbalanced in any way or indeed a matter of his not having developed; such a child has probably never been in a situation where communication was called for. He is dazed and dazzled; he does not understand and is confused when confronted with it in school. It takes someone who is skilled and trained to recognise that fact and know what to do about such a child. Although this amendment is a generous one and would cost a little more to implement, I believe that the fruits would be enormous.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the effect which this proposal

233
might have on the status of teachers in the eyes of parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, it is quite true that it was widely thought—and is still thought in many cases—that it is very much easier to teach infants than to teach sixth-form pupils. That is simply not the case. At both stages there are difficulties, as those of us will know who have been engaged in education.
It seems to me that if we are to convince parents about the importance of nursery education—and they are convinced to a very large extent—it is important to add to that that those who are teaching their children in nursery schools are what we would call fully qualified; in other words, they are fully trained and specially trained. That would add great status to the teachers themselves and to the schools in which they are employed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I assume that the intention of the amendment is to increase the minimum qualification requirements that the providers, particularly in the private and voluntary sector, will have to meet. As other speakers have said, I accept that training and qualifications are extremely important. My department is committed to that and that has been one of the themes of the merger, going wider than just the educational world.
However, I believe that it is unnecessary to put such a requirement in regulations as is suggested. Under the Bill it will be possible for my right honourable friend to review at any stage the requirements of grant relating to staff qualifications. Requirements of grant are a very powerful tool indeed to use to lever up standards over time.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asks whether extra money is being made available for training. But as regards the vouchers, it is for each provider to decide how to use its own voucher income and whether to direct some into training. Anecdotal evidence from the pre-school movement in Norfolk—and this is one of the reasons behind Phase 1's evaluation—is that training is an extremely high priority.
As our next-steps document makes very clear, we see the touchstone of quality in all settings to be whether the desirable learning outcomes are likely to be achieved. There is a range of qualifications, not only qualified teacher status, that offer teaching staff the necessary expertise to help children work towards these outcomes. As well as the BEds and PGCEs that lead to QTS, there is a whole host of others which are important in the nursery setting: the NNEB (CACHE) Diploma in Nursery Nursing; the PLA Diploma in Playgroup Practice; NVQs, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, (Levels 2 & 3) in Childcare and Education; a new range of BAs in education and childcare; and a range of independent qualifications like Montessori.
We also need to recognise that there are many staff working in nurseries and playgroups who do not have the qualifications that I have mentioned but who have the experience, built up over a number of years, and indeed the skills, to offer children a wealth of personal, social and learning skills. It is important to remember that there is that wealth of experience out there of which we should make use even if no formal qualifications
234
are attached. But we will not allow voucher-redeeming institutions to rest on their laurels. Ofsted will monitor the quality of education that is on offer in exchange for vouchers and recommend any changes we may need to make to the qualification requirements. As set out in the Ofsted framework for inspection in the next-steps document, Ofsted reports will look at,
"the quality of teaching and its contribution to children's attainment and progress",
as part of its study of the quality of educational provision generally.
As I have done on a number of occasions, I remind the House that in order to obtain registration under the Children Act, those providers must meet the qualification requirements recommended under that Act. At the moment these requirements are interpreted locally by local authority social services departments. This helps to ensure that only those institutions with suitably qualified staff gain registration under the Act and in turn are able to redeem vouchers. This is an important and valuable quality control.
I am confident that, over time, we shall see an improvement in the qualifications of staff working in voucher-redeeming institutions. I do not therefore believe that it is necessary to place this proposed requirement in regulations. We already have a mechanism to review as necessary the qualification requirements of voucher-redeeming institutions. In my view, that is the appropriate mechanism. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify one matter for me. I believe that he said that there may be some teachers or helpers in nursery schools who have no formal educational qualification. He said words to the effect that they may have the aptitude and experience built up over the years which enable them to make very valuable contributions. I agree that that is the case. It is said that there are some natural teachers, and I think that that is true, but that is always based on the fact that they have had training as teachers. Therefore, is the Minister saying that there are people who would help or teach in a nursery school who would have no formal qualifications?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was referring to staff who have no formal qualifications working in particular in playgroups—and there are many of them—and the same is true of nurseries. We do not wish to lose the wealth of that experience which has been built up over the years.
Over time we may wish to consider other measures. But as I made clear, through the requirements of grant we have power to lever up standards and to look to other qualifications. But I believe that to introduce a standard right at the beginning and to include it in regulations would bring with it a danger of losing a great deal of wealth of experience which we do not wish to lose.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am disappointed with that answer. Before deciding what to do, I should like to have some reassurance that guidelines will be

235
issued for local authorities or whoever it is who will decide which level of qualifications will make for a satisfactory group.
Once again, I feel a curious sense that the concept of nursery education is becoming diluted in two different directions—this has been discussed over and over again—in order to accommodate the playgroups and the reception classes where all the teachers, although not their ancillaries, presumably have teacher training qualifications. Between that, the idea of what nursery education is and what it requires is getting lost.
The Minister said that he hopes that standards will rise; that qualifications will increase and so on. What is the basis for that hope if there is no requirement that there should be qualifications for the staff? It has now become explicit that we are talking about those groups of playgroups which come together and make themselves into new providers. If there is no requirement that those groups should be staffed by people who have some qualifications, we are in danger of providing far less than the best that was promised. Therefore, I should like a suggestion from the Minister that guidelines may be issued along those lines.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness invites me to intervene and, although it is Report stage, with the leave of the House, I shall do so. Guidelines already exist under the Children Act guidance in relation to the qualification of staff in settings registered under the Act. I was trying to make the point, which I obviously did not make as clearly as I should have done, that my right honourable friend has powers to review at any stage the requirements of grant relating to staff qualifications. As I made clear, or as I thought I made clear, in my opening remarks, we believe that the requirements of grant are a very powerful tool. I cannot remember exactly what it was that Dr. Johnson said about hanging, but I think that that will concentrate the mind wonderfully.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. Requirements are of course a powerful weapon provided they are sufficiently tough to concentrate the mind in the way that he suggests. Nevertheless, there is probably no point in pressing this amendment further. Everyone who has taken part in the discussion realises the anxieties that are felt as regards the danger in letting standards of nursery education drop. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert (", and
(c) may specify the training and provision to be made for language teaching and for teaching English as a second language, having regard to the needs of the locality").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in this amendment I am really pressing the same point. I believe this has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I think that we ought to take particular notice of those children who, with luck, will not become children with special educational needs. However,
236
without luck and without special vigilance, they will become children with special educational needs. I refer to that large number of children who are linguistically deprived. Of course that linguistically deprived class of children includes those who do not speak English at home because they speak some other language. Those children are readily recognisable but need specialist help to acquire fluency and the ability to conduct conversation in English, which is not the language they are accustomed to at home.
This is an area where the qualifications of staff—to return to that matter—are of supreme importance. There is a probably larger category of children, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred in respect of a particular area of Wales, who can be found all over England and Wales; namely, those children who receive no parental encouragement to speak at all, and who sometimes come to school, even at the age of five, with a vocabulary of about five words, and most of those constitute various forms of invective because the only words they ever hear, apart from those uttered on the television, are words uttered against them by various grown-up persons.
Those children do not realise that talking to grown-up people is a possibility. They do not have the concept of dialogue or the concept that language is used for all kinds of different purposes, for example, to command, in which case one obeys; to discuss, in which case one is allowed to express one's own feelings, and so on. That is an area of deprivation which I do not believe we take enough notice of. I believe that the nursery class is where this deprivation needs to be addressed before the gulf between those who have a large vocabulary and can talk and express themselves, and those who cannot, becomes enormously wide and we have two classes of people; namely, those who will succeed in school, and those who will fail from then on. The purpose of this amendment is to call attention on the face of the Bill to the need to have teachers who are qualified to identify those children and get them out of their predicament. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the amendment, which I am happy to support, provides for the language needs of pupils. As the noble Baroness has said, in the case of Wales this is a rather special problem. It would lead to provision for children whose home language is other than English in many cases, but it would also contribute towards the nourishment of the Welsh language, and that is a particularly sensitive matter. There is danger here. Cymdeithas yr laith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society, is a vigilant and alert body that takes offence quite easily. There are other organisations and parents who are equally alive to fair, equal and proper provision being made for the Welsh language throughout education, and especially in nursery education. It was not so long ago that we pushed through the Welsh Language Act which produced the Welsh Language Board under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I should like to know—if the noble Lord can jot this down for an answer when he comes to speak—whether the Government have had any consultations with the Welsh Language Board on this particular matter.
The introduction to SCAA's language and literacy "desirable outcome" states,

237
"children must be helped to acquire competence in English as soon as possible, making use where appropriate, of their developing understanding and skills in other languages".
That is precisely the kind of thing that is liable to irritate people whose first language is Welsh and who want, on the whole, for their children to remain bilingual for as long as possible, and somewhat resent the large presence of English right next door, and the assumption that everyone must get to know it as soon as possible in their lives. There is scant reference to languages other than English in SCAA's "desirable outcome" document. That lack of recognition for the many children who will start nursery education with home languages other than English is of great concern. It simply does not reflect our multicultural society. All children have a right to live in and learn from a diverse world, to respect harmony and equality and to be well informed about other groups and cultures. That is perhaps particularly important in Wales. This amendment would acknowledge the specific and different language needs of children in Wales. That is not the same problem as one has with Hindi or Tamil or Urdu.
In contrast to the SCAA document the introduction of ACAC's draft "desirable outcome" document places far more emphasis on the home language, other than English, in that locality. It states:
"Experience of the Curriculum Cymreig, including the Welsh language, should be an integral part of the ethos of the nursery provision and of the range of children's experiences. Welsh should not be a once-a-week language lesson. It can with vision, enthusiasm and support from committed educators be a rewarding and lively learning experience for all children of nursery age in Wales".
That is more like what we should like to get from this amendment. The ACAC document goes on to recognise:
"Competent use of language is the most fundamental of human skills. It is a decisive factor in mastery of other areas of learning. If a child has a wide range of language experiences, that mastery will become well established and the child's intellectual, emotional and social learning will be enhanced".
Amen to that, say I!
Special provision we believe surely must be made for that. There is none in the Bill as it stands. There is none in the various documents that have floated around the Bill. If it is not mandatory, some providers will scant it while others may not. The Minister may well say, "Well, fair enough, parents will choose providers who provide it". And so they will, but non-providers, especially in a place like Wales, will attract odium, and the existence of both sorts will fracture communities, and bring back that bitterness and resentment and divisiveness over the question of the language in Wales which brought about even the extreme of arson which those of us who have lived there have striven so hard over the years to eliminate. This amendment would prevent that in Wales. It would encourage good practice, and it would cost the Government only peanuts. I beg the Minister to consider it most carefully.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment but will do so only briefly because the case has been well made. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, spoke, not surprisingly, with great eloquence on behalf of Wales. Whilst I endorse all that
238
he says perhaps I may speak with much less eloquence and more briefly on behalf of London and indeed on behalf of all metropolitan inner city areas where the issue we are discussing is important. In those areas many young children come from homes where English is not spoken at all. Their experience in nursery education will be their first in a learning situation. The passing of the amendment would go some way towards encouraging adequate resourcing for a sufficient number of teachers under Section 11 arrangements. That would help to ensure that all bilingual children or children with English as a second language who participate in the voucher scheme receive the provision that they need. I believe that it is an important issue. I am happy to support the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, the case has been made for Wales and for children where English is a second language. However, it is important that children who speak the normal English language learn to use the language more effectively, to read it and to make use of books. That is important for all children, not only those who have been mentioned by other speakers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, perhaps I may start with the subject of Wales. I fully agree with everything he said about the importance of preserving and encouraging the Welsh language. I believe that we all have a duty there. Dr. Johnson had something to say on the sadness that was universal about the loss of any language. The noble Lord will know the quotation better than I do. I can assure the noble Lord that the Welsh equivalent of the SCAA, the ACAC—the noble Lord will accept that I cannot pronounce it in Welsh—has made distinctive proposals on the outcomes in Wales—to which I shall come—taking into account the interests of the Welsh language.
On an earlier amendment, dealing with points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I made it clear that there was a possibility of teaching in Welsh, the Welsh medium being available. I can also give an assurance that ACAC, the Welsh equivalent, consulted widely on its proposals. Therefore I presume that I can give a guarantee. If it consulted widely, it would be somewhat unlikely that it had not consulted the Welsh Language Board. I believe that I am safe in giving that assurance.
Having said that, I believe that the amendment, worthy though it is, is unnecessary. The SCAA desirable outcomes break down into six areas of language. One of those outcomes covers language and literacy. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, made quite clear, it is important that children should be helped to acquire competence in English whether or not they have English as a first language. For those who do not have English as a first language, that is even more important if they are not to be alienated from the rest of society by misapplied multiculturalism. As soon as possible they should be encouraged to make use, where appropriate, of their developing understanding and skills in other languages. Inspectors will consider the extent to which providers are working towards each of those outcomes.

239
Where provision is not satisfactory in a particular area of learning, inspectors can draw attention to that in the inspection report.
The SCAA outcomes therefore implicitly cover the provision that the noble Baroness seeks in her amendment. Furthermore, the provisions may be provided for as requirements of grant as the Bill stands. I go back to the ability that my right honourable friend has to influence matters. Indeed, such requirements are already in place under the Phase 1 arrangements. Therefore I see no reason for prescribing these amendments on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the phrase "misapplied multiculturalism". In reward for that phrase, I willingly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert (", and
("(c) shall be such as to ensure that the parent of any child in respect of whose education a grant is made available is advised that in the absence of alternative provision being made, the exercise by that person of a choice not to apply for financial support from monies made available by way of grant under this Act represents a choice not to seek nursery education for his child.
(2A) The requirements of subsection (2)(c) shall not be considered satisfied unless it is shown that a parent who has failed to seek the benefits of financial support from monies made available by way of grant under this Act has been reminded of his opportunity to do so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is just before the dinner break. I am reminded of the American comedian who said about a break in a film show, "Those of you who are really keen, now is the time to go out and get the popcorn". Now is the time to go out and get the popcorn because I am bound to take a few minutes to introduce this important amendment. I shall have a lot to say but I shall say it once and once only; and I shall say it quickly.
The purpose, aim and object of the amendment are to place a duty on the voucher agency to follow up why a parent eligible under the scheme does not take up his or her voucher. We remember from last Friday when the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury introduced the splendid debate that we are all prone to sin, that we all neglect our duties and that we leave undone those things which we ought to have done and there is no health in us.
We often take the easiest path available, and that sometimes imperils other people. The amendment is intended to prevent the voucher agency from sin, from being complacent about any parent who either fails to apply for his or her voucher or subsequently does not use a voucher which has been supplied to him following application.
To some extent, I believe that the amendment has a moral basis to it. It is not enough to say, "An opportunity has been provided. If they do not take it, had luck to them". We are our brother's keeper. So the amendment requires the voucher agency to ascertain whether or not such non-application or non-use of a voucher is a conscious decision by a parent not to participate in the voucher scheme—that is everyone's right—or whether it is the result, for example, of postal problems, or the inability of the parents either to understand or to carry out the voucher system, in which case the negligence in following it up is in my view wrong.
There may be postal problems. I should imagine that those would be few. As we have said many times, we have had massive postal deliveries about the voucher scheme. I have had quite a number which emanate from one source because they are very like one another. They may be distinguished by the fact that they were all addressed to me at home, to "Lord Morris of Castle Morris, The Old Hall, Derbyshire". It is rather like saying "Chatsworth, Derbyshire", as though everyone knew my tiny semi-detached farmhouse built in 1398. However, many contained the postcode S31 1 QR and a great many got through. I do not know how many did not. There are the possibilities of postal difficulties in a scheme of this kind.
The amendment would go some way towards clearing up the reasons as to why 15 or 20 per cent. of eligible parents in the pilot areas have not taken up vouchers. It would be a means of targeting non-takers and would avoid the need to re-do the expensive publicity campaigns which we have seen in the pilot areas. I believe that I am right in saying that over £1.1 million has already been spent on publicity.
Why have 15 per cent. either refused or neglected a gift worth £1,100? What research in each pilot area has been done on this, with what results? Under current arrangements, there is no way of knowing whether parents have chosen not to take up a voucher. As I have argued previously, there is little way of knowing what parents feel about the scheme if they use their voucher. But that is a separate issue.
What we propose is that the voucher agency would be required to carry out a further procedure beyond a normal application and distribution of vouchers and remind parents of the consequences of non-application.
That duty cannot be satisfied simply by enclosing an additional statement with the application form. There has to be a second stage. The agency must remind. In other words, it must take a further step such as a follow-up telephone call, if that is possible, to make the parent aware of the consequences for the child of not taking part in the scheme. Such a step would protect four year-olds from being needlessly disadvantaged as a consequence of their parents' attitudes or inabilities, or of the simple breakdowns in a highly bureaucratic voucher system. Consider the possibilities of error in the eight, nine or 10-step mazurka that these wretched vouchers have already to go through.
It has been reported that the voucher agency, Capita Managed Services, appears not to employ anyone who is able to offer bilingual translation and

241
support in more than one language to cope with telephone inquiries. I should be grateful if the Minister could have a thought about that, or even seek advice, and let me know whether that is the case.
The amendment may go some way towards ensuring that the voucher agency considers issues such as the importance of communicating with all parents and puts some of its private profits from the public purse into redressing oversights of that kind. If ever the scheme is extended to Wales, I can promise the Minister great grief over a long period, if translation services are not available everywhere and to everyone.
The private voucher agency is making use of public money. In accountability terms, this requirement would appear to be a cost-effective way towards parental choice, which is the Government's aim. The Government have stated that any funds not used would be returned to the Treasury. This requirement may ensure that that is less likely to happen. Such a requirement on the voucher agency is sensible, in our view, and will no doubt appear to be even more so if the scheme is ever to be introduced nationwide. So I ask the Minister: has the issue been explored, quantified and costed with Capita Managed Services? If it has, what response has been elicited from it? If not, why not? And when will it be? I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it has been said many times that the scheme is about choice. Of course, parents have the right to choose not to take up their voucher. But we have a responsibility, if we are to introduce the scheme, to determine whether the parents have made a choice, a deliberate decision not to take up the voucher scheme, which is their right; or whether they have simply not understood what it is about, have thrown it away or not bothered.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the amendment's purpose is to put some responsibility on the people administering the scheme to check that choice has been exercised and that the parents who have not taken up their vouchers deliberately chose not to do so and had not just not noticed or not bothered. I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was completely mystified by the amendment when I first saw it. I was mystified after I had discussed it with officials and I am even more mystified having heard the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. He says that it is about a duty on the voucher agency to follow up why any parent does not apply for a voucher. The amendment does not apply to the voucher agency but to the providers. It seeks to provide a requirement of grant on them. If the noble Lord is trying to accomplish something else, he ought to explain it to the House. As he has drafted it, the amendment does not do what he claimed it did in his opening remarks. I hope, therefore, that he will find some means at the end of my reply of taking the amendment away and, if he thinks it worth it, coming forward with a further suggestion on Third Reading. I should be happy to consider it.
242
Perhaps I may make one or two points to show how the Phase 1 procedures are working. Despite what the noble Lord said about postal difficulties, they do not seem to have prevented a large number of people from writing to him, to myself and to other noble Lords. I remind the noble Lord that we have a 97 per cent. take-up in Norfolk and a 95 per cent. take-up in Wandsworth. Parents are also happy to use the phone helpline if they do not receive an application form. Further, for parents who are unwilling or unable to apply for vouchers in Phase 1, special arrangements are in place to cope with the exceptional cases where parents cannot make an application. There has been little need for it in Phase 1, so we shall review the procedure in Phase 2 to find out what is required.
I can also give an assurance to the noble Lord that Capita has experience of coping with different languages. It has staff at the moment who can translate into 20 languages. I am sure that the various points made about the Welsh language will be taken up by my right honourable and honourable friends in the Welsh Office.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House. I have been deeply engaged in trying to listen to him, finding splendid nuggets of consolation in what he said and at the same time ascertaining the exact basis of his complaint that we could not do what we wish through the voucher agency. I had assumed that we could and I shall need to consider the point at greater length. An additional phrase or two may be needed. I hope the Minister will agree that the point made was a fair one. I shall take the amendment away, reconsider it and almost certainly bring it back at Third Reading.
The first part of the amendment puts the onus on the providers, but the second part erects an expectation of the system applying to the agency. Unless the Minister has an immediate answer—which I suspect he has not—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and shall return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(4) Requirements imposed under this section shall include a requirement to ensure that corporal punishment is not used in nursery education provided by an authority or other person to whom a grant is made under section 1.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thought we would now have the dinner break, but perhaps I may move the amendment and then there will be no need to hurry back after the break.
Since moving the amendment at Committee stage, I have written to the Minister. I know that he received the letter because I asked him. In it I sought to clarify what the Government's policy is in relation to institutional corporal punishment of three and four year-old children. Unfortunately, I received no reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate that this is Report stage but I have in front of me a photocopy of my letter to the noble Baroness dated 6th July. If it were possible for someone with wings to take it to the noble Baroness I would make it available to her. It was always my intention to make it available to her before this stage and I can only apologise on behalf of myself, the department and possibly the Royal Mail.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not know how it failed to be delivered but as I have now received it, perhaps I may be allowed time to read it. It is an awkward situation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to read his reply to your Lordships' House? There is not time for all of us to read it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I will give that assurance if, by the time I reply, my copy, which I have now given to the noble Baroness, has been passed back to me.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall read it. The letter states:
"Thank you for your further correspondence about the nursery education voucher scheme and corporal punishment.
I can only repeat what I said in the House as well as in our previous written exchanges on the subject of corporal punishment. It is government policy that children whose education is supported by state funding who are 'looked after' by social service departments must be excluded from physical or corporal punishment. Because the nursery education voucher scheme is state funded education, children whose places are supported by voucher income will also be excluded from corporal punishment in whatever pre-school they attend.
The prohibition of corporal punishment does not extend to children who are attending independent schools or Children Act registered institutions where it is the parent, not the Government, who is meeting the cost of the school fees or charges. This is because the contract and the arrangements for responsibility are between the parent and the provider, not the Government nor the local authority.
You quite rightly point out that some playgroups and day nurseries are subsidised by local authorities usually by the local social services department.
As I have said before, Children Act guidance does not support the use of corporal punishment but leaves decisions about [its] use … where the child is not in receipt of state funded education, or is not being 'looked after' with the parent and the provider.
I am sending a copy of this letter to John Bowis".
That does not take us any further. The Minister is staying exactly where he was. I am sorry about that because I thought he might possibly be moved when there have been examples of the Department of Health saying that physical punishment has no place in any childcare situation. Here we have institutions which will have funds because of the voucher scheme. The voucher children will not be able to be hit but the others could be. That seems an insupportable situation.
244
I am really very sorry that the Minister cannot see that we are supporting a scheme where some children will be there and yet the Government are not saying that institutions receiving these funds will not hit the children. This is quite insupportable. My noble friend Lord Henderson is unfortunately ill and cannot be here. I know that he would support me strongly. I must ask the Minister, as I did in the letter I wrote, whether in the regulations the Government will give guidance that corporal punishment should not be used in any institution. That is the very least I can ask. I hope the Minister will be willing to give that assurance. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, and particularly in her quest for, at the very least, some guidance. I would add the requirement that such guidance should be clear and specific. As I mentioned earlier, I am leader of an authority that has had some experience of guidance under the Children Act on the subject of slapping and smacking children. We were held to have taken too much notice of the guidance. Childminders, as was the case in question, may do so if they so wish, although the practice is discouraged.
This is an important issue. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady David, on the vigour with which she is pursuing it. Having heard the Minister's letter for the first time as she read it, I am inclined to agree with her. It is welcome in so far as it goes. However, it does not go far enough. I therefore hope that the Minister will take on board the points made so ably by the noble Baroness and will be able to give us further assurances.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled my noble friend Lady David. Having heard her read the letter, it now seems that the Minister is saying that corporal punishment cannot be used in a nursery school which receives income from the nursery voucher scheme, because it is effectively publicly funded education and there is some prohibition on corporal punishment in publicly funded education institutions. I am concerned as to the exact legal framework. I suspect that it may be framed in terms of local education authority provision, which is not necessarily the same as provision that is "publicly funded".
We have not had a chance to digest the content of the letter, but the Government seem to suggest that corporal punishment may not be used in publicly funded nursery provision of the type we refer to. If there is already a legal requirement, surely there is no problem in writing it on to the face of the Bill. To dare to put it this way, the Government and the Minister have some explaining to do in relation to this particular matter. Without a satisfactory explanation that there is already some fairly strong

245
legal authority saying that corporal punishment shall not be employed in nursery schools, then we shall need to write it on to the face of the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question. I am sure that he will not be able to answer it now, but perhaps he will return to it at a later stage. I was very struck by the explanation he gave in his letter. It occurred to me that it suggested unfair treatment as between one child and another. I seriously wonder whether he feels that there is any risk of this approach being in breach of the European Convention. It would be very interesting to find out. Quite honestly, it is quite a disturbing consideration.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that we should be at risk in that respect. We have always maintained that we will not have corporal punishment within publicly funded education. It is still open, and a number of schools make use of corporal punishment in the non-maintained sector. That is a matter for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked for further guidance. There is such guidance in the Children Act, which does not support the use of corporal punishment but leaves the decision to individual institutions. I certainly would not want to go further than that. All I can do is again to apologise to the noble Baroness that she did not receive her letter in due time. As she will see, I signed it some days ago, but these things have a way of falling through the gaps.
I reiterate that it is our policy to continue to prohibit corporal punishment in all state-funded education. Nursery education in exchange for nursery vouchers will be no exception to the rule. I do not believe it would be right or proper to take this matter any further in a Bill such as this, designed purely to extend the provision of nursery education. I appreciate the strength of feeling the noble Baroness has in relation to these matters. However, this is neither the time nor the place to go further than we are going at the moment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not convinced by the Minister's letter or indeed his response. I think the least he could have done was to say that there would be guidance. I would not demand it now on the face of the Bill, but I should very much like to have had guidance when the regulations were made. It is far too late to do anything about this tonight. I accept the Minister's apology about the letter. Letters between him and me seem to be fated. Some of my letters to him have disappeared in the past. Of course I accept his apology. Goodness knows whose fault it was, but not his. I shall think about this matter and decide whether to return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before twenty-five minutes to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations 1996
7.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to increase by 2.1 per cent. the amounts of compensation which may be paid under the Act to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st August 1996. By so doing we are meeting our undertaking to ensure that the levels of payment match the increases in the retail price index since 1980.
People who suffer from industrial diseases have the right to sue their employer for damages. But certain dust-related diseases take a long time to develop, and many may not be diagnosed until 20 to 40 years or more after exposure. Because of this, sufferers and their dependants can experience considerable difficulty in obtaining compensation from their employers or indeed from a multiplicity of employers as may be the case. By the time that the disease is diagnosed, the employer concerned may no longer exist.
Parliament enacted this legislation in 1979 in order to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the normal way through the courts. It provides lump sum payments to sufferers from certain dust-related diseases or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants. But it was never the intention of the Act to provide an alternative to taking civil action in the courts.
There are three basic conditions of entitlement, which must be satisfied before a payment can be made: the first is that there is no relevant employer who can be sued; the second is that no court action has been brought by the sufferer or his dependants, nor has compensation been received in respect of the disease; and the third is that industrial injuries disablement benefit has been awarded.
The Department of the Environment does all that it can to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way. While it is necessary to ensure that payment conditions are met, it is also recognised that each case is an individual disaster and my department is as generous as the legislation allows.
Since the Act came into force in 1980, 8,729 applicants have made a claim and approximately 70 per cent. of those have received payment. The total cost to date has been £43.2 million. Payments are in addition to any industrial injuries disablement benefit which may have been awarded.
The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review regularly the amounts which are payable, in order to maintain their value. These regulations aim to fulfil that commitment.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the circumstances leading to these payments are very unfortunate. They reflect the conditions in which some

247
people found themselves working many years ago. Action, which has been taken by the Government to control the use of asbestos and other hazardous substances should prevent such suffering for present and future generations of workers. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity which is provided by these regulations to maintain the value of that compensation.
Of course, no amount of money can ever adequately compensate people and their families for their loss, but at least these regulations allow us to give some practical and material help. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the initiative of the Government. Although the Minister said this is in accordance with previous commitments and undertakings, nevertheless I am certain, as he is, that this modest increase, in line with the cost of living, will be very welcome.
Can the Minister give some indication along these lines? I believe he said that 8,729 people had successfully claimed and that that was 70 per cent. of those who had claimed, or it might have been that of the 8,729 who claimed, 70 per cent. were given assistance. Could the Minister tell us whether, in latter years, there has been an increase, a decrease or a levelling off in the applications? I imagine that in the industries which are, sadly, susceptible to these kinds of disease, both the trade unions and the people who have worked in them will be well aware of their entitlement. But all too often, as the Minister well knows, good intentions by the Government to make available money and allowances go by default because the publicity and the exposure of the fact that these avenues are available sometimes miss their target. So I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether there has been a falling off.
The Minister, quite rightly, referred to the great problem of asbestos. I do not share the Minister's view that the aftermath of the asbestos era is coming to an end. I am certain that the awfulness of asbestosis, as well as pneumoconiosis and the other related diseases, will be with us for a very long time to come.
The Minister also pointed out, quite rightly, that access to these funds—totalling £43 million since the scheme started—are not directly connected with any other action that may be taken. The Minister said that they had to be satisfied that there was no employer who could be sued, that no action had been taken, and, in addition that the claimants were entitled to injury benefit. Can the Minister tell us whether there exists in his department a section which ensures that people have their attention drawn to their entitlement?
I presume that the increase in each case of 2.1 per cent. is related either to the cost of living or to some reasonable yardstick. I am sure the Minister will recognise my tone. My tone is inquiring and probing—not condemnatory. Sadly, people suffer these terrible injuries in the main accidentally, through no fault of
248
themselves or their employers. The least we can do is modestly to make financial recompense. We on these Benches applaud the Government for having taken the action they have at the time that they have. We hope that those who are in receipt of this benefit appreciate that action.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I appreciate greatly what the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip has said and the manner in which he said it. He spoke with feeling on these matters, and quite rightly too. He also asked some pertinent questions.
First, he asked what was the yardstick by which the sum increased per year. The answer is that it is the retail prices index. That has been the system by which the sums have increased since the scheme first started, and that is the yardstick by which they have increased this year.
The noble Lord wondered whether there had latterly been an increase in applications. I wondered that too when I was preparing myself for this debate. I was surprised to find that there had been an increase. I thought that this kind of disease was something which people contracted some years ago and therefore would be on the decline. The fact is that most of these cases were contracted some years ago but the lead time being 20 to 40 years means that there are more applications now than there were before.
The increase in the number of claims received was indicative of the increasing incidence of asbestos-related disease. But it also points to a greater awareness of the disease. In 1995–96, there were 917 applications. Of those, 363 claims were paid at a cost of almost £4.1 million.
There is a problem about the awareness of the scheme to which the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip quite rightly drew attention. The problem is that claimants can be very heavily penalised financially if they are not aware of the scheme. Late claims are accepted but the amounts which can be paid to dependants are very much smaller than those who claim while they are alive. That may seem to be a curious phraseology. When a person is alive he can claim. When he is dead, of course, he cannot claim but his next of kin can claim. But when she—the wife or other—claims, they are entitled to a much smaller amount of money. It can be unfair for new cases, particularly in mesothelioma cases where death usually occurs within a year of diagnosis. That can have a harsh effect on families. But the Act allows no discretion to pay dependants at the higher sufferers' rates. Ex gratia payments have been agreed only where there has been clear evidence of misdirection of officials.
So publicity about this is quite important. I do not think that as many people know about this as might do. Very often, of course, they do not know about it because they have had no reason to know about it—they may not have realised that they had been so affected.
The noble Lord asked whether there is a section in the Department of the Environment which is responsible for publicising the scheme. The answer is that there is. That is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Finance and Operations Branch in the Department of

249
the Environment. Local officers of the Benefits Agency handle claims for industrial injury disablement benefit which is a pre-condition for payment under the 1979 Act. Details have also been circulated to staff in disablement benefit sections who are the most likely officials to come into contact with potential claimants. So quite a lot is being done in that respect.
There have been 8,729 people who have claimed. As the noble Lord said, 70 per cent. of those have been successful. The reason for increased numbers was the considerable lead time. One hopes that the experiences of people in the 1960s and 1970s, and possibly the 1950s, will not be replicated by those who live today because the conditions are different.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for everything the Minister said. However, I am intrigued by one statement. If 70 per cent. of the total claims since this scheme started have been successful, how can it be that only 300 out of 900 claims were successful in either 1994–95 or 1995–96? That is only one-third.
There may be an explanation for that discrepancy. One explanation may be that the criteria on which the claims are judged successful have been tightened. Another may be that more claims, if not of a frivolous or some other nature, are being made which cannot be entertained. I am curious as to why, though 900 claims were made in that year, more of those claims were unsuccessful than the average since this scheme started. Perhaps the Minister can help.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Opposition Chief Whip is very alert this evening. He wonders why there is that difference; I wondered too because the difference is considerable. The answer is that many of the claims are still being assessed. One cannot ever give a clear-cut answer because we are dealing with individual people and individual claims. Sometimes they take a long time to process. I understand that a number of them are still pending. Also, 110 claims related to miners who were referred to the British Coal scheme. That may be part of the cause for the drop in successful claims. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Charges for Overseas Assistance and Public Path Orders) Regulations 1996
7.52 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships may wonder why two such crucially diverse activities—giving assistance to local authorities overseas and of having public paths in the United Kingdom—should be combined into one order. If your Lordships are so puzzled, you are in good company: so was I. The answer is quite simple.
Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations granting local authorities discretionary charging powers in relation to defined functions or activities where there is no existing power or duty to charge.
The draft order does two things. First, it introduces a new charging power for local authorities where they provide assistance to local authorities and similar bodies overseas. Secondly, it removes the restriction on the level of costs which can be recovered under another charging power; that is, the power to charge for a public path order.
The articles in the order which relate to overseas assistance enable local authorities in Great Britain, if they wish, to impose a charge for providing advice or assistance to local authorities which are overseas. At the time when the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 was passed, doubt was expressed as to whether authorities could impose charges. This order fulfils our commitment to clarify the position.
My department is now in the process of consulting the local authority associations on the minor consequential amendments which are necessary both to the guidance and to the general authorisation which enables local authorities to provide advice and assistance under the 1993 Act.
The proposed amended general authorisation will mean that, as well as being able to provide assistance within its existing financial limits, an authority will also be able to provide extra assistance if it is reimbursed for so doing. We expect that that additional power will be generally welcomed by local authorities, and that it will enable them further to help the work which they are doing with their counterparts abroad.
The second element of the draft regulations before the House relates to public path orders.
Local authorities may make orders under the Highways Act 1980 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to create, divert or close public footpaths or bridleways. Those are known as public path orders. They may arise from proposals originating from the authorities themselves or, more commonly, from applications made to authorities by residents, path users, farmers, landowners or developers.
In 1993, we introduced new regulations which enabled local authorities to recover the costs which they incur in meeting the requests from applicants for public path orders. When those regulations were being prepared, several authorities made the point to us that the £400 maximum charge for administrative costs, which we set out in the regulations in 1993, fell well short of the costs which they in fact were obliged to incur in making public path orders.
There were, though, at that time no data on actual costs. In order, therefore, to encourage authorities to reduce costs and to improve efficiency, we introduced the £400 limit. But we also undertook to review the regulations within two years. That review has now been completed. It found that, in almost all cases, the maximum charge does not cover the administrative costs of local authorities.
Our conclusion was that the best way forward was that we should not stipulate a maximum price which should be charged, but that we should require authorities to specify the likely charges in advance of the work being carried out. Article 3(3) of the order therefore amends the 1993 regulations to remove the £400 maximum which authorities may at present charge for the administrative costs which they incur in making public path orders.
We have consulted local authorities, their associations and other interested organisations on both the amending regulations and a draft circular to accompany the regulations. The circular, which will be published when the new regulations come into force, will say that authorities should draw up scales of charges, which will indicate the likely cost for unopposed orders—and those will be the majority—as well as the maximum cost which could be charged, which will be based on the scale of charges. It will also make clear that authorities will not be able to recover the costs of defending opposed orders.
These draft regulations are in line with the Government's philosophy that a person who benefits from a service which is provided by a local authority should pay for that service, rather than it be subsidised by the taxpayer. I commend the regulations to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the care the Minister has taken in explaining both parts of what he rightly described as a disparate order. I am intrigued and genuinely want to understand the regulations in regard to local authorities.
Am I to understand that at the moment British local authorities who are providing assistance to overseas local authorities are not permitted to make a charge? I imagine that the advice, assistance or consultation can range over the whole of the local authority services. Therefore the first thing I want to establish—I am sure the Minister will be helpful—is that this is a response from British local authorities to requests from their counterparts in Europe and in other parts of the world to give assistance by way of advice and so forth. If that is the case, it is sad in my view that everything has a price. I know that the Minister will say that someone has to pay. The local authority is sustained not just by the taxpayer, but by the ratepayer or the community charge payer, and the local community. But I believe that we are going down a very unhappy road if every cost that is incurred is automatically levied on those who wish for assistance. My experience of local government is now 30 years' ago. One never knows when one will want assistance from somebody else.
Has the Minister any financial statistics relating to this matter? The amount of the charge is to be at the discretion of the charging authority. In setting charges it has to have regard to the costs of providing advice or assistance. I am sure that at the ministry or perhaps in the Minister's folder there will be something to help us
252
get an idea of the size of the problem. Is the money that is recouped £10 million, £50 million, £100 million or £2 million? We cannot make this provision without monitoring it so that we know how much is involved. If the sums of money are very small, I would like the Minister and his colleagues to think again about being involved.
As regards the paths order, I understand the nature of administrative charges. But very often frivolous applications will be inhibited if it is known that a cost will be incurred. The Minister told us that the ceiling of £400 has proved to be inadequate, and therefore we have no objection to this measure. Can he tell us, statistically speaking, how many path orders were made last year or the year before? The Minister told us that this change is motivated by the evidence that £400 is too little. Can he tell the House how many representations were made and from whom, and how many times applications have been made from bodies and individuals for the path orders? Apart from that, the measure is sensible and prudent government and we approve of it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Opposition Chief Whip is concerned about local authorities helping people overseas. He wonders why that is so. It has come about mostly since the Berlin Wall came down and the huge changes which have taken place in eastern Europe. Many of the people had lived under communist rule there and they had to change. They did not know how to do so. Local authorities have gone to other countries, not at their own instigation, but at the request of other countries. They have generally tried to help people by saying to them, "Is there any way we can help?".
I do not know whether this is an accurate example or not, but there may be a local authority in, say, Bulgaria, which does not know how to deal with the problem of waste. It may say to a local authority—very often these requests come about as a result of contacts which have been made—"Can you come and tell us how this is done in England because you seem to have the matter well in hand?". Thus, we have been in a position to help these people.
When the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 was originally put through, the question arose as to whether it was possible to charge. We have altered the provision so that local authorities may charge. In order to re-emphasise what I have just said, I repeat that the articles in this order enable local authorities in Great Britain, if they so wish, to impose a charge for providing advice or assistance. The noble Lord is quite right in bemoaning the fact that everything has a price to it. But, like it or not, the fact is that everything does have a price to it nowadays. Many people may say, "Why are so many of our local authority officials going abroad helping other people when we are paying for it and they are not doing anything for us?" So there is a balance to be struck when a local authority says that it is prepared to send someone abroad for a week or so and makes a charge. There may be occasions where the local authority may wish to make a larger charge. This provision enables it to do so.

253
At the moment the United Kingdom authorities are prevented from charging. They can provide free assistance up to a financial limit. But with the new regulations local authorities will be able to offer additional advice should the overseas authorities wish to pay for it. I cannot give the noble Lord the figures for which he asked because I do not have them.
The noble Lord also asked about local authorities levying fees and charges. Where a service is provided which benefits everyone in a local area, it is right that the cost of that service should be met out of local taxes. But where a service is provided to a group which is outside the area, which is the case as regards the provision of advice to bodies overseas, or which relates to only a small group in the area, then it is right that those people should pay to receive that service. After all, the local authorities are there to serve the local people first.
The noble Lord also asked about the £400 limit and how many indications had come to us that that figure was inadequate. It was independent research undertaken by the local authorities which demonstrated that in most cases £400 was not sufficient in the normal course of events because the usual cost to local authorities was about £1,000. The fact is that the sum of £400 was considered and, as a result of research, it was found to be inadequate. Local authorities were losing out and we thought it right that where people made a request to a local authority then the local authority should have the right to charge.
No figures are held centrally on annual numbers of public path orders; they are a local responsibility. If the noble Lord asked me to guess, which I do not like doing, one might say that the figure is in the region of 2,000 but that figure is plus or minus quite a considerable margin.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and I have no objections. In fact, what he has told me about the overseas charges has put the matter in a different context because I was under the impression that the service was in answer to inquiries and after someone had written letters. The Minister has not been specific, but gave illustrations. If an overseas local authority needs guidance on how to do something better, and the experience is in the gift of a local authority over here—it may be my present local authority, which is Epping, or the local authority where I was the leader; namely, Enfield—and two or three officers are seconded for a month in order to do the job, it will mean that the local authority over here will be deprived of their services. Therefore, one must come to a satisfactory figure.
The know-how fund has been established and it was designed specifically to give assistance by this country to those countries of the Eastern bloc and others who are desperate to turn round their economic position. That must be on a different scale from the subject that we are discussing now. The Minister has satisfied me that it is quite proper for a local authority to be involved in more than giving simple advice or sending leaflets and to put
254
men and material at the disposal of another local authority in order that it can provide a better service. As far as I am concerned, a proper charge should be made.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so understanding. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.9 to 8.35 p.m.]

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
(" .—(1) It shall be the duty of—

(a) any authority or other person providing funded nursery education, and

(b) any person employed by such an authority or other person in the provision of such education,

(except where a duty is already imposed by subsection (2) of section 157 of the Education Act 1993) to have regard to the provisions of the code of practice issued under that section (practical guidance in respect of the discharge of functions under Part III of that Act).
(2) That code of practice may include practical guidance in respect of the provision of funded nursery education for children with special educational needs in circumstances where functions under Part III of the Education Act 1993 do not fall to be discharged.
(3) But unless that code of practice includes provision made by virtue of subsection (2)—

(a) the Secretary of State shall publish a document explaining how the practical guidance contained in that code applies in circumstances where functions under Part III of the Education Act 1993 do not fall to be discharged, and

(b) the duty imposed by subsection (1) includes a duty to have regard to the provisions of that document.

(4) In this section "funded nursery education" means nursery education in respect of which the Secretary of State is making (or is to make) grants under arrangements under section 1.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I address the specifics of this amendment, I reassure the House of the Government's commitment to ensuring that children with special educational needs also enjoy the same benefits of good quality nursery education. I wrote in some detail to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about this commitment by Her Majesty's Government at Committee stage. I copied that letter to the two Opposition Front Benches and others.
It is perhaps worthwhile if I explain in as brief a detail as I can what we are doing. I remind the House that the nursery education voucher scheme will not in any respect affect the current duties and responsibilities of local education authorities towards children with special educational needs. I should have said at the outset that

255
I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is not able to be here this evening. I am sorry that he is not here, but he explained these matters to me and my colleagues.
At Committee stage I made a commitment that I would bring forward an amendment to the Bill on Report which would build on the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, had tabled to place a duty on all voucher redeeming providers, not already covered by the duty in Section 157 of the 1993 Act, to have regard to the special educational needs code of practice. I move this amendment in fulfilment of that commitment. I explained during Committee that it was important not to forget that the code of practice was written with local education authorities and maintained schools, not playgroups and private nursery schools, in mind. The code provides advice and guidance for schools and LEAs to help them make effective decisions in the context of the duties placed on them by Part III of the Education Act 1993. This reflects the fact that Section 157 is limited to the exercise of functions under Part III. Providers in the private and voluntary sectors do not have any duties under Part III of the 1993 Act, so one cannot simply place on them a duty to have regard to the code.
In addition to the duty on all providers redeeming nursery vouchers to have regard to the code, the government amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, pending an expansion of the code itself to cover providers in the private and voluntary sectors, to publish a document which will provide practical guidance to help those providers apply the key principles of the code which are of equal relevance to them. I must stress that this complementary guidance will be just that—complementary. It will not dilute the standing of the code itself; it will merely make it more accessible to providers outside the maintained sector. I can assure the House that the code will remain the point of reference. We will shortly be consulting on the detailed content of this guidance. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, proposed this amendment at Committee stage. As I expect the whole House is now aware, he was taken to hospital this afternoon with what we hope is no more than a minor indisposition. The noble Lord wrote to me en route and said that he wished to express his gratitude to the Minister and all who had taken part in the short debate on his amendment at Committee stage. He wished to thank us, especially the Minister, for this happy outcome, which also has the blessing of the Special Education Consortium. He believes that we all recognise that, as regards this issue, common sense has prevailed. He wished that to be conveyed to your Lordships' House. I can add only, in the words of the American satirist, "Them's me sentiments, too!".
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. It is good that the Government have felt able to act in respect of this important matter.
256
The amendment is widely welcomed outside the House, and I congratulate the Government on having come a long way towards what was requested.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too, requested that the code of practice should be extended to cover other areas, and therefore I, too, am pleased that the Government have produced the amendment.
A few concerns remain, however, and perhaps I may voice them. They have been brought to my attention by the Special Education Consortium. It is concerned that other guidance, in particular guidance on admissions in Circular Nos. 693 and 694, will not apply to settings not in the maintained sector. It will therefore be possible for providers of nursery education which are not in the maintained sector to discriminate against four year-olds with special educational needs in their admissions criteria and in the way in which they operate. The SEC believes that that will undermine the principle of the application of the code to providers of nursery education and, indeed, the Government's intention in extending the guidance in the code to all providers. Therefore, the consortium would welcome some indication of the Government's intention to include in the additional documents which will support the code guidance indicating that admissions criteria which discriminate against four year-olds who have or may have special educational needs will be unacceptable.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has gone into hospital. I had heard that he had been unwell but I had not realised that he was in hospital. On behalf of the whole House, I wish him the speediest recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: Having said that, I am hoping that early next week my wife will be going into hospital in happier circumstances and that some consideration will be given to me, or perhaps to my noble friend Lady Miller, if I have to hand over the brief at short notice.
I am grateful for the warm welcome for the amendments and for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the Special Education Consortium came to see me to discuss matters. That often makes for a productive process in the course of legislation going through either House, in particular through this House.
Perhaps I may deal with the particular concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. The two circulars, Nos. 693 and 694, which were brought to our attention by the SEC set out the factors which the admissions authorities should take into account in formulating admissions policies. They state that having a special educational need should not give a child a lower priority, all other things being equal. I can add only that that will be covered in complementary guidance, and I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
ADMISSION OF CHILDREN TO NURSERY EDUCATION AT AIDED AND SPECIAL AGREEMENT SCHOOLS
(" . Where nursery education is, or is to be, provided under this Act at an aided or special agreement school it shall not be lawful for a local education authority to impose or seek to impose any conditions or requirements on the governing body of the school as to the arrangements for the admission of children to receive nursery education at the school.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, we in your Lordships' House are aware of the happy event to which the Minister has referred. I wish to offer him and his wife my congratulations and hope that all goes well for them in the week to come.
The amendment arises from the fact that admissions criteria to aided and special agreement schools are set by the governing body. However, it is not the case in law that those admissions criteria apply to children receiving nursery education in the school. Relationships between aided schools and local authorities vary. At times they are excellent. Indeed, in the authority in which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has served, there are excellent relationships. However, sometimes they fall a little short of excellence and difficulties arise.
Some aided schools have found that when they established a nursery unit and looked for the funding for it the local education authority insisted that admission to the nursery school should be in accordance with the LEA's preferred criteria and not in accordance with the criteria which the governing body was willing to accept. That creates a great difficulty, in particular if a school is over-subscribed. It might mean that a number of children in the nursery class will be unable to transfer to the reception class. If the criteria were different they would fit the criteria for the nursery class but not for the aided school. The governors would then find themselves under pressure to change their criteria in order to be able to accept in their school children who have been in nursery education. We do not want that situation to arise and the amendment seeks to draw attention to the matter. We ask the Minister to recognise the difficulties which exist. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we support the principle of recognising the role and autonomy of governors of aided schools. However, we are a little unhappy about the wording of the amendment. On many occasions it is possible to seek to reach agreement in the interests of all concerned. I think in particular of a situation which arose in the area for which I am a county councillor. A Catholic voluntary-aided primary school happened to be in the best position to have a nursery unit development but there was agreement all round that on the basis of need the first places ought to be given to the children from the community served by the school and by the adjacent county-maintained school. There was a separation and a distinction between the admission arrangements for the nursery unit and those for both primary schools. Of
258
course, it can work the other way round because it might be that the only accommodation is in the non-voluntary-aided school.
I understand that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division tonight. I hope that it will be possible to put forward some wording which will recognise the importance of achieving a consensus while recognising the legal status of the decisions of governors of aided schools with regard to admissions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his congratulations on doing my bit towards yet further over-populating this planet. I hope that all goes well early next week in more than one way.
Perhaps I may briefly explain why I believe the amendment is unnecessary. The right reverend Prelate will know far better than I that decisions about admission arrangements for maintained schools rest with the admissions authorities. For most county or voluntary-controlled schools, that is the maintaining LEA. We must be careful about the distinction between voluntary-controlled and voluntary-aided schools. It was an interesting lesson in history to discover the difference between the various types of school. For voluntary-aided and special agreement schools, that is usually by virtue of articles of government; that is, the school's governing body. A voluntary-aided or special agreement school can therefore determine its own admissions arrangements. If the right reverend Prelate has specific examples of problems, I should be more than happy to know of them.
However, these schools are required, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made clear, to consult the maintaining LEA should they propose to make changes to their publicised admission arrangements and, although it is important that the maintaining LEA has an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes—again, this is the point that the noble Baroness was making—the decisions in the end rest with the school's governing body. I hope, therefore, that the right reverend Prelate would feel his amendment is not necessary. Of course, if he wishes to have further discussions with my officials before another stage, I would be more than happy for that to take place.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am grateful, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and I entirely accept the point she made. This amendment sought merely to ensure that admissions criteria should not be imposed on a governing body, but to seek consensus or agreement is of course entirely right in the circumstances that she outlined.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he is willing to engage in further consultation on this matter, and it may be that we will wish to bring something back in the light of those consultations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
PURPOSE OF GRANTS
(" .—(1) No arrangements may be made for or in connection with grants made under sections 1, 2 or 3 above, in respect of nursery education provided during a financial year, in respect of which—

(a) vouchers are to be, or have been, issued to parents or guardians for the purpose of claiming such education for their children; or

(b) any method of funding grants made under this Act is to be, or has been, employed under which calculations of grants are made wholly or partly by reference to the presentation of vouchers by parents or others for the purpose of claiming nursery education.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "voucher" means a document issued on application to a parent or guardian and designated by or on behalf of the Secretary of State as having a value equivalent to a specified sum, whose acceptance (after presentation by that parent or guardian) by or on behalf of a person to whom section 1(4) applies, enables a child of that parent or guardian to receive nursery education within the meaning of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, part of the difficulty in dealing with the debate on this Bill has been that many of the principal objections to the voucher scheme which the Government propose to introduce lie outside the Bill altogether. The legislation presents virtually skeletal powers which can be used to make grants, and that in itself is unexceptionable. The grants may go to the maintained sector, to the private sector or to the voluntary sector, and that is well and good.
The main feature which gives rise to concern for many of us is the creation of the voucher system itself, which will produce enormous financial upheavals within the existing nursery educational system, which is doing quite well as it is. Local authorities will have deductions in advance from their levels of revenue support grant in order to provide the major part of the funding for the scheme, and this makes rational planning virtually a gamble. It is disruptive, it is divisive and, to use the Minister's favourite word, it is unnecessary. We do not have to do it.
The introduction of vouchers is not being accompanied by any proper planning for the filling of gaps in provision nor for the adequate preparation through capital expenditure and training of staff which would ensure that the kind of high levels we are looking for in quality were maintained. The looseness of the inspection regime and the ease with which new providers can get into the system underline the impression that expansion is being sought with insufficient regard for the quality and integrity of the provision.
It is ironical that the pilot schemes are already demonstrating that there is very little expansion outside the maintained sector. It is rather like the parallel I thought of to the student loans legislation, where, for ages, nobody came forward to provide the service and, if I am not totally wrong, the Government had considerable difficulty in persuading anyone to come forward. Certainly, there was no great difficulty in deciding between the competitors. Surely, the most effective way to develop nursery provision would be to
260
ask local education authorities to work in partnership with other sectors, deploying such resources as are available.
We put forward this amendment to hear what the Minister says, and the degree to which the Government seek to resist this amendment will give us some idea of the extent to which the real purpose beneath this Bill is not so much educational as political. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise briefly at this time of night simply to add support from these Benches to the amendment and to look forward with at least equal interest for the same reasons to the Minister's reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris, down the tracks of the student loans legislation. I cannot remember whether it has received Royal Assent yet, but the student loans legislation has completed all stages in both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, alleged that the legislation is mere skeletal legislation. That is quite a serious allegation. I have to say that we did have considerable discussions with my noble friend Lord Alexander and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, before which my honourable friend Mr. Squire appeared. We have made a number of amendments in another place and a further amendment here. They are perfectly satisfied that this is an appropriate use of the powers. Therefore, I believe it is unfair, if I may put it at that, to say that it is a mere skeleton.
In relation to the amendment itself I feel that it would be technically wrong for me to say it was a wrecking amendment, but it certainly seeks to destroy the very policy which the Bill, as we set out at Second Reading, is designed to put into place; that is the nursery education voucher scheme. It is designed to ensure, if I read the amendment correctly, that that could never be implemented. That would be a direct blow against the policy of parental choice which we have pursued.
We believe that all parents should have the opportunity to gain access to an element of state funded education for their four year-old child. But different parents and children have different needs and different desires. We do not believe that one uniform type of provision should be imposed on all children and all parents. We believe that parents should have the right to choose the type of provision which is right for their child.
That is exactly what the voucher scheme will enable parents to do. It will ensure that funding, including the substantial amount of new money—some £400 million over three years—which Her Majesty's Government are providing for the purpose will flow to those institutions which are providing what parents want. Parents will be able to choose between good quality provision in the state, private or voluntary sectors—handing over their vouchers for the place they choose.
I believe that this will also have the effect of improving the quality of provision available. Providers who do not meet parents' needs will not receive grant.

261
This will put all providers on their mettle and encourage them to ensure that what they offer is the best provision within their power.
We have never claimed that new places will be created overnight, but I have to say that from the evaluation that is already ongoing in the phase 1 areas there are already encouraging signs. Twenty-seven per cent. of playgroups in phase 1 have increased the number of sessions they offer, and the survey indicates some new places are being created in phase 1. There are new LEA places, too.
I would therefore reject the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that there is merely some political motive behind what we are doing; what we are trying to do is to increase parental choice, and what this amendment would do is deny them just that. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him one question. Is it not the fact that Norfolk LEA were given approximately £1 million to begin a building programme of 25 to 30 new nursery units? They built nine of these before 15th April 1996, which was the date of the start of the pilot scheme. We are not sure how many more have now been completed. We would be very interested to hear if the Minister could add anything to that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to correct something I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady David, when I said that I thought it was that they had not been given new capital. They were given a small amount of new capital. This was because we are still in the early days of the PFI initiative. It was quite right, therefore, that some new capital should be made available. Off the tip of my tongue I cannot remember exactly what new provision that has allowed them to make, but I believe it was quite right, in the phase 1 areas, to do just that. I certainly have great faith in the PFI initiative and what it might offer in the future. However, I will write in greater detail to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I offer my apologies for misleading her and possibly the House at an earlier stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) An early years strategy shall be prepared annually by each local authority to whom a grant is made under section 1 or in whose area a person to whom a grant is made under section 1 has his premises.
(2) The local authority in preparing such an early years strategy shall make arrangements for consulting residents in its area and any organisations representing the interests of parents within its boundaries.
(3) In carrying out such a strategy each local authority shall—

(a) consult any relevant body within its area for the purpose of establishing where such provision does not exist, and

(b) take such steps as may be practicable within the resources available to it and to other providers to seek to secure provision for all eligible children as specified in section 1(2) within its area.

(4) In subsection (3), "relevant body" means—

(a) every health authority the whole or part of whose area lies within the area of the local authority;

(b) every National Health Service trust which manages a hospital, establishment or facility in the authority's area;

(c) any organisation which represents schools in the authority's area which are grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools;

(d) the proprietors of every such school providing primary education in the authority's area which is not so represented under paragraph (c) above;

(e) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who use or are likely to use services as specified under subsection (1) above;

(f) any other persons to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section 1; and

(g) such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct.

(5) In drawing up such a strategy, each local authority to which this section applies shall have regard to—

(a) the local authority's children's services plan, as specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Children's Act 1989; and

(b) the local authority's review of daycare, childminding and out of school provision as specified by section 19 of the Children Act 1989.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the issue of strategic planning and early years services. There is a view from certain elements of the Government that there is absolutely no need to intervene; that the market place will take care of meeting the needs; that all will be well; that no one will fall through the net; and that there is no need to plan.
In the context of looking at the issue of planning to ensure that all children whose parents wish it do have access to nursery provision, the Government's apparent belief that, beyond the pilot stage authorities, the Private Finance Initiative will make up the capital necessary to expand and meet demand is a cause of some concern. We shall read the Hansard report very carefully to see exactly what the Minister said in that respect.
However, it is certainly the case that there is a need for planning; and, indeed, that has been demonstrated by all the organisations in the pilot schemes in the four areas involved. It is quite obviously the case that, however much the Government may refer to the vouchers in PR terms as giving all four year-olds whose parents wish it access to nursery education, the voucher offers them an entitlement, not a guarantee of a place.
The amendment would be the mechanism for providing such an opportunity. It would impose a new duty on local authorities to produce an early years strategy for all providers of voucher funded nursery education. That would include consultation with all the relevant bodies, as well as with residents of the LEA and organisations representing the interests of parents,

263
and taking such steps as may be practicable to ensure that provision exists for all children within the boundaries.
The amendment contains a much needed reference to the importance of consultation with users of nursery education services and the institutions involved. That would help to ensure that the needs of children with special educational needs are met. There are many children in need who do not come specifically within the legal definition of special educational needs and who do not benefit from being covered by the code of practice. I have in mind children on the at-risk register, those with mild emotional and behavioural difficulties and those from homeless families and asylum-seeking families.
It is also equally vital to ensure that there will be sufficient provision in rural areas where there is a preponderance of families living in poverty and in areas where there are concentrations of children from ethnic minority families where English is the second language. All those situations can be met by the parties coming together and seeking to produce development plans for the area in order to identify any factors which may be inhibiting progress towards that stated goal of the Government; namely, ensuring that all children have access to provision rather than merely access to a voucher which gives them an entitlement if they can find a provision. It is an extremely important issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to support the underlying principles of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe I made quite clear earlier, we do not believe it is right that central government, or for that matter local government, should make the various choices that, quite obviously, parents should make. The gentleman in Whitehall, as someone once said,—or, for that matter, the LEA—does not always necessarily know what is best. We have never said that the choice to which we are looking should immediately lead to automatic entitlement. We look to a growth of provision over time. We want a diversity of provision to build up in response to the needs of parents.
However, having said that, nothing in the Bill prevents a local authority putting together an early years strategy for expansion of nursery education. None of this prevents local authorities working closely with the private and voluntary sectors. Any local education authority can put together a development plan, or a strategy, for a particular element of its provision and, in doing so, can consult interested parties.
Of course social services departments and local education authorities have a duty under Section 19 of the Children Act 1989 jointly to conduct and publish a report on a review of day-care provision for children under the age of eight in their area, at least every three years. Such reviews cover services that they run themselves and those in the private and voluntary sectors. Although the legislation as such does not require the review of nursery or primary education facilities, the social services department and the LEA will need to inform themselves about the quantity and availability of such services. Let us be clear that nothing
264
in the voucher scheme in any way affects local authorities duties and responsibilities under the Children Act 1989.
With that background, I hope that there will be some agreement—indeed, we seek that from the noble Baroness—that there is already legislation ensuring that the provision within an area is being looked at, and that there is nothing to prevent an LEA putting together a development plan of any description to inform its own actions and to help parents understand its plans more clearly.
There is no need to require LEAs to draw up a strategy under the provisions of this Bill. In summary, we believe that the manner of the expansion of nursery education should be determined by parental choice, not by LEAs.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it may be of interest to the Minister to know that it was my noble friend the late Lord Jay who said that the gentlemen in Whitehall sometimes do know best. I believe that the Minister was misquoting him.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was aware that it was the late Lord Jay who made that remark. I was just transferring it into a form which I believe is certainly more acceptable to most of us; namely, that the gentleman in Whitehall does not necessarily always know best.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if a local authority did not undertake the kind of consultation that is included in the amendment, would the Government encourage a local authority to do that in any way in view of the undoubted merit of the scope of the amendment, which covers a wide range of people like, for example, members of health authorities, and so on? In other words, would the Government remain completely neutral on the matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are getting somewhat out of order at Report stage. I tried to remind the House—and I advise the noble Lord to read what I said—that there are certain duties on a social services department and on an LEA under the Children Act. They have a duty there, but we do not think it necessary to extend it in the way suggested by the amendment. We believe that it is better to leave the matter to LEAs to do so if they so wish.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, with great respect, that does not answer my question. In those circumstances, would the Government do anything about it or would they remain neutral?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with respect, that does answer the question. We believe that this is a matter for the LEAs but, as I said, there are certain things that they have a duty to do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am often reminded, as a Member of your Lordships' House, that different political gatherings bring together different

265
experiences of life. I have talked to Conservative colleagues, independent colleagues, Liberal Democrat colleagues and Labour colleagues in different parts of the country. The idea of local education authorities, together with voluntary-aided, voluntary-controlled, special-agreement schools, trying to increase the level of provision of nursery education for pre-school children in order to force on parents who do not wish to exercise the choice that provision and give them no alternative is something which is quite remote from the reality of life. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand what is the combined experience of Members of Her Majesty's Government that leads them to view nursery education in that way.
Secondly, there may be a group of parents out there, as yet undiscovered, who do not wish to have nursery education provided by the local education authority. But in that case, as I said on an earlier occasion in our debates in Committee and today on Report, there is absolutely nothing to stop the Government coming up with a scheme which offers parental choice to parents who wish to take a voucher from the Government in order to purchase something else.
But it is not the reality of life in the average community in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland that parents actually want to turn down something which is in danger of being offered to excess. In the next-steps document the Government aim to offer to all parents who want it for their children nursery education at the age of four. If that aim is to be met, 150,000 new places will have to be found.
In rural communities and in some of the more impoverished, difficult communities, it is only by co-operation and bringing together the community that it is possible to have development plans. Frankly, it is only when the Government are able to look at a collection of such development plans that they will be able to measure whether what they are prepared to say is their aim in election literature is actually being delivered in the country.
It is late and I shall not seek to press this matter to a Division at this stage. But it is a fundamental criticism of the Government's approach underpinning the whole of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Power to borrow]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert ("as does not fall within the meaning of the "core assets" of the school as prescribed by regulations made under section (Core assets) of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. At this stage we move from consideration of the nursery education provisions of the Bill to the provisions relating to grant-maintained schools.
We dealt with the question of core assets very briefly in Committee. I return to it today, and the purpose of the amendment is to try to tease out a little more from the Government about exactly what they propose and to what extent they propose to define the term "core assets".
Since the Committee stage, the Minister has very kindly written to me a very helpful letter with more information on the Government's views. Towards the conclusion of his letter, he says that he very much shares my concern about the importance of protecting publicly-funded assets. I entirely accept that statement. The difference between us is as to how we see the best way to protect them. It is my view and the view of the supporters of the amendment that they are best protected through regulation so that the position is clearly stated and defined. The matter is then clear to the schools, which will want to know what is the position when they first come to consider it, and it will be known also to the funding agencies which will have to consider the applications.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us in a few moments that his view is that the matter is best left to the administrative discretion of the funding agencies and that that should be done on a case-by-case basis, perhaps a basis of merit. That is the difference of view between us. I suspect that it is for those reasons that the Minister will not be able to accept the amendment. If that is the case, it is all the more important that we press for more details of what is to be in the remit letter. In his letter to me the Minister said:
"This guidance will take the form of a remit letter and it will be based on the consultation paper which we published last October".
But he then went on to say:
"It will also reflect commitments we have made during the passage of the Bill".
I hope I may press the Minister to be a little more specific when he replies about exactly which commitments he has in mind that should be included in the remit letter. For instance, he went on to say in his letter to me that when the funding agency has to make decisions about what assets schools should be able to use as collateral it would have,
"two simple rules of thumb:
A. is the asset essential to allow the school to meet statutory requirements?
B. is the asset essential to its functioning in other respects?
In practice, this means that for school land, there will be a reasonably objective way of determining what is core; schools will not be able to mortgage playing fields that they need to comply with the School Premises Regulations.
For school buildings, the starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools will be that all buildings are core assets. But it will be open to schools to argue to the Agency, in submitting their loan applications, that particular buildings are not essential to a school's functioning—that the main business of the school could be carried on without them—and that they should therefore be mortgaged".
It would be useful to know whether the Minister intends that that is one of the commitments that will be continued and will be put in the remit letter in those terms.
The purpose of the amendment and of the debate tonight is to try to tease out a little more understanding of what is meant by core assets and to understand a little better what is in the remit letter and particularly to press again for an assurance that there will be further consultation with interested bodies on the contents of the remit letter before it is published. I realise that it will be published and of course they will see it then. I know

267
that local authorities and others were consulted in the original consultation paper. They stated in response to that consultation paper:
"It will also be necessary to have a much clearer definition of core assets if schools and FAS are to be able to form a reasonable idea of what is allowable. This might, for example, include specific reference to whatever guidance the Department issues on teaching areas and particular subject requirements in lieu of statutory minimum area requirements following the proposed revision of the School Premises Regulations. Even so, we are not confident how well placed FAS would be to reach judgement from a distance about what is core and what is surplus. A dispassionate and fair assessment will be important".
That is what was said in response to the consultation paper. The final sentence of that response remains central to this issue. If the FAS has no detailed guidance to follow, it will be even more difficult to ensure that it has reached the right decision. Better safeguards need to be put in place. We believe those should be on the face of the Bill; the Minister does not, but I hope he will be more specific about what exactly he intends to include in the remit letter. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we support this amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the wonderful brevity of her speech. That is something that I pass on as guidelines to her noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I also offer my thanks—I do not know whether it is thanks or what it is—or perhaps congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that he has managed to discuss this amendment at something nearer to prime time, even if it is not prime time, than we did at the previous stage of this Bill. I am glad that he received the copy of my letter, which I think I copied to the noble Lord, Lord Moms of Castle Morris. I hope that that letter was of some use.
We in the Government are fully committed to ensuring that essential school assets are protected. It is equally clear that the noble Lord, Lord Tope—and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in her admirable speech—are equally committed to that aim. For that we are grateful. I think where we differ from one another is in how that common aim should be achieved. As I said at Committee stage and in that subsequent letter to the noble Lord, I am not convinced that his suggestion to put every detail in regulations is the right way of going about things.
Under Clause 6 governors may only offer assets as security if they have first obtained the written consent of the Secretary of State. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State delegates this consent-giving function to the Funding Agency for Schools, as provided for in paragraph 10 of Schedule 3, she will set out in the remit letter referred to how she expects the borrowing regime to be operated. Under that guidance schools will not normally be allowed to offer as collateral—I hope that this will help the noble Lord—assets needed to allow the school to meet statutory requirements and assets essential to a school's functioning in other respects. In practical terms, this
268
means that for school land, schools will not be able to mortgage playing fields that they need to comply with the School Premises Regulations 1996.
For school buildings, the starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools will be that all buildings are core assets. But it will be open to schools to argue to the agency, in submitting their loan applications, that particular buildings are not essential to a school's functioning and that they should therefore be mortgaged.
There is nothing unusual in that approach. There are parallels to Clause 6 where administrative safeguards have been effectively applied without recourse to regulations.
Under Sections 19(4)(c) and 19(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 further education corporations may borrow and charge their land or other property with the consent of the Further Education Funding Council. The funding council's safeguards are not set out in the statute.
Another parallel is provided in the case of the Education Assets Board. Under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 to the Education Reform Act 1988—I am sure that all noble Lords remember it intimately—the board may borrow money subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Once again, the safeguards are administrative.
We intend rather that the funding agency should look at applications for consent on a case by case basis. The onus will be on schools to satisfy the agency that particular assets are not likely to be essential to the school's functioning. In deciding whether particular assets should be deemed "core" or "non-core", the agency will want to take into account a variety of complex factors, including future projections of demand and the adequacy of the premises for the purposes of the national curriculum.
These kind of decisions are best left to administrative discretion in the light of very specific local circumstances.
I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord and that he will not think it necessary to press his amendment on this occasion, as I have dealt with his concerns. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether he is willing to consult with interested bodies on the contents of the remit letter and its status before it is published. Perhaps he will deal with that point.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we consulted widely with local authority associations last year. I suspect that whether it is necessary to consult further is another matter. I should not wish to give an assurance to the noble Lord that we would do so. There is a considerable amount of consultation, if I may so put it, flying around at present. I have never been in a department that has consulted more than my current department. Consultation was not indulged in to a great extent by some of my previous departments.

269
However, there has to be a limit to consultation. All I can say is that I shall consider the matter. I can assure the noble Lord that those bodies were consulted fully last year.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am aware that the interested bodies were consulted last year on the consultation paper. I quoted their response at some length in order to have it on the record. I congratulate the Minister on being in a department which is apparently blazing a trail on consultation. Not all of us had noted that attribute of the department. Nevertheless, it is one that we welcome. Perhaps I may remind him that in his letter to me he stated that,
"[The remit letter] will also reflect commitments we have made during the passage of the Bill".
In other words, the Minister stated that the remit letter will contain matters that were not in the consultation paper because the Bill had not started its course there. I am sure that he recognises the crucial importance of the remit letter. As the proposals are to be extended from those upon which there was consultation, it might be appropriate not to engage in a lengthy consultation process but at least to give interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposals before they are published and therefore presumably cast in stone.
As to the best way of protecting the public assets, we have to agree to disagree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Citation, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Nursery education grants: inspections etc.]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 33, after ("education") insert ("with particular reference to—

(i) qualifications and training of staff;

(ii) staff-child ratios; and

(iii) space regulations and guidance").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to develop a better and more robust inspection scheme which makes specific reference to key indicators of quality in provision. My noble friend Lord Morris moved the amendment at Committee stage and withdrew it with the promise that, like General MacArthur in the Pacific, he would return. I am afraid that General MacArthur has not returned but your Lordships have an infantryman instead.
The amendment focuses on the quality indicators of staff qualifications, staff/child ratios and space regulations. It does no more than require, as one of his
270
functions, the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about those important matters. It is the most modest of amendments.
In his response to the arguments put at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated:
"We believe that it is unnecessary to prescribe the scope of the chief inspector's duty to report to the Secretary of State, or the scope of the inspections, in any greater detail than that already provided for in the Bill".—[Official Report, 17/6/96; col. 148.]
The noble Lord went on to claim that:
"The Bill provides for that in some detail and in a manner very similar to other bits of legislation which have been before the House relating to inspectors".
In that case, how is it that in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, Section 2(1)(c), one of the functions of the chief inspector is to keep the Secretary of State informed about:
"whether the financial resources made available to those schools are managed efficiently"?
It is clear that issues of efficiency are covered in other relevant and comparable legislation. Issues of efficiency relate clearly to the thrust of the amendment. In management terms, the qualifications and training of staff, staff/child ratios and the adherence to space regulations and guidance are not only indicators of the quality of education per se but, taken together, they balance out and demonstrate how efficiently the nursery setting is operating. These are key inputs into the system, and reporting on them, together with a requirement to keep the Secretary of State informed about quality and standards, provides a good indication of value for money and efficiency.
Let me describe another example and cite the Overview Report of the Inspection of Local Authority Day Centres for Children under Eight (1995), issued by the Social Services Inspectorate for the Department of Health. It provides a list of 14 standards against which provision may be judged. Standard 9 relates to physical environment and standards 11 and 12 respectively relate to staff competence and training. Here is further and ample evidence, derived from a different source, that inspection of those aspects is a prime need for the service. Interestingly, and further strengthening the argument for reporting in a summary form on the issues, the social services inspectors commented comprehensively in the report on training and qualifications. They stated:
"Inspectors were surprised that the use of NVQ training was not well developed despite the standards for Level 2 and 3 of the Childcare and Education NVQ being specifically developed for staff in day centres for under eights".
At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Morris argued for the clear identification of the focus for the chief inspector, citing relevant research studies. In particular, in reference to the importance of qualifications, he quoted from the Audit Commission's report Counting to Five by referring to its conclusions on the relationship between high quality settings and the feature of staff trained specifically for working with young children.
Earlier this evening, on Amendment No. 8 we debated fully the merits of lowering the staff/pupil ratios. It is, I believe, right that the Secretary of State should be

271
informed of changes made in that area. The benefits of an inspection regime which aims to report and keep the Secretary of State informed as to the way that the scheme is operating is far from being a radical suggestion. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in addition to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the amendment also has to do with recording and measuring what happens in nursery education if or when the nursery voucher scheme is introduced. The amendment directs the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about, inter alia, the qualifications and training of staff, child/staff ratios and space/child ratios in provider organisations.
We have argued in this Chamber at length on two occasions about all these matters. There are real doubts as to what effect the Bill will have in these respects. There are doubts as to whether providers will be able to fund improving qualifications for their staff; as to whether or not the competitive situation will result in worsening staff/pupil ratios; and as to the likelihood or not of competition for pupils and for the funding they bring with them leading to a tendency to over-crowd classrooms.
Argument in this House and outside is all very well. But one of the points of this amendment is that the inspector should include in his reports data on these important matters so that all of us, and in particular the Government, may have the data available as a basis for rational decision-making and as a means of checking that the policies are working well.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, quoted the remarks of General MacArthur, saying that he would return. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, did not have to return. Sadly, I do have to return on these occasions.
As I believe I have explained on other occasions, it is unnecessary to prescribe the precise scope of the chief inspector's duty to report to the Secretary of State, or the scope of inspections, in any greater detail than the Bill already does. Again, I refer the noble Lord to my earlier remarks about the 1992 Act and the occasional need to keep a degree of consistency, which his noble friend does not always like.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, relating to the inspection, sets out the scope of the chief inspector's report. It is very broadly drafted. In the light of that, the chief inspector has developed a framework of inspection which incorporates all these issues in assessing whether the SCAA desirable learning outcomes are likely to be achieved. The provision for the inspector and chief inspector to consider the quality and standards of funded nursery education embraces the standard and suitability of teaching alongside other aspects of quality. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that, even if like General MacArthur he wished to return to these matters, on this occasion his amendment is not necessary.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not feel able to indicate that at least he would expect the chief inspector to include in his report the sort of information that is outlined in this amendment. I understand that the Minister might not want that on the face of the Bill. However, this sort of general information is a way of objectively monitoring the progress of nursery education in the years to come. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not feel moved at least to say so in reply to my amendment.
Nevertheless, I do not wish to pursue a battle at this stage, even though I am a member of the infantry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("with others") and insert ("with another member or other members of the inspectorate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24. I hope that that will lead to a slight shortening of our time in the House.
Both amendments speak to the quality and impartiality of the inspection process. Amendment No. 23 would prevent the chief inspector delegating his powers to other organisations. It is in response to government suggestions that a number of umbrella organisations, as they are called, might be suitable as contracted inspectors. One suggestion is that the Pre-School Learning Alliance would be a suitable body. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the work of the PLA, but I do not believe that it would be the best body to ensure an independent, professional and disinterested group of inspectors.
All providers should be inspected under the same rules, against equitable criteria. Some progress towards that has been made during the consultation period of the DfEE's quality assurance procedures. That should not be undermined by the chief inspector being given powers to delegate responsibility to any organisation he chooses. Our amendment would prevent a patchwork of organisations emerging and would keep accountability firmly within the realms of Ofsted.
Amendment No. 24 would ensure that all inspectors have experience of teaching the age group for which nursery education is provided. It may be argued that such a specific requirement as the amendment demands is not put on registered inspectors under the 1992 Act. The 1992 Act specifies the non-teaching experience of lay-inspectors, and by implication all other registered inspectors must have teaching experience. The judgments of inspection teams under the framework are required to be corporate and therefore always include the views of an inspector with teaching experience. However, under this scheme, the arrangements are that a single inspector will be making the judgments. How much more informed and appropriate those judgments would be if the inspectors had experience of teaching four year-old children. We note that the credibility, even of Ofsted inspectors, can be undermined if inspectors

273
have no experience of the relevant age group. We maintain that the best inspections do include a real understanding of the process being inspected.
I would remind the Minister that earlier today he said that inspectors would monitor language skills and that those providers who fell short in satisfying the outcomes in the matter of language skills would be criticised. Yet language teaching is a subtle skill best appreciated by those who have practised it.
Therefore we should take account of these considerations and ensure that inspectors have experience of teaching the particular age group that we are concerned with.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 23 and in support of Amendment No. 24. This amendment does not prevent the chief inspector from delegation within the inspectorate, and so does allow for arrangements to be made with another member or members of the inspectorate. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, it is important that there is a consistency of standards and that the quality of experience is such as to give everyone confidence in the process.
I did not think, even at this hour, that I would be standing at the Dispatch Box referring to comments made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in a rather defensive approach to criticism, and that I would be praying in aid the chief inspector, Mr. Woodhead. But at a conference earlier this year the chief inspector said he was not complacent regarding the consistency of inspectors' judgments. He hoped that safeguards would be introduced to redress some of the problems associated with inconsistency of human judgments. This is particularly important in the circumstances of the proposed inspections of the nursery providers. That is not meant to cast aspersions, as the interpretation from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, appeared to imply in an earlier debate. It is extremely important that we establish criteria that will lead to common judgments, as the chief inspector said, and that there should be increased monitoring and training of inspectors and additional monitoring of the practice of lead inspectors.
This is a fraught area. Many people have learnt many skills in the nurturing and education of young children. Often those skills have been developed to a high level, but have never been tested in terms of any formal judgment in relation to the ability of individuals to demonstrate that they have acquired a degree of professional expertise. Our query is not whether those skills exist—they undoubtedly do; we question the assumption that they always exist and that there is no need to come up with imaginative ways of validating prior learning experience.
We agree that there are many people involved in the educational process; we agree that they could be offered opportunities to test that knowledge and skill. But if at the end of the day those involved—the parents and the
274
teaching and non-teaching staff—are to have confidence, we must ensure that the quality of those given the task of inspection is accepted by all concerned.
Baroness David: My Lords, I put my name to Amendment No. 24 and I support it. I should like to hear from the Minister a little more about the experience that the new inspectors will have.
I was surprised and shocked when I met somebody at the station about three weeks ago who had been a deputy chief education officer of Cambridgeshire. He is now a consultant, of course, like so many others. I asked him what he was doing in Cambridge that day. He said, "I am going to train some new inspectors for the nursery Bill". I replied that I was not too happy about the Bill. He said, "I am pleased. We are going to make a lot of money out of it".
I should like to know who the people are who are being trained. Are they teachers with experience of teaching nursery children? How many new ones will be appointed to supply the need? I hope that the Minister can give us more information about who and what the inspectors are, what their experience has been and how the system will work.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can provide a degree of reassurance to all three noble Baronesses on Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for grouping the amendments together and thereby assisting the process of this evening's debate.
In relation to Amendment No. 23, inspecting provision in the private and voluntary sectors will involve considerable organisation. That is a purely administrative task; no educational judgments are involved. The Bill currently allows the chief inspector to delegate the organisation of inspections if he considers that to be appropriate. The intention is that an agent or agents will arrange for other organisations to act as inspection contractors. The inspection contractors will take responsibility for scheduling groups of inspections in a specific area, including the letting of contracts with individual registered nursery education inspectors.
I must emphasise that these are purely administrative functions which have no link with judgments about educational quality. Those judgments will be made by registered nursery education inspectors alone. I can see no reason why the administrative functions cannot be carried out effectively by others, regardless of whether they are members of the inspectorate. I hope that that deals with the concern expressed in relation to the Pre-School Learning Alliance. Ofsted has experience of running the system of inspecting maintained schools. It will draw on that experience to monitor the work of the agent and inspection contractors. Against that background, Amendment No. 23 adds nothing to what Ofsted is already doing or has planned.
Turning to Amendment No. 24, inspecting provision in the private and voluntary sectors must be undertaken by registered nursery education inspectors. That will be a new group of people who will be recruited, trained, assessed and registered by Ofsted.

275
We spoke earlier of 4,000 possible new inspectors. However, I made it clear that that figure was based on the idea that one inspector was doing no more than one inspection each term. The figure may be much lower if they could do more inspections than that. Ofsted is already preparing for the inspections in Phases 1 and 2.
I should like to say just a little about the experience of training on which the noble Baroness, Lady David, pressed me regarding the inspectors. They will need to possess a recognised qualification with a significant element of early years education. They must also have recent and relevant experience of nursery education, such as teaching four year-olds, managing nursery education provision for four year-olds and inspecting or advisory work. If the references taken up are fully supportive, they will be invited to attend a course of training and assessment. Taken together, these three factors give a sound assurance that the inspectors will have appropriate backgrounds to enable them to do their job.
But it does not stop there. The courses that we have designed are specifically for potential nursery education inspectors and not just for inspectors generally. Crucially, they include an assessment element which potential inspectors must pass before they are registered. The assessment will involve considering a case study, video material and making judgments about the educational programme and quality of teaching.
Against that background and with those assurances of what Ofsted is planning, I hope that all three noble Baronesses will accept that Amendment No. 24 is—dare I say it because I have used the word overmuch of late—"unnecessary" to put on the face of the Bill. I hope that the assurances that I have given will be sufficient to satisfy the three noble Baronesses.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am tempted to ask him whether there is any truth in the accounts in the press that the sort of umbrella organisation for administering the system of inspection is Group 4. Do the Government genuinely have that in mind? Perhaps I may ask a totally unrelated question. Can the Minister say whether any assessments have been made about any possible drop out rate as regards the number of people recruited at the beginning?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the second question. As regards the first, I do not frequently comment on some of the allegations that we see in the press. We are giving a power to the chief inspector to delegate these matters. They are matters for him. As I have stressed, we are talking about administrative functions. We are not looking at the functions relating to the actual judgments about educational quality. I hope that the assurances I have given on the appropriate recruitment, training and assessment of the inspectors will ensure that we have the right sort of registered nursery education inspectors.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I stand corrected as to the import of Amendment No. 23 and the clause to which it refers. Nevertheless, I am a little distressed to gather from the Minister's remarks that there might be three separate levels of administration involved. I hope that we can get rid of at least one of them. I have some concerns, but no doubt as time goes by we shall see whether they are well based or not, as to who will be doing all the organising.
As regards Amendment No. 24, I am genuinely grateful for the information which the Minister has given us. Again, it may not satisfy every requirement that we wished to put on the face of the Bill, but I believe that we have learned something useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
("Quality
.—(1) A registered nursery inspector may, where he has conducted an inspection in accordance with this Schedule and considers that the education inspected was not of a satisfactory quality and standard, recommend that the payment or grant to the provider concerned should cease or be suspended.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, where he receives a recommendation to which sub-paragraph (1) above applies, as soon as practicable withdraw arrangements for the making of grants in respect of that provider for such period as he considers necessary.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to give a registered nursery inspector a power to recommend that the payment of grant to a provider should cease or be suspended where, after inspecting the provision concerned, the inspector believes that it was not of a satisfactory quality or standard. It pinpoints the difficulty in the Bill under which remarkably little seems to flow from the finding that quality in an institution is below par. Very little seems to flow from that. On the contrary, we believe that heads should roll. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret that I shall not be able to respond to the noble Lord in quite as speedy a fashion as he moved his amendment. I believe that Amendment No. 25 goes slightly too far in allowing the mere uncorroborated evidence of one inspector to, as he puts it, roll ahead. I believe that the provisions that we have put in place would be more suitable and I should like briefly to explain what we are intending.
If, after the first inspection, the registered nursery education inspector judges that there are weaknesses in the educational provision, but there is potential for improvement, he will recommend that the provider should be given one to two years for improvement before reinspection. And, if after a second inspection, the inspector judges that improvement is still required, initial validation will normally be withdrawn and the provider will no longer be eligible to redeem vouchers. We envisage that it will only be in exceptional cases,

277
where the inspector judges that there is no potential for improvement, that the inspector recommends that initial validation should be immediately withdrawn.
I should add that before validation is withdrawn, Ofsted will visit the provider to corroborate the judgment of the registered nursery education inspector. That will take place as speedily as possible. I believe that that corroboration will be very important—I am sure that the noble Lord agrees—as it is an additional safeguard, as the recommendation to withdraw grant should not rest with the inspector alone.
Ofsted will then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. It is appropriate that the final decision should lie here. The Secretary of State will bear in mind the individual circumstances and the needs of the children in arriving at her decision. She will consider each case on its merits in deciding how quickly to discontinue voucher funding, but funding could be discontinued at the end of a term.
The amendment refers to the payment of grant being "suspended". I do not think the use of the word "suspend" is appropriate. Providers will either be in receipt of grant or they will not. I should explain that we do not normally propose to suspend funding in any circumstances, particularly in the context of doubts about the educational provision on offer. As The Next Steps document explains, however, nursery education providers who have had their validation withdrawn will be free to reapply for validation, but that would be granted only after inspection and if the provider were found to be providing appropriate education. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. What he has said makes very good sense and I found it helpful, especially with regard to Ofsted following up a report of an unsatisfactory provider, and what he said about the word "suspension", which suggests hanging rather than the decapitation of which I was in favour. I am relieved by what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert—
("Action Plans
.—(1) Where an inspection of funded nursery education has been conducted under paragraph 6 and a report has been made under paragraph 13, the authority or other person responsible for providing the funded nursery education shall, within such a period as may be prescribed but not exceeding 3 months, prepare a written statement of action which they propose to take in the light of the report.
(2) Where a statement has been prepared under sub-paragraph (1), the authority or other person responsible shall without delay send copies of it to—

(a) the Chief Inspector,

(b) the Secretary of State, and

(c) the local authority in which the funded nursery education is situated.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Amendment No. 26 deals with the requirement for action plans to be drawn up by grant-receiving institutions following inspections. The best argument for this amendment was made by the Minister in another place during Committee stage there. Mr. Squire said:
"I agree that it is important that all providers prepare action plans, in the same way as schools do under the 1992 Act to deal with key issues highlighted by the inspector. That should apply even where standards are high, so as to ensure that those high standards are maintained".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 20/2/96; col. 361.]
However, this Bill contains no such requirement.
It is clearly evident that where an inspection has taken place, it should be the responsibility of any nursery education provider to devise and write an action plan. That would be a response in writing to the main findings and the key issues for action, derived from the inspection report. That process is recognised good practice, but it also provides levels of accountability for the use of public funds. It would inform parents and carers of how seriously the nursery education provider intends to address any weaknesses and to build on any strengths that emerge from the inspection.
The production of an action plan within a set time period, stating what will be done, will, if managed carefully, become an important process by which the nursery education provider can improve the quality of the provision. It will enable the provider to gain assistance from specialists and advisers as to the most effective means of addressing any weaknesses and improving performance. The action plan, if prepared in a responsible and efficient way, will also serve to instil a sense of achievement as issues are addressed and resolved over a period of time.
In forming a general picture of both individual providers and what is happening in the system, subsequent inspections by social services inspectors and registration officers can draw on and form a benchmark for the way in which such action plans can be developed and judged. The Government need to explain why, as with other amendments to this part of the Bill, they rely on the Opposition Benches to hold up to them the precedents contained in their own legislation and why a light touch inspection regime is preferable to one containing proper provision for follow-up for our very youngest children.
Amendment No. 27 replicates the provisions of the 1992 Act. Under this provision inspectors would benefit from meetings with parents prior to inspections in order to gain valuable information. This is in keeping with the practice in Sections 9 and 13 inspections provided in accordance with the Education (Schools) Act 1992. It would be helpful for inspectors to hold such meetings, report their findings and for parents to understand the result of the process of inspection. We believe that this is part of the essential strategy of encouraging a partnership with parents to support the child's learning. Often nurseries already have a strong partnership. We would like to see that good practice extended.
Amendment No. 28 clarifies the offence of obstructing an inspector. It is important that nursery education inspectors have the same powers as registered inspectors of schools. The need for the amendment underlines the poorly structured way in which the inspections schedule has been drawn up. This is surprising in view of the precedent provided by the 1992 Act. Further credence is given to the need for this amendment by virtue of the fact that the Children Act 1989 gives the person carrying out the inspection power to examine the premises, the children being looked at, the arrangements for their welfare and so on.
The managers of new private nursery voucher provision are likely to be less familiar with systems of public accountability and the need for transparent and scrupulous probity than those who have had longer experience in dealing with public sector funding. Therefore, it is possible that occasionally there will be a greater risk that they will react in adverse ways to visits from nursery-registered inspectors. There is a risk of fraud and the illegal use of vouchers. If those circumstances arise they may give rise to obstructive behaviour.
At the end of the day, to guard the interests of the children is our prime concern, but we must also ensure that there is the greatest possible likelihood of dealing with actions that hinder and impede lawful inspections and access to premises by registered inspectors. For that reason, I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we support the amendments. As regards Amendment No. 26, as a school governor for many years I can confirm the extremely beneficial effect of having to respond with a plan to any criticisms or commendations which an Ofsted inspection has left in its wake. That exercise not only improves the education provided for the children in the school but also brings together governors and teachers in planning for the school's further progress.
Amendment No. 27 deals with the concerns expressed at an earlier sitting about the need to involve parents in the education of their children, in particular of their young children, and it is the only place where those concerns appear. It would be of enormous benefit if parents and teachers together could meet the inspector so that each could understand the other better and so that parents could understand the process which is going on in the nursery schools to which they send their children.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that yet again I can demonstrate why the amendments are unnecessary.
In publishing our proposals for inspection in The Next-Steps document we made clear that all providers covered by the grant arrangements would need to prepare an action plan following the first inspection or any subsequent inspections. We shall give this effect by making it a requirement of grant. Perhaps I may explain why we have chosen that method rather than to put the requirement on the face of the Bill. In the case of
280
maintained schools, securing compliance with such a requirement has to be by means of statute; there is no other way. For the private and voluntary sectors, however, the grant mechanism provides a highly effective way of ensuring that action plans (or any other requirement) are fulfilled.
Bearing that in mind, it will also be a requirement of grant that participating institutions submit to the inspections provided for in the Bill. That will obviously include giving inspectors access to the premises and any documents they require and not obstructing inspectors. It is unnecessary to replicate the offence which applies to school inspections under the 1992 Act.
Sub-paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 27 would require managers and governing bodies to inform parents when an inspection is due to take place. I agree that it is very important to involve parents in their children's education. Ofsted will therefore arrange for inspectors to send providers a notice to display informing parents of the date of an inspection. However, I do not believe that this type of detail needs to be prescribed on the face of the Bill.
Furthermore, I am not attracted to sub-paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 27. The 1992 Act requires inspectors of schools to meet parents before the inspection. But a nursery education inspector will typically spend one day at a nursery education provider, compared to three days for a proper school inspection. For practical reasons, it would therefore be difficult to schedule a meeting with parents. Moreover, I believe that the amendment would be far too heavy handed for many small nursery education providers. We do not want to cause undue disruption.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the simple question is: why not replicate the 1992 Act? The Minister is merely arguing that grant is the sanction of the private sector and that therefore the provision does not need to be on the face of the Bill. That leaves a whole lot of variable pre-five and post-five systems in place. In the majority of cases we are dealing with the same institution, which is the local school. It does not make sense to legislate in this way in respect of those institutions.
I believe that the Government made our case for us in earlier debates. The Minister replied that because the time given to inspection is short, it is not possible to meet the parents. I should have thought that if the time is short, by the Minister's own admission in replying to the debate on this matter, then the question is whether it is more important to have an opportunity to have a meeting with the parents. However, at this stage I shall read most carefully the Minister's words in Hansard. With your Lordships' leave, I seek to withdraw Amendment No. 26.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Nursery education grants: disclosure of information]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 36, at end insert ("or
(b) other information which would assist with the making of a grant under this Act in respect of a child about whose parent or guardian information falling within sub-paragraph (a) is not available, and information falling within this sub-paragraph shall for the purposes of this Schedule be treated as though it fell within that sub-paragraph").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to broaden the information available to enable those not on the DSS database to be eligible to receive a voucher. The declared purpose of this Bill is to provide nursery education for all four year-olds. This amendment is intended to highlight the fact that there are some families who are not on the Child Benefit Agency register and they will not receive a letter asking them to apply for a voucher. They will, therefore, be excluded from the scheme unless other information can be made available to include them.
These families include those who are in temporary accommodation, those who have no permanent home, travellers, refugees and asylum seekers. Their children are often vulnerable and most in need of a nursery place. I believe it is discriminatory not to include them in the scheme. Parents who have moved house who may not have informed the Child Benefit Agency of their new address will also lose out. Four year-olds whose parents have split up are often living with other relatives or foster parents; they will not have the opportunity for a nursery place if the information does not go to the right address.
If, as has happened in Phase 1, the onus is on the provider to find these families and to provide them with forms, as well as to help them fill them in, then this requires considerable additional time, which will be costly. Some providers, who may currently have a high percentage of families not on the Child Benefit Agency register, may be forced to close because of insufficient funding. The vouchers should be produced at the beginning of the term if grants are to be received in time to pay staff, so any delays are crucial.
Some parents who did not get a letter in Phase 1 had to ring several times before Capita, the private company administering the vouchers, would believe that they were eligible. Some parents are not able to do this.
There have been discrepancies in the figures being produced by the DfEE and the LEAs in Phase 1. This is likely to reflect the fact that the DfEE does not have figures about children not on the Child Benefit Agency register.
In the introduction to the DfEE document The Next Steps, explaining the voucher scheme, it says:
"Parents will be able to exchange vouchers for up to three terms of nursery education for their child… The scheme will provide choice for parents, diversity of provision and high standards".
282
For some parents it may provide nothing unless this amendment is passed. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for explaining what he saw as the purpose of this amendment. It also has an effect that I suspect might be unintended. The effect would be to extend the power of the Secretary of State to supply relevant information beyond that prescribed by regulations made under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1. I would regard that extension of powers, which I am sure is no doubt unintended, as undesirable.
As regards the protection afforded to confidential information which, I am sure, is the prime concern of the noble Lord, clearly we are all concerned to protect personal information. We must ensure that proper controls are in place. However, the unauthorised disclosure of information supplied by parents, rather than by the Child Benefit Centre, will, in practice, be prohibited by the Data Protection Act once it constitutes computer data. It is unnecessary to extend Schedule 2 in the way proposed. As I noted before, the amendment as tabled has some undesirable effects.
I should also tell the noble Lord that there is no restriction on the information that anyone can provide to the voucher agency. That information would then be protected by the Data Protection Act. I hope that I have understood the noble Lord. I also hope that he will take care to read what I have said in Hansard and that he will recognise that the amendment contains—I am sure that it was unintentional—an attempt to extend the powers which, as I made clear, is undesirable.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. He is right to say that it was not the intention of the amendment to extend the power of regulations. As I believe I said, it was merely a vehicle to raise an issue; namely, that some families—and I gave examples of them—who are not currently on the lists of the Child Benefit Agency may not be contacted. I also went on to say that I believe that the onus should be on the provider, as in Phase 1, to contact those families.
However, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and look at the drafting issues raised by the Minister. Nevertheless, I should just like to comment on the fact that the noble Lord constantly refers to what he cites as excellent figures in the London Borough of Wandsworth, which has a 95 per cent. take-up ratio. That means that one child in 20 is completely unaccounted for and, so far as I know, no one in Wandsworth or the DfEE, or, indeed, the Child Benefit Agency, knows what has happened to that child. In my view, that is simply not good enough. The purpose of the amendment was to raise the issue of that small minority of children who may slip through the gap through no fault of their own. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 30, at end insert—
(". The Secretary of State shall within three months of the coming into effect of this Schedule and annually thereafter lay before Parliament a report setting out the extent and manner of operation of safeguards as to the unauthorised disclosure of information mentioned in this Schedule together with his assessment of the effectiveness of those safeguards.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are major concerns about the use of public money to fund a private company to administer the scheme. The total costs have not been disclosed yet. More serious still are concerns about how the company will use, and who else will see, the information provided by the Child Benefit Agency. I am not properly reassured in that respect. Indeed, we already have reports indicating that some parents have been asked a number of personal questions and have been told to provide a rent book, a birth certificate or other evidence about who they are and where they live.
I gather that the company itself is essentially a debt collecting agency. I should like to quote briefly from its 1992 annual report, which says:
"Capita has included its innovative telephone based 'collection management' system which has been developed to provide organisations with an efficient means of reaching people who owe them money … Once connected, Capita's callers are guided by a carefully planned script … on line data entry is available to log the results of each call. From each call Capita is able to determine the reason for non-payment … pass on up to date information back to the authority for further action. Capita has contacted households without a valid TV licence".
That extract comes from the 1992 report of Capita Group plc. I find it a little disturbing. I should like the Minister to explain briefly and succinctly what safeguards will be in place to protect parents whose information will be lodged with Capita. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject the implied criticism of Capita made by the noble Lord. We are very satisfied with the work that the company has done. As one might expect, a few minor teething problems which arose in the pilot have been quickly dealt with. Indeed, providers, parents and the Phase 1 LEAs have all commented favourably on the quality of the service offered to them by Capita.
But having said that, we, like the noble Lord, are concerned to maintain the confidentiality of social security information. It is essential that we exercise a great deal of care over how this information is used and who has access to it. That is why Schedule 2 to the Bill makes it an offence to breach that confidentiality—and sets out the penalties that would be incurred by anyone who did so.
Similar restrictions apply to a wider range of information under social security legislation, but that makes no provision for annual reports about safeguards employed to ensure confidentiality. And I am not aware of any perceived need for a similar parliamentary report in that context. In my view it would be inconsistent and—dare I say it?—unnecessary to introduce such a provision here.
284
We will require the contractor appointed for phase two of the scheme to take effective measures to ensure the confidentiality of personal information just as we have in phase one. These measures will be set out in the contract for phase two and we shall ensure that a copy is placed in the Library and in the Library of another place. I am sure that the noble Lord will read it and take appropriate comfort from it. Therefore, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord that the amendment is unnecessary.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances. He need not find it necessary to apologise for his use of the word "unnecessary", his apology for which I find quite unnecessary.
I am not wholly persuaded by his arguments about this. I hope that he will watch Capita most carefully in the coming weeks. I shall certainly try to learn more about that interesting plc and I may well wish to return to this matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, line 47, at end insert—
("The Education (Schools) Act 1992 (c.38)
.In Section 13 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, at the end of subsection (7) insert "including any pupils receiving nursery education under arrangements made under the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996".
. In Section 18(1) of that Act, after the definition of "maintained school" insert—
" "nursery education" has the meaning given in section 1(2) of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996;".").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, we come with a sense of relief to the final amendment to be moved to this Bill on Report. I hope that I shall not detain your Lordships long.
We have been talking about inspection by the new nursery inspectors. It is my understanding that, when nursery education is provided at maintained schools, the ordinary Ofsted inspections which take place will include nursery children. Under Section 13 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, special provisions are made for certain schools to provide inspection by those who are aware of the denominational character of the school and, in particular, those Section 13 inspections include reference to collective worship, religious education and spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.
In the case of nursery education, there is no requirement to provide either collective worship or religious education. But clearly the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children at the nursery age is of importance. Reference is made in Schedule 1 to the chief inspector's responsibility in that area.
With this amendment I merely wish to ensure that, when a Section 13 inspector visits a school in which there is nursery provision, he will be able to include the nursery

285
children in his report and in particular will be able to make comments on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of such children. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance on that. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can persuade the right reverend Prelate that this amendment is unnecessary. But I also offer my congratulations and commiserations to him on sitting more or less the whole way throughout the Bill as a Trappist monk with the exception of the amendments which he moved himself.
I do not see what is to be gained from this amendment to the 1992 Act. Section 13 of the 1992 Act deals with the inspection of religious education where this is given otherwise than in accordance with an agreed syllabus. These inspections are distinct, as the right reverend
286
Prelate will know, from those carried out under Section 9 of the 1992 Act, which are under the management of Ofsted.
Inspections carried out under Section 13 of the 1992 Act cover the quality of denominational education provided for all pupils in the voluntary and grant-maintained schools concerned, including four year-olds. This will continue to be the case after the grant arrangements in Clause 1 of the Bill are in place. Amendment No. 32 is therefore unnecessary. Accordingly, I ask the right reverend Prelate to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.

  Japanese Research and Exchange Initiative
  Japanese Research and Exchange Initiative
  Iran: Human Rights
  Iran: Human Rights
  Torture and Unlawful Killing: UN Rapporteurs' Reports
  Torture and Unlawful Killing: UN Rapporteurs' Reports
  Stalking Consultation Paper
  Stalking Consultation Paper
  Police Search Warrant Applications
  Police Search Warrant Applications
  Asylum Seekers: Safe Third Countries
  Asylum Seekers: Safe Third Countries
  Asylum Seekers: Advice and Representation
  Asylum Seekers: Advice and Representation
  Asylum Seekers: Pregnant Women
  Asylum Seekers: Pregnant Women
  Prisoner Reports
  Prisoner Reports
  Prisons: Visiting Ministers
  Prisons: Visiting Ministers
  Abortion Act: Evidence to the Lane Committee
  Abortion Act: Evidence to the Lane Committee
  Genetic Testing: Advisory Committee Membership
  Genetic Testing: Advisory Committee Membership
  Iran: Trade with UK
  Iran: Trade with UK
  Stalking: Scottish Law
  Stalking: Scottish Law
  Environment Council, 25th June
  Environment Council, 25th June
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive: Review
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive: Review